• [600] The Shoe Throwing Incident (2016/10/30)

(Oriental Daily with video) October 30, 2016.

Today RTHK City Forum discussed the subject of the Chief Executive election. During the break, a man wearing a Defend Hong Kong Movement cap criticized Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai for her oath of office and then took off his shoe to throw at her. Afterwards, Lau said that she was not injured but the action was an assault. She asked the police be summoned. When the police came, Lau said that she was hit in the arm and chest, and requested a medical examination at the hospital.

Defend Hong Kong Movement founder Fu Chun-chung said that the man was not a member of their organization. He said that since Lau Siu-lai advocated the throwing of bricks, she deserved what she got this time. The program host said that people have thrown water bottles at guests before and that this is not the right way to express an opinion. The host asked the RTHK workers to expel the man. However, others present said that the police should be called.

Videos:

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/5815cbf06db28ca443334640/ Shoe throwing incident.

Cable TV https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/555434897987225/ Shoe throwing incident.

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/555417027989012/ Man escorted away afterwards

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) Bush shoeing incident

During a December 14, 2008, press conference at the prime minister's palace in Baghdad, Iraq, Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw both of his shoes at then-United States President George W. Bush.

"This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog," yelled al-Zaidi in Arabic as he threw his first shoe towards Bush. "This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq," he shouted as he threw his second shoe.

Bush ducked twice to avoid being hit by the shoes. Prime Minister Maliki also attempted to catch one of the shoes to protect Bush. Al-Zaidi was pulled to the floor by another journalist, before being grabbed by Prime Minister Maliki's guards, kicked, and rushed out of the room.

Bush said some Iraqi reporters had apologized to him. "Thanks for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me." Bush said, "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw."

When asked about the incident by another reporter, Bush said, "It's a way for people to draw attention. I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

On March 12, 2009, al-Zaidi was sentenced to three years in prison for assaulting a foreign head of state during an official visit.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM3Z_Kskl_U

- (RTHK) Lau Siu-lai said that she called the police because she did not want to see people getting injured in open forums for bringing up subjects that citizens regularly discussed.  She said that this would seriously hurt freedom of expression.

Lau also said that physical violence is nothing compared to the deprivation of human rights and perversion of justice at the Legislative Council. She said that we should reflect deeply about just who is making people become so irrational.

- What would Lau Siu-lai say if someone threw a shoe at Chief Executive CY Leung? She would say that CY Leung should go home and seriously reflect on his unpopularity because people throw objects at him everywhere that he goes.

- Previously, Lai Siu-wai emphasized that while she is not advocating using violent resistance, many different methods of resistance are necessary in Hong Kong today. She said that in the cases of the Restore Sheung Shui actions and the Lunar New Year's Day incident in Mongkok, citizens should understand the meaning behind the brick-throwing and pushing-and-shoving.

- Previously, the Victoria Park grandpas only used some foul curses occasionally. After Occupy Central, they have progressed to throwing shoes. From whom did they learn to be so irrational and violent?

- The standard Yellow Ribbon argument is that if you cannot talk reason to get what you want, you use violence against the system.

- Why is the Legislative Council in such a mess? We don't have to reflect much deeply because it must surely due to stupid acts such as Lau Siu-lai saying her oath of office with 6 seconds between words.

- When this sort of thing happens, we must do something to express our disapproval of violence in our society. How so? We need to donate more money more frequently to Lau Siu-wai.

- If throwing bricks is right, then how can throwing shoes be wrong?

- "Teacher" Lau Siu-lai's basic civic lesson:
Throwing a brick = public justice
Throwing a shoe = violence

- At least, this guy did it in front of the television cameras without wearing a mask. He is a genuine folk hero.

- He will present in mitigation the usual letters from his elementary school principal and classmates.

- And there is always the Raymond Wong defense:

-- There is no concrete evidence that the defendant intentionally launched an assault.
-- The situation was chaotic, so there is reasonable doubt as to whether this was an accident or not.
-- There is no evidence that the defendant did not slip while adjusting his shoe and thus the shoe flew out of his hand in the direction of Lau Siu-lai.
-- The defendant suffers from a mild case of mental retardation and therefore cannot be legally held responsible for his actions.
-- While the defendant adamantly refuses to plead guilty, he is sorry that this happened.
-- The defendant did not benefit personally; he did everything for the sake of public justice.
-- There is reasonable cause to think that the defendant acted in a moment of rashness.
-- A jail term serves no purpose for a senior citizen who is unlikely to be a recidivist.
-- A jail term will not serve as a deterrent to other possible offenders; rather it will undermine faith in the justice system because of the lenient non-jail sentences handed in previous cases against Yellow Ribbons.

- This man is not suffering from the usual Yellow Ribbon "mild mental retardation." He is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. The prison guards are not going to appreciate sending him to prison, because of all the additional care that will be required.

- Chief Executive candidate Woo Kwok-hing said that he would have joined Occupy Central if it happened 50 years ago. Thus Woo would heartily approve of this bold act of civil disobedience.

- Forgotten is exactly what Lau Siu-lai said to trigger the man to take off his shoe and throw it at her.

- ( Facebook) This is fantastic publicity for Lau Siu-lai just when it seemed that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were hogging all the Page A1 headlines. She began by saying that CY Leung started the Hong Kong independence movement. Then she went on to say that all the candidates for Chief Executive are puppets for somebody or the other, and she would only vote for someone who promises to start a "constitutional crisis."

- Lau Siu-lai entered the Legislative Council in order to help the weak and vulnerable elements of society, such as unlicensed itinerant hawkers, homeless people, etc. Right now, she is going after a senior citizen because she can.

- The Tall Wall is Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai with a monthly salary of $95,180. The Egg is the male senior citizen. Whose side are you on?

- The meaning behind this bold act of civil disobedience is that this citizen was upset at Lau Siu-lai, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for insulting the Basic Law, the Legislative Council and its oath of office, the people of Hong Kong and all persons of Chinese descent. However, these three appear not to have suffer any adverse consequences. When the legal system fails to deliver justice, the citizens have to take matters into their own hands.

Seriously, the guy threw a blue New Balance shoe. This shoe was Made In Amerika; it is not a cheap, inferior copycat Li Ning made-in-China shoe.

- And there is the obvious comment: When you want the police, they are Police Uncles; when you don't want the police, they are Police Canines.

- Of all the things that he could have thrown (such as water bottles, bricks, rotten eggs, tomatoes, bananas, dog feces, pig intestines, paper airplanes, keys, marbles, etc), why did he choose a shoe? It must be for cultural and religious reasons:

(CNN)

The act of throwing a shoe at someone or showing them your sole is "incredibly offensive" in the Middle East, he said. "The bottom line is a shoe is dirt," CNN producer Mohammed Tawfeeq said. "Throwing a shoe on someone means throwing dirt on that person."

Professor Faegheh Shirazi, with Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas, agreed, saying it is offensive "regardless of the religious practices." "Throwing a shoe or hitting someone with a shoe or showing the bottom of your shoe when sitting with legs up on a chair and facing another person all are culturally unacceptable and are considered to be a grave insult and belittling to a person," Shirazi said.

Another offensive aspect is the significance of the shoe being a sign of wealth. "Most often, lower-status people and poor men could not wear shoes," Shirazi said. "The feet came in contact with pollution and the dirt on the road. The dirt on the feet indicated the lack of social status, the level of economic class and the level of education and lack of sophistication and intellect."

Tawfeeq, who occasionally visits the United States, was surprised to learn shoe throwing was not considered an offense in North America.

A search of literature reveals references suggesting the power of the shoe is ancient. For example, in the King James Version of the Old Testament, Psalm 60:8 says: "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe: Philistia, triumph thou because of me."

"Perhaps it has to do with the hierarchy of the body position, that is, the relationship between the head and the feet, the head being at the top and not touching the ground and the dirt," Shirazi said. "The head carries a more prestigious status in comparison to the feet, which in older times mostly remained bare."

- I doubt that this perpetrator is from the Middle East. More likely, he is a local Hongkonger who knows the homonym: "臭鞋掟臭蟹" (throw a stinking shoe at a stinking (c-word)).

- Look at the man and his beard. Read What Islam says about the Beard.

- In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. So what is the likely sentence for the man who threw the shoe at Lau Siu-lai? 12 months of probation? 80 hours of community service? 30 months in jail?

- If Raymond Wong got 2 weeks for throwing (and missing with) a glass cup at the Chief Executive, this guy should get 36 months in prison based upon that precedent.

- (Oriental Daily) November 1, 2016. Lau Siu-lai said that if she and Yau Wai-ching/Leung Chung-hang are not sworn in, then there would be a 16-16 split in the geographical constituency of the Legislative Council. Therefore she said that she needs to be sworn in immediately in order to maintain the majority.

Meanwhile counter-demonstrators want her sent to prison for making a false oath as well as being the instigator of the Fishball Riot.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 26, 2017.

A pro-Beijing protester has been handed a suspended jail sentence for throwing a shoe at pro-democracy lawmaker Lau Siu-lai during a televised forum last October.

61-year-old Wong Tai-hong pleaded guilty to a count of common assault at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday. He was handed a suspended sentence of two weeks in prison.

Apple Daily reported that he had criminal background of violence, and is currently unemployed.

Wong told the court he was unhappy that Lau only complained about the country and the government without reflecting on herself, but realised what he did was wrong.

- (Apple Daily) Wong Tai-hong, age 61, unemployed, living off social welfare, three sons and three daughters, unable to pay any fines and thus requested a suspended sentence, prior record related to violence (unspecified).

- (The Guardian) May 7, 2009.

In the article below about the trial of Muntazer al-Zaidi, who was convicted of assaulting a foreign head of state after he threw a shoe at George W Bush, we conflated two court hearings held three weeks apart. Zaidi did not tell the court on 12 March: "I saw only Bush and it was like something black in my eyes." Nor did he say at that hearing: "I had the feeling that the blood of innocent people was dropping on my feet during the time that he was smiling and saying bye-bye to Iraq with a dinner." He made these statements at an earlier hearing, on 18 February. The quotes first appeared in an Agence France-Presse story.

Dressed in an old beige suit, with dark rings under his eyes, and a five o'clock shadow, Muntazer al-Zaidi looked more hard-pressed journalist than Arab folk hero as he entered Baghdad's central criminal court yesterday morning to face charges of assaulting a foreign head of state, namely one George W Bush.

The last time the man universally known as "the shoe thrower" appeared in court, three weeks ago, he sported a scarf in the colours of the Iraqi flag and put on a bravura performance, telling of his outrage and uncontrollable emotions when Bush spoke at a news conference on his farewell trip to Iraq. Yesterday, he was mostly subdued. It wasn't until the judge handed down the sentence - three years in a prison - that he burst into life, though his shoes stayed firmly on his feet. "Long live Iraq!" he shouted before being led away by a heavy security detail.

Throughout the brief proceedings Zaidi seemed all too aware that he could face up to 15 years in jail. Standing in the wooden pen, sweating, before a panel of three judges he glanced nervously into the packed observers' gallery, apparently seeking out family and friends.

Kicking off proceedings, the presiding judge Abdulemir Hassan al-Rubaie asked Zaidi whether he was innocent or guilty. "I am innocent," came the reply from the 30-year-old reporter. "What I did was a natural response to the occupation." This electrified the court. Relatives began to protest his innocence and urge the judge to show clemency. Twice, Rubaie called for calm, before threatening any miscreants with expulsion.

Hands trembling, and speaking rather breathlessly, Zaidi began to restate his defence. He had not "intended to kill Bush or humiliate him" with his shoes, he said. When he saw "the occupiers' president" smiling, "I saw only Bush and it was like something black in my eyes". He added: "I had the feeling that the blood of innocent people was dropping on my feet during the time that he was smiling and saying bye-bye to Iraq with a dinner [with the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki]."

Zaidi's trial had begun on 19 February but was adjourned until yesterday as the judges considered a defence argument that the charge was not applicable because Bush was not in Baghdad on an official visit, having arrived unannounced without an invitation. Rubaie read a response from Maliki's office that said the visit had been official. Thus Zaidi would be tried under article 223 of the Iraqi penal code - dating from the Saddam era - which outlaws assaults on foreign leaders.

The chief defence lawyer, Dhia al-Saadi, demanded the charge be dismissed, saying that the case was one of insult not assault. His client's action "was an expression of freedom and does not constitute a crime". "It was an act of throwing a shoe and not a rocket," he said. "It was meant as an insult to the occupation."

Saadi cited the immediate reaction of the target of Zaidi's flying shoes, President Bush, as evidence of the lightness of the offence. After ducking behind a lectern, Bush had joked that he believed Zaidi wore a size 10, and added: "That's what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves." He had not felt "in the least bit threatened", Bush had said. It was all to no avail.

After a 15-minute adjudication period, the court was cleared of all spectators, and Zaidi was handed a three-year prison sentence. His relatives erupted in anger, shouting that the decision was unjust and unfair. Some collapsed and had to be helped from the court. Others were forcibly removed by security forces as they shouted "down with Bush" and "long live Iraq".

"This judiciary is not just," Zaidi's brother Dargham said. Another brother, Uday, said the verdict was politically motivated. The journalist's sister, Ruqaiya, burst into tears, shouting: "Down with Maliki, the agent of the Americans." Zaidi's lawyers said he would appeal against the sentence.

If the Iraqi authorities were hoping to draw a line under the affair they are probably in for a shock. While some Iraqi officials regarded Zaidi's actions as an insult to the Iraqi state and he was criticised by fellow Iraqi journalists, who said he had allowed his emotions to overcome his professionalism, many ordinary Iraqis said he had already served his punishment and should be released. A poll released yesterday, commissioned by ABC News and the BBC, suggested 62% of Iraqis regard the shoe-thrower as a hero.

• [599] Swearing Not Allowed Here (2016/10/26)

(SCMP) October 25, 2016.

The Legislative Council president reversed an earlier decision on Tuesday and deferred the swearing-in of two localists who insulted China in their initial oaths, prompting the pair to threaten to force their way into the chamber on Wednesday.

Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen said for now he had to take the “painful but necessary” step to ban the Youngspiration duo from retaking their vows, even as the Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s lawyers toughened their legal action by asking the court to declare their seats “vacant”. The move made late on Monday was an amendment to their original writ seeking a judicial review to challenge the right of the pair to take their oaths a second time.

Andrew Leung said administration of the oaths for Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching would be deferred until the Court of First Instance had ruled on the judicial review. The hearing is set for November 3

The Legco president would not say whether he would continue to wait if the court ruling was appealed. But he admitted he viewed with “grave concern” the threat of a boycott “at all costs” by the pro-government camp. “The most probable outcome is that Legco will come to a complete halt” if he let the duo retake their oaths, he said.

His decision came hours after the chief executive warned of “far-reaching repercussions” on how Beijing viewed Hong Kong and its relations with the mainland if the matter was not “rectified”. Leung said he also had to consider his duty outlined in Article 72(2) of the Basic Law on the Legco president having the power to decide the council’s agenda. “Having considered the Basic Law, the rules of procedure and the impact on Legco operations and on the individual lawmakers, I came to the conclusion that I have justifiable grounds to defer the administration of oaths until the court has a ruling on the judicial review,” he said.

The Legco president’s lawyer argued in court last week that banning the Youngspiration pair from retaking the oath would “seriously deprive them of constitutional rights”. Leung denied succumbing to political pressure and denied contacting Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, saying he only “made different decisions at different times”.

On Tuesday, the Youngspiration pair slammed the president for what they called a “ridiculous” reversal of his earlier decision. They vowed to enter the chamber today through “legal means”. “I will be here at the chamber at 11am sharp tomorrow,” Baggio Leung said. “I will ask the president to let me take the oath right there on the spot. He has no power to stop me.” Asked whether they would take legal action against the president, the localist said: “I have had considerable reservations about the government’s legal action against us [and the legislature]. I don’t want to commit the same mistake.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 25, 2016.

Two democratically-elected localist politicians who are set to be barred from attending a Legislative Council meeting on Wednesday have accused the Council’s president of bowing to pressure. Both have vowed to do all in their power to enter the chamber to complete their oaths as lawmakers.

President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen made a u-turn on Tuesday saying that a repeat swearing-in session for Youngspiration politicians Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang and Yau Wai-ching will be deferred on Wednesday, until a legal challenge over the matter raised by the government has concluded. He said the pair will not be able to enter the chamber, as he has decided that their swearing-in will not be on the agenda.

But Baggio Leung said their first oaths – which some deemed an insult to Chinese people – were also challenged legally by in court when Andrew Leung decided last week that they could, in fact, take their oaths again.

“Legally, I cannot see any new developments or new reasons that caused Andrew Leung to make a completely opposite decision,” Baggio Leung said. “This is no reason that the Chief Executive’s judicial review could change his decision, and a common citizen can’t.”

Baggio Leung said it was a “political decision” after the pro-Beijing vowed to walk out of council meetings to stop them from taking their oaths again. Andrew Leung said his u-turn was made after considering the continuous running of the LegCo.

“As the LegCo president, he colluded with a certain camp to strip the constitutional rights of democratically-elected lawmakers, to give up the honour of the legislature,” he said. “I can say that he is not worthy of remaining as president.”

Leung said he had submitted a written question for the government and an amendment to a debate for the meeting on Wednesday, therefore they will still walk into the chamber and cite the rules of procedure of LegCo to demand an opportunity to retake their oaths. Article 18(2) of the rules state that oath-taking is always the first item on the agenda of council meetings, and it does not require prior approval from the president.

“Andrew Leung has no right to block us from entering the chamber,” he said.

Baggio Leung compared their situation to the child in the story The Emperor’s New Clothes: “Although to some people we may not have done something good, in the end you will understand our reasons… I have no regrets.”

Leung also warned that it is an offence to block lawmakers from attending LegCo meetings, and that LegCo security guards should not act illegally.

Citing Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung, Yau said Au rejected the government’s bid for an interim injunction to bar them from retaking their oaths because – if the government later lost the case – the lawmakers’ constitutional rights would be stripped.

“The president’s decision is a de-facto execution of the rejected injunction,” she said. “If our oath-taking is delayed because someone lodged a legal challenge against the president’s decision, does that mean a lawmaker’s oath-taking would have to be delayed if I find someone to lodge a judicial review?”

“It’s our responsibility to finish our oaths and enter the chamber, so we will use all methods that we can think of,” she said.

(SCMP) October 27, 2016.

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council was thrown into tumult yet again on Wednesday with a meeting adjourned for the second time in three weeks, as two localist lawmakers barred from attending stormed into the chamber with the help of other pan-democrats.

As the finger-pointing between pan-democrats and pro-establishment legislators continued, Legco appeared on course for further paralysis for at least another week or two after the Youngspiration pair vowed to repeat their tactics at another meeting next Wednesday.

The latest descent into chaos came a day after Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen made a dramatic U-turn to defer the second oaths of Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching – who used insulting language towards China in their initial swearing-in – pending a court ruling on a judicial review filed by the government. The administration earlier mounted an unprecedented legal challenge against the president’s initial decision to give the pair a second chance.

The Legco president also banned the duo from entering the chamber on Wednesday, to no avail.

As a feisty rally of more than 8,000 participants got under way outside against the duo’s antics, a dramatic showdown ensued inside as eight pan-democrats formed a human chain to escort the pair into the chamber.

“Convene the meeting now. Administer the oath following the law,” the pro-democracy lawmakers chanted.

Civic Passion’s Cheng Chung-tai left his seat amid the protest and refused to leave the chamber despite an order by Andrew Leung to do so.

Unable to control the situation, the Legco president announced an adjournment, shortly after a temporary suspension failed to force the pair, who sat stony-faced, to vacate their seats.

“I already announced the decision [on Tuesday] to delay the oath-taking process of the two lawmakers, and they have refused to leave even upon my order,” said Leung, who said he regretted the development. “I have no choice but to adjourn the meeting as order could not be restored.”

It was the second adjournment in just two weeks of the new Legco session since legislators were returned in elections last month. Last Wednesday, the pro-establishment camp staged a walkout to block the two localists from retaking their oaths, spurring Andrew Leung to abort the meeting due to a lack of quorum.

Both sides continued to blame each other on Wednesday for causing further delays to legislative affairs.

“We must not let the [Legco] president and the pro-establishment camp evade all legal bases in their deeds,” said Demosisto lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung.

Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu said the chaos stemmed from the pro-establishment camp’s threat of a walkout. But New People’s Party lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee laid the blame on the pan-democrats.

“People might have different takes on the rules of procedure, but they should respect the final ruling of the president,” she said.

Ip also said she believed the meeting next Wednesday, which will be held a day before the Court of First Instance convenes its first hearing on the government’s application for a judicial review, would face the same fate.

Outside the legislature thousands of angry protesters, many belonging to groups in Hong Kong representing different Chinese cities and provinces, demanded the resignation of Sixtus Leung and Yau, who in their oaths referred to China as “Chee-na”, a variation of the derogatory term Shina used by Japan during the second world war.

Protest organiser Stanley Ng Chau-pei estimated more than 10,000 people came out.

“It showed many do not support Leung and Yau,” Ng, of the Federation of Trade Unions, said. “There is no place in Legco for those who insult Chinese people.”

(SCMP) October 26, 2016.

Thousands of protesters, politicians and community and ­business leaders occupied the public square outside the Legislative Council complex yesterday to condemn two Youngspiration lawmakers for anti-Chinese slurs during their members’ oaths.

Chinese flags and banners branding the pair “traitors” and “scum” fringed the pavements leading to the entrance of the ­Admiralty building. Coachloads of protesters – mostly old people – descended, while others flooded in from the nearby MTR station, waving placards with slogans ­demanding Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching be “thrown out of the Legco”.

The organisers – a group of 25 pro-Beijing parties and community and business groups calling itself the Anti-China-Insulting, Anti-Hong Kong Independence Alliance – said more than 10,000 people joined it. Police estimated the crowd peaked at 8,720.

During their Legco pledges on October 12, Leung and Yau swore allegiance to “the Hong Kong nation” and pronounced China as “Chee-na”, similar to the derogatory Shina used by the Japanese during wartime. Despite outcry, the pair refused to apologise.

Emotions remained high throughout yesterday’s rally as community leaders and politicians took turns to condemn the pair onstage. Among them was Hong Kong business magnate Allan Zeman, chairman of Lan Kwai Fong Holdings, who urged the crowds to “say no to these two young people”.

National People’s Congress delegate Maria Tam Wai-chu also addressed the protesters and said: “They were voted in by their ­voters, but did the voters expect them to say such derogatory things about the Chinese?”

Also there were 20 representatives of the former guerrilla squads East River Column and Kowloon Independent Brigade, that fought Japanese troops ­during the second world war.

Kevin Ng, in his 40s, a ­company driver whose grandfather was a squad member, said: “I think the two [localists] have gone too far. My grandfather fought for Hong Kong against the Japanese. I can’t allow anyone to use dirty words to insult Chinese and Hongkongers.”

Emerging from a sea of elderly protesters was former anti-Occupy student activist Ashley Tse Hiu-hung, 25, who said: “I came because I want to tell Leung and Yau that they can’t represent us young people.”

Alliance spokesman Stanley Ng Chau-pei said: “The huge turnout is solid proof of public ­discontent with Leung and Yau. They should be thrown out of Legco. There is no place in Legco for those who insult Chinese people.”

In the evening, 50 supporters of the Youngspiration lawmakers staged a sit-in outside Legco to denounce what they called a trampling on separation of powers.

A number of pan-democrats, including Nathan Law Kwun-chung, of Demosisto, and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick also turned up.

Among those in the audience was Hung Siu-fai, 21, a physics student from the University of ­Science and Technology. She expressed reservations about the pair’s behaviour during the oaths, but said: “What I can’t tolerate is the procedural violence of the pro-establishment camp.”

Internet comments:

- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 72

The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:

( 1 ) To preside over meetings;
( 2 ) To decide on the agenda, giving priority to government bills for inclusion in the agenda;
( 3 ) To decide on the time of meetings;
( 4 ) To call special sessions during the recess;
( 5 ) To call emergency sessions on the request of the Chief Executive; and
( 6 ) To exercise other powers and functions as prescribed in the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council.

- CAP 2501 Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region

Part C: Arrangement of Business
Rule 18: Order of Business at a Meeting

(1) The business of each meeting other than a meeting under Rule 8 (Attendance of the Chief Executive) or Rule 13 (The Chief Executive's Policy Address), or the first meeting of a term or a meeting to elect the President shall be transacted in the following order:

(a) Administration of oath or affirmation.
(b) Obituary and other ceremonial speeches.
(c) Reading by the President of messages and announcements by the President.
(d) Presentation of petitions.
(e) Laying on the Table of papers and of reports of committees.
(f) Asking and answering of questions put to the Government.
(g) Statements by designated public officers.
(h) Personal explanations.
(i) Government bills.
(j) Government motions other than those specified in paragraph (ja). (L.N. 245 of 2009)
(ja) Government motions on subsidiary legislation and other instruments made under an Ordinance. (L.N. 245 of 2009)
(jb) Members' motions on subsidiary legislation and other instruments made under an Ordinance. (L.N. 245 of 2009)
(k) Members' bills.
(l) Members' motions other than those specified in paragraph (jb). (L.N. 245 of 2009)
(m) Requests for leave under Rule 89 (Procedure for Obtaining Leave for Member to Attend as Witness in Civil Proceedings) and Rule 90 (Procedure for Obtaining Leave to Give Evidence of Council Proceedings).
(n) Proceedings under Rule 16(4) (Motions for the Adjournment of the Council).

(2) The items of business mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) of subrule (1) shall not require notice; but with the exception of items (a) and (c) they shall not be entered upon save with the previous leave of the President.

- (SCMP) Beijing just won’t allow Hong Kong localist duo to take up their seats. By Michael Chugani. October 25, 2016.

We’re very sorry. Please give us another chance. There, that wasn’t too difficult, was it? Call it a pound of flesh, but that was what loyalist legislators had demanded for letting two independence advocates retake their oaths to become lawmakers.

An apology? Go to hell. That was essentially the retort from Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang. The Youngspiration pair didn’t just refuse to express remorse for using an expletive and a derogatory name for China during their first oath-taking. They gave loyalists the middle finger by attending a localism seminar in Taiwan.

True grit or youthful pig-headedness? Whatever, but the salient point is the two have signalled they’re unafraid of a political brawl. Their knuckle duster is the 19 per cent vote share independence and localist candidates won in last month’s Legislative Council elections.

But is vote share – no matter how large – any match for the might of Beijing? Is vote share a mitigating factor in a court fight? Brashness blinded the pair to such things when they swaggered into Legco for their oath-taking.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word. So sang Elton John. But it no longer matters. The apology window has closed. Loyalists now want two political corpses, not a pound of flesh.

They may well get their corpses. Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen has agreed to loyalist demands to delay the oath-taking. Opposition legislators have denounced the stalling tactics of the loyalists. That’s a bit rich, given the opposition not only invented but frequently uses such tactics.

Is Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying picking a fight in asking the court to disqualify the two as legislators? You bet. Furious opposition lawmakers say it abuses the separation of powers. But if Leung was wrong to involve the courts and loyalists were wrong to block the oath-retaking, then is the opposition saying the Youngspiration pair should pay no price?

What must infuriate Beijing is the opposition’s doubletalk. They say the pair’s behaviour was unacceptable yet insist they be allowed to retake their oaths instead of waiting a week or so for the court to consider the matter. This only fuels Beijing’s distrust of the opposition.

Baggio Leung and Yau were elected fair and square. They speak for many in our society. It would be a travesty of democracy to deny them their seats. But their theatrics reopened a wartime wound the Japanese inflicted on the dignity of the Chinese people. I just can’t see Beijing letting them into Legco.

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said that they will use "all methods that we can think of" to crash the Legco meeting and get sworn in. So let's keep a score these particular rules of procedure:

- CAP 2501 Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region

Rule 39: Interruptions:

A Member shall not interrupt another Member, except-

(a) by rising to a point of order, when the Member speaking shall resume his seat and the Member interrupting shall direct attention to the point which he wishes to bring to notice and submit it to the President or Chairman for decision; or

(b) to seek elucidation of some matter raised by that Member in the course of his speech, if the Member speaking is willing to give way and resume his seat and the Member wishing to interrupt is called by the President or Chairman.

Rule 41: Content of speeches

(1) A Member shall restrict his observations to the subject under discussion and shall not introduce matter irrelevant to that subject.

(2) Reference shall not be made to a case pending in a court of law in such a way as, in the opinion of the President or Chairman, might prejudice that case.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in Rule 66 (Bills Returned for Reconsideration), it shall be out of order to attempt to reconsider a specific question on which the Council has taken a decision during the session, except in debate on a motion to rescind that decision moved with the permission of the President.

(4) It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council.

(5) A Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member.

(6) The name of the Chief Executive shall not be used to influence the Council.

(7) Except where his conduct is the subject of a motion to which Part JA (Procedures for Particular Motions) applies, the conduct of the Chief Executive, a Member of the Executive Council or a Member of the Legislative Council otherwise than in the performance of his official duties shall not be raised. (L.N. 311 of 1998)

(8) The conduct of Judges or other persons performing judicial functions shall not be raised.

Rule 42: Behaviour of Members during Meeting

During a meeting of the Council-

(a) all Members shall enter or leave the Council properly attired and with decorum;

(b) no Member shall cross the floor of the Council unnecessarily;

(c) Members shall not read newspapers, books, letters or other documents, except such matter therein as may be directly connected with the business of the Council; and

(d) while a Member is speaking all other Members shall be silent and shall not make unseemly interruptions.

Rule 45: Order in Council and Committee

(1) The President, the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any standing or select committee, after having called the attention of the Council or the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.

(2) The President, the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any committee shall order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Council or the committee for the remainder of that meeting; and the Clerk or clerk of any committee shall act on orders received by him from the Chair to ensure compliance with this order.

- (Bastille Post) There were three legislators who still have not taken their oaths. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching had previous been fouled out by the Legco Secretary-general. Newly elected Legco chairman then added Lau Siu-lai because he disallowed her slow-paced reading. Andrew Leung won't let Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching take their oaths on Wednesday pending the outcome of the judicial review filed by the government. By omission, Andrew Leung is allowing Lau Siu-lai to take her oath.

- Why shouldn't Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching be given a second chance? If they get this second chance, it means that a precedent will have been set. In the future, all Legislators will get a free first chance to stage whatever they want: chant "Hong Kong Is Not China", say "Fuck the Chinese locusts," "Screw the stinking Americans," tell Polish jokes, eat a banana, do somersaults, copulate with his poodle dog, etc, knowing full well that all they have to do is to get the second try right.

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching pilloried Legco chairman Andrew Leung for being down on his knees to kowtow to the Hong Kong/Chinese Communist governments. Great! Meanwhile Leung and Yau are down on their knees to beg Andrew Leung to give them a chance to take the oath to pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong/Chinese Communists governments (guaranteed to have no tricky pronunciations this time).

- (Oriental Daily) Yau Wai-ching said that she never anticipated that things would turn out this way, although she has no regrets. This is the reason why people don't trust the Hong Kong independence. In this case, any number of people could have told you about the consequences of horsing around with the oath of office -- that many many people would be offended, that you may not be allowed to take office, etc. But you go ahead anyway and now you have this train wreck which you say that you have no regrets. In the meantime, you still haven't been able to answer the simple question "Why?" In the case of Hong Kong independence, any number of people are telling you about the possible consequences. But you won't consider them (or you are incapable of thinking about such matters) and you just want to roll ahead. When the whole thing blows up in your face, all you say is: "I didn't anticipate that it would end up like this, but I have no regrets" while you survey the devastated landscape.

- HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung made the point that if a US Congressman or a UK member of parliament got up and referred to the "People's Re-fucking of China", he would have caused a major diplomatic incident and possibly forced by his party to resign.

- This time around, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching is getting paid back with the same medicine.

Leung Chung-hang said that it was his Ap Lei Chau accent that mispronounced China into Shina. He never reckoned that Ap Lei Chau community groups and residents would band up to take out full-page newspaper ads to denounced this slur against them.

Yau Wai-ching pronounced "republic" as "re-fucking" and dared people to respond. At the RTHK City Forum, a citizen got up and addressed Leung Chung-hang with the homonym of "Dick Still Itiching" causing considerable embarrassment.

Leung and Yau thought that the storm would blow over if they could take the oath again in a serious vein. But the Justice Department used the pan-democrats' favorite tool of judicial review to stop Leung and Yau.

Leung and Yau thought that they could still take the oath because the judge did not issue an injunction, but the pro-establishment legislators threatened with the pan-democrats' favorite tool of adjournment due to lack of quorum.

Tactics are means which can be employed for any end.

- (HKG Pao) Leung Chung-hang declared that he will march into the Meeting at 11am tomorrow. He said that Legco chairman Andrew Leung does not have the power to stop him. He said that he will follow the rules of procedure to demand to take his oath. He said that he will defend the dignity of the Legislative Council. He also said that it is a crime to prevent a Legislator from entering the meeting chamber, and he warned the security guards not to impede him tomorrow.

- Leung Chung-hang is talking about all the privileges that he imagines are accorded to legislators. Unfortunately, his current status is only Legislator-elect pending the oath of office. He is not entitled to those privileges.

- Bwaaaaaahhhhhh! This is so funny. First of all, any number of Legislators have been ejected from the meeting chamber before as a result of Rule 45(2):

The President, the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any committee shall order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Council or the committee for the remainder of that meeting; and the Clerk or clerk of any committee shall act on orders received by him from the Chair to ensure compliance with this order.

This year, the Legislative Council has hired more female security guards to help carry out Yau Wai-ching, Lau Siu-lai and other female radical legislators.

Now if the security guards stopped him tomorrow, what is he going to do? Is he going to call the Hong Kong "Black" Police to report a crime? Is he going to ask the police to drag the security guards to a dark corner for a beating?

- Is Leung Chung-hang worried about what will happen?  No way. Citizens posted photos of him with a 20-something-year-old woman, ogling her tits.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 26, 2016.

Pro-democracy lawmakers have called upon Legislative Council President Andrew Leung to step down after he halted a chaotic session on Wednesday over the ongoing oath controversy.

Leung announced on Tuesday that he would defer the retaking of oaths by Youngspiration lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chun-hang until the government’s judicial review is concluded. The controversy surrounds Yau and Leung who referred “China” to “Chee-na” – considered by some to be insulting – in the legislature’s swearing-in session two weeks ago.

Yau said: “Baggio Leung and I should be legally allowed into the meeting room. But today we had to rely on the help of the pan-democrats and opposition camp in order to get into the meeting room.”

“This shows that the president did not read the rules of procedure well, and used a reason completely lacking in legal basis to deny presiding over the oaths of Baggio Leung and I,” she added.

“The president is shameless, [he] is the culprit of destroying the legislature’s honour,” Yau said. “He only cared about the pro-Beijing camp’s interests.”

Baggio Leung thanked the opposition lawmakers for escorting them into the chamber this morning. “Our action today proved that tyranny will only unite us.”

Some pro-democracy lawmakers surrounded Yau and Leung to prevent the legislature’s security guards from removing them.

The pro-democracy camp is now calling upon Andrew Leung to resign.

Helena Wong Pik-wan of the Democratic Party said: “We need to protect the dignity of the Legislative Council. We want a president who is not the president of a particular camp, but a fair and neutral president.”

“We are here right now, not actually for the pro-democracy camp, but for all Hong Kong people,” said Nathan Law of Demosistō. “We want to protect the system that we have made through these years, that we enjoy and treasure.”

Calling the president a “pawn of the pro-establishment camp,” Law said: “Leung… should be held responsible and should step down after he has abused his powers. This, I believe, is the most basic and united stance of everyone who support democracy and self-determination.”

James To Kun-sun of the Democratic Party said: “[Andrew Leung] should step down because he hasn’t even the basic ability to manage the meeting.”

He said that Leung had said that there were “no problems” when lawmakers raised challenges over the procedures, rather than hear the challenges.

Andrew Leung said he will not change his ruling barring the duo from attending the meeting. “But I think for the meeting to go on in an orderly fashion, I need the cooperation of all 69 members,” he said. “I will not make the job of our colleagues [LegCo staff members] difficult.”

Leung said he decided not to switch the meeting to another room because the chaos would still continue.

The pro-Beijing camp said that they were “extremely regretful” that the meeting was adjourned.

“We will support the decision handed down by the president of the LegCo,” said Holden Chow of the pro-Beijing DAB party.

Youngspiration has called for a rally to “protect the separation of powers” and to “return our lawmaking dignity” at 6pm on Wednesday in the protest area of the Legislative Council.

The party said that it hoped that Hong Kong people will protect the separation of powers and stop the “Hong Kong communist government” from destroying the city’s system.

- (Ta Kung Pao) October 26, 2016.

Legco president Andrew Leung declared yesterday that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching would not be sworn in today. Seven Democratic Party legislators including James To issued a declaration to oppose.

In their letter: "We absolutely do not agree with the addition of the insulting 'Shina' added by Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching into their oaths. Their actions insult the intelligence of ordinary citizens and cause negative reactions." Then they said: "Legislators should be sworn in as quickly as possible when their term begins, as supervised by the Legco president. Andrew Leung's actions sets a dangerous precedent by using his position as president to carry out executive orders. He has seriously damaged the dignity and constitutional position of the Legislative Council."

Here, the Democratic Party is contradicting itself.

First of all, the Democratic Party dares not offend the public by supporting the "Shina" speech of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Such being the case, then are their original "Shina" oaths proper and legal oaths of office?

If these were not legal oaths, then why should the Legco president have any reason or duty to supervise their new oaths? Conversely, if the Democratic Party believe that those were proper and legal oaths, then why didn't do the same? They didn't because they know that those oaths were improper and illegal, and they offend the intelligence of the people of Hong Kong. If this is the case, then why would they still insist that Andrew Leung must supervise those two to take their oaths again?

As for the dignity and constitutional position of the Legislative Council, who is being contemptuous and destructive here? There is only one answer, namely Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching along with all the opposition people (such as the Democratic Party) who are aiding and abetting them. The Legislative Council should have its dignity and constitutional position in accordance with the Basic Law. But when words like "Shina" and "Fucking" can be bandied around the meeting chamber, its dignity and constitutional position are obviously damaged and shaken to an unacceptable extent.

The pro-establishment walked out to stop the oaths and Andrew Leung refused to supervise the oaths. They did so in order to defend the dignity and constitutional position of the Legislative Council. But what has the Democratic Party done so far?

- (Oriental Daily) October 26, 2016.

Last evening (October 25), the pan-democrats hinted that they would take action at Andrew Leung's postponement of the oath ceremony for Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Today, the pan-democrats split into two forces. Leading the way, the Democratic Party, Civic Party (Kenneth Kwok and Tanya Chan) led Lau Siu-lai into the meeting chamber. Next seven persons including Civic Party's Alvin Yeung and Jeremy Tam, Demosisto's Nathan Law, Chu Hoi Dick "escorted" Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching into meeting chamber.

According to their original script, Andrew Leung would send the security guards to prevent Leung and Yau from entering and there will be minor skirmishes outside the entrance. But Lau Siu-wai would be able to be sworn in. Thereafter, they will raise procedural questions as well as a motion for adjournment until the meeting ends.

But their script was broken when League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung charged at the president's dais and Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai was expelled for disorderly conduct. In addition, the pro-establishment camp arranged for the security guards to make only a half-hearted effort so that Leung and Yau were able to enter the meeting chamber. As a result of al the chaos, the meeting was adjourned. Who was responsible for the adjournment? The pan-democrats. The pro-establishment legislators merely sat, watched and posted onto Facebook.

- (Kinliu) October 26, 2016.

Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were escorted into the meeting chamber with a formation of Civic Party's Alvin Yeung and Jeremy Tam in front, Shiu Ka-chun and Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) on the side, and Nathan Law (Demosisto) and Chu Hoi Dick behind. Notably absent was the Democratic Party.

Previously Democratic Party legislators James To and Lam Cheuk-ting had defended Leung-Yau's anti-China rhetoric, but they didn't join the formation. When the meeting began, they raised placards that read: "Andrew Leung does not represent me." Even their more radical member Hui Chi-fung entered on his own.

At the press conference, Helena Wong explained that the Democratic Party disagreed with what Leung-Yau said and therefore did not enter with them. She said that the Democratic Party objected to Youngspiration's insulting of the Chinese people and using obscene language. But she said that anyone who was legally elected should be sworn in. Lam Cheuk-ting also told the press that the Democratic Party only wants the Legco president to follow the rules of procedure and they do not approve of what Leung-Yau said.

- (Elizabeth Quat video) (Oriental Daily live broadcast)

(Wen Wei Po) Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were able to enter the meeting chamber not because of the number of pan-democratic legislators shepherding them in. Look at the video: more than fifty photojournalists and Legislative Councilor aides crashed into the meeting chamber. The photojournalists wanted to capture the whole trip, and the Legislative Councilor aides wanted to take videos of their bosses to post on Facebook. They even jumped on top of the tables to take better photos.

- (SCMP) October 26, 2016.

Two weeks into the oath-taking saga, those in the pro-democracy camp appeared ambivalent about matching their words of fury with adequate action.

Supporters will be wondering why the camp had not organised a single rally or march to protest the ruling of Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen even as they lashed out at him for blatantly depriving two localist lawmakers of their constitutional rights.

Pan-democrats’ inaction stood in stark contrast to the crowd of nearly 10,000 mobilised by Beijing-friendly groups outside the legislature on Wednesday, demanding that the Youngspiration pair Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching quit Legco. About the only other group in the same area pointing fingers at Andrew Leung was the League of Social Democrats.

But on Wednesday there was a show of unity, albeit briefly, among pan-democrats and localists.

Eight pan-democrats escorted Yau and Baggio Leung, whom Andrew Leung had banned from joining the meeting, into the chamber. The pair openly expressed gratitude for their help.

That show of strength in numbers, however, did not extend to the entire pro-democracy camp.

At a press conference held by the democratic caucus soon after, Democratic Party lawmaker Helena Wong Pik-wan made a candid statement that raised eyebrows.

“I want to point out that none of the seven Democrat lawmakers took part in escorting the duo,” she said. “We do not agree with the remarks made by them [in their oaths].”

Leung and Yau used the term “Chee-na”, a variation of the derogatory term “Shina” used by Japan during the second world war.

Their remarks angered not just the pro-establishment camp. Many supporters of the Democratic Party, which has never advocated separatism or nationalism, were also offended, Wong’s colleague Lam Cheuk-ting said.

“Andrew Leung was definitely wrong in destroying the system, but we think the Youngspiration pair were also responsible for causing the situation today. It would not have happened if they did not take their oaths that way,” said Lam.

The Civic Party’s Dennis Kwok echoed that sentiment. He said the duo’s “irresponsible act” had forced all Hongkongers to pay for the mess they had created.

The rift between the traditional pan-democrats and localists, and their lack of mutual trust, were the key reasons why the camp had failed to mobilise public support in the past weeks, several members of the camp said.

At previous election forums, Yau had blamed Wong and her allies for achieving nothing over the past years, while Wong accused Yau of being a spy from the pro-establishment camp.

Independent lawmakers such as social welfare sector representative Shiu Ka-chun and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, as well as Demosisto’s Nathan Law Kwun-chung, had been trying hard to bring pan-democrats and localists together in the preceding two days.

It took Law, the youngest of Hong Kong’s lawmakers and a former Occupy student leader, to call on the camp to use the opportunity of crisis to stay united.

But Shiu remained pessimistic that it would help unite the camp in the long run.

“Such collaboration might only happen on an ad hoc basis,” he said.

- (Oriental Daily) October 26, 2016.

The Alliance to Oppose China-Hating and Hong Kong independence called for a rally outside the Legislative Council this morning. The Legco demonstration zone was filled with people. At around noon, the organizers estimated between 14,000 and 16,000 demonstrators. The Hong Kong Police said that there were 8,720 persons at the peak.

The police shut down the pedestrian overpass between Admiralty Centre and the Legislative Council due to congestion. Instead they asked people to use the CITIC Tower overpass. Legislative Councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) argued with the police at the overpass.

- Interesting that none of the English-language media are reporting on this demonstration. They would rather report on five 'pro-democracy' demonstrators setting a petition letter on fire outside the China Liaison Office on a Sunday than a massive show of force.

- How was this demonstration being reported? At 10am, Commercial Radio said that there were as many as 1,000 people outside the Legislative Council. At 7pm, Commercial Radio said that 10,000 was there before.

- (YouTube) Aerial video of the demonstration.

- Commercial Radio

After the rally, the national flags and placards can be found lying all over the place, some of them being stuffed into garbage cans. There were also a lot of rubbish on the ground. Citizens took photos.

- CAP 2401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance

Section 7 Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and willfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

- Eh, wait a minute, the photo of the national flags in the garbage can was taken in 2014 but being attributed by Commercial Radio to have happened here and now. At this latest event, the volunteers were photographed gathering all debris into plastic bags for disposal. But none of those photos were published in Yellow Ribbon media outlet Commercial Radio.

- If this was a "pro-democracy" event, Commercial Radio would have reported the organizers' claim of 16,000. Since this is a "pro-establishment" event, Commercial Radio reported the "police estimate" of 8,420 (which is 300 less than the actual police estimate).

- Commercial Radio apologizes. They said that they cited from the Facebook group "Strong Nation Crazy Talk" and used the accompanying photo. They now realize that the photo came from a 2014 incident. Therefore they have now removed their original report. They apologize profusely for affecting the reputation of the Anti Insult-China Anti-Hong Kong Independence Grand Alliance or otherwise inconvenienced any other persons. They promised that such incidents will not recur in the future. 2016.11.10.

- Did the media say anything about what the 10,000 people are demanding? No. Instead, they reported that more than 20 people voiced support for Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Some of them raised yellow umbrellas and placards. Legislative Councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai and Nathan Law were there to provide support and they criticized Legco president Andrew Leung for stopping the two from taking their oaths of office.

P.S. Not a word that the people on the left were objecting to whatever Chu Hoi Dick was saying.

- And here is the Youngspiration counter-demonstration: fewer than 50 unless you count journalists too.

- What happened? Youngspiration has been saying at every step that their two legislators were elected by more than 50,000 voters. Like, you know, 50,000+ support them saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina" etc. Tonight, when the going got tough, only 50 showed up? What happened to the other 49,950+? Are they persons of Chinese descent upset by being called "Shina-jin"?

- Look, it's Wednesday night and the Hong Kong Jockey Club is holding Happy Wednesday races at the Sha Tin Race Course. A bonus is that this is October and they are running an Oktoberfest!

- Chapman Chen's Facebook

At a time when disaster awaits Hong Kong and there are matters of grave importance to be decided, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-chin are the last hope of Hong Kong parliamentary politics. Last night, there was a huge unprecedented turnout, including many with different political views such as Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung, Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Glacier Kwong, etc. So how can I miss this? Unfortunately some people continue to hold personal grudges and refuse to care about the future of the people of Hong Kong. While Youngspiration fight the Communist bandits every day, these guys exploit the situation to their own advantage, or manufacture vicious rumors, or use the vilest of curses. They should know that God is watching from above!

- Thirty people counts as a "huge unprecedented" turnout. The bar is set pretty low, huh?

- Even Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung admitted that the turnout was small. But he put a spin on it: "But in view of the fact that the assembly was called quite late, this was a fantastic turnout."

- As the Cantonese saying goes, when you get knocked down flat on your ass, you get up grabbing a handful of sand from the ground and say that you got something worthwhile out of this.

- Sze Tat Chau's Facebook

For more than one month, Leung-Yau of Youngspiration have led a counter-unification campaign that has successfully unified all their possible enemies. When Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) was disqualified by the Returning Officer, he selected these two Youngspiration candidates as his Plan B stand-in. Those who voted for them were basically voting for Edward Leung. At this time, there is a big political crisis for the two. Why hasn't Edward Leung said a word? Brother Edward, you own some degree of responsibility here. You should at least say something to the voters, instead of pulling the disappearing act.

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 5, 2016. With respect to Yau Wai-ching's pronunciation of "People's Re-fucking of Shina", Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) said: "We did not know beforehand, including Hong Kong Indigenous and the legislative assistants at Leung Chung-hang's office. We only found out after the oath was over." Even so, Wong does not think that there is any problems. When someone said that they wanted to severe all connections to Yau, Wong said: "Fuck you! How can you do that?"

As for what happened during Leung Chung-hang's oath, Ray Wong admitted that it was based upon the recommendation of Hong Kong Indigenous. An oath is the occasion to express a political stance but not the act of resistance itself. The political expression shows accountability to those who voted to elect him. As for the "Hong Kong is not China" banner, Wong explained that it is based upon the "Catalonia is not Spain" slogan and this type of slogan is being used by independent movements everywhere. Although the word "independence" does not appear, it expresses their position. As for the hand gesture, Wong said that it is an act of repentance to God because the oath is against the wishes of the oath-taker. Wong said: "We localists will only pledge loyalty to the people of Hong Kong." However Wong did not explain why Leung Chung-hang later said that he pronounced China as "Shina" because of his Ap Lei Chau accent.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 30, 2016. Last month Hong Kong Indigenous spokespersons Ray Wong and Edward Leung traveled to Brussels to attend the Seventh International Conference of Tibet Support Groups and to give a talk in London about The Future of Hong Kong 2047.

- Why are you fighting for Tibet independence and not rescuing Youngspiration? You were the ones who betted on them, so you have a responsibility.

- Fuck your mother, will you please get someone to come back to Hong Kong to clean up the stinking mess? Or is your entire party of several dozen people traveling overseas with not a single person left in Hong Kong?

- No matter what happens to Youngspiration, it is clear that Hong Kong Indigenous endorsed Youngspiration and is therefore obliged to help out. At this time, the entire Localist movement is being devastated by Youngspiration. In the future, all Localists will be suppressed. Shouldn't you apologize to those who voted for you, those who support you and the entire Localist movement?

- The reason why the English-language media won't report on this assembly is that they know that these pro-establishment demonstrators are being paid. Stooges do not represent public opinion. The standard rate is $300 per person, so that 15,000 would cost $4,500,000. But the Chinese Communists can easily afford this and a lot more.

- While there is no direct evidence of payment, everybody knows that this is true. After all, it is unimaginable that anyone would come to demonstrate otherwise.

- I fully agree. I am of Chinese descent and I am not upset at being called a "Shina dog." Why should anyone else be? They need to get a life.

- Ah Sau's Facebook

Several thousand people participated in the anti-China-insult demonstration. As usual, Apple Daily interviewed a few old people who didn't know why they are marching and reported the talk about $150 per marcher. But I noted that actress Susan Shaw Yin Yin was present as well as some of my local-born, normally apolitical friends. Wong Yeung-tat pointed out on a Passion Times program that some of these people were genuinely opposed to Hong Kong independence. However, I think that some people sincerely came out to demonstrate but not necessarily opposing Hong Kong independence.

Many people in Hong Kong actually don't care about Hong Kong independence one way or the other. Most of them only want to be winners. If Hong Kong independence leads to an economic boom, I think 99% of them will be in favor. But at this time, Hong Kong independence is merely a slogan. Nobody has even proposed armed revolution. By this time, the people of Hong Kong are numb to more slogan-shouting.

Previously more than 10,000 people attended the Hong Kong National Party's rally for Hong Kong independence. The pro-establishment camp didn't seem able to assemble 10,000 people to counter-demonstrate. But at this anti-China-insult demonstration, many people did not come for the money and lunch boxes; they came because they genuinely felt that they have been insulted as persons of Chinese descent. The trigger was the phrase "re-fucking of Shina." In other words, they resent the two Youngspiration legislators.

After the two Youngspiration members got elected, they had two grand accomplishments: the talk about having space to "fuck" and the talk about the "People's re-fucking of Shina." Both items became Page A1 news for a few days. As newly elected legislators, these results were quite impressive. Although the two items seemed unrelated, they are both related to social taboos. For a young girl to use an obscene term "fucking" to describe sexual intercourse seems unmannerly. Meanwhile "Shina" is a term of insult for the entire generation of Chinese people who had lived through the Japanese invasion of China.

There is nothing right or wrong about social taboos. Many taboos have no rational basis, but they exist in our daily lives. For example, it is a social taboo to talk about "Death" on Lunar New Year's Day and there is no scientific basis for it either. Nevertheless most people avoid doing so because they don't want to offend others. Social taboos are also the basis for social group formation. When both taboos were violated, it was predictable that people would feel resentment. When both taboos were broken by the same organization and this organization advocates Hong Kong independence, it goes without say that Hong Kong independence took a big hit.

I don't know whether this was a historical accident or whether the wisdom of someone behind the scene. I don't expect to find any conclusive evidence one way or the other. But the reality is that Leung and Yau broke taboos and managed to sully the name of Hong Kong independence in the short space of one month. The brand "Localism" was buried along with it too.

- You would think that the public should have a say on this issue, but none of the polling organizations has done anything to gauge public opinion. Or else they have done something but decide to suppress the information for political reasons.

- Wong Yeung-tat's Facebook

What did the people of Hong Kong do to deserve such a fate? ...
10,000 people gathered to support the government to attack the Legislative Council. You would think that many of these are paid Commie stooges, right? Many of these people don't necessarily support the government but they genuinely oppose Hong Kong independence!
Over the past several years, we poured our blood and sweat to nurture localist consciousness. In the last two elections, Localism became a golden herald that everybody wanted to use to reap the rewards. This reached a peak in the September Legco elections.
But what did Youngspiration do? In the short period of a single month, the people would rather support the dictator to destroy the dignity of the Legislative Council in order to stop Hong Kong independence and suppress Localism ...
What did the people of Hong Kong do to deserve this?

- That last sentence about Cheng Chung-tai is surely the most interesting part. What was he arguing with the police about?

Here is a video of Cheng Chung-tai walking about.

(Wen Wei Po) Cheng Chung-tai walked from the MTR Admiralty Station across the pedestrian overpass to the Legislative Council, using his mobile phone to conduct a live Facebook broadcast. He spoke to a female demonstrators: "You are using an iPhone. If you are a patriot, you should not use foreign merchandise. If you are a patriot, you should use Xiaomi!" The woman countered: "You're crazy! What kind of person are you? Are you an idiot?" Cheung Chung-tai accused her of cursing him, and added that it is a matter of extreme urgency to take back the right to approve one-way visas.

Next Cheng Chung-tai walked up to Government Headquarters. He said that a government workers used an obscenity against him. The government worker repeated denied this. The video did not record any alleged obscenity. But Cheng insisted that this was the case. He demanded the person to show his government worker's ID. Cheng said: "You used an obscenity. If you have the guts to say it, you should have the guts to admit it."

The government gave his name and government department name. But Cheng persisted: "You wait for the letter of complaint!" After Cheng left Government Headquarters, he developed sudden amnesia and added: "Actually I don't know what he said, but it was something like Pok Gai."

Here is another video of Cheng Chung-tai filming at the pedestrian overpass.

The overpass is more than ten feet wide. Some citizens were filming the crowd below, but they do not interfere with pedestrians. Cheung Chung-tai found a police officer to lodge a complaint.

Cheng: There is no reason that they should be allowed to film here. This is the only passageway leading to the Legislative Council.

Woman: You go away. It is none of your business that we feel like filming here.

Cheng (to the police officer): What is the reason for letting them film here? This is the only passageway leading to the Legislative Council.

Police: Sorry, I did not arrange this. You should ask them over there (Legislative Council) ... this passageway can be used by everybody.

Cheng: 4020 (police badge number), I am Legislator Cheung. How can you let them in?

Police: They did not go in. This passageway is meant to be used by pedestrians.

Cheng: This is the only passageway to the Legislative Council.

Police: You enter first. We'll re-arrange things.

Cheng: Are you saying that this is a problem with the Legislative Council?

Police: Very well, this is a public place where people can walk.

Cheng: You don't usually do this with assemblies. Your attitude is really bad.

Police: No, I feel that it is very good.

Cheng: Can you call your supervisor to come over?

Police: Fine. If you are in a hurry to get to work, you can ...

Cheng: I have to attend a meeting at 11. These people are stopping me from entering/exiting. I am telling you this patiently, but you gave me this kind of response. Why don't you go down to the assembly too?

- Once upon a time, there was "My dad is Li Gang" in China. Today we have "I am Legislator Cheng" in Hong Kong.

- When a person points at his own nose and announce, "I am Legislator X," everybody else (from the police to senior citizens) must obey.

- Cheng Chung-tai picked on the police officer because he knows that the Hong Kong Police work under rule of law. He picked on the senior citizens because he knows that he can outfight them. He stays away from everybody else.

- We all know that Cheng Chung-tai is valiant. Here is a video of Cheng Chung-tai hurdling the barrier in the Legco meeting chamber to resume his seat and refusing to budge after being ejected by the Legco president for disorderly conduct. Dozens of security guards could not make him move!

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 28, 2016.

An electoral success, she is Hong Kong’s youngest ever female lawmaker. But – to some people – Youngspiration’s Yau Wai-ching is the most hated person in the city.

Yau was one of the fresh faces returned to the Legislative Council in the last election. But it is unclear whether Yau will be able to keep her seat, as the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice have lodged a legal challenge asking the court to declare her office vacant.

During her first taking of the oath, she pronounced People’s Republic of China as “People’s Refucking of Chee-na,” which some deemed as an insult to Chinese people worldwide.

She has yet to complete her oath, but told HKFP that said she had “no regrets” over her actions. She insisted that she read the whole of the original oath, and that she made a proper effort to complete it.

“This government has no standards at all. If they want to crush you, you can read the oath normally and they can still say: ‘Oh you mispronounced this word, I will have to disqualify you,” she said. “And so if there are no standards to speak of, then why don’t I choose to be true to myself, to really make a promise to Hongkongers.”

Yau said she was not satisfied with the current situation: “I entered [LegCo] to do work… I did not join to only complete the oath, I have been feeling that my progress in work is too slow, I should not be stuck at this step.”

Despite the controversy, she is officially a lawmaker and is paid HK$93,040 a month, but she said she hoped to do more with her position.

“I must admit our street stands have not been as frequent as in the past. I very much hope I can appear at street stands after the incidents from these two months are settled.”

“Because I have told people that I cannot be a lawmaker who only shows up [at local districts] once in four years, I must not break my promise… This is my responsibility.”

Yau said her party plans to conduct more work in local districts, with its 100-odd members and other volunteers, by using her LegCo seat to bring their ideas into reality.

Yau, 25, is considered the only female localist in 70-member legislature.

But Yau said that she did not want to be bound by the labels.

“My age is not a problem, attitude is the problem,” she said. “In politics, your conviction or ideals are important, and they should not be bound by age. Being young or localist is not the main point.”

She dismissed the idea that she and party colleague Sixtus “Baggio” Leung were childish or naive during the swearing-in ceremony.

“We were actually very serious, Baggio Leung and I were very serious,” she said. “I never thought it was a childish act. If you paid attention to the entire process of our oath-taking, we first pledged loyalty to Hongkongers, I don’t think this is childish.”

Often branded a “goddess” or a “bb” [baby] by supporters, Yau has also attracted countless sexist comments following the recent incidents. However, Yau said she did not care.

“When people want to attack you, it does not matter whether you are male or female,” she said. “This is why I will not draw attention to my being a female as a reason for being attacked.”

Yau emphasises that Youngspiration was founded to serve Hong Kong people, and she has stuck with the main tenets of her platform – the self-determination of Hong Kong people and changes to immigration policy.

With or without opposition from within the chamber, Yau is adamant that she will take every opportunity to raise motions on these topics.

She said she has considered that she may face further challenges from the government over the next four years.

“If there are several more cases like that, I think people will see who is one stirring up trouble, I entered [LegCo] to do work, to propose issues important to Hong Kong people, no matter livelihood issues or the future of Hong Kong, they have to face it sooner or later,” she said. “In this contrast, people can see obviously who is playing the destructive role.”

The day before the latest oath-taking drama exploded at LegCo on Wednesday, Yau made a seemingly nonsensical post on Instagram, drawing thousands of likes and hundreds of perplexed comments.

“After Tuesday is Wednesday,” it said.

Yau said the cryptic post was meant to raise awareness of the controversial LegCo meeting, which she and Leung were barred from. This is not the first time a public statement from her team has misfired, drawing attention away from the original focus.

“A successful public relations [exercise] should let the public know what you really want to say, but at the same time you need to raise people’s interests to know about the issues,” she said. “It needs a very skillful technique, but so far the issues I raised have not received the intended result.

Yau said there was very little public response when she raised the issue of limited space on minibuses this year, but in early October, just one phrase from her generated an avalanche of media attention.

She said bok-yeh, a Cantonese slang term for “to bang”.

“Even if we want to bok-yeh, we can’t find a room, this is a very practical issue,” she said at a forum, when speaking on young people’s living space.

When asked again, a more media-savvy Yau tried to avoid the two words, simply framing the issue as “space issue,” with a smile.

“Many people know what I was actually talking about, but focused their attention on those two words,” she said. “These two cases seem to be complete opposites – I am still learning how to bring up an issue.”

- This interview article includes this photo from Yau Wai-ching office. Written on the board is "People's Refucking of Chee-na."

So out goes any pretense about any Ap Lei Chau accent. Well, if this is what you want to say all along, why not just admit it? Instead, you rile up all the Ap Lei Chau residents as well as your alma mater Wah Yan College (because the former principal said that their students at this elite school should be able to pronounce China properly and, furthermore, their students were not taught to tell jokes or lies about matters of grave importance).

- (Video) Someone has edited Yau Wai-ching's statement about the shameless Andrew Leung who is destroying the dignity of the Legislative Council into what they considered to be the correct statement of facts.

Me and Leung Chung-hang are thick-skinned and shameless. Last week we reversed our course. We were the instigators who are destroying the dignity of the Legislative body.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 27, 2016.

What is the commonality of the following statements?

"Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching should surely be deplored for insulting China and its people, but the ten years of the Cultural Revolution was more than insulting China and its people. It destroyed Chinese culture, human relationships, historical artifacts, ..."

"It is true that Japan invaded China. The official statistic is the Japanese army slaughtered 35 million Chinese. But 36 million people perished during the Great Leap Forward, more than the number that the Japanese army killed ..."

"Even though Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said the wrong things, is it necessary to criticize them day after day? CY Leung does the wrong things every day of the year and is the cause of chaos in Hong Kong, so why don't you criticize him instead?"

"It is wrong to throw bricks at people, but what is the root of the problem? Who used the violence of the system first?"

"If playing mahjong on the plaza of the university campus is a disgrace, then it is more disgraceful that the diplomas of all university students in Hong Kong are signed by their Chancellor CY Leung."

Have you detected the rule? This is the classical Yellow Ribbon tactic. It is known as misdirection. The subject is A, but you switch the subject to B. If you debate on B, you have been tricked.

Yesterday 10,000 people demonstrated outside the Legislative Council against Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. But the opposition said that the most important issue of the day is that Legco president Andrew Leung must resign.

- (Ming Pao) What next? Youngspiration quotes two supporters at the Electoral Affairs Commission that there is a top secret document to ask them to prepare for by-elections for three vacant Legislative Council posts.

This is a misdirection play.

- (SCMP) October 26, 2016. Can Hong Kong afford to let separatists into Legco? By Alex Lo. October 26, 2016.

It should be clear by now that Younspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have no interest in normal legislative business. The Legislative Council is just a useful platform for them to advocate independence for Hong Kong. Any other issues such as housing, social welfare and education don’t concern them. They and their kind simply think if Hong Kong could isolate itself from the rest of China, everything would turn out fine.

As such, there is no difference between forcing their way into the Legco chamber, as they did yesterday, and flying to Taiwan to advocate independence at a university forum. They are all means to the same end.

That is also why they are happy to quote Legco’s rules and procedures, and the Basic Law, when it suits them, and flout them when it’s useful and convenient to do so. It’s often observed that their attendance at a Taiwanese university was just to thumb their noses at the Hong Kong and central governments after they used insulting and swear words in their Legco oath-taking debacle.

That is true to an extent. But their bungled oaths rather reveal their true thinking: they don’t consider themselves Chinese, and don’t think Hong Kong is part of China.

They chose to insult China and the Chinese people. It was not a mistake, nor was it done out of ignorance. Every opportunity is too good to waste to undermine the government, to give Beijing the finger, to promote separatism and to keep up the momentum for their movement. Unlike seasoned politicians, these two young people mean what they say, so we should take their words at face value.

I respect their honesty and sincerity, which are far better than the unprincipled and cynical attitude of the pan-democrats, who are aiding and abetting the two while claiming they don’t support separatism or independence for Hong Kong.

But the real question is: can Hong Kong afford to let separatists into Legco? Both Leung and Yau are fresh university graduates. But I suggest they go back to primary school to reread the story of the Trojan horse. The idea is not to reveal yourself until you have gone inside the city. The two jumped out too soon and revealed their true colours. They have exposed themselves. Now let’s make sure they don’t cause further harm.

• [598] Who Let The Dogs Out? (2016/10/22)

(Apple Daily) October 22, 2016. Also at YouTube.

A female student complained that the students frequently made noise late into the night at the Hostel B dormitory, Lingnan University. On October 19 after 2am, she could not fall asleep due to the commotion outside. She went out into the corridor and saw more than 10 male students out there playing games. She asked: "Can you please lower your voices?" A male student yelled aloud: "Please lower your voice! It is late! Don't make noise! Someone wants to sleep!" She asked: "Do you find this funny?" The male student: "Tell the warden then!" Some of the male students went back into their rooms and turned the music volume up.

Commentator: "Shina dog" standards are truly double standards. When you showed up, you said aloud: "Fuck your mothers!" What kind of future do you have?

Original poster: What Hong Kong culture? If you are trash, you should not turn Hong Kong into trash with you. What exchange student? I am a long-time student. Let me tell you, I have been attending Lingnan for three years, and there is no worse Hall than this one. Are you talking to me about cultural toleration? When I first came to Lingnan, I did not know any Cantonese. Today, I can speak Cantonese and write traditional characters because I respect Hong Kong culture.

Do not think that the exchange students don't know. You can deceive other people but you can't deceive me. When  you cannot even deceive yourself, you cannot deceive others. You do not represent Hong Kong culture. Instead you are a Hong Kong young wastrel with no culture. If you can't sleep at night, you should go back to your room to study and think about how to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party first. Then maybe Hong Kong may have a future.

Commentator: Old student, if you say that the other halls are so good, why don't you live there instead of Hall B?

Original poster: Do you think that I want to be here? I was on an exchange program last semester. When I came back, I had no choice. SSC arranged this. Right now you know that nobody wants to live here.

Commentator: Why no move away? I'll help you to file an application.

Commentator: Why do you consider applying to move to a different hall. You don't want to live here anyway. It will be better for everybody.

Commentator: Stupid cunt! This place is just not fright for wastrel sisters who only know how to study.

Another commentator wrote: Ahah, good luck with these mofos, I was on 2nd floor and during weeks sleeping before 3am was almost impossible ... we almost fought twice cuz some said that I wasn't respectful to the local culture.

Internet comments:

- CAP 400 Noise Control Ordinance

Section 4. Noise at night or on a general holiday

(1) Any person who between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., or at any time on a general holiday in any domestic premises or public place makes or causes to be made any noise which is a source of annoyance to any person commits an offence.

(2) Any person being the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of any domestic premises who between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., or at any time on a general holiday knowingly permits or suffers noise which is a source of annoyance to any person to emanate from those domestic premises commits an offence.

(3) Any person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine of $10000. (Amended 2 of 1994 s. 9)

- Yau Wai-ching is a graduate of Lingnan University majoring in Chinese literature. So it is no surprise for her to say "Shin-ma" for "China."

- More precisely, Yau Wai-ching graduated from Fucking Lingnan University.

- Lingnan University is ranked eighth among the eight universities in Hong Kong. So what do you expect? Anyone who has any other option would not be attending university in remote Tuen Mun (=Nowheresville).

- Lingnan University students are a pile of garbage. How can you make a pile of garbage stand up on its feet? How does a pile of garbage be upwardly mobile?

- This female mainland student clearly has her own problems. If her grades were decent, she would not have to come down to Hong Kong to study at Lingnan University. She should have known that her fellow students there are all bums. If anything, she should be grateful that she hasn't been raped or killed.

- The female mainland student writes in English whereas the local Hong Kong students respond with Hong Kong-style Chinese. Why? Because the local Hong Kong students are too embarrassed by their poor English skills.

- (Oriental Daily) October 19, 2016. The University Grants Committee issued its report on Lingnan University. Specifically, the Quality Assurance Bureau had previously stipulated in 2010 that Lingnan University students must participate in English-language testing before graduations. However, this has yet to be fully implemented. The data showed that employers and alumni continue to give poor grades on the English skills of Lingnan University students.

- If these young wastrels have studied well, they might learn that "Shina" refers to China, including Hong Kong and Macau. Taiwan came under Japanese rule many years ago, so it is actually known as Taiwan. But Hong Kong and Macau are part of "Shina" and their residents are "Shina dogs."

- Those students are not as bad as the discussion forum commentator who wrote: "Everybody knows that when a female student moves into a mixed-gender dormitory hall, she is to serve the pleasure of the guys. Most likely, this Shina dog refuses to obey the rules."

- If we are going to have a Hong Kong nation, we need to have a Hong Kong culture. This needs to be defined from scratch so that every Hongkonger will know what is local culture and what is alien culture. Today we begin with Rule #1:

If you make a helluva noise in the middle of the night to cause others to lose sleep, then this is Hong Kong local culture.

We look forward to more rules coming to you in the near future ...

- How do you compare the cultural levels of Hong Kong and mainland China? There are many poorly educated rural people in China, so the overall cultural level must be lower. But those mainland people who come to Hong Kong to study are much better qualified because they are the cream of the crop. What is more, they are more diligent because they value the opportunity. So if you compare the mainland students against the local Hong Kong students at any of the eight universities, the former will be more competitive.

- And that is why the local students hate mainland students! If the class grades are given on a curve, the mainlanders will take the top.

- What is wrong with calling mainlanders "Shina dogs"? It is the exercise of our God-given freedom of expression. If those male students at Hostel B should get punished, it will be the end of Article 27 of the Basic Law.

- The Hong Kong Basic Law? Didn't you guys set it on fire any number of times before already? Why are U hiding behind it now?

- During the British colonial era, the Hong Kong University dormitories were under curfew after midnight. Anyone who started a commotion was banned permanently from residing there. How is that for freedom of expression?

- This was not a violation of freedom of expression, because the miscreants can continue to exercise their freedom of expression elsewhere.

- Irony: Here is the Lingnan University Student Union Campus TV telling that happiness exists in their dormitories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hTJwbTrQlo (includes English sub-titles).

• [597] Travel With Rivals (2016/10/20)

(Wikipedia) Travel with Rivals is a Hong Kong television travel programme on Viu TV. The programme brings together two people from different backgrounds, with conflicting core values, for a five-day trip to other parts of the world.

Episode 1-3 (Warsaw, Poland): Legislators Jasper Tsang (DAB) and Leung Kwok-hung (LSD)
Episode 4-5 (Hanoi, Vietnam): Yip Chung-sing and Amanda Tann
Episode 6-7 (Florence, Italy): Shiga Lin and Gloria Yip
Episode 6-7 (Seoul, South Korea): Ann Chiang (DAB) and Roy Tsui
Episode 8-9 (Dublin, Ireland): Zac Kao and Denise Ho
TBA (Bali, Indonesia): Renee Dai and Siu Yam-yam
TBA (Japan): Agnes Chow and Junius Ho

(The Standard) April 6, 2016.

The management of Hong Kong's new free television station, which goes on air today, hopes to revive the local TV industry through creative reality shows rather than dramas.

Viu TV is the SAR's first free-to-air TV broadcaster in 37 years, and will take over part of the digital spectrum of Asia Television, which shut down on Friday. ATV's analog channels were taken over by RTHK.

Speaking to RTHK, Viu TV's general manager Lo Ting-fai said the new station will focus on producing reality shows instead of dramas. "The most important thing is to attract people who have not watched TV for a long time to switch on their TVs again," he said. "Or to make people who would normally watch TV for an hour to watch it a bit longer."

It would be great for the industry, even if viewers choose to enjoy a TVB drama first before switching over to Viu TV to watch Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, Lo added, referring to the station's travelogue series Travel With Rivals, with Tsang and lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung starring in the first episode.

"If we can attract more people to watch TV, it will boost advertising revenue, and we can use the money to enhance our productions," Lo said, stressing the need to produce high-quality shows.

(Headline Daily) October 19, 2016.

Former Chinese student activist Wang Dan and former Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en went to Japan to record for Viu TV's programme <Travel with Rivals>. During their stay, they held a press conference hosted by the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan to call for the international community to support Hong Kong independence.

Among those present was the World Uyghur Congress representative in Japan, who asked Fung whether the Hong Kong independence movement and the Xinjiang independence movement. Fung reponded: "Just as we in Hong Kong, the Uyghurs are being oppressed and persecuted by the Chinese Communists. Our fates are alike. Based upon the principle that local matters should be determined by local people, we support the choice of the Uyghurs. We can cooperate on this."

Last night, Viu TV issued a statement to condemn these two individuals for organizing a press conference on their own and making improper statements. Viu TV is extremely disappointed and angry. Viu TV pointed out the talk of Hong Kong independence denigrates the people and is delusional because this can never happen. Viu TV has decided not to air any of the already filmed videos about Wang Dan and Billy Fung Jing-en. They also reserve the right to seek legal redress against anyone who has or will use Viu TV to promote Hong Kong independence.

(YouTube) The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan. Wang Dan and Billy Fung Jing-en: Tensions between China and Hong Kong and update report in the semi-autonomous territory.

Internet comments:

- How do Wang Dan and Billy Fung Jing-en clash in basic core values?

- They have more in common than in conflict -- both of them hate the Chinese Communists. Now they have even more in common, because they both hate Viu TV.

- Easy. Viu TV was assuming that Wang Dan is a Chinese chauvinist whereas Billy Fung Jing-en is a Shina-hating racist Singaporean.

- So it means that Wang Dan would refuse to pay tribute at the Yasukuni Shrine whereas Billy Fung would leap at the chance if invited by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

- You are believing the fiction that Fung put on Wikipedia about being Singaporean. He is actually a new immigrant from Fujian province, China. If he was Singaporean, he would have to do military service.

- They share the core values about (1) revolutions require martyrs to make sacrifices and (2) those martyrs are always somebody else.

- Viu TV was counting on them to clash. Instead they held a joint press conference to promote various independence movements in China.

- Viu TV's problem is not with Wang and Fung. It is with the executive producer who came up with the idea of using this pair. His/her judgment is extremely questionable.

- Why did Viu TV choose to locate this episode in Japan? A better choice would be for them to go to Dharamsala to meet the Dalai Lama.

- Viu TV probably cannot get away this easy. Wang Dan and Billy Fung Jing-en will probably file suits for unlawful termination and deprivation of their freedoms of expression, demand $1 in compensation and maximize promotion for Hong Kong/Xinjiang/Tibet independence.

- How the hell does the Hong Kong independence movement work with the Xinjiang independence movement? They have completely different styles. Do you expect Hongkongers to become suicide bombers, bomb-throwers, knife-slashers, car-rammers and self-immolators? Hey, that can be really dangerous to your health and well-being.

- If Billy Fung Jing-en signs a joint cooperation pact with you, can you trust him to keep his end of the bargain? Consider the fact that he considers the confidentiality agreement with the Hong Kong University Council as utterly worthless.

- Maybe Billy Fung's idea of cooperation is for ETIM/Al Qaeda/ISIS to send suicide bombers to Hong Kong to do the dirty work, because local suicide bombers are hard to recruit.

- When you've been blown to pieces,  you can't use Facebook anymore.

- The World Uyghur Congress toolkit only has terrorist attacks and self-immolations. They can provide training and materials to the Hongkongers. I really don't mind seeing Joshua Wong turning himself into a human torch.

- (Apple Daily) During the Q&A part, a reporter said that Beijing cannot possibly let Hong Kong independence happen because Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang will follow suit to split up the country. Fung replied that China will not permit Hong Kong to have democracy in the short run, and that means no independence as well. But the basic issue is that if Hong Kong has enough international support, then Hong Kong will be strong and powerful enough to become independent without needing China's permission. Fung said that it is a human right for a Hongkonger to determine his own future.

- Hong Kong will be strong and powerful enough that it can achieve independence without needing China's permission? This is truly delusional.

- Here is an example of a strong, powerful and fearless Hong Kong: it must be self-sufficient in food, water and energy; it must possess a couple hundred of armed nuclear warheads mounted on ballistic missiles hidden in a maze of silos that are several hundred feet underground; it must build a thirty-foot-tall concrete wall behind a minefield along the entire land border with China (the construction cost to be paid for by China, of course); it must possess several hundred Autobots led by Optimus Prime; etc.

- Well, if Hong Kong has the Autobots led by Optimus Prime as allies, then China would surely hire the Decepticons led by Megatron. The two sides won't look after the interests of tiny Hong Kong, because the Autobots and Decepticons will slug it out in Hong Kong and destroy everything in their paths. I think that a much more realistic plan is to have hundreds of Gundam vehicle suits piloted by skilled Hong Kong freedom fighters whose loyalty to the Hong Kong Nation is unquestionable.

- Here is a concrete proposal for the Hong Kong Army:

A Hong Kong Army with a standing force of 700,000 shall be established.
- 400,000 army soldiers with several hundred tanks and armored vehicles. Of these, 100,000 will be army special forces
- 200,000 navy soldiers with several hundred warships and submarines. Of these, 40,000 will be marines.
- 100,000 air force soldiers with several hundred fighters and bombers. Of these, 30,000 will be paratroopers.
In addition, there will be a strategic force equipped with several thousand ballistic missiles and rockets aimed at Beijing, Shanghai and the Three Gorges Dam, being launch-ready at all times.

Military laws applicable to every Hongkonger will include
(1) Each Hongkonger will serve 5 years of compulsory military service as soon as they reach the age of 18
(2) Each Hongkongers will be in the military reserve force. In the event of an emergency, the government will issue a mobilization order and all Hongkongers must immediately report in for service.
(3) Each Hongkonger who surrenders, deserts or consorts with the enemy shall be court-martialed. The maximum penalty is death by execution.

The police will reconstitute the Special Branch to go after all those pro-Communist/pro-China persons, who will be subject to surveillance, arrest, etc.

A foreign intelligence service will be established, mainly to send spies to infiltrate and gather information about various sectors in China. Spies will also be sent to Canada, Australia, etc to reach the families of Chinese officials.

- I guess that we have to start somewhere. Right now the number of countries supporting Hong Kong independence is zero. How do we get to 1? Which country is the best target? War-torn Eritrea? 21-square kilometer Nauru with 90% unemployment and 40% diabetic?

- On Friday, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were seen in Taipei. They are scheduled to speak to university students there. The Mainland Affairs Council of Taiwan has already indicated that they are paying attention to the situation of Leung/Yau.

P.S. Sorry, the Mainland Affairs Council has just retracted: they are now saying that they have no intention of meddling with Hong Kong's internal affairs.

- Unfortunately, even with an army of 600,000, Taiwan is still not recognized as a nation by any of the international bodies or large nations. The Hong Kong independence movement can still learn from Taiwan about how to establish diplomatic relations with individual countries such as Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Swaziland, Burkina Faso, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, etc. Don't learn how to lose São Tomé and Príncipe like Taiwan just did.

- (Oriental Daily) Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were scheduled to share their experiences with the Taiwan Radical Wings party at 830pm last evening. After dinner, they misunderstood and went to another function with friends. When they realized their mistake, they could not contact the Taiwan Radical Wings because they didn't have Wifi access, their telephones ran out of battery power and they had no money. When the two didn't show up by 10pm, the Taiwan Radical Wings issued a statement that certain individuals used technical means to cause the two not to be able to come, and they are very angry about this.

- (Oriental Daily) Leung Chung-hang Yau Wai-ching attended a discussion forum organized by the Taiwan National University Graduate Students Association.  The two said that their resolve for Hong Kong self-determination is unchanged.

- (Ta Kung Pao) According to our sources, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching first attended a forum organized by the National Taiwan University Graduate Students Association on "Localist movement in the international cosmopolitan city of Hong Kong." Afterwards, Leung and Yau were supposed to attend a Taiwan Radical Wings forum.

According to our sources, Democratic Progressive Party Taipei City Executive Chu Cheng-chi did not want Leung and Yau to meet with the Taiwan Radical Wings. So he personally took them on a tour around Taipei. Chu told Ray Wong and the Taiwan Radical Wings that Leung and Yau did not want to attend their function. The Taiwan Radical Wings had invited the media to witness this marriage of Hong Kong and Taiwan independence movements, but the two stars did not show up. The Taiwan Radical Wings insisted that Leung told them that he would attend, but Chu Cheng-chi said that it was not suitable for them to do so. The next day, the Taiwan Radical Wings did not said anything more "certain individuals using technical means" and dropped the issue.

- More importantly, Yau Wai-ching spoke in putonghua. How is a Hongkonger supposed to learn to speak putonghua when the proposed curriculum of Youngspiration bans the instruction of putonghua, simplified characters and Chinese history at all levels of education?

- Like people, nations look out for their self-interests. What can Hong Kong offer them? Right now, Hong Kong positions itself as the gateway into the 1.3 billion mainland China market. After independence, what?

- Nations will not support Hong Kong out the kindness of their hearts and against their own interests if and when China retaliates. Look at Taiwan's situation. China asks each country to choose between China and Taiwan, never both. As soon as a nation recognizes Taiwan, China will break diplomatic relations PERIOD. What is a rational nation supposed to do?

- (Apple Daily) Billy Fung said that if Hong Kong wants independence, they must have international support. At this time, the United States want to pivot back to Asia and therefore Hong Kong should ally with Japan and other countries. Fung said that Japan can be useful. Hong Kong was a revolutionary base and helped to overturn the Manchurian dynasty. Thus Hong Kong can be a base to fight against the Chinese Communists.

- What? Will the United States send nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Hong Kong and trigger another Cuban missile crisis?

- Cuba is 90 miles away from Florida. Hong Kong is contiguous with China. This would like China positioning nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal aimed at the United States.

- Here is the political map of Hong Kong. To the north is mainland China. To the west is Macau/Zhuhai. To the south are the Wanshan Islands under the jurisdiction of Zhuhai city (China). To the east is Daya Wan (China). Any cargo ship carrying nuclear missiles to Hong Kong will be searched and seized by the PLA Navy first.

- (Oriental Daily) When Wang Dan got back to Taiwan, he saw the Viu TV statement. He said that Viu TV invited him to do the programme in Japan, arranging for everything including the press conference. However, Viu TV is now saying that Wang and Fung arranged for the press conference no their own. Wang said that "there is nothing more shameless than this."

Wang said that everyone knows why Viu TV issued the statement. It would be understandable if Viu TV came under pressure from Beijing and quietly shelved the programme. But to accuse Wang and Fung of organizing a press conference on their own is going too far.

This morning Wang Dan issued another statement. First of all, he said that he agreed to participate in this programme because he knew nothing about the Hong Kong independence movement and wanted to learn about it. He said that he completely disagrees with Billy Fung's viewpoints. Wang said that the greatest harm is to ban certain ideas, especially when it came from the senior management of a media outlet. This showed that the extent to which freedom of press has deteriorated in Hong Kong.

Wang said that it sounded unethical to organize a press conference while participating in a television programme. Therefore he felt that his personal reputation has been maligned. He is firmly demanding that Viu TV apologize formally to him and Billy Fung. He made a public call to the people of Hong Kong to boycott Viu TV until they apologize.

As for Billy Fung, he said that the entire itinerary was set up by the Viu TV production team. Fung said that Hong Kong has freedom of expression, and there is nothing wrong with him talking about Xinjiang independence and Hong Kong independence. Fung does not intend to pursue the case with Viu TV because he does not have the resources as a student. But he condemned Viu TV's statement and demands a retraction.

- Lancôme: Denise Ho is analogous to Viu TV: Wang Dan/Billy Fung Jing-en. That is, the dog that bites the hand that feeds it.

- (HK01) In the evening of October 20th, Viu TU issued a statement to admit that their production staff had tried to arrange for Wang and Fung to attend a forum at a Japanese university. When that could not happen, they arranged for Wang and Fung to appear at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan. Viu TV did not realize that the change in format would lead to unforeseeable things. They did not expect a variety show would be propagandizing for Hong Kong/Xinjiang independence movements. Viu TV repeated its opposition to Hong Kong independence and people using Viu TV to promote such ideas. They also said that they will not air those filmed segments of Wang and Fung.

- (Ming Pao) Billy Fung said that he received a phone call from Kam Kwong-shing, vice-president of production department at Viu TV to apologize. Fung demanded that Viu TV make an open apology. "Viu TV issued a statement before and threatened to sue us. When they found out that they made a mistake, they merely corrected their first statement but refused to apology. This is  unacceptable ... there is no reason why they talk loud when they want to accuse me, but then they want to apologize via a private phone call."

Fung said that the production department has come under pressure as a result. During the filming period, the production team gave the two the maximum freedom to say whatever they want. But the senior management clearly thinks differently from the frontline workers. The reaction from Viu TV now shows that the senior management has surrendered to the Beijing authorities. Fung said that Viu TV re-airs NOW TV news programs, so it is better than a certain free over-the-air television channel. Thus, Fung is not asking people to boycott Viu TV.

• [596] Chu Hoi Dick Goes West (2016/10/19)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 17, 2016.

Lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick has landed in London to “investigate” the controversy surrounding the nationality of newly-elected Legislative Council president Andrew Leung. Chu said he will visit Britain’s Home Office to urge the UK authorities to answer questions raised by the incident.

Chu, one of the lawmakers who questioned whether Leung had completed the process to renounce his British citizenship, boarded a Cathay Pacific flight from late Sunday night. He said he wished to find out more information about Leung’s renunciation of citizenship before he officially chairs the first LegCo meeting on Wednesday morning. According to the Basic Law, the city’s s mini-constitution, LegCo presidents must be Chinese citizens without the right of abode in any foreign countries.

“Because we can see in Hong Kong that we cannot get all of the information from him, from the government, or from the LegCo secretariat, I wish to raise a lot of questions with the UK and directly ask its Home Office,” he said in a pre-recorded video posted on his Facebook account on Monday.

He also said he wished to connect with the media and the political sector in the UK to “find the truth behind the incident”.

A staff member at Chu’s LegCo office told HKFP that Chu is expected to arrive back in Hong Kong at around 8am on Wednesday to attend the LegCo meeting on that day.

Leung came under fire before his election as president last week after he – at first – declined to provide documents confirming that he had renounced his British citizenship.

Leung showed opposition lawmakers copies of two emails from the Home Office last Wednesday in an effort to convince them, but many remained unmoved as he was unable to present an official “declaration of renunciation” document, which lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching – also a former British citizen who gave up the nationality – said would be the proof they need.

Leung then showed the document that afternoon. The move surprised many as the document’s physical copy usually takes several days to arrive in Hong Kong from the UK. He was then elected as president by a 38-0 margin, as the opposition camp walked out of the election questioning its legality.

In a press release on Monday, Chu’s office said the incident still raised questions, and there were several problems related to the Home Office’s handling of the matter.

“We think that the UK government under the Conservative Party, under pressure from Beijing, employed extreme efficiency and abnormal administrative means to ensure Andrew Leung could complete the procedure to give up his nationality in time,” it alleged.

“[They] practically intervened with the presidential election of Hong Kong’s legislature, affected the autonomy of Hong Kong’s legislature, and even violated the basic promise of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

“Eddie Chu wishes the UK authorities will play a more neutral, fairer and more transparent role in any affairs or decisions that affect Hong Kong, and does not pander to Beijing,” it said.

He said he has written to UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd to request UK authorities to meet with him and release key information on the incident.

He also said he will host a news conference outside the UK’s Home Office at 8pm Hong Kong time.

(RTHK) October 17, 2016.

Lawmaker Chu Hoi-dick led a small protest outside the UK's Home Office in London on Monday. He wants to find out whether the new Legco president, Andrew Leung, is breaking the Basic Law by holding the post.

Chu says he has doubts about Leung's claim that he has given up his British nationality. Chu says Leung's application was handed in less than two weeks, and that it normally takes 40 days for a Hong Kong resident to complete the process.

Leung says he had renounced his British citizenship before being elected to the post of Legco president on October 12. Chu said that if the procedure had already been completed by then, then the British government must have given Leung special treatment in order to help Beijing.

According to the Basic Law, the council's president cannot have right of abode in a foreign country. Leung has produced several documents to back his renunciation claim. But lawmakers want Leung to produce one called a declaration of renunciation.

(SCMP) October 18, 2016.

Newly elected lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick was in London on Monday demanding answers from the UK government over the how the new Legislative Council president gave up British citizenship.

Chu’s office said he wanted to meet Home Office officials, including Home Secretary Amber Rudd, for an explanation of why Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, of the pro-Beijing Business and Professionals Alliance, had his renunciation of British nationality processed so quickly.

On departing late on Sunday, Chu said in a video posted on his Facebook page: “I have to fly to London to try to get more information because there is little hope that I can get much from Leung or the Legco secretariat. One important question I would raise is how long it would normally take for a nationality renunciation application to get processed.”

Chu said he suspected the Conservative government might have given Leung quicker, preferential treatment under pressure from Beijing.

Leung had faced a challenge to his presidency because legally the president must be a Chinese national with no right of abode in any foreign country. Leung only applied to give up his British nationality on September 22. On the day of the election, he revealed papers that seemed to show he gave up the nationality.

In a letter, dated Monday, to Rudd, Chu criticised the UK for helping “in putting a puppet for Beijing on the presidential seat of Legco.” He said that had disappointed Hongkongers. “This incident casts doubts over the autonomy of the Hong Kong legislature and the UK’s commitment to the ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong’ principle in the Sino-British Joint Declaration,” Chu wrote, accusing Rudd of “kowtowing to Beijing”. Chu said he wanted the government to confirm the authenticity of Leung’s documents, and to find out if the officer who signed Leung’s papers had been “in contact with any [Chinese] officials”.

Leung said on Monday: “I have repeatedly explained the situation. But some people refuse to accept. I am very pleased to see someone take the trouble to clarify the matter for me.”

A spokesman for Chu’s office said he had paid for the trip on his own and had no plan to claim it on his office’s expenses.

In a live interview on TV programme Impact by BBC World News on Monday night Hong Kong time, Chu said: “I want to question [British officials] in order to clarify what happened between the Home Office and Andrew Leung.” Chu queried why Leung applied so late for the renunciation, adding that he understood the process to be one which usually took 40 days.

The nomination for Legco president closed on October 5 and the election took place on October 12. Chu said he suspected that Leung was so confident about his application because he might have secured a guarantee from either the British or Chinese government that the process would be sped up.

The lawmaker said on a radio programme on Tuesday morning that Catherine West of the Labour Party in the UK would file written questions in parliament on whether the UK was under pressure to speed up Leung’s renunciation of his British citizenship. “I will come back soon, for Wednesday’s Legco meeting,” Chu said.

So what happened in the United Kingdom?

(Chu Hoi Dick's Letter to UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd MP, 17th October 2016)

...

Our conclusion is that the Conservative government has been extremely efficient and take utterly extraordinary practice to ensure that Mr. Leung would be able to meet the election deadline for his renunciation. In short, the Conservative government has helped in putting a puppet for Beijing on the Presidential seat of the HK Legislative Council.

The Conservative government has shown its eagerness to please the PRC during this saga, or at the very least, they had been careful to avoid offending or angering the PRC. The attitude shown in this case is so different to the self-assured image set by PM Theresa May's recent scheduling to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. It appears as though Theresa May, of all people, has inherited David Cameron’s style of habitual kowtowing to Beijing.

The Conservative government’s flattery to Beijing, as well as the unfathomable mess by their civil servants in response to Andrew Leung's unduly reckless request may nevertheless embarrass UK people. The discretionary power exercised by the UK Government has been arbitrary, inconsistent and violated standard practices. These acts must be an embarrassment for the British people. While the British government’s forceful escorting of a Beijing assigned candidate, against concerns of legitimacy, to the throne of Chairmanship at the Hong Kong Legislative Council, is surely disappointing to the Hong Kong people.

(Chu Hoi Dick's Facebook, 17th October 2016)

Chu Hoi-dick had arrived at Britain on 17th October. The purpose of this trip was to investigate and demand for a response from the British government concerning the renunciation of Andrew Leung.

Chu, Alex Chow, and other Hong Kong people residing in London had just gathered and protested outside the Home Office, protesting against the British government’s giving in to the demands of the Chinese government, granting discretion to Andrew Leung’s application of renunciation. The British government’s decision had sabotaged the neutrality of the government, and had severely interfered the autonomy of Hong Kong; such act is equivalent to manipulating the election of the Legislative Council, and had impaired the integrity of the Home Office.

Chu will be on BBC, attending an interview at 3 p.m. British time (10 p.m. Hong Kong Time) . Our Facebook page will be live streaming the interview, providing simultaneous information and also views and opinions from Britain.
(Update: As the interview was conducted in the studio, we are unable to provide live streaming of the interview. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.)

Chu will also be meeting Catherine West, the shadow Foreign Office Minister at 5 p.m. British Time (12 a.m.Hong Kong Time), discussing with West the incident and the handling of such by the British government.

We will be updating continuously the latest news. Stay tuned for further information.

Special thanks to all Hong Kong people assisting us in UK!

(BBC World Service)

Philippa Thomas: What do you trying to say to them?

Chu Hoi Dick: What I am trying to say... I want to put questions to them, in order to clarify what had happened between the Home Office and Andrew Leung. Because we have found information, and the internet saying that the normal days to process a renunciation request is around 40 days, but Andrew Leung did his application on 22nd September, so he got his renunciation ready in only 8 days. So the problem is why he was so confident that he can manage to do this. We are suspicious that, he was so confident because he got guarantee from the British government, or Beijing government that he could get a speed up process.

(Chu Hoi Dick's Facebook) October 18, 2016.

[Abroad in England: The Labour Party will follow up the incident in the parliament]

Chu had met with Catherine West, the Shadow Prime Minister on 17th October at 5 p.m. British time (12 a.m. Hong Kong time), discussing the problematic application of renunciation made by Mr Andrew Leung.

Caption: Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary Catherine West

West pointed out that the application and the handling procedures are unusual, and had agreed to report to Jeremy Corbyn and Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Foreign Secretary. She will be questioning Boris Johnson on the matter, and will be demanding for an appropriate response during the Parliament debates.

Chu had suggested during meeting for the Labour Party to question the Prime Minister concerning the handling of Leung’s application. West had agreed to the suggestion, and Chu had begin drafting question contents for the Labour Party as reference, in hope that the British government will provide further information.

Reading between the lines, here is what happened. Chu Hoi Dick sent a letter to Home Secretary Amber Rudd (MP, Conservative Party) and got no response, so the Rudd meeting was off. So Chu and a few people stood outside the Home Office to protest and got no attention. Chu got a meeting with Catherine West (Labour Party MP in Hornsey and Wood Green). West said that she would report to Jeremy Corbyn (MP, Leader of the Labour Party) and Emily Thornberry (MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary).

- Why did Labour Party MP Catherine West agree to meet with Chu Hoi Dick? West has a master's degree in Chinese politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. She can speak conversational putonghua. Thus she could be expected to give a sympathetic hearing to all persons Chinese.

(Wen Wei Po) Internet comments:

- Lee Ching-hei (Civic Passion): "Is there anything more fucking embarrassing than having the door slammed in your face? Yes, that would be flying over there by airplane and having the door slammed in your face!"

- Arthur K.H. Lee: Legislator Chu Hoi Dick traveled all the way to England in order to prove that Andrew Leung's document was authentic ... Legislator Chu seemed more and more like the China Liaison Office's B-team while acting as the Communist Party mole inside the Legislative Council."

- Kevin Yam (Progressive Lawyers Group): What is so praiseworthy about Chu's investigation work in the United Kingdom? This is a dead issue once Andrew Leung produced the document on September 30. Why do we have to walk down the dead-end road because someone has some gimmickry in store? Just because he tried that does not mean that he is accomplishing anything. The public should be skeptical of legislators who are smart alecks looking for excitement, but without any wisdom and realism.

Internet comments:

- Why did Home Secretary Amber Rudd refuse to meet with Chu Hoi Dick? Look at Chu's letter to Rudd. Chu Hoi Dick needs help from an adult on at least one thing:

If Chu is trying to secure a meeting with Rudd, there should not be conclusions like: "the Conservative government has helped in putting a puppet for Beijing on the Presidential seat of the HK Legislative Council." This is enough to put the kibosh on.

- If several guys are standing outside the Home Office holding a sign that says "Give Hong Kong answer", would you go out and talk to them?

- "Give Hong Kong answer" is what? Give an answer to Hong Kong? Give the answer from Hong Kong? Give an answer in Hong Kong style?

- Why did Chu Hoi Dick's Facebook present Catherine West as the Shadow Prime Minister? There is no such post as the Shadow Prime Minister in the opposition party. If Catherine West is the Shadow Prime Minister, why does she need to report to the Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry? Isn't the reporting structure the other way around?

- Catherine West was first elected to Parliament in 2015. She barely knows Parliament, so how is she going to be Shadow Foreign Secretary? Does the Labour Party have so few experienced MP's now?

- Chu Hoi Dick's Facebook contains plenty of good news about meeting some very important persons. But when he got back to Hong Kong, he said on radio: 「睇嚟英國政府呢一面唔係好理我哋」. "It seems that the British Government does not pay us much attention." That is an honest assessment of the situation.

- What does Greensense have to say about the carbon footprint as a result of a pointless round trip by airplane?

- That airplane ticket must surely cost at least $10,000 (economy class). Not to worry, because it will be covered under the $203,860 annual allowance for entertainment and traveling by Legislative Council.

- Chu Hoi Dick fared better than Jeremy Tam:

- (Wen Wei Po) June 3, 2016.

Yesterday at 11am, Tam arrived at International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) headquarters in Thailand in order to meet with the person in charge over the matter of the breach of security by Chief Executive CY Leung's wife and daughter at the Hong Kong International  Airport.

He wrote: "I had been in constant contact with ICAO. I told them that I will be presenting a letter at this hour. But when I called the ICAO worker from the security room, I was told that every office worker is in a meeting. Therefore nobody can meet me to accept the letter. Furthermore, the ICAO worker even refused to give me his name. I went out of the security room to call Hong Kong, and they lowered the gate and locked the glass door to stop me from returning. I cannot imagine that an international organization can treat its visitors in such a way. I will look for other ways to get the letter to them."

So Tam stood outside the gate and waited for ICAO workers to leave. Finally he spotted someone who looked as if he might be a senior ICAO official. So he intercepted the vehicle and "successfully handed over the letter." Tam said that this "worker" took the letter and promised to deliver it to the secretary-general. Of course, nobody knows if the letter will go straight to the rubbish bin. In any case, Tam's show was done and he returned to Hong Kong.

- London is a dangerous place for Chu Hoi Dick, because there are many weitou country squires living there. They are even rougher and tougher than their Hong Kong cousins.

- Wasn't Chu Hoi Dick afraid of his life and got police protection? So why does he make such a high-profile trip with live Facebook coverage all the way?  Did the Hong Kong police travel with him to provide protection?

- Why won't the UK Home Office tell Chu Hoi Dick anything? Please read Data Protection Act 1998.

- Chu Hoi Dick said on radio that the Home Office replied that they do not comment on individual cases. This is a foregone conclusion. Just Google 'home office'+'not comment on individual cases'.

This is the way that the Home Office handles all such inquiries. The answer is not going to be different because Chu Hoi Dick traveled to England to inquire the Home Secretary on behalf of the people of Hong Kong (who did not authorize him).

- Wishful thinking:

Yellow running dogs: "Oh, motherland!" "We remember the colonial era fondly!"
Reaction: "Fuck off! If you can even betray your own people, you will only betray me some day if I take you back!"

- Wan Chin's Facebook: Chu Hoi Dick, Alex Chow and a bunch of Hongkongers residing in London went down to protest outside the Home Office about the United Kingdom government succumbing to Chinese pressure to give special treatment to Andrew Leung, thus destroying the neutrality and system of governance. The result is that Hong Kong self-determination was damaged, the Legco presidency was manipulated and the UK Home Office lost public trust."

Wan Chin continued: "Chu Hoi Dick showed us the image of Hongkongers on an international stage -- dishonest, ignorant, cowardly and useless. Chu Hoi Dick managed to see a Labour Party Shadow Foreign Minister, who may become the Foreign Minister if the Labour Party ever becomes the ruling party. Chu Hoi Dick showed us that he met with this very important person."

"The answer that the United Kingdom gave to Chu Hoi Dick was the rudest possible 'No comment.' After Chu Hoi Dick rudely displayed 'Home Office: Give an Answer' outside, he got the treatment that he deserved."

[595] Money Talks (2016/10/18)

(SCMP) October 17, 2016.

Two newly elected localist lawmakers indicated on Monday that they would retake their oaths properly on Wednesday to keep their seats, avoiding the prospect of a major showdown in the Legislative Council after many were offended by the pair’s antics at the swearing-in ceremony a week ago.

Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang said he and party colleague Yau Wai-ching would consider compromising to avoid being disqualified. “Many people hope we can achieve our ideals and goals through our seats in Legco. For these ideals and goals, I would not mind sacrificing my personal reputation,” Leung said.

But both insisted they had done nothing wrong and brushed off mounting calls for an apology and their resignation, as well as threats of legal action against them. “In the oath, it doesn’t mention any specific person ... I don’t know how we could have offended anyone,” Leung said.

At the inaugural Legco meeting last Wednesday, the pair pledged allegiance to “the Hong Kong nation”, referring to the sovereign state as “Chee-na”, a variation of the derogatory “Shina” used by Japan for China during the second world war. They also displayed a banner with the slogan “Hong Kong is not China” while they were being sworn in. Their oaths were invalidated by Legco secretary general Kenneth Chen Wei-on.

Mok Ka-kit, a student at City University, applied for a judicial review in the High Court on Monday over the legality of the oaths taken by the Youngspiration pair. Mok asked the court to disqualify Yau and Leung on the basis of unconstitutional oaths taken under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. According to the law, Legco members are required to swear allegiance to the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, and refusal to take the oath properly could lead to disqualification .

In a separate judicial review application filed on Friday, solicitor Dr Siu See-kong, who failed to win a Legco seat in several past attempts, argued that Yau had lost her right to sit in the chamber as a Chinese national by advocating independence for the city. Siu asked the court to seek an interpretation from the national legislature of the requirement to be a “Chinese national” to run in Legco elections. Apart from Yau, the Electoral Affairs Commission was named a co-defendant in the case. Leung was not.

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a legal scholar at the University of Hong Kong, said the court challenges were mere political gestures and did not have strong legal grounds. “They haven’t failed to take their oaths so far,” he said.

Over a dozen adverts appeared in local newspapers on Monday, slamming the Youngspiration pair and demanding they apologise and quit.

While Leung maintained his pronunciation of “China” as “Chee-na” was due to his “Ap Lei Chau accent”, a group of residents from the island rejected his excuse. “Leung Chung-hang’s terrible action has made those of us who were born and bred in Ap Lei Chau angry,” they said in a joint statement.

Leung and Yau are set to retake their oaths on Wednesday in front of new Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, along with architecture representative Edward Yiu Chung-yim, whose oath was also invalidated.

Pan-democratic legislators, meanwhile, called on Andrew Leung to be transparent about the standards he would use to judge the retaking of the oath as well as the legal advice he had received. The Legco president replied that he would announce his decision on the matter on Tuesday.

(SCMP) October 18, 2016.

In a sign of a toughening stance, Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen has invalidated the oaths of two more lawmakers whose oaths were originally accepted last week. The decision brings the total number of lawmakers who must retake their oaths of office to five.

They are Youngspiration duo Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching and architecture sector representative Edward Yiu Chung-yim – all three of whose oaths were rejected last week – and Lau Siu-lai and Wong Ting-kwong of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. Lai read her oath slowly last week, pausing six seconds between every word. Wong had omitted “Hong Kong” in his rendition. The Legco president described Lai as “not serious” in delivering her drawn-out oath.

Andrew Leung is scheduled to administer the oath to the five on Wednesday.

(SCMP) October 18, 2016.

The High Court will decide on Tuesday evening whether to stop two lawmakers-elect from retaking their oaths in the Legislative Council after the government filed a last-minute application for a court order a day before the pair were scheduled to make their declarations. The hearing will start at 9pm.

High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said he would need to consider the arguments from interested parties before making any urgent orders.

The action was filed against Youngspiration lawmakers-elect Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang as defendants. Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen was also named a co-defendant.

The government informed Yau and Baggio Leung about the application earlier on Tuesday.

The Legco president said he had instructed the lawyer representing the council that he objected to the government’s application for a judicial review of his decision to allow Yau and Leung to take their oaths on Wednesday. “I will stick to my schedule unless the court issues an injunction,” Leung said.

(SCMP) October 18, 2016.

Declaring full-frontal war on Tuesday night, the Hong Kong government took the unprecedented step of mounting a legal challenge to disqualify two pro-independence lawmakers on grounds that they had contravened the Basic Law during their swearing-in last week.

In a last-minute bid, the administration sought but failed to obtain an interim injunction to bar Youngspiration pair Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from ­retaking their oaths on Wednesday morning at 11am.

But Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung did allow an application for a judicial review against Legislative Council president ­Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen’s decision over the retaking of the oaths.

The hearing on the application has been set for November 3.

In court, the lawyer for Andrew Leung argued that the government’s move was a “serious deprivation of the constitutional rights” of the two lawmakers-elect. “I want to emphasise the ­president has an important institutional duty … to protect the institution elected by different sectors of society,” Jat Sew-tong SC, acting for the Legco president, told the court. “[He has to] safeguard the interests of all elected councillors.” The call would be a very strong one to make if the court was to take the “irreparable” action to disqualify the two, Jat warned.

Hectar Pun SC, for Sixtus Leung, argued that it was incorrect to say his client had violated the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. “Article 104 of the Basic Law is irrelevant in this case,” Pun said. The barrister also said there was no urgency justifying an interim injunction.

Barrister Jeffrey Tam, for Yau, said disqualifying the pair would affect the operation of the legislature.

But Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, representing the government and a member of Beijing’s Basic Law Committee, argued that the Basic Law provision on oath-taking in Article 104 was intended to put emphasis on China’s sovereignty.

“These people are sending a message to the world and also to the public that we can function as a member of Legco without pledging allegiance to the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China,” he said.

To allow them to take the oath again, Mok added, would ”create a state of confusion as to what is the meaning of the further acts undertaken”, which could include initiating bills or giving speeches in Legco. In court, Mok called them ­“ostentatiously unfit persons” to be Legco members for even “a moment”.

Signalling that the action was not without public support, Mok said: “The public would be disappointed if they see that these people who blatantly attacked and challenged the constitutional ­regime can return and resume ­office.”

The legal action sets the stage for a protracted constitutional battle as the Hong Kong government is seeking to ban elected lawmakers from entering the chamber on the ground of their oath declaration. Mainland authorities might be forced to step in, one analyst warned.

The court challenge came hours after Leung Chun-ying vowed to take follow-up action against the Youngspiration pair for altering their oaths.

The pan-democratic camp accused Leung Chun-ying of “ruining the separation of powers” by inviting the courts to intervene in Legco’s domestic affairs. “The chief executive pays no respect to the dignity and the independence of our legislature,” Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok said.

(SCMP) October 19, 2016.

Two pro-independence lawmakers were unable to retake their oaths yesterday after their pro-establishment rivals forced the session to be aborted by ­walking out, plunging the Legislative Council into further paralysis and uncertainty at the beginning of its new term.

In denying the localists a second chance to be sworn in, after they insulted China and referred to Hong Kong as a “nation” when they modified their oaths last week, pro-establishment politicians were hailed yesterday as “lawmakers who love the country and love Hong Kong” by state news agency Xinhua.

Two pro-independence lawmakers were unable to retake their oaths yesterday after their pro-establishment rivals forced the session to be aborted by ­walking out, plunging the Legislative Council into further paralysis and uncertainty at the beginning of its new term.

In denying the localists a second chance to be sworn in, after they insulted China and referred to Hong Kong as a “nation” when they modified their oaths last week, pro-establishment politicians were hailed yesterday as “lawmakers who love the country and love Hong Kong” by state news agency Xinhua.

“Our action was in response to many Hong Kong residents and Chinese all around the world who were angered,” said Starry Lee Wai-king, chairwoman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. “We cannot allow those who insult Chinese to retake the oath with no remorse.”

Another localist lawmaker, Lau Siu-lai, became collateral damage as the session ended ­before she could retake her oath.

The High Court on Tuesday night rejected the government’s last-minute application for an interim injunction to stop the two localists from retaking their oaths.

But the court allowed the ­administration to seek a judicial review of Legco President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen’s decision to hold a second swearing-in ­session, for which a hearing will be held on November 3.

Pro-establishment lawmaker Junius Ho said his camp would do everything possible to shut out the localist pair, including tabling a motion to have the next swearing-in session put on hold until the court ruled on the legality of allowing them to retake their oaths.

But that will be difficult to achieve because such a motion will need the democratic camp’s support to pass, raising the prospect of ­further chaos in Legco.

The drama in the chamber took all of 19 minutes yesterday.

Just as the Youngspiration pair were set to retake their vows, the DAB’s Gary Chan made a quorum call to check if at least half of the 70 lawmakers were present.

As the bell rang for 15 minutes, all pro-establishment lawmakers walked out, leaving only the 29 members of the opposing camp behind and prompting the Legco president to adjourn the meeting to next Wednesday.

The Youngspiration pair said they would not bow to demands for an apology.

“We bear the expectations of tens of thousands of voters. If we apologise so easily, it means we cannot live up to their expectations,” Yau said.

Baggio Leung added: “If any legislator ... could be obstructed by the pro-Beijing majority ... to discuss politics and express their views with such measures, then what’s the point of the election?”

About 300 protesters outside Legco cheered after the walkout, and called the two localists “dogs”.

The Legco president said it was “unfortunate” he had to ­adjourn the meeting, but added “we are far from a constitutional crisis”.

Andrew Leung insisted he had the constitutional duty to let the duly-elected localists perform their duties, but noted that the pro-establishment camp also had the right to express their views by leaving their seats.

With oath-taking incomplete, the new Legco is unlikely to ­deal with any bills or other matters.

Internet comments:

- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 104.

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

 CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance Section 73

An elector, or the Secretary for Justice, may bring proceedings in the Court against any person who is acting, claims to be entitled to act, as a Member on the ground that the person is disqualified from acting as such.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 48

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:

...

(7) To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;

- (SCMP) “In the oath, it doesn’t mention any specific person ... I don’t know how we could have offended anyone,” Leung said.

- "I was talking about the Zionist illuminati and I didn't mention any specific persons ... I don't see why the Jewish people in the audience should feel offended."

- "I was talking about the niggers stealing the election for Hillary Clinton, so why did President Barack Obama get so upset? I wasn't talking about him at all."

- (SCMP) Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a legal scholar at the University of Hong Kong,  “They haven’t failed to take their oaths so far.”

- That means that they haven't taken their oaths so far, in case you can't parse what he was saying.

- (SCMP) Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang said he and party colleague Yau Wai-ching would consider compromising to avoid being disqualified. “Many people hope we can achieve our ideals and goals through our seats in Legco. For these ideals and goals, I would not mind sacrificing my personal reputation,” Leung said.

- Here is the real reason:

(Fact sheet on "Legislative Council in figures")

Member's remuneration, medical allowance and reimbursement package, October 1 2015-September 30 2016

Monthly remuneration (HK$) for Member who does not serve on the Executive Council = $93,040.

End-of-service gratuity: 15% of remuneration received

Yearly medical allowance (HK$) = $32,400

Yearly operating expenses reimbursement accountable component for office operation (HK$) = up to $2,385,510

Yearly operating expenses reimbursement non-account component for entertainment and traveling = up to $203,860

Per/term one-off expenses reimbursement setting up and information technology reimbursement = $250,000

Per/term one-off expenses reimbursement winding up = $198,793

The total income from four years as Legislative Councilor is:

($93,040/month x 48 months) * 1.15

+ ($32,400/year x 4 years)

+ (2,385,510/year x 4 years)

+ (203,860/year x 4 years)

+ $250,000

+ $198,793

= $16,071,680

This does not include any of those donations that you "hold in your pocket temporarily" with no accountability.

- Peanuts Theater

The two Youngspiration legislators who said "Shina" to insult the Chinese people
Kneel down for the sake of the $100,000 monthly salary
Yau Wai-ching/Leung Chung-hang
Abandon their principles and bottomlines to file a written petition to be allowed to re-take their oaths

- Here is the "Teacher" Lau Siu-lai's student speaking in her style: "Teacher (six seconds pause), today (six seconds pause) is (six seconds pause) the (six seconds pause) conversation (six seconds pause) test (six seconds pause). Please (six seconds pause), how (six seconds pause) much (six seconds pause) time (six seconds pause) do (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) have (six seconds pause) between (six seconds pause) two (six seconds pause) words (six seconds pause). If (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) fail (six seconds pause) this (six seconds pause) exam (six seconds pause), then (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause) must (six seconds pause) give (six seconds pause) me  (six seconds pause) a (six seconds pause) good (six seconds pause) reason (six seconds pause), because (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) am (six seconds pause) only (six seconds pause) imitating (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause). Otherwise (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause) will (six seconds pause) have (six seconds pause) to (six seconds pause) apologize (six seconds pause) to (six seconds pause) me (six seconds pause) in (six seconds pause) public (six seconds pause).

Lau Siu-lai is upset that Andrew Leung's decision against her is based purely on subjective reasons. She demands that Leung give her a complete set of objective criteria. But if her students talk the same way to her, her class would by dysfunctional.

- (Sky Post/Hong Kong Economic Times) Do you support the government seeking a judicial review to stop Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang from taking the oath of office?

11,292 participants
96% agree
4% disagree
0% no opinion

- (Soap HK) Andrew Leung decided to let Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang take their oaths at the next session. Thanks to the incoherent positions of Leung and Yau, public opinion has become cleared. In the Economic Times/Sky Post online poll after two days, 95% of the 40,000 or so participants approve the Secretary for Justice's judicial review to stop the two from re-taking their oaths. The signature campaign to condemn Yau Wai-ching has 110,000 participants. The signature campaign to condemn both Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang has more than 510,000 participants. If the initial opinion is to make them apologize first before re-taking their oaths, their intransigence has caused the public demand to swing to disallowing them to take their elected posts altogether.

- How did they come up with the order in which the five legislators re-took their oaths. Pro-establishment Wong Ting-kwong (DAB) was the first to be successfully re-sworn in. Yiu Chung-yim of the architectural, surveying and planning sector was the second to be sworn in, with no more chicanery. Yau Wai-ching, Leung Chung-hang and Lau Siu-lai were due up next, but the pro-establishment legislators walked out. Why would have happened if Wong Ting-kwong were the fifth in the order?

- That poodle dog Yiu Chung-yim just gave up "genuine universal suffrage"!

- The order is based upon the number of strokes in the Chinese character of the family name. Of the remaining three legislators-elect, Lau Siu-lai will still be in the third slot. So if the pro-establishment legislators walk out at the next oath-taking, Lau would still be stranded out there.

- Lau indicated that she would speak at normal pace the next time, because she had already made her point the first time around. Previously she was taking the position that her first attempt was at perfectly normal pace and she didn't understand why anyone would find her impossible to understand.

- Here is the "Teacher" Lau Siu-lai's student speaking in her style: "Teacher (six seconds pause), today (six seconds pause) is (six seconds pause) the (six seconds pause) conversation (six seconds pause) test (six seconds pause). Please (six seconds pause), how (six seconds pause) much (six seconds pause) time (six seconds pause) do (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) have (six seconds pause) between (six seconds pause) two (six seconds pause) words (six seconds pause). If (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) fail (six seconds pause) this (six seconds pause) exam (six seconds pause), then (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause) must (six seconds pause) give (six seconds pause) me  (six seconds pause) a (six seconds pause) good (six seconds pause) reason (six seconds pause), because (six seconds pause) I (six seconds pause) am (six seconds pause) only (six seconds pause) imitating (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause). Otherwise (six seconds pause) you (six seconds pause) will (six seconds pause) have (six seconds pause) to (six seconds pause) apologize (six seconds pause) to (six seconds pause) me (six seconds pause) in (six seconds pause) public (six seconds pause).

Lau Siu-lai is upset that Andrew Leung's decision against her is based purely on subjective reasons. She demands that Leung give her a complete set of objective criteria. But if her Community College students talk the same way to her, her class would be dysfunctional.

- After the pro-establishment legislators walked out to stop the proceedings, Lau Siu-lai got on radio and told them to stop wasting time and money. And speaking with a six second pause between words is not wasting time and money?

- From the United States, there is IOKIYAR: It's okay if you're a republican. So it's okay if pan-democratic camp filibuster but it's not okay if the pro-establishment camp filibuster. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES.

- (RTHK) After the walkout, the pro-establishment legislators addressed the press. But pan-democrats Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen and Chu Hoi Dick jumped in front of the cameras to engage in a round of mutual acrimony.

- Hey, the best part was when they started throwing luncheon meat at each other!

- What do the vegetarians/vegans have to say about this? What does Greensense have to say about this anti-conservation action?

- (Hong Kong Free Press with video) October 19, 2016.

Opposition lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai was the first lawmaker to be ordered to leave a Legislative Council meeting this term after he turned Chinese and Hong Kong flags on the desks of pro-Beijing camp lawmakers upside down.

Cheng, of Civic Passion, began his protest minutes after the pro-Beijing camp walked out of the chamber on Wednesday. The walkout was an effort to prevent Youngspiration’s “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from retaking their oaths until they apologised for their pledges last week, which the camp deemed to be an insult to Chinese people.

As pro-Beijing lawmakers had placed flags of the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong on their desks, Cheng left his seat and flipped them over one by one. His move was spotted by pro-Beijing lawmaker Ann Chiang Lai-wan, who shouted at Cheng to stop.

“Cheng Chung-tai, what are you doing? What are you doing? You flipped our national flags?” Chiang shouted, before she returned the flags to their original state.

Cheng and Chiang shouted at each other before she left the chamber again. As Chiang left, Cheng once again turned the flags upside down.

LegCo president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen then ordered Cheng to return to his seat.

“You should not leave your seat and mess up the seats of other members,” he said.

Cheng disregarded the warning and was ordered to leave. Security guards in the chamber approached him to ask him to leave, though Cheng was not obliged to as the meeting was in recess.

Cheng said on his Facebook account that he was responding to the walkout action. He said the action “raised the oath taking incident to a political struggle… [and] ignored Hong Kong people’s livelihood and interests.”

“What was funny was that the pro-Beijing camp installed Chinese and Hong Kong flags on their desks in order to make the Communist Party happy, but they left the chamber so easily, leaving the country behind, leaving only the president – who’s a British person – in the chamber,” he said.

“I am disappointed by such low and cheap patriotic acts, therefore I flipped the Hong Kong flags upside down on behalf of Hong Kong people to show my discontent,” he added.

(Video) https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1245897368817530/

- Cheng Chung-tai was the only one in the pro-democracy camp to show us how to engage in valiant resistance. As a result of his action today, we are much closer to Hong Kong independence.

- Old man, did you forget to take your medication today?

- CAP 2401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance

Section 7 Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and willfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

Cap 2602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and
(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 20, 2016.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan has reported a fellow lawmaker’s flag-flipping protest to the police and urged them to investigate and prosecute in accordance with the law.

Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai of Civic Passion turned Chinese and Hong Kong flags on the desks of pro-Beijing camp lawmakers upside down twice during a meeting of the Legislative Council on Wednesday. He did so in protest of the camp’s walk-out, which prevented three lawmakers from retaking their oaths to assume office.

Lau said that “as a Chinese person, as a Legislative Councillor of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China, there are some things that cannot be done – there are also some things that cannot be tolerated.”

Lau, a newly elected lawmaker from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, wrote to the police saying that he provided about ten lawmakers with the Chinese and Hong Kong flags, and Cheng “intentionally” turned them upside down.

“During the course of events, someone urged him [to stop], but he did not pay attention, and repeated the action later,” Lau wrote.

He was referring to Ann Chiang Lai-wan, his party colleague, who shouted at Cheng to stop before she returned the flags to their original state.

Lau claimed that Cheng’s actions violated section seven of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance.

The ordinances state that any person that desecrates the flags or emblems by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on them is committing an offence, and is liable upon conviction to a fine and to imprisonment for three years.

“I hereby ask the police to launch an investigation immediately over Cheng Chung-tai’s illegal action and prosecute him in accordance with the law,” Lau wrote.

- (NOW TV) A man carrying a yellow umbrella with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" sat down in the demonstration zone. The demonstrators cursed him out and tossed their placards at him. Somebody ripped up the umbrella. The man eventually left under escort by Legco security guards.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 19, 2016.

Raphael Wong Ho-ming, vice-chairman of the League of Social Democrats, was assaulted by protesters outside the LegCo building on Wednesday morning, Apple Daily reports.

Wong told the newspaper that he was observing protesters from afar when someone approached him and started shouting insults. They punched and kicked him, leaving a shoe print on his trousers. “They attacked me for a minute or two, until the security guards came and pulled them away,” Wong said. “I had not said anything, or provoked them in any way.”

“They said they were Chinese people, but they are not fit to be called Chinese,” Wong said. “Their actions were insulting to Chinese people. They said Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching shamed China, but I think they are the ones who shamed China.”

- You can pillory or defend High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung's ruling in this case, but the poor opinion of the Hong Kong judiciary is set by the many other court cases. On this day, here is another good one:

(Oriental Daily) October 19, 2016.

34-year-old Lee Yun-kin owns and operates a dart club in a Sun Po Kong industrial building. On March 18, he raped a 22-year-old female customer who had been given an alcoholic drink laced with drugs. He was charged with rape at first, but the charge was reduced to sexual molestation. Sentencing took place yesterday.

Firstly, the judge read out the psychologist's evaluation of the female victim. She is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression. Meanwhile the probation officer's report said that the defendant is a person with good character and supported by his family; he actively participates in volunteer work and he cares a lot about small animals and senior citizens. He has accomplished a lot in the sports of dart, representing Hong Kong in competition. The judge praised him for entrepreneurship in the dart club that he founded with his friends.

The judge gave serious thought to whether the defendant should be sent to jail and became concerned that jail would destroy the defendant's life. Since the probation officer wrote that community service might be appropriate, the judge decided to impose a sentence of 240 hours of community service. The judge admitted that the sentence does not reflect the severity of the crime. The judge warned the defendant that he does not want to appear in this court ever again.

- (HKG Pao) The pan-democrats call the pro-establishment camp's walkout shameful. Previously pan-democrat Leung Ka-lau (Medical Functional Constituency) was famous for his infinite, purposeless filibustering of legislation such as the Private Columbaria Bill, Fire Services (Amendment) Bill, Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill, etc. But the insults hurled by Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang against China and its people have suddenly unified the pro-establishment camp into launching their own filibustering. Here the cause was clearly defined (contra Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang) and the time period was clearly defined (November 3 when the judicial review takes place. Public opinion polls show support rates of more than 90%. Of course, they would do it. And this is the best thing that has happened to them.

- (HK01) According to informed sources, when Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang said "Shina" and wore the "Hong Kong is not China" shawl, the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macau Affairs immediately went into action with this golden opportunity. Various sectors in the government and political parties were mobilized, although not everyone knows the whole battle plan. The sources said that the highest level of the Central Government has issued the directive: "We are not afraid of chaos in Hong Kong, but we must continue to stick to our principles." So this battle will continue indefinitely. If the court refuses to issue an injunction, Beijing may act to interpret the Basic Law on its own.

- (Wan Chin's Facebook) Why am I so angry today? Because many people think that I am criticizing Youngspiration as fake Hong Kong independence elements who want to hurt Hong Kong because I want to be in the by-election. The times have changed. The Chinese Communists will get their own legislative council seats back. At first, they brought these two fake Hong Kong independence elements out to stop the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order. Then they brought out "The Shina Talk" in order to destroy genuine Hong Kong independence. After those two lose their jobs, the Chinese Communists will take back those two seats. Why do you vote for young people to resist the Communist bandits? You think that they are dashing? Do you think politics is a physical battle, with shields and spears? Will the young people of Hong Kong fucking wake up already?

- (SCMP) Horace Chin, ‘father of localism’, draws red line against secession. By April 28, 2017.

You would never guess who wrote it – Horace Chin Wan-kan, who is often called the father of localism. He especially singled out Chan Ho-tin, founder of the Hong Kong National Party, and Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous, in an article in the Chinese-language, anti-government website Stand News this week. I can’t believe it, but Chin actually offers a subtle analysis of why those who advocate independence have brought untold damage to Hong Kong.

His argument, if I understand him correctly, is that secessionists like Chan essentially make Hong Kong people out to be a separate ethnic entity from the rest of China. By turning Hongkongers into a bona fide ethnic minority fighting for independence or self-determination, they are practically inviting the central government to intervene.

They also encourage patriotic mainlanders to hate or at least suspect Hong Kong people who might think they are not part of the Han race. In his previous writings, Chin has argued that a fully democratic China would produce even more patriotic mainland Chinese bent on taking an imperialistic stance over Hong Kong.

In Stand News, Chin writes that the successes of local independence advocates in district and Legislative Council elections in the past year have actually damaged the cause of Hong Kong’s freedom and autonomy. You can say that again, Chin. You are absolutely right.

In his own defence, he writes that his brand of Hong Kong’s autonomy has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but is rooted in the constitutional principles enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

In his books, Chin has often characterised Hong Kong as an autonomous city state. And of course, the city does, in many ways, function like one. We impose our own law and taxes, print our own money, control our own borders and have our own representation in many transnational bodies like the World Health Organisation and the International Olympic Committee.

This has given some people the illusion that we can attain full or nearly full sovereignty.

The key issue is whether Hong Kong, as a special administrative region, should be viewed as something like Shenzhen or Macau, or more like Singapore. Once you accept Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China, the answer is clear.

- (SCMP) Legco’s a joke, but it’s no laughing matter. By Alex Lo. October 20, 2016.

The government failed to obtain a court injunction to bar the localist Youngspiration pair from retaking their oaths. So the pro-establishment lawmakers did its dirty work yesterday by walking out of the Legislative Council chamber, thereby halting the meeting because of the insufficient quorum.

The pan-democrats feigned outrage at the mass walkout, never mind that it has been one of their favourite delaying tactics against the government. They were getting a dose of their own medicine.

But the pro-establishment camp did not come out any better. Its members have long professed disgust at such tactics, yet did it anyway at the start of the new legislature.

The High Court ruled there was no urgency in granting a temporary injunction, though it has agreed to take up the government’s judicial review to disqualify Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from becoming legislators. Shouldn’t the government-friendly lawmakers have waited for the legal challenge to take its course?

In staging the walkout and sabotaging the oath-taking session, the pro-establishment lawmakers showed contempt for the court as well as for new Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen.

They may have succeeded in their immediate goal of stopping Sixtus Leung and Yau from taking up their duties. But they have forfeited whatever moral high ground they had claimed against delaying tactics previously used by the pan-dems in the legislature.

The unedifying spectacle at Legco that started last week with the localist pair’s childish and offensive oath-taking continued yesterday.

There was a long shouting match between the two camps outside the chamber. “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung threw luncheon meat at his opponents. Inside the half-empty chamber, Cheng Chung-tai of the radical Civic Passion walked around and turned upside down the small national and bauhinia flags on the desks of Beijing-friendly lawmakers. Ann Chiang Lai-wan, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, turned the flags right side up and chased after him.

He waited until she left the chamber and did it again. I compared the new Legco to a kindergarten in a recent column. But that’s insulting to young children, who behave much better than many of our lawmakers.

Henceforth, nothing is sacred and everything is fair game in Legco. We can expect legislative mayhem and breakdown in the next four years

- (YouTube) RTHK

Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration): This matter ... Andrew Leung once said that if the whole thing were to be done the same way, it won't pass. But at least I will still add something.

James To (Democratic Party): Actually what I want to ask is: What is the purpose of adding something? What is the purpose of adding something?

Leung Chung-hang: For any legislator, he has to complete his oath first before he can go on to take care of other parliamentary duties.

James To: You want to complete the process. What is the purpose of adding something extra?

Leung Chung-hang: About this ... let us see what can be said. Because we are in the judicial process, many things cannot be discussed.

James To: There is something that I find it hard to understand. Of course, when you talk about something ... apart from expressing your political ideas, you want to get more people to support you. Is it possible that among your supporters, some of them think that you said something ... that is, you upset them. For me personally and for many of my supporters, we disagree with what Legislator Leung and Legislator Yau said. Objectively speaking, when you talk about accents, many people are incredulous.

Ip Kwun-lum (RTHK host): "Hong Kong is not China" ... is it logically meaningful? Is the word "Shina" offensive? Actually, what good does this do for society?

Leung Chung-hang: This is ... this is ... er ... we put many factors into this. We brought out many discussion points.

Ip Kwun-lum: But the result is that the word "Shina" offends the people of China. This is the strongest effect.

- I don't have a clue what Leung Chung-hang is saying. Shortly afterwards, Leung Chung-hang's office issued a clarification:

... I emphasized: When I made the oath at the first meeting of the Legislative Council on October 12th, I did not alter any part of the oath. I do not intend to alter the oath which will be as demanded by the Chairman the next time.

When I mentioned that I will add certain contents in the oath, I do not mean that I will alter the oath. I will complete the oath in accordance with the legal standards, and then I will use other means to express my anger at the government for interfering with Legislative Council matters.

I solemnly reiterate that I do not intend to refuse or ignore to take the oath.

I know exactly what he is going to do. The first time around he crossed his finger while holding the Bible.

The next time around he will cross his fingers behind his back!

- (TV Tropes) Sometimes when a character is forced to make a vow, oath, promise, gesture, etc. they don't actually mean, they will cross their index and middle fingers in a way hidden to the character they're talking to but visible to the audience, to show they're actually lying. Most often the person will have their crossed fingers held behind their back, but off to the side, under a table, or somewhere else hidden is also possible. In real life, this gesture is mainly used by children, especially since it's not a reasonable thing for an adult to do. Therefore, the trope is generally associated with characters who are very young or just act like they are.

- But Leung Chung-hang has still not answered James To's question: "What is your purpose?"

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 24, 2016.

In old movies, people held three fingers in the air and swear: "... may I be struck down by thunderbolt if I fail to keep the promise."

Today we are in modern society with rule-of-law. When there is no clear evidence (such as a written contract or a video recording), we have to take an oath to swear that what we said is true. For example, suppose you misplaced your secondary school diploma and that school went defunct three decades ago. You can go down to the Civic Affairs Bureau to take an oath, and your sworn statement is now your diploma. Four years ago, a young man who only studied to third year secondary school made a sworn statement that he had studied to fifth year secondary school. He was detected, found guilty of deception and punished accordingly.

So when Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching make false oaths in front of the people of Hong Kong, why are we told that we must pretend not to see it? This is incomprehensible.

All of Hong Kong knows that Leung and Yau do not uphold the Basic Law and they will not be loyal to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Instead people are saying: "What don't you guys just read the text of the oath? If you can pronounce the words correctly, we'll just pretend that we never saw what else you have been doing."

Why kind of legal system is this? What kind of value system is this? Suppose a playboy wears a shawl with the words: 'I support polygamy', smirks at his soon-to-be wife and swears: "I take you to be wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life." And the playboy slurs the word "true" into "lewd" and also the word "love" to "rough." Oh, did the bride object? Let's do it over again.

This is a situation in which someone is blatantly lying. But the legal scholars say that they can pass as long as they read out all the words. So what is the point of making an oath? As a parent, I don't know how to teach my children anymore.

Two days ago, Leung and Yau traveled to Taiwan to address National Taiwan University students in their capacity of pro-Hong Kong independence young people. They were there to share the experience of Hong Kong independence. They were even invited by the Taiwan Radical Wings to a discussion forum titled: "The awakening and future of Hong Kong independence young people." But they either woke up or lost their way, and they missed the event because "they went to the wrong location and/or their telephone ran out of battery."

When they talk and walk Hong Kong independence, why would we believe that their oaths are truthful? Why do we want to give them another chance to deceive the people? If this is rule-of-law, then this is absurdist rule-of-law.

The reason why Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law, Yiu Chung-yim and Chu Hoi Dick upset us with their oaths is that we all know that they were lying, we saw that they were lying and they showed us in no uncertain terms that they were lying. So why is no one saying that they should be punished in accordance with the law?

When a citizen makes a false oath, the maximum penalty is seven years in jail. But when our elected legislators make a false oath of office, they will get $4 million per year in salaries/subsidies. So is Hong Kong really under rule-of-law or rule-of-man? Will the Heavens strike down the liars with thunderbolt?

- (Oriental Daily) October 25, 2016.

An Fengshan, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, said yesterday criticized Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for conspiring with Taiwan independence elements. "The obstinate Taiwan independence elements and Hong Kong independence elements got together to plot to divide the nation. They will be firmly opposed by compatriots in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. " Thus, the State Council has now defined Leung and Yau as pro-Hong Kong independence elements.

- Legislator Regina Ip said that the Central Government may issue a White Paper on separatism. The Hongkongese Revolution Channel (Facebook) responded: "Go all the way! If you get the National People's Congress Standing Committee to interpret the law, I will riot!!"

[594] Forget It, Jake, It's Chinatown (2016/10/12)

(Talking Point Memo) October 5, 2016.

A segment that aired Monday on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" is making a lot people question if we're really in the year 2016 because of its tired depictions of Asian-Americans.

The "Watters' World" segment showed Fox News' Jesse Watters going to New York City's Chinatown neighborhood to poll residents about the election, given Donald Trump's tendency to mention China during his rallies and debates—and stop for a foot massage while he was at it.

That conceit led to Watters mocking the people he interviewed, asking passersby questions like whether it was the "year of the dragon" or if they knew how to do karate. He also asked a young man if he could give him Chinese herbs from his parents' store that would help with "performance."

“Am I supposed to bow to say hello?” Watters asked two women.

After airing the segment, host Bill O'Reilly noted that people in Chinatown seemed to know "what was going on" with the election. Watters scoffed at that observation.

"Some people say it's insulated and they don't interact with American politics but it looked like everybody knew what was going on," O'Reilly remarked.

"You thought people knew what was going on?" Watters asked.

Watters then called Asian-Americans a "gentle" and "patient" group of people, and O'Reilly predicted that some would find the segment offensive.

"It's gentle fun," O'Reilly said. "So I know we're going to get letters. Inevitable. But it was gentle."

The Asian American Journalists Association released a statement condemning the segment and demanding Fox News issue an apology.

The Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) is outraged and shocked by the Oct. 3rd segment of “Watters’ World” on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” The segment was billed as a report on Chinese Americans’ views on the U.S. presidential election but it was rife with racist stereotypes, drew on thoughtless tropes and openly ridiculed Asian Americans.

Jesse Watters, O’Reilly Factor Correspondent and Host of Watters World, committed a litany of offenses, from asking Asian American women, “Do I bow to say hello?” to asking an Asian American man if he knew karate. He mixed in stereotypes of various Asian groups, conflating Koreans with Chinese and Japanese communities. The segment used clips of martial arts movies and interviewed Asian Americans whose primary language isn’t English in order to mock them.

It’s 2016. We should be far beyond tired, racist stereotypes and targeting an ethnic group for humiliation and objectification on the basis of their race. Sadly, Fox News proves it has a long way to go in reporting on communities of color in a respectful and fair manner.

Host Bill O’Reilly called the segment “gentle fun.” There was nothing gentle or fun about it. It was rude, offensive, mocking, derogatory and damaging.

Fox missed a real opportunity to investigate the Asian American vote, a topic not often covered in mainstream news. With a population of 15 million, Asian Americans remain the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S. Between 2000-2010, our community grew by 45 percent, compared to 10 percent for the overall U.S. population.

While the largest Asian American communities continue to be in states like New York, California, and Hawaii, the fastest growing populations of Asian Americans include potential swing states like Nevada, Arizona, and North Carolina.

There has been tremendous growth of Asian American representation throughout government. There are now over 600 elected officials at all levels, according to the National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac.;

We deserve far better treatment and coverage than we’ve been given by this Fox News report.

AAJA MediaWatch demands an apology from Fox News to our community and a meeting with the show’s producers to understand how this segment was conceived and greenlit to air. More importantly, we want an explanation for how this type of coverage will be prevented in the future.

Sincerely Paul Cheung, AAJA President & AAJA MediaWatch committee

(Fox News, Watters' World: Chinatown edition) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmnLzw8NA4

(Talking Points Memo) October 11, 2016.

Fox host Bill O'Reilly is standing by a tone-deaf segment that aired on his show last week and mocked Asian-Americans, saying in a radio interview Tuesday that "The O'Reilly Factor" is not a "politically correct" show.

O'Reilly told "The Bernie and Sid Show" that he feels the backlash to the controversial "Watters World" segment, in which contributor Jesse Watters interviewed and mocked Asian-Americans on the streets of New York City's Chinatown, was a coordinated attack by liberal media outlets. Originally, he said, there had been few complaints.

"All of sudden, 36 hours later, we get this barrage," he said. "And the wording was almost exactly the same from all these left-wing websites, almost exactly the same. So we know it was a coordinated attack."

O'Reilly said Watters had done what he described as a similar segment in Little Italy the week prior, and that Watters would not be fired for the Chinatown piece just because people live in a "perpetual state of grievance." He did note that he would have edited the package differently, but said it was "gentle fun."

“He’s not getting fired," O'Reilly said. "We are a program that is not politically correct.”

For his part, Watters gave a non-apology last week on Twitter: My man-on-the-street interviews are meant to be taken as tongue-in-cheek and I regret if anyone found offense.

(CCTV America: People react to Jesse Watters' controversial Chinatown segment) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srOFlXY93c

(The Daily Show) 'Go Fuck Yourself!' The Daily Show shreds Fox's Jesse Watters over Chinatown segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOY6M2GMXfw

Internet comments:

- What has Chinatown got to do with Hong Kong? Everybody knows that "Hong Kong is not China."

- How about watching Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sing a karaoke duet in Cantonese? https://www.facebook.com/patriciasy.wong/videos/775538309254347/ . What has the United States got to do with Hong Kong? Nothing, really. This is just so you can lighten up a bit, because life is pretty grim otherwise.

• [593] The Oath Of Office (2016/10/12)

(SCMP) October 11, 2016.

Facing the prospect of symbolic protests by Hong Kong’s newly elected localist lawmakers being sworn in on Wednesday, the government has warned that those who refuse to take their oath properly may lose their Legislative Council seats.

“Legislators must take their oath in a manner and form that is lawful,” the government cautioned in a statement released on the eve of the first meeting of the new Legco. Article 104 of the Basic Law requires oath-taking lawmakers to swear to uphold the Basic Law as well as allegiance to Hong Kong as a special administrative region.

At least two of the six localists, who have called for Hong Kong independence or self-determination, have spoken of plans to get round the rules by working their pro-independence calls into the wording of the oath.

On Tuesday, the government stressed that lawmakers’ oath-taking was a “constitutional requirement” and the form of the oath was prescribed by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. “If a member swears his or her oath in a manner or form that is inconsistent with the ordinance ... the oath offends the Basic Law and will therefore be unlawful and of no legal effect,” the statement read. “Any person who declines or neglects to take an oath duly requested which he or she is required to take shall vacate office or be disqualified from entering it.”

Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang, a newly elected lawmaker from localist group Youngspiration, remained defiant. He said he planned to get round the rules by ways that could satisfy the mini-constitution while not compromising his position. But fellow localist Eddie Chu Hoi-dick said he would most probably take the oath in a proper way. “I don’t think it’s important to make a fuss over the oath,” he said.

Incoming lawmaker Starry Lee Wai-king, chairwoman of the government-friendly Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said she would raise the issue with the Legco secretariat if anyone failed to meet the oath-taking requirement.

Pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao reported on Tuesday that Beijing could resort to an interpretation of the Basic Law if Hong Kong’s courts failed to make a ruling on lawsuits arising from lawmakers’ failure to take their oath properly. “No one should underestimate the central government’s determination in getting rid of ‘Hong Kong independence’,” the report quoted an “authoritative source” as saying.

But a source familiar with the government’s position said the localists were expected to exercise restraint, otherwise they would not be able to assume office.  “Officials are more worried about localists calling for Hong Kong independence or self-determination at [future] Legco meetings,” the source said.

The Basic Law states that lawmakers are immune from legal action for statements made in Legco meetings.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 11, 2016.

In response to media enquiries, the government published a statement Tuesday afternoon on the oath-taking process. The oath was prescribed by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, it said.

It said the taking of an oath that accords with the requirements of Article 104 of the Basic Law is “a mandatory constitutional obligation imposed on all members-elect of LegCo,” according to a 2004 judgment made by Mr. Justice Michael Hartmann.

“If a member swears his or her oath in a manner or form that is inconsistent with the Ordinance, thereby altering the substance of the oath itself, the oath offends Article 104 of the Basic Law and will therefore be unlawful and of no legal effect,” the statement read. “The Clerk to LegCo has no jurisdiction to administer such an oath. Should such a scenario arise, the Clerk should draw it to the attention of the LegCo President when one is elected for a ruling.”

“Section 21 of the Ordinance provides that any person who declines or neglects to take an oath duly requested which he or she is required to take shall vacate office or be disqualified from entering on it,” it added.

The government also said that it “looks forward to all 70 members of the LegCo completing the oath-taking requirement tomorrow in an orderly manner in compliance with the law so that LegCo business in the new term may commence without delay.”

(EJ Insight) October 12, 2016.

The government was so hung up on the content of the Legco oath of office that it went out of its way to remind the legislators-elect about the relevant provisions in the Basic Law, along with a citation from a court ruling.

As it turned out, three newcomers from the localist camp — Edward Yiu, Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung — added their own oath to the official version during Wedneday’s ceremony.

Yau and Leung flashed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner when they took their oath. The oath was quickly rejected by the Legco secretary general.

Just to make sure none of this came to pass, the government on Tuesday issued a statement to remind the lawmakers that Article 104 of the Basic Law requires all oath-takers to “swear allegiance to the Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China” and uphold Hong Kong’s mini constitution.

It then cited a 2004 High Court ruling which invalidates any form of oath inconsistent with the prescribed version. Such oath will be considered “unlawful and of no legal effect”.

Really? Did the government have to go to such lengths or hasn’t it heard of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches (one provides checks and balances to the other, remember?)

Sure, the government can issue all sorts of reminders but this is a matter for Legco itself.

It has its own rules of procedure for reciting the oath of office and it will be the one to decide whether the requirements have been met, not the government.

Does it matter?

Four years ago, Wong Yuk-man drowned out some words (People’s Republic of China, for instance) in his oath with a cough to dramatize his opposition to Beijing. He did a retake of the oath and all was well again with the world.   

The important thing to remember is that the government’s reminder was mainly directed at the localists.

The one thing it dreaded was not that the oath would be changed beyond recognition or purpose but that the word “independence” might be inserted.

The worst fear of this administration is the constant popping up of that word among localists and pro-independence supporters and its worst nightmare is a scenario in which the idea catches on among ordinary Hongkongers.

What will Beijing say now about Leung Chun-ying’s fitness for a second term if he cannot put away what they consider malignant forces?

That aside, the government was also trying to deflect public attention from Andrew Leung, the presumptive Legco president, amid allegations he holds a British passport and is therefore ineligible for the role.

Leung said he had renounced his British passport when he ran in the Sept. 4 elections but until now, he has yet to show any proof of renunciation.

Opposition lawmakers are champing at the bit to confront him with this issue, convinced that if he stayed and presided over its meetings and deliberations, these could be rendered illegal.

Leung was up against the Democratic Party’s James To but given that the pro-establishment camp holds the balance of power in the chamber, Leung was a shoo-in for Legco president.

Leung would be the first Legco president from the small-circle functional constituency. In 1998, when he first sought election, he ran unopposed.

Clearly, the government tried to manage two scenarios here. One was much ado about nothing.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 12, 2016.

New lawmakers have protested and raised questions over the Legislative Council secretary-general’s decision to reject oaths taken by three incoming lawmakers.

Kenneth Chen Wei-on, the top official of the Legislative Council Secretariat, rejected the oaths of incoming lawmakers Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang, Yau Wai-ching, and Edward Yiu Chung-yim. All three added new phrases to their oaths.

Chen questioned whether Leung and Yau understood their oaths, as they displayed a flag that read “Hong Kong is not China” – potentially contradicting the oath’s wording.

However, Baggio Leung insisted he and Yau have completed their oaths, and it was the responsibility of the LegCo secretariat to confirm them.

Both Leung and Yau once read “China” as “Chee-na.” Yau referred to the “People’s Republic of China” as the “People’s Refucking of Chee-na.”

In response, Leung claimed that the different pronunciation of words in their oaths were because of their accents. He said he has an Ap Lei Chau accent.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who added phrases before and after his oath, said lawmakers were having a meeting with the LegCo secretary-general and their legal advisors.

Law said he, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and Lau Siu-lai – who also protested during their oath taking – believed the rejected oaths of the three lawmakers should be validated by the Legislative Council Secretariat.

“He [does not] have the power according to the [Oaths and Declarations] Ordinance,” Law said. “The three should be allowed to be validated so lawmakers can participate in the presidential election, and their oaths should be considered by the president-elect.”

According to the LegCo’s rules of procedures, “no Member of the Council shall attend a meeting or vote therein until he has made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11).”

The Ordinance stipulates that the oaths of LegCo members should be taken at the first sitting of the session after a general election and before the election of the LegCo president which “shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council.”

Lawmakers “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, Law, Chu and Lau remained in the chamber in an attempt to resolve the oath issue with the Secretariat.

In 2012, former LegCo president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing allowed lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man to retake his oath a week after the first failed attempt. Wong obscured some words by coughing during his first oath, namely “Republic” in “People’s Republic of China” and “Special Administrative Region.”

(SCMP) The C-Word: Why Hong Kong Localists have offended all Chinese. By Chow CHung-yan. October 30, 2016.

A few days after Hong Kong localists Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching called China “Chee-na” during their swearing-in ceremony as the city’s newly elected legislators, Leung went on radio to defend himself.

First, he tried to pin it to his “accent”. When the radio host pointed out that he seemed to have no problem pronouncing China properly on other occasions, Leung admitted that he did use the word “Chee-na”. But he shrugged it off as nothing important or offensive.

“In the oath, it doesn’t mention any specific person… I don’t know how we could have offended anyone,” Leung said. He then went on to say that even Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of modern China, used the term at some point in his writing.

To understand why so many people, including those who don’t like the central government in Beijing, feel offended by Leung and Yau’s antics, some historical perspective is needed.

The Chinese word 支那 [Chee-na] first appeared in the Buddhist scriptures of the Tang dynasty (6th century). It is believed to be the phonetic translation of the ancient Sanskrit word “cina”. Some see this as the origin of the English word “China”, but there is no conclusive evidence to support that.

For most of its history, the term has had no derogatory meaning. Some scholars even argue that it is actually not the name of any particular country, but a loose expression for “land of the east”.

The Chinese themselves almost never use it. In fact, even Zhongguo – the Middle Kingdom – was not often used in ancient times. Before the 1911 revolution, China existed not as a nation state in the Westphalian sense. It was a civilisation with an unbroken line of imperial dynasties. People referred to themselves as “people of the great Qing” or “people of the great Tang”. Few would call themselves “people of Zhongguo”, even fewer would use “Chinese”.

The word “Chee-na” was introduced to Japan – whose writing system borrowed heavily from Chinese – in the Tang dynasty. But it was used only as a geographic term rather than the name of any particular country or people.

For centuries, Japan followed its neighbour’s tradition and addressed China by its dynasty name. This changed after the outbreak of the Opium War in 1839 between China and Britain. The humiliating defeat of the Qing empire and the loss of Hong Kong shattered China’s millennia-old worldview and its sense of cultural superiority. The Chinese civilisation entered a century of sharp and painful decline.

Japan, on the other hand, quickly reinvented itself after the Meiji Restoration. It was the most successful, in fact the only, Asian country that transformed peacefully from an ancient regime into a modern nation state. Japan gradually lost its respect for the giant across the sea and started to look at China with contempt and a predatory interest.

The first Sino-Japanese war in 1894 ended in total disaster for the Qing court. The Chinese elite were shocked to their core. Within two decades, the Qing dynasty was overthrown and China was declared a modern republic.

Initially, China and Japan enjoyed a decade-long “golden relationship” shortly after the war. Many Japanese intellectuals were genuinely sympathetic towards China and hoped to get their Asian brethren back up on their feet.

Many Chinese revolutionary leaders – from Sun Yat-sen to Chiang Kai-shek and Zhou Enlai (周恩來) – lived or studied in Japan. The modern Chinese language, in turn, borrowed extensively from Japanese. “Chee-na”, together with many other words like “economy”, “democracy” and “police”, was reintroduced back to China.

At that time, the word had no obvious derogatory implication. In the run-up to the collapse of the Qing empire, people increasingly stopped seeing the Manchurian court as the legitimate representation of the Chinese civilisation. Japanese scholars ceased to refer to China as “the great Qing”. More and more of them started to use the word “Chee-na” as a neutral geographical expression.

Sun and some early Chinese national revolution leaders did use the word in their writing at that time as they refused to see themselves as the subject of the Qing and the modern Chinese state had yet to come into being.

But then the meaning of the word started to undergo a dramatic transformation. It was increasingly used in Japan as a demeaning way to address China and its people, implying that they were a sub-class. Japanese scholar Sato Nobuhiro, founder of the “Greater Asia” concept, used the term in his influential book, A Secret Strategy for Expansion, to suggest that China existed not as a political entity but a mere geographic expression. His work became the intellectual inspiration of Japanese imperialism towards China.

“Chee-na” quickly became a taboo word in China. While in Japan, it was used more and more as an insult. The Chinese government banned the use of the word shortly after the establishment of the republic. In 1930, the Nanjing (南京) government formally requested Japan to stop using it to address China. The Tokyo civilian government complied but the imperialist advocates continued to use the word. It implied that China was not worthy to be recognised as a sovereign state and it existed only as a geographical expression. This was used to justify Japan’s aggression.

The psychological association of “Chee-na” with Japanese aggression and invasion became inseparable following the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It was widely used in the propaganda materials of the Japanese military.

Today, using the word will inevitably bring back that painful history to Chinese people everywhere, particularly those who had witnessed and endured all the horrors of the war.

When Leung and Yau used the word in their “oaths”, they perhaps intended to insult the government in Beijing. But by picking a word so emotionally associated with the memory of foreign aggression, they succeeded in offending all Chinese.

(New York Times) November 9, 2016.

Where does the term ‘Chee-na’ come from?

Aoki Masaru, a Japanese Sinologist, argued that it originated in early Sanskrit transcriptions of Qin, the name of the dynasty that unified China more than 2,000 years ago, according to a 2012 essay by the historian Joshua A. Fogel. Qin, pronounced “chin,” may have contributed to the country’s name in many Western languages. With the spread of Buddhism from India, and the translation of scriptures into Chinese, the word entered China and then Japan. Professor Fogel, who teaches at York University in Toronto, wrote that the Japanese used the name Chee-na for centuries, but especially from the 19th century through World War II.

Before the founding of the Republic of China in 1912, the country had no official symbols or constitution, noted Xu Guoqi, a professor of history at the University of Hong Kong who is writing a book titled “The Idea of China.” Its last imperial dynasty, the Qing, was established by Manchu invaders in the 17th century. Many Chinese nationalists and reformers in the final years of Qing rule — such as Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan — used the term “with no hidden bad meaning,” he said.

Chee-na was one of many names these intellectuals used to refer to their country, said John Delury, a professor of Chinese studies at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. Some of the intellectuals were involved in the anti-Manchu resistance and had gone into exile in Japan, he added.

“They felt their country had been stolen for hundreds of years by an invading, non-ethnically Chinese, Manchu people, and now they were trying to get it back,” Professor Delury said. They were searching for a name for the new nation, he said, that would differentiate it from the Qing dynasty.

When did Chinese people begin to view the term Chee-na as a slur?

The term is the name for China that has “most exercised Chinese opinion” throughout history, Professor Fogel wrote in his 2012 essay.

Jan Kiely, a professor of Chinese studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an email that “strong feelings” were stirred in Chinese people when the Japanese Empire used the word to refer to China during its incursions into Chinese territory, from the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War through World War II. For many Chinese today, Professor Kiely said, Chee-na recalls the sufferings of the occupation and references a Japanese imperial sense that the Chinese were inherently inferior.

On Monday, Li Fei, the chairman of China’s parliamentary committee on the Basic Law, the mini-constitution that governs Hong Kong, criticized Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau for using the term. “I especially condemn insults to the country and the nation,” Mr. Li told reporters in Beijing. “I hope Hong Kong people do not forget how Chinese were slaughtered by the Japanese invaders, and especially that the Japanese invaders committed huge crimes when they occupied Hong Kong.”

Professor Kiely said that public memory of World War II had surged in China over the past two decades in tandem with rising nationalism, thanks in part to a proliferation of state-sponsored memorials, museums, exhibitions and documentaries about the war.

If the term Chee-na can be perceived as a slur against Chinese people, why did the two Hong Kong politicians include it in their oath-taking remarks?

Professor Delury said the politicians appeared to be making a satirical comparison between the Chinese government’s current control over Hong Kong and Japan’s invasion in the 20th century. He said it was significant that the remarks were made in the context of what is normally an oath-taking ceremony that is designed to indicate submission to the Chinese government.

After taking the oath in the Legislative Council, Mr. Leung attributed his pronunciation of China as “Chee-na” to his local Hong Kong accent. But Ming Sing, a professor of social science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said in an interview that some people in Hong Kong dismissed that explanation as “moral hypocrisy,” because Mr. Leung had previously made a point of attacking pro-democracy legislators for their purported unwillingness to challenge the Chinese government.

“He was perceived to cover up his real intent,” Professor Sing said.

Professor Sing said that many people in Hong Kong also believed that the two politicians’ remarks at the oath-taking ceremony handed the Chinese government a pretext to reinterpret the Basic Law, which was negotiated before Britain returned the territory to Chinese rule in 1997. He said they fear the Basic Law may be interpreted “in a way that could undermine the rule of law and political freedoms in Hong Kong.”

Internet comments:

- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 104.

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

- Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Oaths and Declarations (Amendment) Bill 1997

I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

(name of person making the oath)

- Legislative Council Oaths (British colonial era)

Part IV Promissory Oaths

19. A member of the Legislative Council shall, as soon as possible after his appointment, or in the case of an elected member after the commencement of his term of office as an elected member, take the Oath of Allegiance or the Legislative Council Oath, which shall be tendered by the Governor, or other member presiding. (Amended, 23 of 1985, s. 3)

Oath of Allegiance

I swear that 1 will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me God.

Legislative Council Oath

I, swear that I will uphold the law of Hong Kong, and that I will conscientiously and truly serve the people of Hong Kong as a member of the Legislative Council. So help me God.

- Hong Kong Cap 11 Oaths and Declarations Ordinance

Section 19. Oath of Legislative Councillors

A member of the Legislative Council shall, as soon as possible after the commencement of his term of office, take the Legislative Council Oath which-

(a) if taken at the first sitting of the session of the Legislative Council immediately after a general election of all members of the Council and before the election of the President of the Council, shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council;

(b) if taken at any other sitting of the Council, shall be administered by the President of the Council or any member acting in his place.

Section 21. Consequence of non-compliance

Any person who declines or neglects to take an oath duly requested which he is required to take by this Part, shall (Amended 123 of 1997 s. 16)

(a) if he has already entered on his office, vacate it, and
(b) if he has not entered on his office, be disqualified from entering on it.

- (Parliament.uk) Swearing in and the parliamentary oath.

Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are fairly common in British public life and are similar to those in other countries where a declaration of loyalty is made to the state.

Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown on taking their seat in Parliament.

Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. They could also be fined £500 and – more important – have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempt to do so.

Similar restrictions apply to Members of the Lords: they may not sit, vote or receive allowances until they take the oath or affirmation.

The wording of the oath is prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of administering the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.

An MP takes the oath by holding the sacred text in his or her uplifted hand and says the words of the oath.

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

- (Green Left Weekly) October 13, 2004

From his September 12 election to the Legislative Council, pro-worker activist "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-Hung fought to modify the oath of allegiance he had to give on October 6 in order to take up the seat. Leung, who is one of 30 popularly elected councillors in a chamber of 60, wanted to include an oath to democracy, freedom and the people of China and Hong Kong.

In the last few years, democracy activists have been mobilising to demand a more democratic interpretation of the territory's mini-constitution, called the Basic Law, with fierce resistance from Beijing. Leung has been prominent in this movement, whose demands include that the territory's chief executive and the Legislature Council be elected entirely by popular vote by 2007 and 2008.

Leung's initial application to modify the oath was rejected, and he was warned that he could be disqualified from his elected position if he did not stick to the official wording. On October 4, Leung asked the High Court to review the decision. The High Court decided, less than three hours before the oath was due, that the matter was outside its jurisdiction.

For those three hours, Hong Kong's top discussion point was what Leung would do. For weeks, the media had extensively discussed the officials' attempt to block Leung's pro-people pledge. As Reuters explained on October 6: "Since his shock victory in the September 12 poll, Mr Leung has dominated local headlines for his salvoes against the government."

Leung arrived shortly before the oath ceremony in the Che Guevera T-shirt he frequently wears. He warmly greeted the pro-democracy protesters outside the building and made himself an impromptu black armband out of a banner to symbolise his respect for the students massacred by Beijing in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Forced by dress regulations to wear a collared shirt (which he left unbuttoned) through security, Leung quickly removed it when inside, causing a stir among the conservatively suited parliamentarians.

Shortly before Leung's turn to make his oath, he removed his Che T-shirt to reveal a black T-shirt emblazoned, "Rehabilitate the June 4 actions [of the pro-democracy students in 1989], return the government to the people". Leung raised his left arm, now with the black band on his wrist.

When his name was called, he immediately responded loudly at his waiting position with the slogans: "Rehabilitate the June 4 actions, return the government to the people, end one-party rule [in China] and release the political prisoners". Leung then walked to the platform where the oath was to take place, raised his head high and announced loudly: "I hereby declare I pledge my allegiance to the people of China and the citizens of Hong Kong, I oppose the collusion between the officials and the businesspeople, I will defend with all I can democracy and justice and fight for human rights and freedom."

Then Leung moved on to the official vow, which he uttered with apparent difficulty, resulting in an unconventional reading. For example, his proclaimed allegiance to the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, in Chinese grammatical ordering, sounded like it was directed to the people of China, with the republic and SAR artificially tagged on.

After the official vow, Leung went on to loudly and smoothly declare, In English and then Chinese: "Long live democracy, long live the people, power to the people." He then added in Chinese, "oppose 'small-circle' elections [those based on token, privileged electorates]. Popular elections for the chief executive and the Legislative Council!" Leung then went straight back to his seat, without signing the written oath.

Leung's actions caused an uproar. Some pro-government legislators tried, unsuccessfully, to challenge the validity of Leung's oath because he didn't sign the official document. He now faces two more challenges: Beijing's officials in Hong Kong have asked for a legislative review to decide if Leung's action constitutes contempt of parliament, warranting his disqualification, and the Legislative Council is trying to force Leung to pay for its costs in the High Court case, some HK$200,000.

Leung argued in court that his case was in the public interest, and his costs should be token. Despite the court expediting the case on public interest grounds, and the justice secretary's lawyers also because of its merit as a public interest case, the Legislative Council has rejected the defence.

Leung, who could lose his seat if he is ordered to pay and cannot, couldn't afford legal representation, and spoke for himself in court. A judgement on the cost question is expected shortly.

- (New York Times) January 21, 2009.

In 25 seconds, President Obama became president again.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administered the oath to Mr. Obama on Wednesday evening, one day after the two men stumbled over each other’s words during the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol.

For their do-over, the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed successfully.

“Are you ready to take the oath?” Chief Justice Roberts said.

“I am,” Mr. Obama replied. “And we’re going to do it very slowly.”

After a day’s worth of chatter over whether the president had been properly sworn into office — he transposed a couple of words in the oath after being incorrectly prompted by the chief justice — advisers to Mr. Obama decided Wednesday afternoon to try it one more time.

Only hours after aides told reporters there was no reason to administer the oath again, they concluded it was easier to do it on the first day, rather than have someone challenge the legitimacy of his presidency.

“We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday,” Gregory B. Craig, the White House counsel, said. “But the oath appears in the Constitution itself, and out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time.”

While about two million people were on hand to watch the first swearing-in, a figure that does not include the hundreds of millions who watched it on television in the United States and around the world, only nine people witnessed the do-over. There were four aides, four reporters and a White House photographer present on Wednesday evening. Mr. Obama raised his right hand and did not use a Bible.

All in all, it was a curious end to a chaotic first full day of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

The trouble began at the swearing-in ceremony on Tuesday when Chief Justice Roberts misplaced a word in the oath, saying: “That I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” The word “faithfully” is supposed to appear between “will” and “execute.”

Mr. Obama, who had been studying his lines, briefly interrupted Chief Justice Roberts initially, which could have thrown the chief justice off course. Then, he paused awkwardly after saying, “that I will execute.”

So the chief justice gave it another try, but still did not get it quite right, omitting the word “execute.”

There are no rules against a do-over. When questions were raised about whether it was proper for Calvin Coolidge to have been sworn in by his father, a notary public, after the death of Warren G. Harding in 1923, Coolidge took the oath again from a federal judge.

At a luncheon after the first swearing-in on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts could be seen on camera telling the president that the mistake was “my fault.” So he agreed to travel to the White House — he took along his black robe — for Take 2.

“Congratulations again,” Mr. Roberts said after the flawless recitation. “Thank you, sir,” Mr. Obama said before turning to the small group of reporters in the room, called the pool, and saying, “The bad news for the pool is there’s 12 more balls.”

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU

- (SCMP) October 18, 2012.

People Power lawmaker Wong Yuk-man has finally taken his Legislative Council oath of office - after a second attempt.

Instead of skipping key words in the oath by coughing at strategic moments as he did the first time, Wong started by praying "for God to forgive him for making a dishonest oath", but was stopped by Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing.

Wong then proceeded to read out part of his oath in different tones of voice. For example, in the Cantonese phrase yan man gung wo gwok, which means "People's Republic", he read out some words in an unusually loud voice while pronouncing the others in a hushed tone.

When he had completed the oath, he went on to shout slogans: "Down with the Hong Kong communist regime, down with [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying." He was again quickly stopped by Tsang, who asked him to return to his seat.

But Wong's second attempt at taking the oath was not without controversy. Independent pro-government lawmaker Paul Tse Wai-chun criticised Wong's manner of oath-taking, asking Tsang to judge whether Wong had legally completed the oath.

"Wong was taking his oath in an unwilling manner," said Tse. "He held the Bible in his hands and [tried to] ask God to forgive him. It was completely insincere. It will seriously hurt the integrity of the legislature."

But Tsang ruled that Wong had legally completed his oath. "If there are those who think that Wong's oath-taking was against the law, then the person can challenge it according to the Basic Law and the law of Hong Kong," he said.

Wong is the first lawmaker since the handover to take his oath of office twice because the first oath was considered invalid.

Last Wednesday, Wong punctuated his loyalty pledge with coughs, skipping words such as "Republic" and "Special Administrative Region".

At the time, Wong insisted that he had completed the oath, saying: "Of course I finished it … Sometimes you will cough while you are reading."

But after seeking legal advice, Tsang said that Wong's oath could lead to a legal challenge, and approved Wong's request to retake his oath yesterday.

- Here is the verbatim transcription of Yau Wai-ching's "oath":

I YAU Wai-ching do solemnly swear that, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Hong Kong Nation. And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the fellows of Hong Kong.

I Yau Wai-ching, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare that and affirm that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”) of China (pronounced as “Gin-na”), I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”) of China (pronounced as “Gin-na”), bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”)  of China (pronounced as “Gin-na”), and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

- James To (Democratic Party) suggested that it is not permissible to delete parts of the oath statement, but it is possible to add to it. Here is my proposed version:

I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT, dutifully FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT, in full accordance with the law FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT, honestly FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT and with integrity FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT.

(name of person making the oath FUCK YOUR MOTHER'S STINKING CUNT)

- Starry Lee (DAB) said that if anyone excises some words from the oaths or otherwise shout aloud (either themselves or through other allies) afterwards, she will challenge the validity of the oath.

- Chu Hoi Dick's calculation is that he went through all the trouble to get elected to the Legislative Council because there are things that he wants to fight for in the capacity of legislative councilor. So why give up the Legislative Council seat because of the unwillingness to articulate the Oath and go back to be the voice in the wilderness?

- People cursing people outside the Legislative Council before the oaths: https://www.facebook.com/patriciasy.wong/videos/775538309254347/

- (Oriental Daily) Here are the specifics:

In Yiu Chung-yim's first attempt, he inserted the phrase: "Fight for genuine universal suffrage" in the middle. In his second attempt, he read the required text and then added "Fight for genuine universal suffrage" at the end.

Leung Chung-hang chose to use English as the language for his oath. He made a preamble which is not in the formal text in which he said that he wants to "keep guard over the interests of the Hong Kong nations." (sic; yes, there was an 's' after nation). Then he wore a "Hong Kong is not China" shawl to read the formal text while crossing his fingers over a bible. In his reading, he pronounced "China" as 支那("Shina").

(WiKipedia) Shina.

... The Second Sino-Japanese War fixed the impression of the term "Shina" as offensive among Chinese people. In 1946, the Republic of China demanded that Japan cease using "Shina".

In China, the term Shina has become linked with the Japanese invasion and Japanese war crimes, and has been considered a derogatory and deeply offensive ethnic slur ever since.

- Yau Wai-ching also used English. She pronounced "The People's Republic of China" as "The People's Refucking of China." She also displayed a "Hong Kong is not China" banner.

- Lau Siu-lai read the text very slowly, pausing five seconds or between words. She was asked to repeat the oath. So she now owns the record for the longest Legislative Council oath ever.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1236879429719324/ (beginning at 5:00 into the video)

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0IALxF0PWI This is the same oath sped up for 30 seconds.

- Leung Kwok-hung showed up with a yellow umbrella and a copy of the August 31st National People's Congress Standing Committee resolution. He read the text in broken phrases. Afterwards he ripped up the copy of the resolution.

Video: http://news.tvb.com/local/57fdab4f6db28c1d6db469f4

- Nathan Law also made statements before and after his oath, including never pledging loyalty to any regime that kills its own people. He chanted "The hope is with the people; changes begin with resistance." He also mispronounced the word "Nation."

- (Apple Daily) Here is a verbatim transcript of what Yau Wai-ching said:

I YAU Wai-ching do solemnly swear that, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Hong Kong Nation. And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the fellows of Hong Kong.

I YAU Wai-ching, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare that and affirm that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”) of China (pronounced as “Shina”), I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”) of China (pronounced as “Shina”), bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic (pronounced as ”re-fucking”)  of China (pronounced as “Shina”), and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

- The US House of Representatives oath of office is:

“I, XXX, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

But now this treacherous newcomer has just said:

“I, XXX, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Aryan Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Satan.”

The argument here is that this representative was elected by voters as an Aryan Nation candidate and therefore he is only responsible to those white supremacist Satan-loving voters. In so doing, he is upsetting all non-racist Americans and/or all non-Devil-worshippers.

How long will this US Congressman last before being impeached? Who is going to stand by his side to defend his freedom of speech?

- In Cantonese, there is a saying about people "who want to showcase their bravery but still want to wear a helmet." In other words, they want the best of both worlds.

Fact: You are not a legislative councilor until you have taken the oath as witnessed by Legislative Council's secretary-general.

So why do you have to do something silly during the oath such that the secretary-general cannot qualify you?

If Yiu Chung-yim's first attempt with "genuine universal suffrage" inserted in the oath was rejected, then why won't he walk out? Why did he pull out a helmet by reading the full text and then append "genuine universal suffrage" at the end in order to pass?

And why did Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching blame their native accents on the mis-pronunciations? What kind of helmets are they wearing?

Right now those three are not yet Legislative Councilors. Will they keep wearing those helmets and hope for the best? Remember, Leung Kwok-hung already tried the judicial review and failed. I predict that eventually these three revolutionary martyrs will go back and take the oaths to the satisfaction of the Legco Secretary-general.

- While they sit out, do they still get paid? They earn $93,000 a month. Every day is worth $3,100.

- Yes, they will get paid until as such times when they are formally ousted.

- Native accents? I think I am going to pronounce Yau Wai-ching's name hereafter as "You Feed Sperm". This sounds about the same in Cantonese, but I mispronounced it because I have a Cheung Sa Wan accent (or something).

- (YouTube) Leung Chung-hang held part of his post-oath interview in English. First, he was asked about the situation. He said that he was waiting for ... but he doesn't know the word "secretariat" in English and someone in the audience prompted him. So his English is not so hot. This leads a female reporter to ask: "If your English is so bad, then why did you choose to use English to take your oath? Why not use Cantonese?"  Leung said: "Practice." The reporter asked: "Why practice on such a solemn occasion?" Leung said: "An official ceremony is a very good place for us to practice."

- And because Leung Chung-hang muffed it, this could now mean that his elected position will be vacated. Good job!

- Leung Chung-hang could not pronounce "China" in the oath due to his poor English, but he had no problems with pronouncing "China" when he shouted "Hong Kong is not China." He explained this as the reason why he needs practice, because he is still inconsistent with his pronunciations. Some Ap Lei Chau residents probably speak very good English, but Leung said that they all speak like him. Thanks a lot!

- (YouTube) Along comes a longtime Ap Lei Chau resident who said that he has been insulted and demeaned by Leung Chung-hang.

- (Facebook) A New People's Party district councilor Chan Ka-pui interviewed a dozen or so Ap Lei Chau residents and asked them to pronounce "People's Republic of China." They didn't have any problems. None except two had heard of something called the Ap Lei Chau accent, and those two only heard about it from the Leung Chung-hang statement. Chan said that she runs remedial English classes from her office and she welcomes Leung Chung-hang to join.

- (Oriental Daily) A 75-year-old Ap Lei Chau native said that the proper pronunciation of China is "China." He and other natives demonstrate the local accent of Ap Lei Chau-style Cantonese as used by the boat people (=fishermen and their families who live on boats).

- Ap Lei Chau district councilors, residents, businesses and organizations took out an advertisement to condemn Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for insulting Ap Lei Chau residents as well as all Chinese people around the world.

- (Talking Points Memo with video) November 1, 2016.

The Donald Trump supporter who made headlines for screaming “Jew-S-A” at a Arizona campaign rally on Saturday says he was just trying to show solidarity with Latinos.

George Lindell, a painter for hire and ardent opponent of Hillary Clinton’s, told the Arizona Republic in a Monday interview that he saw a group of Latino attendees, including children, at the Phoenix rally.

According to Lindell, the children cut their own cheers of "USA" short because they were embarrassed that the chant came out “Joo-S-A.”

"They felt they wouldn't fit in because of their accent," he told the Republic.

To boost their morale, Lindell said, he struck up the cheer “Jew-S-A,” which luckily happened to be the way he has pronounced the country's initials since his childhood in the Latino-heavy Maryvale neighborhood of Phoenix.

“That’s always the way I’ve said it: Jew-S-A,” he told the Republic. “I like the way it sounds. I like Jew-S-A because it has more flair.”

At the Phoenix rally, Lindell broke into his favorite chant repeatedly, also swinging by the press pen to call journalists “the enemy” and scream “you’re going down!”

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway condemned his behavior as “deplorable” and insisted it was not representative of the GOP nominee’s supporters.

Lindell insisted he was no bigot and would never denigrate Jewish people or any religious or ethnic group, telling the Republic “we’re all created equal.”

Asked to clarify one comment he made under his breath, however, Lindell told the Republic he said, “The Jews run the country anyway.”

This was just his way of “horsing around,” he added.

- (RTHK) At the RTHK Forum, a citizen pronounced Leung Chung-hang's name as "Penis Still Itching" and Yau Wai-ching's name as "Again Feed Sperm" in Cantonese. The citizen said that this was due to his Causeway Bay accent.

- Leung Chung-hang said on RTHK: "Shina" has different meanings. When Japan invaded China, that is what they called China. When Sun Yat-sen lobbied for support overseas around 1900, he used that term. Today people in southern Europe pronounce it this way.

- If Leung Chung-hang has made such a detailed study of the use of the word, how can his tongue still slip during the oath?

- Once upon a time, the Japanese used the term (支那そば shina soba) for ramen noodles because they originate from China.

- That's because those two really are Japs who are accustomed to saying "Shina":

- Shina is not always bad.

Example 1: Urban Dictionary: Shina: Synonymous with perfection. Pure awesomeness. Beautiful, sweet, and just plain amazing. If you're lucky enough to meet a Shina, never let her go. You could never do better because there is no better!

Example 2: Wikipedia: Shina people: The Shina are the Dardic people originating in southern Gilgit–Baltistan, Chitral and western part of Kohistan district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, as well as Dras Valley and Gurais/ Kishenganga Valley region in northern Kashmir of India. They also live in some parts of Pakistani Kashmir. They speak an Indo-Aryan language, called Shina language, with varied dialects.

Example 3: Sheena, Queen of the Jungle movie "She alone has the power to save paradise."

Example 4: Sheena Easton: Strut

- If Shina is not always bad, then we can surely say things like "Little Japan" (小日本) and "Radish head" (蘿蔔頭) to the Japanese people without fear of offense.

- The word "Shina" can frequently be heard in movies and on television. Here is a screen capture of such a person.

This Japanese army officer said that the Shina army is sneaky because they often lay down minefields during defensive battles.

- If Shina is not so bad as Youngspiration insists, then why don't Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching simply acknowledge that this was exactly what they said? Why blame it on some non-existent Ap Lei Chau accent?

- They can't even admit to a feeble joke (which does not qualify as a statement of protest) and instead engage in evasions that they don't even believe in themselves.

- If you want a serious discussion of Shina, read Joshua A. Fogel, “New Thoughts on an Old Controversy: Shina as a Toponym for China” Sino-Platonic Papers, 229 (August 2012)

- (Oriental Daily) October 19, 2016. Yesterday morning, Okinawa citizens demonstrated outside the American military base and faced off against the riot police. One policeman yelled at the demonstrators: "Shut up! Shina-jin!" The video was posted onto YouTube. The Okinawa police investigated and said that the policeman was a tactical unit officer on loan from the Osaka Prefecture. The policeman admitted that he did so. The police spokesperson said that they are deeply sorry about this kind of behavior. They have instructed the police force about this and they promise that this will never happen again. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told the press that the words of the policeman were "improper" and expressed his regret. "Shina-jin" was used by the Japanese during the Second World War to insult the Chinese people. Certain Japanese people believe that the anti-American demonstrations in Okinawa are guided by the Chinese government and therefore they insult the demonstrators by calling them "Shina-jin."

- According to Leung Chung-hang, there is absolutely no reason why the Japanese police and government have to issue any kind of apology.

- (SCMP) October 25, 2016.

“Chee-na”. The word has been playing on 81-year-old Lam Chun’s mind these past couple of weeks, keeping her awake at night.

Moved equally by anger and heartache, Lam has decided to join a rally organised by an alliance of 25 pro-Beijing groups on Wednesday morning outside the Legislative Council complex to protest against the Youngspiration duo for using the offending word in their oath-taking when the new term opened on October 12.

“They have chosen to put themselves on the wrong side of history,” Lam told the Post, her eyes glinting with emotion. “Whatever political stance you may have, you never insult your countrymen.”

Lam, now retired and a volunteer at New Territories Association of Societies, has never taken part in a protest before. But this time, she said she felt compelled to join in. A turnout of 10,000 is expected, according to alliance spokesman Tsang Heung-kwan.

A former member of the guerrilla squad East River Column’s Hong Kong and Kowloon Independent Brigade during the second world war when she was in her teens, Lam said: “Do you know why the Japanese used the term to call Chinese? It was to imply that they were treating us like pigs and they could kill us whenever and wherever they liked.”

The word “Chee-na” is a variation of the derogatory term “Shina” used by the Japanese during the war against Chinese people.

When the Youngspiration pair – Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, both of whom favour Hong Kong’s independence from China – decided to use the word when they took their oaths, they unleashed anger in their own city that now appears to have boomeranged back at them. The fallout has triggered a legal challenge of their status that could see them losing their seats.

On that chaotic morning of October 12, Yau went further and referred to the “People’s Republic of China” as the “People’s Re-f****** of Chee-na”.

Lam’s colleague in the East River column, Ho Ming-sze, 95, was as angry as Lam.

“You can have dissatisfaction with the Chinese government and the Communist Party ... How could the two guys use the term used by the Japanese during the war to insult the Chinese compatriots?” he asked.

Ho, a former head of the United Front Work Department at Xinhua’s Hong Kong branch – Beijing’s defacto embassy in Hong Kong during the colonial time, also accused Leung and Yau of being “ignorant about history”.

Ho said he was too frail to take part in Wednesday’s rally but hoped Beijing would come up with measures to clamp down on the two localists.

It is not just the likes of Lam and Ho who went through the travails of war who are upset. Thirty-something accountant Felix Chan who voted for Yau in last month’s general election said he was also disappointed in the duo. “If I do not need to go to work, I think I will go to join the rally too. We voted them into the Legco because we wanted them to protect Hong Kong’s interest. But they had acted like primary pupils.”

While the pro-Beijing camp and other community groups have demanded a public apology from the Youngspiration pair, the pan-democrats have also distanced themselves from their localist allies, saying they could not support their acts during the oath-taking.

The Youngspiration duo has remained defiant and refused to offer an apology. Leung at first said it was his Ap Lei Chau accent that caused him to pronounce “China” as “Chee-na” and later said that the term “Shina” used to be a neutral term without special connotation. He also argued he had not insulted anyone during his oath-taking because “Chee-na” was not a person.

Ironically, the oath-taking farce coincided with a similar controversy in Japan recently over two local policemen shouting “shina-jin” at protesters opposing the construction of helipads for the US army in Higashi, Okinawa prefecture.

The Osaka prefectural police department, from which the officers were sent, quickly reprimanded the two policemen for “the indiscreet and inappropriate comments”. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga also criticised the officers’ behaviour as “inappropriate and extremely regrettable”. “It must not be forgiven,” he was quoted as saying by Kyodo.

Respected scholar of Hong Kong history, Professor Joseph Ting Sun-pao, rejected the two politicians’ excuses as “childish”.

Professor Ting said the term was mainly used by the Japanese after the Mukden Incident, also called Manchurian Incident, in 1931, which saw the Japanese invasion of northeastern China, then known as Manchuria.

“The reason the Japanese used it was to agitate the Chinese while trying to show superiority towards the Chinese people.”

After the second world war, the Allied Forces concluded in an investigation in 1946 that the word “Shina” carried derogatory overtones and ordered the Japanese government to ban the use of it in all official writings, he said.

Since then, the word “Shina” and its derivatives have been replaced by “Chugoku” in Japanese. Only some right-wing extremists would still use the term out of hatred for China and its people.

In one of the widely cited essays entitled “On Japanese Expressions for China”, by renowned sinologist and historian Professor Joshua Fogel of the University of California, Santa Barbara, he said that “Shina” was rarely used prior to the middle years of the Edo period, which is the period between 1600s and 1860s in the history of Japan.

When the term was employed in the early 18th century, “It carried only positive connotations”, Professor Fogel wrote. “At the time it was believed to reflect an Indian pronunciation of the toponym for China which Buddhist travellers ... had often used centuries earlier.”

Professor Chiu Yu-lok, who teaches Hong Kong history at the Open University, said the term already had special negative meaning in today’s context.

“The two young people must know the term carries negative meaning or else they would not have employed the term to refer to China when taking the oath,” said Professor Chiu, adding: “Nowadays young people use the term very casually, especially on the internet.”

In the Hong Kong context, the term is becoming more commonly used on some online forums since the rise of the so-called “anti-locusts” campaigns against Chinese tourists some two years ago. Some Hong Kong people criticised mainland tourists for snapping up goods in Hong Kong, flooding the streets, and causing a nuisance to others.

Professor Chiu also said the lack of a proper Chinese history course in the secondary curriculum was to blame.

“Young people do not fully understand the context of the term [Shina] because many of them have not studied Chinese history in secondary schools.

“Chinese history is not an independent, compulsory subject. What sort of understanding can you expect from our young people about Chinese culture and Chinese history?

“Without knowing the history of China, it is difficult for the young people to develop a sense of belonging to the motherland. The dispute itself can be a good civic education perhaps,” added Professor Chiu.

Professor Ting said the Youngspiration duo had only themselves to blame in creating the political crisis. “They have made a big mess. It has gotten too big and is out of their control now.”

- (YouTube) Leung Chung-hang: "I like a certain actor very much. His name is Chilam Cheung. Should I call him Chee-lam? or Chi-lam?" Legislator Shiu Ka-fai: "The actor is named Chi-lam. The word that you used was Shina. The two words have different sounds. Please do not drag Chilam Cheung down into this. Moreover, please do not drag all of us Hongkongers down into this ... what you are doing now is not to challenge the Chinese government, not to challenge the Hong Kong government, but to challenge every Chinese person in China, including myself. We totally refuse to tolerate your action."

Leung Chung-hang: "In what way does this flag of mine contradicts the contents of the oath? This is a statement of fact. Hong Kong is not China." RTHK City Forum host So King-hang: "Just then Leung Chung-hang has shown us how to pronounce CHINA." Legislator Leung Mei-fun: "Just then you said CHINA many times. If you can say it, you should admit that you intentionally pronounced it as SHINA. Leung Chung-hang, you should admit that you intentionally pronounced it as SHINA. You don't need to say now that it was your Hong Kong accent. Nobody is going to believe it. Why are you coming out here to give explanations? That is because you know that many audience members have heard you and felt insulted. I demand that you must apologize first. The apology should be written and sent to the Legislative Council chairman, and then you can seek another opportunity to retake the oath."

- (Oriental Daily) October 17, 2016. After offending persons of Chinese descent all around the world leading to 200,000+ global signatures (note: 291,682 as of 10pm October 17) against them, Yau Wai-ching came back with this explanation: The oath did not include anything about people or culture, only the government. In other words, they only intended to insult the government and not the people/culture. Therefore they don't have to apologize. Leung Chung-hang said that the oath did not refer to any person, and therefore he can't see how people were insulted. Leung emphasized: "I did nothing wrong."

- PLEASE! "Shina" does not refer to the People's Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party. The word fell into disuse in Japan by official decree in 1946. Shina refers to the place known since antiquity as China (including Hong Kong), and the people who come from there (including Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang) are "Shina-jin". The People's Republic of China was founded on October 1, 1949.

- Cartoon: "In politics, even a single day is too long. Have you moved your goal posts today?"

- (HKG Pao) At first, Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang devised what they thought was a clever way of insulting China and its people in the manner of "Elementary School Chickens." They thought that they could muddle their way through with verbal sophistry. But they were thoroughly routed. Every new explanation that they came up with offended more people, putting themselves, their fellow travelers and their supporters into the dark abyss. This is the best possible illustration for political stupidity.

- (Stand News) By Wan Chin. October 19, 2016.

The two Youngspiration devils came up with the Shina idea, but do they know what hit them and what is killing Hong Kong as a result?

Everybody knows that the Chinese Communists was helped by the Soviet Union to oust the Kuomintang and take over China. But their internal propaganda insists that the Chinese Communists were the true heroes of the War of Resistance Against Japan, and their great victory over Japan gave them the legitimacy to rule China. The Shina talk resurrects the ignominy of the Japanese invasion of China. As such, the Chinese Communists cannot and will not yield an inch. Sure, there is freedom of speech in Hong Kong. But how can a legislator not think about how China would react? Can you just babble? After they said it, can they just wrap themselves around Hong Kong's system and ask the rest of the people of Hong Kong to join them to fight the Chinese Communists?

By comparison, if a legislator in some small country insults China and the Chinese Communists lodge a stern diplomatic protest and threaten the severance of all ties, do you think that this legislator will have to resign to placate China?

You can call the mainlanders names like locusts and barbarians, and they won't mind. They probably recognize this to be true to a certain degree anyway. But if you call China "Shina" when you are a legislator-elect and  you want to add "re-fucking" as well, then there is no way out. If the Chinese Communists don't fight you all the way, they might as well as give up ruling China.

When Hongkongers scream "locusts", "barbarians", etc, it does not matter to them. But once you say "Shina", all bets are off. They will fight to the bitter end even if it means destroying Hong Kong altogether. And when they go all out, then Hongkongers will learn what is called nation-building, governance, inviolable sovereignty, territorial integrity, etc. If the young people of Hong Kong want to fight for Hong Kong independence, this is how they must be.

This is the moment to test the rationality and will of the people of Hong Kong. I support neither Youngspiration nor Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen. They are all Hong Kong sinners. They showed us some cleverness but they are causing Hong Kong's future and system to be destroyed by the enraged Chinese Communists. They knew beforehand that this was going to happen. But they went ahead anyway. They are immoral Hong Kong sinners.

- Leung Chung-hang said on RTHK: "During the oath I wore a shawl with the words 'Hong Kong is not China'. This is a statement of fact, just as an apple is not an orange. I don't understand why the secretary-general would ask me if I understand the contents of the oath."

- "Hong Kong Is Not China"? I checked the map:

This statement is true: Hong Kong is just one little black dot whereas China is the big yellow chunk in the middle. In the same way, an apple is not an apple tree, Philadelphia is not the United States, Osaka is not Japan, Marseilles is not France, Perth is not Australia, etc.  Everybody know this to be true. What then is the purpose of saying so? Why not have another truism on the shawl, such as "My mother does not have a penis"?

- Leung Chung-hang said that "Hong Kong Is Not China" is a statement of fact. And One County Two Systems is dead if one cannot be allowed to say that.

When Legislative Councilor Leung Chung-hang goes home to night, he will tell his mother: "I am not family." When her mother breaks down in tears, Leung will say: "That was a statement of fact. If I cannot be allowed to say that, our family is finished!" Her mother is going to cry some more ...

- Legislator Shiu Ka-chun said that the China in "Hong Kong is not China" may refer to "the hard white material that is made of baked clay and used to make plates, bowls, etc." Therefore "Hong Kong is not China" is a truism.

- Legislator Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) said: "Hong Kong is not China" is logically correct because Hong Kong is not China just as "New Territories is not Hong Kong."

- If it is a truism, then why say it? Isn't it a waste of time to say "my big toe is not my foot" or "an atom is not a molecule"? The answer is that these people don't dare to say "Hong Kong is not part of China" so they used a short-cut with plausible deniability while still causing a debate.

- (Oriental Daily) At RTHK City Forum, Leung Chung-hang explains that the English-language phrase "Hong Kong is not China" is a truism just like "apple is not orange." At which point, the host said: "Leung Chung-hang has just shown us how to pronounce China properly." (laughter all around)

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 13, 2016.

The “Hong Kong is not China” flag that he wore on his back during the Legislative Council swearing-in ceremony was “only fashion,” Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang has said. Leung, who belongs to the localist Younspiration party, spoke about his controversial oath-taking on RTHK radio on Thursday.

He pronounced China as “Chee-na” during the oath because he had an accent, he said.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kyipoMrFEc

Legislative Council Secretary Chen Wei-on told Leung that he did not have the authority to administer his oath on Wednesday because the flag gave him “reason to doubt” whether Leung had understood the meaning of the oath.

On the radio Thursday morning, Leung was asked why he pronounced “China” differently on air. He responded that he was “working hard to correct his Ap Lei Chau accent.”

Leung was then asked whether he would be able to pronounce the term properly next week, when he is expected to take the oath again. The lawmaker said he “didn’t know” and that he would “try his best.” He also said that he was unsure whether he would still be using English, or if he will be able to pronounce the other words correctly.

“[Chen] said that I didn’t understand the oath – maybe he thinks my English is bad,” he said.

Leung said that his pronunciation of China as “Chee-na” was not offensive and that Sun Yat-sen, a Chinese revolutionary who was the first president of the Republic of China, also used the term.

“Chee-na” is similar to the Chinese pronunciation of the archaic Japanese name for China, “Shina.” The meaning of the word was neutral, but it became a derogatory term for Japanese people to refer to Chinese people during the Sino-Japanese wars. Although the term was later dropped and replaced by “Chugoku,” Shina still bears an offensive meaning to most Chinese people.

- The tricks were only with the speaking and the props, but Yau Wai-ching also rolled her eyes. What's her excuse? That she is naturally cross-eyed?

- Leung Chung-hang also said that the two of them wanted to inject some humor into the oath ceremony, but some people just don't get it. Well, there is a time for everything. You can tell Polish jokes, but not when you are addressing the Warsaw Chamber of Commerce. You can tell jokes about how stupid and barbaric Jiaozhou people are,  but not when you are addressing the Jiaozhou Compatriots Association. You can tell black jokes, but not when you are the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In this case, it is not that Leung and Yau didn't know that legislators should respect the law (such as the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance); they did it precisely because they know that these 'jokes' would offend.

- "Elementary school chicken"! A typical "elementary school chicken" trick is to say FUCK! aloud while the teacher has turned her back to write on the blackboard. When the teacher asked who said it, nobody said anything and therefore the class was collectively punished. Afterwards our elementary school chicken tells everybody that he is the toughest kid in school and he has the teacher under his control. In this case, Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang played some word games, came up with all manners of ridiculous excuses while winking and nudging and, at the end of the day, think that they have overthrown the Chinese Communist regime and established a new Hong Kong Nation.

- (SCMP) Vulgar Legco rebels must be suffering from deep self-hatred. BY Alice Wu. October 16, 2016.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s fixation over pronouncing China like the last two syllables of “vagina” has caused quite a stir and a lot of laughs (thank you, Alec Baldwin), but at least it makes some sense now – now that the recording of him in a lewd discussion with TV host Billy Bush has been made public.

And then we had two Hong Kong lawmakers go out of their way to call China “Cheena” (or “Shina” if you wish) in taking their Legislative Council oath. It’s a derogatory twist, more offensive than calling ethnic Chinese “Chinks”. “Cheena” isn’t just another word for China. It carries degrading connotations (the dehumanisation of the Chinese people by imperial Japan), and painful historical wounds (Japanese invasions). It is unacceptable, unfit for the public sphere and displays a lack of concern for human decency. And, as in the case of Trump, it should raise the question of whether the pair who purposefully uttered it possess the necessary judgment, temperament and character for public office.

Instead of admitting their intention to taunt and offend, Youngspiration’s Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching chalked it up to their “accent”. Yau then accused critics of discrimination. That’s as ridiculous as Trump’s accusations of moderator bias, being given a defective microphone and, more recently, blaming “locker room talk” for his disgusting comments about women.

Leung refused to acknowledge the offensiveness of the term, citing Sun Yat-sen’s use of the word. But the term did not reach its full derogatory status until May 1930, more than five years after Sun’s death, when the then government of China rejected the name and made it clear others cannot determine what their nation is to be called. Perhaps Leung should go a step further, and blame Sun for dying before “Cheena” had lexically evolved fully into being offensively oppressive. Sun’s use of the word does not cure its evolved perniciousness. To assume so would be to embrace a deliberate ignorance of history.

By Leung’s “logic”, “negro” should be acceptable, too, given that Abraham Lincoln used the word. Fortunately, Leung is wrong, or the US Army would not have had to apologise in 2014 for mistakenly stating that the word was acceptable in referring to black or African American personnel.

Like Trump, Leung and Yau take people for fools. Perhaps most ironic is that their shared sense of arrogance and entitlement is very much like that of the Japanese imperialists.

There is little doubt that Leung and Yau intended to offend. The most despicable part may be their refusal to admit it. Yau, who recently made “banging” part of public discourse, managed to go one step further in bastardising the public sphere that is an integral part of democracy. I’m talking here of her deliberate mispronunciation of “republic”, turning it into another derogatory term. Swearing doesn’t require special skills. Being sophomoric isn’t an excuse. Being completely ignorant of the extent of one’s insensitivities is, as Hillary Clinton told Trump in the first presidential debate, “liv[ing] in your own reality”.

If some suspect Trump to be a pathological narcissist, it is not unreasonable to suspect that Leung and Yau suffer from a form of extreme self-hatred. Self-hatred isn’t just a strong dislike of oneself, it also refers to hatred of one’s own race or nationality. To Leung and Yau, it’s not just about welcoming and accepting antagonistic views of Chinese or China, it’s about creating and perpetrating it. They have, in fact, gone over the edge and are inflicting self-harm.

And, in this sense, we should perhaps be more concerned for Leung and Yau than Trump. What transpired in the Legco chamber on Wednesday reminds me of what the late Toni Morrison wrote in The Bluest Eye: “They seemed to have taken all of their smoothly cultivated ignorance, their exquisitely learned self-hatred, their elaborately designed hopelessness and sucked it all up into a fiery cone of scorn that had burned for ages in the hollows of their minds―– cooled―– and spilled over lips of outrage, consuming whatever was in its path.”

- Lighten up, will ya? Here is a Hong Kong Golden Forum music video of Nasty Shina Style.

- Hong Kong people don't know much about the meaning of Shina. (New York Times) Japan's Wartime Savagery? Better to forget it.

- How is some word-twisting going to achieve Hong Kong independence? Of course, it won't. So why do this? Because you have to do something while you wait for Hong Kong independence to arrive?

How will it arrive? If you talk to the pro-independence people, none of them will talk about armed resistance or anything like that. The asymmetric war is too lop-sided, as in 2 million People's Liberation Army armed with nuclear bombs versus zero Hong Kong Republican Army. Instead, they talk about 支爆 (The China meltdown). This is the moment when Shina implodes spontaneously, with the central government melting away while the rest of Shina breaks into many independent fragments such as Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, Yunnan, Fujian, Guangdong/Guangxi, Jiangsu, Northeast provinces, Southern Mongolia, etc.

When will it arrive? Soon. Quite soon. Any day now. In the interregnum, we will just sit and twiddle our thumbs. To while away the time, we are putting on some word-play for you.

Why not armed resistance? We have all studied the situation in Ireland (link):

The provisional Irish Republican Army, or IRA, is an outgrowth of an older group known as the Irish Republican Army, which fought an insurgency that successfully challenged British rule in the whole of Ireland in the early years of the twentieth century. The 1916-1921 warfare culminated in the creation of an independent Irish Free State in 1921. But in exchange for its independence, the old IRA's leadership agreed to allow Ireland's six northern counties to remain under British rule. Britain reconstituted these provinces as Ulster or Northern Ireland, and inside the IRA, significant elements rejected this partition and launched a civil war ultimately won by the pro-treaty Irish forces

In 1969, the IRA splintered into two groups, the Dublin-based "officials," who advocated a united socialist Ireland by peaceful means, and the Belfast-based "provisionals," who vowed to use violence as a catalyst for unification.

At first, the provisional IRA, or "provos" conducted sniper attacks, assassinations, and several small bombings in the province, and appeared to have little public support. Then, in January 1972, British troops opened fire on a Catholic rally in Londonderry, killing fourteen unarmed people. PIRA recruitment soared, and the official wing of the organization fell away into obscurity. Their violent comrades proceeded to launch a series of bombing campaigns around Northern Ireland and in Britain targeting both military targets and civilian populations. So-called "Loyalist" groups determined to retain British rule sprung up to challenge them, and in the crossfire, together with British military and Northern Irish police forces, some 3,600 people would die before a peace accord was signed in the late 1990s.

Hong Kong independence urgently needs to have its own Londonberry massacre. So far the Hong Kong Police has not cooperated, so our pro-independence leaders need to press a lot harder. At the Mong Kok riot, the two shots fired into the air unfortunately didn't kill anyone. What is needed is  the live Facebook broadcast of machine guns mowing down hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, but nobody wants to volunteer for the supreme sacrifice -- they are too busy posting on Facebook about the China meltdown and the subsequent coming Hong Kong independence.

- If you want to resist the Chinese Communists, you can fight them. Why would you proceed to insult the Chinese people, including your own ancestors?

- (Wen Wei Po) October 13, 2016.

Civic Passion chairman Cheng Chung-tai may have been outshone by Youngspiration yesterday, but Civic Passion still had its say on Facebook.

Wan Chin: If the central government can accept the insults from Youngspiration, then the people of Hong Kong can indeed carry out a revolution for independence.

Wong Yeung-tat's wife Chan Sau-wai wrote: "A bunch of fucking neo-pan-democratic self-determiners repeatedly copied Raymond Wong's old oath game. Only Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai displayed steadiness, dependability and responsibility. They are at two completely different levels." As for Yau Wai-ching, Chan said: "It is either fucking or else it is fucking. I can laugh myself to death."

Chan To wrote to those voted for Youngspiration: "Enjoy what you voted for."

Yip Ching-hang explained the meaning of "Re-fucking": "Fucking restart sex at the Legislative Council."

When Yau Wai-ching demanded Leung Mei-fun (BPA) to apologize for being critical of her Hong Kong-accented English, the Civic Passion Weitou Guy wrote: "I fuck your grandma! What kind of fucking Hong Kong accent do you call that? How long have you been a Hongkonger? Why don't you fucking go back to your mainland hometown! Stinking cunt! Don't fucking call yourself family with others!"

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 13, 2016.

... The two incoming Legislative Councilors joked that it was their Ap Lei Chau native accent, made fun of the 35 million Chinese killed in the War of Resistance Against Japan and insulted 1.4 billion Chinese people around the world.

On the next day, Apple Daily published empty slogans: "Legislative Councilors should be going after corruption and government-business-rural squires-triad gang collusion ..." The other opposition members clamped their mouths. Nobody came out to defend "Fucking Shina." This showed that the two had gone too far this time.

Raymond Wong was around the Legislative Council for a long time, but he never did anything to offend all 1.4 billion people. Leung Kwok-hung traveled to mainland China but he never had to be scared due to detention. Politics has red boundaries. It is fatal for new politicians not to realize where those boundaries lie.

Yesterday, the Legislative Council secretary-general gave Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and Yiu Chung-yim two opportunities to get it right. But they refused to read out the oath and even used obscene language. As a result their oaths were not accepted. Legislative Council chairman Andrew Leung said that the three will get another chance next Wednesday. That is a mistake.

...  How would a judge react in a Hong Kong courtroom? Hong Kong has rule of law, and the oath is a legal statement. If Andrew Leung cannot even follow the simple law, then he should not be a legislator. Those three individuals should have been barred from office. They were given two opportunities which they squandered away. Nobody forced them to do what they did; they willingly gave up their seats.

- (Silentmajority.hk) October 13, 2016.

Global Times had an article about the oath ceremony at the Hong Kong Legislative Council. "A small number of elected legislators did so to attract attention, because certain people welcome this." Apart from anger, there was more pity about the Pearl of the Orient. "We are somewhat pessimistic about the future of Hong Kong ... because these repeated soap operas contribute nothing to Hong Kong's development beyond some political spectacles."

Once upon a time, the mainland Chinese basically think of Hong Kong as being civilized, orderly and prosperous. This impression has been altered by these chaotic developments. "Gradually, the mainland Chinese no longer care whether Hong Kong prospers or decays. Mainland China is not responsible if Hong Kong does not want to deal with their own radical political forces. If more and more mainlanders feel this way, then this won't augur well for Hong Kong."

- T.S Eliot: Little Gidding

There are three conditions which often look alike
Yet differ completely, flourish in the same hedgerow:
Attachment to self and to things and to persons, detachment
From self and from things and from persons; and, growing between them, indifference
Which resembles the others as death resembles life,
Being between two lives - unflowering, between
The live and the dead nettle. This is the use of memory:
For liberation - not less of love but expanding
Of love beyond desire, and so liberation
From the future as well as the past. Thus, love of a country
Begins as an attachment to our own field of action
And comes to find that action of little importance
Though never indifferent. History may be servitude,
History may be freedom. See, now they vanish,
The faces and places, with the self which, as it could, loved them,
To become renewed, transfigured, in another pattern.
Sin is Behovely, but
All shall be well, and
All manner of thing shall be well.
If I think, again, of this place,
And of people, not wholly commendable,
Of not immediate kin or kindness,
But of some peculiar genius,
All touched by a common genius,
United in the strife which divided them;

- (SCMP) By Alex Lo. October 14, 2016.

It was embarrassing to watch. “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Abraham Razack fought over a microphone. One newly elected young localist waved a protest banner like she was doing a striptease and used what sounded like swear words in reading her oath. Another pronounced China as “Chee-na”, a variation on the derogatory term Shina used by Japanese occupation forces during the second world war.

To top it all off, most of the pan-democrat lawmakers tore up their voting papers for electing the Legco president and threw the pieces into the air like confetti.

When Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang of the localist party Youngspiration was asked why he said “Chee-na” when he delivered his oath in English, he excused himself by claiming he had “an Ap Lei Chau accent”. There is no such accent, any more than there is a “Hong Kong nation”, a fictitious entity to which Leung and fellow localist Yau Wai-ching swore allegiance in their oath.

Yau and Leung were rightly disqualified from taking up their Legco duties. They also unfurled a banner that said “Hong Kong is not China”. That’s true in the sense that Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen are not China, but they are all parts of China. You may challenge the Chinese communist state but let’s not insult the Chinese nation and the Chinese people.

Some of us had hoped that the youngsters – the so-called umbrella soldiers – would learn to act like adults when they formed political parties and entered the Legislative Council. As it turned out, entering the new legislature was more like the first day of kindergarten. Civic Passion’s Cheng Chung-tai was the only localist who read the oath as it was written. “I don’t think the way I take the oath today would amount to any effective resistance,” he said.

Exactly, a voice of reason! Don’t sweat over the procedural stuff. By threatening to paralyse Legco, young radicals will just further delegitimise a legislature for which many people already have a low regard. They have to decide whether they just want to crash the party or do something useful.

There are bigger fish to fry, fat cats to go after. Independent Eddie Chu Hoi-dick has almost single-handedly managed to put the Heung Yee Kuk on the defensive and exposed the government’s shady dealings with the kuk’s strongmen in the New Territories.

Expose real scandals; don’t just throw temper tantrums in the Legco chamber.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 15, 2016. How to miss the elephant in the room: a survey of responses from pan-democratic legislators about Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.

Alvin Yeung (Civic Party): No comment on Leung Yau about what they said and whether they should apologize. Instead he said that Wong Ting-kwong (DAB) should be deplored for missing "Hong Kong" in his oath and thus insulting the people of Hong Kong.

Kwok Wing-kin (Civic Party): No comment on Leung Yau about what they said and whether they should apologize. Instead Kwok criticized the Legislative Council secretary-general for acting inappropriately for something that should be decided by the Legislative Council chairman.

Jeremy Tam Man-ho (Civic Party): Whether they should retract or apologize is up to them to decide, because they did it and only they know whether it was because of their accents or whatever else. Should the Legislative Council follow up on the matter? Tam said that chairman Andrew Leung (BPA) had British citizenship once upon a time.

Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party): The actions of those two were indeed "hugely controversial." However, different people have different views, so it is up to those two to explain their views. He said that he is an equal to Leung and Yau and therefore has no right to demand that they retract or apologize. The matter should not be decided by the Legco secretariat because only the chairman has the authority to declare whether an oath was valid or no, although he/she does not have the power to make a moral judgment.

Tanya Chan (Civic Party): Those two should decide whether to retract or apologize. Right now the priority is to decide whether the Legco secretary-general has the right to oversee the oath.

Claudia Mo (Civic Party): No direct response to the question. She said that she respects freedom of speech, and that adding things in various places of an oath is not wrong. She said that Leung and Yau "merely added things" and it is up to the overseer and the oath taker themselves to judge. She says people are different in "ethics, morality, language and political judgment."

- (HKG Pao) Claudia Mo said: "I mind very much those people who pile on afterwards to criticize them non-stop. I understand that many people in Hong Kong don't approve of their behavior during their oaths. I won't name names, but you are hurting feelings when you call them naïve for wanting the people of Hong Kong to pay for their actions."

Wu Chi-wai (Democratic Party): Disagree with what the two said, but this is their problem. The relevant persons should deal with it. These are individual actions for which those individuals will be held responsible.

Helen Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party): What they said was inappropriate, but people have freedom of expression and they have to judge whether the action was appropriate. The two were elected by popular vote and therefore should not be ousted "because of certain speeches." If the legislators acted inappropriately, the voters can oust them in the next election.

Andrew Wan (Democratic Party): I personally view that this sort of offensive speech was neither appropriate nor necessary. Wan said that he opposes the "Hong Kong independence" movement. However this time it was only a verbal demonstration without physical action. Is it permissible to verbally express an ideological concept? Instead the Legislative Council should be more concerned about the suppression of freedom of expression. He said that the two can decide themselves whether to apologize to the general public.

Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party): I oppose inserting obscenities into the oath, and I oppose language that insults the nation. They should decide themselves whether to retract or apologize, because they were elected by the people. Should the Legislative Council follow up? Well, that should be done after they have been sworn in.

Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party): Yau and Leung reflected "the views of some of the citizens" in the manner that some of the citizens would express themselves. Although Hui disagrees with them, he said that they should decide whether to retract or apologize.

Kwong Chun-yu (Democratic Party): No reply.

- Let me write Kwong Chun-yu's response in the style of his famous novels: "Yau, Wai-Ching, and, Leung, Chung-hang, are both, ultimately, adults. They should, as they should, decide on, whether, to retract, or, apologize. Or, whatever."

James To (Democratic Party): No reply.

- (Ta Kung Pao) October 14, 2016. James To said that "it was mere humor to relax the atmosphere without any element of insult."

- (TVB) October 15, 2016. James To said: "You use some words that ordinary citizens feel are terms of insult because some of your supporters agree with this. The problem is that you also want more people to support you. I don't understand what your thinking is, because this may upset many of your supporters too. I think that this is very unwise. That is, it absolutely should not have been done."

- Why this 180-degree reversal of position by James To? After his first comment, he drew mockery with many examples of "humor":

Example: When James To gets to meet Barack Obama, he should greet with: "Hiya, nigger, give me five, man!"

Example: When you get to meet James To, you should begin with: "Legislator To, how come you are not wearing a green hat today?" After all, isn't the fact that his lawyer wife left him for a taxi driver really funny? Hahaha.

- If he accuses you of insulting him, you tell him that plenty of Irishmen wear green hats.

Example: If James To's parent passes away, you should pay tribute at the funeral by singing the Cantonese birthday song: "Congratulations! Congratulations! I wish you the same happiness every day every year ..."

Example: When the teacher tells your son to recite poem, he pauses 10 seconds between every word. What should the teacher do? Laugh at the 'humor'?

Example: Legislator James To gets impatient while waiting to go through airport security screening. So he says aloud: "Let me through. I'm carrying a bomb." He gets arrested and sent to prison for exercising his right to make a humorous remark.

Charles Mok (independent): The two should be given another opportunity to take the oath. Mok says that you do not know the deep meaning of why the two said what they said, so you should ask them directly. Most importantly, the two were popularly elected and so the process should be handled as quickly as possible. He said that the two should not have to be ousted as a result, because the Legislative Council should be focusing on legislation instead of "political accusations."

Leung Kai-cheung (independent) If the two deem it necessary, they will apologize to the public. Different members of the public have different views, so the two will decide for themselves. The other issues should left for the Legco chairman to deal with. Individual legislators should not be interpreting or commenting.

Ip Kin-yuen (Professional Teachers Union) The two should take responsibility for what they did. I regret seeing them use certain insulting language on such a solemn occasion. Everybody knows that saying these things on this occasion will generate a huge response. Society does not want to see or hear such insults. The Legislative Council has a set of rules, and we should abide by the relevant procedures.

- (HKG Pao) October 18, 2016. Ip Kin-yuen: Sometimes legislators hurl insults at government officials and other legislators. I disapprove of this type of behavior which is disallowed by the Legco rules. But compared to the current incident, all previous ones are trivial, because the target of the insult this time is an entire race. Everybody knows that insulting a race, tribe or other group is going to inflame hatred. A politician should avoid doing so. How can you go out and insult an entire race of people? When you do this, you hurt others and you will also suffer the blowback. We are all watching closely how they deal with this. They should consider whether to apologize or resign.

- Why is Ip Kin-yuen taking such a progressive position now? That's because he is the Education sector legislator and he is with the pro-democracy Professional Teachers Union. Earlier the pro-establishment Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers had come out with a survey that 76% of all teachers condemned the actions of Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang. So Ip Kin-yuen could no longer afford to waffle.

Shiu Ka-chun: The two young legislators know how to think for themselves and be responsible to the people of Hong Kong and the people of China. They can think for themselves. Since we are peers, it is inappropriate for us to tell them what to do.

- ... but we have no problems with telling Andrew Leung that he must resign as Legislative Council chairman ...

Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood Workers Center): Legislators should be responsible for their own speeches and actions, so I won't comment about what other legislators did. Each legislator is popularly elected, so they will be accountable to their voters. As for whether "Shina" is insulting, Leung said: "I don't care." He said that the chaos resulted because the Legco secretary-general did not have a set of standards for overseeing the oath.

Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats): The two have explained that they were not making insults. Since they have "clarified", there is no need to apologize. Let us wait until next Wednesday for the re-taking of the oath to see if there is anything inappropriate.

- Hey, Leung Kwok-hung, I fuck your mother's stinking cunt ... oh, why are you upset about this? ... you must be making a mistake ... it must have been my Yuen Long accent ... so there we have it ... since I have clarified, there is no need for me to apologize ... so why don't you just go home and fuck your mother?

Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party): The legislator councilors are elected by the citizens who monitor their every move with total transparency. The two Youngspiration legislators may have felt that their speeches were appropriate for their supporters. As for adding their own political opinions into the oaths, the best watchdog system for the legislators is for the voters to decide next time whether to re-elect these legislators.

Chu Hoi-dick: The two legislators should accept responsibility for their actions and decide for themselves whether to apologize to the public or not. We should have a tolerant attitude towards this affair, because Hong Kong is a free and diversified society with different political viewpoints.

Lau Siu-lai: I have no comment. I have said so on many occasions that they should decide for themselves whether to retract or apologize.

Nathan Law (Demosisto): The law should be used to decide whether they completed their oaths. At this time, there is no "reasonable basis" to say that they violated their oaths. They were elected by the people, so their voters will hold them accountable for their actions.

Lee Kwok-lun: These two legislators are adults and must take responsibility for their actions. I personally respect anyone's speech and actions. The Legislative Council needs to finish all the oaths as soon as possible.

Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion): No reply.

- (RTHK) Ex-legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah criticized the pan-democrats for refusing to reject clearly unacceptable behavior. On something that was clearly wrong, they chose instead to dodge around.

- On RTHK City Forum, Leung Chung-hang said that the Legislative Council Ordinance does not allow him to be ousted unless two-thirds of the Legislative Councilors so vote. Leung said that 30 out of the 70 are pan-democrats (who will support him no matter what). Therefore he told people to shut up until they get the required votes.

- (Oriental Daily) October 17, 2016. As the common sayings goes, you cannot never wake someone up when he is pretending to be asleep. Some people pretend not to understand, so you can never make him understand. This incident has shown us the ugly hypocrisy of the traditional pan-democrats. We have pan-democrats praising the "humor" in the oath-taking; saying that the qualification of the chairman is more important than individual actions by legislators; observing that these actions reflect socio-cultural changes ... But absolutely none of them came out to denounce the insulting behavior in loud and clear terms.

Yesterday ex-legislator Lee Cheuk-yan showed up on RTHK City Forum and said that since Leung Chung-hang was popularly elected, he is responsible only to those who voted for him. Of course, Lee also said that he does not agree with what Leung said, in the same way that someone might say: "You think that XXX is very pretty, but I don't think that she is that hot."

The traditional pan-democrat is too gutless to become a radical, but also too gutless to oppose the radicals.  They should be cast away by the times. Ultimately, the rapid deterioration of politics in Hong Kong and the increasing social rifts can be attributed to the traditional pan-democrats for defending indefensible actions.

- (SCMP) It’s time for Hong Kong pan-democrats to stand up and condemn localist lawmakers’ offensive behaviour. By Gary Cheung. October 17, 2016.

Two weeks ago, newly elected lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung wore a suit and tie to take part in an edition of the Post’s “Redefining Hong Kong” debate. It was the first time I had seen the Occupy student-activist so formally dressed. He later explained that the invitation had asked attendees to come in business attire, and so he “respect[ed] the occasion”.

Sadly, “respecting the occasion” is no longer something we can expect of some people, particularly, it seems, young activists who champion lofty ideals. At the swearing-in ceremony for new legislators last Wednesday, Younspiration’s Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching pledged allegiance to “the Hong Kong nation” and pronounced China as “Cheena”, a variation of the derogatory “Shina”. Both held up banners bearing the words “Hong Kong is not China”, while Yau mispronounced the “People’s Republic of China” as “People’s Re-f****** of Cheena” three times. Their oaths were invalidated and they must take it again on Wednesday.

The two localists stole the limelight all right. They may even take pride in shooting to international fame, as media organisations such as the BBC reported on their oaths being rejected.

But what they did was an example of failing to respect the occasion, which was a solemn ceremony for lawmakers taking office. Blaming the mispronunciation on their accent just shows that they are good at peddling low-grade humour; anyone with common sense will find their defence laughable.

The two localists, who aim to use the legislature as a platform to advocate for the city’s self-determination, picked the wrong fight. What did they think they could achieve by staging this ugly show, apart from capturing media headlines and drawing condemnation from different quarters of the community? Their offensive act will only further discredit the Legislative Council, whose credibility is already in question after the spectacles of object-hurling and filibustering by members over the past few years.

It is disappointing that most pan-democrats have not criticised the two localists’ antics or at least distanced themselves from the pair. Worse, more than a dozen pan-democratic and localist lawmakers signed a joint statement arguing that the two youngsters and Edward Yiu Chung-yim, whose oath was also declared invalid after he added phrases such as “universal suffrage” to it, had properly taken their oaths. The lawmakers also called on Legco secretary general Kenneth Chen Wai-on, who oversaw the oath-taking, to resign for wrongly declaring their oaths invalid. The fact is that Leung and Yau had altered the official wording of the oath, a move inconsistent with the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.

Since the Occupy Central movement, many traditional pan-democrats have been reluctant to condemn the inappropriate acts of the young activists so as not to alienate young voters. It appears that the activists are infallible, and whatever they do and say is justifiable.

In February 2013, when Lawrence Ma Yan-kwok, a barrister and member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong , denounced pan-democratic lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung as “not a f**king Chinese” at a meeting in Legco, Ma’s use of foul language drew widespread disapproval from pan-democrats at the time. Why the double standards now?

It is high time for the pan-democrats, who enjoy the support of many Hong Kong voters, to differentiate right from wrong.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Enough puerile hijinks, lawmakers – it’s time to grow up. By Kent Ewing. October 18, 2016.

Okay, kids, that’s enough puerile hijinks, banner-waving and profanity; it’s time to grow up, get serious about both yourselves and your city and, of course, take the oath.

If Hong Kong’s brash new flock of youthful lawmakers did not hear this message loud and clear from the public after their shameful shenanigans during the swearing-in ceremony at the Legislative Council last week, then they are even more stubborn and immature than their actions have already demonstrated. We’ll see this Wednesday, when they will be given a second chance to make the standard LegCo pledge of allegiance without inserting the f-word or otherwise insulting the Hong Kong and central governments, not to mention just about everybody else in the city.

Hopefully, after a week of reflection, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang of Youngspiration and Edward Yiu Chung-yim of the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape functional constituency have figured out a way to underscore their anti-establishment sentiments without resorting to mangling and defiling the oath they are expected to take and thus subsequently getting booted out of the council to which they were only recently elected.

Voters who shook the status quo by catapulting these three radical localists into the LegCo chamber presumably wanted them to actually serve a full, four-year term and to use their newly acquired office as a bully pulpit for change and reform—not to self-immolate before that term even begins in the futile flames of obscene rhetoric and juvenile protests.

Other rebel lawmakers such as independent Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and Demosisto’s Nathan Law Kwun-chung managed both to make known their opposition to the powers-that-be at home and in Beijing while at the same time safely navigating their way through the oath. Indeed, in contrast to Yau, Leung and Yiu, the elder statesman of Hong Kong radicalism, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, appeared positively dignified as he recited the oath while hoisting a yellow umbrella in homage to the pro-democracy “umbrella revolution” that swept over the city for 79 consecutive days in 2014.

The terrible threesome added cheeky words of disrespect as they recited their oaths—with Yau’s “the People’s Refucking of Chee-na” (in place of the required “People’s Republic of China”) taking the prize for subadult expressions of protest. For good measure, Yau and Leung also carried banners that read “Hong Kong is not China.”

In the aftermath of the rejection of their oaths by LegCo Secretary-General Kenneth Chen Wei-on, their middle-school brand of logic and dissent has continued as they insist, again with cheeky disdain, that they did nothing wrong. After all, it’s true in a strictly literal sense that Hong Kong is not China. As for the trio’s deliberately disrespectful rewordings and mispronunciations, don’t blame them for any confusion caused by their local accents—Leung called his particular manner of expression “Ap Lei Chau,” after the small, densely populated island located off Aberdeen in Hong Kong’s Southern District not known for any distinctive patois.

For those who don’t know, “Chee-na” sounds a lot like the derogatory term used for China by the Japanese during their occupation of the country in the 1930s and ‘40s. Yau’s “the People’s Refucking of China” speaks for itself.

Hey, all this grand-standing and wordplay would be really clever and funny—if, that is, the Hong Kong electorate were composed of people mostly aged 12 and younger. As it stands, however, the vast majority of us would like to see a far more serious approach to resisting the alarming erosion of the city’s autonomy, core values and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law. But that’s not happening.

Nearly 20 years after the handover from British to Chinese rule, Hong Kong’s older generation of LegCo pan-democrats has failed to bring about any significant change to the city’s top-down, Beijing-controlled politics. Indeed, things have gotten worse under their watch, giving rise to a new radicalism that has brought violence and the no-compromise language of abuse and ridicule to the LegCo chamber.

Let’s face it, these days most ordinary Hong Kong people would rather go to a funeral—even their own—than a rally sponsored by any of the city’s politicians, no matter their party or ideology. The histrionic posturing, mindless sloganeering and divisive tactics and rhetoric are a complete turnoff.

Just witness the melee that preceded the vote for the new LegCo president, which followed fast on the heels of the farcical oath-taking political theatre staged by the three localists. Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, an altogether uninspiring, pro-Beijing lawmaker from the Business and Professionals Alliance functional constituency, was finally elected president on a vote of 38-0 following procedural manipulations by his supporters and a walkout by pan-democrats who challenged his dual nationality in the United Kingdom, forbidden under the Basic Law.

Leung claimed he had renounced his British nationality, but he waited until the day of the vote to produce letters from the British government showing that he had registered to do so. That didn’t satisfy the pan-dems, and so chaos ensued.

It would be nice and neat if you could blame the newly elected radicals—Yau, Leung and Yiu—for this additional, opening-day LegCo embarrassment but, their oaths having earlier been rejected, they were barred from voting for president. Even without them, it seems LegCo remains a hopelessly fractious and ineffectual body as a new term opens.

Maybe it’s not just Hong Kong’s newest and youngest lawmakers who need to grow up. They all do.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s ignorant rebel lawmakers don’t understand their duty to the people. By Y.S.J. Fung. October 18, 2016.

It was a sad day for most Hong Kong people to witness the farcical stunts broadcast live on TV during the solemn swearing-in ceremony for all lawmakers-elect on October 12. When the basic core reality that Hong Kong is a part of China is not acknowledged, it does not matter any more how shamelessly some of the veteran lawmakers, as well as several of the newcomers, played their games.

It is aggrieving that the two young localists could stoop so low as to refer to China as “Cheena”, a variation of the derogatory term “Shina” the Japanese used while they occupied China during the second world war. It’s obvious that they are ignorant of world history and the history of China and Hong Kong, or have no decency of character.

This is also true of Demosisto lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who, while taking his oath, read out to the Legislative Council the famous statement by Mahatma Gandhi: “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” Again, it is clear that this young man had no idea of the circumstances under which Gandhi said what he did and how and for what he fought all his life: Gandhi’s cause was the Indian independence movement, which sought to create an Indian state free of British rule. He was also committed to a philosophy of peaceful resistance. Who and what gave this young man the misconception that he is in any way near the situation faced by Gandhi?

Perhaps we can’t really blame these young people, who grew up during the tail end of the colonial era and have never experienced the harshness of our colonial masters. Tsang Tak-sing, the former secretary for home affairs, was imprisoned for two years at the formative age of 17 – in the late 1960s – for distributing anti-British pamphlets near his school. What were the now acknowledged leading lights of Hong Kong’s democracy movement, such as Martin Lee Chu-ming, doing then? They did not seem to have any thought of liberating Hong Kong from colonial rule. What have they been teaching their young followers?

The sudden switch to “democracy” through the introduction of “representative government”, after British prime minister Margaret Thatcher realised that Hong Kong must be returned to China, was a classic example of how the British sowed the seeds of instability. It was government by a few for a few, and when it was forced to leave, the vacuum it left provided fast-food ingredients for a democracy, without allowing time for its gradual development, which inevitably generated havoc and encouraged self-destruction.

It now seems unlikely that the three troublemakers who had to retake their oaths will repeat their stunts; they will do anything to stay in office – they need a platform to pursue their agenda. Yet, it is clear that they do not understand the moral implications of an oath of office and what the general public expects of them in the execution of their duties.

By tradition, an oath of office symbolises the special demands we make on public servants, and the responsibilities and privileges that go with the office. It symbolises the trust we place in our office-holders because they, more than other citizens, have pledged to act in the public interest. An oath goes beyond mere legality.

We ask and expect of office-holders the highest morals and commitment a person can give. In exchange, this person is granted access to significant power in society. However, these vast powers can be used or abused for one’s own interests rather than for the general good. A public functionary must be held accountable for their actions.

We expect our public servants to not only act in the interest of the public but also, up to a point, uphold certain values even in their private lives. It is political suicide for these newcomers to continue to behave as street fighters now that they have been voted into the legislature.

While these young adults rudely declared their unwillingness to be related to China in any way, there is a need for them to realise and accept that there are very many more in Hong Kong who not only love Hong Kong and want it to succeed and prosper, but also care for their motherland. It is more than just the feeling of pride that the nation has become the second-largest economy in the world and the home of companies like Alibaba, Tencent and Huawei, which are becoming global brands; it inspires a vision to teach our young, through our own example, to do whatever little we can to help Hong Kong and indeed the whole of China to become stronger on every possible front.

It is time for the localists and the other rebels in the legislature, whose purpose of office seem to be to make Hong Kong ungovernable, to reflect deeply on their behaviour. They should know that to gain the trust and respect of the people of Hong Kong, they have to work for the betterment of the territory, and not its annihilation. After all, as Legco members, their duty is to the whole community, and not just to those who voted for them.

- (SCMP) No one wins when Hong Kong lawmakers play patriot games. By Michael Chugani. October 18, 2016.

Come everyone, let’s play patriot games. To play, you must answer a question. What’s more traitorous – a Beijing loyalist who surrenders his British passport at the last minute to qualify as Legislative Council president or two young localists who use the derogatory Japanese wartime word “Chee-na” to describe China while swearing in as legislators?

Here’s a clue: Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen clung to his British nationality while portraying himself as a Chinese patriot. He dumped it only for political expediency. Youngspiration legislators Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang humiliated their own race with an insulting Japanese occupation word for China. But then they deny being Chinese even though their names, yellow skin, black hair and eyes betray them.

So, mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the most patriotic of them all? Give the mirror a break. It can only accurately reflect what’s in front of it. It can’t know what’s in Andrew Leung’s heart even though he’s disowned his British nationality. Nor can it know if Yau and Leung were even aware of the historical context of Chee-na. I wasn’t until the pair’s use of it caused anguished outrage among Chinese people. They were likely clueless too until coached into using it by people who knew exactly how to hit a raw nerve.

Patriotism is a shield that defends noble causes yet is defenceless against those who use it as a political tool. The opposition has, predictably, taunted Andrew Leung for simultaneously holding British nationality and a top position in the loyalist camp. They’re using this as a lever to dislodge him as Legco president, arguing he didn’t renounce his British nationality soon enough.

The loyalist camp sees nothing wrong with Leung’s British passport but plenty wrong with the Youngspiration pair’s use of Chee-na. It wants to use that as a lever to dislodge the two as legislators. How patriotic are people who play patriot games? Was Chief Executive C.Y. Leung being patriotic when he nudged his wife to close her umbrella during the national anthem on a rainy national day after liaison office boss Zhang Xiaoming closed his? Are people such as “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung patriotic when they burn the Japanese flag in front of TV cameras?

The true patriots are the ordinary Hongkongers genuinely upset by the use of Chee-na. The Youngspiration pair will have a second chance to swear in on Wednesday. Will they be sensible enough to eat humble pie?

- (HKG Pao) October 20, 2016.

Supporter Mr. Chiu called in on radio to tell Leung Chung-hang: "Do you think you look very cool now? Are you playing the elementary school chicken at this moment?" Leung said that four years is not a long time and therefore he wants to do each step as best as he can, including making political statements, evaluating legislation and stopping bad laws. Mr. Chiu said that if you want to attack the system, you have to join the system first. "But we voted to send you into the Legislative Council. You are standing at the gate and you are poised to enter, but you have to pause and take a piss in public. And now you are shut out on the outside looking in. Tell me, how can we not be disappointed in you? Please wake up! Please grow up quickly!"

- It is said that 870,000+  Chinese people all over the world have signed an online signature campaign to condemn Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Remember who Leung and Yau are?

Leung Chung-hang won 37,997 (6.5%) votes in 7th place in the New Territories East Legislative Council election.

Yau Wai-ching won 20,643 (7.4%) votes in 6th place in the Kowloon West Legislative Council election.

As such, they are only responsible to their voters (37,997 and 20,643 respectively). They are not responsible to other residents in those districts, or other Hongkongers outside those districts or the rest of the world outside Hong Kong. So to all those 870,000 signatories: GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU SHINA DOGS!

As for this caller Mr. Chiu who claimed to be a Youngspiration supporter, those 37,997 and 20,643 have given Leung and Yau carte blanche to do as they please. So Mr. Chiu, GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU SHINA DOG!

- (EJ Insight) No one emerges well from the oath farce. By Lam Hang-chi. October 25, 2016.

New blood is supposed to bring in new dynamics and catalyst for change.

But the absurd oath-taking row triggered by two newly-elected Legco members, which really marks a travesty of decency and ceremonial rituals, has been a big letdown to many.

Following the incidents of the past couple of weeks, I won’t be surprised if there is some shared remorse among those who cast their votes for Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching in the Legislative Council election last month.

I’m not suggesting that showing one’s stance, of dissent, when taking oath is morally wrong. Yet, in the Youngspiration duo case, their political careers might have already come to an end before they could even officially embark upon them.

Amid an uproar from Beijing loyalists, and given the government’s determination to drag them down, the chances of the two young radical lawmakers-elect taking office appear to range from slim to almost none.

Many ordinary Hongkongers are also perturbed about the whole controversy.

Among other localist Legco first-timers, Civic Passion’s Cheung Chung-tai has done his show better. After repeating the hackneyed oath pledging allegiance and loyalty, which Cheung couldn’t treat with more contempt, he paused and then chanted “rewrite constitution, Hong Kong people first”.

His oath was deemed valid as there was no twist, omission or admission in wording.

Now, we know how inept Leung and Yau have been.

I know there are some who rubbernecked at the scene to their hearts’ content, but the pair has gained nothing from the farce, which, as it turned out, was show of a red rag to the bull.

The actions of the Leung and Yau have given a perfect excuse to Beijing lackeys and the SAR authorities to suppress radical opponents and score extra brownie points with their mainland bosses.

Leung and Yau have made a fool of their voters and comrades in arms. The takeaway from the whole incident is that they have no brain for the long battle inside the chamber. And don’t expect them to be able to deliberate on bills properly even if they can manage to hold on to their seats.

I have reason to question Leung’s integrity after he, with a smirk in front of the camera, blamed his “Ap Lei Chau accent” for pronouncing China as “Shina”, saying he’s been living on the island for too long.

Does he think Hongkongers are all idiots?

To some extent they are even worse than the bunch of rubber stamps that stack the legislature, as the pick of voters in an open election turns out to be a big disgrace to the system itself.

Now I only hope people won’t lose confidence in future elections.

As for the aggravated patriots, they should not make a fuss out of the word “Shina” either. Nor should they rush to link the word to treason.

“Shina” originates from Sanskrit. In contrast to its current derogatory connotation, for most part of history it was a respectful word for China, particularly in the Buddhist classics, meaning literally the “faraway land of wisdom”.

The word entered the Japanese vocabulary in the 9th century amid the nation’s frequent cultural exchanges with the Imperial China, when the Tang dynasty ruled the central kingdom.

It was only after the 1912 Revolution, and the demise of the Qing dynasty, did Chinese officials begin to feel affronted by this word.

In 1913 the Republic of China’s top envoy in Tokyo demanded in a démarche that “Shina” be abolished in Japan’s official documents. The request was rebuffed. Chinese people only found more negative nuance in “Shina” as Sino-Japanese ties deteriorated and ultimately descended into belligerence eighteen years later.

Now, when members of the pro-Beijing bloc have lost no time bombarding Leung and Yau’s choice of the word, isn’t it ironic that many of them have foreign passports and are Christians themselves?

It appears to me that they have two masters to submit to: God as Christians and Beijing as lawmakers. But don’t forget that the Chinese Communist Party is, as always, atheist.

And, I wonder how Beijing may feel when quite a few local politicians say they will “let God decide” when asked about their political ambitions.

- (SCMP) Legco brouhaha reveals dark side of the rule of law in Hong Kong. By Bryane Michael. October 31, 2016.

Numerous irregularities at the start of the 2016 Legco session have brought the role of law in politics to the fore.

Are the ousted Youngspiration lawmakers allowed to modify the swearing-in oath? Does the Legco president need to show written proof that he renounced his UK citizenship before applying for his post? Can the Legco president decide unilaterally to keep certain Legco members out of the chamber by himself?

At the heart of the present gridlock lies a Kafkaesque political environment where all parties try to use the letter of procedural law to get their own way.

Everyone has heard of the politicisation of law. The mainland’s Communist Party shapes PRC law based on their political objectives. Politics shapes Chinese law. Full stop. The reverse is happening in Hong Kong.

Advocates from the pan-dem camp cite rules giving the Legislative Council president, ­Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, the authority to let Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching retake their oaths. The Hong Kong government cites rules allowing it to challenge that decision through a judicial review. Supposedly the two had contravened the Basic Law.

How can words spoken by politicians contravene Hong Kong’s fundamental law? Does anyone doubt these politicians uphold the Basic Law or hold allegiance to Hong Kong (as stipulated in the Basic Law’s article 104) as they see it?

Why not just ignore these members’ oaths as the usual, useless political speech it is. Ignoring this behaviour is better than tying up the chamber over trifles.

What is the objective of the law? To remove democratically elected lawmakers over technicalities? What is wrong with the Basic Law’s article 79.7, which allows for censuring the Youngspiration pair by a two-thirds Legco vote?

Hong Kong has become too bedazzled by the rule of law to focus on the goals of such rule. Supposedly, Andrew Leung violated article 71 of the Basic Law by failing to declare and renounce his British passport. Yet, where exactly is the harm?

A simple thought experiment can put the recent imbroglio into perspective. Would the Texas legislature react similarly if two of its representatives vowed fidelity to the “country of Texas” and pronounced America as Yankee-land? Who cares? The facts remain the same. Texas remains part of the US, just as Hong Kong to China. No speech can change that.

Yet, banning the Youngspiration pair would have real consequences. The Legco president’s lawyer may have argued in court last week that banning them from retaking the oath would “seriously deprive them of constitutional rights”. He was wrong. Banning them would deprive us of our constitutional rights. When we move from words into actions, things change.

China’s overzealous reaction turned these children’s trifling speech into an affront to China’s own dignity and “face”. The best way now to save face lies in ignoring them.

I do not know which side is right or wrong. But people in both camps should keep two timeless legal maxims in mind. Sticks and stones may break our bones, words will never hurt us. No harm, no foul.

Dr Bryane Michael is a senior fellow with the University of Hong Kong’s Asian Institute for International Financial Law

- Ah yes, this article will surely put a halt on further arguments. In summary, oaths are worthless. I agree wholeheartedly. Let's get rid of all oaths, because they are worthless. In addition, we save a lot in time and money after we do away with these worthless rituals.

- Hey, fellow, every action is going to impact somebody or the other one way or the other. Getting rid of all oaths means getting rid of wedding vows. We all know that wedding vows are worthless. Months after she promised to love you and honor you all the days of her life, she is asking for a divorce and half your assets. She certainly did not wait until death do you apart.

But wedding vows in Hong Kong are witnessed by lawyers, who make big money. Look at Andrew Cheng Kar-foo, formerly of the Democratic Party. He gave up his Legislative Council post ($93,000 monthly salary) because he can make much more every weekend taking wedding vows. Hey, ten wedding vows at $10,000 on one Saturday is already $100,000. So you better know what you are talking about first!

- Why are oaths required from witnesses in a court trial? If you swear to tell the truth and then you lie, you commit perjury and you will be punished. If oaths are worthless, then everybody should feel free to perjure themselves anytime.

- If oaths are removed from courts, it will create a new class of professional witnesses who will say whatever you pay them to say with no fear of retribution.

- (Wikidiff) An oath is a solemn pledge or promise to a god, king, or another person, to attest to the truth of a statement or contract.

Since oaths are worthless, contracts are worthless too. So why should the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics be awarded to two contract-law specialists?

- (SCMP) Barred Hong Kong lawmakers overstepped the mark and offended the public’s sense of decency. By Perry Lam. December 8, 2016.

According to Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby, a sense of fundamental decencies is parcelled out unequally at birth. He may be right. But if you decide to go into politics, you have no choice but to develop that sense. It is a political virtue that one day may save your ass as well as your job.

That, in short, is the object lesson of the oath-taking saga that resulted in two pro-independence lawmakers being kicked out of the Legislative Council.

Hong Kong people are not known for their accommodation to the wishes of the Chinese government.

So why hasn’t Beijing’s interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law making it punishable by disqualification if oaths are not taken accurately and solemnly sparked a political crisis? If a crackdown on unlicensed street hawkers was enough to incite protesters to throw trash bins and glass bottles at the police, what could have made them accept the throwing out of two duly elected legislators without a fight? In the eyes of Hongkongers, is democracy really no match for their beloved fishballs?

The answer, I guess, is simple. By using the “f” word to distort “republic” in the nation’s name and by deliberately mispronouncing China as “Chee-na”, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching violated most Hong Kong people’s sense of decency. While they might find Beijing’s action high-handed and self-serving, they were not sorry to see the two removed from the legislature. They might even feel a sense of justice.

- (HKG Pao) April 29, 2017.

Recently China Liaison Office legal department director Wang Zhenmin said that he wants the people of Hong Kong to respect the Chinese system. Yau Wai-ching chimed in and wrote: "Respect is bidirectional. It is up to others to give your face, but it is up to you to lose it. You lost face first, so there is no way for others to give face to you. To give face to you is to insult oneself."

On this occasion, I genuinely support Yau Wai-ching. Yau disrespected the Chinese people previously, so today nobody gives her any respect. It is as simple as this.

• [592] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 5 (2016/10/06)

(SCMP) September 26, 2016.

A waiter has denied throwing water bottles and pushing two police officers to the ground during the Mong Kok riot during the Lunar New Year holiday in February.

Chan Pak-yeung, 30, appeared at Kowloon City Court after prosecutors withdrew a rioting charge and accused him of assaulting police and resisting an officer in the first trial over the riot.

Magistrate So Wai-tak heard that Chan did not dispute the fact that he was near the junction of Nathan Road and Nelson Street at 3.30am on February 9, or that he was arrested at the scene before being taken to a Mong Kok police station. But his lawyer questioned if he was the same person who threw the bottles.

Police constable Kwan Kwong-wa on Monday testified that Chan struck his shin with a water bottle while he was clearing Nathan Road of burning roadblocks placed by protesters.

He said he immediately shouted at Chan to stop, but the waiter ignored the warning and threw another bottle before he turned towards Prince Edward.

Kwan gave chase and quickly caught Chan outside a jewellery shop, but recalled that he struggled to cuff both of his hands.

“The man used both his hands to push me and kick my shin,” Kwan continued. “Then he pushed me to the ground, causing both of my knees to hit the floor. It was very painful.” A medical examination at Princess Margaret Hospital showed he suffered a minor bruise on his chest, and abrasions on both knees.

The incident was partially captured by TVB footage and CCTV cameras outside the jewellery shop, according to prosecutors.

Kwan said Nathan Road was crowded at the time with more than 300 protesters, with about 100 swearing and shouting at him to release Chan. But he denied using excessive force during the arrest out of anger or tiredness from long hours of duty.

Another constable Lau Chi-wai further recalled that some protesters threw glass bottles and rubbish bin covers at them as they tried to restrain an emotional Chan. “His resistance caused me to fall,” he added.

The trial continues.

(Oriental Daily) September 26, 2016.

Civic Passion member Chan Pak-yeung was charted with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

At Kowloon City Court, police officer Kwan Kwong-wah testified that he was on duty in Mong Kong that night. He observed that somebody had blocked off Nathan Road with garbage and recycling bins. He and his colleagues approached to disperse the crowd and clear off the obstacles. As he got ready to move the recycling bin, a man threw a plastic bottle containing liquid at him and struck him in the lower leg. He shouted to the man to desist. The man threw another plastic bottle at him, hitting him in the chest. The man then fled. Kwan gave pursuit and told the man that he was under arrest. The man twisted his upper body, bumped Kwan and kicked him in the lower leg. Kwan lost balance and dropped down on his knees. The man was eventually subdued. Kwan identified the man as Chan Pak-yeung. Kwan added that many demonstrators were cursing out the police and shouting "Release him!". They also tossed objects and garbage bins at the police. Kwan was hit in the head and back.

(Oriental Daily) September 27, 2016.

Chan Pak-yeung testified in court today. He said that he learned that the police had fired two shots and so he decided to go down to Mong Kok and check things out. He observed that somebody threw bottles twice at the police and fled, passing right by him. The police then came up and arrested Chan.

Chan said that the policemen tried to trip him. Chan was afraid that he might suffer abrasions on the ground, so he tried to keep his balance. As such, he couldn't have kicked the police officer. Chan said that his right hand was cuffed and injured as a result, so he could not have shoved the police officer with both hands. Chan said that a female police officer ordered him to kneel down three times. Chan said that he felt insulted.

Chan said that after he was taken back to the police station, the police made him take off all his clothes but they did not search him. Chan said that he lost his eyeglasses and asked the police to look for them. The police couldn't find them.

(Wen Wei Po, Oriental Daily) September 28, 2016.

During summation, the prosecutor said that the defendant claimed that the person who threw the bottles at the police wore black clothes and a mask, but did not wear glasses. The surveillance videos at the scene do not show such a person present. The defendant claimed that he was a spectator, but why would the police arrest the defendant who has no prior record and was not the perpetrator who was running away? The police officer was only 3 meters away from the defendant with no obstacles in between.

The prosecutor said that the defendant fought back ferociously and it took three PTU officers to bring him down to the ground. After being arrested, the defendant did not complain about being wrongfully arrested, and complained instead about certain irrelevant matters.

The defendant explained that he was scared and confused at the time, and therefore did not tell the police that they had arrested the wrong person.

In summation, the defense said that one of the arresting police officers had been on duty for 20 hours and admitted that he was tired and that the situation was chaotic. This police officer did not mention whether the defendant wore eyeglasses, and does not remember it in court. A female police officer admitted that if the suspect was masked, then the eyeglasses would be a key feature and duly noted. The defense also summoned a pastor who testified that he had never seen the defendant not wear eyeglasses.

(SCMP) October 6, 2016.

A Hong Kong waiter was jailed for nine months for throwing water bottles and resisting police during the Mong Kok riot in February, becoming the first person to be convicted over the violent clashes on Lunar New Year night.

Sentencing Chan Pak-yeung, 30, magistrate So Wai-tak likened the defendant to “a rioter” who treated police officer Kwan Kwong-wa as a “moving target” when he launched two water bottles containing liquid at the officer in the early hours of February 9.

The night saw some of the fiercest clashes engaging local police since the city’s handover to the mainland in 1997. Protesters hurled bricks at officers and set objects alight in the busy Kowloon district. A policeman fired shots skywards on the night.

The court ruled that Chan threw the bottles and struggled violently to resist arrest, prompting others at the scene to throw other objects such as rubbish bin lids at the officers handling him.

“Apart from the bottles, the circumstance at the moment has to be taken into consideration,” the magistrate said.

His action made the situation worse and endangered the police officers’ safety, So added, noting the court needed to protect law enforcement officers.

After hearing the sentence, Chan’s supporters in the court gallery yelled: “Ridiculous!”

“The policeman fired shots,” one supporter shouted.

Chan’s application for bail pending an appeal was rejected. He was immediately taken away to be locked behind bars.

Former lawmaker Wong Yuk-man criticised the court for making Chan “a political prisoner” and said he would contact him to explore filing an appeal.

Although the maximum jail sentence for assaulting a police officer under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance is two years, Civic Passion radical activist Alvin Cheng Kam-mum said outside court on Thursday another group member received only three weeks in jail for throwing a water bottle at a police officer on a separate occasion.

Before sentencing, So convicted the defendant on one count of assaulting a police officer and another of resisting an officer.

The court earlier heard that Chan brought gloves and something to protect his neck on the night in question before going out to see what was happening in Mong Kok.

“[Understood] if the protector was to shield him from pepper spray, but why the gloves?” he asked.

The magistrate said Chan tried to play down his participation.

He also rejected the defendant’s argument that officers had mistaken him for someone else whom he claimed actually threw the bottles. So said an officer had been paying attention to Chan throughout the incident.

Internet comments:

- Before sentencing was pronounced, I had full expectations that the magistrate would impose 80 hours of community service. I had already come up with the most likely excuses:

1. The testimonies of the police officers were unreliable. For example, the police did not know the brand of the bottled water that was thrown. Was it mineral water? distilled water? green tea? The police also did know how many ounces of water was in that bottle (which is important because the degree of injury depends on the weight).

2. The video showed that the defendant did not intentionally throw the bottle at the police officer. The latter had failed to make any observable attempt to step aside to avoid being hit.

3. The video showed that the bottle touched the police lightly without causing any injuries.

4. The video showed that the defendant struggled after being apprehended. This occurred because he could not ascertain that these were police officers. Instead he thought that they were South Asian robbers and he reacted like any regular Hong Kong citizen when robbed.

...

Hey, you think that I write in jest, but here is the actual newspaper report:

(Apple Daily) October 6, 2016.

The defense pleaded that the 31-year-old defendant was born and raised in Hong Kong. At the time of the incident, he was a graphic designer who moonlighted as a waiter. The defense presented the letters from 21 fellow students, 14 church goers, his former principal and his former teachers. The defense said that the police officer who was attacked did not suffer serious/permanent injuries and throwing bottles was not especially violent. Therefore, the defense thought that community service would be appropriate.

The magistrate said that the defendant was convicted after a trial, which meant that he was not genuinely contrite over his actions. The magistrate said that while throwing a plastic bottle was not destructive, it was clear that the defendant used the police officer as a moving target. The action made the situation veer out of control as others followed the example to throw objects at the police officers. Although this was a first offence, a jail term was necessary to protect the personal safety of frontline police officers, to maintain the morale of the police and to uphold the social order.

The magistrate sentenced the defendant to 9 months in jail for assaulting a police officer and 4 months for resisting arrest. The two jail terms are to be served concurrently. This means that his total jail time is 9 months. Chan asked for bail pending appeal. The magistrate denied the request.

- It is far too early to celebrate. The magistrate issued a 9 month jail term, but the appeals judge may reduce it down to 80 hours of community service because this outstanding young man has letters from kindergarten/primary school/secondary school principals, teachers and classmates, churchgoers from six faith denominations and leaders from ten volunteer organizations. Or something like that.

- Don't forget to add that the defendant is genuinely contrite. But as soon as his jail sentence is lifted, he is going to come out to flash the V-sign at the press outside the courthouse.

- The magistrate declined to grant him bail pending appeal, which means that Chan Pak-yeung begins to serve his sentence immediately. Even if he appeals and gets bail, it will be weeks or even months later.

- Chan Pak-yeung used to host a Civic Passion talk show with Cheng Chung-tai. Now the former is heading to jail while the latter is going to be an honorable Legislative Councilor. This is a realization of the maxim: Smart people use their mouths; stupid people used their hands. So who was smart and who was stupid here?

- This proves another assertion about the Civic Passion leaders, who are said to push their underlings forward to fight the police while they leave the scene. On that fateful day, their great leader Wong Yeung-tat was at the scene. Wong was even arrested, but quickly released without charges.

- Chan Pak-yeung declared that his occupation is graphic designer. That sounds nice. But when pressed for details, he declared that he was a part-time waiter. A 31-year-old part-time waiter is a not-so-young wastrel. When is he ever going to settle down and get a real job?

- Under Common Law, a precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. This case has set the precedent of 9 months in jail for throwing a plastic bottle of water at a police officer during the Mong Kok riot. When the others come on trial for throwing bricks at the police in the same Mong Kok riot or setting fire to a taxi, the sentence cannot be less. We do have rule of law, right?

- The trial of Raymond Wong Yuk-man for throwing a glass cup of water at Chief Executive CY Leung is still going on. Under this precedent, the sentence should be 9 months or more.

- (SCMP) October 19, 2016.

Former lawmaker Wong Yuk-man was convicted of common assault on Wednesday for hurling a glass at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying during a Legislative Council meeting two years ago. The case marked the first conviction of a lawmaker for conduct within the deliberation chambers.

Wong, 64, did not react in the courtroom after the lengthy verdict of more than two hours was read out at Eastern Court.

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said glass throwing was uncivilised behaviour that put the chief executive in fear of immediate unlawful violence at the scene.

The high-profile case had called for the city’s first testimony by a chief executive, with Leung claiming that he froze during a question-and-answer session on July 3, 2014 because he was shocked by the noise of the shattering glass behind him. He also said he did not see who threw the glass in the first place, but was worried there might be a second attack.

His testimony was supported by lawmaker Wong Ting-kwong, who testified to seeing Wong standing on a desk to throw sheaves of paper and “something shiny” that he later concluded was glass after hearing it shatter on the floor.

The defendant, meanwhile, said in his defence that he had no intention of hurting anyone when he threw the objects and explained that he could not have aimed properly because of a previous eye operation.

He said the paper was intentionally thrown towards a location where no one was standing, and he switched to throwing water only when there were not many documents left on the table. He said the glass was released accidentally as security guards were pulling him back.

But the magistrate found the former lawmaker’s evidence contradictory and inconsistent, in contrast with that of the 25 prosecution witnesses, whom he described as “honest and reliable”.

Citing Legco’s CCTV footage, Chu said it was evident that Wong had intentionally and forcefully thrown the glass because he was in full control of the hand he used, despite security guards trying to pull him down from the table, and that the extent of his arm movement was consistent with how he threw the paper.

“Anyone hearing glass shattering in their proximity would feel shocked, but [that shock] might not be expressed,” Chu continued. “It is understandable for [Leung] to worry about a second attack.”

The court session drew a full house of reporters and Wong’s supporters, some of whom murmured and even made loud comments as the magistrate delivered his verdict. “You must be joking,” one woman said. “Throwing [a] glass is different from throwing [it] at people.”

The former lawmaker, who was not legally represented throughout the trial, elected not to give mitigation. “I have nothing to say after hearing your verdict,” he told the magistrate.

Wong will be sentenced next Tuesday.

- (SCMP) October 25, 2016.

Former lawmaker Wong Yuk-man, 64, was jailed for two weeks on Tuesday for hurling a glass at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying during a Legislative Council meeting two years ago.

But he was not immediately remanded after magistrate Chu Chung-keung granted his bail application pending appeal. Bail was set at HK$5,000.

The Eastern Court case marked the first conviction of a lawmaker for protesting within the deliberation chambers.

Wong’s supporters swore at Chu and told him to go to hell as the magistrate was retreating to his chambers.

Wong said outside court that he had expected a jail sentence. But he added that an appeal was definitely needed, or people like “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung would go to jail a few more times when luncheon meat, which the lawmaker threw in the meeting chamber last Wednesday, could also incite fear, and one could go to jail without hurting anyone.

“How can you criminally prosecute a legislative protest?” he asked.

Chu compared the case to that of social activist Chan Tak-cheung, who was jailed three weeks for throwing an egg at financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah.

He adopted a starting point of three weeks for sentencing and said the current case called for a deterrent sentence that he reduced by a week to acknowledge that Wong had not brought the glass into the chamber to stage a protest.

“Though the defendant said he was only staging a legislative protest ... his behaviour was violent and uncivilised,” Chu said. “This trend ought not to be promoted.”

Common assault is punishable by imprisonment for one year.

The magistrate said last week that he did not have the “slightest hesitation” in finding Wong guilty as the glass throwing was uncivilised behaviour that had put the chief executive in potential danger and fear of immediate unlawful violence at the scene.

The high-profile case had called for the city’s first testimony by a chief executive, with Leung claiming that he froze during a question-and-answer session on July 3, 2014 because he was shocked by the noise of the shattering glass behind him.

The city’s top official also said he did not see who threw the glass, but was worried there might be a second attack.

Wong argued that he had no intention of hurting anyone and said he only let slip of the glass by accident because he was pressed by security guards.

His actions were part of a legislative protest to support the pan-democratic lawmakers, guided by a principle to not harm the innocent, he said.

But the magistrate did not accept Wong’s evidence because he found it evasive, contradictory and inconsistent, in contrast with the testimony from Leung – whom he described as reasonable, convincing and honest – and the 24 other prosecution witnesses.

Citing CCTV footage of the incident, Chu ruled out an accidental attack because he saw Wong had full control of the hand he used and concluded the throw was both intentional and forceful.

“Anyone hearing glass shattering in their proximity would feel shocked,” he said. “Leung’s shock, worry and concern is reasonable.”

- Civic Passion vice-chairman Alvin Cheng Kam-mun cited the case of another Civic Passion member Marco Lee who committed a similar offence but was sentenced to only 28 days in jail. Therefore Cheng concluded: "This must be political prosecution." (Passion Times) Raymond Wong said: "As Yau Wai-ching said, when you can't even fuck, of course you will fight to the death to find a way out."

- Raymond Wong also pronounced Chan Pak-yeung to be the "First Political Prisoner of the Fishball Revolution."

- The key comment at Passion Times is: We people and the gods above are all angry! We support Chan Pak-yeung to appeal the sentence. Of course, this means that we will donate money to pay for the legal bills! So click through on this page: http://www.passiontimes.hk/?view=raise&host=%E6%9F%8F%E6%B4%8B.
Donate more money more frequently!

- The defense presented a video that showed Chan Pak-yeung being subdued by the police. They forced him to kneel, they stomped on him, they tripped him down, they seized his eyeglasses and so on. But the magistrate convicted Chan all the same to become the first resister convicted in the Fishball Revolution.

- Passion Times believes that this is the heaviest sentence since Occupy Central began. They are wrong. The honor goes to someone else: (Oriental Daily) July 17, 2015.

Ng Ting Pong, nicknamed Capone, was charged with assaulting three police officers at Admiralty Centre on December 1st 2014. The magistrate found Ng guilty of three charges of common assault, and sentenced him to 10 months in jail.

- The magistrate's court has a maximum jail sentence of 2 years. Some of the Mong Kok riot cases have been transferred out of the magistrate's court to the District Court, where the maximum sentence is higher. So the Justice Department has in fact reckoned this to happen.

- Chan Pak-yeung is said to be with the Wo On Lok (和安樂) triad gang. This is a branch of the Wo Shing Wo family. Wo On Lok is usually known under its nickname of "Aerated Water House (水房)" because its origins were based at an soda water bottling factory. Wo Shing Wo is democratically run as its leader is elected every two years by the general membership. However, the various factions do not necessarily honor the election results. At one time, they had four elected 'leaders' at the same time.

When Chan Pak-yeung arrives at the "Big House", the Wo On Lok person-in-charge may or may not offer protection to this nominal member (known as 掛藍燈籠 'hanging out a blue-colored lantern') . He will be in big trouble if not, because he was convicted for assault of a police officer and therefore the prison guards will turn a blind eye to any abuse by inmates.

- Civic Passion is an unusual organization, not because many members belong to triad gangs but because those people come from rival triad gangs. This is common among the triad gangs whose names start with Wo (和, harmony), but it is unusual when the gangs compete against each other (for example, Wo Shing Wo versus Sun Yee On). For example, Raymond Wong's father was a closed friend of Heung Chin, the founder of the Sun Yee On (New Righteousness and Peace Commercial and Industrial Guild) gang.

- Now that we have the first martyr of the Fishball Revolution, Hong Kong Indigenous immediately announced: "Our organization Hong Kong Indigenous will do everything possible to assist any martyrs who are due to appear in court." After starting the Mong Kok riot, Hong Kong Indigenous immediately got on the Internet to raise money to help the martyrs. "All donations will be used to assist the martyrs who were arrested." They said, "We will not abandon any single martyr." However, Chan Pak-yeung (Civic Passion) received no help whatsoever from Hong Kong Indigenous. So this has resulted in a backlash against Hong Kong Indigenous.

- Hong Kong Indigenous gets the glory, and Civic Passion gets to go to jail.

- At least Hong Kong Indigenous has the decency not to ask people to donate more money more frequently to them.

- Chan Pak-yeung lost his case badly because he could not afford to hire his own senior barrister and had to rely on the free lawyer-on-duty. As a result, his defense was incoherent. Meanwhile Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong had $530,000 cash plus 100 Viagra pills on hand ...

- For example, Chan Pak-yeung argued that the police used excessive force to arrest him, including a female officer who made him kneel down. For comparison, see how gently Lee County police officers treated a female teenager (video).

In any case, the point is not how the policewoman handled him. The point is whether he committed the said act of assaulting a police officer and whether he resisted arrest afterwards. His lawyer did not tell him to focus on those two charges. That was negligence.

- (Oriental Daily) November 17, 2016. Chan Pak-yeung applied for bail, but the magistrate rejected his application. Chan will have to serve in jail during the appeal process.

- (SCMP) March 8, 2017.

A waiter sentenced to nine months in jail for throwing water bottles and resisting police during the Mong Kok riot said in his appeal on Wednesday a magistrate was wrong to use silence against him.

Chan Pak-yeung, 30, was convicted last October after magistrate So Wai-tak of Kowloon City Court found he was not an honest witness when he claimed that he was only present to observe a ­major social event and police had confused him with the true assailant in identical clothes.

One of the five reasons given was that Chan, a member of Civic Passion, remained silent and did not question the arrest even after being cautioned.

But defence counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung SC argued such considerations were not permissible, as seen from past Court of Final Appeal judgments. “It is inappropriate in Hong Kong to use a person’s silence against him in any way,” he told Mrs Justice Judianna Barnes Wai-ling at the High Court. He said a caution was only meant to remind suspects of their right to remain silent, therefore a court could not draw a negative inference when one decided to keep quiet – even if it defied common sense. “The magistrate made a mistake,” Pang said in challenging what he described as an “unsafe” conviction and “manifestly excessive” sentence.

The prosecution did not press the issue of silence, but said a re-examination of the evidence would lead to the same conclusion and uphold the conviction. “It’s inherently impossible for police officers to casually arrest someone who was just standing when there are so many protesters watching,” the prosecutor said.

Chan was convicted of assaulting police and resisting an officer. Videos played in court showed it took at least three officers several minutes to apprehend him outside a jewellery shop in Mong Kok on February 9 last year.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 8, 2017.

The defense said that the policeman testified that he cannot remember whether the person wore glasses or not, so the possibility of misidentification exists. The magistrate also ruled that the defendant was not a reliable witness and rejected the testimony. But since defendants deserve the benefit of doubt, the magistrate should have considered the possibility that the defendant's version might be truthful. Finally, the magistrate failed to consider the defendant's right to maintain silence.

The prosecutor said that there were 200 to 300 persons at the scene. The time between the assault and the arrest was minutes. There is no way for the policeman to describe each and every detail of the attacker. Besides the identification was based upon the clothes and mask, and the policeman's vision never left the scene.

The prosecutor noted that the video segments showed the defendant vigorously resisting arrest, so that police officers were tumbling and losing balance. The defendant testified that he did not resist vigorously. This is sufficient to cast doubt on the veracity of the defendant's testimony on the part of the magistrate.

The prosecutor accepted that the magistrate was incorrect in the interpretation of the silence of the defendant, but said that this was not the key element in the verdict/sentence.

The prosecutor said that there were many demonstrators at the scene, and they imitated the defendant's actions, there would be more destruction of social peace. Therefore 9 months in jail was not obviously excessive.

(Oriental Daily) March 29, 2017.

Earlier Chan Pak-yeung filed an appeal on his verdict/sentence. Today, the High Court judge rejected his appeal and sent him back immediately to serve his sentence.

(SCMP) March 30, 2017.

A waiter, jailed for nine months for throwing water bottles and resisting arrest during the Mong Kok riot last year, has failed to overturn his conviction and sentence.

Chan Pak-yeung, 30, waved goodbye to his family and supporters as he was escorted away from the dock to serve his sentence on Wednesday.

The High Court refused his applications after finding the trial magistrate did not make any material errors that would jeopardise the safety of the conviction nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence on charges of assaulting and resisting police.

Madam Justice Judianna Barnes said the court must send a strong message that courts will not tolerate or condone assaults inflicted on police officers in execution of their duties.

“Sentencing must carry a deterrent effect,” she said on Wednesday. “While the magistrate’s starting point of nine months in sentencing was rather severe, the court does not find it manifestly excessive based on the serious circumstances in the present case.”

In a written judgement, Barnes said So Wai-tak is an experienced magistrate who had considered all the evidence to find the officers reliable in Chan’s identification and that it was not possible for him to be an innocent bystander observing a public assembly when he was equipped with mask and gloves.

While she sided with the defence in finding So committed a very serious error in drawing negative inference from Chan’s silence upon arrest, she agreed with prosecutors that it was not a material error as she found the magistrate would have reached the same conclusion without it.

Among the past examples cited by defence was an Occupy case before the same magistrate, in which a protester was jailed for four weeks for similarly throwing a water bottle. The case of activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu jailed for three weeks for resisting arrest was also referenced.

But Barnes concluded they were not comparable as the present case took place at the height of the Mong Kok disturbances, with the possibility of clashes erupting at any time.

She also noted that sentencing at the magistrate level carried no binding effect nor reference value to the higher court.

(Wen Wei Po) March 30, 2017.

The defense questioned whether the magistrate considered the possibility that the police arrested the wrong individual, because the arresting officer could not remember whether the arrestee wore glasses or not.

Madam Justice Judianna Barnes disagreed. She said that when the policeman was hit by the water bottle, he cried STOP! The man threw another water bottle and the policeman charged up to make the arrest. The entire episode took less than 5 seconds without the man ever leaving the line of sight of the policeman. There was no need to make an arrest by recognizing the face. Therefore whether the arrestee wore glasses or not was unimportant.

(Wen Wei Po) (Oriental Daily) October 28, 2016.

On February 12, Scholarism member Derek Lam, "Captain America" Andy Yung and others appeared at Kowloon City Court. Civic Passion member Chu Po-sang was there to support the defendants. In the lobby of the court house, Chu clashed with members of the Defend Hong Kong Movement. Firstly, the female Lee Wan-fong saw Chu using a hat to cover his face and pulling a coat over his head, and asked Chu to remove his coat. But Chu used his right shoulder to ram Lee. A male Shum Shi-gai intervened, and Chu punched Shum on the right neck.

Today in court, Chu Po-sang pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault. The defense pleaded that the defendant committed the crimes in a moment of rashness. As of now, Chu has quit Civic Passion and will not participate in any more organized activities. Therefore Chu will not be a recidivist.

Sentencing will be held November 10, pending the report from the probation officer.

(Oriental Daily) November 10, 2016.

Chu Po-sang was sentenced to 160 hours of community service. The defense pleaded that the probation report was positive because he leads a steady life, is willing to accept responsibility and shows remorse. Since recidivism is unlikely, he should be given a chance.

- Before the incident, Chu Po-sang already had a full-time occupation as a super-fan of Taiwan celebrity "Chicken Cutlet Girl." What (if anything) is he going to do about that? He can't devote even more time to her because he has no time left to spare already.

(Apple Daily) November 15, 2016.

27-year-old restaurant cook Chan Cheuk-hin is facing a charge of disorderly conduct in public, while 20-year-old tutor Chan Yu-kei is facing two charges of assaulting police officers. These charges were reduced from the original riot charges. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution showed videos taken on the early hours of February 9 around Nathan Road. Certain people were chanting to tell the police to open fire. The police dispersed the crowd with pepper spray and baton charges.

Police sergeant Choi Kwok-wai testified that he saw two colleagues chasing a suspect and getting surrounded by the crowd. So he and other uniformed officers went up to help. Choi was grabbed around the neck by a man in beige pants. He turned around to chase that man. Suddenly the blue jeans-clad Chan Yu-kei pushed him with both hands and punched him in his chest. Choi hit Chan Yu-kei on the forearm with his baton. Chan was subdued, and began bleeding in the head and nose. Choi and others gave him help. Choi said that police officers are allowed to use a higher level of force when attacked, and that was why he struck back with the baton after being punched by the defendant.

On cross-examination, Choi admitted that he was not aware of the presence of Chan Yu-kei initially. He saw Chan only after he felt the pain in his case. Choi said that Chan Yu-kei moved quickly. Choi said that he felt pain, but there were no marks. Because the police were busy and many of them were injured, Choi continued to work and did not go for a medical examination.

Chief inspector Chong Sing-yat said that the police had moved a garbage bin back on the sidewalk when the defendant Chan Cheuk-hin threw it back onto the roadway. He raced up and grabbed Chan Cheuk-hin's backpack. Other people in the crowd grabbed Chan to free him. Eventually Chong and another senior superintendant subdued Chan Cheuk-hin.

(Video) Arrest of Chan Yu-kei.

(Oriental Daily) November 16, 2016.

The defense chose not to call any witnesses. The two defendants did not testify themselves.

The defense said that when the Chan Cheuk-hin threw the garbage bin on the road, the crowd did not move. They only moved after the police chased Chan Cheuk-hin. Therefore, the subsequent chaos was caused by the police and not by Chan Cheuk-hin.

The defense said that three police officers were approaching where Chan Yu-kei was standing, so there was no reason why he should provoke them. He pushed sergeant Choi Kwok-wai as a natural reaction, but he was beaten bloody as a result. The police said that there was another police officer who was also attacked, but they could not locate this officer. The defense questioned whether this police officer was carrying out in accordance with the law.

(Oriental Daily) November 17, 2016.

In mitigation, the defense said that Chan Cheuk-kin is a restaurant cook whose employer is willing to continue to employ him. Chan Cheuck-kin cares about society. When he saw others throw garbage cans, he followed suit. The defense said that Chan Yu-kei is still studying in order to enter university and he works as a part-time restaurant waiter. Chan Yu-kei cares about society and participates in school activities. His principal and teachers are praising him. The defense said that the case was not serious, his victim did not incur any injuries and he failed to obey the law because he was affected by the atmosphere at the scene.

(The Stand News) November 17, 2016.

With respect to Chan Cheuk-hin, the magistrate said that pushing a garbage bin that the police sergeant has just restored back onto the road is clearly a disruption of public order and an intentional violation of social peace. Therefore, the defendant Chan Cheuk-hin is found guilty of disorderly conduct in public.

With respect to Chan Yu-kei, the magistrate found him guilty of one count of assaulting the police sergeant Choi Kwok-wai but not guilty of the other count of assaulting an unidentified police officer. The defendant Chan Yu-kei was cut in the forehead when the police wrestled him to the ground. The magistrate said that it was justified because Chan brought it upon himself.

The two defendants were remanded in custody until sentencing on December 2, 2016.

(SCMP) December 2, 2016.

Two men were jailed for up to three months for separately throwing a rubbish bin and assaulting police during the Mong Kok riot in February, marking the second conviction over the violent clashes after a 30-year-old waiter was earlier sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for throwing water bottles and resisting police.

But the two men were both immediately freed on HK$10,000 bail by the Kowloon City Court on Friday, pending an appeal against the conviction. Chef Chan Cheuk-hin, 27, was jailed for 21 days for throwing a rubbish bin, while tutor Chan Yu-kei, 20, was jailed for three months for pushing and punching a police sergeant in Nathan Road during the riot on February 8 and 9.

Magistrate Veronica Heung Shuk-han said in her verdict that assaults against police cannot be tolerated as they would harm the force’s team spirit. She also noted that the chef could have expressed his demands peacefully but he instead chose to provoke officers by throwing objects.

Defence counsel Philip Wong said that his client Chan Cheuk-hin regretted his one-off, impulsive behaviour and promised not to reoffend. “He’s learnt his lesson,” he said. Meanwhile, Wong argued that the extent of police assault was comparatively less serious for his other client. “He only pushed once and no weapons were used,” he added.

The court heard that the younger Chan had already been remanded for 15 days, while his co-defendant was remanded for 12 days before he was granted bail by the High Court.

Behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place is punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and 12 months’ imprisonment, while assaulting police is punishable by up to two years of jail.

(Oriental Daily) March 2, 2018. HCMA 695/2016

Chan Yu-kei's appeal was turned down by the High Court today. The judge said that Chan has not provided any evidence for "legitimate self-defense" when he pushed and punched the police sergeant.

Another of Chan Yu-kei's reasons was that the police officer made a mistaken identification. The judge said that the police officer never took his eyes off Chan so there is no possibility of mistake.

Chan also complained that the police officer hit him on the head with a baton. The judge said that the injury on Chan's head was not caused by a baton.

(Oriental Daily) November 22, 2016.

32-year-old video producer Cheuk Ling-kon was charged with one count of assaulting a police officer.

The first witness was Police Tactical Unit officer Siu Chi-neng. He testified that at around 3am on February 3, he and several dozen police officers were at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street heading in the direction of Tsim Sha Tsui. At the time, there were masked demonstrators throwing rocks, glass bottles and garbage bins at them.

At around 3am, the police continued to push southwards. Siu and some of his colleagues turned into Shan Tung Street towards Portland Street. Some demonstrators cursed the police and threw bricks. Some demonstrators picked up bamboo poles to face off against the police.

At this time, a man dressed in black, carrying a black backpack and wearing goggles and surgical mask, used a bamboo pole about 3 meters long to thrust at Siu's shield. Siu used his shield to ward off the blow and warned the man to stop attacking the police. But the man refused to listen and used his bamboo pole to poke Siu again. As the police line advanced, the man turned around and ran towards Portland Street. The man fell down on the ground, whereupon Siu and another officer subdued him on the ground. Siu put handcuffs on the man while his colleague arrested the man for possessing a weapon of assault, assaulting a police officer and unable to produce identification. The defendant was brought into a police van and taken down to the Mong Kok Police Station for investigation.

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2016.

The defendant Cheuk Ling-kon left the courthouse in the company of friends who were dressed the same way.

The prosecutor played a videotape in which the defendant could be seen being subdued by the police. However, the videotape does not show if and when the defendant attacked the police. The defense played another videotape in which the defendant held a mobile phone and a camera, but no bamboo pole.

So the case rests upon the police officer said that his eyes never the defendant during the 30 seconds between the defendant making the attack and the police subduing him. The defense said that the defendant was an innocent photographer who got pushed onto the ground when the police line advanced and then arrested wrongly by the police.

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2016.

During cross-examination, the defense said that when the defendant was taken back to the Mong Kok Police Station, a detective in a white shirt told the two police officers: "You be the victim. You be the witness." Shortly afterwards, the detective told the two police officers to switch roles. Officer Siu Chi-neng denied that this was the case.

Siu said that he was carrying a shield which he used to keep the defendant down on the ground. Meanwhile police officer Fu Yeung-po testified that he observed Siu subduing the defendant and went up to help. Upon cross-examination, Fu said that he was the person carrying the shield in the video. However, he does not remember whether Siu carried a shield or not. The defense said that the defendant explained to Fu that he was there to film. Fu denied that this happened.

(Oriental Daily) January 3, 2017.

The magistrate thought that the testimonies of the police officers were reliable and sincere. He believes that the police officers were indeed attacked by someone wielding a bamboo pole. However, the videos presented by the prosecution did not record the attack. The videos only showed the defendant holding a mobile phone camera on one hand and another piece of photography equipment with a light on the other hand. Therefore the magistrate also believed that the defendant was filming at the time.

The magistrate said that the video showed a piece of photography equipment on the ground emitting light. Since the bamboo pole is a heavy object, the defendant could not be holding both the bamboo pole as well as the photography equipment at the same time. Although the police were reliable and sincere, misidentification is a possibility. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant not guilty of assaulting a police officer.

The magistrate said that even though the defendant wanted to film, he should not do so at the very front of the police line, because it increases the difficulty of the job for the police as well as putting himself at risk.

The defense asked for the prosecution for the legal fees. The defense said that they had proposed before the trial began to settle with a good behavior bond. The magistrate said that if the defendant really felt that he had done nothing wrong, there was no reason for him to ask for a settlement. So the magistrate refused to grant the legal fees.

(Wen Wei Po) December 15, 2016.

This afternoon, the police went to an apartment in Yu Cheong House, Yu Ming Estate, Cheung Kwan O district to arrest a 24-year-old salesman named Chan. The arrest was made after the Organized Crime Unit investigators reviewed surveillance videos and identified the suspect. The police removed evidence including a pair of shoes, clothing and a laptop computer from the apartment. According to information, Chan said that he was intoxicated that night and threw bricks along with others at the scene.

On November 10, the Organized Crime Unit investigators went to Mei Tung House, Mei Tung Estate, Wong Tai Sin district to arrest a 25-year-old waiter named Tang. The police removed evidence including a mobile phone, athletic shoes and a bicycle helmet. According to information, Tang said that he passed by scene after work and got infected by the atmosphere to throw bricks and rock the street signs.

So far the police have arrested 79 men and 11 women with ages from 14 to 70 in conjunction with the Mong Kok riot.

(Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

17-year-old waiter Chan Ho-man pleaded guilty to the charge of causing bodily injury while committing an assault. This was reduced from the previous charge of deliberately injuring a person.

According to the police officer Wong Chak-fai, the defendant came out of the crowd and threw a brick at Wong from ten meters away. The brick hit Wong on the left knee, causing bleeding. The defendant fled, but he was subdued by other police officers present at the scene. Under police caution, Chan admitted that he had come to support the demonstrators and picked up a brick to throw at the police.

In mitigation, the defense said that yesterday is Chan's birthday. On the evening of the Internet, Chan heard about the incident and went down to Mong Kok to offer support. He committed the crime in a moment of excitement. The defense said that Chan did not intend to engage in violence when he left home to head towards Mong Kok, and that Chan cannot control the others who were digging out the bricks from the pavement. The magistrate asked: "Can he control his own hand and feet, and their actions?" The defense concurred, and said that Chan is willing to accept the consequences.

The magistrate Heung Shuk-han ordered Chan Ho-man remanded in custody pending reports from the probation officer and the Detention Centre.

(Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

This morning magistrate Heung Shuk-han received a package today. When she opened it, she found a 5-inch box cutter inside. She immediately told the court to call the police.

(Metro Radio) January 9, 2017.

Magistrate Heung Shuk-han sentenced Chan Ho-man to an 18-month probation order. She said that the three weeks of pre-sentencing detention should constitute a profound lesson on the defendant who spent his 18th birthday behind bars.

The magistrate characterized the defendant as "having a volatile personality, easily influenced by others, immature thinking, lack of good judgment, weak in self-control, dim awareness of abiding by the law and directionless in life." Therefore she believes that he acted in a moment of rashness for which he should be held personally responsible. Since the defendant is repentant and has no prior records, an 18-month probation order with night curfews is appropriate. The magistrate said that the box cutter incident did not figure in her ruling.

Internet comments:

-  Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma's speech at Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2017:

This past year has again seen the Hong Kong courts deal with important cases in public law. Many have been high profile ones. The outcomes of those cases have at least provoked much discussion; sometimes the reactions have been loud. At times, some people and groups from various sectors have voiced criticism of the courts simply because of outcomes to cases not to their liking. Admittedly, courts and judges are not and ought not to be immune to criticism. I fully accept the right of people to comment on the work of the courts, but of course hope that such comments whether in criticism or even praise, should be informed and measured.

An understanding of the approach of the courts is important in this discussion. The basic starting point is a facet I have already highlighted – the concept that all are equal before the law. Many take for granted the impressive statue representing justice standing at the top of the front facade of the Court of Final Appeal. This is the statue of the ancient Greek goddess Themis (in Roman mythology, she is named Justitia). Themis is blind‑folded and holds in one hand the scales of justice, a sword in the other. These are symbols of the administration of justice, which are often taken for granted – just look at the number of legal institutions around the world using Themis to represent justice. However, the significance of these symbols of justice bears repetition from time to time in case this is overlooked in any discussion about the law.

The blindfold represents the approach of the courts in ignoring the identity of the parties who appear in them. No person or institution has any added advantage or correspondingly disadvantage in the courts by reason of who they are or what they represent. This is of course the concept of equality which I have already emphasised. That no person gains an advantage before the courts by reason only of status is easy to appreciate. What is, however, often not quite as well appreciated is that no person should suffer any disadvantage in the eyes of the law by reason of who they are or what they represent either.

Over the past year or so, I have sometimes received complaints from members of the public criticising the courts for the way they have dealt with certain cases. Dissatisfaction is expressed in the courts either not convicting persons of crimes or even where there were convictions, in imposing what are seen to be light, inadequate punishments. Correspondingly, dissatisfaction is also expressed when the courts have convicted or imposed what are seen to be heavy punishments. Whatever motivated these criticisms or comments, it is crucial to bear in mind the approach of the courts. In highly charged or high profile cases, all parties are treated in exactly the same way by the courts as in any other type of case. There is no added value or distinctions. Accordingly, legal principle and legal procedures apply in the same way. Thus, in a criminal case, a defendant will only be convicted if on the available evidence the prosecution proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If a conviction results, then any sentence imposed will be determined according to standard and well known sentencing principles. There is no discount or increase to reflect the personal identity of the accused. And where there is any perceived error in the conviction or acquittal, or in any sentence imposed or not imposed, the legal system under which we operate in Hong Kong has a system of appeals going up to the Court of Final Appeal.

January 17, 2016. The Blind Rule of Law. By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

In November 2014, two transportation workers tossed eggs at Joshua Wong outside the courthouse. Later the two pleaded guilty to common assault. The magistrate Cheung Kwun-ming fined them each $3,000. The Department of Justice thought that the sentence was too light and appealed. The magistrate reconsidered and changed the sentence to 2 weeks in jail and a fine of $120 for Wong's laundry expense, because the defendants did so with premeditation.

Also during Occupy Central, three men threw pig intestines at Jimmy Lai. The magistrate said that the defendants clearly wanted to insult Jimmy Lai and create a psychological impact. The defendants were found guilty and sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

In 2016 during the Fishball Revolution, 17-year-old Chan Ho-man threw a brick at a police officer, hitting the left knee to cause bleeding. The magistrate Heung Shuk-han said that the defendant was young and ignorant and committed the crime in a moment of rashness. Since the police officer did not suffer a serious injury during the course of performing his duties, the magistrate sentenced the defendant to 18 months of probation.

The commonality is that these people all threw objects. Those who threw eggs and pig intestines went to jail. The one who threw a brick got probation. The one who attacked the law enforcement officer did not have to serve jail time; he did not even have to pay for his victim's medical expenses. The one who threw the egg has to pay for the victim's laundry bill.

I am an ignoramus in law. I am not commenting, and I don't dare to raise any doubts. I only want to ask: Chief Justice Ma, you say that everyone is equal before the law. But where exactly is the equality to be found?

• [591] Nothing Can Stop People Thinking (2016/10/05)

Demosistō, October 5, 2016

URGENT STATEMENT: JOSHUA WONG DETAINED BY THAI AUTHORITIES

Joshua Wong, Secretary General of Demosistō, left Hong Kong last night via Emirates (Flight EK385) en route to Bangkok, Thailand, where he has been invited to speak at an event hosted by Chulalongkorn University. The flight has arrived on schedule at around 11:45 p.m. local time.

We have, however, been unable to contact him until 4:18 a.m. Hong Kong time, when Netiwit Chotipatpaisal, the Thai student-activist expected to meet Wong in Bangkok, notified us that Wong has been detained at Suvarnabhumi Airport. According to Chotipatpaisal, the Thai authorities have received a letter from the Chinese government earlier regarding Wong’s visit. His request to see Wong, who is still currently in custody, has also been declined.

Demosistō strongly condemns the Thai government for unreasonably limiting Wong’s freedom and right to entry, and requests the immediate release of Wong. In the meantime, we request the Hong Kong Immigration Department’s assistance in assuring Wong’s safety.

Demosistō
October 5, 2016

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 5, 2016.

The Demosistō party’s Joshua Wong has been detained at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport, reportedly at the request of China. The 19-year-old activist, who was one of the leaders of the 2014 Occupy protests, was due to speak about democracy at Chulalongkorn University. Demosistō condemned the move and quoted Netiwit Chotipatpaisal, a Thai student-activist Wong was due to meet, as saying that he had been detained at immigration.

“According to Chotipatpaisal, the Thai authorities have received a letter from the Chinese government earlier regarding Wong’s visit. His request to see Wong, who is still currently in custody, has also been declined.”

Author Jason Y. Ng told HKFP that the incident was troubling: “Before Joshua left, I helped him map out his itinerary and told him that there’s a 70% chance that he would either be stopped from boarding his flight in Hong Kong or refused entry in [Bangkok]… Now that it actually happened, I can’t say it’s unexpected but it’s nonetheless disappointing and troubling,” he said. Ng said Wong is expected to be put on the next Emirates flight back to Hong Kong, departing at 2pm. Sophie Richardson, China Director of Human Rights Watch, tweeted: “Beijing says, “Jump!” Bangkok says, “How high?”

Hong Kong immigration say they have contacted the Chinese consulate in Thailand whilst NGO Amnesty International say they are monitoring the case.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 5, 2016.

As news came through that Joshua Wong, the secretary general of Demosistō had been detained at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport on his way to speak on democracy at Chulalongkorn University, his party deputy and colleague, Agnes Chow, spoke out: “There is no way to stop people thinking.”

“I believe that when there are more and more people who believe and agree with what we think, they cannot prevent people’s views about democracy even if they stop people from crossing the border like this,” said Chow. “I think this incident clearly shows that the Chinese government is trying to use all possible ways to silence the voice of democracy… to stop those from Hong Kong spreading [their ideas] to other countries and civil societies.” Chow said that the more suppression there is, the more there would be resistance, and that there was a lot of attention from the media even though Wong was prevented from entering Thailand.

Wong is expected to be deported back to Hong Kong on Emirates flight EK384; his name is on the manifest, a source told HKFP.

(The New Atlas) October 5, 2016.

Thai PBS in its article, "HK democracy activist Joshua Wong detained in Bangkok," would claim:
 

Wong, 19, famed for his galvanising role in the city’s 2014 pro-democracy “umbrella movement”, was held as he landed at the airport late Tuesday, his party Demosisto said in a statement, citing a Thai student activist, Netiwit Chotipatpaisal, who was due to meet him. 

Wong was invited by Thai student activists to take part at an event marking the anniversary of a military crackdown in October 1976. 

Demosisto “strongly condemns the Thai government for unreasonably limiting Wong’s freedom and right to entry, and requests the immediate release of Wong,” the statement said.

What Thai PBS fails to mention is that Joshua Wong and his party, "Demosisto," are US-funded and directed, and represent Western interests attempting to subvert Chinese control over its own territory of Hong Kong, as well as undermine national sovereignty across the entire Asian region.

Indeed, the entire "Occupy Central" movement, also referred to as the "Umbrella Revolution," was led by US-backed opposition figures, including Joshua Wong, Benny Tai and Martin Lee, the latter of which was literally in Washington D.C. lobbying for backing just months before the 2014 protest began.

While the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) initially denied it provided any assistance to the movement and denied specifically that Martin Lee served any role in leading the protests despite his Washington visit, NED through its subsidiary Freedom House, would eventually invite Wong, Tai and Lee back to Washington afterwards to award them for role in leading the protests.

At the award ceremony titled, "Three Hong Kong Heroes," Lee would shuffle onto stage with an umbrella prop in hand, a virtual admission to his leadership role in the protests and confirmation that NED's previous statement was intentionally false.

Wong's political party, Demosisto, headed by Nathan Law, is also tied directly to the US State Department's NED. 

Nathan Law in particular was featured on the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website "World Movement for Democracy" in a post titled, "Democracy Courage Tribute Award Presentation." In it, NED would write in regards to the award presented to Nathan Law:

The Umbrella Movement’s bold call in the fall of 2014 for a free and fair election process to select the city’s leaders brought thousands into the streets to dem­onstrate peacefully. The images from these protests have motivated Chinese democracy activists on the mainland and resulted in solidarity between longtime champions of democracy in Hong Kong and a new gen­eration of Hong Kong youth seeking to improve their city. The Hong Kong democracy movement will face further obstacles in the years to come, and their ide­alism and bravery will need to be supported as they work for democratic representation in Hong Kong.

The ceremony was yet another in a long line of post-Occupy Central award ceremonies the US State Department conducted, rewarding its proxies for their efforts in the streets of Hong Kong in 2014.

In 2015, Malaysia too would confront Wong and his attempts to spread US-backed subversion across Asia.

That PBS would also report in an article titled, "HK student activist Joshua Wong denied entry to Malaysia," that: 

Immigration officials on Tuesday barred Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong from entering Malaysia at the Penang International Airport in Bayan Lepas, The Star Online reported. 

Wong was scheduled to attend a forum titled “The Uprising of Youth and New Social Activism in Singapore and Hong Kong” at Auditorium A in Komta on Tuesday night.

It is also worth noting that after Wong was denied entry, US-funded organisations posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) immediately took to social media in an attempt to criticise the Malaysian government's decision.

Malaysian online news service, The Star, in an article titled, "Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong denied entry to Malaysia," would further elaborate:
 

"Malaysia... explain why he is sent back to Hong Kong? Afraid of more street protests," tweeted Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah.

Bersih, like Joshua Wong's Demosisto, is openly funded by the US State Department and represents Washington's, not the people of Malaysia's interests. Bersih would be revealed in 2011 to have received funding and training from the US State Department via the National Democratic Institute (NDI), another NED subsidiary.
 

It is perhaps ironic that Wong himself and his supporters portray him as a "democracy activist," considering that one of the central principles of democracy is the concept of self-determination. Self-determination means that a nation's people themselves determine what course of action is in their best interests, free from the influence of foreign interests.

The concept of self-determination underpins the national identity of many nations across Southeast Asia, having had their respective national destinies dictated to them at various points throughout their history by European colonialism. Independence and self-determination across the region represent hard-fought achievements threatened by US-backed political fronts wielding "soft power" in place of the overt "gunboat diplomacy" practised by the British Empire in days past. 

 

Worse than mere foreign backing, Wong and his Demosisto political party work ceaselessly to promote the parting demands made by British colonial administrators as Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. These demands, including upholding the "one country, two systems" and "Basic Law" drafted just ahead of the British handover of Hong Kong, are echoed by the current governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom. 

Thus, Wong and his political party, Demosisto, work contra to Hong Kong's self-determination, promoting the parting policy of the British Empire imposed on a still emerging China in 1997. 

 

By Wong meddling in the internal affairs of neighbouring Asian states, attempting to bolster US State Department efforts elsewhere to create proxy political fronts to serve Washington rather than local interests, he is also trampling the concept of regional self-determination, and thus of democracy itself. 

In Thailand specifically, Wong sought to support anti-government agitators likewise seeking to subvert Thai sovereignty and return to power political parties loyal to Washington. 

 

Wong's admirers find among themselves a common denominator of affinity toward the United States and American politics. They believe themselves to be enlightened supporters of freedom, democracy and human rights, despite the reality of US foreign and domestic policy standing firmly against all three of these basic and essential principles. 

 

From the invasion and occupation of foreign nations around the globe, to the detainment and torturing of people worldwide, to the violence and brutality American police deploy against the American population at home, to the invasive abuse of the American people's right to privacy, American politics in reality exist separately from the ideals cadres of indoctrinated foreigners have been led into believing the US stands for.

Wong and his Demosisto political party and other US-backed political fronts like them, represent a danger to freedom, democracy and human rights, serving as a facade behind which US special interests hide their true, self-serving agenda and all of the abuse that surrounds it. By serving as a facade for foreign interests, merely posing as a proponent of democracy and self-determination, it is Wong and those like him that truly endanger democracy's future in Asia, not those awaiting him at airports, turning him and his US-backed agitation away. 

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) While Demosisto could not confirm whether mainland China had exerted pressure on Thailand over Wong’s visit, Nathan Law said his group has sought help from human rights groups and lawyers in Thailand to verify this. “If it is true, it is rather outrageous for China to ban activists in such way,” he said.

- Well, get used to it. It will get worse if Hong Kong goes through self-determination to become an independent state.

First of all, which countries are going to have diplomatic ties with Hong Kong? China will offer the choice: Either China or Hong Kong -- you choose. Everybody is going to choose China over Hong Kong.

Next, if you get into trouble overseas, who can you ask for help? Right now you can get the Chinese consulate/embassy to help because you are a Chinese citizen (of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). Afterwards, you cannot do that and there is no Hong Kong consulate/embassy anywhere in the world.

- "China should not act this way." But China acts this way (with respect to Taiwan, for example) because it can and therefore it will.

- (The Standard) A deputy commander of the Suvarnabhumi Airport immigration office confirmed Wong had been declared persona non grata. The Nation daily reported today that Police colonel Pruthipong Prayoonsiri, deputy commander of the Suvarnabhumi immigration office, said China has sent a request to the Thai government to seek cooperation to deny him entry to the kingdom. "As a result, the Immigration Bureau blacklisted him and held him for deportation. When officers informed him, Joshua Wong did not oppose it," Pruthipong said.

- What is on this letter from the Chinese government to the Thai government? Does it just say: "Do not admit Joshua Wong?" or "Do not admit Joshua Wong, or else?" or "Do not admit Joshua Wong because ...?" What is "..."?

- (Reuters) Pruthipong later told Reuters he had not spoken to the newspaper, did not know if Wong had been blacklisted and declined further comment.

- (Reuters) Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said Wong's expulsion was a matter for China, not Thailand. "Why he was sent back is China's issue," Prayuth said.

- (Ming Pao) At the press conferece, Chan-ocha said: "The reason why Wong was sent back is a Chinese issue." "It is a Chinese issue, not a Thai issue." "He has returned to China." "The Chinese officials ask to take him back. This is a matter for the Chinese officials, and there is no need to intercede." "They are all Chinese, whether from Hong Kong or mainland China." So after Thailand decided to refuse entry, Wong was kept in solitary confinement pending expulsion. At that point, the Chinese Embassy staff appeared and asked to arrange for Wong to return to Hong Kong. Of course, the Thai authorities were only too glad to have the matter taken out of their hands. Hongkonger or mainland Chinese person, what's the difference to them, right? It's just a Chinese issue, right?

- (SCMP) “He already went back to China,” junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha told reporters. “Officials there have requested to take him back. It’s Chinese officials’ business. Don’t get involved too much. They are all Chinese people no matter Hong Kong or mainland China.”

- Actually, what Chan-ocha said was that it was China's responsibility for letting Wong get on the airplane and fly to Thailand. Once there, Thailand decided that it was too sensitive for Wong to be there for the 40th anniversary of the Thammasat University (Bangkok) massacre. So Wong was sent back to Hong Kong. In other words, Wong should never have been allowed by China to leave Hong Kong!

- Ming Pao: "Did the Chinese ask for Wong not to be admitted into Thailand? The Chinese Embassy said that they don't know: The embassy is still closed for the National Day holidays."

The Chinese embassy in Thailand replied to Ming Pao's inquiry that they had received a request for assistance from the Hong Kong Immigration Department. As a result, they have contacted an airline on behalf of Joshua Wong and arranged for a ticket to return to Hong Kong.

- Demosistō advocates self-determination (自決) by the people of Hong Kong. But 自決 can also be interpreted as 自己解決 (to solve by oneself). So when Joshua Wong was blacklisted and locked up, should he have tried to solve the problem by himself? Or beg the Chinese Embassy to solve his problem for him?

- (SCMP) October 5, 2016.

Hong Kong’s justice minister brushed off suggestions that China played a role in restricting Wong’s entry to Thailand, saying it was “purely” a domestic decision. “On reports about Thailand being under pressure from China, first I have absolutely no information, and second, I personally do not believe such a matter would be an issue that requires international pressure,” Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said before departing for a duty visit in Bangkok. It is “purely Thailand’s own handling” of an individual’s entry into the country as a tourist, Yuen said. He added it was standard international practice for any country to exercise control measures at the border.

- (SCMP) October 7, 2016.

Hong Kong’s justice minister blamed “differences in translation” for confusion over whether the Thai prime minister admitted China’s role in stopping student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung from entering Bangkok.

Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung’s remarks, which Wong dismissed as irrelevant, came as Thai police were quoted as saying that Beijing had not requested that the 19-year-old be sent back to Hong Kong after he was detained at Suvarnabhumi airport on Wednesday and held in solitary confinement for more than 10 hours.

Wong had flown to Thailand to deliver a speech on democracy for university students. The talk coincided with the 40th anniversary of a deadly government crackdown in Bangkok.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha had been quoted as saying that “officials there [in China] have requested to take him back. It’s Chinese officials’ business”.

After a visit to Bangkok promoting legal business on Friday, Yuen cited a Thai junta spokesman’s public statement that Thai authorities were not subject to instructions from other countries when sending Wong home.

“I think what the Thai prime minister said was it was a matter for China,” Yuen said. “From what I’ve seen, there seems to be different translations. I have not been in a position to clarify the differences in translation.”

Yuen, though, was referring only to the part “it’s Chinese officials’ business”. He made no reference to Prayuth’s comment that “officials there have requested to take him back”.

On the day Wong was detained, the justice secretary said the case would not have triggered international pressure for action. He did not respond to media questions on Friday night on whether he stood by that position.

Wong said he was not provided with a translator and spent the night in a 50 sq ft cell, away from other detainees. He was given water and food. The activist, who subsequently gave a video speech from Hong Kong to students at Chulalongkorn University, criticised Yuen for missing the “core question”.

“He could have asked Thailand why I was not allowed to seek legal advice, call Hong Kong immigration or contact my family,” Wong told the Post.

“Does Secretary Yuen think agencies like Bloomberg and Reuters mistranslated the prime minister?” he added, referring to media that reported the quotes that were challenged by Yuen.

Yuen said Thai officials had made it clear they rejected Wong’s entry with reference to his past activities – Wong was a key student leader in the 2014 Occupy movements that paralysed the city for nearly three months. Yuen said people should accept that every country had a right to exercise immigration control, even though “one may agree, one may disagree”.

Thailand’s deputy police commander, Sriwara Rangsipramanakul, was quoted by Thai media as saying there was no pressure from any country. He said Wong’s detention was purely a decision taken by Thailand’s Immigration Office, according to a report by Matichon Online on Friday.

- How are things in Thailand, politically speaking? Is it a democracy? A monarchy? A military junta?

(Hong Kong Free Press) Demosistō's Agnes Chow, spoke out: “There is no way to stop people thinking. I believe that when there are more and more people who believe and agree with what we think, they cannot prevent people’s views about democracy even if they stop people from crossing the border like this. I think this incident clearly shows that the Chinese government is trying to use all possible ways to silence the voice of democracy… to stop those from Hong Kong spreading [their ideas] to other countries and civil societies.”

This imparts zero information about Thailand itself.

 (SCMP) Hong Kong-based human rights lawyer Michael Vidler, who had advised Wong on previous occasions, said that there was no legal basis to detain the activist other than for the period he was waiting to be put on a plane back because he had been rejected entry in Thailand.

“It would be difficult to think of any offence he would have committed to justify having detained him for another reason,” Vidler noted. He said that it was “very possible” that Chinese authorities shared information with Thai authorities. “In the worst case scenario, he may have been detained in Thailand at the request of the Chinese authorities – as appears to have been the case with one of the Hong Kong publishers,” Vidler said, referring to Gui Minhai, a bookseller who went missing in Thailand last year.

“We are talking about an authoritarian military regime that took power in a military coup,” he said. “One would hope this is simply the case of the military regime in Thailand not wanting Joshua to speak to Thai students about democracy and therefore simply refusing his entry ... but given recent events regarding Hong Kong publishers, naturally Hong Kong people have concerns that there are more serious reasons for Joshua being detained,” Vidler noted.

So you get the impression that Thailand is ruled by an authoritarian military regime which is a Pekingese poodle. That is why Thailand is so afraid of letting the democracy message come through the door.

(Associated Press) A Thai security report obtained by The Associated Press said that more than 10 police officials from the Royal Thai Police Special Branch and Immigration Police were waiting for activist Joshua Wong of the Demosisto Party when he arrived. The government has shown zero tolerance for dissent and has cracked down hard on its own student activists who have protested the military rule. It has detained students, stopped speeches from taking place and last month Thai authorities threatened to arrest Amnesty International speakers who were set to hold a news conference to release a report detailing allegations of torture at the hands of the military and police, causing the rights group to cancel the event.

Alright, you are now equipped to go and read Politics of Thailand (Wikipedia). After reading it, are you as clear as you thought before? Do you think that one-person-one-vote with civil nomination/national self-determination will solve Thailand's domestic socio-economic-political problems?

- If you really want to learn from Thai politics, you can read this:

(Next City) How the Urban-Rural Divide Became a Street War in Bangkok. By Flora Bagenal. January 27, 2014.

She was voted one of Bangkok’s most eligible ladies by Tatler magazine in Thailand, appears at exclusive parties all over the capital and is heir to a $2.6 billion family fortune. But the day 28-year-old Chitpas Bhirombhakdi climbed onto a tractor and led the charge toward a police roadblock in the protest-choked streets of Bangkok, the young beer heiress also became a symbol of Thailand’s so-called silver spoon revolution, and the urban-versus-rural strife that has brought the capital to a standstill. Related Stories

VIDEO: Boosting Bangkok’s Flood Resilience With Community-Based Technology Fight Over Istanbul Park Is Also a Fight for Freedom of Speech Earth’s Car Problem Needs a Strong Mix of Bike Activism and City Hall What Narendra Modi, India’s Likely Next Prime Minister, Will Mean for Cities

The act of rebellion by Chitpas, whose father owns the brewery that makes Singha beer, one of Thailand’s best-known brands, was filmed and quickly circulated online in December. The reaction was telling. Within the city limits of Bangkok, she became an instant hero of a growing movement to topple the government, which has thrust Thailand into a state of emergency. Outside Bangkok, however, the country’s mostly rural working-class voters saw her actions as further proof that the protests are merely a tantrum on the part of Thailand’s urban elite.

“She’s rich, and she lives in rich people’s circles,” scoffed Patsadaporn Chantabutr, a 45-year-old teacher living in one of the rural provinces in the north of Thailand.

Such is the upside-down world of Thailand’s increasingly fraught political divide. From the Soviet Union to the Arab Spring, we’ve come to expect revolutions led by disgruntled and downtrodden workers, disenfranchised citizens fighting for an end to the monopoly on power by the rich and influential. But what’s happening in Thailand right now is just the opposite — the country’s wealthier urban class are the ones who have taken to the streets, demanding a disruption to the status quo. Known as yellow shirts, they are well-educated middle-class housewives, lawyers and bankers, TV personalities and comedians, and the vast majority of them come from the capital city of Bangkok. They wear designer sunglasses to rallies and carry wads of cash in expensive handbags to give to protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, who himself possesses a large personal fortune.

The protesters, who’s movement is called the People’s Democratic Reform Committee, are several months into an attempt to force Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to resign. Their rebellion started when the government attempted to pass an amnesty law that was widely seen as an attempt to allow Yingluck’s brother, the former Prime Minister and billionaire businessman Thaksin Shinawatra, to come out of self-imposed exile without facing corruption charges. For the past three months Suthep and his followers have besieged Bangkok with daily protests and rallies in an attempt to shut down the city and delay a snap election called by Yingluck for February 2.

Their ultimate goal, says Suthep, is to replace the government with an unelected people’s council in order to suspend democracy until electoral reforms are introduced which will tackle corruption and end the Shinawatra family’s monopoly on Thai politics for good.

Their enemy are the majority of Thais who live in the rural north and northeast, a group almost always characterized as uneducated and easily manipulated. They are the “red shirts,” and are said to be die-hard supporters of Yingluck and Thaksin, who they credit with introducing a raft of populist policies that have helped lift previously neglected rural communities out of poverty.

That the protests would take place in Bangkok was a foregone conclusion. It’s the only big city in Thailand, and a vastly disproportionate level of the country’s wealth and power is concentrated here. The economic miracle that has made Thailand one of the power-players of Southeast Asia is far less apparent in rural provinces, where people still live off the land as they have for decades. “In many ways, Bangkok still rules the provinces as on overlord of colonies, rather than as the capital of a democratic country,” wrote political commentator Voranai Vanijaka last week in the Bangkok Post.

This imbalance has only fanned the flames of the conflict, as voters from the north see an aloof urban class trying to shut rural Thailand out of the democratic process. “Eighty percent of Thais want to exercise their right to vote,” says Mahawon Kawang, a red shirt from Yingluck’s hometown of Chiangmai. “[The protesters] look down on the people from the north, but democracy is for everyone. They can’t pick and choose.”

Kawang, for his part, hosts a radio talk show and holds a master’s degree. He’s not the kind of country bumpkin that Bangkok’s protesters imply is too easily manipulated to be allowed to vote, the type that Singha heiress Chitpas was referring to when she said that Thais outside Bangkok, “especially in rural areas,” lack a “true understanding” of democracy.

(Chitpas’s comments weren’t without consequence: sales of Singha plummeted around the country, and red shirts posted pictures online of themselves pouring the beer on their feet – a scathing insult in Thailand.)

While the urban-rural divide does basically delineate the conflict, it’s also true that some rural communities are turning against the government. In Pichit, a fertile belt of rice paddies in Thailand’s central plains, farmers have for weeks been blockading roads and holding protests against the very government they used to support. The promise of big subsidies for farmers helped sweep Yingluck to power in 2011, but those subsidies haven’t materialized, and in Pichit, as many as 40,000 farmers have not been paid for harvests they sold to the government in October, forcing many families to take out high-interest loans to pay for fuel and fertilizer for the next season’s planting.

And so, last week hundreds of farmers said they were ready to join the protests in Bangkok, crossing Thailand’s intractable color divide. The announcement was a huge boon to Suthep and his supporters, who seized on the opportunity to mock the government for turning its back on its core electorate, the rural poor.

In any normal political arena, this would strengthen the argument for a fair and speedy election, offering the underdog an easy way to win support from the disgruntled masses. Not in Thailand, however, where protesters still say they would prefer to “suspend” democracy and sabotage elections rather than risk losing again at the ballot box. The Democrats have not won an election since 1992.

“We want to make sure the farmers get paid, but it won’t help us win,” said a spokesman for the democrats in Pichit. “Rural people are naïve. They will always vote for who offers them more money, and we don’t want to do the same as Thaksin.”

This is where, says political commentator Vanijaka, the us-versus-them mentality, encouraged by the constant typecasting of who supports who in Thailand, hurts the country most.

“We are a web of tribal networks based on hierarchy, relationships, loyalty, nepotism and benefits,” he writes, adding that both sides need to move away from overly simplistic narratives of red versus yellow. “As soon as we realize it doesn’t help to be divided and that democracy is about compromise, the sooner Thailand will be unified again.”

- Thailand is torn apart by Red versus Yellow. The United States is torn apart by Red versus Blue. Taiwan is torn apart by Red/Blue/White versus Green. Hong Kong is torn apart by Yellow versus Blue ...

Can democracy help to mend? You win an election and you take over the government. Your opponent will do everything in their power to stop you from governing effectively (through vetoes, filibustering, demonstrations, strikes, slander, street clashes, civil wars, etc).  Eventually the people will conclude that there is no hope for you to remain in charge and they vote your opponents in. Roles are reversed. You will now do everything in your power to stop them from governing effectively (through vetoes, filibustering, demonstrations, strikes, slander, street clashes, civil wars, etc). So the cycle starts all over again. The people are the big losers regardless of who wins the elections.

- Here is a contemporary update from Thailand. (The New Atlas) October 5, 2016.

The South China Morning Post in its article, "Thai activist invites Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong to address Bangkok students," would provide further details regarding why Wong was attempting to enter Thailand before being turned away by immigration.

The newspaper would admit that:

A Thai pro-democracy activist is hoping Joshua Wong Chi-fung, an Occupy leader and founder of political party Demosisto, will inspire young people to raise their voices in his military-ruled country.

Netiwit Chotipatpaisal, a 20-year-old political ­science student, believes Thailand may see an ­Occupy-like movement in a few years’ time and has invited Wong to speak in Bangkok.

Considering the fact that Wong's political movement, including the so-called "Umbrella Revolution" from which it sprang, is in its entirety a creation of the US State Department, one can only surmise that Netiwit Chotipatpaisal seeks also to attract US funding to create chaos in Bangkok's streets, just as US-funded agitators did in Hong Kong in 2014.

The newspaper would continue by stating:

Netiwit has been involved in several campaigns and groups pushing for reform of the Thai education system. He is now planning to follow in the footsteps of Wong and launch a party.

“I am learning from Demosisto. We have to fight from inside and outside the system,” he said.

Netiwit's group already staged an "umbrella protest" in the wake of Wong's being turned back to Hong Kong by Thai immigration authorities.

In reality, Wong's party, Demosisto, focuses primarily on undermining China and upholding British colonial dictates laid out as the UK returned territory it had seized from China 156 years earlier. Both Demosisto, and the "Umbrella Revolution" itself lacked any practical political platform relevant to the actual people of Hong Kong. That may be why the 2014 protests waned before holdouts were driven from the streets, not by Hong Kong police, but by angry residents.

Undoubtedly the United States and its favoured political parties in Thailand will attempt other means of seizing back political power and overwriting Thailand's national institutions. Having suffered irreparable setbacks after the 2014 coup and waning popularity as well, Thailand's opposition has attempted to reinvent itself through US-funded organisations posing as "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs).

These organisations, though run by foreign organisations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Open Society, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) and even the US Embassy in Bangkok itself, attempt to portray students like Netiwit Chotipatpaisal as independent activists who have built up their movements on their own and who just "so happen" to have the summation of the Western media's attention and support on their side.

If and when they take to the streets as Netiwit hopes, the Western media and the US Embassy will be there, conflating their numbers, exaggerating any measures the government may take to control their disruptive behaviour and possibly using the mobs as cover for pre-planned violence as the US and their partners within Thailand's opposition did in 2009 and 2010.

For Thailand's government, an easy way to dash Netiwit 's hopes of becoming Thailand's "Wong" is to urgently reform NGO laws exposing and heavily restricting those organisations who claim to be "nongovernmental" and "independent" while being entirely funded and directed by foreign governments abroad.

Like Wong's US-backed political front, Netiwit's "movement" lacks any real practical policy platform and seeks only to disrupt political stability in Thailand.

Netiwit and his circle of followers insist on being treated as "equals" by their elders but lack the humility to admit they have no constructive contributions to make toward improving society besides disrupting national stability and reciting political slogans parroted from foreign-funded agitators like Joshua Wong.

If and when Netiwit and others like him decide to pragmatically tackle issues like quantifiably improving education, creating sustainable jobs, cleaning up the environment and/or improving national infrastructure, then perhaps they will earn support from the public. Until then, they will be required to feign such support by relying on the US State Department and the Western media and their ability to transform agitators into "democracy activists."

- Eventually the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China will be asked about this episode. You can replay this video:

(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Regular Press Conference on May 27, 2015.

Q: Joshua Wong, the convenor of the Hong Kong student activist group "Scholarism" was denied entry into Malaysia. A Malaysian official said yesterday that the order of rejection was issued because Wong's speech might hurt Malaysia's ties with China. What is China's comment on that?

A: I have seen the report, but I am not aware of the specifics. We respect Malaysia's exercise of entry and exit administration in accordance with the law.

- Reference: Joshua Wong refused entry into Malaysia, May 26, 2015.

- (AP) China's Foreign Ministry said in a brief statement that it was aware of reports of Wong's detention, but did not say whether China had asked Thailand to detain him, only that it respected Thailand's ability to manage the entrance of people into the country "in accordance with law.'' 

- (RTHK) October 10, 2016. Asked whether Beijing was behind Wong’s expulsion, Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong said the Thai authorities were acting according to their country’s immigration requirements and laws. He said Beijing respects the decision and Thailand’s sovereignty and dignity.

- Each country has its "right to exercise of entry and exit administration in accordance with the law." Such laws will be general (such as "on grounds of national security" as determined by the government).

What is Thailand's reason for rejecting Joshua Wong? Before even going, Wong posted on Facebook: 眾所周知泰國政局不穩，政府濫權貪污不是新鮮事物，靠攏中共亦是其明顯取態。(Everybody knows that Thailand is politically unstable. It is nothing new that its government misuses its powers and is corrupt. They are also clearly close to the Chinese Communists). And now this person, who has been convicted of incitement and participation in unlawful assemblies, wants to address Thai students and activists to share the Occupy Central experience. Does Thailand need another Battle of Bangkok?  Been there, done that.

- People apply for visas to visit the United States. Some applications are rejected. Does the United States Consular Service ever explain why? No. So this is the international standard.

- The Thai Embassy says that foreigners are required by Thai immigration to have one of visa types:

1. Tourist (TR)
2. Business (B)
3. Education (ED)
4. Retirement or Marriage (O)

Joshua Wong is none of the above, unless you consider "agitation" to be a form of business activity.

- Joshua Wong wrote: "I arrived early in the morning in Bangkok and I was illegally detained by Thai Customs. After cutting me off from outside contacts and confiscating my passport, they kept me in solitary confinement at the airport detention centre. I was lucky to return to Hong Kong now. These more than ten hours of experience was really terrifying. I am sorry to get everybody worried." How does the Thai Customs "illegally detained" Joshua Wong?

- (SCMP) In Joshua Wong's words, “They accused me of violating the Immigration Act but did not explain. I consider the incarceration illegal.” Thus spake Joshua Wong, and therefore it is the truth.

- Ha! Joshua Wong is technically correct when he said that the Thai officials did not explain (verbally) to him. The truth is that they gave him a written legal notice:

The relevant law is Immigration Act BE 2522.

Section 12: Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom :

7. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation , or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

Also: You must be resided at TRANSIT AREA always, and be ready for the expulsion which shall be set up by the authorities at any moment. Any offense, evasion, escaping or leaving the premise without permission is forbidden.

- You are forgetting something! It is public knowledge that Joshua Wong is dyslexic. You can give him a legal document, but he can't read it!

- Thailand government's Facebook post:

- (NOW TV) 26 pan-democratic legislative councilors plus Cheng Chung-tai strongly condemned the Thai government for refusing Joshua Wong entry when he has not broken any Thai law. They demand that Hong Kong Immigration Department, Security Department and Justice Department intercede with the Thai government.

Please read the relevant Thai law again: It is not about prohibiting anyone for past crimes, but for "possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety or the public or to the security of the nation." And that is always a judgment call.

- The Thais say that Wong is dangerous and you say that he is not. This is unprovable and unverifiable. We can argue from here to eternity and it will never be resolved.

- The only way to prove/verify this is to let Joshua Wong enter Thailand and address the students. If there is no riot, then you can say: "See! I told you so!" If there is a riot, then you can say: "Well, who could have guessed?"

- (YouTube) Legislative Councilor Ip Kwok-him (DAB): "I think that this is a very irresponsible statement. All countries have their own policies. What did he do himself that causes this country not to trust him and make him persona non grata? I think that he should know."

Also with respect to whether China gave a blacklist to Thailand, Ip Kwok-him said: "I think that this is an absurd statement. Why would Thailand share a blacklist with various countries? When Student Wong goes to Thailand, the issue is whether Thailand welcomes you or not. I don't see any possible connection between the Chinese Central Government and this incident."

Also with respect to Wong said that he was glad not to be disappeared just like Gui Minhai, Ip Kwok-him said: "I think that he should not over-estimate himself. He should reflect on his own past actions."

- "Twelve hours of solitary confinement was terrifying"? How about this clip of Wu Jing waking up in a Thai prison in the movie SPL2?

- At first, Joshua Wong said that more than 10 Immigration/Customs officers met him at the airport. Later on radio, he upped the ante to "more than 20 police and immigration officers stopped and surrounded him on the air bridge from the plane to the terminal at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport."

- Here is Ip Man versus 10 Japanese soldiers. Joshua Wong is twice as powerful.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. On his flight back to Hong Kong, Joshua Wong wrote a long essay about his experience. He used the word 臭格 (literally, a stinking partition) six times. This term appears in triad gang lingo, but it is not as well-known in the general population.

A "stinking partition" is not just a jail cell. It is a space at a temporary detention center. When triad gangsters get arrested, they are segregated by the respective gangs. For example, if two gangs were arrested for fighting in the street, they cannot be put in the same common space because they will start fighting again. They cannot even be put in with the general population of detainees because there may be unidentified gang members within. Therefore they have to be put into isolation partitions.

Each partition is equipped with a squat toilet, which is basically a hole in the floor to defecate/urinate into. For safety reasons, there is no running water. That explains the name "stinking partition."

Joshua Wong also used words such as: wanting to cry; terror; fear; anxiety; worries; concerns; ...

For example, "When I entered into the 50 square foot 'stinking partition' at the detention center, I was very confused, scared and anxious ... how will the Hong Kong government respond? Will they just act as if nothing is happened? At that moment, I really wanted to cry ... this detention experience is ten times, one hundred times more scary than the five times in which I was arrested in Hong Kong ..."

So Student Wong must be really scared. I am reminded of what gang leaders often say in movies: "Once you choose this path, you expect that you have one foot is in the coffin and the other foot is in jail." Such must be joining the Revolution too.

If a revolutionary is unprepared to sacrifice himself but only want others to go to jail, then isn't this too naive and selfish? The first Mong Kok riot trial has seen the person who assaulted a police officer sentenced to 9 months in jail. So as the leader of the 79-day Occupy Central and the charge at Government Headquarters, do you think that you can travel around the world in the glow of the glory while your followers stew in prison? At least you could have said: "When I got into this, I was prepared for this day! Twelve hours in a 'stinking partition' means nothing. Twelve years would not have scared me!" With a leader like this, believers will kowtow and the flames of the Revolution will rage on.

But now we have in Joshua Wong a triad leader who wants to cry after 12 hours in a 'stinking partition'. Is he worth following?

- All sorts of people are refused entry into Thailand. (Daily Mail, February 10, 2016)

A woman has been refused entry into Thailand because she ripped pages out of her passport to use as toilet paper during a night out. Faye Wilson, 28, was left red-faced when she found herself being escorted on a flight home by a security guard after being turned back at the airport by Thai immigration officials. The hairdresser, from the Lake District, said she had been a 'bit drunk' when she and a friend used the passport pages as toilet paper after being caught short several years prior.

She was planning on spending a month in Thailand before working for a year in Australia - but was quickly turned back at the airport in Bangkok after catching a connecting flight from Dubai.

Ms Wilson said: 'Thai immigration just opened my passport and started looking through it, and asked "what's happened here"? I just said that I had lost the pages because I was too embarrassed to explain the real reason. Before I could explain more, they had deported me back to Dubai and then to Glasgow and confiscated my documents.' Ms Wilson had her passport taken off of her and was escorted back to Britain with a security guard.

- (Oriental Daily) Youngspiration said that all signs are that Thailand is under the control of the Chinese Communists. Therefore they will boycott tourism to Thailand!

- In Hong Kong, we can also boycott Thai rice (Best Buy, Empress Thai, Farm Value, Gelephant, Gphoenix, Golden Grand, Imperial Banquet, Royal Umbrella, Silver Spoon, Thai Harvest, etc). Obviously we already refuse to eat Chinese rice. Japanese rice is contaminated by Fukushima radiation. So we should all buy Australian rice (Double Ram, Kangaroo)!

- In Hong Kong, we can also boycott the Thai-style massage parlors, Thai restaurants, Thai food (tom yum goong (spicy shrimp soup), som tum (spicy green papaya salad), gaeng keow wan kai (green chicken curry), gaeng daeng (red curry), pad thai (fried noodles), khao pad (fried rice), etc).

- According to the Hong Kong Tourism Board, 33,374 Thai tourists came in August 2016. All we have to do is randomly assault a few of them to let the Thais know that they are not being welcomed, and that number will drop to zero. This worked well with mainland Chinese tourists (down 11.3% compared to last August), and it will work with other groups.

P.S. Malaysia refused to let Joshua Wong in, India refused to let Ray Wong and Alex Chow in, Singapore refused to let Joshua Wong in, etc. So these countries should be added to the boycott list, and their citizens should be 'valiantly resisted.'

- On D100, Lee Wai-ling said that Joshua Wong's experience in Thailand should persuade all of us to get rid of our Hong Kong SAR passports because it carries no diplomatic protection. Yes, let Lee Wai-ling lead us with a public burning of her passport!

- Ah, the show must go on: (Oriental Daily) About 50 persons including Demosisto members and legislative councilors marched from Admiralty Centre to the Thai Consulate in Fairmont House to protest. About 20 police officers prevented them from entering the lobby building and told them to stay in a designated demonstration area instead. The demonstrators attempted to charge into the building. The police raised the yellow warning banner to warn them to stop. After about ten minutes of chaos, a member of the Thai Consulate came downstairs to accept their letter. The demonstrators dispersed afterwards.

- This is the standard pantomime show in the "leftist retardism" toolkit. You pretend to push at the police line for the sake of the media cameras. If the media say that they have enough footage, you call it a day.

- One of these days, the police might just deliberately let you charge through. Then what? You will be lost at sea as to what to do. You are where you say you want to reach, but what do you say?

- You say, "Excuse me, where is the men's room?"

- (Wong On-yin's On8 Channel) The politicians missed their big chance. This type of incident has two sensitive spots. Firstly, it shows the importance of Hong Kong independence. Hong Kong has no diplomatic rights and has to depend on Beijing. In this case, the black hand is Beijing and it is useless to ask Beijing for help. Secondly, the people of Hong Kong must stand up to help themselves. This does not mean something feeble like boycotting tourism to Thailand. All the political parties should organize citizens to demonstrate at the Thai Consulate. When there are enough numbers, we should charge. We will be so awesome when we make them close their offices for a few days!

- Yes, this is very awesome indeed. But does that mean that the Thailand will allow Joshua Wong (or some other Hongkonger like him) to enter the next time?

- No. Of course it won't. But it is awesome to know that you are awesome.

- As in the case of Occupy Central, why not ask the question about who is this action going to hurt? Does ransacking the Thai consulate hurt the Thai government, the Hong Kong SAR government, the Chinese Central Government or the Chinese Communist Party? Or those Hongkongers who are seeking consular services?

- (SCMP) Activist Fred Lam Fai, activist Roddy Shaw Kwok-wah and filmmaker Lo Chun-yip went to Macau and were sent back because they "posed a risk to stability of internal security."

Why aren't the 26 pan-democratic legislators and Cheng Chung-tai protesting at the Macao Government Representative Office? Because Lam, Shaw and Lo are lightweights who won't draw the media to come out and film.

- (HKG Pao) Roy Tam (Greensense) was also refused entry. When he arrived by boat in Macau, the Immigration Department officials took away his Hong Kong ID and asked him to fill out entry information. Tam wrote down "Hong Kong" under nationality. The officials told him that "Hong Kong" is not a nation so he should write "China" instead. Tam refused and was sent back. The Macau Immigration Department gave Tam's Hong Kong ID to the boat captain for safekeeping. When the boat entered Hong Kong territory, Tam asked the captain to return his Hong Kong ID. The captain refused. When the boat docked in Hong Kong, the captain handed Tam's ID to Hong Kong Immigration Department officials who handed it back to Tam.

Tam said that the captain is not a Hong Kong government official and therefore most likely violated Hong Kong law when he held Tam's ID in Hong Kong territory.

- Roy Tam should have dialed 999 to summon the police and order them to arrest the boat captain for illegal detention of Tam's Hong Kong ID.

- Look at some cases in which Hong Kong refuses to let visitors in.

(SCMP) January 28, 2016.

A controversial “hate-speech” comedian with links to the far-right was on a plane back to Paris last night after being denied entry to Hong Kong where he had hoped to perform two shows.

French comic Dieudonne M’bala M’bala was detained by immigration officials at Hong Kong International Airport shortly after 7:30am yesterday after arriving on a flight from Bangkok following a trouble-free show in the Thai capital.

The block on Dieudonne’s entry came after high-level diplomatic interventions by Israel and France, who warned that his planned appearances – at a Cyberport venue last night and tonight – could have led to disorder and even violence if they went ahead.

While declining to comment on an individual case, a spokesman for the Immigration Department said: “We are committed to upholding effective immigration control by denying the entry of undesireables.’’

Dieudonne, who has convictions for inciting racial hatred through his anti-Semitic jokes and comments, insists the gesture is simply anti-establishment. However, he has failed to distance himself from groups and individuals who have posted photographs of themselves doing the quenelle outside synagogues, Holocaust memorials, Jewish schools and even at the infamous Nazi death camp at Auschwitz in Poland.

After seven hours of questioning the comedian was released.

Speaking from France his son, Merlin M’bala M’bala , told the South China Morning Post that his father had been told entry was denied “for immigration reasons”. “The official explanation they gave was for an ‘immigration reason.’ They didn’t explain more, ” Merlin M’bala M’bala said. “It seems the immigration officers were aware of his arrival and were waiting for him. Dieudonné wanted to enter as a normal French citizen that has always wanted to visit Hong Kong, which was part of the reason he came,” the son added.

According to organisers, around 300 people were set to watch M’bala M’bala perform over the two nights. Local fan David Chevalier, who was due to watch the performance, criticised what he called the authorities attempts to smoother free speech. “It seems all the speech of Dieudonné about freedom, and freedom of speech in Hong Kong and therefore in China is finally hopeless.”

M’bala M’bala tried to enter Hong Kong as a tourist after delays to his working visa application meant it did not arrive in time. “Immigration clearly blocked this working visa,” Merlin claimed.

Israeli consul general Sagi Karni praised the government for “taking the right measures.” “Who wants to import anti-Semitism, racism, holocaust denial and sympathy to Jihadist terrorists into this beautiful society?” he said.

(SCMP) September 24, 2016.

A rights group has urged authorities to treat transgender people with more respect after two women were refused entry to the city at Hong Kong International Airport on Saturday. The two transgender women were visiting the city from Bangkok for sightseeing and shopping. Officials rejected the women’s visit because they did not satisfy the purpose of their holiday, the Immigration Department said.

The pair were told to sign two documents; one to confirm they had completed full gender reassignment surgery and one to confirm they would voluntarily go back to Thailand immediately. After refusing to sign the documents the women returned to Bangkok on Saturday night.

Lawyer Jonathan Man Ho-ching, representing one of the women, said he could not rule out the “possibility” of prejudice and discrimination and said there was a “lack of understanding ... of different sexes and genders.”

The lawyer said the women were also asked by officials if they were “cut already” – blunt language for asking if they had undergone full gender reassignment surgery.

Joanne Leung Wing-yan, chairwoman of the Transgender Resource Centre, argued the pair’s travel history – which included Switzerland, Spain, Taiwan, South Korea – gave “no reason” to ask them to leave. “I just hope there will be a different kind of treatment and understanding for transgender people,” she said.

An Immigration Department spokeswoman said the tourists were “suspicious” and “failed to satisfy” that they were genuine travellers. She said the travellers would not automatically be approved or denied entry in future.

(Channel News Asia) September 26, 2016.

Taiwan lashed out at Hong Kong Monday (Sep 26), saying the city had recently denied visas to several Beijing-sceptic Taiwanese politicians as the island's relations with China worsen.

Two DPP lawmakers say they were denied visas to attend forums. A third was refused entry when his connecting flight was cancelled in the southern Chinese city in August. A professor with DPP connections was also refused a visa last month and leading protesters from Taiwan's anti-China "Sunflower Movement" say they have been denied visas in the past.

Taiwan's China affairs minister Chang Hsiao-yueh described the denials as "very unreasonable". "Hong Kong should not have been pressured by China to restrict our lawmakers travelling to Hong Kong," she told reporters. "We express utmost dissatisfaction and regret to the Hong Kong government."

Chang told parliament later Monday that Taiwan's office in Hong Kong had approached local government officials over the issue but had yet to receive "good results", without elaborating. Taiwanese media quoted a Hong Kong forum organiser as saying China's Taiwan Affairs Office had instructed that "all DPP officials" be denied entry to Hong Kong.

An immigration spokeswoman in Hong Kong said the department did not comment on individual cases.

- Indeed, the Hong Kong Immigration Department does not comment on individual cases. Why should Thailand be any different?

- ALERT: Please update yourselves on the latest realities first! Joshua Wong has just updated the list of complaints. Everybody had better catch up on this before you are trapped talking about the wrong issues.

(Oriental Daily) October 6, 2016. On radio, Joshua Wong said that the Thai government has the right to refuse entry. Thus, "illegal detention" is out of the door as of this moment. The objectionable things are: (1) Wong should not have been prevented from contacting his family and lawyer; (2) Wong should not have been locked up in a 50 square feet detention cell with no windows; (3) the more than 20 Thai immigration/police officers should have explained to him which laws, rules and/or regulations were broken.

- Why did Joshua Wong back off on the illegal detention thing? At first, he had said that the Thai government has violated his right to enter/exit. The whole world pointed out that the right to enter/exit for the people of Hong Kong refers to the right of a Hong Kong citizen to enter/exit Hong Kong. It does not refer to the right of a Hong Kong citizen to enter/exit all other places in the world. There is a thing called sovereignty. If a country prefers to be a hermit country that refuses all visitors, so be it. You can't send gunboats in to force them to open their doors for regular tourists, sex tourists, business people, agitators, opium/alcohol/tobacco importers, etc.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 9, 2016. More than 100 Chinese citizens have been held in detention in Jeju (Republic of Korea). They were refused entry for various reasons and are locked up in a "tiny dark room." The room does not have any furniture and people are just sitting and lying about. They sleep on the floor with no blankets, and they have to pay for their own food (50 RMB for a box of rice with some kimchee on top). According to Mr. Zhang, he and his wife went to Jeju which is visa-free for Chinese citizens. At the Immigration Control, the officer said that the couple did not have a printed hotel booking and therefore rejected their entry. So the couple is now waiting at the airport until the date of their return flight. The Chinese consulate in Jeju said that they have no authority to interfere with local law enforcement.

- By bailing out on the illegal detention issue, Joshua Wong has just stranded the pan-democratic legislators who signed the letter to ask the Hong Kong Security Department to demand an answer from Thailand about the illegal detention. Hey, now that even the detainee himself does not think it is illegal, what are you guys still screwing around for?

- Joshua Wong kept making the point that his reception in Thailand (with more than 20 immigration/police officers) is much higher than his earlier reception in Malaysia. In other words, his importance in global politics has just gone up. Yes, it is good to get reaffirmation of your worth.

- If they gave him a cell with windows, he would have complained about the iron bars. If they gave a cell with bayside windows facing the ocean, he would have escaped to address the university student body.  Duh ...

- Joshua Wong landed in Bangkok around midnight. What law office is opened at that hour waiting for walk-in business? Even lawyers have to sleep. So everything has to wait until the morning, by which time the Hong Kong authorities have asked the Chinese Consulate to arrange for a return plane trip for Wong.

- Next time, try taking a daytime plane and not on a holiday. Okay? Or you may have to wait 36 hours.

- Joshua Wong also complained about not being given an interpreter. At midnight, how many government-paid Cantonese-speaking interpreters are sitting around at Suvarnabhumi Airport waiting to work? So everything has to wait until the morning too.

- (The Stand) At RTHK City Forum, Legislative Councilor Paul Tse Wai-chun shrugged at the fact that Joshua Wong was locked up for twelve hours. He said that he himself was once taken into a room when he traveled to Hawaii. The reason was that his passport showed that he had visited Iran. Tse said that different countries do things their own way. At the same City Forum, Joshua Wong said that the Central Government must demand the Thai government to apologize for depriving Joshua Wong of his rights.

- P.S. At RTHK Forum, Joshua Wong said that he arrived back in Hong Kong at 3pm, October 5th, 2016. Nobody from the Secretary for Security downwards to Immigration Department worker contacted him. When didn't the Security Department contact him?

Eh, if you want the Security Department to do something for you, you should try to contact them directly, lodge your complaint and provide the details. You don't expect them to have to monitor your Facebook/Twitter all the time, and respond immediately to some story or the other. They would be very busy chasing after these stories.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 11, 2016.

For those of us who have traveled and worked in many countries for decades, there is a well-understood unwritten international rule: the Immigration officer who stamps your passport is always right.

Thirty years ago, if you join a tourist group to Philippines or Vietnam, your guide will tell you to slip an American money bill inside your passport to hand over. Don't ask why and don't argue with me about your principles. In some counties, they simply won't admit you without the payment. If you want to be principled, you will only delay your entire tour group.

More than a decade ago, I visited Kashmir. The security was extremely tight. I crossed over from India and that one crossing had seven different security checks while the immigration officers hover with machine guns in hand. Nobody dared to whisper. Many Indian friends warned me that we should never provoke the Immigration departments because they will open fire. There had been too many surprise attacks on them that they cannot afford to be merciful.

I visited Eastern Europe the year before last. As we crossed over to Croatia, the tour guide told us a true story: "The last time that I took a group to enter a small Eastern European country, the immigration department officers boarded the bus and took away our passports. Then they called us to go one by one to have our passports stamped. After waiting for almost two hours, a tour member lost patience and got to the bus window to complain to the immigration department officer: "What are you guys doing!? You should be ..." The immigration department officer raised his head and said, "Alright, you can wait over there." They stopped processing our group and dealt with everybody else instead. Because one of our tour members spoke up, the entire group waited another four hours and missed our flight connection."

The tour guide told us this story to caution us. Immigration department officers are always right, so there is no point in arguing with them. Just do whatever they tell you. If you don't like it, you don't ever have to visit that country again. Different countries have different rules, and the United Nations can't supervise them.

So it was funny that Joshua Wong should condemn the Hong Kong Department of Security for failing to take up his case. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that different nations have different laws. Does Joshua Wong know how many Hongkongers are refused entry elsewhere? Should the Hong Kong Department of Security take up all those cases?

In 1991, the Hong Kong tour group guide Au Wing-cheung led a group to tour the Philippines. The Customs Department found drugs in the group check-in luggage. As the tour group guide, Au was held responsible and sentenced to life in prison. Paul Tse Wai-chun was the lawyer who worked this case for many years. In the end, Au served five years before his appeal was upheld. I was one of the reporters who interviewed him on the day when he was freed.

In the case of Au Wing-cheung, he was clearly innocent but he nevertheless served five years. Joshua Wong went there with clear intent to cause trouble, but he was expelled after being detained for several hours. Wong should count himself lucky.

- Well, Hong Kong Internet users are much more interested in an issue that Joshua Wong never brought up: Was he searched before being placed in the detention cell? If so, how thorough was that search?

(The Nation) May 21, 2016.

Calls are growing louder for prison officials to strike a balance between strict measures and human rights after criticism of body cavity searches conducted on prisoners went viral. The latest incident to grab the attention of traditional and social media relates to a cavity search conducted on a female student charged with violating the National Council for Peace and Order ban on political gatherings after she joined a train rally to the scandal-plagued Rajabhakti Park.

The directive on conducting searches on prisoners, enforced since 1936, stipulates that body searches must be carried out by someone of the same sex. For females, if a woman prison official is not available another trusted woman can carry out the search.

Prison officials have taken a hardline approach to body searches following a number of incidents involving prisoners smuggling illegal drugs into prisons by swallowing them or inserting mobile phones into someone's anus or vagina. Three phones have been inserted into an anus before.

Prison officials have said they do not want to carry out body cavity searches as they feel uncomfortable doing them and know prisoners feel the same. Many times they prefer to order prisoners to sit and stand many times in the hope that any inserted contraband will fall out.

- Foreign intervention? (Associated Press) A spokesperson at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok said that they were monitoring developments surrounding Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong and that they were urging Thai authorities to clarify his status. "We support individuals exercising their universally recognized fundamental freedoms of opinion expression peaceful assembly and association throughout the world," said Steve Castonguay.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 8, 2016. Suppose a South African citizen travels to Indonesia and is refused entry. I can understand that the South African embassy in Indonesia making some noise to demand to know the reasons behind the decision. But isn't it strange that the loudest noise should come from the Brazilian embassy in Indonesia? What is the connection between this South African citizen and Brazil?

In like manner, why does the United States of America seem to be so interested in this Joshua Wong fellow, as opposed to countless others who are refused entry at the borders all around the world?

- The United States of America refuses entry to millions each year. For example, the United States of America/NATO own the responsibility of instigating, aiding and abetting the Syrian Civil War which created millions of civilian refugees. So far, the United States of America has accepted 15,000 Syrian refugees with great reluctance. What does the United States really have to say about their concern about the Syrian refugees' most basic freedom to live?

- (BBC) December 23, 2015.

A London imam has said he was prevented from travelling to the US and his visa was revoked over concerns about one of his 28,000 Facebook followers.

Ajmal Masroor was travelling to New York just before Christmas and was stopped from boarding at Heathrow. He told BBC London US officials never gave him a clear reason and said his treatment was "an absolute scandal". The US Embassy said it was "in contact with the individual" but refused to make any further comment.

Mr Masroor, a spokesperson for the Islamic Society of Britain, said he was invited to lead Friday prayers at a mosque in New York and was due to deliver some lectures at conferences while there. He was also hoping to see a few relatives before returning to London after the short break.

He said: "Unfortunately just as I was about to board the plane the American official, that's what he claimed, took me aside and said your visa has been revoked, and he still hasn't given me clear reasons why, apart from the suggestion that they made that they have got somebody on my Facebook that they want to talk to and they don't like. "So its ridiculous, it's an absolute scandal."

Mr Masroor said he was asked if he knew a person through social media, but the imam said he did not recognise the name or know the person. "If there is any reason to believe that I have been involved in anything illegal, anything that violates any law in any country in the world, take me to court, find me guilty, put me in the prison, but to revoke my visa with no reason and giving no concrete evidence is just ridiculous. Profiling people based on their religion, especially being a Muslim and flying makes a mockery out of what we call a democracy and freedom."

- And then this Donald Trump fellow wants to build a 20-ft-tall wall on the US-Mexico border to keep out the wetbacks from exercising their universally recognized fundamental freedoms of opinion expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement. And he wants to Mexicans to pay for constructing that wall or else face the wrath of The Donald.

- The Honorable Legislative Councilor Nathan K.C. Law writes to Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok, and Internet users checks his logic and grammar. Firstly, he said Lai can call him but he does not leave telephone/fax numbers. Next, he said that Joshua Wong was detained and sent back without cause, after which he proceeded to say that the Thai authorities told Joshua Wong that he has been "blacklisted." So was it with cause or without cause?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 11, 2016.

Hong Kong lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung was detained on Monday morning along with eight others as they entered Macau. They intended to present a letter to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who is visiting the city.

The group of nine, which included Tam Tak-chi, the vice-chairman of pro-democracy group People Power, was sent back to Hong Kong after being detained for around six hours. The League of Social Democrats (LSD), Leung’s party, said the group was unreachable until 3pm.

According to a live video broadcast shortly before his arrest, Leung said that police were already waiting when he arrived in Macau. He said: “I don’t know what this group of police officers are doing, but this time we may not even be able to get into [Macau].”

Leung’s group began protesting as they walked towards immigration control. Meanwhile, the police said that it was a restricted area and that it was forbidden to congregate and call out slogans. The nine were then taken away by police, and given documents stating that the reason for refusing their entry was due to the violation of Macau’s internal security law.

Kwok Yiu-cheong, a member of the LSD who was arrested, said that he was forced to delete photographs relating to their petition from his phone before being released.

In their protest and in the petition letter, the group called for universal suffrage as well as an end to one party rule. They also called for the vindication of political prisoners such as Liu Xiaobo.

After returning to Hong Kong, Leung told reporters that the methods of the Macau police had retrogressed and that he had “never gotten off the boat to have people come towards him immediately, like in spy or kidnapping films.” He also said that the Macanese authorities did not answer any questions. Leung said: “if they were going to deport us then [we] would leave immediately – there is no reason to [stay] a few more hours.”

- Karl Marx's most quoted statement was" history repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce." (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon) If Joshua Wong's expulsion was tragedy, then this second coming was a farce.

- This is the epitome of "leftist retardism." Do you think the actions of these nine people today will (1) get universal suffrage with civil nomination for Hong Kong; (2) end one-party rule in China; (3) release Liu Xiaobo and other political prisoners in China; (4) resurrect Li Wangyang?

So why do they still carry on with this? Because those goals are irrelevant. What is relevant is that they get media exposure and then they can solicit donations for money to continue their fight for those goals. But God forbid should those goals be realized, because they will have to find new reasons to solicit donations.

• [590] Babylon The Great (2016/10/04)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 4, 2016.

Four pro-democracy incoming lawmakers have urged the government to take back the rights of approval for One-Way Permits.

The People’s Republic of China Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao, otherwise known as the one-way permit, is a travel document that permits Chinese citizens to move permanently to Hong Kong and Macau. Currently, only China can approve the permits.

Although the four incoming lawmakers — independent Lau Siu-lai, Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration, Jeremy Tam Man-ho of the Civic Party, and Dr. Cheng Chung-tai of Civic Passion — hold different political stances on the pro-democracy spectrum, they all agreed that the approval of permits was an issue on which they could collaborate in LegCo. The four were speaking at a public forum held by the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong on Monday.

Some were concerned that new immigrants would be deprived of the rights to reunite with their families if the Hong Kong government regained the approval rights to the permits. Cheng said it was precisely because the government did not have the right of approval that they were unable to plan welfare policies accordingly.

Yau proposed abolishing the one-way permit policy: “I am not closing the borders to Chinese citizens, but why are immigrants from China not part of the same approval system as immigrants from the rest of the world?” She said that Chinese citizens could apply to move to Hong Kong through proper channels.

Lau said that it was important for new immigrants to assimilate into Hong Kong society. Through doing so they would develop a sense of belonging towards the city. Civil education could be used to promote the Hongkonger identity, she said.

The four incoming lawmakers said that it was important that the issues were widely discussed by the public, so as to foster consensus and exert pressure on the government for change. The theme of the forum was Hong Kong in 2047, Hong Kong independence, and Resistance in LegCo. Around 200 people attended.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22

For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region.

(Wikipedia) People's Republic of China Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao

A People's Republic of China Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (Chinese: 中华人民共和国前往港澳通行证) or One-way Permit (Chinese: 单程证) is a document issued by the People's Republic of China allowing residents of mainland China to leave the mainland permanently to settle in Hong Kong or Macau.

The travel restriction was needed to prevent large volumes of people coming to Hong Kong or Macau and preventing illegal immigration.

Although the permit is specifically for the purpose of family reunion, not for general immigration, the scheme is controversial. Hong Kong currently has a quota of 150 people per day and the waiting time for spouses is currently 4 years. Journalist Ching Cheong alleges that the scheme, whose beneficiaries are at the sole discretion of the PRC government and outside of the vetting procedures of the Hong Kong Immigration Department, is an infiltration mechanism by spies and friends of the regime into Hong Kong; those that are not filled by spies become a graft mechanism for officials. Martin Lee said that the policy is part of the CPC's strategy of long-run "Tibetisation" of Hong Kong, aimed at marginalising Hong Kong people and their core values over time.

Internet comments:

- In the Chinese-language Hong Kong Internet, the reporting on this public forum has been completely overwhelmed by a single comment from Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration).

(Facebook video)

Yau Wai-ching: What we are facing is an increasingly restricted space for existence. How do we change our existing circumstances? It is not enough to think about it, but we actually have to do it. What we are facing is that as soon as we graduate, we have repay our grant loans. We cannot afford to pay the rent for an apartment. Even if we want to fuck, we can't find a room in which to fuck. This is a very real problem. This is the problem that we are facing. Therefore every single one of you here in the audience must think about how to use your own power to do something. This is something that I hope that we can do when we come here.

- (Oriental Daily) When Yau Wai-ching used the term ("扑嘢"), she said that she could find a more suitable term. Will she used the same term at the Legislative Council? She does not preclude that possibility.

- The term ("扑嘢") is more vulgar than coition, coitus, copulate, do it, have relations, be intimate, make love, engage in sexual intercourse, sleep together, went to bed with. It is closer to bang, bone, bonk, fornicate, fuck, get laid, get some ass, go all the way, hump, plug, root, score, screw, shag.

- The term ("扑嘢") refers to animalistic copulation with no love or tenderness involved. So this is the john going down to find and bang a prostitute once a week without remembering what she looks like afterwards. All the time the prostitute is watching television and asking: "Are you done yet? Are you done yet?"

- (Oriental Daily) On the next day, given that this is the only thing that the world is talking about and nobody cares about what else was said at that public forum, Yau Wai-ching had to expound further.  The most frequent question is this: Given that Yau is making $95,180 a month in Legislative Council salary, is she really unable to rent a motel room for 3 hours? Yau explained that she was merely quoting what others have said and not from her own personal experience. As a university graduate majoring in Chinese Literature, she said that she could not find a more appropriate term at that moment.

- Spoof: "I want genuine fornication" on yellow ribbon banner. "It's alright not to build any public housing. I recommend that the industrial buildings be converted into fuck rooms with free condoms provided for all those who want to fuck!" "If I have to choose between fornication and deprivation from eating meat, I would rather fuck!"

- Here is Yau Wai-ching's policy platform:

- I want genuine fornication

- I want genuine climax

- I want genuine fornication in country parks be legalized

- I want genuine fornication in public places be legalized

- I want the Legislative Council building be converted into a multi-storey multi-purpose fuck palace

- I want the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to conduct classes on Kamasutra sex positions

- I want the Education Department to introduce genuine study/practice classes on fornication beginning with Year One Primary School.

- I want the Hong Kong Government to raise genuine fornication as an issue for the United Nations to establish universal/international standards.

- I want the Hospital Authority/Health Department to distribute free Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Indian God Lotion, Spanish fly, rohypnol, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), Special K, etc.

- I want the age of consent to be removed altogether. (Note: Right now, the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 between a male and a female and two males (gay men), and there is no law concerning the age of consent for two women (lesbian women). This is clearly discriminatory.)

- Hong Kong senior citizens benefit from the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme which pays $2,000 per annum to each elder aged 70 or above. In like manner, young people in Hong Kong aged 29 or less should receive $20,000 per annum in Young People Fuck Care Vouchers which can be presented to various motels and hostels around town.  This is good economic policy too because it stimulates consumer spending.

- (Oriental Daily) On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching explained with a Marxist analysis. In the year 2016, young people have put in more almost twenty years of their young lives to study and get a job. Each year they quietly look forward to their promotions and raises while paying their taxes. However, the government only took their money and never gave them anything in return. The government squeezed the last ounce out of their labor without giving them any chance of forming a family and owning a private space of their own.

- They paid their taxes and the government never gave them anything in return? Do infrastructures (roads, bridges, tunnels, piers, airports, public hospitals, parks, etc) just fall out of the sky? Who is paying for the Fire Services Department? Et cetera, and so on, und so weiter.

- If you go back in time to 40 or 50 years ago, the young people of Hong Kong had the same problem of not having private space for intimacy. Many of them just headed for the parks after dark. In the morning, the cleaners come and they count on being able to find wallets, keys, pens, loose change, panties, bras, etc being left in the bushes. But today's young people won't put up with this. Instead they demand that the government must give them private apartments so that they can fuck their brains out.

- (The Trent Online) Two Hong Kong university students were caught in the middle of a steamy sexy escapade on a sidewalk! So they don't need a private room to fuck! They can fuck anyone anytime anywhere they want.

- (HGK Pao) Yau Wai-ching's point at the public forum was that the one-way permit system should be canceled and the right to approve Chinese immigrants be taken back by Hong Kong. Right now, Hong Kong has a daily quota of 150 persons approved by the Central Government. There are qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Suppose you keep the daily 150 quota but you want the right to screen the quality of those people. Some applicants will state the purpose as family reunion, and that would be hard to turn down on humanitarian grounds. Other applicants will state other purposes (such as economic opportunities, political asylum, etc). It now becomes the responsibility of the Hong Kong Immigration Department to investigate those claims. It is not hard to imagine a backlog of millions of applications stretching to decades of waiting. And please remember that if the original problem was that young people don't have private space to fuck, then keeping the 150 quota won't increase the housing supply.

Suppose you reduce the daily 150 quota to a significantly smaller number (such as 10 per day). Fewer people arrive daily, and therefore fewer housing space is required. This frees up some space for young people to live and fuck like rabbits. Therefore this is the way to go. As of accusations of being inhumane in separating families, fuck 'em -- they're only Chinese!

- The problem is that demographics is not on your side. With birth and death rates both being low, Hong Kong has a declining, ageing population. You can only import young people from outside to take care of the elders here. As the other discussant Lau Siu-lai said, she is not opposed to bringing in new immigrants but they must be educated to adopt Hong Kong values because they would be in the opponents' camp otherwise. To phrase it more bluntly, new immigrants must be 'brainwashed'. If you are serious, now is the time to plan and execute this.

- (Wen Wei Po) Yau Wai-ching is always good for a laugh. This is number four of her famous gaffes.

#1. When she was asked a question about which Legislative Council rule/procedure she wants to revise, she required the help of her handler to whisper an answer in her ear.

#2. She proposed to develop offshore natural gas in Hong Kong, without realizing that the fields in question are owned by Zhuhai city in Guangdong province.

#3. She proposed to revise the school curriculum on teaching Chinese history with Hong Kong as the center. She said that Hong Kong was founded 160 years ago, which is much longer than the age of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, Hong Kong history is absolutely not just a part of Chinese history. She must not know about the dynasties in Chinese history.

After those gaffes, Yau Wai-ching promised to improve herself. So on this day, she came up with #4.

- At a minimum for #3, she should have started from the Qing Dynasty and the Opium Wars in order to learn how Hong Kong came into being.

- If she ignores dynastic turnovers and say that the history of China begins on October 1, 1949, then the history of Hong Kong should also begin on the handover on July 1, 1997.

- #4 is very effective revolutionary rhetoric. She is telling young people that if they want to fuck, they must overthrow the government. The problem is that even if the government is overthrown, the young people still can't fuck whenever they want to, because these legislators are the same ones who don't want any new construction in order to preserve the environment.

- P.S. Don't forget to forgive all unpaid student loans.

- Wan Chin's Facebook comment on TIME article:

Wan Chin: Yau Wai-ching has made Hong Kong internationally famous as the Capital of Fucking. From here on, foreigners will think Hong Kong women as public toilets that they can enter and leave at will. When Hong Kong women travel overseas, they will be lustily ogled at by foreign men. You can blame Yau Wai-ching for that. The Americans ran the ThunderGo Plan to insert new pan-democrats in the Legislative Council so as to demean the status of Hong Kong women who will be dated for coffee, then fondled and fucked.

- (HKG Pao) May 5, 2017.

On radio, Yau Wai-ching talked about 'sex' again. She said that Hong Kong education is deficient in sex education, with zero progress being made in the past 20 years. Of course, she also said that young people do not have personal space to have sex. She said that they can only rent hourly hotel rooms. Sometimes they have to wait as much as one hour to get a room. Sometimes those rooms are substandard which affects the mood negatively.

Afterwards, she wrote on her Facebook about the contest between personal freedom and public rights. When the two come into conflict each other, Yau explained: "For example, the pro-establishment parties and pro-Communist organizations often use 'freedom of speech' to libel and hurt others. These cannot be forgiven under the excuse of personal freedom ..."

What does this mean? Does it mean that when Yau Wai-ching insulted the Chinese people with her 're-fucking of Shee-na', there is no excuse of hurting other people?

• [589] Four Shots In The Dark (2016/10/02)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 2, 2016.

Three people were injured Sunday after Hong Kong police fired shots to stop a knife attack on a man, in a rare case of violent street crime in one of Asia’s safest cities. Police said those wounded were two assailants and the man being attacked, and that all three were of “South Asian” origin.

“Five to six…men, with some carrying knives, were attacking another man,” police officer Ma Wai-hing told reporters at the scene of the incident in the city’s commercial district of Yau Ma Tei. No further details were given about the attack.

“After verbal warnings were ignored, four shots were fired. Two men were shot,” he said. The pair were arrested and hospitalised with wounds to the forearm and waist. They, along with the knife attack victim, are in a stable condition, Ma said.

Footage uploaded to the website of Chinese language newspaper Apple Daily showed a uniformed officer pointing a gun at a group of men — some of whom were wielding knives over a man on the ground — before shots were fired. The officer can be heard yelling “put down your weapon” in Cantonese.

Police said four shots were fired as the first shot was “ineffective” in stopping the attack.

An AFP reporter at the scene said a road intersection was cordoned off around noon, with detectives gathering evidence and two fillet knives lying on the ground.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 3, 2016.

Phyllis Cheung Fung-mei, executive director of Hong Kong Unison – an advocacy group for ethnic minority rights – told RTHK that they were concerned as to whether the perpetrator was clearly warned.

“[I]f the police can identify that a perpetrator is not ethnically Chinese, they should use English to warn them as well… the police should reflect on whether warning only in Cantonese is enough.”

However, Unison told HKFP that their comments were related to the police approach towards ethnic minorities in general, and not made with regards to the shooting on Sunday morning.

Apple Daily cited sources claiming that the perpetrators and the victim – all of South Asian origin – were from the same hometown, and were embroiled in a bar fight about a month ago. The police suspect the attacks happened due to a money-related conflict, the newspaper reported.

(SCMP) October 3, 2016.

A long-running dispute, that started with an alcohol-fuelled eyeballing confrontation between two groups of Nepali youths drinking in unlicensed bars, led to the weekend’s machete attack in Yau Ma Tei that prompted police to open fire, according to sources.

The two men who were shot remained under arrest in hospital last night, one of them in a critical condition, while the victim was recovering from chop wounds.

On Sunday night, more than 100 police officers raided bars and gaming centres in Yau Ma Tei, hunting for the four missing men. The nine-hour operation ended at 5am yesterday without success.

Police insiders said investigators traced the dispute back to a heavy drinking session in one of the many unlicensed walk-up bars and kitchens run by families in the neighbourhoods around Shanghai Street and Parkes Street.

One group was accused of staring at the other, and the confrontation had repeated several times over the past two months.

“Our officers were told that only words were exchanged and the two groups dispersed in most of the incidents,” one source revealed. “We were told that there was only one fist fight but it was not reported to police.”

He suggested Sunday morning’s attack might have been driven by revenge when six members of one group came across a man from the rival group.

The source said the two groups of men were known to frequent the walk-ups after work and over weekends. It was understood they had Hong Kong identity cards and lived in Yau Ma Tei, Tsuen Wan and Yuen Long. Some of them worked as builders.

“In their circle, [Nepali residents] are used to settling their disputes among themselves, and seldom seek help from police,” another source said.

At around 6am on Sunday, the eventual victim was having breakfast at a dai pai dongwith his girlfriend, a bar waitress, on Parkes Street. The rival gang spotted and attacked him, six of them wielding machetes and hard objects.

The man, 33, tried to flee but was caught, beaten and chopped.

Three police constables from the Kowloon West emergency unit – two uniformed men and a woman in plain clothes – came upon the scene at the junction of Parkes Street and Nanking Street.

The two policemen fired four shots at two of the attackers, after they ignored warnings to drop their weapons. One man, aged 25, was hit by three bullets in the waist and hip. The second man, 23, was shot in his left forearm.

He ran off, flagged down a taxi and jumped into the front passenger seat, telling the driver to take him to hospital.

Hung Sau-fan, 31, the plain-clothes policewoman, dragged him out of the vehicle and subdued him at the scene.

“The taxi driver was smart,” a police source said. “He drove at a slow speed before our policewoman intercepted the vehicle and dragged the suspect out of the cab.”

Video

(Oriental Daily) A compilation of various videos. The key moment is at 0:13 when the police ordered the perpetrators to stop but they kept hacking away at their target.

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) May 14, 2016.

Members of the public cannot make their own judgment as the relevant chapters of the Police General Orders are not available for inspection. Fewer than half the chapters are available online, while those that can be viewed may be missing sections.

So while people can find out from the force website the rules on officers' investments, gambling and even when a constable has to salute a superior officer, information on firearms is absent.

University of Hong Kong legal expert Eric Cheung Tat-ming says the city lags behind other jurisdictions on transparency of police firearms rules. He believes many reasons for keeping the rules secret are obsolete. "There were concerns in the past about whether making the guidelines public would assist criminals" by informing them of how officers would act in a given situation, Cheung said. "But this should be less of a concern today."

Media reports had given the public a fair idea of the regulations, Cheung said, and making the rules public would prevent speculation over whether they had been followed.

Icarus Wong Ho-yin, convenor of monitoring group the Civil Human Rights Front, said people would have greater trust in the force if they could decide for themselves whether rules were followed. "Police should stop reiterating the official line that rules are obeyed and instead explain in greater detail how the guidelines are enforced," Wong said.

But a veteran policeman, who declined to be named, argued the need to keep guidelines secret may still apply today. "If the guidelines on use of firearms are disclosed, criminals may exploit the rules and make it harder for policemen," he said.

A police spokesman said chapter 29 of the general orders, which sets out rules on the use of force and firearms, was not disclosed as it covered "operational matters that, if made generally available to the public, may adversely affect the police response to incidents".

(SCMP) June 22, 2016.

The Hong Kong Police Force should disclose its guidelines on the use of force for public scrutiny, a human rights group says amid what it claims is a growing trend of power abuse. “Police guidelines on the use of force should be monitored by the public,” the front’s convenor, Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit, said. “But currently even lawmakers have no idea [under what circumstances] when police can resort to force. It is unacceptable.”

- The two persons who were shot today did not know what the police guidelines on the use of force are. If they were told previously, they might have stopped hacking the victim with machetes. Therefore, they should be able to sue the Hong Kong Police for medical expenses as well as punitive damages.

- As for the person who was arrested by the female police officer Hung Sau-fan, she squatted on him in order to handcuff him. So the person should be able to sue the Hong Kong Police for humiliating him in public by letting a woman sit on top of him.

- (YouTube) Spoof of revised police guidelines on use of firearms in response to public demand.

1. If the suspect holds a knife against the hostage's neck, then firearms can only be used if the knife is longer than 4cm.

2. If the suspect says that he is going to hurt the hostage, the police must ask where the injury is planned and firearms can only be used if a medical doctor agrees that such an injury is fatal.

3. The suspect must provide his particulars and then the police must search Google/Facebook to retrieve the details. Firearms can only be used if the suspect has a bad background.

4. If (1)-(3) all allow for firearms to be used and more than one armed police officer is present, then a meeting will be held to determine the order of firing.

5. Before firing, the suspect must be notified to stand still so that he won't be shot in body parts other than the arms and legs. Once the suspect acknowledges that he understands that he must stand still and then signs on the dotted line in a copy of the Agreement To Be Shot Form (under Police General Orders Chapter 169), the police may open fire.

6. If the first shot misses, then the next officer in the order will fire the second shot, etc. (If you don't understand this, you can consult the FIFA rules on sudden-death penalty shots.)

- Legislative Councilor James To (Democratic Party) once said that, in a tense situation, the police should leave the scene and come back at a later time when passions have cooled down.

- (Oriental Daily) Two male police officers fired four shots, and a female officer subdued a suspect. All three are from the West Kowloon Emergency Unit. The Hong Kong Police Facebook has garnered 4,700 LIKE's so far on the post about the three police officers' "quick and decisive action stopped the violence and saved a precious life."

 - (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 3, 2016.

Five to six South Asians chased after a person with butcher knives. A police patrol team fired four shots to stop them. Two suspects were shot while the others fled.

So the news reports and Internet comments revolved around those four shots.

Each reporter asked: Under what circumstances were those four shots fired? Should the shots be fired? Where did the shots land? How did the injured persons respond? Were verbal warnings issued before firing? Did this stay within the police guidelines on the use of weapons? Why was it four shots, instead of three shots or two shots or one shot or no shot? ...

Anyway everybody wants to find fault with the police. Shots were fired, so you guys are screwed! Somehow everybody forgot that there was a crime in progress and the police are supposed to stop it.

Fortunately, these four shots were effective -- the crime in progress was stopped and the police guidelines were met. Unfortunately, certain media outlets pushed on with nitpicking. They located NGO Hong Kong Unison executive director Phyllis Cheung Fung-mei who raised the question: Did the police hold adequate communication with the South Asians before firing the shots? She said that the police need to think about whether it is enough to issue a warning in Cantonese, and whether they discriminate against racial minorities when they enforce the law.

It is one thing for media outlets to be skeptical, but there should be some plausible basis. According to the video from the scene as well as eyewitness testimony, the knife-men were "hacking away at the victim." How do you communicate with a man who was "hacking away at someone"?

After the police officer use Cantonese to say, "Police! Don't move! If you move again, I will shoot!" he will have to repeat the same in putonghua, English, Hindi, Urdu, Nepali, Tagalog, Thai, Bahasa Indonesian, Vietnamese, Français, Deutsche, Nihon-go, etc. By that time, the victim would have been hacked into minced meat.

Holding forth a gun and making a loud shout is global body language. It is applicable anywhere anytime.

In the 1980's violent gangs came down from mainland China to commit crime in Hong Kong. They held Red Star hand guns, Black Star hand guns, semi-automatic rifles, hand grenades, shotguns, etc and engaged in firefights with the Hong Kong Police. How should the Hong Kong Police communicate with them? In Hunan dialect, or putonghua, or Cantonese?

As for the issue of how many shots should have been fired, all the editors, reporters and Internet users are wasting their time, because they know nothing about how many shots should be fired when someone is being hacked at by five to six butcher knives.

When everybody focuses on the four shots, almost nobody mentioned the three to four other suspects who fled the scene? Who are these people? Where do they hang around? Are there composite photos? Where are they hiding now? ... These murderous villains are still living amongst us? Should this deserve even greater attention?

- The list of commonly used languages does not include sign language. It is entirely possible that the perpetrator is deaf! It would be discriminatory not to consider this vulnerable minority group, according to the reasoning of Unison.

- The two male police officers who fired the shots had their gun hands wrapped up so that technicians can take samples of gunshot residue.

On January 15, 1980, police officer John MacLennan was found dead, being shot five times in a locked apartment unit in the Hong Kong Police quarters in Ho Man Tin District. On March 12, 1980, the Coroner's Court voted by 2-1 that MacLennan died of unknown cause. On May 23, 1980, the Department of Justice declared that there was sufficient evidence that MacLennan committed suicide. Yes, he shot himself five times in the head before he died. On July 8, 2016, the government acted under public pressure to form an investigative committee. After hearings held over 134 day with 110 personal testimonies recorded in 13,000 pages, the committee ruled that MacLennan committed suicide.

- (Facebook) Cable TV reporter Cheung Man-ho posed a question about a Cheung Sha Wan police shooting: "Why did the police have to shot to death a good citizen who was hacking at someone with a knife?"

Internet users have long-lasting memories and they will never let him forget that he said this.

- Phyllis Cheung Fung-mei, executive director of Hong Kong Unison, dared to go where angels fear to tread. Her comments to RTHK drew thousands and thousands of negative comments.

- Spoof conversation:

Policeman: Mister, do you speak or understand Cantonese? (in Cantonese)
Knifeman: (uses a machete to hack at the victim on the ground)
Policeman: Ni hao, ni neng bu neng jiang putonghua? (How are you? Can you speak putonghua?)
Knifeman: (hacks the victim to death; turns to walk towards the policeman)
Policeman: Wait, can you speak English (in English)?
Knifeman: (hacks the policeman with his machete)
Policeman: (hits the red button to call police dispatch) Home? Please arrange for Indian, Nepali or Pakistan interpreters to tell the other party to stop hacking me. In addition, please arrange for an ambulance ...

- There is what the policemen should have said in English first:

Hey Guy, What are you doing here?
What is holding on your hand?
Or you are playing with your friend?
Can you stop your action?
I am so sorry to tell you if you don't stop, I may shoot you?
Hey, are you serious? It's seems you don't want to stop.
OK, guys, this is my last warning. Otherwise I really will shoot you.
I am so sorry to inform you that I am ready to shoot.
Yes, everything is ready.

- This case is clear proof that it is dangerous to visit mainland China. Suppose you travel north and try to rape someone, the police will tell you to stop in putonghua. If you don't understand, they may shoot you.

- So why don't you learn putonghua before you visit mainland China? Are you like one of those Chinatown residents who have lived there for eight decades while still speaking only Taishanese dialect and nothing else?

- Phyllis Cheung's exact words were: "If the police know that the other party is not of Chinese descent and does not understand Chinese, then they should use English or other bilingual means to communicate."

This rests on a pile of assumptions. Firstly, if the other party is not of Chinese descent and does not understand Chinese, then English can be used. This assumes that anyone in Hong Kong (permanent resident or transients) speak either 'Chinese' or English. There are plenty of people who don't speak either; of those who speak 'Chinese', there are plenty who speak some dialect other than Cantonese. Secondly, what is this other "bilingual means"? The police asks in Cantonese while the other party responds in Urdu? Vice versa? Or should the police wait for an official Urdu interpreter to arrive while the hostage bleeds to death?

- The perpetrators in this case are Nepalese. They are most likely third-generation descendants of Gurkha soldiers in the British Army. Except for their external racial appearances, they are thoroughly Hongkongers. If the police scrutinized them carefully, they would recognize them as such instead of brashly shooting them. One of them is supposed to be in critical condition.

- Please take a look at the videos taken at the time of the incident. It was pitch dark in the street, and there is only a split second to decide what actions to take in order to save the victim.

- If it was your mother who was being hacked by machete-wielding psychos, would you still demand the police establish visual identification and verbal communication first?

- If Phyllis Cheung was being raped by a South Asian, the police arriving at the scene should wait for an interpreter to arrive in order to establish communication.

- Did RTHK get Phyllis Cheung to comment because they want to attack the Hong Kong Police? Or did they set her up to fail?

- Why is Hong Kong Unison so hostile to the Hong Kong Police? This is no surprise if you learn that Margaret Ng (Civic Party) is a vice-chairman on the Executive Committee.

- Unison defends the right of the attackers to be duly informed of possible police actions. What about the rights of that Nepalese man lying on the ground and being hacked by five to six men with machetes and glass bottles?

- Unison demands that the police should also establish communication with the victim: Are you really hurting? Wow, did that blow just then really hurt? Would you like us to stop your attackers? ...

- According to a taxi driver: "The perpetrator jumped onto my car and said, 'I am in pain. Driver, please take me to the hospital'. His Cantonese was very fluent." This female police officer used her body to block the taxi from leaving and arrested the perpetrator. Post facto, we have established that this one attacker speaks Cantonese fluently.

- (Oriental Daily) According to the police, at around 605am, two Emergency Unit officers were patrolling near the intersection Parkes Street and Nanking Street when they saw 5 to 6 South Asian men attacking another South Asian male with weapons. The two police officer approached and ordered them to stop without effect. After issuing a verbal warning, the two police officers fired two shots each to stop the action. Two persons were arrested for injuring another person and taken to the hospital for treatment. The police said that the police were about 10 meters away from the attackers. All four shots were directed at the attackers. One of the attackers was shot in the arm, and the other in the waist. After firing the first shot, the attackers continued to attack. Therefore the police officers deemed that more shots have to be fired.

- (Hong Kong Unison) Hong Kong Unison focuses its work on serving ethnic minority Hong Kong residents and their families. Apart from permanent residents, ethnic minorities in Hong Kong also include foreign domestic workers, refugees/ asylum seekers/ torture claimants and expatriate workers.

So when this incident took place, it was a good opportunity for Phyllis Cheung to get some public attention on ethnic minority Hong Kong residents. Unfortunately, this came through as defending the right of the attackers to hear the police warning in their native languages.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Unison told HKFP that their comments were related to the police approach towards ethnic minorities in general, and not made with regards to the shooting on Sunday morning.

- According to Wei Zheng, Prime Minister for Emperor Tang Taizhong in the Chinese Tang Dynasty, early 7th century: "Water can carry a boat; it can also sink a boat."

- (Independent) October 2, 2016.

Police shot dead a black teenager in front of his younger sister in a killing that has sparked angry protests in Los Angeles.

Officers from the city’s police department said Carnell Snell Jr was killed after they noticed the car he was travelling in had a paper licence plate and believed the vehicle may have been stolen. While in pursuit the police claim the 18-year-old got out of the vehicle with another man and started to flee. 

Sergeant Barry Montgomery said they chased Mr Snell Jr to the back of a house, where they shot him. The other man, believed to have been the driver of the car, fled the scene and is currently on the run. Sgt Montgomery said a gun was removed from the scene, but Mr Snell Jr’s family deny he was armed.

His younger sister, Trenell Snell, said she was sitting with friends outside the house when she saw her brother running from police. She said she began to run as well and heard gunfire. She dropped to the ground and saw her brother was being handcuffed on the ground. “At the end of the day, the cops came and shot my brother,” she said. “Killed my brother.”

Mr Snell’s mother, Monique Morgan, told reporters she had asked authorities to let her see the her son’s body to confirm it was him, but claimed her request had been refused.

- "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."

- (New York Post) January 19, 2014.

Cops bloodied an 84-year-old man and put him in the hospital Sunday when he jaywalked at an Upper West Side intersection and didn’t appear to understand their orders to stop, witnesses said.

Kang Wong was strolling north on Broadway and crossing 96th Street at around 5 p.m., when an officer told him to halt because he had walked against the light.

Wong, who lives a block away, appeared to not understand the cop, the witnesses said.

“The guy didn’t seem to speak English. The cop walked him over to the Citibank” near the northeast corner of 96th and Broadway, said one witness, Ian King, a Fordham University law student. “[The officer] stood him up against the wall and was trying to write him a ticket. The man didn’t seem to understand, and he started walking away.

“The cop tried to pull him back, and that’s when he began to struggle with the cop,” said King, 24. “As soon as he pushed the cop, it was like cops started running in from everywhere.”

Wong was left bleeding and dazed with cuts to his face. He was cuffed and and taken to St. Luke’s Hospital. After several hours, he was hauled off to the 24th Precinct station house.

His 41-year-old son, a lawyer who would not give his name, first said at the station house Sunday night that did not wish to discuss his feelings about the incident. “I don’t want to talk about anything like that in front of all these cops,’’ he told the Post. But walking farther down the street, he said, “The cops are playing games. They won’t tell me what he’s being charged with.”

He first heard his dad had been busted in a 6 p.m. phone call from cops, who asked if the elderly man needed medication but would not say which hospital he’d been taken to. So the son went to the station house, where he said he got a similar run-around. Finally, he found out on his own that his dad was at St. Luke’s and had been arrested for jaywalking. “Oh, great! Beating up on an 84-year-old man for jaywalking,’’ he said.

Neither the hospital nor the cops would allow him to see his dad until after 10 p.m., explaining that since he’d not been admitted, he was not a patient, but a “prisoner.’’

Early Monday, cops fingerprinted Wong and charged him with jaywalking, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. He went home, accompanied by several family members, with a desk-appearance ticket.

Another of Wong’s sons, who also would not give his name, said the family “will probably press charges’’ against the cops, adding: “He was just walking across the street with other people, and they picked him out. How could they do that to an 84-year-old man.’’

- Unison should press the NYPD to make their police officers learn Chinese.

- Unfortunately there is not one single Chinese language to learn. Based upon the various generations of immigrants, the New York City Chinatown has significant numbers of persons speaking:

- Taishanese
- Cantonese
- Putonghua
- Fujianese

Most Chinatown residents cannot speak/understand all of these languages/dialects.

• [588] Belt-Buckle-Seat-Belt (2016/09/30)

First, there was the Japanese video PEN-PINEAPPLE-APPLE-PEN.

Then the Hong Kong Police came up with BELT-BUCKLE-SEAT-BELT (alternate copy @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbPhp13iZjY  )

(SCMP) September 30, 2016.

An official Hong Kong police video in which serving officers perform a musical routine based on a Japanese internet sensation has been buried under a deluge of social media ridicule after being viewed more than a million times in less than 24 hours.

Over the same period, the 33-second video – which aims to ­encourage the wearing of seat belts and was posted on the force’s official Facebook page on Wednesday – had been shared 8,600 times, received 7,500 likes and been commented on by more than 4,400 people.

“From our experiences and observations, timely posts relating to a trendy topic and soft stories are more popular and more likely to attract higher reach on social media platforms,” the force said in statement to the South China Morning Post.

By Thursday night at least one spoof version of the video – which mimics the viral internet hit Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen – was on YouTube.

One senior officer, who ­declined to be identified, said: “It’s an embarrassment, the force looks more like a farce with this video. What were they thinking?”

The clip opens with two t-shirt clad officers – one male and one female – dancing and singing as they mimic the action of putting on a seat belt while singing the words “I have a seat belt, I have a buckle” repeatedly.

It then switches to two male officers – in uniform – sitting in what appears to be a police van doing the same routine

The force’s Facebook page was flooded with thousands of comments, the majority of which were negative and ridiculing.

One post on the force’s Facebook page by Edith Hung said: “I can only see whoever gives permission to implement such brilliant idea intentionally humiliates all the police, trying to make them feel shame.”

The unidentified senior officer said internal reaction and that of ex-officers on closed sites was even more stinging in its slating of the video: “You couldn’t print many of the comments by serving and former officers in a family newspaper,” the officer said.

Despite the reaction, the force seemed to stand behind the decision: “HKP Facebook will continue to utilise the advantages of multimedia including videos, images, texts and other innovative means to engage the community. The HKP Facebook post on 28 September was one of many different types and styles to illustrate our diversified natures of police work, and had attracted a large number of ‘Likes’ and positive comments,” the statement said.

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen, a Japanese earworm-style music video performed by Piko-Taroa fictional singer-songwriter created by Japanese comedian Kosaka Daimaou – whose real name is Kazuhiko Kosaka.

His song has had more than 7 million views since it was posted on YouTube in August.

The police force launched its Facebook page almost exactly a year ago in a bid to improve its public image and foster better relations with the community, which had seen public perceptions of the force plummet in the wake of the city’s Occupy protests – but it quickly created a platform for critics.

(HGK Pao) September 30, 2016.

Two days after the Hong Kong Police's BBSB was posted, it had been viewed 1,260,000 times and LIKE'd almost 9,000 times plus more than 3,000 SMILE's.

Joshua Wong said that the Hong Kong Police should be grateful that the Copyright (Amendment) Bill (nicknamed Internet Article 23) was not passed because the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police would have to arrest the persons in charge at the Police Public Relations Branch of the Hong Kong Police in accordance with Article 161 of the Crime Ordinance:

(1) Any person who obtains access to a computer-

(a) with intent to commit an offence;
(b) with a dishonest intent to deceive;
(c) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or
(d) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another,

whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future occasion, commits an offence and is liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 5 years.

Along came Glacier Wong to explain: "How can the video of the Evil Police telling people to use their safety belts have any copyright issues? What has this got to do with Internet Article 23?" She pointed out: "The melody of the song is not the same. Not a single frame from the Japanese video was re-used. The only thing that was copied was the concept. Concepts are not protected by the copyright laws."

What did Joshua Wong do after making this blistering attack on the Hong Kong Police and receiving blowback? He quietly deleted his post without comment.

• [587] CY Leung vs. Apple Daily (2016/09/30)

(EJ Insight) September 30, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is threatening to sue Apple Daily unless it retracts an editorial alleging corruption. The Sept. 8 article said pursuing Leung for corruption should be made top priority, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Leung’s lawyers from Sit, Fung, Kwong and  Shum sent a 14-page letter to Apple chief editor Chan Pui-man that the editorial be withdrawn. They said it “falsely, viciously and maliciously accused Leung as being corrupt”.

The editorial relates to secret payment Leung received from Australian firm UGL that was reportedly agreed before he became chief executive and consummated after he took office.

The law firm said Apple insinuated that Leung took kickbacks from UGL and accused it of trying to deter him from seeking reelection in 2017. It demanded a retraction within seven days or legal action will be taken. Also, it wants the newspaper to promise never to publish any related articles.

The UGL saga was first revealed in October 2014 at the height of the pro-democracy street protests. Reports at the time said Leung received HK$50 million (US$6.45 million) in confidential payment from Australian engineering firm UGL as part of the latter’s purchase of Leung’s real estate firm DTZ. Leung allegedly received the money after he became chief executive and paid no tax.

The letter cited a November 2014 decision by authorities in Britain, where DTZ had business ties, not to investigate.

Lo Fung, who wrote the editorial, said he will not be daunted in his efforts to inquire into improper official conduct.

It was Leung’s third legal notice to a newspaper since he assumed office.

In 2013, Leung demanded the retraction of an article by Joseph Lian in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, claiming it was defamatory. The article accused him of triad links.

In 2014, his lawyers sent a letter to Australia’s Fairfax Media to try to stop the publication of the UGL story.

Meanwhile, Chan said she will hire lawyers to handle the matter, adding Leung’s contention that the article was politically motivated is “ridiculous”.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association accused Leung of trying to muzzle the media and demanded the notice be withdrawn.

Ivan Choy, a Chinese University of Hong Kong senior lecturer, said he does not expect Apple Daily to comply with Leung’s demands.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 30, 2016.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) said on Thursday that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was “intentionally targeting the media” after Leung sent a letter to Apple Daily on Monday accusing it of defamation. The journalism watchdog said it was “shocked” and “regretted” Leung’s actions.

Leung’s letter said that an editorial written by Lo Fung and published by Apple Daily on September 8 “falsely, viciously, and maliciously accused” Leung of corruption over a HK$50 million secret payment from Australian Corporation UGL.

It also said that this amounted to “the usage of the false corruption allegation to prevent Mr CY Leung from exercising his constitutional right to stand for re-election as the Chief Executive of the HKSAR, if he chooses to.” The “malicious falsehood” is consistent with other reports and articles published by Apple Daily since Leung took office, it added.

The HKJA said that while it understood that everyone had the right to protect themselves against defamation, “the Chief Executive should, as the highest official of the Special Administrative Region, be careful about exercising relevant powers.”

“Monitoring the person in power is the job of the journalist, and questioning and criticising the mistakes or inappropriate behaviour of those in power is a responsibility of the media as the fourth estate,” it added.

It also said that Leung had never publicly expressed his intention to seek re-election in public, and to suddenly bring up re-election in the letter “will lead to public suspicion and concern that Leung is intentionally trying to create a chilling effect.”

Leung previously sent a letter in 2013 to veteran commentator Joseph Lian Yi-zheng, claiming that a commentary piece he had written accused Leung of having links with triads and asking for the piece to be retracted.

Chan Pui-man, Apple Daily’s editor-in-chief, said that the newspaper had already handed the matter over to its lawyers and that sending letters to the media has been a tactic of Leung.

Singtao News reported a source saying that neither UK or Australian law enforcement agencies had followed up the matter of the UGL payment in the past two years. The source also said that Leung had prepared for the case, and consulted lawyers, and that he was confident of winning a defamation case against Apple Daily.

In May of this year Next Magazine, owned by Apple Daily’s publisher Next Digital, was ordered to pay over HK$3 million to Bawang International Group and its subsidiary after losing a defamation case.

Jeffrey Tam Chun-kit, of the Progressive Lawyers Group, told HKFP that while claiming defamation is not unusual for Leung, it is rare for politicians in Hong Kong to do so, as it was an image issue.

While he said that he was uncertain whether Leung was confident about winning the case, Tam also said that “the lawyer saying that [the editorial] will affect his re-election, I think that according to the law, it is the same as announcing that he would run for re-election, so the election should begin from yesterday [Thursday].”

(SCMP) September 30, 2016.

Hong Kong’s leader launched another broadside on Friday at Apple Daily for accusing him of corruption, with his lawyers pressing the popular Chinese-language newspaper for a proper explanation of its coverage.

Lawyers for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying published in full a legal letter accusing the daily of defaming him with “malicious” intent to stop him from exercising his legal right to seek re-election – with further suggestions the paper had omitted crucial information from Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.

The office had decided not to investigate a HK$50 million deal between Leung and Australian engineering firm UGL, Leung’s lawyers pointed out in the letter.

The further disclosure came as legal experts doubted Leung would be able to successfully sue Apple Daily, saying it would be difficult to establish a case of libel in a city that protects press freedom.

Apple Daily again rejected Leung’s demand for a retraction of the editorial that upset the chief executive, raising the possibility of a court battle and questions as to whether Leung’s political opponents would be able to pursue the matter in the legislature.

“If you disagree, please let us have your explanation,” Leung’s lawyers wrote to the paper regarding their suggestion that it knew of British authorities’ decision not to investigate his case.

Apple Daily chief editor Chan Pui-man replied that Hong Kong’s anti-corruption watchdog was still carrying out its own investigation into the matter.

Leung has repeatedly denied wrongdoing over the deal with UGL in 2011, months before he became chief executive. The engineering firm had sought to buy out insolvent property firm DTZ, of which Leung was a director.

The deal – made two days before Leung resigned from DTZ and the completion of the takeover – stipulated he would ­receive the money in two instalments in 2012 and 2013. UGL and Leung said the money was to prevent him forming or joining a rival firm.

The legal letter suggested Apple Daily ought to have known that British authorities had no power to probe whether Leung’s agreement with UGL violated British listing rules as DTZ was delisted.

Leung’s move was questionable, especially as British legal authorities, whose judicial decisions are followed by Hong Kong, had ruled that the government was in no position to launch a libel case, according to Ronny Tong Ka-wah, former chairman of the Bar Association, and Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, former law dean of the University of Hong Kong.

“The legal principle is that government officials ought to be subject to media scrutiny,” Tong said. “And in Leung’s case, there is in fact certain factual basis for Apple Daily to make its claim.”

HKU media law expert Professor Doreen Weisenhaus added that while officials could launch a lawsuit in a personal capacity, “there is no tradition of that in recent years”.

Last year the Court of Appeal ruled in support of Ming Pao’s right to publish an editorial about possible corruption involving the Hong Kong Football Club, Weisenhaus noted.

Better to read the whole thing:

Internet comments:

- Given the malfeasance that was revealed in Bawang vs. Next Magazine, what Apple Daily is doing here is no surprise at all.

- Apple Daily is "fair and balanced" just as Fox News is.

- They pick the story that they want to write (namely, CY Leung is engaging in corrupt business activities), they report the information that supports this story and they suppress the information that contradicts it.

- Why is the law firm Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum publishing their letter to Apple Daily? Because Apple Daily reported on the letter and, once again, selectively mentioned certain things favorable to their story and ignoring other unfavorable things. Therefore, Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum published the whole thing for the world to read.

- Apple Daily believes that they have a right to be selective in what they report based upon what they determine that the public needs to know.

- Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum noted that Apple Daily mentioned the UK's Serious Fraud Office may be investigating. There was no further mention afterwards. Either Apple Daily did not follow up with SFO, or else they did not like the response of SFO.

Apple Daily also mentioned that the UK's Financial Conduct Authority may investigate. There was no further mention afterwards. Either Apple Daily did not follow up with FCA, or else they did not like the response of FCA.

This is what the whole brouhaha boils down to.

- Do you think that it is 'normal' for a media outlet to report: The United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office was poised to investigate CY Leung but they didn't for lack of evidence; the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority was poised to investigate CY Leung but they didn't for lack of evidence.

- Next Media (Apple Daily/Next Magazine) is not the run-of-the-mill media company. It is a political operation where the normal standards of ethics in journalism are not applicable. They publish these calumnies for political reasons. It has nothing to do with the purpose of journalism:

“The purpose of journalism,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Rather, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”

News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.

The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.

- I just picked up this week's Next Magazine. Book A has 64 pages, but Book B is down to 48 pages only. Just a few years ago, both books have more than 100 pages at the same HK$20 cover price. Next Magazine is losing more than $100 million a year, so it is still alive not for business reasons. Rather someone is willing to lose that money for political reasons. Eventually, the vicious cycle (fewer readers->fewer ad pages->less content->fewer readers->fewer ad pages->less content ...) will hit rock bottom with no readers and no ad pages.

- At its peak, Next Magazine had a circulation of more than 200,000. Today, the circulation is 30,000. How much of it is due to the Internet? And how much of it is due to losing its credibility with readers and support from advertisers?

- Given what happened in the Bawang vs. Next Magazine, clearly Next Media doesn't mind losing a libel case because it will only be fined several tens of thousands of dollars by judges who do not want to infringe upon freedom of press. That court verdict in this case will be made several years from now, long after the 2017 Chief Executive election. And Next Media will have achieved its political goals of stopping the re-election of CY Leung.

- CY Leung probably thinks the same. The reason why he is doing this is make clear that Apple Daily/Next Magazine/Next Media is running a political operation to get him and therefore anything that they say in future will be suspect.

- The whole UGL case is premised upon the fact that the seemingly large payment ($50 million) must involve some form of corruption. However, there has never been any satisfactory explanation as to what corrupt activity is the $50 million paying for. Nothing that UGL does is worth paying $50 million in bribes.

- How much credibility does Apple Daily have?
(Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Chinese University of Hong Kong) This is a periodic public opinion poll, in which respondents were asked to rate paid newspapers on a scale of 1 to 10 (1=very low credibility, 10=very high credibility).
 

Title/Year	1997	2001	2006	2009	2010	2013	2016
Apple Daily	6.24	5.15	5.51	5.80	5.27	4.98	5.18
HK Commercial Daily	5.42	5.87	5.78	5.90	5.56	5.21	5.03
HK Economic Journal	6.60	7.34	7.09	7.04	6.57	6.46	6.06
HK Economic Times	6.79	6.96	7.08	7.12	6.71	6.78	6.47
Ming Pao	7.15	7.54	7.24	7.35	6.77	6.74	6.38
Oriental Daily	6.54	5.76	6.12	6.24	5.75	5.85	5.59
Sing Pao	6.39	6.48	6.43	6.34	5.88	5.75	5.45
Sing Tao	6.73	7.13	6.84	7.07	6.53	6.42	5.99
South China Morning Post	7.18	7.24	7.36	7.57	6.85	6.98	6.54
Ta Kung Pao	5.24	5.64	5.25	5.58	5.14	4.68	4.21
Wen Wei Po	5.04	5.93	5.26	5.71	5.37	4.89	4.45

Compared to ten years ago, everybody is doing worse.

- On the question of basic trust, Apple Daily reported that they received the letter from Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum on September 29, 2016. According to Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum, the letter was delivered and signed for at Apple Daily by an employee at 12:20pm, September 26, 2016. According to an employee of Sit, Fung, Kwong and Shum, the letter was personally delivered at the registered address of Apple Daily. The employee identified himself and asked to deliver a letter to the editorial department of Apple Daily. An Apple Daily employee aged over 40 years old signed and accepted delivery.

- Rumor mongering? Here is another good one: Andrew Leung (Business and Professionals Alliance) is the most likely person to become the next Legislative Council chairman. So Ming Pao is reporting that Leung holds a foreign passport, which would disqualify him because a Legislative Council president must be a Chinese citizen who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China. What is the basis of the allegation? Nothing beyond "It is rumored that ..."

• [586] All Politicians Are Liars (2016/09/22)

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 22, 2016.

Two Democratic Party district councilors have criticised the government’s statement that they were involved in a “soft lobbying” session – an informal meeting – over the controversial Yuen Long housing plan. The government’s statement is “smearing,” they claimed.

The housing minister claimed on Wednesday that Zachary Wong Wai-yin and Roy Kwong Chun-yu, both Yuen Long district councillors, were involved in the fourth and final informal meeting on the Wang Chau public housing plan held on March 17, 2014. They agreed with the plan of building 4,000 units on a piece of greenbelt land inhabited by more than 100 villagers, the minister said.

But both Wong and Kwong said that it was a briefing session on the plan, rather than an informal consultation, as they were never asked about the original plan to build 17,000 units.

Of the 17,000 units, 13,000 units set on a piece of ruined land – which was turned into a car park operated by Ping Shan Rural Committee chairman Tsang Shu-wo – was delayed after strong opposition from two informal meetings with Tsang and rural leaders, months before the government’s meeting with Wong and Kwong.

On a Commercial Radio programme on Thursday, Wong said that the March 2014 meeting occurred in a meeting room of the Yuen Long district office of the Home Affairs Department and that he was invited by an assistant district officer.  He said it was mostly attended by technical staff from the Housing Department, who introduced them to the 4,000-unit plan. They were consulted as a foot bridge of the project will pass through their constituencies, according to Wong.

“My first opinion was that it was not good to use greenbelt land – it should not be used to build flats, and I have reservations,” he said. “I am sure we never supported the plan on March 17 [2014].” He said he only supported the 4,000-unit plan when it was submitted to the Yuen Long district council on June 24, 2014, as the district councillors agreed “there was an urgent need to build public housing.” “But at the end of the meeting I said this would be the one and only occasion where we would support building flats on greenbelt land – there will not be a second time,” he said.

Wong cited a Sing Tao Daily report on Thursday, which cited a government source as saying that he and Kwong were never informed of the original 17,000-unit plan.  “[The housing minister] was not only framing us – it was smearing,” Wong said.

Internet comments:

- Here is Roy Kwong's statement:

CY Leung, I am telling you not to misrepresent me. Other people think that you are the Chief Executive and you can misrepresent people at will. After misrepresenting John Tsang, you are now misrepresenting Roy Kwong? I am not afraid of you, I will not back off ...

Democracy Party district councilor in the Yuen Long District Councilor Zachary Wong Wai-yin and Legislative Councilor and Yuen Long District Councilor Roy Kwong Chun-yu state

 (1) Kwong Chun Yu and Wong Wai Yin have never ever heard the government proposed 17,000 units in Wang Chau, and they never knew that the project would be done in stages.

(2) Kwong Chun Yu and Wong Wai Yin was invited on March 17, 2014 to a meeting in the Yuen Long district office of the Home Affairs Department. He only met a manager from the Housing Department with no senior government workers present. Kwong and Wong emphasized that this meeting was not about "lobbying" or "consultation." The manager only informed Kwong and Wong that there will be project to build 4,000 public housing units. Because a pedestrian bridge will go through Long Ping Village in Yuen Long, the two district councilors were consulted. The meeting agenda consisted of only a map of the planned housing location ...

- Here are the newspaper clippings:

Hong Kong Commercial Daily, September 26, 2013:  17,000 public housing units planned for Yuen Long brownfield land ... But Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu thinks that traffic is overloaded in the district already, and he asked the government to consult the residents about the plan as soon as possible. He said that the residents may not object if the authorities are more transparent. He also said that the proposal is better than using country park land.

Oriental Daily, September 26, 2013: 17,000 public housing units planned for Wang Chau ... Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu said that while he understands that the government wants to find land to build public housing units, the Long Ping residents are worried about traffic congestion, school slots and medical care facilities.

Ming Pao, January 24, 2014. "Revision of plans for residential land, Yuen Long gets the most: 42,000 units within five years; district councilors worried about congestion." Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu pointed out that they Housing Department told the District Council last September that they are studying the feasibility of developing Wang Chau (north of Long Ping Estate in Yuen Long). The initial idea was to build about 17,000 public housing units to accommodate 52,000 person in 34 hectares of land. The number of units is about 40% of what the government announced yesterday for Yuen Long. He expects that the area north of Wang Chau will become an important development point in the district."

Ming Pao, June 20, 2014. Yuen Long (Wang Chau) public housing project scaled down ...

Late last year, the Housing Department studied the construction of 17,000 public housing units in Wang Chau (Yuen Long) to accommodate 52,000 persons. The latest proposal submitted to the Yuen Long District Council showed that the Housing Department proposes to build 4,000 units in 5.6 hectares of land north of Long Ping Estate. This is only 1/4 of he original plan. It is estimated that 12,3000 persons will be accommodated when the project is completed in 2025.

Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu said that there is not much opposition within the community to the proposal initially. But even if the Housing Department scales down the project, they still need to solve the problems of shortages in the infrastructure for traffic and social services, so that the new residents will not overload the community even more ...

- (Hong Kong Free Press) September 22, 2016.

Past clippings shared on the internet since Wednesday quoted Kwong responding to media enquiries over the Housing Department’s plan to build 17,000 flats. Meanwhile, some questioned that Kwong had knowledge of the original number of flats. “I believe those were figures intentionally leaked by the Housing Department, journalists should know very well that they received the leaked figures from sources – how would I have the figures in my mind?” said Kwong, who was recently elected as a lawmaker, told reporters on Thursday. “The figures were leaked to reporters, and then reporters asked me… the informal meeting did not mention 17,000 [units], it was not mentioned at the district council, there were no top government officials who were in touch with me,” Kwong added.

- When Roy Kwong picked up the newspapers circa September 26, 2013, he would see them report that the Wang Chau project involved 17,000 units. The newspapers asked him (in his capacity as the Long Ping district councilor) for reaction, and he was quoted.

He is saying that he he was never given the 17,000 figure by any government person. The journalists got the figure from someone (possibly with the government) and asked him (in his capacity as District Councilor) for reaction. So what he said might be literally true.

But the biggest question is why the total lack of curiosity about such a massive project in his district? No memory?  If he wasn't aware before the media called, he knew afterwards and he should be getting on the phone with the authorities to get the details.

- If a constituent showed up and asked Roy Kwong, "I read in the newspaper today that 17,000 public housing units are coming here. What's the deal?" What is Kwong going to say? "Nobody told me. I don't know anything and I don't intend to find out either."

- Roy Kwong took twelve years and six attempts before passing five courses for the Diploma of Secondary Education. So it is understandable that he cannot read newspaper reports.

- Roy Kwong took twelve years to pass English for the Diploma of Secondary Education. But these newspaper reports are in Chinese, so that cannot be an excuse.

- Roy Kwong the writer published a book titled: There Is A Kind Of Happiness Known As Forgetting.

Roy Kwong is very happy when he forgot all about the 17,000 housing units for Wang Chau.

- Roy Kwong fancies himself to be a novelist writing for young people. So it is understandable that he can only read/write in Internet lingo (known colloquially as 'Martian language'). He needed the newspaper reports to be written thus:

- Roy Kwong's own writing style is famous for the excessive use of commas. Here is how Kwong would have written this question:

咁最後出來得4000個單位，咁大落差，鄺俊宇，你，作為，區議會議員，係咪，都，應該，主動追問、跟進呢？#鄺逗號

If in the end there were only 4,000 units, with such a huge difference, Kwong Chun Yu, you, as, the District Councilor, is it true, too, that you should, actively inquire, follow up? #KwongComma

-  (Oriental Daily) September 22, 2016. Kwong and Wong said that the March 2014 meeting was mostly attended by technical staff from the Housing Department. The Housing Department said that eight people from their side attended the meeting: (Housing Department) Assistant Director Chung Kam-wing, a Chief Civil Engineer, a Senior Civic Engineer, a Senior Planner and a Civic Engineer, and (Yuen Long Home Affairs Department) Commissioner Mak Chun-yu, a deputy commissioner and a Senior Liaison Officer.

- (Wen Wei Po) September 22, 2016. At the March 27, 2014 meeting, Kwong Chun-yu and Wong Wai-yin agreed that the Wang Chau project should be scaled back to 4,000 units. At the June 2014 Yuen Long District Council meeting, Kwong and other pan-democrats said that the infrastructure will be stressed even for 4,000 units and demanded a further scale-back. In so doing, Kwong is thinking that nobody wants to see a big influx of residents into their districts. Of course, lots of people need housing but that was not Kwong's concern at that time. More recently, Kwong has turned around and criticized the government for scaling back the Wang Chau project because it is unfair to people who need housing.

- The Wang Chau story is very confusing, because the same set of people go around saying at various times:

- "No relocation, no demolition." Not a single family will be moved away from where they live now. Not a single business will be moved from where they operate now.

- The Fanling Golf Club is public land leased very cheaply to the for-profit organization. The government can take back the land and build public housing estates.

- No,  the Fanling Golf Club cannot be touched. It is part of our collective memory like Queen's Pier, Star Ferry, Murray House, etc. I promise that I will file endless numbers of judicial reviews if the government tries to claim the land for residential development.

- Not a single housing unit will be allowed on greenland. New housing units can only be build on brownfield land. I promise that I will file endless numbers of judicial reviews about greenland development.

- Building on greenland is okay only this once for me. But there will never be a second time.

- Brownfield land is not fit for human habitation due to the extensive soil contamination from industrial usage. I promise that I will file endless numbers of judicial reviews about environmental pollution effects.

- Certain businesses squatting on brownfield land should not be allowed to operate in Hong Kong. For example, used car parking lots and electronic waste dumps.

- Where should the used car parts and electronic waste products go? To China, of course. We'll just pay high enough so that they take in all our toxic stuff. Chinese lives are cheap where as Hong Kong lives are precious.

But in other ten or twenty years, mainland China will be more prosperous than Hong Kong. They will the ones who export their waste products down to Hong Kong for disposal.

- 17,000 units are too much for Wang Chau to handle. It must be scaled back.

- 17,000 units cannot even remotely satisfy the existing demand. It must not be allowed scaled back. We need to cram even more units in.

- 17,000 units is the minimum goal. Any attempt to scale back is evidence for government-business-rural affairs-triad collusion.

- 17,000 units can be done in stages with 4,000 units first because the land usage issues are less difficult.

- 17,000 units cannot be done in stages. It is all or nothing, because any compromise is evidence for government-business-rural affairs people-triad collusion.

- The most astonishing statement award goes to:

(Wen Wei Po) Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) said he refused to sign the demand with other non-establishment legislators because he opposes the Wang Chau project. "From the viewpoint of future planning for Hong Kong, it is clear that the Wang Chau project should be shelved. This is the best solution because the various government officials and politicians (collectively known as Hong Kong traitors) won't gain anything. After today's press conference, people finally realize that there is a Localist representative in the Legislative Council." He noted: "The courage of being 1-versus-69 needs the support of everybody."

What does Cheng mean? Tommy Wong commented: "The problem is that we have not yet dealt with the waste at the source. We must stop accepting new immigrants first. Otherwise we can never build enough housing units for people to build. We have to take over the right to approve new immigrants."

- If you want to suspend housing until you have to right to approve immigration, you should also suspend expanding other services (such as healthcare, education, etc).

...

- Cartoon of Roy Kwong Chun Yu

Three years ago: The government should not build so many housing units in Wang Chau!
Today: So few housing units will be built in Wang Chau -- government-business-politicians-triad collusion!

- Goldfish memory

"You clearly knew that there were 17,000 housing units for Wang Chau!"
"I don't remember whether I saw it or not."
RTHK video of Kwong Chun-yu's denial at the press conference

- Photographic evidence of government-business-rural affairs-triad collusion:

Top left panel: Anson Chan (ex-Chief Secretary) and Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party)
Top right panel: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) and Jimmy Lai (Next Media)
Bottom left panel: Heung Yee Kuk's Tang Ho-nin, Leung Fuk-yuen etc with Wong Wai-yin (Democratic Party) and Chow Wing-kan (Liberal Party)
Bottom right panel: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) with "Scarface" Kong and his aide (Wo Hop To triad gang members)

- The Chu Hoi Dick phenomenon

...
On March 6 this year, RTHK aired a program which quotes the government as saying that the first stage of the Wang Chau project has 4,000 public housing units. Chu Hoi Dick was interviewed on that program, so he must have seen and known about the saying about the "first stage."

But the politicos and media were focused on government-business-rural affairs people-triad collusion, so this type of information will be intentionally concealed.

In that RTHK interview, Chu Hoi Dick played the role of the defender of the earth. As was his wont, it was "no relocation, no demolition." According to his thinking, not even the land for the 4,000 units should be reclaimed by the government.

But as soon as Chu Hoi Dick was elected, he immediately demanded to know where the 17,000 units were? So what do you want? "No relocation, no demolition"? or "Relocation/demolition ASAP"?

The Chu Hoi Dick phenomenon is a microcosm of the people of Hong Kong today. On one hand, they want to defend the land and resurrect agriculture/fishery. On the other hand, they want get public housing instantaneously. The same thing happened when they wanted to retain Queen's Pier while solving the traffic problems in Central. This is filled with romanticism as well as self-contradictions.

Among all the newly elected legislators, I admire Chu Hoi Dick the most. He works hard, he is firm, he is persistent and, most importantly, he understands. Since he understands, he should not gave to run with the other politicians who know nothing. As he said before, he does not belong in Central. But now that he is in Central, I hope that he won't be contaminated into one of those politicians who are trying to steal his show.

- Chu Hoi Dick's positions are not necessarily self-contradictory.

Previously, Chu ran unsuccessfully for District Councilor in Pat Heung South. His interest was in his district. If he opposes public housing there, he is listening to the voice of the constituents. If they are for NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) or even BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), so be it.

Once elected to the Legislative Council, his interest is in Hong Kong as a whole. People want public housing which has to be placed somewhere. No matter where it is placed, there will be NIMBY-like complaints. So you will just have to make the best of the situation.

In like manner, he may have opposed the Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport. But he may change his mind now because he is responsible to several million citizens and businesses and not just a few dolphins.

This does not mean that he gets free of the NIMBY mindset. It only means that it is elevated to a different level. For example, he may still oppose garbage incinerators. But garbage has to be incinerated or otherwise disposed of. Well, it can be incinerated as long as it is not in Hong Kong. That means Hong Kong will pay some poor Chinese county to take in their garbage.  That's the essence of NIMBY.

- If you pay someone to take over your problems, then it is probably SOBBY ("Some Other Bugger's Back Yard"): a particular project may be desirable and perhaps necessary, but only if it is placed somewhere else.

- (Oriental Daily) September 23, 2016.

On September 22, Wong Wai-yin and Kwong Chun-yu told the press that the authorities lobbied the rural affairs people secretly and then suddenly changed the Wang Chau plan on the grounds of rural objections over feng shui.

According to the transcripts of the Yuen Long District Council meetings, a number of rural councilors in the June and December 2014 meetings spoke about ancestral graves and feng shui.

According to the records, on June 24, 2014, Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee chairman Leung Fuk-yuen said: "This development is using the burial grounds in nearby Kai Shan. I hope the relevant departments will try not to affect the feng shui of nearby villages." On December 16, 2014, Leung said: "There are a number of historical grave sites in A Kai Shan and Fung Chi Village. I recommend that the government handle the issue of grave sites carefully. The planning of housing development should pay attention to the impact on the feng shui of graves."

Two other rural camp councilors Tsang Shu-wo and Tang Hing-yip also spoke about the feng shui issue in the second meeting. The records also showed that both Wong Wai-yin and Kwong Chun-yu attended the meetings and spoke. They did not object to the statements from the rural councilors.

When told, Wong Wai-yin said that he remembered that the Wang Chau project was discussed in June 2014. But he has "no recollection" that anyone spoke about the feng shui issue. He said that he might have stepped away when they spoke up. As for the December 2014 meeting, he has no recollection that the Wang Chau project was discussed at all.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 24, 2016.

A friend of mine routinely sends me the full transcript of the Chief Executive weekly Tuesday press conference. At first I wondered what was so good about these official statements. Eventually, I realized that the Chief Executive's statements are often deliberately misquoted and distorted by the various media organizations. Therefore I am glad that I get to see the original source.

With respect to the Wang Chau incident, I decided to toss aside the conspiracy theories and I watched the entire broadcast of the press conference by the Chief Executive and other ministers. I heard what they said, what they were asked and what they responded without any editing. The next day, the various media reports took whatever suited their purposes again. So if you want to know the truth, you should watch the full broadcast and then you can compare the various news reports.

I would like to say something more about the Wang Chau affair:

Firstly, Chu Hoi Dick said that he "discovered" that the Wang Chau project was suddenly reduced from 17,000 units to 4,000. But this was not "sudden" at all. Hong Kong Economic Journal and Hong Kong Economic Times reported on October 17, 2014 that Wang Chau will be developed in stages, with the first stage being 4,000 nits. Perhaps Mr. Chu reads only Apple Daily and never Hong Kong Economic Journal/Hong Kong Economic Times. Speaking of "suddenness," I think that Mr. Chu's flip-flop from the romantic "No Relocation, No Demolition" to "Development is the only right reason" is most "sudden" of all.

Secondly, why do politicians like to use the term "feeling for the bottomline" instead of the regular phrases of "consultation" and "lobbying"? "Feeling for the bottomline" carries the feel of secretiveness under the table. It does not matter how you explain it, the use of the term in the headline is the death sentence for you already.

As for Roy Kwong Chun-yu, he did not expect to be named as the star by Secretary Cheung Bing-leung. When Kwong said that he was "not aware of the Wang Chau project" and "he only met with a Housing Department manager", Secretary Cheung said: "Eight persons met with Kwong Chun-yu in 2014, including a Housing Department vice-minister, the Chief Civil Engineer, a senior planner, a Home Affairs Bureau commissioner ..."

Actually in 2013 Kwong told seven local media outlets that he was paying attention to the development of 17,000 public housing units in Wang Chau. In April 2014, he told a Ming Pao reporter that he does not oppose the Housing Department for building 4,000 housing units first.

Everybody said that Kwong's amnesia means that his trustworthiness is bankrupt. But I want to defend Kwong, for he is the miracle kid who tried six times over eleven years before he got a Diploma of Secondary Education with five passed subjects. This showed that Kwong is persistent as well as suffering from learning disabilities (such as memory lapses and cognitive disability). Therefore we don't have to be too harsh. In the next four years, we look forward to more episodes of memory loss, mishearing, misunderstanding, unawareness, etc from Kwong.

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

Edward Yiu Chung-yim, legislator from the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape sector, got on RTHK City Forum and said, "How hard is it to reclaim brownfield land? Just pay them enough and they will leave! How hard is it to relocate them? Construct a recycling plant in front of the garbage landfill and you have one-stop garbage disposal ... It is easier than pie!

Meanwhile, Kwong Chun-yu and Chu Hoi Dick said that the 4,000-unit must be discarded and that the process must be restarted with 17,000 units. It is easier than pie!

I believe that Chief Executive CY Leung should appoint Edward Yiu, Chu Hoi Dick and Kwong Chun-yu as the Land Reclaim Squad. Given Chu's past embrace of "No relocation, no demolition", Yiu's brilliant speeches as the deputy director of the Future City Research Institute and Kwong Chun-yu's will to take the Diploma of Secondary Education exam six times before passing, they should be able to realize the Wang Chau Utopia in no time.

But as soon as CY Leung invited Chu Hoi Dick to participate in the monitoring platform, Chu declined.

During the election campaign, these people said that they want to become legislators because they feel that they don't have much impact sleeping in the streets and therefore they want to enter and reform the system from the inside. Now that they are in the system, they want to go back into the streets and monitor the government from the outside?

Everybody knows that the Wang Chau area involves various kinds of property rights, various kinds of interests and various types of stakeholders. They are not ThunderGo members and they don't have a common leader. They won't do anyone's bidding. Such is reality, such is the real world. Anyone who has been around in society knows that.

Let's look at the credentials of our three idealists. Chu Hoi Dick graduated from university and spent a few years at media outlets. In the past ten years, he hasn't held a regular job. Edward Yiu Chung-yim is qualified as an architectural surveyor and property management surveyor, but he has only taught at university. Kwong Chun-yun wrote several books of romantic essays and served as a District Councilor, but he has never worked in the commercial world. These three idealists think that the world is simple, only because they have been detached from the real world for more than a decade.

• [585] How To Burn Your National Flag (If You Must) (2016/09/21)

CAP A401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance

Section 7. Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

CAP A602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance

Section 7. Protection of regional flag and regional emblem

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and

(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

(Wikipedia) History of Flag Desecration in Hong Kong

In 1999, two individuals were convicted for desecration of the Regional Flag of Hong Kong and the Chinese flag. They were found guilty by a magistrate, had the conviction overturned in the High Court but the convictions were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. They were bound over to keep the peace on their own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each of the two charges. In the judgement, Chief Justice Andrew Li said although the Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, flag desecration is not legal because there are other protest methods.

Social activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted twice of flag desecration. He was sentenced to a nine-month prison term in 2013 for the offence. However, the sentence was reduced to four months and two weeks after an appeal. In March 2016 he was sentenced to a six-week prison term for burning the regional flag in Wanchai on HKSAR Establishment Day in 2015. Koo responded that "he is happy to be punished as being jailed is part of the life of an activist, and he would continue to protest against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and fight for democracy."

CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance

Section 39 When person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate and from being elected as a Member

(1) A person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as a Member, if the person

(a) is

(i) a judicial officer; or
(ii) a prescribed public officer; or
(iii) an officer of the Legislative Council or a member of staff of The Legislative Council Commission; or (Amended 48 of 1999 s. 24)

(b) has, in Hong Kong or any other place, been sentenced to death or imprisonment (by whatever name called) and has not either

(i) served the sentence or undergone such other punishment as a competent authority may have been substituted for the sentence; or
(ii) received a free pardon; or

(c) has been convicted of treason; or

(d) on the date of nomination, or of the election, is serving a sentence of imprisonment; or

(e) without limiting paragraph (b), where the election is to be held or is held within 5 years after the date of the person's conviction, is or has been convicted

(i) in Hong Kong or any other place, of an offence for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment, whether suspended or not, for a term exceeding 3 months without the option of a fine; or
(ii) of having engaged in corrupt or illegal conduct in contravention of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap 554); or
(iii) of an offence against Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201); or
(iv) of any offence prescribed by regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (Cap 541); or (Replaced 10 of 2000 s. 47)

So if you burn the national flag in Hong Kong, you may be found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 months, and then you are not eligible to be nominated for the Legislative Council election. And there goes your $93,000 per month job.

What is a valiant resister to do?

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

Civic Passion ex-leader Wong Yeung Tat (nickname His Royal Highness) lost his bid for Legislative Council and resigned his leadership post. Afterwards he went with his wife Chan Sau Wai (nickname Her Royal Highness) to travel in Taiwan. During the trip, he set the People's Republic of China national flag on fire.

Because the incident took place in Taiwan, the Hong Kong government cannot charge Wong Yeung Tat with an offence under Hong Kong law. So once again, Wong Yeung Tat has shown us us how to "valiantly resist the Commies" under perfectly safe conditions.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/terry.wong.568294/videos/1735285676737237/

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order have also tell their demonstrators to be 'valiant', but their leaders are accused of always telling others to charge while they skedaddle themselves. In a Ming Pao interview, Civic Passion leader Cheng Chung-tai said that he "won't be able to stand in the front of the battle line anymore." "Everybody has his costs ... I have shown what my costs are. During the Restore Movement, I merely stood there and I was surrounded by more than 20 cops. Was I supposed to attack them? Such are the limitations."

Meanwhile Wan Chin went down to Occupy Mong Kok to demonstrate how to use a luggage case as a shield. But once the action began, he disappeared from view. When questioned, Wan Chin responded on Facebook: "Do you want me to personally go down to Mong Kok, throw the first brick or the first petrol bomb? If you really want me to do this, I can only say: 'I fuck your mother's stinking cunt'."

On the night of the Mong Kok riot, Wong Yeung-tat was down at the scene and posted on Facebook: "Let the bricks fly!" But nothing happened with him. During a Legco election forum this year, Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) asked why Wong Yeung Tat was always present at the scenes of clashes but seldom arrested. Wong said that different people have different responsibilities. As a leader, Wong has to "educate and protect the masses." Therefore his job is to "lead the resisters" and then "suddenly leave the scene." "Of course I will leave, brother! Why should I be arrested by the cops?" Wu said: "Your idea of leadership is to stand behind the crowd ... by education, you mean that you tell them to throw bricks and get arrested. If that is the case, then you don't even have the most fundamental character as a political leader!"

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

For the 2016 Legislative Council elections, Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order fielded candidates in each of the five geographical constituencies. Their slogan was to be elected, resign and use the by-election as a "five district de facto referendum for a new constitution." Of the five candidates, only Cheng Chung Tai was elected.

In a Ming Pao interview, Cheng said that the Legco election results were less than ideal, and this shows that their policy platform had failed. As a result, their biggest promise (the "five district referendum) of the election is no longer operable. Cheng said that he will keep an eye on Youngspiration and Demosisto and remind them that they promised to introduce a referendum law.

Immediately their critics rose up. Raphael Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats) quoted Wan Chin: "Does what you say count afterwards?"

Roundtable Community ex-director Lam Fai said: "The entire Ming Pao interview was about reneging on their previous promises. How can the Hot Dogs (Civic Passion members) live with this?"

Netizen William Ngan wrote: "As soon as you are sworn into the Legislative Council this coming October, you must resign immediately in order to fulfill your election promise over these past 6 months. You should let 1/5 of the voters have a chance to have a de facto referendum and lay the groundwork for a new constitution by the people. Raymond Wong Yuk-man will also win the by-election and return to the Legislative Council. You guys are worthless without his presence in the Legislative Council."

Auyueng Ying-kit (People Power) wrote: "I knew all along that you are a snake oil salesman ... When this question was raised during the election campaign, the response was that you will persuade someone else from the other districts to join you ... But now you say that the option no longer exists! This is shameless! You clearly lied before in order to garner votes. Once you are elected, the hell with them!"

Cheng Chung Tai responded: "Getting someone in the other districts to join in a five district referendum? I tell you that for the political parties, the most important thing is not concepts, it is not political gaming, it is not operability, it is 'resources.' That means money! Give up a job that pays almost $100,000 per month? Plus paid expenses, subsidies and pension? How can these Legislative Councilors who said that they are in this for the money give up? Money! It's all about money!"

Netizen Lee Ka Fai Hilton said: "So is Cheng Chung Tai (Supersonic Mouse) in this for the money?" Cheng Chung Tai did not answer this question. Instead he wrote: "If so many people want a five district referendum ... this is very simple ... The Civic Party and the Democratic Party each have legislative councilors elected in all five districts. They don't lack resources either. So everybody should pressure them."

Chan Sau Wai (Her Royal Highness) wrote: "If only one of Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order candidates lost, the other four can lobby for a fifth person. But now you are asking four others to join you? Three million voters have voted down the five district de facto referendum. The voters want to look for natural gas instead (i.e. Youngspiration) ... you should be going after those who were elected because they variously claim to be for "Hong Kong independence" or "self-determination"."

• [584] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 10 (2016/09/20)

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

In January this year, someone fired air-gun pellets to break a window at the People's Liberation Army quarters in Bonham Court, Bonham Road, Sai Wan district, Hong Kong Island. In February this year, someone fired air-gun pellets to break a window at the People's Liberation Army barracks in Cornwall Road, Kowloon Tong district, Kowloon. The police reviewed the surveillance videos in these areas and determined that the same man committed both acts. Early last month, the police arrested Gordon Fong Hang-keung for those actions. They found the air gun, pellets and the sling shot used at his home.

The police laboratory determined that the muzzle energy of the air gun exceeded the legal limit of 2 joules. Therefore Fong is being charged with two counts of criminal destruction of property and one count of possessing an unlicensed firearm. Fong faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for criminal destruction of property and 14 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

39-year-old Gordon Fong was a member of a pro-Republic of China organization China Youth Service and Recreation Center. In 2011, he ran for district councilor in Nan Cheong South district, Sham Shui Po and lost to a pro-establishment candidate. Fong is the general manager of a technology company. He has a son and a daughter. He graduated from the School of Business at Western Sydney University, Australia.

Broken window

Photos of the air gun and pellets  on Gordon Fong's Facebook

(Oriental Daily) September 20, 2016.

In court, the defense pointed out that Gordon Fong is a resident of Australia. In June this year, Fong broke a knee bone while playing ball. Therefore he needed to undergo an operation in Australia soon. The defense applied to be in Australia between October 16 and November 7. Previously Fong posted bail of $20,000. The defense proposed to increase the bail to $50,000 while Fong is away in Australia. The magistrate approved his application.

- I can write the script for the magistrate: "Gordon Fong is a leader in the democratic movement in Hong Kong. His conduct was impeccable when he studied in Australia and he has never been accused of any criminal activity. He has shown concern about social issues and enthusiasm about politics. This case is completely different from other ordinary crimes. While considering the seriousness of the crime, the court must also weight the motives and purposes of the defendant. Since the defendant has expressed regret, the court will impose 80 hours of community service."

- If Gordon Fong fired shots at military bases in the United States of America, he would have been shot dead already. Nobody would care because this is what he deserves.

- For many years, the Yellow Ribbons make fun of the Hong Kong independence people about if and when they will ever 'liberate' the People's Liberation Army barracks in Hong Kong. Everybody knows that this is an essential step but nobody even want to talk about it. But now Gordon Fong has actually done it! So how come he is not being hailed as a hero/martyr of the Hong Kong independence/self-determination movement?

(Oriental Daily) November 21, 2017.

The judge came to a verdict in the case of Gordon Fong. In terms of the evidence, the prosecution presented evidence found in the areas of the incidents. The defense presented psychiatric reports on the defendant, including him telling the psychiatrist that he had committed the acts mentioned. The judge therefore believed that this was true.

The judge accepted the conclusion from the psychiatrist that the defendant had low intelligence, autism and schizophrenia. The judge also accepted that the defendant's actions were commanded by voices coming from inside his brain. However, the judge said that this does not affect the defendant's ability to tell right from wrong. The defendant knew that it was wrong, but did it anyway. When the police arrested the defendant, they found a key which opened a locked locker containing the air gun and the pellets. This proved that the defendant realized that the air gun was restricted under the law.

The judge found the defendant guilty on three counts. Sentencing is scheduled for December 5. Meanwhile, Gordon Fong is remanded to custody in Siu Lam. After Fong heard that he was going to be remanded, he  thanked the judge profusely.

- Gordon Fong was ordered by the voices inside his brain to shoot at the People's Liberation Army? This is the first time that a Umbrella Revolutionary has mounted such a defense. Gordon Fong is a trailblazer.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 22, 2017.

Gordon Fong was arrested at the airport when he returned to Hong Kong on August 15. Under caution, he told the police: "I didn't do it." Later he admitted during a video interview that he had been in a bad mood after quarreling with his wife and imbibed a large amount of alcohol. He had no recollection of what happened. He only remembered that he used an air gun to fire once or twice at a residential building in Kowloon Tong. Afterwards, he took the MTR to Sham Shui Po where he discarded the air gun.

Later, the police searched Fong's home in Sai Ying Poon and found the air gun, more than 4,300 plastic bullets and more than 600 metal bullets in a locked locker. The police searched Fong's mobile phone notes and found comments such as "The continuation of the great revenge," "firing at the residences of senior PLA officials", etc.

(Oriental Daily) December 5, 2017.

At sentencing, the defense pleaded that the psychiatric report showed that the defendant sufered from autism and other mental problems. At present, his condition is stable. Therefore an order for hospitalization is unnecessary. The defense also presented numerous letters written on behalf of the defendant. The defense said that the defendant had reflected while in custody, and will actively seek psychiatric treatment afterwards instead of venting in immature ways.

The judge said that the destructive behavior of the defendant was not extremely severe and the air gun did not have a lot of firepower. The defendant was hearing voices that told him to do it. The psychiatria report says that the situation has stabilized. Therefore the judge sentenced Gordon Fong to 2 weeks in jail.

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

On February 9, 2016, 30-year-old Chu Hang Chi posted on his Facebook: "When your seven policemen made the assault, it took one full year for them to be prosecuted on a light charge. Police superintendent Franklin Chu hung around until he retired and he still wants to interfere with the Police Public Relations Branch. The people will find their own way of sanctioning you. You chose to be running dogs of the authorities and you deserve to die. Let it be stated here that I will donate $10,000 to any organization which beats a police officer to death."

On February 13, Chu went to the Yuen Long Police Station and filed a report that a hacker broke into his Facebook account to post those comments. After Chu finished stating his case, he was asked to sign the statement. At that moment, Chu admitted that he fabricated the case. Under caution, Chu admitted that he was angry and unhappy with the police and made the Facebook post. He filed the false report because he was worried that the backlash would affect his family and his job.

In mitigation, the defense pleaded that Chu was a senior Immigration Department immigration assistant who has been suspended at this time. Chu expects to be dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. Chu made the Facebook comment because he held "dissident views" but he never expected that society would react to this degree. Even after the Facebook post was removed by Chu, certain Internet users published Chu's personal information and mobilized the public to complain to the Immigration Department. Chu's wife wrote to the court to say that people have threatened to kill Chu and therefore the family was very upset. The defense said that Chu filed the false police report on February 13 because he was worried about the personal safety of his son.

- (Oriental Daily) September 19, 2016. The defendant was earning $25,000 per month at the time that he was suspended. He believes that he will be dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. Serves him right!

- This is classical political oppression. What a person does outside his job is his own business. The fact that he works for the Immigration Department is not relevant to his exercise of his freedom of expression. This is naked terrorism by the Hong Kong communist government.

(SCMP) September 30, 2016.

An immigration assistant who claimed on Facebook he would donate HK$10,000 to any organisation that beat a Hong Kong police officer to death following the Mong Kok riot in February was slapped with 100 hours of community service by a court on Friday.

Chu Hang-chi, 30, also faces an Immigration Department disciplinary proceeding that could strip him of his job, from which he has been suspended since his arrest on February 13. But he was still drawing pay until he admitted the offence earlier this month.

Tuen Mun Court previously heard that Chu and his family had been experiencing harassment since the message was posted in February as their personal information was posted online, with some people threatening to report and kill him.

That prompted him to file a report with the police days later on February 13, claiming his Facebook account had been hacked. But when he was asked to sign the report, he suddenly confessed that it was he who posted the message out of anger and dissatisfaction towards the police.

Acting principal magistrate Merinda Chow said one must be cautious in one’s speech because it can quickly circulate online. “What you wrote caused great noise,” she said in sentencing Chu on one count of knowingly attempting to mislead a police officer. “Some people felt disgusted and so they attacked you.”

The case centred on a Facebook post on Chu’s account on or about February 9, following unrest in Mong Kok that saw clashes between police and protesters. “The people will use their way to sanction you,” the post stated. “If you choose to fall as a foot soldier of the empire, then death is not to be regretted. I give my word here, if any organisation is to beat a cop to death, I will donate ten thousand dollars to that organisation.”

The post had referred to the alleged assault of former Civic Party activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, for which seven police officers are now standing trial, and one involving passer-by Osman Cheng Chung-hang by the now-retired superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai during the Occupy movement in 2014.

“When the seven police officers assaulted someone, it took a year to charge them with a lesser charge,” the post continued. “Yet Chu King-wai made it to his retirement and tried to interfere with the Independent Police Complaints Council’s decision.”

Counsel Joshua Choy said in mitigation his client had been under a lot of pressure at the time of the post because his wife was suffering from post-partum depression and his infant son had Erb’s palsy. “He felt perplexed and confused about what was happening in society so he foolishly committed the offence,” he added.

- (Oriental Daily) September 30, 2016. The defendant Chu Hang-chi was suspended in February, but continued to draw half pay. The Immigration Department disciplinary hearing will not take place until the court case is concluded. Now that Chu has pleaded guilty and sentenced, the hearing will surely result in his dismissal. Still, Chu got four months' pay for doing nothing.

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, Chau Wing-lok wore a vest with the name of Civic Passion legislative council candidate Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) and campaigned outside Tsui Ping Estate, Kwun Tong district. Outside a restaurant in Tsui Tung House, he tried to explain Wong's ideas to a middle-aged couple who were drinking beer. There was a difference of opinion, and Chau argued with a 42-year-old woman. Suddenly Chau picked up a beer bottle and hit the woman over the head. Fortunately the bottle did not splinter into pieces. The hit caused swelling on the forehead of the woman.

In court yesterday, Chau Wing-lok pleaded guilty to one count of assault that caused bodily harm. Sentencing is scheduled for October 26, 2016 pending probation report.

The defense pleaded that Chau was "crying" when he met with the other party. This proves that he knew that he was wrong and regretted doing it. The defense said that Chau should be allowed to go on on bail and continue his studies.

At court today, Civic Passion vice-chairman Cheng Chung-tai refused to either confirm or deny that Chau is a Civic Passion member. However, Chau said in an interview last year that he is a Civic Passion member and he had obtained the permission of Civic Passion chairman Wong Yeung-tat to state his political party membership.

(Oriental Daily) October 26, 2016.

At court today, Chau Wai-lok was sentenced to 24 months of probation. The magistrate said that Chau will go to jail if he violates the terms of his probation.

(SCMP) September 19, 2016.

A mainland housewife has been jailed for five months and one week for assaulting a local grandmother at the Sha Tin MTR station, in what has been a high-profile case underscoring Hongkongers’ ongoing conflict with mainlanders.

The Sha Tin Court on Monday convicted Huang Yufeng, 28, of inflicting grievous bodily harm on Lam Yuet-fan, 55, outside the Maxim’s cake shop on May 9.

Lam suffered from temporary loss of speech and unstable emotions and had difficulty walking as a result of the attack.

Principal Magistrate Andrew Ma Hon-cheung also found the mainlander guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Lam’s daughter Bryony Lau Kwan-mei, 28, in the same incident.

Lau was left with cuts on her face and upper arm.

The defendant fought back tears as she heard the hour-long verdict. Her lawyer begged for leniency, saying that the defendant was four months pregnant and would like to give birth back home rather than in Hong Kong. She applied for bail pending appeal, but was rejected.

The court ruled that Huang rushed towards the pair, causing Lam to fall backwards and hit the back of her head. The fall resulted in intense pain and a lump which Lam said was “as big as a pineapple bun”. Huang then went on to pull Lau’s hair and assault her.

Coming to her own defence in an earlier session, Huang, a Guangdong native, said she rushed towards the two in an effort to snatch Lau’s phone. Huang said the daughter had tailed and filmed her family after two earlier confrontations and threatened to upload the video to the internet.

Huang denied causing Lam’s injuries, saying it was Lau who knocked her own mother down. But the magistrate refused to accept her claims, and said video footage of the incident did not corroborate her account.

Ma said footage showed Huang had no intention of slowing down when she approached the pair, and that Lam had fallen immediately after the accused rushed at them with both arms stretched out. “The most probable scenario is that out of anger, [the defendant] slightly lost control and used full speed to charge, in a bid [for revenge] as well as to stop the filming,” he said.

There was also no need for Huang to launch the subsequent assault on Lau, Ma added, as the defendant’s daughter was protected by her husband at the time. But the magistrate also criticised Lau’s filming as “unwise” and “unnecessary”.

Ma called the attack serious and said it had left an “unerasable impression” on Lam, before convicting Huang.

During sentencing, Ma noted that Lam now walks with a crutch and suffers from speech problems, anxiety and a string of psychological symptoms that she had not recovered from.

The case highlighted the ongoing conflict between Hongkongers and mainlanders, with the court hearing previously that Huang, moments before the assault that stemmed from a dispute over her child and Lam’s grandson, had asked the local pair why Hongkongers thought they were so superior.

The incident was widely circulated on the internet in May when Lam’s other daughter made a post on Facebook in search of witnesses.

Huang faced abuse from people both inside and outside the courtroom, and on the internet during the trial. But the magistrate said the case should not be viewed as an incident that escalated from any Hong Kong-mainland conflict. He warned the public that all defendants, be they locals, mainlanders or foreign nationals, should be treated equally, and urged the police to take action against acts that could amount to criminal intimidation.

In mitigation, Huang’s lawyer insisted the case arose from her worry for her family.

Videos:

Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwDrgJE2Hg
Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZO6yeAybJg
Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acl_iNtxRW4

Internet comments:

- This case is one of a mainland woman assaulting a Hong Kong mother-daughter couple. It does not fit in the Umbrella Revolution category. However, Principal Magistrate Andrew Ma Hon-cheung said that "all defendants, be they locals, mainlanders or foreign nationals, should be treated equally." That has to be tested against reality. What do you think will happen in the preceding cases about Umbrella Revolutionaries?

Why does Gordon Fong get to go to Australia for his knee operation while Huang Yufeng goes to jail to deliver her baby? Why can't Gordon Fong get his operation in jail while Huang Yufeng get to go home to deliver her baby?

What do you think Chau Wai Lok will get for smashing a beer bottle on the head of a woman? 80 hours of community service? No, because that would interfere with his studies. A better solution is one week in jail suspended for one year.

- (Oriental Daily) The defense said that the Huang Yufeng is a devout Buddhist and four months pregnant. If sentenced to five months and one week in jail, she may have to deliver her baby in Hong Kong.

By virtue of being born in Hong Kong, the baby is automatically a Hong Kong citizen with right of abode, and the mother can be brought eventually to Hong Kong for family unification. That is the immediate consequence of this verdict. The sentence begins immediately without bail pending appeal.

- Your calculation is wrong. The magistrate calculated exactly to the time just before the baby was due so that Huang Yufeng can serve the maximum jail time and be released and expelled just before the baby is due. The true calculation is that you may be served to 5 months and 1 week, but you actually serve about two-thirds of the total time because Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays do not have to be served.

(The Standard) September 2, 2016.

Activist Sally Tang Mei-ching from Socialist Action who brought three banner poles into an MTR station told the court yesterday that at Stockholm Metro, which is operated by MTR Corp Limited, luggage of up to two meters is allowed.

Tang, 26, faced two summons for bringing prohibited items of luggage and failure to give particulars of name, address or telephone number or to produce proof of identity when she appeared at Tuen Mun Magistrates' Court.

She was accused of bringing poles of about 160 centimeters long, violating the 130cm restriction at Kowloon Tong station and refusing to show her identity card despite a request by MTR staff on September 25 last year. Defending herself, Tang submitted a document in Swedish to the court without translation on Wednesday, but did not submit it to the prosecutor.

Yesterday Tang told deputy magistrate Joseph Lee Jo-ey the document was about the standard of luggage of Stockholm Metro, which is operated by the MTR Corp, and stated that the restriction is two meters. The poles according to Socialist Action's Facebook were for promoting the concept of the Occupy movement.

An officer from the MTR's rapid response unit, Ho Yan-yee, yesterday testified that she approached Tang and said she would like to measure the poles as she saw Tang carrying the three white plastic poles taller than her. But Tang did not cooperate. Ho said: "Miss please cooperate or else I will prosecute you."

A man with Tang took the poles from her and said: "No need to pay attention to these staff."

The staff members eventually got a measurement of 160 cm and requested them to show their identity cards.

Tang was heard saying: "I won't give it to you, let's wait until the police arrive," and she kept on saying: "Shame on MTR bullying small citizens" with a loudspeaker until the arrival of police before she showed them her identity card.

A MTR legal staff member, Wong Wing-fai, told the court notices on carriage of luggage were posted near the ticket vending places, it was stated in the notices MTR urban line passengers can only carry luggage of which the total dimensions, the length, width and height do not exceed 170cm and the length of any one side of the luggage does not exceed 130cm. Wong said even though the MTRC relaxed the restriction to 145cm in August, it only applies to musical instruments or sports equipment and application is required. Wong said normal objects including the sticks in the case are subject to the 130cm restriction.

(SCMP) September 21, 2016.

A lawmaker-elect said the Legislative Council should find time to review MTR by-laws, after a social activist was fined HK$2,000 on Friday for refusing to produce proof of her identity to staff who stopped her as she carried three 160cm plastic sticks into a station. The two offences were contrary to MTR by-laws, which “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung said need reviewing. “There is no reason to violate rights of the public,” he said in support of Sally Tang Mei-ching, chairwoman of Socialist Action.

Tuen Mun Court was previously told that the MTR Corp had imposed luggage height restrictions capped at 130cm to minimise passengers’ risk of electrocution. But Tang, 26, argued it was ridiculous to consider the three sticks she carried into Kowloon Tong Station on September 25 last year would pose such a danger. She also argued that MTR staff should not be allowed to check passengers’ personal information.

But deputy magistrate Joseph Lee Jo-ey sided with prosecutors in finding her guilty of carrying prohibited items of baggage and of failing to produce proof of identity for inspection. He fined her HK$1,000 on each count. Lee said the sticks posed a risk of injury or damage to railway property as they towered over children and even some adults. “They would be even higher above the ground when carried during travelling,” he said.

The court heard that Tang had shouted, “Shame to MTR, bully small citizens”, after her confrontation with staff. “I believe I’m innocent,” she said in mitigation. “MTR is a profit-making organisation that is restricting citizens’ space in order to pack more people into its trains – that’s why they won’t relax the luggage restrictions. This is obvious.”

Under the by-laws, carrying prohibited items of luggage is punishable by a maximum penalty of a HK$2,000 fine. Failure to provide name, address or telephone number or to produce proof of identity carries a higher maximum penalty – a HK$5,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment.

(China Worker) August 12, 2016.

CWI member Sally Tang Mei-ching will appear in court on 1 September in a case brought by the MTR, Hong Kong’s seventh largest corporation by market value. She is charged with two offences that carry the maximum penalty of six month’s imprisonment and a HK$7,000 (800 euro equivalent) fine. This is clearly a case of political persecution against a spokeswoman for a well-known anti-big business and anti-establishment political organisation. Many similar incidents are overlooked by the MTR but in this case it is taking a hard line and is determined to bring the issue to court.

MTR is Hong Kong’s rail and metro corporation and also one of the biggest property developers. Its allegations against Sally are that she 1) brought ‘oversized luggage’ onto the metro system, and 2) failed to show ID and personal information to MTR company staff. The case has aroused considerable publicity in Hong Kong due to Sally’s relatively high profile as an anti-government activist and because MTR is heavily criticised on a range of issues from excessive fare increases to its involvement in billion dollar white elephant projects.

Sally entered a not guilty plea and is determined to fight the case to challenge the MTR’s high-handed policies. The ban on ‘oversize luggage’ is a highly controversial policy in Hong Kong, especially when the company launched a crackdown on the issue, which provoked protests by musicians and other groups. This rule especially hits working class families who don’t own a car and need to move large but not dangerous articles by metro.

Sally was stopped by MTR staff inside Kowloon Tong station in September 2015 for carrying a banner pole, made of lightweight plastic and under 160 cm in length. The Hong Kong MTR imposed a ban on objects over 130 cm in length, while more generous rules apply on other train systems operated by the company internationally (in Stockholm, for example, the MTR-run metro system permits items up to 200 cm in length). Therefore, from a safety perspective, these rules do not make much sense. Furthermore, under the pressure of public criticism, MTR recently modified its rules in Hong Kong allowing some items of luggage up to 145 cm in length.

When asked by MTR staff to produce her ID, Sally insisted that she would show her ID only to a police officer and asked for the police to be called. There is a reaction in Hong Kong among young people especially to the power of big corporations and concerns over individual privacy, against a background of more repressive government policies and attacks on democratic rights. Because MTR also has extensive financial interests through its electronic card system ‘Octopus’, it has been widely criticised over cases where travellers’ personal information has been sold to other businesses.

MTR is a big multinational corporation, which was privatised in 2000. It is a major property developer and landlord in Hong Kong. It also invests in railways in different parts in the world, and has obtained contracts to operate rapid transit systems in London, Stockholm, Melbourne, and Sydney. The company’s CEO Lincoln Leong Kwok-kuen takes HK$14 million a year in salary! While making huge profits (over HK$10 billion every year or 1.15 billion euro), it has still increased train fares every year, with a trend of increasing accidents and worsening maintenance standards, which has made it extremely unpopular within society.

Sally Tang Mei-ching is defending herself in court, while the MTR has hired a team of barristers and lawyers against her, again raising questions about how they use public money.

“This case is a bit like David versus Goliath!” says Sally. “But I have got a lot of support from youth and grassroots working people who are really angry about the way MTR is run today. This case is about challenging the unchecked power of big corporations.”

Socialist Action are demanding:
• Drop the charges against Sally Tang Mei-ching!
• Defend personal privacy rights!
• For a public and fully transparent review of MTR’s ‘oversized luggage’ policy, open to representatives of the public, unions and passengers to create fairer rules.
• For democratic public control and ownership of public transport – kick out the profiteers!

Now for the Chinese press:

(Oriental Daily) September 2, 2016.

The prosecution summoned engineering manager Chan Kwok-sun to testify, for he had previously participated in defining the standards on luggage size. Chan said that a long object may inadvertently touch upon the overhead electric cables and cause electrocution, as well as damage the ceilings of the stations and cars. Furthermore, it may interfere with other passengers.

During cross-examination, the defense asked Chan whether the platform barriers would prevent long objects from touching the overhead electric cables. Chan said that the main purpose of the platform barriers was to prevent people from falling onto the tracks. The defense told Chan that the London and Stockholm subway systems have different luggage size standards, and the Hong Kong MTR Corp operates those two systems as well. Chan said that the London and Stockholm subway systems were joint ventures with different designs for stations and cars. Therefore, "I am completely not surprised that they should have different standards."

The defense pointed out to Chan that there were 826 incidents in the MTR in 2006 compared to 1246 incidents in 2015 for a huge increase of 51% over ten years. Chan said that the 2006 figure was for the MTR, whereas the 2015 was for the combined post-merger MTR/KCR. If the comparison was made with the sum of MRT plus KCR in 2006 versus 2015, the number of incidents would have decreased instead.

(Oriental Daily) September 7, 2016.

According to police officer Choi, the defendant declined to show her ID to the two MTR workers who wore uniforms and carried MTR ID badges. She was only willing to show her ID to the police officer. Choi said that he explained to the defendant that refusal may result in her being ticketed. Choi said that if the defendant gave her ID information only to the police officer, the MTR may demand that information from the police in order to issue a ticket anyway. The defendant said that she understood.

In summation, the defendant said that the situation was chaotic at the time. Since the witnesses summoned by the prosecution all worked for the MTR, there is a conflict of interest and therefore they cannot be trusted. The defendant said that since the poles that she carried were used for a political activity, she believes that the MTR tightened the regulations in order to deprive the citizens of the right to carry materials on public transportation. The magistrate said that no such evidence was offered to support the contention.

The defendant said that the MTR continues to raise prices even as their profits are growing. Therefore it is unjust for the MTR to spend so much time and money to prosecute a citizen. The magistrate said that MTR prices are not germane to this case.

(Oriental Daily) September 23, 2016.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that many other subway systems around the world allow luggage of greater sizes without posing any danger to passengers and therefore she cannot be prosecuted. The magistrate said that this is not the same thing.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that she was not sure that those people who intercepted her were MTR employees. But the two MTR employees wore uniforms with name badges. Furthermore, the defendant then used her megaphone to chant "Shame to MTR, bully small citizens" which showed that she was fully aware that the two persons were MTR employees.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that MTR employees have no right to demand to see the ID's of citizens. However, this right is conferred according to CAP 556B Mass Transit Railways By-laws: Part IX Article 24 Remove of persons from railway premises:

(1) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an official of committing or attempting to commit any breach of these by-laws, while in or upon any part of the railway premises shall, when required to do so by such official-

(a) give to that official true and correct particulars of his name and address and of his telephone number, if any, and produce proof to that effect for inspection; and

(b) produce to that official proof of his identity for inspection. (L.N. 8 of 1998)

The magistrate concluded that the defendant either does not understand the law or else knowingly disregarded the law. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant guilty on both counts.

Internet comments:

- The best bit that they won't tell you in English is this:

(Oriental Daily) Afterwards, the defendant insisted that she was innocent and that the case was unfair against poor people who could not obtain free legal aid and are therefore forced to plead guilty. Therefore she went to trial in order to protest. Tang said that "法律面前，窮人含忍" (in front of the law, the poor people have to swallow and endure." The magistrate admonished her with "Be careful of your language!" The magistrate said that the defendant showed no remorse and therefore fined her a total of $2,000.

Why was the magistrate so upset? Tang's phrase is a homonym of "in front of the law, the poor people have to suck cock."

- $2,000 is a small price to pay the advertising that will enable Sally Tang to be elected to the Legislative Council four years from now. She will be receiving $100,000 per month in salary.

• [583] RTHK City Forum (2016/09/19)

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 14, 2016.

Television channel TVB is to stop airing the political debate programme City Forum, a weekly mainstay that has been broadcast live on the channel for 36 years. The programme is produced by RTHK and is known for inviting prominent figures, lawmakers, and academics from different sides to discuss contemporary issues. It takes place at at a public venue, usually Causeway Bay’s Victoria Park, every Sunday.

City Forum will still be broadcast on RTHK digital and analogue channels 31 and 31A. TVB and RTHK have been broadcasting the show after RTHK took over ATV’s analogue channels in April after the beleaguered broadcasting company’s license expired.

Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHK’s Corporate Communications Unit, told Ming Pao that the new arrangements were made as RTHK now has its own channels and broadcasting laws did not stipulate that TVB must give RTHK broadcasting time on Sundays.

Other programmes from RTHK, such as LegCo Review and the political satire programme Headliner will also be broadcast one hour earlier at 6pm. Ng told Ming Pao that as said that as TVB’s prime time begins at 6pm, the new arrangements also follow broadcasting rules.

(HKG Pao) September 19, 2016.

RTHK's City Forum has always had poor audience ratings, but it has always been haughty. For many years, it had held the Sunday noontime broadcast on TVB when families are eating lunch. TVB wants to move it to Channel J5, but RTHK says no and prefers to broadcast on their own.

Just when everybody thinks that City Forum is bidding farewell to the public, Apple Daily held a live broadcast of City Forum on Facebook.

In the past, RTHK has always denied that they are biased. As a government outlet funded by taxpayers' money, they couldn't admit it. Now that they join up with Apple Daily, how can they deny that "they took the government's money to operate as the opposition's mouthpiece"? Will they ever be able to reverse course and become an independent, neutral media outlet?

Now that Apple Daily has aired a complete live broadcast, their relationship with RTHK is very clear. What will RTHK do? Will they respect the taxpayers, or will they be directed by Next Media (Next Magazine/Apple Daily)? Will they continue to spend the taxpayers' money so as to make sure that Next Media will earn ad dollars through their live broadcasts of City Forum?

Before the Legislative Council elections, we listed the policies of the various television channels:

RTHK: Do not download videos and re-air unedited or edited. Even if you list the source, it is unacceptable. RTHK reserves the right to seek legal redress. Even if you record yourself at the scene, you cannot air it.

TVB: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

Cable TV: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

NOW TV: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

As can be seen, RTHK is the most rigorous and unfriendly towards other media in citing their videos. The other television channels merely ask for sourcing and respect. RTHK forbids re-transmission and even derivative art and live coverage.

Interestingly, this copyright-sensitive government media outlet has turned a blind eye to what Next media is doing while shouting at all others to stop and desist. Did RTHK give permission to Apple Daily to make live broadcasts of their programmes? Or did Apple Daily violate the copyright of RTHK without permission? Will RTHK pursue the issue?

So everybody wants to know whether a government department can hold double standards? On one hand, they will generously let Apple Daily make the live broadcast for free, while on the other hand they continue to refuse all else.

In the past, RTHK has threatened HKG Pao with legal action for using screen captures. We have now decided that we will continue to use photos, sounds and videos from RTHK where appropriate and we will see how RTHK responds.

If Apple Daily can get benefits and accommodation from RTHK, we should be able to do so in like manner. Let us wait and see if RTHK really has a One Channel Two Systems in place.

- Internet comments:

- Most people will watch the TVB channels 81-85, so will watch VIU-TV channel 99 and practically nobody watches RTHK channels 31-33. The RTHK City Forum will get near zero ratings at channel 31 only.

- Most of time, channels 31-33 are showing old low-definition videos. Who would want to watch them?

- The interest in the RTHK City Forum is that this is a clown show. You watch it to see innovative ways of insulting people. Otherwise there is no substantive content to speak of.

- Don't forget the boxing matches with the Victoria Park uncles!

- Those faked boxing matches are nothing much to watch, because the flying punches always miss the purported targets.

- Unlike the Miss Hong Kong pageant, the RTHK City Forum does not allow discussants to use foul language on air.

- ATV went out of business due to lousy television audience ratings. RTHK has worse ratings than ATV. The reason why RTHK is still in business is because it is funded by taxpayers' money.

- (Apple Daily) According to Apple Daily, 210,000 persons watched their live broadcast of City Forum. Many Internet users demand that Apple Daily continue their live broadcast each week.

- By comparison, TVB just finished broadcasting the serial drama A Fist Within Four Walls. On the final episode, they had an audience of 2.38 million viewers.

Furthermore, these numbers are measured by an independent research company and cannot be manipulated by either TVB or outsiders. Website hit rates can be easily manipulated by either the operator or outsiders.

P.S. This audience does not count the Internet audience at the official or unauthorized websites.

- The 210,000 (if true) is a cumulative audience -- those who click through and may have watched anywhere from zero second to the entire program.

- If Apple Daily were to write the headline for this news story, it would have been: "Apple Daily in deep shit! Initial broadcast drew only a ratings of 3; Internet users cursed: 'Dump the fucking program!'"

- This particular post at Discuss.com.hk has drawn 38,000 hits in under two hours already. How hard is it to get 210,000 hits?

- RTHK acknowledged that Apple Daily filmed and aired without their permission, but they declined to take further action against Apple Daily. Therefore HKG Pao and other media can do likewise.

Apple Daily is a business. By airing the RTHK City Forum, they garnered 210,000 hits for which they derive direct and indirect ad revenues. So why are the taxpayers subsidizing RTHK so that Apple Daily can make money?

- Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHK’s Corporate Communications Unit, said that RTHK will refer HKG Pao to the Department of Justice if they should publish anything without prior approval. However, Ng did not say whether Apple Daily will be referred to the Department of Justice, and that is the main point.

- (HKG Pao) HKG Pao will not be accused of "All Talk and No Action." Therefore, they have posted a Vimeo video and invite the RTHK authorities to bring in the Department of Justice.

This video contains segments of the September 18, 2016 RTHK City Forum which was broadcast live by Apple Daily. The edited video is intended to address the very serious issue of whether the RTHK City Forum host was being fair and balanced.

- (HKG Pao) HKG Pao has posted a second Vimeo video. This video contains segments of the RTHK program Pentaprism II. The Chinese program title is literally "Left Right Red Blue Green" and purports to allow voices across the political spectrum be heard. Each episode is hosted by a different person invited by RTHK. HKG Pao checked the 164 episodes of Pentaprism II aired in 2016. They found 8 government officials, 59 persons with no clear political positions, 4 unclassifiable, 26 pro-establishment persons and 67 pan-democratic persons. Is this a fair and balanced presentation of the political spectrum.

Like the first video, this edited video is intended to address the very serious issue of whether the RTHK program Pentaprism II is being fair and balanced. HKG Pao invites everybody to share these videos. Of course, your sharing may cause you to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice as RTHK threatened to do so.

- (Oriental Daily) September 26, 2016.

This morning, a Kowloon Tong resident noted that RTHK had hung the Chinese national flag and the HKSAR regional flag upside down. According to RTHK, they were told that at around noon about what was happening with the flags and made the corrections immediately. The RTHK spokesperson said that the security guards were responsible for raising the flags in accordance with the guideline. In this case, it was an unintentional error and the relevant security guards had been told to correct their ways.

- Only at RTHK, of course.

- For a 30-minute tv program, TVB uses 10 persons, BBC uses 22 persons and RTHK sues 52 persons. But the real question is: How many RTHK people raised the flags upside down? Answer: As many Poles it took to screw in a lightbulb.

• [582] The (Yellow Ribbon) Miss Hong Kong (2016/09/12)

(IB Times) Miss Hong Kong 2016: Here's everything we know about Crystal Fung. August 9, 2016.

The Miss Hong Kong beauty pageant is just a month away, and 20 contestants have already proceeded to the next round. Crystal Fung, a 22-year-old who majored in food and nutrition at the University of Hong Kong, has already attracted a lot of media attention after she arrived at TVB city driving a million dollar Tesla electric car.

It remains to be seen if she'll make it to the final rounds of the beauty pageant, but Crystal is a promising candidate to win the title this year. She has been a popular figure on social media even before entering the Miss Hong Kong 2016 competition, and her Instagram followers have only increased in these recent months. At present, Crystal has more than 23,000 followers on the photo-sharing medium.

According to Hong Kong entertainment news portal AH Mike, Crystal was once voted the most beautiful girl at the University of Hong Kong, and this has resulted in her gaining a number of modeling assignments as well. Earlier this year, she also represented Hong Kong at the Mary Kay Beauty Contest in Shanghai. Although she did not win the competition, Crystal said she was happy to have performed in front of a large audience.

This was a great experience for me. I've never walked on such a beautiful stage. I am happy I was able to successfully perform in front of over 10,000 people," she was quoted as saying by AH Mike.

On the romantic front, Crystal seems to dating a doctor and the gentleman in the picture below seems to be the one who stole her heart.

A quick scan of her Instagram page also reveals that Crystal is committed to living a healthy lifestyle. But she seems to have a weakness for birthday cakes.

Miss Hong Kong 2016, Crystal Fung Ying-ying

Much more interesting is this piece of Crystal Fung presence on social media. Here is one of the many quotable examples:

Facebook repost of Passion Times's video about an incident in Occupy Mongkok (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBWyBNwwfSc).

In the video, an anti-Occupy Communist uncle kept using his hands to grope the breasts of a female Occupy participant. The Police came and removed the uncle away from the scene.

I am not going to stand for this!!! Pok gai, fuck your mother, may your whole family be wiped out!!

The dirty old man used his hands to squeeze her, the girl kept screaming "Sexual molestation" but he wouldn't stop!
If someone else didn't intervene and grabbed his hands, the girl would not be able to break away!!
Everybody saw it. He was clearly filmed and aired on NOW TV.
What happened to the bastard? The Police patted him on the shoulder and let him go!!!!!
Huh!??? Is there still rule of law!!!
If I get molested on the street, with eyewitnesses present, videos taken and the suspect arrested, I still won't be able to fucking tet him prosecuted!!
In the end, he is going to be released easily!
Right now, this is no longer about seeking democracy and justice
This is about the basic issue of personal safety
If you let them continue, how can anyone dare to walk in the streets!!!!

Video: https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/603066293231983/

Internet comments:

- In 2015, Louisa Mak was questioned if she was The (Yellow Ribbon?) Miss Hong Kong. This year, Crystal Fung left no doubt that she is the (Yellow Ribbon) Miss Hong Kong. This is going to mean that she will run into protests at her endorsements, appearances, etc.

- And Crystal Fung had better worry about whether her Home Visit Permit is still valid for traveling to mainland China.

- Can mainland China invalidate Yellow Zombie Slut Crystal Fung's Home Visit Permit as soon as possible!

- It is time to trot out the famous quotation from the movie Infernal Affairs: 出得來行，就預左要還 (Once you enter the triad world, you should be prepared to pay the price). When Crystal Fung posted those kinds obscenities on social media, she should be prepared for them to haunt her some day.

- Crystal Fung was elected by the people through universal suffrage. She received more than 30,000 votes. So even if she turned out to be foul-mouthed, she will continue to represent Hong Kong to the international community. This is the essence of genuine democracy.

- The Internet has more than a collection of the sayings of Crystal Fung. Since Fung was voted Miss Photogenic, here is the photo of her sans make-up. She looks like a country hick from the Chinese hinterlands.

- Here is her Form 6 (Secondary School) photo:

Caption: It is not a dream for a Pork Chop to become Miss Hong Kong

- Already Crystal Fung has now an Internet moniker: 馮柒柒. Because she liked to use the obscene word 柒 (expletive) so much, she is to be addressed as Fung Expletive Expletive in future.

- The word 柒 sounds like the word for the number '7'. So Crystal Fung Ying-ying is also addressed as "Fung 7 7".

- As James Wong once explained, the words 𨳍 ('7') and 𨳊 ('9') are not used interchangeably.

Both words refer to male erection. 「應硬而不硬者是戇𨳊，不應硬而硬者是笨𨳍」

𨳍 ('7') refers to the situation in which you want an erection but your member isn't cooperating. So you are fucking losing your big chance.

𨳊 ('9') '9' refers to the situation in which you don't want an erection but your member has a will of its own. So you are wasting the occasion and embarrassing yourself.

Yellow Ribbons such as Crystal Fung use these words arbitrarily without understanding their differences. As such, they are more 𨳊 ('9') than 𨳍 ('7').

- Derivative art on the Internet, still permitted even if the Copyright (Amendment) Bill was passed.

- The Yellow Ribbons say that TVB is a Chinese Communist media outlet which they have re-named CCTVB. They say that they will only watch HKTV. So why is Crystal Fung participating in TVB's Miss Hong Kong pageant? And now she is going to sign a contract with all sorts of restrictions on her speech and action rights.

- Here is Crystal Chow's post on the seven evil cops assaulting Ken Tsang. She refers to the television network as CCTVB!!!

- Crystal Fung might have been immature when she made those posts more than a year ago. But she should have purged everything once she entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant. If she doesn't realize that, then her brain is the size of a pea.

- If you try to access Crystal Fung's Facebook now, you will get "This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed." Too late, though.

- Crystal Fung has just set up a new Facebook and she is deleting unfavorable comments. Long live Freedom of Speech!

- Can Crystal Fung claim that all those purported Facebook posts of hers were forgeries? Like this one about bestiality?

- Louisa Mak must be celebrating wildly. After putting up with the barbs for one year, she finally has a successor to her crown as well as her troubles.

- She studied at Hong Kong University, so it is expected that she would be foul-mouthed. Why do you act surprised?

- If she attended school with people like ex-president of the HKU Student Union president Billy Fung, it is the norm to be foul-mouthed, especially for the women.

- Of course, a female Hong Kong University can be foul-mouthed if she so chooses. It is just that I don't want a Miss Hong Kong for whom I have to worry about if and when she will let out a "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!"

- I read this comment: "In Hong Kong, every person from the richest to the poorest has freedom of speech. People can say whatever they want. It is nobody else's business. So who do they think they are to criticize our Goddess of Democracy?"

Eh, a beauty pageant is not just about finding a beauty. If so, this becomes a contest among cosmetic surgeons. Miss Hong Kong is chosen for other attributes as well, such as cultivation, character and intelligence. You can barrel your way through based upon "freedom of expression." If you think saying Pok gai, fuck your mother, may your own family be wiped out!! is okay, then you are uncultivated and unrefined; you have no character or integrity; and you have no intelligence.

- If you want to defend Crystal Fung's freedom of expression, then why don't you defend the Hong Kong Youth Development Society's freedom of expression as well? For calling a Crystal Fung a "foul-mouthed woman worse than a prostitute" and calling for a boycott, Facebook has banned the HKYDS account.

- When Hong Kong University is seeing its rankings tumbling everywhere, it is expected that Miss Hong Kong should go from Loretta Chu (the first Miss Hong Kong in 1977) to Crystal Fung (2016).

- Crystal Fung is actually following the footsteps of Michele Monique Reis, the 1988 Miss Hong Kong. Reis is famous for a foul-mouthed telephone conversation with tycoon Joseph Lau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRdR91JzGE0

- The Miss Hong Kong pageant is an opportunity for pretty girls to showcase themselves to marry a rich scion. What matriarch would allow her son to marry a foul-mouthed woman? This is a stigma that will stick to Crystal Fung for the rest of her life.

- (The Stand)

At the noontime TVB press conference on the day after Crystal Fung became Miss Hong Kong, she replied to press inquiries about her past social media comments by saying that "she was young and didn't know better" in using overly excited language to express her opinions. She said that she was affected by the "passionate atmosphere" among university students at the time and she only did so because she loves Hong Kong. She emphasized that she does not use foul language in private. She said that those things took place two years ago, but she has now matured and entered society. "The same thing will look different when viewed from a different angle." She said that things should be handled with tolerance and positive attitudes.

- Crystal Fung is 23-years-old today. Is she so mature and learned? Two years ago in October 2014, she was 21-years-old. Was she so immature and ignorant? Nothing much can change in two years. The difference is that there is a pile of money to be made here, and so she has to discard the inconvenient baggage.

- The discussion forums are also reporting that she is a Civic Passion member. This puts her into a dilemma whether she confirms or disavows, she is going to alienate some easily excitable people.

- Crystal Fung's tactic is to plead youthful ignorance and to say that she is not normally foul-mouthed. This is unconvincing. A better tactic would be to admit that she was foul-mouthed before because most people around her at the time spoke that way. Since she is now Miss Hong Kong, she promises not to be foul-mouthed because the public has certain expectations for Miss Hong Kong.

- Even if Crystal Fung never entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant, she would have to face the same issue. When she was still in school, many of her friends may be foul-mouthed and so was she. But once she graduated and got a job, she couldn't expect to behave in the same manner towards her supervisors, colleagues, clients and elders. And if you use obscene language on radio/television, it will be beeped out. These are the social norms today. That is why Crystal Fung has to bail out.

- Cheese-eating surrender monkey

- Yellow Ribbon double standards: If someone else committed a youthful error, he/she must resign immediately. If a Yellow Ribbon does the same thing, he/she must be forgiven and even praised for being straight and sincere.

- The students say that they were born in a time of chaos and therefore have certain kinds of responsibilities. Does this include a responsibility of kowtowing to TVB for a job?

- On TVB, Crystal Fung was asked about the issue of the students' views on the automatic appointment of the HKSAR Chief Executive as the Chancellor of the universities. Fung said that the students are the foundation of the universities, and therefore the university administration should listen to their demands. That is going to please the students. But in the same interview, she also said that the students commit youthful errors. So why should the university administration commit the youthful errors as demanded by the students?

- If TVB is really functioning as CCTVB on behalf of the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist government, then Crystal Fung would be the best choice of Miss Hong Kong. Her recantation is worth as much as the photos of Edward Leung and Ray Wong meeting with US Consulate General employees.

- When the Facebook sayings of Crystal Fung first surfaced, the Yellow Ribbons rose up in unison to praise her character and courage. In a matter of hours, Fung recanted her youthful mistakes. The Yellow Ribbons collapse into despair first, then turned around to attack her as a hypocrite who sold out the cause for the sake of fame and fortune. Yesterday's Yellow Ribbon Goddess is now the rat scurrying across the street.

- The fact that Crystal Fung was foul-mouthed is a personal issue. The people of Hong Kong have the right to like or dislike a Miss Hong Kong, and such opinions have been regularly expressed over time. So this should have been a non-issue ... except when the hordes of Yellow Ribbon celebrities rise up to defend Crystal Fung and her foul-mouthed tirades and condemn her critics for being uncultured or suppressing freedom of expression. For example, the past Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak said that there are words that are even more obscene than expletives (??). This is what makes it an issue. Why are we being told that we should not think for ourselves or express our own opinions? Why are we forced to automatically take a position based upon the apparent political position of the person? Will future Miss Hong Kong pageants include a section on showing how foul-mouthed the contestants can be?

- (Kinliu) The foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 17, 2016.

Pity TVB.

Their normal Miss Hong Kong pageant became a series of public relations disasters. The friendly ambassador for Hong Kong turned out to be a foul-mouthed spokesperson. Most ironically, the preceding Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak jumped out to defend foul-mouthed language. In so doing, these two highly educated Miss Hong Kong's have destroyed the myth of beauty and brains.

When her foul-mouthed language on Facebook were posted, Ms. Fung said: "I was young and ignorant, and I wrote in anger. I don't normally speak it." So the next day someone found a video of Ms. Fung using foul language: "My lord, I don't want it ... the foreigners down there are fucking stunned to see us!" This was suggestive and vulgar. Such is our pretty ambassador.

A public relations disaster is that once a bomb explodes, you pour boiling oil to put out that fire and you end up with a worse disaster.

Are you entitled to use foul language just because you are young and ignorant? Ms. Fung made those Facebook posts two years ago, when she was twenty years old. How are still young and ignorant at 20? At 20, you can vote. No wonder these young and ignorant people have elected those young and ignorant legislators.

I remember that the prettiest Miss Hong Kong Loretta Chu was only 19 years old when she was crowned. She was younger than Ms. Fung. She had just graduated from secondary school. She did not attend Hong Kong University or Cambridge University. But she was always well-mannered and comely. She is a grandmother now, but there has never been any scandals around her.

The healthiest Miss Hong Kong Olivia Cheng was also crowned when she was 19 years old. She had tanned skin and was the holder of the Hong Kong women's high jump record. She picked up golf and was voted the best female golf player in Hong Kong five years in a row. She was also the first Chinese female golf coach. She showed her nude body in a photo album, but no one considered it to be obscene.

By comparison, our foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong said that she was young and ignorant? Sorry, many women were young once, they were ignorant but they never used foul language in public. I have many friends who have never once used foul language in their entire lives.

The former Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak said: "Actually there are many things that sound worse than foul language ..." This means that if there are worse things out there, then foul language is okay? According to this logic, there are worse crimes than robbery out there, then it is okay to commit robbery? There are worse acts than sexual molestation, then it is okay to commit sexual molestation? ... I finally understood that since there are worse things than throwing bricks, then everybody thinks that it is acceptable to throw bricks.

It is not a crime to use foul language. But it is a problem for Miss Hong Kong to be foul-mouthed. To put out the fire, it is as simple as making a sincere apology like Leon Lai did. The people of Hong Kong won't blame you for being foul-mouthed; they are upset at you and your supporters for using various excuses to rationalize foul language. It is true that foul language is part of Cantonese culture, but it is the lowest level of Cantonese culture. It is a problem when the educated intelligentsia use the language of the lowest level.

In a few years time, nobody will remember the name of the 2016 Miss Hong Kong. But Crystal Fung will be known forever as the "foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong." Will the Wai Yin Association (for former Miss Hong  Kongs) invite Fung to join them? The name Wai Yin refers to intelligence, beauty and propriety. Which standard does Fung meet?

- For the edification of Louisa Mak, here are the various fines for using obscene language in various public locations according to the respective ordinances:;

Tram: $100
MTR: $5,000
Bus, mini-bus, taxi: $3,000/6 months in jail
Airplane: $50,000/2 years in jail
Hospital: $1,000 for first offense ($2,000/1 month in jail for recidivists)
Sports arena: $2,000/14 days in jail)

- Louisa Mak may have studied law, but she clearly doesn't think that the law needs to be observed.

- Why do such ordinances exist? While you can exercise your freedom of speech, the others stuck in the bus with you have the right not to listen to your obscenities. You are verbally harassing this captive audience, which has the right to complain. In the case of your Facebook posts, other people at least have the ability not to read your invectives. Not so in confined public space.

- (HKG Pao) September 24, 2016. Yesterday at an awards show organized by an automobile brand, Miss Hong Kong Crystal Fung spoke to the press. Suddenly she spoke to the microphone: "Testing microphone, testing microphone, Lo Hoi Pang testing microphone ..." This caused a sensation among the reporters.

The Hong Kong actor Lo Hoi Pang was well-known for checking the microphone with 盧海鵬試咪 ，屌你老母西！ "Lo Hoi Pang testing microphone ... fuck your mother's cunt ... alright or not?" If the engineer said yes, then it means Lo Hoi Pang can go fuck his mother's cunt; if the engineer says no, then Lo Hoi Pang will repeat the phrase until the system is correctly set.

The reporters asked Crystal Fung whether she knew that what comes next is an obscene phrase. She acted surprise and said, "No more, no more. I was just testing the microphone. There isn't a next phrase."

So it would seem that Crystal Fung is maximizing media exposure with her image as the Foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong. But it is not certain that the automobile sponsor appreciates this sort of thing.

• [581] Hong Kong Legislative Council Election Results (2016/09/05)

		HKU POP poll 9.3.2016	Predicted #	HKRA poll 8.29-9.1.2016	Predicted #	Official	Official	Official
	Name (Party)	%	of Seats	%	of Seats	# of votes	% of votes	# elected
District Council (Second)	James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party)	23.0%	1	22.3%	1	243930	12.8%	1
Functional Constituency	Starry Lee (DAB)	24.0%	1	29.4%	2	304222	15.9%	1
(5 seats)	Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party)	10.0%		7.0%		491667	25.7%	1
	Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL)	2.0%		4.0%		17175	0.9%
	Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party)	5.0%		6.7%		28311	1.5%
	Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions)	12.0%	1	8.7%	1	233236	12.2%
	Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats)	1.0%		4.3%		23631	1.2%
	Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre)	12.0%	1	10.0%	1	303457	15.9%	1
	Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB)	11.0%	1	7.4%		264339	13.8%	1
Hong Kong Island	Gary Wong Chi Him (independent)	3.0%		1.4%		10028	2.7%
(6 seats)	Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power)	3.0%		2.0%		7276	1.9%
	Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party)	19.0%	1	20.5%	1	60760	16.1%	1
	Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party)	6.0%		9.0%	1	19376	5.1%
	Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB)	12.0%	1	9.9%	1	41152	10.9%	1
	Chim Pui Chung (independent)	3.0%		1.0%		2587	0.7%
	Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion)	4.0%		4.4%		22555	6.0%
	Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto)	8.0%	1	4.4%		50818	13.5%	1
	Shum Chee Chiu (independent)	0.0%		0.8%		1654	0.4%
	Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent)	11.0%	1	16.1%	1	33323	8.8%
	Chui Chi Kin (independent)	1.0%		0.8%		670	0.2%
	Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent)	0.0%		3.3%		2550	0.7%
	Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party)	7.0%		6.4%		42499	11.3%	1
	Tanya Chan (Civic Party)	14.0%	1	12.8%	1	35404	9.4%	1
	Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions)	9.0%	1	7.2%	1	45925	12.2%	1
Kowloon West	Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats)	4.0%		2.6%		6811	2.4%
(6 seats)	Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent)	0.0%		0.7%		399	0.1%
	Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party)	8.0%	1	17.2%	1	32323	11.6%	1
	Leung Mei Fun (BPA)	24.0%	1	12.8%	1	49745	17.8%	1
	Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL)	3.0%		4.0%		15383	5.5%
	Chu Siu Hung (independent)	1.0%		1.1%		680	0.2%
	Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute)	8.0%	1	7.7%		20219	7.3%
	Helena Wong Pik Wan (Democratic Party)	9.0%	1	13.4%	1	26037	9.3%	1
	Lam Yi Lai (independent)	1.0%		0.7%		634	0.2%
	Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB)	17.0%	1	16.6%	1	52541	18.8%	1
	Kwan San Wai (independent)	0.0%		0.0%		938	0.3%
	Lau Siu Lai (independent)	11.0%	1	8.1%	1	38183	13.7%	1
	Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration)	7.0%		8.8%	1	20643	7.4%	1
	Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent)	1.0%		0.8%		874	0.3%
	Tik Chi Yuen (independent)