(Oriental Daily with video) February 18, 2017.

A number of pro-police organizations marched from Chater Garden in Central to Police Headquarters in support of the seven police officers who were sentenced to 2 years in jail for assault to cause bodily harm. About several thousand people marched. The organizers claimed that more than 3,500 persons took party. The police said that the peak number was 1,800.

At the end point, a participant cursed out foreigner judges. A woman advised people not to criticize judges but was drowned out by boos.

Videos:

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/58a801016db28c5d23aa85cb 

Ming Pao http://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170218/s00001/1487422599628

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/1556368111346483/videos/1750530265263599/

Internet comments:

- English language coverage? Nothing whatsoever via Google News. So this event never took place for you English-only readers.

- You are very wrong here. SCMP reported on the demonstration.

- Yes, SCMP reported on a different demonstration that took place on a different day: "Protesters worried about pollution from a planned factory in Heilongjiang province find their route to a demonstration blocked by police ..." Newspaper space is finite, so the editor is required to select those items that they think are more important for their readers. Pollution in Heilongjiang is surely very important to the people of Hong Kong who live a mere 2,800+ kilometers away. After all, Hongkongers are very concerned about radiation poisoning from Fujishima (3,000+ kilometers away), and Heilongjiang is even closer to home.

- SCMP also reported on a local Hong Kong riot on this very day. "K. Wah Holdings sells all 208 flats in first batch of project at old airport site. On February 9, K. Wah released the first price list at an average of HK$17,998 per square foot. K. City did not see much interest from mainland Chinese buyers, even though flats there are available to people from across the border. Over 2,100 buyers expressed an interest in purchasing K. City's first batch."

- Here are the media crowd counts:

NOW TV - "More than 200 people"

Commercial Radio: "Several hundred people"

Headline Daily: "Several hundred people"

Apple Daily: "One thousand persons"

- (Apple Daily) February 19, 2017.

Hong Kong Polithk Social Strategic organized demonstration march from Chater Garden to Police Headquarters. Along the way, the demonstrators chanted: Oust dog judge" and "Fucking David" against Judge David John Dufton. One person dressed up as a judge and said: "I am just a dog" while others acted as if to punch and kick him.

According to accountant Mr. Lee, a two- to three-month sentence would have been enough. "I cannot say that they did no wrong, but we should forgive them for making small mistakes during the excitement."

According to housewife Miu, "the seven police used excessive force but did not cause grave harm to Ken Tsang. Law enforcement people have always used force to control situations, just like fathers beating children. It is only a matter of degree."

According to Ms. Lam who didn't know who was assaulted by the seven police officers, "His name is Chiu somebody. He poured liquid on people ...  In the United States, they would have shot you already. It is merciful to just hit you a couple of times."

A senior citizens said: "The seven police officers made a mistake -- they should have dragged him to somewhere else to beat  him." The reporter asked: 'That is to say, he deserves to be beaten up?" He answered: "Yes!"

(Judiciary.gov.hk)

DCCC 980/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 980 OF 2015

____________

HKSAR v
WONG Cho-shing D1
LAU Cheuk-ngai D2
PAK Wing-bun D3
LAU Hing-pui D4
CHAN Siu-tan D5
KWAN Ka-ho D6
WONG Wai-ho D7

____________

Offences:
(1) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊致造成身體傷害) (2)
Common assault (普通襲擊)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. The defendants are convicted after trial of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm[1]. D5 was also found guilty of a further charge of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu[2].

2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the reasons for verdict handed down on 14 February 2017. In summary at about 2:45 a.m. on 15 October 2014 the police carried out Operation Solarpeak to clear the protestors of the Occupy Central movement. When the police reached the end of the underpass on Lung Wo Road, Tsang Kin Chiu (Tsang) was seen on the planter above Lung Wo Road pouring liquid on the police.

3. Tsang was pulled down from the planter to the pavement and subdued by several uniform police officers. After the uniform police officers successfully handcuffed Tsangs hands behind his back with plastic zip ties they handed Tsang over to D1-D6, who escorted Tsang away in the direction of Lung Wo Road. On the way Tsang was picked up and carried face down.

4. Protestors were to be taken to the escort coaches and cars on Lung Wo Road for transport to the Central Police Station. D1-D6 did not carry Tsang direct to where the coaches and cars were parked. Instead D1-D6 carried Tsang to the north side of the Lung Wui Road Government Building Pump Station East Substation (the substation) to assault him.

5. On reaching the substation D1-D6 were joined by D7, who helped carry Tsang to the north side of the substation. On reaching the north side of the substation Tsang was dumped on the ground and immediately assaulted by the defendants, with D7 being the first one to kick Tsang.

6. D3 participated in the assault by stabbing Tsang; stamping on Tsang and kicking Tsang and D4, D5, D6 and D7 also participated in the assault by kicking Tsang. D1 and D2 did not take part in the assault but watched what happened. Tsang received injuries to his face; the left side of the neck; the left shoulder and clavicle; the left flank; the right flank and to his chest and back.

7. Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. By carrying Tsang to the substation and watching their colleagues beat up Tsang, D1 and D2, the two senior officers, intended to and did encourage and support D3-D7 to carry out the assault on Tsang, intending Tsang to sustain unlawful personal violence.

8. After the assault Tsang was frogmarched to Lung Wo Road where he boarded a car. D5 and D6 sat on either side of Tsang and accompanied him to the Central Police Station. At the police station Tsang was taken to room 7 where he stayed until he was escorted by coach to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang. While in room 7 D5, in the presence of D6, slapped Tsang on the face twice.

Mitigation

9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants together with the many mitigation letters, all of which speak very highly of the defendants. D1 joined the police force in 1984; D2 in 2009; D3 in 1992; D4 in 1999; D5 in 2007; D6 in 2008; and D7 in 1998. The defendants all have long and distinguished careers in the police force earning many compliments and commendations.

10. Submissions have been made as to the unique circumstances confronting the police during the Occupy Central movement. Mr Lok SC informs the court that police officers had to work very long hours and in carrying out their duty were subject to insulting remarks and violent behaviour from the protestors. I am told 130 police officers were injured. There can be no doubt that all police officers, including the defendants, were working under great pressure during the Occupy Central movement.

11. Mr Lok SC, Mr Cheng SC and Ms Lam specifically submitted that if a prison sentence is to be imposed then the sentence should be suspended[3].

Sentence

12. In HKSAR v Hui Man Tai[4] the Court of Appeal said:

Police officers in whom the public place trust to uphold the law, but who themselves break the very laws they are empowered and entrusted to uphold, have to be made examples in terms of deterrent sentencing so that others will not be tempted to follow along similar lines and so that public confidence will be maintained.

13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kongs reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries[5].

14. Although Tsang had broken the law for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment[6] and the defendants were at the time acting under immense stress, there was no justification for taking Tsang to the substation and assaulting him.

15. The defendants, serving police officers who in the execution of their duty took Tsang to the substation to assault him; the multiplicity of the injuries sustained by Tsang as a result of the assault; and the damage to Hong Kongs reputation make this, in my view, a very serious case.

16. I am satisfied a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Tsang was defenceless, his hands handcuffed behind his back with plastic ties. The assault was a vicious assault, in particular the first thirty seconds when Tsang was dumped on the ground, stabbed, stamped on and repeatedly kicked. Most fortunately Tsang did not suffer more serious injuries.

17. I am satisfied a sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate.

18. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time and the great stress the police were under in handling the Occupy Central movement; that the defendants, all of clear record, have served the community as police officers; that the conviction will result in all the defendants being dismissed from the police force and the likely loss of any pensions; and the stress caused while waiting for trial, I reduce the sentence by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment.

19. Having regard to all the circumstances of the commission of the offence and that of the defendants, I am satisfied that the assault is too serious for the imposition of a suspended sentence.

20. On charge 2, I am satisfied the proper sentence is 1 month imprisonment. Although separate from the assault at the substation, considering totality of sentence, I am satisfied a concurrent sentence is appropriate. D5 is sentenced to 1 month imprisonment concurrent to the sentence imposed on charge 1.

(D. J. DUFTON) District Judge

[1] Contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[2] Common assault contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[3] In support of his submission exceptional circumstances were not required before imposing a suspended sentence Mr Lok SC submitted Secretary for Justice v Wade, Ian Francis CAAR 1/2015

[4] CACC 334/2007.

[5] See 3 of the Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, marked H (1) for identification.

[6] Tsang appealed against conviction and sentence which appeal the court was told was still pending.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

- (Guide to Judicial Conduct)

Impartiality

19. Justice must be done and must seen to be done. Impartiality must exist in both as a matter of fact and as a matter of reasonable perception. If partiality is reasonably perceived, that perception is likely to leave a sense of grievance and of injustice having been done, which is destructive of confidence in judicial decisions.

20. The perception of impartiality is measured by the standard of a reasonable, fair-minded and well-informed person, as discussed more fully in relation to questions of apparent bias.

The apparent bias test

47. The apparent bias test may be stated as follows:

A particular judge is disqualified from sitting if the circumstances are such as would lead a reasonable, fair-mined and well-informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the judge would be biased.

- The seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail. You can compare what happened to the rioters in the Fishball Revolution:

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 1
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 2
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 3
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 4
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 5
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 6

Here is one of those cases:

(Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

17-year-old waiter Chan Ho-man pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

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.

- (SCMP) Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen sentenced Ken Tsang to five weeks for one count of assaulting police by splashing a foul-smelling liquid on them and three weeks each for two counts of resisting arrest, all to be served concurrently. Magistrate Law promptly freed Tsang on HK$300 cash bail pending appeal.

- 5 weeks for Ken Tsang ($300 cash bail pending appeal) versus 2 years (=104 weeks) for the seven police officers who arrested Ken Tsang.

- Over time, people have seen any number of cases. To their minds, the sentences given to the seven cops appear to be much more severe compared to rioters. Yes, judges may have complex considerations spinning through their heads and duly written down in the judgment. While they may think that justice was done, the people do not see it that way.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 19, 2017. The sentence must factor in the profession of the defendants, because they are law enforcers who must know the law. Here are the more serious precedents which should have applied to this case under the vaunted Common Law system:

In 2009, Yau Ma Ti police sergeant Tam Wing-hong was accused to fighting with a man, punching the man such that his cranium collapsed. Tam was found guilty of seriously injuring another person and sentenced to ten months in jail. On appeal, the High Court ruled that the man was not a credible witness and vacated the verdict.

In 2001, Yuen Long Anti-Organized Crime Unit senior inspector Li Chi-fai was accused of dragging a discotheque manager into the back alley to assault, and then accused the man of obstructing police business. Lee was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and common assault. He was sentenced to six months in jail.

In 1998, four police officers (an inspector, a sergeant and two officers) were found guilty of assaulting a drug user causing bodily harm. The inspector and the sergeant were sentenced to 6 months, and the two police officers to 4 months.

- (SCMP) June 7, 2013.

A former Wan Chai divisional police commander was jailed for a year for misconduct in public office yesterday and accused by a magistrate of telling lies in court.

Magistrate Adriana Tse condemned Superintendent Titus Wong Koon-ho, 51, for showing no remorse during the trial and said he had given the worst testimony she had heard during her years as a magistrate.

Defence counsel Albert Luk Wai-hung yesterday submitted to the court 60 letters of mitigation and appreciation, including one from the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong. Luk also asked Tse to take into account Wong's contributions to the city.

Tse rebutted this by saying that police officers could not point to their community service as a defence in such circumstances. "They do not serve society for free," she said. "They are well paid for it."

Well, judges/magistrates are very well-paid too, so why are they so thin-skinned about any criticisms? Don't high-paying jobs come with arrows and barbs?

- Judge David Dufton: "13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kongs reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries."

- The judges started with very lenient sentences for rioters who were engaged in civil disobedience. The maximum sentence for those Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution was ten months for Ng "Capone" Ting Pong for assaulting three police officers. Given the adverse reaction this time, the next Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution rioter will probably have to receive more than two years in jail in order for justice to seem to be done.

- None of this would be necessary if the judges impose the maximum sentences against all comers. Because they started with covert and even overt sympathy for 'civil disobedience', they end up damaging the credibility of the judiciary instead.

- This is not the rule of law. This is even the rule of man. This is the rule of public relations perceptions.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 18, 2017.

Legislator Junius Ho said that the fact that the seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail showed that everybody is equal before the law. However, none of the leaders of Occupy Central have been prosecuted yet, and that shows the justice has not been done.

Legislator Leung Mei-fun said that the sentences were clearly too severe. It was understandable that the police officers could over-react in that situation. Most citizens oppose the illegal Occupy Central and are sympathetic towards the seven policemen who were maintaining public order. She said that pro-Occupy should not be gloating about the sentences, because the destruction of respect towards the law is nothing to celebrate about.

- Here is public perception:

Judge: "I'm here!! Don't worry! The police won't dare to fight back!"

- And if you criticize the judges and their judgments, you are threatened with an investigation by the Judiciary Department. That is alright too, provided this is enforced uniformly. For example, here is this August 14, 2015 post by the Hong Kong Independence Alliance to tell the treacherous Hong Kong judge Chan Pik-kiu to arrange for his funeral matters and to challenge the Hong  Kong Public Security Bureau to arrest him. Where the hell was the Judiciary Department?

- Here is how to see justice being done correctly:

Basic Law Article 48

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

( 1 ) To lead the government of the Region;
( 2 ) To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 3 ) To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
( 4 ) To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
( 5 ) To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
( 6 ) To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
( 7 ) To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
( 8 ) To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
( 9 ) To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
( 10 ) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
( 11 ) To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
( 12 ) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
( 13 ) To handle petitions and complaints.

- Is it wrong to pardon guilty people? (Ming Pao Canada) Hong Kong Governor MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those police officers who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned.

- Universal standards: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States Approximately 20,000 pardons and commutations were issued by U.S. presidents in the 20th century alone.

Q1. Hong Kong will be holding the election of the Chief Executive. Which of these four candidates are better suited to become the next Chief Executive?
37.4%: John Tsang
34.0%: Carrie Lam
7.9%: Woo Kwok-hing
7.8%: Regina Ip
0.3%: All of the above
5.8%: None of the above
6.9%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q2. Of these four candidates, who has the better capability to become the next Chief Executive?
39.9%: Carrie Lam
36.4%: John Tsang
6.1%: Woo Kwok-hing
8.5%: Regina Ip
0.5%: All of the above
3.1%: None of the above
5.4%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion\

Q3. Which issues should be given priority by the next Chief Executive?
45.5%: Land/housing
18.8%: Economic development
11.1%: Retirement protection
9.0%: Constitutional development
8.7%: Poverty relief
3.6%: Labor benefits
1.6%: Other
1.6%: Don't know/no opinion

Q4. Which candidate do you think will ultimately become the next Chief Executive?
66.0%: Carrie Lam
19.1%: John Tsang
4.0%: Regina Ip
1.8%: Woo Kwok-hing
0.4%: Other
8.6%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

In 2014 during the Occupy movement, the police assisted the bailiffs to carry out a court order to clear Mong Kok. Seventeen individuals were charged with contempt of court, including Civic Passion vice-president Cheng Kam-mun and part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan. The two are now pleading guilty as charged.

Today the High Court heard their lawyers present their case. The argument was that their cases was much less serious many others during Occupy Central, and therefore they should be leniently penalized.

28-year-old Cheng Kam-mun is an assistant to legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion). He arrived at court 40 minutes late. As the lawyers presented their arguments, the judge Chan Hing-wai found Cheng Kam-mun fiddling around with his mobile phone. Judge Chan said that he may confiscate the mobile phone and used English to lecture Cheng: "What are you here for? Can you come and go as you please? Can you play around as you please? I don't see you showing any sincere apology. You came here without any hint of remorse."

Both defendants are receiving legal aid. According to their lawer, Au has apologized for what happened that day. Au does not have any political affiliations and he joined the Occupy Movement in order to show his dissatisfaction with the government. Although he was in contempt of court, he did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. He felt that he was only opposing the police and not the court.

Their lawyer also said that the court needs to impose sentences that have deterrent effects so that the authority of the court will not be challenged. But a large number of people have participated in the Occupy Movement in various capacities. Some of the participants were ignorant and stupid. Au has now awakened. Of the various options opened to the court (such as going to jail immediately, probation, fine, good behavior bond), Au case falls in the lightest category.

Their lawyer said that many of the defendants charged with contempt of court are fighting their cases in court. The trials can last 30 days. If they lose their cases, they face long prison terms. However, these two defendants have pleaded guilty and they have not wasted the court's time.

Although the two defendants are receiving legal aid, the Justice Department is asking them to pay punitive legal fees. The defense said that if the court accepts the application by the Justice Department, then every single person who is being charged with contempt of court will be bankrupt. The court should be encouraging those who are contesting their cases to plead guilty, and therefore Au should not be paying at all and Cheng should be paying partially.

(Ming Pao) February 17, 2017.

According to part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan, he knew nothing about the separations of powers. So when he saw the police read out the court injunction, he thought that it came from the police and not the court. Au was only dissatisfied with the police and did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. Au said that he has learned a huge lesson and hopes that the court will impose just a fine on him.

The defense did not present any reason for mitigation on behalf of Cheng Kam-mun. Some background was given, such as Cheng is presently an Legco aide earning $15,000 a month and that he has not yet completed his university studies.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMPPaVN4IY

(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2016.

Avery Ng threw a stinky fish sandwich at CY Leung, but missed. Instead Avery Ng copped some dirty orange spots on his own white shirt. Ng explained that he threw the stink fish because many citizens are going hungry. Ng said that the police intercepted him and took down his Hong Kong ID information. He said that the police told him that they reserve the right to charge him with common assalt.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2017.

Pro-democracy activist Avery Ng Man-yuen has been charged in connection with an alleged assault during a protest against Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying last year.

Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, wrote in a Facebook post that police attempted to arrest him at his residence on Thursday morning, but he was not there. He initially speculated that the charges were related to him allegedly throwing a smelly fish sandwich at Leung on the day of the Legislative Council elections.

According to Ming Pao, Ng and other party members demonstrated against Leung on the morning of September 4 last year. As Leung arrived to vote at Robinson Road in Mid-Levels, Ng allegedly threw a sandwich at him, but police did not make any arrests that day.

Ng said on Thursday that he was notified of his arrest on a charge of common assault, and would go to a police station in the afternoon to assist in the investigation. He said he had predicted that he would be prosecuted at some point for what he termed his close-range protest using a smelly fish sandwich.  He made reference to the case of former League of Social Democrats member Derek Chan Tak-cheung, who was jailed for three weeks in November 2014 for throwing an egg at then financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah. I think this bodes ill, he said.

In the afternoon, Ng wrote on Facebook that he was to be charged with assaulting a chief inspector not Chief Executive Leung using an Indian chicken roll in the same incident. He has not further elaborated on the incident so far.

(The Standard) February 15, 2017.

Seven police officers were found guilty yesterday of assaulting Occupy Central protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu. But they were cleared of the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm. The seven were remanded in custody until sentencing on Friday.

District Court judge David Dufton ruled that the injuries to Tsang, although extensive, did not constitute grievous bodily harm. But he was satisfied they amounted to actual bodily harm. "The prosecution have proved all the elements of the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against each defendant beyond reasonable doubt," he said.

Anyone found guilty of causing actual bodily harm is liable to three years' imprisonment, while those convicted of common assault face up to one year's imprisonment. The original charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The defendants did not give evidence or call any witnesses.

Tsang, part of a group of pro- democracy protesters, was involved in a clash with police outside government headquarters during the Occupy Central movement in 2014. In the early hours of October 15, police carried Tsang, who was handcuffed, to a dark corner of the nearby Tamar Park and dumped him on the ground. Detective sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, then began "stabbing, stamping and kicking" him.

Officers Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, also joined in and kicked Tsang.

The assault was captured on footage by TVB, Apple Daily, ATV and Now TV as well as a police video team. Despite an objection from the defense on submitting footage from news media as evidence, the court ruled that all audiovisual evidence was authentic and accurately depicted events.

The judge agreed with the inference drawn that the protester was "carried to the corner to be assaulted." Although chief inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, and senior inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, did not take part in the assault, they were also convicted. Judge Dufton believed the duo "did encourage and support [the] unlawful violence" by watching their colleagues assault the activist. "Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers," he said. "[Their] failure to intervene is evidence of encouragement to carry out the assault."

Chan was convicted of an extra count of common assault for slapping Tsang on the face twice in a room in Central Police Station.

Tsang sustained injuries to the left side of his neck, left shoulder and clavicle, left flank and right flank, as well as bruises on his chest and back.

(EJ Insight) February 16, 2017.

There are clever marketing gimmicks and then there are clever marketing gimmicks. The difference, as in the case of Schick, is whether you want to please the critics of the police at the expense of their fans.

On Tuesday, Schick, a distant second to Gillette in the personal care line, made an interesting post on its Facebook page saying there is something more to celebrate on Valentines Day. The post brought up famous singer Paula Tsui, whose famous hit song Jubilant has become an anthem for an anti-climactic political event (say, Carrie Lam not winning the chief executive election). Interestingly, it did not say what exactly we should be celebrating but we can glean from the hashtag link to no less than the conviction of seven policemen for assault on activist Ken Tsang.

The issue has been deeply divisive between supporters and critics of the police.

The original post attracted a few thousand likes but it was particularly disturbing to Speak Out HK, a group from the pro-establishment camp. A message posted on the groups Facebooks page by a certain Miso Cheng said it was very disappointing and disgusting that your administrator representing Schicks brand and identity has used such an insult. If your company is using this for sales and marketing strategy to enhance market share, traffic and revenue, I would say that you are doing it by inciting others and dividing society, Cheng wrote. My family will stop spending a dime on your products.

Schick, a 91-year-old company, has been owned by Energizer since 2003. Energizer also owns Eveready, among others. To avoid what could potentially become another Lancome debacle, Schick quickly bowed to the complaints.

In its latest Facebook appearance, it retracted its earlier posts, saying it is aware that our social media activity on Valentines Day may have inadvertently caused some concerns with its link to breaking news of the day. It was certainly not our intent to cause any upset or distress and we apologise if that was the case. We would like to reassure our consumers that, with our presence in Hong Kong of over 20 years, Schick is focused on product innovation and improvement and we strive to provide Hong Kong consumers with a high-quality shaving experience.

The retraction attracted 500 dislikes from Facebook fans who were disappointed at the U-turn and maintained that there is nothing wrong with the administrator.

Well, it is difficult to make both sides happy.

Internet comments:

- Hey, everybody knows that Schick will eventually delete the post, because the company mission is not to generate political controversy. Here is the screen capture of the original Schick HK Facebook post:


Schick HK
It took a long time, but we ask Ms. Paula Tsui (to sing her song of joy)
#Good_awesome
#I have waited a long time for this day
#You didn't do anything wrong but you will have to go to jail
#Valentine's Day
#Date on February 14
Today there is another kind of celebration besides Valentine's day

- The second and the last paragraphs justify nothing. You should have hired a more sensible digital marketer after so many other incidents which did nothing but damaging the brands. I don't give a damn about your marketer's own political belief but it was YOUR BRAND who posted it. Tough luck, can't be undone. Gillette for life. Or Braun. Or Phillips. Or a beard.

- If you didn't delete your post and apologize, the Blue Ribbon dogs who have no backbones will still continue to buy your products.
But if you delete your post and apologize, all Hongkongers with backbones will boycott you.
The original public relations person was not fucking stupid; the public relations person who decided to kneel down to the Blue Ribbon dogs is fucking stupid.

- What the fuck is wrong with you! Not a single word in the original post referred to anything, so why do you have to delete the lost. Self-censorship? If you hire someone to administer your Facebook but you don't have faith in his/her actions, you should do it yourself.

- Your extreme reaction shows that you are very worried about your position in the mainland Chinese market. You are worried that what happened in Hong Kong could lead to a consumer boycott in mainland China. Well, so did you remember to post the apology on their mainland Weibo/Weixin in simplified Chinese characters?

- Previously, your idea of Facebook marketing was something like.


Is it fair?
Even if you maintain a good beard, you are still going to be beaten.

- I switched from Gillette to Schick on account of this previous Facebook post. I am not switching back to Gillette.

- More great marketing from Schick:

Why don't you shave your beard first
[Avery Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats]
"We don't want the August 31 resolution
Universal suffrage should be implemented in all of China"

- This is a classical public relations disaster in which a company manages to offend all sides (see Lancme).

- DigDeeper Facebook

Seeking information to locate the ex-administrator over at Schick (HK)
It's you! You have a feel for locating material,  you are humorous, you dare to speak, you are courageous, you are a firefly in the darkness, you are a once-in-a-century genius.
We are presently looking for a social media expert. If you have been dismissed, or if you are being oppressed by the old farts and are disheartened, then congratulations to you because you will have a brand new place to express yourself. We guarantee to you that you will receive higher pay here.
Please disseminate this notice broadly.

(SCMP) February 16, 2017.

The Department of Justice will follow up on abusive comments made about a judge on social media platforms after the judiciary expressed serious concern. While government statements did not specify the relevant court case or judge concerned, the response came two days after seven police officers were convicted of assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during an Occupy protest in 2014. The seven men will be sentenced on Friday at the District Court. Judge David Duftons verdict received a mixed response on social media, with some police supporters posting insulting criticism and abuse.

Two prominent Facebook posts by film director Clifton Ko Chi-sum drew more than a thousand comments.

Yellow-ribbon judges favoured troublemakers in Hong Kong, he wrote, referring to the symbolic colour of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement. Localist, pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judge rule leniently, or even acquit them, showing absolute favouritism.

In another post he said: Which Hong Kong law said we cannot criticise judges?

Portraits of Dufton were posted on other Facebook pages, with captions accusing the judge of messing up Hong Kong.

In light of these recent comments, a judiciary spokesman said: The judiciary regards it as a matter of serious concern and has referred the matter to the Department of Justice to follow up.

A department spokesman said it would take suitable action.

The Department of Justice reiterates that judicial independence is the most important ring within the rule of law, he told the Post. Members of the public have the right to express their opinions towards court rulings and relevant matters within the permitted scope under the law ... but they must respect judicial independence at the same time and not maliciously attack judges or perform any behaviour that will harm the rule of law.

The spokesman noted that public opinion ought to avoid being possibly seen as exerting pressure towards the courts or individual judges, especially when commenting on ongoing cases to avoid affecting the healthy development of judicial independence and the rule of law.

A police spokesman said the force had yet to receive any public complaints or a referral from the department. But he said officers would keep an eye on online remarks and take action accordingly if they suspected offences had been committed.

At the ceremonial opening of the legal year last month, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li called for public restraint, noting that judges were not immune to criticism and that comments ought to be informed and measured.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said on the same occasion that he had noticed worrying signs of people overstepping the mark in criticising court rulings, including personal attacks on judges, and that such abuse must be stopped.

Internet comments:

- Clifton Ko Chi Sum's Facebook

Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism.

The lawyer Wong Kwok-tung said that while what Ko Chi-sum said may not constitute contempt of court, it is definitely contempt of the law.
Wong Kwok-tung, you are wrong. I respect the law greatly. I merely don't trust biased judges.

Which Hong Kong law says that "judges shall not be criticized."

A judge is someone who issues a fair verdict
A dog judge is someone who issues an unfair verdict
Make your classification accordingly.

The more you want to silence my voice, the more I will speak out:
The morale of the Hong Kong Police cannot be sullied.

- (Apple Daily) Open Letter to Ko Chi-sum. By Kevin Yam. April 15, 2017.

At around 930am on February 14, the Hong Kong District Court found the seven police officers guilty of assaulting the social activist Ken Tsang to cause bodily damage. At 1:33pm, you posed on your Facebook: "Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism."

After you published your views, someone noted that your words constituted contempt of court. At 515pm, you responded: "The Yellow Zombies want to frame me with those worlds. Risible! Which word above is about the court case that was decided today? Which word is "contempt of court"?" At 937pm, you said too: "I am not stupid. I did not discuss the court case today." When you did a newspaper that night, you emphasized that you have the freedom of expression to say those things.

There is surely freedom of speech in society. The dealings or verdicts in court can be criticized. But in order to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, the Hong Kong and overseas courts have stated in many cases that if a person expresses certain opinions that damage the authority of the courts or judges, or interfere with the independence of the judiciary in the absence of adequate evidence, then this is criminal contempt of court. Your words on Facebook on February 14 clearly constitutes criminal contempt of court.

Firstly, just because your words did not refer to any specific verdict does not mean that you are not in contempt, because the definition of "contempt of court" is not tied to any specific verdict. Without any evidence, you accuse judges of making rulings based upon personal political views ("Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers."). With evidence, you called the judges "dog judges." The Facebook post drew more than 1,000 Facebook LIKE's, and the commentators followed your example to insult the courts and judges. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the courts?

Secondly, you openly stated that you are not "stupid" because you did not mention the court case of that Day. This showed that you clearly intended to expound on the verdict of the seven police officers. You think that you are smart, and that you can find a legal loophole by just making a generalized statement of the judiciary. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the judiciary?

Thirdly, if you did not intend to so, your negligence still constitutes contempt of court. You are a well-known member of the entertainment industry. Your production company says that you have more than 10 job titles. You have received an honorary medal from the Hong Kong government. Your Facebook page is LIKE'd by more than 27,000 users. Can you say that your speech has no influence? But you still end up slurring the judges. What is this but negligent contempt of court? ...

I call on you to publicly retract your words and apologize. Otherwise, I wish you good luck. If an influential person like you can ignore the advice of the Justice Secretary and publicly hold the court in contempt without being prosecuted, then I wish Hong Kong good luck.

I wish you a booming business and make a lot of money.

- If Ko Chi-sum is going to be prosecuted for saying "dog judge" over a court verdict, then the number of other people in line for the same treatment would be very very long.

Here is the first example that comes to mind (with video):

(Ming Pao) (YouTube) October 26, 2016.

Yesterday Raymond Wong Yuk-man was sentenced to two weeks in jail for common assault (over throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council Q&A session).

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that he had considered the case of League of Social Democrats member Chan Tak-cheung throwing an egg that hit Financial Secretary John Tsang. Chan was found guilty of common assault and sentenced to three weeks in jail.

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that while Raymond Wong claimed to be resisting in the Legislative Council, his was an act of violence. As a public figure who was a Legislative Councilor at the time, his action was violent and uncivilized. The court therefore must impose a deterrent penalty, and not just impose a fine. Since Raymond Wong did not submit anything in mitigation, it meant that he was not repentant and that would take away probation or community service as options.

The magistrate started off the sentence with three weeks in jail. Since Raymond Wong did not bring the cup to throw and he fortunately did not injure anyone, the sentence was reduced to two weeks.

After announcing the sentence, Magistrate Chu Chung-keung left the courtroom. The supporters of Raymond Wong began shouting and cursing inside the courtroom.

Raymond Wong emphasized that resistance inside the Legislative Council should not be subject to criminal prosecution. He criticized Magistrate Chu Chung-keung as "a thoroughly dog magistrate" (「徹頭徹尾嘅狗官」).

Now where the hell was Kevin Yam when Raymond Wong said that? Even if he missed that event, what does he say now that it has been brought out and placed alongside Ko Chi-sum's statement?

- And if Kevin Yam is willing to drag Raymond Wong into this, I am willing to do search through the Lexis database to find all other usage of "dog judges/magistrates" in order to make sure that justice is fully carried out against all of them.

- I can predict what Kevin Yam will do.

Media question: Raymond Wong said that the magistrate who sentenced him to 2 weeks in jail was a "thoroughly dog magistrate"? What is your reaction given what you said about Ko Chi-sum?

Yam response: I have not seen that statement before.

Media question: Here is the link in Ming Pao completed with a video.

Yam response: I will need time to review the facts first.

Media question [24 hours later]: Have you reviewed the facts of the Raymond Wong case?

Yam response: I have been really busy since, and I haven't had the time to do so.

... Yam will continue to be really busy for the rest of his life and he will never have to give a response.

- Here is another case:

(Oriental Daily) July 30, 2015.

Passion Times
Talk is useless, action is most practical!
Accused of assaulting a police officer during "Recover Yuan Long"
A man was sentenced today to four months in jail
Hong Kong traitor Judge Michael Chan Pik-kiu (photo in aim sight)
Watch your step!

- Here are the "universal standards": (Dictionary.law.com) Contempt of Court

n. There are essentially two types of contempt:

a) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge;

b) willful failure to obey an order of the court. This latter can include failure to pay child support or alimony.

The court's power to punish for contempt (called "citing" one for contempt) includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions"). Incarceration is generally just a threat and if imposed, usually brief.

Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive.

"Criminal contempt" involves contempt with the aim of obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence.

Criticisms of judges and their verdict are not covered here.

- Universal standards: (Slate) May 28, 2016.

You know whats presidential? Using 12 minutes of a campaign rally to criticize a judge who is overseeing civil litigation against your failed education venture. And thats exactly what Donald Trump did in San Diego when he seemingly bored his audience with details about the ongoing case, specifically attacking U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel for being a hater and even speculating about what his ethnicity might be.

The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily, Trump said. Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. Hes a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.

Curiel is not doing the right thing. And I figure, what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes? What followed was one of his most personal attacks against an apolitical figure since becoming the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, notes the Wall Street Journal. As part of his attack, Trump told his audience, which just moments earlier had chanted about the need to build that wall, that Curiel is Mexican.

The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think thats fine, Trump said. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK? Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana.

I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself, Trump said. Im telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But well come back in November. Wouldnt that be wild if Im president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.

- Cartoon: You are both for and against it.

Panel 1: (Before) I want to throw bricks and kill of you Evil Cops!
Panel 2: (Before) Arse-licking judges dared to find justice warriors guilty!
Panel 3: (Now) I oppose violence! The police must obey the law and s how forbearance!
Panel 4: (Now) Ko Chi-sum calls them "dog judges." This is simply contempt of the verdict!

- What is an example of "contempt of court" in Hong Kong? There was an explicit court order which was read out to the defendants. The defendants were informed that they will face contempt of court charges. Still they refused to make way. They were arrested and charged with contempt of court.

(SCMP) November 10, 2015.

Police can now arrest Occupy Central protesters who defy bailiffs trying to clear their sit-in sites in Mong Kok and Admiralty, the High Court has ruled.

The court's authorisation for the bailiffs to get help from the police if necessary is a new addition to three interim restraining orders - on behalf of drivers' groups and the owner of a commercial building - in force for the past three weeks.

With the court's permission, the force could start removing barricades and defiant protesters from their occupied zone in Mong Kok as early as tomorrow, according to a police source.

The Department of Justice said yesterday that while the police would provide assistance in respect of the enforcement of the injunction orders, the Secretary for Justice might also "consider taking appropriate action against persons who may have committed the offence of criminal contempt".

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung extended the orders and said officers could remove or arrest people who ignored or insisted on breaching them.

They must, however, offer a brief explanation of the order at the point of arrest, Au wrote.

The judge explained that he allowed the police to step in because the rule of law and due administration of justice were at risk of being "seriously challenged and undermined", as some protesters had been openly disobeying and flouting the court orders.

"Under the rule of law, even if the defendants are of the view that a court order is wrongly granted, instead of simply disobeying it, they should first comply with it but seek to challenge and argue against that order in court," Au wrote.

Au's judgment means the applicants for injunctions against the Occupy movement do not need to return to the courts for further extensions of their orders.

The injunctions were first granted on October 20, to Chiu Luen Public Light Bus, the Taxi Association and the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association, for parts of Nathan Road to be cleared. The court also allowed Goldon Investment, owner of Citic Tower in Admiralty, to remove barricades blocking the building's entrances and exits.

The police source warned that protesters who still refused to move faced arrest for contempt of court. He said the Mong Kok protest zone was likely to be the first to be cleared, either Wednesday or Thursday. The source said enough manpower would be arranged to deal with any eventuality.

Outside court, solicitor Maggie Chan Man-ki, for the minibus drivers, said: "My clients only want to have the road back to do business."

(SCMP) January 6, 2015.

Twenty people would face charges of criminal contempt of court over a court-mandated clearance of the Mong Kok Occupy site in November, the Department of Justice told the High Court yesterday. They were arrested for obstructing bailiffs executing a court order granted to a transport firm to remove barricades obstructing Argyle Street. The arrests were made on November 25 as Chiu Luen Public Light Bus carried out a court injunction to reopen Argyle Street.

- The Justice Department is going to study the situation. If they decide the prosecute Ko Chi-sum (and Raymond Wong and a long list of others), they will bring the case before ... a judge in a court! Can we say "Conflict of Interest"?

- Epimenides paradox:

"Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."

Will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are unfair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is unfair. Therefore his statement is unfair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair.

Alternately, will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are fair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is fair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair. But what makes you think that you can trust him to tell the truth?

- The theory of Occupy Central is that if 10,000 people showed up to occupy Central, the police cannot arrest all of them and process them in a timely basis. The entire judicial system would be paralyzed. In like manner, the antidote here is for everybody to post "Dog judge" on social media.

Here is Anna Chan:

Hong Kong troublemaker yellow dog (westerner) judge! ... David Dufton
Western dog, helping the Chinese traitors to oppose China and cause chaos in Hong Kong.

- White Terror is truly alive and well in Hong Kong.


The Police Public Relations Branch has just called me to say that there must not be any banners or photos that are critical of judges at all future assemblies, or else they will make arrests immediately.

- Hong Kong Basic Law

Article 88
Judges of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be appointed by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of an independent commission composed of local judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors. 

Article 92 
Judges and other members of the judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities and may be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. 

- What is this "independent commission"? It is a black box operation with no oversight. What is an "eminent person" anyway? Joshua Wong, Anson Chan, Martin Lee and friends are famous across the world. Judges being elected by other judges? It is just naked nepotism?

- Why don't we try to adopt the American system to nominate/appoint judges? Since America is the greatest democratic country in world history, their system is the universal standard. Moved to Hong Kong, it means (1) when there is an open judicial position, the Chief Executive nominates someone to the position; (2) the nominee is voted upon by the Legislative Council and confirmation requires a simple majority of the legislators present and voting.

- Thoughts on contempt of court:

Can a citizen criticize the court or the judge after a case is finished? Based upon the citizen's personal positions and knowledge, can he express his dissatisfaction?

What kind of world is this when, based upon personal positions and knowledge, a citizen can express his satisfaction but never his dissatisfaction over a court verdict?

Why is it that when you say "dog judge", you may be charged with contempt of court?

Why is it that when you say "dog official" for the department/bureau chiefs including the Justice Secretary or even the Chief Executive, you don't have to worry about any consequences?

Why is it that you can call Donald Trump and Xi Jinping pigs, but you cannot call a Hong Kong district court temporary magistrate a "dog judge"?

Why have people called the Legislative Councilors with names related to dogs, pigs, snakes, chickens without any consequences?

Is the reason why judges cannot be criticized because they wear long black robes and funny white wigs?

If a judge didn't wear his long black robe and funny white wig, can a citizen criticize him?

If a citizen cursed out a westerner (who happens to be a judge who was in plain clothes at the time), it he still guilty of guilty of contempt of court?

Oh, it is so confusing!

- Why we can't trust the courts? Here are the photos of the non-permanent judges on the Court of Final Appeal:

This is the Court of Final Appeal for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Why are the judges whities?

- There is a Chinese saying: 非我族類 其心必異 = Those who are not my race must be of different hearts and minds.

- Instant poll: How do judges handle the Illegal Occupy Central versus Anti-Occupy?


33: Fairly and justly
13: Biased towards both
178: Secretly pro-Yellow, openly anti-Blue
2395: Citizens have no means of supervising judges, the judicial system has lost its effectiveness

- (SilentMajority.hk) February 15, 2017.

When the Yellow Ribbon launched their attacks against Ko Chi-sum, Internet users rose to their defense. "When citizens do wrong, the judges make the determination; when judges do wrong, who is going to make the determination? Judges are humans too. Judges are humans too. If everybody pays more attention to the actions and lives of these judges,  you will undoubtedly find many headline stories. So who is going to monitor and deal with them?"

According to Ming Pao, Ko Chi-sum said that his sense is that judges are sometimes biased in their judgments, with many cases not being ruled on the same basis. "I am not sure if some judges are Yellow Ribbons or not, but I feel that they might be." He also said: "Actually, is there any system to monitor and oversee these judges? Every other profession has such a system. I don't know how many judges are Yellow Ribbons. But citizens have their speculations and inclinations, and this should be discussed."

Ko Chi-sum said that the case is not yet done and so he won't make specific comments. He was merely expressing his feelings on the Internet. Is he worried that he will be charged with contempt of court? He said: "I have reviewed what I wrote. My words do not constitute contempt of law. Every citizen has the freedom of expression. It is a core value of our society to be able to express our feelings."

Chapman To Facebook


Chapman To: Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh.
The case of seven police officers assaulting Civic Party member Ken Tsang in a dark corner near a transformer station in Tamar Park during the Occupy period ended with the judge announcing that the defendants were not guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily harm to other persons, but they were guilty of the alternate charge of assaulting to cause bodily harm. In addition, the fifth defendant was found guilty of common assault. The defendants were remanded to custody.
Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.

9UP News Facebook (note: spoof)

Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.
Kristal Tin: Hubbie ... I beg you not to open your cheap mouth! Do you want me to lose my job as well ... if that happens, who is going to provide for the family?

- The Yellow Ribbon Entertainers: During Occupy Central, To was in the forefront. Last March, he also offered Facebook support to the movement to oppose the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement in Taiwan. In May this year, there were two films <Let go for love> and <Aberdeen> with Chapman To shown on mainland China. Chinese fans organized mass boycotts so that the box office receipts were dreadful. The production company of <Let go for love> acknowledged five days after the premiere that "Chapman To was immoral and we made the wrong choice." In the last film that he took part in on the mainland, <That's incredible>, his entire presence was edited out. Two to three years previously, Chapman To was already a controversial figure in mainland China. He cursed out mainlanders for their poor qualities and he arrogantly declared that he did not care for the mainland market. This caused his films to be shelved indefinitely. Even those films in which he had a cameo appearance were affected. Meanwhile his wife Kristal Tin still gets assignment at TVB. So she is the principal breadwinner for the family.

- (TVB) Excerpt from the drama series Destination Nowhere featuring Kristal Tin.

Daughter: Why is it that if I spend a little bit more money, you want to save it. What about him? He keeps squandering the money but you won't stop him. He has been spending your money all long. What are you so trashy? Is it the case that you cannot live without men?

(PopVote)

Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017

Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (POP) and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (CSPS) are commissioned by the Citizens United in Action (CUIA) to organize the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 (2017 CE Election Civil Referendum), which consists of the following two stages:

  1. Civil Nomination Stage:

    From 16 to 31 January 2017, any person can indicate his intention to be a civil candidate of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum by sending a Letter of Intent to POP by post. All persons who have completed the relevant registration procedures of being a civil candidate and all persons who have declared their intention to stand for the official 2017 CE election by 5pm of 4 February 2017, will be included in the civil nomination system of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum.

    From 7 to 22 February 2017, all citizens of Hong Kong aged 18 or above can nominate one person to be a Civil Candidate via mobile web app or PopVote website.

    Any person who receives 37,790 nominations or more will become an official Civil Candidate of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum. (Note: The total number of registered voters in Hong Kong is 3, 779, 085, and the requirement of 37,790 is 1% of the total number).
     

  2. Civil Referendum:

    All civil candidate(s) and official CE candidate(s) will be included in the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum. The voting motions are as follow: 

    i. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate A to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    ii. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate B to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    (so on and so forth)

    The support votes of a candidate are positive votes and the oppose votes are negative votes. The votes of each candidate are the net votes he/she received by subtracting the negative votes from the positive votes. The winning candidate is the one who has the largest number of net votes and the number of support votes must be more than the negative votes and abstain votes added together. There is a possibility that there may be no winning candidate.

Method of Civil Nomination: PopVote website or mobile web app
Civil Nomination date & time:
7 February 2017 (Tuesday) 10am to 22 February 2017 (Wednesday) 5pm

Methods of Civil Referendum: 1. PopVote website or mobile app, or 2. Physical polling stations
Civil Referendum date & time:
10 March 2017 (Friday) 12nn to 19 March 2017 (Sunday) 8:30pm
  Voter requirement: Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above
  Verification information: Full HKID number of the voter and a mobile phone number which can receive SMS.


Results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017:

John Tsang, 8146
Leung Kwok-hung, 5349
Woo Kwok Hing, 2133
Carrie Lam, 133
Regina Ip, 86
Leung Shi-ho, 68
Woo Sai-chuen, 40
Kam Man, 26
Wong Yiu-suen, 8
Lau Chi-wing, 4
Wong Pak-ling, 1
Kan Wai-fun, 1

(Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data) February 13, 2017.

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) noted the recent media reports and discussions on the issues of personal data privacy and data security arising from the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 (the activities) organised by Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, as commissioned by the Citizens United in Action, and was asked for clarification and views. Based on the public information of the activities, views of data security experts as quoted in media reports, and other facts gathered by PCPD so far, PCPD has the following preliminary observations to make.

The activities involve the collection of personal data of individuals, and there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives. It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, Mr Stephen Kai-yi WONG, pointed out that, Any person or organisation, who collects personal data based on the nature of a lawful practice or established mechanism, in particular one of significant interest to and impact on members of the public, but through means which are not in line with the law or mechanism without explaining the lawful basis for them, as a result of which participants may be misled, or that the data collected may lead to misuse or abuse, may contravene the Principle of Fair Collection under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Ordinance).

Meanwhile, it is pointed out by some information technology organisations and experts that the de-identification technology adopted by PopVote on the personal data it collects can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of the related Telegram, the instant messaging programme, to verify a participants identity for voting is also questioned by some computer security experts. The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Ordinance.

The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.

Note 1: Data Protection Principle 1 (Data Collection Principle) - Personal data must be collected in a lawful and fair way, for a purpose directly related to a function /activity of the data user. Data collected should be necessary but not excessive. Data subjects must be notified of the purpose and the classes of persons to whom the data may be transferred.

Note 2: Data Protection Principle 4 (Data Security Principle) - A data user needs to take practical steps to safeguard personal data from unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use.

(The Standard) February 14, 2017.

In a rare venture into politics, the privacy commissioner spoke out against the "civil referendum" spearheaded by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, asking the public to pay attention to privacy risks before taking part.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement yesterday, in which it "strongly demanded" the organizers of the so-called "Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017" stop collecting personal data.

The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic University have been commissioned by the group Citizens United in Action to organize the referendum.

The public can vote in two stages: the civil nomination stage and civil referendum stage. In the first stage, people can choose their pick of CE candidates via mobile web app or PopVote website. In the second stage, the public will vote on their favorite and their least preferred candidate.

Pro-democracy Election Committee members were recommended to take the public votes into consideration before they make nominations and vote.

The privacy watchdog said personal data collected on the website can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of instant messaging app Telegram to verify a participant's identity for voting has also been questioned by some computer security experts. "The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance," Commissioner Stephen Wong Kai-yi said.

Citizens should learn about privacy risks and consequences before taking part in the civil nomination, his office said.

Internet comments:

- According to the PopVote Civil Nomination results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017,

50.9% John Tsang
33.4% Leung Kwok-hung
13.3% Woo Kwok-hing
0.8% Carrie Lam
0.1% Regina Ip

According to the Hong Kong Research Association (#672),
If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?

36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip

According to the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Chinese University of Hong Kong (#669),
Who do you want as Hong Kong's next Chief Executive?

42.5%: John Tsang
28.2%: Carrie Lam
8.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
5.6%: Regina Ip

So it should be clear that the PopVote Civil Nomination results are not representative of the general population. At the Civil Nomination phase, you can still argue that nomination is not the same as voting to elect. But if the Civil Referendum shows the same kind of skew against Carrie Lam/Regina Ip, then PopVote is just another small-circle game.

-  Don't worry. They'll manage to stuff the ballot boxes when the time comes. The only traces left are the Hong Kong ID number (and there is free software (see example) that can generate random (but valid) Hong Kong ID numbers) and a mobile phone number (and there is telemarketing software that can generate random (but valid) mobile phone numbers).

- An audit means re-contacting the mobile phone user to verify the Hong Kong ID and how the person voted (if at all). But such an audit will be resisted because the privacy of personal data is of paramount importance. Of course.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. Pro-democracy lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung announced on Wednesday that he will enter the chief executive race if he receives 37,790 unofficial nominations from members of the public, representing one per cent of the registered electorate.

With one-third of the Civil Nomination period already elapsed, Leung Kwok-hung only has 5,349 nominations. It is time to mobilize the masses to stuff the ballot boxes!

- (Oriental Daily) February 14, 2017. Yesterday Citizens United in Action said that they will explain everything to the authorities in order to dispel doubts. Today Citizens United in Action issued a statement that they will halt the nomination process temporarily. They apologize to the citizens. They will meet with the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data to explain the uses of their data collection and understand the requirements before re-starting the process.

- This means that a certain number of days will be lost from the Civil Nomination period. Of course, they can always shift the goal post from 37,790 nominations to 3,779 nominations to issue a free pass to Leung Kwok-hung. (And tough luck for Woo Kwok Hing!).

- Cartoon of personal data thief

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017. Yesterday legislator Leung Kwok-hung gathered nomination signatures outside the Sha Tin MTR station. The citizens were filling out their Hong Kong ID numbers and mobile telephone numbers. Leung did not explain why these unofficial civil nominations require them to provide HK ID and mobile telephone data. Where is the information going to? Future crowdfunding campaigns? Commercial telemarketers? Telephone scammers?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. The referendum campaign is asking for HK$1.5 million worth of public donations, but it has only raised around HK$30,000 so far. In comparison, nearly 20,000 people donated over HK$4 million to Tsangs fundraiser in just three days. We will still go ahead with the poll even if we fail to raise HK$1.5 million, Ip Kim-ching, spokesperson for the campaign and an Election Committee member said. Members of the civil society groups involved will probably have to pay for the expenses out of their own pockets.

- As the history of HKU POP goes, a benevolent angel will appear on the last day to donate $1.5 million. Of course, they cannot tell you who this angel is. Privacy of personal data. You know what I mean [Wink wink nudge nudge].

- (SpeakoutHK) February 14, 2017.

A friend of mine who had taken part in the Civil Referendum said that the spokesperson for PopVote has reassured us that information technologists said that the system is secure without possibility of loss of personal data to hackers. But this is changing the subject. The security of the voting system is a completely different issue from the collection of the personal data of citizens. The voting system may or may not be safe, but it does not tell us why these people are collecting the personal data.

I would like to ask Benny Tai: Why are you people collecting the personal data? Apart from establishing the identity of the person, why other use is there? Once the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 project is over, what happens to the data? Will you hit the DELETE key and erase all data? If not, then why will you do with it? And have you obtained the consent of the participants for those purposes?

These are the most basic issues in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, which Professor Benny Tai must have surely considered, right? Don't count on it! In Benny Tai's history, he transmogrified the illegal Occupy Central into "Justice through Law" (without having to bear any legal consequences yet); in ThunderGo, he is suspected of violating the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance; and now in the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 he is suspected of violating the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.

 Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 is intended to affect the Election Committee to vote according to the wishes of the people as revealed by PopVote. But if Benny Tai and friends had let the constitutional bill pass in 2015, the people could be directly realizing their wishes via one-person-one-vote to elect their Chief Executive. It is all the more tragic when Carrie Lam wins in the Election Committee with 800 votes but gets fewer than 1% in the  Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017.

- (Bastille Post) February 15, 2017.

According to legal analysis, the Civil Referendum is being used to influence the nomination process if they demand the Electors to vote accordingly. As such, the organizers should be informing the participants about such goals while collecting personal data. At this time, some of the participants even think that they are voting for their own Chief Executive and gave up their personal data without realizing what is happening.

To satisfy the requirements of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Citizens United in Action may insert certain text that details the usage of personal data. However, we can expect that there will be litigation by other parties about this "unfair contract."

(SCMP) February 13, 2017.

Canto-pop singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming claims an MTR poster advertising his reunion concert next month was censored and removed from stations across Hong Kong, part of the political backlash that has shadowed his career since the Occupy Central movement.

The poster for Wongs late-March reunion concert featured him and Tats Lau Yee-tat members of the now-disbanded 1980s musical duo Tat Ming Pair along with digitally added images of about 80 prominent people in Hong Kong.

Wong said these were individuals the pair felt were influential in the city over the past 30 years, creating a collage effect inspired by The Beatles classic Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover.

People featured on the poster included Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the face of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution during Occupy Central; outspoken talk show host Albert Cheng King-hon; entrepreneur and media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-yee; populist former lawmaker Mad Dog Wong Yuk-man; and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the sixth Catholic Church bishop of Hong Kong who was outspoken on human rights.

But while the added figures were approved by a newspaper, Wong said some were fearful of even appearing in the same poster with the duo, particularly since Wong was a strident supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy Central demonstrations in late 2014.

He said the ads were pulled because someone in the poster with business links to mainland China was afraid of appearing with him, but he did not want to identify the person and described it as ridiculous. More prominent people had not complained, Wong added.

Its just one photo, one poster, but it reflects the current times we are in, Wong said in a Facebook post. This society really has people who fear everything, and their fear has led them to this point, where they are scared to death to even be in the same poster as us.

He blamed the invisible hand of censorship and interference in the industry and said the MTR Corp was not involved in the decision.

The movement for democracy in Hong Kong is being watched warily by the Beijing government, which is openly critical of greater independence for the former British colony as it operates semi-autonomously under the one country, two systems framework.

But businesses worried about political reprisals on mainland China have moved to distance themselves from controversial figures endorsing democracy in the city.

During Occupy Central, two of Wongs November concerts on the mainland were indefinitely postponed by organisers.

He told the Post in May 2015 that for six months after Occupy he did not have a single job offer from either the mainland or Hong Kong.

It was a weird and worrying situation, he said. What worries me is that it even happened in Hong Kong because Hong Kong is supposed to be a free city.

Now, the disappearance of Wongs concert poster shows the invisible hand at work, he said, after experiencing difficulties during the entire process of creating and producing the poster.

He likened its removal to something out of George Orwells classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , depicting an authoritarian society whose citizens have little to no agency.

Just like this poster, there are many people and things in this city that quickly disappear, he wrote.

Fans took up the Orwell comparison on Facebook. He continuously wrote: Down with Big Brother! Down with Big Brother! one user commented.

Many people support you ... See you at the end of March, another wrote.

Ho also posted messages on her Facebook page, saying the incident showed the self-censorship of the entertainment industry has reached a level beyond that described in 1984.

Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert.

Let us continue to dance and make music, challenging these most evil of times, he said.

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 13, 2017.

On Commercial Radio, Anthony Wong Yiu-ming said that everybody must surely want to know who the individual is. But Wong does not want to tell: "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him."

Wong Yiu-ming said that "His fear is worrisome." The poster had 80 persons from all walks of life. "Why should he be so scared?" "I also think that there are other people who should be more scared, such as Chief Executive candidates who stand with us." Other individuals who are "closer to the Central Government and at higher levels" did not object.

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017.

Anthony Wong explained: "This is a collage where the photos of the people were authorized by a certain newspapers and put together by us. Apart from the two of us, none of them were photographed with us."

In other words, Anthony Wong did not seek the approval of the 80 people to have their photos placed along side himself (who is openly gay and supports Occupy Central), Joshua Wong (who supports Occupy Central and Hong Kong self-determination/independence), etc. Does that mean that all 80 persons in the collage support the same? Isn't it selfish and presumptuous to do this unto others?

- This whole thing is just rubbish. This is a planned PR tactic to generate interest in the Tat Ming Project 31 concert. None of the people complained, but Anthony Wong says some person whom he could not name complained. Yeah, sure! The giveaway lies in: "Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert."

- The project for the Golden Forum boys now is to determine the culprit by process of elimination. If this person is so concerned for his mainland business, then he should be run out of Hong Kong.

- Hey, buddy, we now know who it was.

(Ming Pao) February 16, 2017.

According to information, it was Jay Chou's company JVR Music which lodged the complaint with the organizers. In response to media inquiry, JVR said: "The poster was used for commercial promotion. Our company was not informed and did not approve the use of the altered image of Jay Chou. Because we protect and respect the rights of artists, we contacted the organizers."

What are you going to do to Jay Chou? I am waiting ... ZZZZZZZ ...

- It is incidentally true that Jay Chou does great business in China but it is immaterial. JVR Music is simply saying that they want to respect and protect the rights of their artists. Is that so wrong? Is anything more needed?

- And to hear that Anthony Wong said:  "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him." This is disgusting.

- Someone in the Tat Ming Pair camp leaked the information. JVR Music was willing to stay quiet but they had to respond when the media came calling. So now the world knows.

- Jay Chou/JVR Music could have proceeded directly to sue the Tat Ming Pair in court. It would be an open-and-shut case. They were nice enough to send a note without publicity. They were trying to save face for the Tat Ming Pair, who were utterly ungrateful.

- I wonder if the Tat Ming Pair would be as sanguine as Jay Chou/JVR Music if someone had used their photos to promote something or the other.

- The truth is always boring. There goes the political persecution story.

- What is Anthony Wong's understanding of copyright? A newspaper took a photo of an individual. Anthony Wong obtained permission from the newspaper to use that photo. Does that mean that the photo of the individual can be used in a promotional poster? If yes, this changes the entire cost structure of the notion of celebrity endorsement/sponsorship. It means that if I take a photo of Anthony Wong, I can use it to promote anything that I want.

- Why are you trying to argue a legal point with someone who illegally occupied Central for 79 days?

- What if G.E.M. Tang asks Wen Wei Po to supply and authorize the use of their photos of Denise Ho, Anthony Wong and Chapman To for a promotional poster of her Patriotic Tour? According to Anthony Wong, there is nothing those people can do.

- The guy standing next to Brother Tat in the poster is John Tsang. An Elector friend of mine saw the photo and decided that he will vote for John Tsang in order to support the Tai Ming among John Tsang's campaign expenses in accordance with the Election Ordinance.

- Fear in Hong Kong? There's plenty of fear in Hong Kong, such as:

Fear of suppression of freedom of speech
Fear of suppression of freedom of assembly
Fear of the Hong Kong Police (because they are all black evil cops)
Fear of LGBT being discriminated against
Fear of TSA tests
Fear of being brainwashed
Fear of cross-border law enforcement (such as Lam Wing-kee being arrested in China for crimes committed in China)
Fear of Ricky Wong being persecuted by CY Leung
Fear of CY Leung running for re-election
Fear of Hong Kong being overrun by fake asylum seekers from South Asia
Fear of children being kidnapped by mainlanders
Fear of radiation-contaminated food from Japan
Fear of Dongjiang water contaminated by garbage dump
Fear of plastic rice
Fear of fear itself
...

- If the Beatles can do it, then why can't the Tat Ming Pair? That is the same logic as: "If the car in front of me ran a red light, then why wasn't he booked like me?"

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,856 persons were interviewed by telephone January 24-February 8, 2017.

Q1. Which quality do you think the next Chief Executive needs to have the most?
24%: Firmly hold One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people, High Degree of Autonomy
21%: Promote social harmony
17%: Trusted by the Central Government
13%: Has an excellent governing team
12%: Relative high public opinion support
5%: Honesty and open-mindedness
4%: Clear concepts of governance
1%: Others
3%: No opinion

Q2. Which issue do you think the next Chief Executive must deal with first?
32%: Relieve the housing problem
19%: Stimulate the Hong Kong economy
17%: Improve relationships between the executive and legislative branches
10%: Resolve conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China
10%: Relieve the poverty problem
9%: Restart the consultation on constitutional refrom
2%: Others
1%: No opinion

Q3. Which would you like to see happen in the 2017 Chief Executive election?
51%: The person that I like the most wins
43%: The person that I dislike the most loses
4%: Don't know/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think the pan-democrats should send a representative to compete in the Chief Executive election>
47%: Yes
46%: No
6%: Don't know/hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?
36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip
3%: Others
5%: No opinion

Isis Lee Facebook:

On the 286C bus, this fat brother kept surreptitiously taking photos of me napping for more than one hour. When I looked at him, he pretended that he was playing games on his mobile phone! The glass behind your back let me see that your monitor had my photo!! Damn! I was tired after work and tried to catch some sleep on the bus, but you want to take photos of me! Dirty man! Pervert!!!

- You should be happy to be filmed. It is an honor to be appreciated by someone. Why do you need to have such a negative tone? On the street, you look at people and they look at you. Looking at others with hostility simply makes your own life very unhappy.

- You are a so-called model with low name recognition. You must be very happy that all of Hong Kong now know who you are.

- Reporters chase after celebrities when they come across them in public. It is not a crime. So what if this man was filming you? You were in a public bus. Conversely, you are the one who filmed the fat guy without his permission.

- Did you scold him? What is the use of just posting his photo?

- Isis Lee: As soon as I took the photo of him, he immediately pressed the bell and got out of the bus.

- Just take a look at the fat guy in the photo. His eyes were shifty, as he is aware that he is being looked at and he looks as guilty as a plate of sin. If the fat guy was innocent, he would have demanded to know why he was being filmed.

- Big Sister, do you have any evidence to file charges? If no, you are committing libel!

- Isis Lee: First of all, I am Younger Sister, not Big Sister. Secondly, I personally saw him looking at my photo on the monitor while pretending to be playing a game. I can't make this up. Thirdly, will you please take a took at his eyes and expression. Who do you think was surreptitiously filming?

- The victim asserted that she saw the reflection of the monitor on the window. This is impossible under the laws of physics. The light from the monitor will hit the window and be reflected to the back. The person in front cannot see it.

- Dear Mr. Physicist, there is truth when there is a photo:

Because the photo was so clear, the "human flesh search engine" of Internet users soon identified the man in the photo as Sham Shui Po district councilor Kong Kwai-sang (ADPL Association for Democracy and People's Livelhood).

Kong Wai Sang Facebook

I just received a lot of information about someone accusing me filming a napping woman on a bus. They included photo and text. The pro-establishment camp must think that they have just received a precious gift because they are spreading it around. Unfortunately, I was just holding my mobile phone sideways to play games until I got off the bus. Perhaps the other party saw me holding the mobile phone sideways and thought that I was filming her. Therefore she made this accusation and sent it around.

I can fully understand the situation and feelings of the principle. I understand that fatigue after a day's hard work may impede judgment. But one should not come to conclusions just because of the looks or physique of someone. I hope that such misunderstanding won't occur again. Here I want to thank all those who are concerned about me. This was a minor misunderstanding. It would be nice if people can understand each other. Thanks.

- Here are the likely titles of the news reports according to the political positions of the respective media outlets:

Ta Kung Pao/Wen Wei Po: Dirty councilor caught taking photos surreptitiously, all Hong Kong citizens demand the police to enforce the law rigorously
Sing Tao: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) suspected of surreptitious filming, the victim sought and gained Internet support
SpeakoutHK: Dirty district councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming, Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor harming Hong Kong again
Hong Kong Discussion Forum: Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming
Baby Kingdom: Baby Kingdom parents be carefully about being surreptitiously filmed on buses
She.com: Sisters, ten ways to stop surreptitious filming on buses

Bastille Post: Who do you believe? Surreptitious filming or game playing?
Oriental Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitiously filming pretty girl, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) claimed fatigue affects judgment
am730: Surreptitious filming of female model on bus, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said it was a misunderstanding.
The Stand News: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang said that the other party was too fatigued and misjudged
HK01: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) accused of surreptitious filming, a photo becomes Rashomon

Apple Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) laughed about being mistaken
Ming Pao: Game playing on bus treated as surreptitious  filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) cries foul
Hong Kong Economic Journal: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang magnanimously offers explanation
Sky Post: Accused of surreptitiously filming female model, Kong Kwai Sang pleads innocence
Passion Times: Playing FIFA mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said obesity, bachelorhood and short height are original sins
Sing Pao: Game playing mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, China Liaison Office causing harm everywhere
HK Golden Forum: Brothers, beware of being falsely accused of surreptitious filming on buses by Kong girls

- It is the nature of the pro-China faction to attack dissidents in every way possible. Meanwhile they either ignore or deny their own shortcomings. Such is their nature.

Kong Kwai Sang

I have turned over my mobile telephone to a forensic accounting company, and I have authorized them to extract the information from the mobile phone. The company promised to deliver the forensic report within three days. This will show whether I took photos on the night of February 4.

The cost is $50,000. Although I might need to borrow some money, this expense was unavoidable.

- Well, my guess is that you will be running a crowdfunding campaign to say for this forensic accounting company as well as lawyers to sue that woman. Right?

- I don't care! I am sending a cheque first thing on Monday morning to "Kong Kwai Sang" at his District Councilor office at Room 102, Podium, Lai Yeung House, Lei Cheung Uk, Sham Shui Po district, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

- I head that a legal letter will be issued on Monday morning. See you in court!

- Interestingly, the 'victim' Isis Lee has deleted three previously posts (in 2014, 2016 and January 2017) about having been surreptitiously filmed by others.

- You should emulate Leon Lai when it comes to apologizing.
You don't need so many people down at the District Council to come up with these strategies and tactics.
You are issuing statements left and right. You say that you won't care to respond. Then you don't want people to harass the woman. Then you take your mobile phone (and you can be taking another mobile phone) to a private a company to check.
This is very embarrassing. Be a man! Be an adult!!!

- Milhouse Chau B Facebook

Last year ... at the time, I had issued a warning ... to behave oneself, because I know everything ... this bastard will never change, because he will look for any chance to exploit anyway ... for example, if you borrow his restroom, after you leave he will lick the toilet seat and look for your pubic hair.
At the time, I personally saw him molest a female students at the sixth floor corridor of the Chong Gene Hang College, 12 Cheung Man Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong Island. At the time, the female student did not want to pursue the matter. To date, I am still extremely sorry that I did not beat up that bastard.

- No wonder the fat guy didn't want to file a police report. He has prior records! Instead, he pays a private company to declare himself clean.

- If he calls the police, the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau may be able to recover all the deleted photos.

- Kong Kwai Sang said about Milhouse Chau B: "A student in a higher class at middle school accused me of molesting a female student in school twenty years ago. I would like to understand and deal with this matter. I did not do this, and I had no memory of having being involved in this type of misunderstanding. I am following through right now. I will tell you later. Please don't worry."

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung announced on Wednesday that he will enter the chief executive race if he receives 37,790 unofficial nominations from members of the public, representing one per cent of the registered electorate.

To become an officially-nominated candidate, however, Leung will need to receive nominations from at least 150 of the 1,200 members of the small-circle Election Committee.

I dont think pro-democracy electors should vote for any of the four candidates because, simply, none of them can represent the standpoint of the pro-democracy camp, said Leung at a press conference.

The four main candidates who have declared their intentions are: former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, former finance secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, and lawmaker Regina Ip.

I dont believe Im the best candidate for the pro-democracy camp, Leung claimed. But because there are none, Ive decided to come out and run.

He later added that he had earlier asked pro-democracy legislator Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and former legislator Audrey Eu Yuet-mee to run for the citys top job. But Chu was not yet 40 years old the minimum age to become chief executive and Eu refused.

Quoting Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and English reformist Jeremy Bentham, Leung said he would run to provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

Internet comments:

- The most powerful critic of candidate Leung Kwok-hung is Leung Kwok-hung himself.


In 2007, Alan Leong (Civic Party) was in the Chief Executive election. Critic Leung Kwok-hung said: "Alan Leong is the sinner against Democracy."
In 2012, Albert Ho (Democratic Party) was in the Chief Executive election:. Critic Leung Kwok-hung said: "Albert Ho is exposing his nine foxtails."
In 2017, Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats) is in the Chief Executive election. Leung Kwok-hung has given us the perfect illustration of the saying: "The Me of Today has overturned the Me of Yesterday."


"I oppose small-circle election!"
"Election? I want to play too!"

- League of Social Democrats policy platform in 2011:

Opposition to the Democratic Party and the small-circle Chief Executive election -- neither pig nor wolf, the nine-tailed fox makes an appearance.

- Abandoning the principles of universal suffrage to become the clowns of democracy

- (March 26, 2007) Wearing a yellow robe and a pig-face mask, Leung Kwok-hung charged into the vote-counting station and yelled: "Small-cricle election is worse than pigs and dogs."

- Leung Kwok-hung wore Donald Tsang's signature bowtie and a dog mask and crawled on the ground to make fun of the running dog Donald Tsang running in the small-circle election.

- (SCMP) Long Hair for chief executive? Pull the other one. By Alex Lo. February 9, 2017.

Leung Kwok-hung wants to join the chief executive race. Nicknamed Long Hair, the veteran street protester-turned-lawmaker announced his intention to join the fray yesterday. The question is, why? It has long been rumoured that Leung wanted to be a candidate but was held back by more mainstream pan-democrats, who argued that it would be counterproductive for him to do so. Clearly, he has broken ranks and is supported by several localist lawmakers.

In a rambling speech yesterday at a press conference, he offered an explanation of why he was jumping in now. He said he would only run if he could gather more than 37,790 signatures 1 per cent of the registered electorate on the internet as an exercise in civil nomination. He admitted he was not the best candidate, but argued the pan-dems needed one of their own on the ticket. However, he also said the Election Committee was a small circle and his joining the race would expose its illegitimacy.

I leave it to wiser minds to make sense of his rationalisation. It all sounded completely incoherent.

Ditto his localist friends at the press conference. This is the same person who rounded on fellow pan-democrats Alan Leong Kah-kit of the Civic Party in 2007 and Democrat Albert Ho Chun-yan in 2012 for running in the chief executive race. He had argued their candidacy lent legitimacy to an illegitimate election process. Now he is doing exactly the same. Indeed, the current Election Committee consisting of more than 330 pan-democrats and their allies is without doubt more representative than the small circle membership of previous committees. Thats all the more reason for the pan-dems to use their votes wisely rather than wasting them on Long Hair.

As for Leung saying he would only run if he had enough public support, this, too, is a meaningless gesture. Perhaps he should simply field a non-human candidate, a long-standing democratic tradition as a means of casting a protest vote, satirising the system or just providing entertainment. It would achieve the same purpose, except the candidate would be far cuter. A pig, a chicken, a dog, a cat or even a hamster would do.

Given the anti-government and anti-mainland sentiments of large swathes of our population, such an animal would no doubt attract many internet votes. It may prove to be even more popular than Long Hair.

(SCMP) February 10, 2017.

Who do you want as Hong Kong's next Chief Executive? John Tsang leads at 42.5% (up from 27.6% in early January) over Carrie Lam at 28.2% (up from 23.2% in early January).

Who do you think has the best chance of winning the election? Carrie Lam leads at 65.9% (up by 20.4% from early January) over John Tsang at 18.3% (down by 1.6% from early January).

This survey was conducted before Leung Kwok-hung announced declared his intention to run.

(SCMP) Feburary 10, 2017.

The fillip for Lam came as a survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post showed that the support she enjoyed among those who identified themselves as pro-establishment grew from 54.6 per cent in January when a similar poll was conducted, to 59.4 per cent in February. Tsangs pro-establishment supporters grew from 4.4 per cent in the last poll to 16.4 per cent. Tsang won the support of 42.7 per cent of middle of the road respondents, up from 24.1 per cent in the January poll. Some 64.2 per cent of respondents, who identified themselves as localist, also backed Tsang, compared with 6.3 per cent for Lam.

Internet comments:

- Wen Wei Po cartoon

Deprivation of rights

Male television viewer of Chief Executive election news: "I support this one. I oppose that one."
Female housewife sighs: "If the pan-democrats had not vetoed the constitutional reform bill, we would be voting this time."

(SCMP) August 30, 2016.

The first round of individuals accused of rioting in Mong Kok during the Lunar New Year will stand trial early next year. Lawyers of students Hui Ka-ki, 22, and Mak Tsz-hei, 19, and cook Sit Tat-wing, 33, on Tuesday indicated that the three defendants intended to plead not guilty. They face one joint charge of rioting, which allegedly took place on the northbound lane of Nathan Road, near Soy Street, on February 9. The District Court heard that one of them allegedly threw bamboo during the unrest.

Prosecutors are expected to call 20 police offiers as witnesses, and will rely on footage taken by both the police and TVB. But prosecutors did not plan to summon photographers who made the cited footage.

A pre-trial review is scheduled for January 13, ahead of a trial starting on February 6.

Prosecutor Andy Lo Tin-wai said 10 days should be sufficient for the trial, factoring in time to decide the admissibility of evidence. He added that all three defendants were arrested on site.

The defence meanwhile, had indicated they would dispute aspects of Sits cautioned statement, including its voluntariness.

Judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on reminded all three defendants to keep in touch with their lawyers and abide by bail conditions, which included an injunction over the alleged site of the offence. The charge faced by the three of you carries a certain degree of severity. Otherwise you wouldnt be in District Court, Kwok said. Please keep in touch with the Legal Aid lawyer assigned to you.

At least 55 people have been charged over the Mong Kok riot since February, with 20 of them discharged from prosecution due to insufficient evidence. Hui, Mak and Sit make up the first batch of defendants transferred from Kowloon City Court to have their cases heard at the District Court, with two more batches of five and 10 defendants to be brought to the same court. The cases are currently divided such that there wont be any overlap in witnesses, location and time of offence, Lo explained.

(HKG Pao) February 9, 2017.

The prosecutor pointed out that at around 450am, more than a dozen persons were gathered on the road section between Soy Street and Dundas Street. The police were facing Dundas Street in a formation. People placed obstacles several dozen meters in front of the police line. They were throwing glass bottles at the police.

The prosecutor said that the first defendant wore a blue blazer and blue jeans, and took part in throwing glass bottles at the police. When the police pushed forward to disperse the crowd, the first defendant turned out to flee through the planters. A female police officer caught her from behind. The video showed that defendant throwing glass bottles along with others. The arresting female police officer Lo Wai-yin testified in court. She said that at 450am under full lighting, she observed the first defendant threw glass bottles on two occasions at the police line.

The prosecutor said that the second defendant wore a black jacket, grey pants, black-camouflage backpack, black gloves and black scarf. He covered his mouth and nose. When the police line retreat ed, he approached with glass bottle in hand and threw at the police along with others. He also took a 2-meter-long bamboo pole and threw it, hitting a male policeman in the left front leg.

The prosecutor said that the third defendant came up on sidewalk and tossed glass bottles at the police. When the police began to disperse the crowd, the third defendant threw the object in his hand at the police and then fled. He slipped and fell to the ground. A police sergeant rushed up to arrest him. The third defendant fought back and got free. Other police officers combined to subdue him.

(Wen Wei Po) February 10, 2017.

According to policewoman Lo Wai-yin, she and other police officers set up a defense line on Nathan Road near Soy Street around 5am. At the time, 20 to 30 persons were assembled. These people threw garbage bins and bamboos onto the road, as well as throw bricks and glass bottles at the police. He observed a woman in a light-blue blazer threw a glass bottle from the third northbound lane on Nathan Road at the police. At the time, she was about 20 to 30 meters away from this woman. When she heard the order "Charge!", she advanced with other police officers. She saw the woman throw another glass bottle at the police.

The prosecutor asked why Lo was sure that this was the same woman. Lo said that the woman wore a light-blue blazer, had long straight black hair and had a black backpack, and was therefore easily identifiable. When arrested, Lo issued the standard caution. The woman said: "Madam, I have a date to have a night snack with friends. I was merely holding a glass bottle. I never threw it."

When asked why the defendant had no glass bottle in her hand, Lo said that she briefly lost sight of the woman. However, she never lost sight between the second throw and the arrest.

The prosecutor showed a video taken by the police. The video was about 2 minutes long. There were sounds of glass bottles breaking on the ground and iron bars banging. Several plainclothes policemen shouted for people to stop while retreating. Then the plainclothes policemen charged at the crowd.

The defense complained that the police used "unnecessary force" against the female defendant Hui Ka-ki. The arresting officer was not Lo Wai-yin, but a tall and strong male policeman. Another male policeman joined in and dragged Hui outside a closed store while screaming obscenities at her and slamming her head several times against the iron gate.

(Oriental Daily) February 10, 2017.

Female police officer Lo Wai-yin as shown a video taken by the police. Lo said that the female threw four glass bottles, one of which she personally saw. Upon cross-examination, Lo admitted that the person who threw the bottles wore a mask. The defense asked Lo why she did not note this on her notebook. Lo explained that it was negligence.

The defense said that there was a male voice in the video saying :"They are doomed. Those who get arrested." So does Lo agree that a policeman said it? Lo said that she could not tell. The defense asked if this was appropriate for a policeman to say so. The judge interjected and asked what this has to do with Lo's testimony. The defense said that the sentence was critical in the case to the conduct of the police officers, and he wanted to establish whether this was normal within police culture. The judge ruled that since the witness did not say it, she did not have to answer.

The defense said that after Lo caught the defendant who struggled, Lo did not immediately handcuff her. Instead she searched the backpack, cautioned the defendant before putting the handcuffs on. The defense questioned whether Lo ignored the possibility that the defendant may escape. Lo said that she established the identity of the defendant first before she remembered to apply the handcuffs. The defense said that Lo made this up, but Lo disagreed. The defense also said that Lo was not the arresting officer, but Lo disagreed again.

(Apple Daily) February 10, 2017.

The defense noted that a male voice was heard to say: "They are doomed. Those who get arrested." When asked, Lo said: "Sorry, I can't tell who it was just by the voice alone." The defense said that they will prove later that the comment came from a policeman.

The defense asked whether Lo felt that "They are doomed. Those who get arrested." The judge questioned: "Isn't it against the law to throw things? When someone breaks the law right in front of the police, what is wrong with arresting them?" The defense did not press further.

Lo said that she saw the female defendant throw glass bottles twice. When Lo watched the police video, she counted the female defendant throw glass bottles four times. Lo explained that she personally observed the female defendant throw glass bottles twice, but she did not personally see the other two times.

The defense asked whether a tall, strong male policeman arrested Hui Ka-ki first. Lo said: "No impression." Did the policeman slam Hui's head against the iron gate several times? Lo said: "I don't know."

Female police officer Yip Wing-yan also testified. The defense said that she grabbed Hui's arm forcefully. Did Yip make contact with Hui? Yip said: "I don't remember." After watching the TVB video of Hui being subdued, Yip said that it was her hand that was pressed on the back of Hui's neck so that the head was pressed against the iron gate. Yip said that she was dispatched to the scene that night. "No one told me exactly what to do. I only knew that I was supposed to be part of the defense line for crowd control. Nobody explained the mission to me ... I did not receive any orders. I don't know if someone said anything."

(Oriental Daily) February 13, 2017.

According to police officer Chan Hung-bok, demonstrators were throwing glass bottles and other objects at them. He observed a man wearing a black jacket, grey pants, black gloves, black camouflage backpack and black scarf covering his mouth and nose throwing glass bottle at them and then running back into the crowd.

Later Chan said that the same individual charged back at the police with a 2-meter long bamboo pole. An order was issued for the police to charge. Chan advanced. The man used his right hand to throw the bamboo pole at Chan, hitting Chan on the lower right leg. Chan went up and subdued the man with the help of other police officers. Chan handcuffed the man. Chan found the man's ID in his backpack which proved to belong to the second defendant Mak Tsz-hei. Chan arrested Mak for assaulting a police officer. Another police officer picked up the bamboo pole as evidence.

The defense played the video from the day, and asserted that Chan caught the bamboo pole in his hand and tossed it aside without it hitting his leg. Chan disagreed. He said that he used his hand to block the bamboo pole but still felt being hit on the lower leg. The defense questioned why Chan did not write down the blocking of the bamboo pole in his notebook. Chan said that he only recalled the reflexive action after watching the video.

The defense said that the video showed that after Mak was subdued, another police officer came forward, hit Mak twice with a baton and left. Was that unnecessary? Chan said that he did not notice the action at the time but only saw it on the video afterwards. Chan disagreed that the action was unnecessary.

The defense questioned whether Chan arrested Mak first and then wrote down the similarities between Mak and the person who threw the bamboo pole. However, the video showed someone who cannot be clearly seen approach the police and that may or may not be Mak. Chan disagreed.

(Wen Wei Po) February 13, 2017.

Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung testified that the troublemakers were throwing glass bottles at them. Police warnings were ignored. Shum observed six or seven men charging up. "There was a lone man charging up to our defense line along the pedestrian sidewalk." This man would flee from the police, losing balance in front of Chong Hing Square and falling on the ground. Shum came up to make the arrest, but the man broke free. Other police officers joined to subdue the man on the ground. The man was identified to the the third defendant Sit Tat-wing.

(HKG Pao) February 14, 2017.

Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung denied that he used a police baton to hit Sit Tat-wing on the head and back, and he did not pressed Sit's head against the iron gate of the shop.

Senior investigator Chan Hon testified that he assisted Shum Wai-keung to make the arrest. He saw that Sit was bleeding on the forehead and the back of the head. But Sit was conscious and capable to answering questions. Under caution, Sit said: "When the others threw, I threw as well. But I did not hit any police officer."

The defense said that Sit Tat-wing reviewed the statement and denied that he said: "When the others threw, I threw as well." Chan told Sit that the statement can be used during mitigation. However, Sit insisted that he did not say it. At this point, another police officer said: "A whole group of police officers saw you throwing objects. The police won't make false accusations against you. If you sign the statement, you can be bailed out." Chan denied that this happened.

(Apple Daily) February 14, 2017.

In court, a video showing the arrest of Sit Tat-wing was played. Sit fell down on the ground, and Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung went up to hold his hands. But Sit stood up and took a couple of steps before other students saw him. Our reporter saw police officers appear to hit him with what appears to be a police baton, and someone in the background said twice: "Fuck your mother's cunt!" Shum Wai-keung said that those police officers from the Kowloon West anti-organized crime squad and could not be identified by him because they wore helmets.

(Oriental Daily) February 16, 2017.

The defense said that the statements by the defendants were made to the police under the caution that the charges were assaulting a police officer and/or resisting arrest. Now that the charge has been upgraded to rioting, the defense argued that those statements should be ruled inadmissible in court.

The prosecution said that the police arrested the defendants and recorded their responses. They did not hold any additional investigation or induce the defendants to make statements that go beyond the charges.

(Wen Wei Po) February 16, 2017.

According to Hui Ka-ki's lawyer, Hui was arrested for assaulting a police officer and said after being cautioned: "Madam, I have a date to have a night snack with a friend. I held a glass bottle. I did not throw it." Hui made that statement based upon the situation at the time. But now Hui is being charged with rioting and not assaulting a police officer. So her statement should be inadmissible.

According to Sit Tat-wing's lawyer, Sit was arrested for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. After being cautioned, Sit said: "Other people were throwing so I did too. I did not hit any police officer." This is a response that was begging for mercy. But if Sit had been charged with rioting, he might have chosen to remain silent.

As for the videos, the defense said that the defendants will not testify on their own behalf, that they will not summon any witnesses and they will not make case summations. However, they will continue to contest the admissibility of the videos. The judge said that the defense is required to have a summation if they have objections.

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

Defendants Hui Kai-ki and Mak Tsz-hei declined to take the witness stand. Defendant Sit Tat-wing testified for himself. He said that he went to his uncle's place in Olympian City to have the family dinner. Afterwards, he took a taxi to sing karoke at Neway in the Chong Hing Building, Mong Kok. He left at around 4am. He went down to the street and asaw many people. He asked and he learned that the police had opened fire. He saw a bunch of people hauling garbage bins towards Mong Kok. Soon after he saw a bunch of people running toward Yau Ma Ti. When he saw people running, he ran with them too. Suddenly he was pushed over from behind and attacked. He passed away. When he came to, the police had already handcuffed him. He denied that he threw glass bottles or other objects. He defined that he was the bottle-thrower in the video.

The prosecutor asked Sit why he did not choose to leave when he saw so many people in the middle of the street. Sit said that he wanted to watch. Besides there were no taxis. But he agreed that he could leave if he wanted to. The prosecutor asked him why he ran with the others. He said that the situation was chaotic with people throwing stuff. So he ran with them because he was worried about his own safety.

The judge agreed that the statements to the police b the first and third defendants will not be admitted as evidence. The five videos downloaded from the media will also not be admitted as evidence. The judge then the evidence is sufficient for the case. Summations will be heard on March 3.

(Wen Wei Po) February 8, 2017.

Joshua Wong recently posted a photo on his Facebook to say that he is in the United Kingdom right now. [Compared to the fanfare of his Taipei trip (see A Tale of Two Cities), this one was not pre-announced so that nobody was at the airport to send him off.]

The first stop was to go to Westminster to meet with Labour Party MP and shadow Foreign Office Minister to make a presentation on the state of democracy in Hong Kong. "At the meeting, I mentioned that this will be the 20th anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty. Therefore the United Kingdom can hold a parliamentary hearing on the situation in Hong Kong. Catherine West said that they will try to arrange for such a hearing over the next few months and continue to pay attention to Hong Kong matters inside and outside Parliament."

Later on BBC World News, Joshua Wong said that on this 20th anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty, "the Chinese Communists are trying to disqualify legislators and make them bankrupt, and to destroy the separation of powers."

During the BBC interview, he also criticized the opposition: "When the pro-establishment candidates are advocating Article 23 legislation, it is time for the democrats to voice their opposition to Article 23 once more. As the opposition, we must firmly defend this bottom line. We cannot let the democratic movement slide backwards."

- DAB legislator Horace Cheung said that Joshua Wong and his ilk want to apply pressure on the Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR government through foreign forces, in order to gain media exposure and foreign financial aid for themselves. But they keep repeating the same old things to the foreign politicians, as if they are reciting the same piece of text.

- FTU legislator Michael Luk said that this is 20 years after Hong Kong was returned to China, and Hong Kong affairs should be handled by Hong Kong itself (as opposed to by the British Parliament or the US Senate). As such, Joshua Wong and others are being naive. Are there some secret backroom deals behind all these trips to beg for interference by foreign forces in Hong Kong?

- Legislator Chan Kin-por said that if we want to implement the spirit of One Country Two Systems, then Hong Kong affairs should be handled by Hong Kong itself. After all, this is already 20 years after the handover. As a Chinese, Joshua Wong advocates his so-called "self-determination" and runs around the world asking for other countries to interfere in Hong Kong. This is a waste of time and effort, and shows that he has no morality and feelings to speak of.

- When legislator Chu Hoi Dick went to London, he also met with Catherine West (see Chu Hoi Dick Goes West). West is a Member of Parliament for the opposition Labour Party. The influential person that Joshua Wong really wants to meet is Boris Johnson, Conservative MP and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Johnston is the real thing, and West is only a shadow. As a member of the ruling party, Johnson probably won't even have the courtesy to make a reply to any request for a meeting by Joshua Wong.

The difference is that the ruling party represents the official position of the British government. If Boris Johnson meets with Joshua Wong, China will lodge an official protest with the British government and make retaliation (canceling trade talks, etc). Meanwhile Joshua Wong can meet as often as he likes with the opposition because it won't matter. If the Labour Party should become the ruling party again, they will do exactly the same. It is in the nature of all ruling parties to act in the best interests of the United Kingdom. And it is in the nature of all opposition parties to automatically gainsay.

- Although some Localists insist that the people of Hong Kong are a completely different race from the Chinese people, their thinking is tainted with Chinese tradition. In Chinese folklore, the Emperor is infinitely wise and benevolent, but he is surrounded by sycophants who give him false information. So the solution to any and all problems is to petition the Emperor or whoever may be the relevant authority directly.

The pan-democrats have a Theory of Two Centrals. The Xi Jinping Core Central represents the good guys. The Zhang Dejiang-Zhang Xiaoming clique Central represents the bad guys who are feeding false information to the good guys. For example, in The Students' Petition Trip, the premise is that the students had to reach Xi Jinping/Li Keqiang to tell them what is really going on in Hong Kong and then everything will be hunky dory. Unfortunately CY Leung conspired with Zhang Xiaoming to prevent the students from even getting out of Hong Kong.

If you want independence/self-determination, then it makes no sense to be petitioning Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. You even don't acknowledge or trust their authority in this or any other matter. So you have to petition the ex-sovereign (United Kingdom) and the most powerful nation in the history of mankind (namely, the United States). And because you need them for favors, you are going to avoid any criticism of them. You cannot call Donald Trump the next Hitler one minute, and then thank him for sending the Seventh Fleet to liberate Hong Kong the next minute.

But as with the Theory of Two Centrals, you probably think that these foreigners are ignorant of what has been going on in Hong Kong. So you present them with the 'facts.' Here, for example, is the explanation of the Fishball Revolution in the Demosisto Facebook:

... During the Lunar New Year of 2016, the Food and Environmental Hygiene cracked down heavily on unlicensed vendors and reduce the space for this Hong Kong tradition. Hong Kong Indigenous and other organizations organized to support the vendors on Lunar New Year's Day. The intervention by the police raised the temperaments. After pepper spray was used many times, the demonstrators began to retaliate by throwing water bottles, garbage bins, wooden poles and other miscellaneous items. At that moment, one traffic policeman charged alone into the crowd and swung his baton at people. He was surrounded and attacked by demonstrators. At this moment, another traffic policeman fired warning shots. This upset the demonstrators that they eventually threw bricks at the police. An assembly thus became a violent clash ...

- As captured on television news, Hong Kong Indigenous did not hold the assembly to support any unlicensed vendors. They announced that they were exercising the right of New Territories East Legislative Council by-election candidate Edward Leung (of Hong Kong Indigenous) to hold a political rally. And since they were less than 30 in numbers, they did not need prior notification to or approval by the police. They chanted slogans such as "I am a Hongkonger" and "Down with the Communist Party." The police merely watched them.

- Here is Hong Kong Indigenous' Facebook on that night:

Hong Kong Indigenous announced that it will use the election rights of candidate Edward Leung to immediately conduct a march at the Mong Kok night market. Since the number of participants is fewer than 30, there is no need to notify the police beforehand or obtain their permission. Please follow us to offer support in Mong Kok!
If you do this, we will do that! Today we will start the New Year for the government!
Just in case, we also urge you to bring goggles, masks, water and protective gear. Thanks!
#Election advertisement (helmets, for safety only)

(TVB) Ray Wong used the megaphone to shout: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong ... we Hong Kong Indigenous ... we will surely play even bigger." Hong Kong Indigenous then got into formation.  "Three, two, one" and the blue jackets charged into the police line. That was how it started.


Ray Wong is in the middle of the scrum in this Apple Daily photo

During the nightlong rioting, the unlicensed vendors continued to operate. They were not even aware of the gun-shots or brick-throwing down the street.

As for the the two traffic policemen, you can watch the video yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlwYF6qEdWw.

- All politicians know that people cannot be trusted to tell them the truth when asking for favors. Smart politicians will seek independent verification. Depending on the political situation, the politicians may or may not respect the facts. If it suits their own interests, they may even accept your untruths, or they can reject your truths.

For the ruling Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, Joshua Wong presents no advantage and every disadvantage. The United Kingdom is in no position to impose on China. For the opposition Labour Party, Joshua Wong presents a talking point to chip away at the ruling party, but this won't be a make-or-break issue in the next election.

The true purpose of this trip is not really to get the United Kingdom to intervene on Hong Kong. That won't happen, and everybody knows it. This trip was made to get Joshua Wong more media exposure, so that Demosisto can raise even more money inside and outside Hong Kong. And when they raise more money, they can send Joshua Wong to go around the world and raise more money. The means is the end, which is to raise more money.

(Oriental Daily) February 8, 2017.

During a media interview, Joshua Wong mentioned the disqualification of legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. He said that Leung and Yau had completed their oaths of office already. He said that this shows that the Beijing government is oppressing Hongkongers who want democracy.

- Did Leung and Yau complete their Oaths of Office?

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 12, 2016.

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 oaths 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 Peoples Republic of China as the Peoples 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.

According to the LegCos 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.

Video: Youngspiration's Sixtus "Baggio" Leung Chung-hang takes his oath at the Hong Kong legislature

Video: Youngspiration's Yau Wai-ching takes her oath at the Hong Kong legislature

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching do not need the help of ex-Governors of Hong Kong. They need $MONEY$ to pay for their legal bills and fine wine. Can Wilson and Rifkind help them?

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

Next on the agenda was a meeting with former Hong Kong governor Lord David Wilson. Joshua Wong said that although Lord Wilson retired many years ago, he is still very concerned about constitutional and democratic developments in Hong Kong. Lord Wilson also questioned why the Hong Kong democrats rejected the 2017 constitutional reform bill so that the citizens lost the chance to elect their Chief Executive via one-person-one-vote.

Joshua Wong explained to Lord Wilson that the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31st resolution stipulates that the Chief Executive candidate must receive the support of more than half of the nomination committee. That was why they opposed the constitutional reform bill. He said that no constitutional reform will be passed in the Legislative Council as long as the August 31st resolution stays. Wong did not say what Lord Wilson said in reaction. He merely said that there was a difference of opinion. That is to say, Lord Wilson does not agree with Wong.

- With respect to President Donald Trump's impact on China and Hong Kong, Joshua Wong said that it is a good start for the development of democracy in Hong Kong because President Trump called Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen and the US Senate is considering legislation to sanction Hong Kong, etc. At a time when human rights organizations and democratic movements all around the world are condemning Donald Trump, Joshua Wong is praising Trump's good work. This as unfathomable as Anson Chan's appearance at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony (see An Old Battery).

- On Joshua Wong's Facebook, he said that he also met with Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was the Foreign Minister at the time of the 1997 handover. Wong said frankly that there is a difference of opinion between himself and Wilson/Rifkind on the issue of democratization in Hong Kong. Wong said he was unhappy with the attitude of the United Kingdom back then, including vetoing direct elections in 1988.

- I wonder if Wilson/Rifkind pointed out the obvious to Joshua Wong. In 2015, the Hong Kong government presented a constitutional reform bill to the Legislative Council that included one-person-one-vote for the Chief Executive election in 2017. The United States and the United Kingdom (including people such as Lord David Wilson and Sir Malcom Rifkind) told the pan-democrats to take the proposal and run. The pan-democrats vetoed instead. Now we are in 2017. The pan-democrats have 325 of the 1,194 Election Committee voters. They seem to want John Tsang as the Lesser Evil, and John Tsang seems to be preferred by the majority of the people. But by their veto of the 2015 bill, Carrie Lam will probably win in the Election Committee and become the next Chief Executive. Why was this a good thing? Why didn't the democrats take the 2015 bill?

Chances are that Wilson and Rifkind told Joshua Wong just that. But so far the only description of the meetings come from Joshua Wong, and we don't expect him to tell all.

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

Joshua Wong made a joint appearance with Causeway Bay Books owner Gui Minhai's daughter Angela Gui. Wong said that One Country Two Systems has failed, because the Causeway Bay Books case shows that it is only One Country 1.8 Systems, or even 1.5 Systems. Wong said that he was dissatisfied with the British government for failing to keep watch over the implementation of One Country Two Systems. Joshua Wong denied that he supports Hong Kong independence.

- (The Case of Gui Minhai) Swedish national Gui Minhai went from Thailand to China without going through Hong Kong. So there has nothing to do with One Country Two Systems. His crime in China has to do with a drunk driving case in which he violated the terms of his probation. It has nothing to do with publishing banned books.

Is the argument that because Gui Minhai publishes banned books, he cannot be held accountable for all his other crimes (such as drunk driving and killing a female university student)?

(The Stand) January 17, 2016. Apple Daily cited an informed source close to Gui Minhai that Gui's daughter Angela has made a statement: (1) It is impossible for her to determine the veracity of the traffic incident that occurred more than 10 years ago; (2) she has never heard her parents mention this incident before.

Is the argument that because Gui Minhai never told his daughter that he killed a female university student while driving under the influence, it never happened.

Support levels for the four Chief Executive candidates
John Tsang, 41.7%
Carrie Lam, 25.0%
Woo Kwok-hing, 8.7%
Regina Ip, 5.9%

Support levels between John Tsang and Carrie Lam only
John Tsang, 53.6%
Carrie Lam, 31.2%
[Of Regina Ip's supporters, 60% went to Carrie Lam and 25% to John Tsang. Of Woo Kwok-hing's supporters, 70% went to John Tsang and 10% went to Carrie Lam.]

Should the constitutional reform process (about the Chief Executive election) be re-started?
Yes, 64%
No, 15%

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 12, 2016.

The pro-democracy camp has seen a landslide in at least six sectors of Sundays Chief Executive Election Committee poll, and expects to win at least 325 seats in the 1,200-seat committee. Many of the winners belong to a list of 352 candidates from the election alliance Democracy 300+, which initially was formed to gain seats to stop sitting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying from getting re-elected and to call for a change of election system to achieve genuine universal suffrage.

Charles Mok, IT sector lawmaker, said the goal of the alliance was not only to stop Leung from being re-elected. We need to defend Hong Kongs core values, and fight for the restart of the political reform process, outside the August 31 framework [set in 2014], he said. No matter which person the central government wants to handpick the voices made by these professional sectors are very clear. We beat our opponents by large margins.

The Policy Platform of John Tsang:

(4) Political Reform

21. The Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council should be elected by universal suffrage (dual universal suffrage); this is the ultimate goal for the Hong Kong's political development as provided for in the Basic Law. This is also what Hong Kong people want.

22. The National People's Congress Standing Committee decided on 29 December 2007 that in 2017 the fifth Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) shall be elected by universal suffrage; and thereafter Members of the Legislative Council shall be elected by universal suffrage.

23. To realize the goal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the HKSAR Government proposed in 2015, according to the relevant decision of the National People's Congress, to amend the method to elect the Chief Executive. The bill failed to secure the votes of two-thirds of the Legislative Council Members; as a result neither the election of Chief Executive in 2017 nor of the following election of Legislative Council Members could be conducted by universal suffrage.

24. Before the realization of dual universal suffrage, the debate on political reform will not abate; the fight for dual universal suffrage will continue; there will be continual challenge to the government's legitimacy; and the policies to improve livelihood and promote economic development will be scuttled by political debates. For the sake of our society's stability and good governance, we must therefore, with the greatest determination and courage, restart the process to amend the procedure to elect the Chief Executive during the next term of the government, and strive to put in place dual universal suffrage as soon as practicable.

25. I know that some people in our community object to restarting the political reform. Those opposing have pointed out that, the reform plan proposed during the current term of the government caused great controversies, and triggered a large scale occupy Central movement which severely disturbed people's daily livelihood and resulted in immense social tension. As the proposal ultimately failed to be passed by the Legislative Council, the government has wasted a lot of resources. Some are of the view that as long as the Central Government and the pan Democrats maintain their respective bottom lines, it would be futile to restart the reform process.

26. This view above is not ungrounded. Indeed, if we were to make proposals without prior thoughtful preparatory work to forge a broader consensus in the community, we would likely repeat the past mistakes. That said, the issue of political reform must be resolved. I do not underestimate the difficulties of achieving consensus on the political reform. But I believe if we could formulate a CE election plan which is acceptable to different quarters, that will be a big step forward for Hong Kong's political system, and both Hong Kong people and the One Country Two Systems will be winners. On the other hand, both will be losers if we stand still and do nothing.

27. I will, with utmost sincerity, closely communicate with different groups and political parties, and facilitate dialogues among these groups/parties and that with the Central Government, with a view to removing misunderstandings, narrowing differences, finding common grounds and building consensus. When the time is ripe, we will make concrete proposals to meet the people's aspiration for universal suffrage.

 (5) Article 23 of the Basic Law

Vision

28. According to the Basic Law Article 23, it is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)'s constitutional duty to enact local legislation to protect national security. Such measure is also the requisite condition for not applying the national security laws in Hong Kong.

29. In 2002 the HKSAR Government proposed the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill which met with strong opposition and had to be withdrawn eventually.

30. Since then, no similar bill has been introduced. The Basic Law has now been implemented in Hong Kong for close to 20 years. There is no reason for the HKSAR Government to delay the enactment of local legislation in accordance with Article 23 any longer. I believe the main concern is not about whether to legislate or not, but about the details of the law and the legislative procedures. We will learn from the past mistakes and do our best to legislate for Article 23 with a view to safeguarding the security of our country and Hong Kong and making a law acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

Specific Measures

31. Full consultation -- Thorough public consultation is a must, including publishing a proposed legislation in the form of a white bill.

32. Address concerns -- We must be sensitive to the reasonable concerns expressed by political groups, the community and the mass media, and ensure that the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong are fully protected while safeguarding national security.

33. Step by step approach -- We could enact the law in stages, starting with the less controversial issues.

(Wikipedia) In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values. A person who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to try to reduce the cognitive dissonance occurring, and actively avoids situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort.

As such, people reduce their cognitive dissonance in four ways:

  1. Change the behavior or the cognition
  2. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition
  3. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by adding new cognitions
  4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs

Commercial Radio 881 News

There was an anti-Carrie Lam, anti-anointment demonstration march by 150 persons from Causeway Bay to the home of Chief Executive candidate Carrie Lam at Convention Plaza Apartments. The organizer Han Lian-shan of the Genuine Universal Suffrage To Save Hong Kong Grand Alliance said that they are opposed to the small-circle election and that none of the pro-establishment Chief Executive candidates can be trusted, especially Carrie Lam. If Lam is elected, she will continue CY Leung's line. In recent days, the election campaign of Carrie Lam is giving sign that she is being supported by the Central Government. Therefore citizens need to come out and express their views. Han Lian-shan said that if the pro-democracy electors come out at the last moment to vote for John Tsang, citizens will understand and forgive them because this is the lesser of two evils. However, they are firmly opposed to small-circle election. The only Chief Executive who conveys the will of the citizens is one who is elected by civil nomination.

I WANT GENUINE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE
I WANT JOHN TSANG

(The Stand News) From "I want genuine universal suffrage" to "I want John Sang" -- What are the fans of Mr. Pringle thinking? February 3, 2017.

At 330am on January 19 in a building in Central, John Tsang announced that he was running for Chief Executive.

Veteran finance worker and Internet show host Gordon Poon watched live at the scene. He emphasized that he is not a fan of John Tsang, but he was there to witness history. "From 1997 to now, have we been repressed severely? This is the only time that we come near to subverting something ... this is the sole opportunity for Hong Kong since 1997."

"I feel that the Central Government does not think that John Tsang will be sufficiently under control. Therefore we must support a person who has the chance to make them a little bit unhappy." Poon believes that this is a form of resistance.

At the same time, Andy watched the live broadcast over John Tsang's Facebook and came away with a good impression. "You see that his appearance is kindly and righteous. The appearance reflects what is inside the heart." Inevitably he thought of another candidate: "Carrie Lam looks wicked. As soon as something negative comes up, her expression darkens."

"Although Tsang is pro-establishment, there are good and evil people within the establishment. I would rather have a good one than an evil one." Andy said firmly.

The middle-aged man Mr. Choi from the manufacturing industry was also watching the screen attentively for John Tsang's announcement.

"I will support him for strategic reasons. But I also appreciate his style as a person. His strategy for this election is also brilliant." The next day, he even went out to buy a bag of potato chips at the convenience store.

These three John Tsang supporters have the common feature of being pro-democracy. They took part in the Umbrella Movement.

Gordon Poon's tent was right across Admiral Centre. He has spoken at street forums, and he has lectured at the Mobile Democracy Classroom. Andy is nicknamed Captain America. He was active in the Occupy Mong Kok area and a member of the Shopping Revolutionaries (9wu). He has been arrested. Mr. Choi is a grassroots citizen. He did not stand on the frontlines of the Umbrella Movement but he is a dedicated supporter. Today his Facebook icon is still a yellow umbrella.

This time, they are all supporting John Tsang. Why?

On January 19, John Tsang formally announced his candidacy. A debate arose within the non-establishment camp: who should the 326 pan-democrats nominate/vote for?

As the nomination period approaches, the debate has begun with two major camps: the principles camp and the pragmatic camp.

The Principles Camp treats their principles are being most important. They don't want to act as kingmakers. Since Democracy 300+ included "withdrawal of the August 31st resolution" as part of their policy platform, they must not support any pro-establishment candidate such as John Tsang who supports the August 31st resolution. If they support John Tsang, it will do zero good for the democracy movement in Hong Kong. So they would rather vote for a pan-democratic candidate such as Leung Kwok-hung through civil nomination. The self-determination legislative councilors such as Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law have recently expressed such views.

Nathan Law wrote: "Ideals and principles are the forces that drove us forward against the rain and wind in the heavy storm. Without them, we will fall."

The Pragmatic Camp prefers to look at the political reality. They believe that Woo Kwok Hing and Leung Kwok-hung have no chance of winning. The only one who is capable of giving Carrie Lam (who is continuing the line of CY Leung) a fight is John Tsang. Therefore they will choose the lesser of two evils. At this time, the pan-democrats should support the lesser evil John Tsang so that Hong Kong can recuperate/rehabilitate/recover.

Recently Civic Party legislator Dennis Kwok said that the Democracy 300+ electors are leaning towards nominating Woo Kwok-hing and John Tsang. Another pan-democratic elector told the reporters that "there will be enough nominations for John Tsang." The signs are that there are quite a few people in the Pragmatic Camp.

Among the masses, the Pragmatic Camp dominates. Over the past two weeks, any Internet essay expressing doubts about John Tsang was certain to receive a lot of critical comments: "Are you helping Carrie Lam's campaign?" When John Tsang brought out his crowdfunding campaign, the response was enthusiastic. The web page was paralyzed within three minutes as tens of thousands of people poured in.

Among John Tsang's supporters, many support democracy and chanted "I want genuine universal suffrage" previously. The Ming Pao-HKU POP poll showed that 60% of self-identified democrats support John Tsang as Chief Executive if they have to choose one among the four announced candidates.

Why do these pro-democracy citizens stand opposite to the popular opinion leaders such as Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung and others?

"I am very certain that the majority of the 7 million people in Hong Kong feel John Tsang is a suitable Chief Executive. They don't belong to any camp or group. They are just picking the best among the many candidates."

Gordon Poon is a veteran financial worker and an Internet show host. Ever since John Tsang announced his candidacy, he has been calling for the pan-democrats to follow public opinion to support John Tsang. He said that the Central Government wants Carrie Lam to become Chief Executive, and they do not trust John Tsang. In order to resist Beijing, the people of Hong Kong must support "a person who can make the Central Government a bit unhappy."

"We want to let the Central Government know that the person that they like may not be the person that Hong Kong likes. Under One Country Two Systems, the people of Hong Kong can do whatever they want."

Poon emphasized that this is a form of resistance. "From 1997 to now, haven't we been repressed too severely? This is the only time that we get close to being able to subvert something."

Poon's thinking is close to that of 40-something-year-old Mr. Choi who works in the manufacturing industry. With respect to the talk about choosing the lesser of two evils, Mr. Choi does not regard that as being important.

"The important thing is to show the Chinese Communists that we have the ability to resist. We are not the mantis trying to stop the cart with its arms. When Democracy 300+ were elected, weren't they supposed to stop the control by the Central Government?"

In other words, supporting John Tsang is a strategy to show the will of the people of Hong to resist to the Central Government. Mr. Choi made an analogy: David defeats Goliath not by force but by using the rock. In other words, the people of Hong Kong is David, the Chinese Communists are Goliath and John Tsang is the rock.

Can John Tsang really become this rock? The reporter asked.

Mr. Choi said frankly that he does not know. "But you can't fight with a blade of grass." He continued. "The rock may drop and hit your toe, but it can also be used to strike the enemy. If you are afraid of the rock, the giant will smash your head in. It is that simple!" Ever since John Tsang announced his candidacy and started his Internet promotion, Mr. Choi has "liked" almost every post. He did it in order to create the atmosphere and increase the support level in order to have the ability to resist the Central Government."

"Do not laugh at me for being used. I should say that I am using him." Choi said.

In Captain America Andy's view, supporting John Tsang is also a strategy. The ultimate goal is to stop Carrie Lam from winning. "I am very worried that Carrie Lam will become CY 2.0. Her goal is to continue the line of 689." Andy is worried that after Carrie Lam is elected, she will build more "useless things" like the Palace Museum, suppress freedom of speech and enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation. "Hong Kong is being turned red. In the end, it will be indistinguishable from any other Chinese city." Without doubt, this is the concern of Hong Kong people after the past 5 years.

"At least, John Tsang won't be like Carrie Lam. She shines the shoes of the Central Government all the time. The damage from John Tsang to Hong Kong will be minimal."

Although the support for Mr. Pringle is based upon strategic considerations, many supporters think that he has desirable qualities in image, character and style.

Andy likes Tsang for his friendliness. "You look at his exterior appearance. He is friendly. He is not strong and abrasive." The comparison is naturally with Carrie Lam. "Carrie Lam is a ruthless person, like the character Qiu Qianchi in Jin Rong's novel. She could release darts from her mouth."

In his election declaration, John Tsang spoke of "recuperate/rehabilitate/recover." This created widespread discussion. Andy who was involved in many valiant resistance actions and was arrested in the Mong Kok riot agreed with John Tsang's attempt to mend social rifts. "Frankly, if the Chief Executive handles things well, many people won't be out there resisting even if they don't have universal suffrage."

Since 2003, Mr. Choi has almost been to all the large-scale pro-democracy actions. He says that he is fatigued from attending too many demonstrators. He believes that "recuperate/rehabilitate/recover" is not the same as "do nothing" and Tsang's style will make it easier on citizens.

Gordon Poon emphasized that he is not a John Tsang fan. "Don't get me wrong. I don't think that John Tsang is so great." Nevertheless he displayed certain admiration for John Tsang. "Do you think that you will do better than John Tsang? Do you think that you can solve the problems within the government? Do you think that the Central Government will appoint you? How many financial crises have you dealt with? Have you worked for the government for 30 years? Did you study at the two universities (MIT and Harvard University)?"

Poon even compared John Tsang with Anson Chan. "Both were Administrative Officers. They worked closely with Chris Patten during the British colonial era. Both of them received western education. Both of them speak gently." Before leaving her job in 2001, Chief Secretary Anson Chan was praised as "the Conscience of Hong Kong." Poon said that he admires Mrs. Chan and was sad that she had to leave her job. "That day, I really wanted her not to quit. Sometimes I fantasize how things would have been if only she became Chief Executive."

At the time, Poon thought that Anson Chan was someone who was willing to strive for democracy by working within the system. Today, he said that John Tsang is the same. "If John Tsang is leading Hong Kong from within the system, isn't that the same as the second coming of Anson Chan?" He said: "If I can give you a second chance, wouldn't you take it?"

In the end, Gordon Poon wants a suitable person to maintain "One Country Two Systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" under the framework of the Basic Law and to defend the core values of Hong Kong. He very much wants John Tsang to win by a large majority. "He will have the strength to fight the Central Government. When this man has public opinion behind him and he is authorized by the people of Hong Kong, it will be tough for the Central Government to fight with him."

For example, "If Lee Bo were arrested, John Tsang would tell the relevant officials 'Hey, this is a Hong Kong citizen. What happened to him?' It will be embarrassing for the the Central Government."

This is what the John Tsang supporters imagine will happen.

Over the past several weeks, the non-establishment camp has been quarreling over whether to support John Tsang or not. Many pro-democracy citizens lean towards John Tsang whereas the legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law and Leung Kwok-hung said that they cannot support the anti-democracy John Tsang based upon the principles of democracy.

How is John Tsang anti-democracy? After announcing his candidacy, John Tsang made it clear that the re-start of the constitutional reform process must be based upon the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Thereafter the various sides must try to reach a compromise. If the process is re-started in the same atmosphere as in 2014, it would be irresponsible. Thus, he will not re-start the constitutional reform if there is no chance of success.

Obviously this is contrary to the Democracy 300+'s position that their nominee/candidate must oppose the August 31st resolution and restart the process for double universal suffrage as quickly as possible. This is also contrary to what the masses in the Umbrella Movement want.

In an interview, Leung Kwok-hung said that it is a betrayal of the Umbrella Movement to support John Tsang. "After what we went through with the Umbrella Movement, how can we still talk about accepting the lesser of two evils? Was the whole movement about choosing the lesser evil? If so, we wouldn't even need to go through with the Umbrella Movement."

Faced with these doubts, the interviewees have their own views. Mr. Choi said that the original intention of the Umbrella Movement was to oppose the screening mechanism imposed by the Central Government on the Chief Executive election. This time, he is supporting John Tsang for precisely that reason: "If we sit around and do nothing about the screening, the Central Government can manipulate the election. This is completely contrary to the original intention of the Umbrella Movement."

During the Occupy period, Andy wore a Captain America uniform and fought with his shield. After the Umbrella Movement, he and other fellow travelers stayed on with the Shopping Revolution in Mong Kok. He cannot count how many times he has chanted the slogan "I want genuine universal suffrage". So why would he support John Tsang who supports the August 31st resolution?

Andy's response was astonishing. He thought that John Tsang is actually a fellow traveler of the Occupy people.

"I remember that during the Occupy period, John Tsang said 'to defend Hong Kong' for no apparent reason.' Actually this sentence was intended to tell us that he is supporting us." Andy was deeply encouraged and became convinced that John Tsang would not blindly follow the orders of the Central Government. To this date, he still believes that, if elected, John Tsang will oppose the August 31st resolution.

"Maybe deep down in his heart, he wants to overturn the August 31st resolution. However, he can say so directly."

But in reviewing the record, John Tsang did not appear to have said "to defend Hong Kong" during the Occupy period. On October 5, 2014, he published a blog post titled "Bless Hong Kong." He wrote that Hong Kong society has continued to run efficiently during the Occupy movement because the city management system was strong. He warned that when the city wall fails, the price would be unacceptable to every one of us.

On October 12, he wrote to the demonstrators: "It is time to leave the streets and let society restore normal functioning and let citizens return to their normal lives. If the matter continues, the city wall that we have built up over so many years may not be able to withstand the assault. A democratic system could have fortified our city walls. But if we seek democracy by first destroying the wall, the gains may be less than the losses in the end."

Gordon Poon also recalled what John Tsang said during the Occupy period:

Near the end of the speech, John Tsang said the Occupy crowd is gradually dissipating and the government is actively communicating with the student organizations. "This city has almost return to normalcy. Marketing trading activities have not been impeded." He said that some people were injured but there were no major injuries because both the government and the demonstrators acted in a restrained way: "This truly shows that our city has manners and consideration. We hope that these qualities will persist." John Tsang is the senior Hong Kong government official who has given the most positive assessment of the Occupy movement so far.

October 9, 2014, Apple Daily.

"He said that New York demonstrators are also polite ... he feels that it would be bad for harmony if there is one-sided condemnation of the Occupy folks. Even if one does not agree with the Occupy movement, one must say that they did certain things right." This was how Gordon Poon assessed John Tsang's meaning. "As a senior government official, it was hard to say those words. But a person must speak according to his conscience." Poon believes that Tsang has a conscience.

But didn't John Tsang say that the restart of the constitutional reform process must be based upon the August 31st resolution? Poon said that if he were John Tsang, he would say the same. "Hey, what do you want him to say? Must he promise to vindicate June 4th and overturn the August 31st framework before you are satisfied? ... Do you want him to be elected?" Poon said that Tsang could not have made such verbal promises if he wants to gain the trust of the Central Government. Poon believes that even if Tsang does not make those promises, "there is a chance that he will do what we want" after he gets elected.

Poon insisted that he is not trying to defend and protect John Tsang. "I am not helping him. You can say that I am helping myself, okay?"

In the Principles Camp, Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law have advocated nominating a pan-democrat such as Leung Kwok-hung. Mr. Choi was opposed: "Why do we need Long Hair to show that this election is ridiculous? Don't the pan-democrats  already know that this small-circle election is ridiculous?" He said that the pan-democratic candidate will only split up the Democracy 300+ base and reduce their power to fight the Central Government.

"Each time that the pan-democrats seize power, they manage to become divided. It happens every single time." Mr. Choi sighed.

Andy said that the pan-democrats should give all their votes to John Tsang. "Democracy 300+ should be the kingmakers." He said that if the pan-democrats don't support John Tsang, they will receive payback in the future elections. "If you let someone who is going to continue the 689 route become Chief Executive, your Democracy 300+ will be the sinners in history."

Poon does not understand why the pan-democratic leaders are still talking about principles when public opinion is clear.

"If you don't support anyone that the people support, then you are overriding the people. How can you override the power of the people, the voices of the people?" He decried those people as the "High Moral Ground Grand Alliance." "Who do you think you are? How can you trample on the heads of the people?"

On February 1, Chu Hoi Dick said that many of the supporters of John Tsang are motivated by negative emotions. "The current public opinion is false, it is an illusion, it is emotional ... In a true democracy, we must have the power."

Gordon Poon continued to criticize the pan-democratic opinion leaders: "You are not saviors. You should not think that you can lead people. You are not educating people; you should be educated by the people." He said that such is the essence of democracy. "The masses know who is capable and who is the best under the present circumstances. Who do you think you are to question the masses?"

His logic is very direct: Mainstream public opinion is leaning towards John Tsang. Whether the reason behind is "The lesser of two evils" or "Mr. Pringle is so cute", Democracy 300+ must obey the wishes of the people.

Ironically, CY Leung had higher public opinion figures than Henry Tang during the last Chief Executive election. Poon admitted that such is democracy: "You cannot possibly believe that democracy is the perfect machine that will elect the perfect person each time. The people can be deceived some of the time, but not all of the time."

He deeply believes in John Tsang. "Between returning to Hong Kong in 1982 and today, has he ever been someone like CY? You think about this yourself. If he were, he would have been so a long time ago." He countered: "Of course, he is not a Yellow Ribbon. But he is true to his belief. What bias do you hold that you won't believe him?"

Chu Hoi Dick and Leung Kwok-hung both pointed out that if a moderate pro-establishment candidate such as John Tsang wins with high public opinion support, then he will have the authorization of the people of Hong Kong to kneel down to the Central Government and start an August 31st-based constitutional reform. When that time goes, there will be no room to resist and tyranny will be unstoppable. Gordon Poon asked in return: "So is the alternative to let the worst possible person to become Chief Executive so that we can resist? Do you think that your resistance will be easier if Carrie Lam takes over?"

"Do we have to die first for the sake of an enduring democracy movement? Do we have to get stabbed a few times first?"

Gordon Poon said that the only way to persuade the pan-democratic leaders is through Benny Tai's Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum. He expects that John Tsang will receive many more votes than Woo Kwok-hing, Leung Kwok-hung or other candidates. Afterwards, the pan-democratic electors can no longer ignore this force.

"Let us have a referendum and see whether we or those on high moral grounds are right?" Gordon Poon is certain of victory.

Internet comments:

- It does not matter how many times that you tell them, these people just don't get it -- the Chief Executive has limited influence on the constitutional reform process.

Under Basic Law Article 159,

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

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

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

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

If a candidate promises you that he will do it, he is lying unless he has already obtained the promises of the other parties.

- What, if anything, does John Tsang have to say about the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee? Here is the relevant section of John Tsang's policy platform:

23. To realize the goal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the HKSAR Government proposed in 2015, according to the relevant decision of the National People's Congress, to amend the method to elect the Chief Executive. The bill failed to secure the votes of two-thirds of the Legislative Council Members; as a result neither the election of Chief Executive in 2017 nor of the following election of Legislative Council Members could be conducted by universal suffrage.

What is this? Lord Voldemort? He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? And what, if anything, will John Tsang do with it?

- John Tsang's policy platform said as good as nothing about what he will do on the constitutional reform process. Actually, he said even less than his buddy Donald Tsang did in 2012 . (News.gov.hk) Back then, the Donald said: "It is time for Hong Kong to lift the anchor and start sailing towards universal suffrage." John Tsang might as well as ask everybody to join hands and pray to the Lord for guidance. This is completely consistent with his "Do Nothing" philosophy of governance.

As for the time bomb known as Article 23, John Tsang says that he will hold consultations first before coming up with a "white bill." This is brilliant strategy. I believe that by the end of his first five-year term, consultations will not even begin yet. And by the end of his second five-year term, China will have collapsed and Article 23 will be irrelevant. By "Doing Nothing" as he is wont to do, Mr. Pringle will achieve our goals.

- (Bastille Post) John Tsang told the press that there has to be communication on constitutional reform. Once a consensus has been reached in Hong Kong, he will inform the Central Government accordingly so that they can make a better judgment. He admitted that the August 31st resolution is a key ingredient which cannot be avoided.

Well, does he really think that he can achieve consensus so easily? And what is consensus anyway? In 2015, the government's proposal was supported by the majority of the population according to the public opinion polls, but the pan-democrats vetoed it anyway because they say that they know what is best for the people. In the end, he is not going to get that consensus either and he will just blame everybody else.

It is the same with Basic Law Article 23. John Tsang says that he will do the easiest pieces first. But he won't identify which pieces are easy and which pieces are hard. So is it all bluster with no substance too?

John Tsang knows that he is not the Central Government's "cup of tea." His biggest problem besides getting the votes is to gain the trust of the Central Government. After being told many times by the Central Government not to run, he went ahead anyway. He must be very concerned that the Central Government won't appoint him even if he wins the election. Therefore, Tsang has to reduce the Central Government's suspicions about him. This means that at the very least he has to talk up a good show on Basic Law Article 23 and constitutional reform for double universal suffrage.

- Basic Law Article 23

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. 

No part is easy, because it affects the interests of certain parties:

Treason/secession: Hong Kong National Party, Demosisto, Youngspiration, Hong Kong Indigenous, Civic Passion

Sedition: Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution

Subversion against the Central People's Government: League of Social Democrats, Democratic Party, Labour Party, Civil Human Rights Front, Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China

Theft of state secrets: Mirror Books, Causeway Bay Books, etc.

Foreign political organizations or bodies conducting political activities in Hong Kong: National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, hundreds of NGO's ...

- (HKG Pao) Several days later, John Tsang said on Commercial Radio that he does not have much confidence in achieving Article 23 legislation by 2020, because it takes time for him to find an expert who has a legal background and is trusted by the people to explore how to satisfy the requirements of Article 23 as well as protect the rights of the people of Hong Kong. However, John Tsang re-iterated that the August 31st framework cannot be avoided for constitutional reform.

- Cartoon

Panel 1: Election: "I hope that Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform can be completed before 2020." ("I'll discuss it ... I'll think about it ...")
Panel 2: Meeting: "I want to enact Article 23. Let's discuss ..."
Panel 3: Two years later: "Re-start constitutional reform. Let me think about it first ..."
Panel 4: Five years: "Hey, hey. I have discussed it and I have thought about it."

- (Bastille Post) Democracy 300+ has 325 votes in the 1,194-person Election Committee. At the nomination stage, the minimum threshold is 150 votes. They seemed to have narrowed their potential choices down to three candidates: John Tsang, Woo Kwok Hing and Leung Kwok-hung. 325 votes divided by three equally means that none of the three candidates will be nominated by Democracy 300+ alone. But if they coordinate well enough, they can get two of the candidates in while abandoning the third.

Of the three candidates, Leung Kwok-hung is the purest in terms of ideology. He wants to get rid of the August 31st framework for constitutional reform and he will not introduce Article 23 legislation. These are the basic tenets of Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution. He has commitment from people such as Nathan Law, Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, etc. This means that the pressure is on the other two candidates.

Previously, John Tsang had said that the August 31st framework which came from the National People's Congress Standing Committee must be the basis for any further discussion of constitutional reform. He also gave a timetable for Article 23 legislation by 2020. This was unsatisfactory to the more idealistic persons in Democracy 300+. Yesterday on radio, John Tsang said that he will have no assumptions for constitutional reform. "No assumptions, broad consultation, forge consensus and present to the Central Government, which will make a precise judgment." By saying no assumptions, he is saying that he has just abandoned the August 31st framework as the basis. John Tsang also said that he does not have confidence in finishing the groundwork for Article 23 legislation by 2020, by which time a new Legislative Council will be elected.

While politicians sway according to the direction of the wind, it is still astonishing to see how quickly John Tsang's switches his position. The pan-democrats are looking for someone who can fight the Central Government, but if John Tsang bends so easily to their pressure today, he can just as easily bend to the pressure from the Central Government after he is elected. Can you trust him?

- John Tsang looks like a kind and gentle man. I feel in my heart that we can trust him.

- The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

- Avery Ng (president of League of Social Democrats) Facebook

After Article 23 becomes law, the entire League of Social Democrats can hold their meetings at the cold and windy Stanley Prison. Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung can play soccer every day, and I can work out in the gym to bulk up.

- If the Pragmatic Camp wins unopposed, Democracy 300+ will cast all their votes for John Tsang, and then Article 23 and the August 31st-based Chief Executive election will become reality. Are the Principles Camp going to sit and watch passively to see this happen? No way!

Here is the Ming Pao story: "Leung Kwok-hung will announce tomorrow that he will campaign to become Chief Executive." At the nomination phase, Leung Kwok-hung will draw away a number of the Democracy 300+ electors, particularly those diehards who are adamantly opposed to any Article 23 legislation and the August 31st resolution (with no civil nomination). During the preliminary rounds, Leung Kwok-hung will continue to keep those votes until he is eliminated. In the final round between the last two candidates, the Principles Camp will cast blank votes.

How can John Tsang cut a deal with the Principles Camp? He has to promise no Article 23 legislation and no August 31st resolution. But if he goes public with those promises, he won't get appointed by the Central Government.

- During the nomination phase, the electors have to make public their choices. If any Democracy 300+ member nominates John Tsang, he will be opposed by the localist radicals in future district council/legislative council elections as payback. So that decision must be carefully weighed.

- John Tsang has no fear of beating Leung Kwok-hung, because he knows that the people of Hong Kong cannot possibly want this man as their leader:

- Look7s Facebook

In 2003, mainstream society was resolutely opposed to Article 23 in any form of packaging. Fourteen years later in 2017, John Tsang made mainstream society feel that Article 23 is acceptable. The so-called democrats even learned appeasement, with the fantasy that "Since Article 23 is bound to happen sooner or later, at least we can strike a better deal with Mr. Pringle." How much retrogression has the people of Hong Kong undergone over these years?

- Gordon Poon said: "I feel that the Central Government does not think that John Tsang will be sufficiently under control. Therefore we must support a person who has the chance to make them a little bit unhappy." Well, this is so much in line with the spirit of Occupy Central. If you occupy Central, you are riling the people of Hong Kong. The Central Government is about 2,000 kilometers away in Beijing and they don't give a rat's ass about the trouble with getting around downtown Hong Kong. In like manner, if John Tsang turned out to be useless because neither the pro-democracy camp nor the pro-establishment camp nor the Central Government will support him, this is what you bring upon yourselves. The Central Government will only think that this is a good lesson for you to learn to vote responsibly in the future.

- Gordon Poon said: "If Lee Bo were arrested, John Tsang would tell the relevant officials 'Hey, this is a Hong Kong citizen. What happened to him?' It will be embarrassing for the the Central Government." If the Central Government won't tell you, then they won't tell you. What can John Tsang do? Can he use his high popularity to mobilize 500,000 people and lead them to march to the China Liaison Office to demand a response within 24 hours?

- It took 35 days before the Central Government accepted the resignation of John Tsang, compared to the 4 days for Carrie Lam. Can't you read the writing on the wall? If it took two weeks for the Central Government to answer their favorite son CY Leung about the whereabouts of Lee Bo, how many days will they take to answer John Tsang? 200 days?

- Why is the Central Government slighting John Tsang? To show who is BOSS.

- Well, the pro-independence clique always think that Hong Kong hold the cards because China needs Hong Kong whereas Hong Kong does not need China at all. Does ex-Financial Secretary John Tsang believe that? Is there anything that Hong Kong can slight China with?

- So what is the big deal with voting for an odious choice for strategic reasons? It is not as if Hongkongers haven't done it before?

2016 Legislative Council election results for District Council (second) Functional Constituency):

801: James To Kun-sun, 243,930 votes
802: Starry Lee Wai-king, 304,222 votes
803: Kwong Chun-yu, 491,667 votes
804: Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, 17,174 votes
805: Sumly Chan Yuen-sum, 28,311 votes
806: Wong Kwok-hing, 233,236 votes
807: Kwan Wing-yip, 23,631 votes
808: Leung Yiu-chung, 303,457 votes
809: Holden Chow Ho-ding, 303,457 votes

What percent of the 491,667 votes for Kwong Chun-yu were holding their noses when they cast their ballots? Did the original supporters of Kalvin Ho, Sumly Chan and Kwan Wing-yip actually think Kwong Chun-yu was the better person?

- In the United States, they don't want to vote for the bitch Hillary Clinton and the only viable alternative was Donald Trump. So they don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around. But are they happy with their lot now?

- Of course, people don't remember things like this: (MarketWatch.com) March 3, 2013.

Last week, Hong Kongs Financial Secretary John Tsang created a storm in a coffee cup as he took to the airwaves after the territorys budget release. While a property bubble once again helped push government coffers into surplus, much of the population feels squeezed by high inflation and unaffordable property prices. To show he understood peoples concerns, Tsang said he was one of them the middle class. He supported this claim by saying the middle class are those who drink coffee and like French films. But given that Tsang earns a basic monthly salary of 302,205 Hong Kong dollars (about US$39,000) and lives in a luxury government residence, the reaction ranged from anger to ridicule.

- (VJ Media) February 4, 2017.

On Facebook, Mr. Pringle wrote: "I am not just coming out on my own to announce my candidacy. I want to issue an invitation to all 7.35 million Hong Kong citizens to work together to make Hong Kong better. Your support will be greatest motivator for my election and the effective governance afterwards." This was worse than listening to obscene curses.

I don't know if Mr. Pringle is asleep or not. There are 7.35 million people in Hong Kong, but only 1200 have voting rights. Hong Kong doesn't even have civil nomination. So without mentioning universal suffrage with civil nomination or having a policy platform, he just pointed to his own nose and wanted people to hand money over to him. Carrie Lam gave $500 to a beggar, and John Tsang wants to become a beggar.

John Tsang has a lot of money of his own. However, he wants to give the people of Hong Kong a chance to express their opinions. Therefore he is willing to take their money in order to show their support of him. In summary, he wanted more money -- he knew that the people of Hong Kong don't have a vote, but he organizes a crowdfunding campaign to take their money anyway.

I thought that the reputedly very smart Hongkongers would never fall for this. I was wrong because a horde of money-giving Hong Kong pigs rushed out. Everybody knows that the outcome of this small-circle election will make no fucking difference, because what can the Chief Executive do under the thumb of the Chinese Communists!? Mr. Pringle has already stated that he can't do a thing under the August 31st resolution. Do these Hong Kong pigs think that things would be different after they give their money? Do you think the Chinese Communists care one way or the other?

When they were fighting for genuine universal suffrage, they didn't seem to be so united. But when it comes to forking over their money, they are so united. Everybody knows that John Tsang is the lesser evil, so why didn't they accept "pocketing" the August 31st resolution at the time?

I went over to read the comments at Mr. Pringle's Facebook. You ought to read them. But I remind you not to roll your eyes too much. Normal people won't understand why these Hong Kong pigs fork over their money so readily.

Finally, I want to say that it is not wrong to donate. The important point is whether this is meaningful or not. Mr. Pringle runs crowdfunding. We are giving money away to a rich person (who earned $302,205 per month as Financial Secretary). What is the fucking return on investment? Are we better off donating to Brother Ming to give away free lunchboxes in Sham Shui Po? Donating to the non-paid volunteer actors in the made-in-Hong-Kong movie <Weeds on Fire>?  Donating to the athletes of Hong Kong to promote sports? Donating to the firefighting heroes who died in the Ngau Tau Kok fire?

- Local Press headlines


John Tsang: Hong Kong cannot alter the August 31st resolution as it pleases


John Tsang: Article 23 is the premise and condition for not implementing Chinese National Security Laws in Hong Kong

- am730

CY Leung welcomes John Tsang on the clear articulation of his position with respect to Article 23 legislation.

- Look at that smirk of contempt ...

- (The Stand News) January 7, 2017. In 2003, the headline theme for the July 1st march was to oppose the anti-subversion Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23.  For 14 years, "opposition to Article 23 legislation" was the consensus position of the pro-democracy camp. But we now have this 2017 election. Everybody knows that any candidate who opposes Article 23 legislation cannot possibly win. Out of the four declared candidates, it looks like John Tsang and Carrie Lam have the better chance. Of the two, John Tsang is the "lesser evil" whose Article 23 legislation may just be more acceptable. So the pro-democracy camp is forced to come out to say "some form of Article 23 is acceptable."

So how do you walk back on the headline theme in 2003? Well, you revise history! "Back then all we were fighting for was a white paper consultation as opposed to a blue paper vote." "John Tsang will be able to find a way to amend the bill such that the majority of Hongkongers will accept it." "The same law can be enforced differently by different law enforcers." "A piece of legislation should not be demonized or otherwise labeled by the media." "I want an Article 23 that fits the situation in Hong Kong." "Hongkongers should not treat Article 23 as the Devil's seed not to be mentioned under any circumstance." "Article 23 is not the Great Flood or a Vicious Monster."

So now, when all four candidates say that Article 23 must be legislated/enacted, the debate has moved on to whether John Tsang's version will be more acceptable than Carrie Lam's. From the moment that John Tsang announced this candidacy, Article 23 has become a completely different animal in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. This will be the new reality regardless of who becomes the Chief Executive eventually.

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook

People keep saying that "XX creates social rifts." After listening to this for a while, the Hong Kong pigs believe that YY won't create social rifts. Therefore YY will be a good Chief Executive. They are completely ignoring the fact that XX and YY are the same on all those policies which create the social rifts.

That is to say, if you think that the guy on stage is evil, does that mean that all the other people off stage at this moment are good?

- (Apple Daily) February 6, 2017. [John Tsang's policy platform] Housing policy follows 689? Continue with One Belt One Road

- The most interesting part about the Apple Daily news report is the use of the question mark in the title.

Once upon a time, Next Media boss Jimmy Lai hates Chief Executive CY Leung. So anything that Leung does was evil. When Leung wanted to develop Eastern Lantau Island and Northeastern New Territories, his publications denounced those plans. They said that CY Leung wants to steal land from the people of Hong Kong to turn Hong Kong into a suburb of Shenzhen to house wealthy mainlanders. And when Leung wanted to do One Belt One Road, his publications said that Leung was shining Xi Jinping's shoes by invoking One Belt One Road in his governance report.

Today, New Media boss Jimmy Lai has decided that John Tsang is the man to be Chief Executive. So anything that Tsang wants to do is good. Today, Tsang said that he wants to develop Eastern Lantau Island and Northeastern New Territories. Tsang also said that he wants to push ahead with One Belt One Road. So these must all be good.

However, even the editor at Apple Daily is embarrassed at this total reversal of positions. CY Leung cannot do these things but John Tsang can. That is why the question mark was inserted. But is John Tsang doing this to take revenge against Next Media on behalf of his ex-boss CY Leung?

- (Bastille Post) February 6, 2017.

First, we had CY 1.0. When Carrie Lam declared her candidacy, she was tagged CY 2.0. After John Tsang unveiled his policy platform, he is tagged CY 3.0.

CY Leung wanted to develop Northeast New Territories. The pan-democrats said no, because they did not want a Shenzhen suburb for wealthy mainlanders. John Tsang wants to develop Northeast New Territories.

CY Leung wanted to create housing space with landfills on Eastern Lantau Island. The pan-democrats said not, because they wanted to protect the environment. John Tsang wants to create housing space with landfills on Eastern Lantau Island.

CY Leung planned to have 60% of new housing over the next ten years be public housing. John Tsang wants public housing for 60% of citizens.

CY Leung inherited the TSA test in schools. The pan-democrats wanted to get rid of it altogether because school children are committing suicide due to the pressure of tests and homework. John Tsang will get rid of it. In truth, the Education Bureau does not want schools to drill students, but the teachers and parents want the drills.

CY Leung rejected the pan-democrats' demands to have universal retirement protection, standard working hours, hedging the MPF, stopping import of outside laborers, etc. John Tsang does not want any of these things either.

CY Leung wanted to restructure the government bureaus. The pan-democrats did everything possible to stop this. John Tsang now wants to restructure the government bureaus in virtually the same way (except for the minor difference of putting sports under the Cultural Bureau).

- John Tsang's campaign slogan:

(Bastille Post) January 6, 2017.

Well, well, well. We're going to have a problem with "Proactive Enablement" in Chinese.

「主動賦能」is indeed "Proactive Enablement".

When pronounced as 「主動負能」it becomes "Active Negative Energy".

When pronounced as 「主動負L」it becomes "Active Fucking Negative".

- (SCMP) John Tsangs empty words on political reform. By Alex Lo. February 7, 2017.

John Tsang Chun-wah has managed to steal a march over his arch-rival in the chief executive race by coming up with a policy platform first.

What immediately catches the eye is how many pan-democratic pet causes he has promised to pursue. The man is really going after the pan-dems votes on the Election Committee.

He has promised to restart the political reform process for universal suffrage; review the time-honoured automatic appointment of the chief executive as chancellor of all the public universities; and enhance procedural justice, rule-based government operations and transparency.

The last item is presumably a dig at rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who has drawn much flak for authorising the construction of a local version of Beijings Palace Museum at the West Kowloon arts hub without prior consultation or tendering.

But the main attraction is no doubt the promise to revive the political reform process. That really sets him apart from the Beijing-friendly crowd. Its an article of faith among many in the business elite and the pro-establishment camp that there is no point in reviving the failed reform exercise.

Indeed, they have a very good argument. The central government will not compromise on the so-called 8-31 framework the blueprint laid down by the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee for electoral reform in Hong Kong on August 31, 2014 that imposes restrictions on the number and qualifications of chief executive candidates, and on the methods of their selection. And there is no way the pan-democrats would ever accept the 8-31 framework. So any attempt to reintroduce reform would not just be a waste of time, but would lead to more acrimony and recrimination. Who wants to risk another Occupy Central?

My guess is that Lam also accepts this line of reasoning. But Tsang is no fool. The only way he could win the chief executive race is to get on board with the pan-dems on the Election Committee by promising some kind of reform, or rather talk of reform.

It is prefaced with qualifications on his policy platform: Find common grounds, build consensus, truly reflect views to the central government, create a favourable environment for political reform. But what if there is no common ground or consensus to reflect back to Beijing? What if the citys political views are even more divided than before? Call me cynical, but the most that Tsang as chief executive would do is to launch a public consultation on political reform. And that would be the end of the matter.

- (Wen Wei Po) Who is the Genuine John Tsang? February 10, 2017.

Several weeks ago, John Tsang announced his candidacy and said that he wanted to allow the people to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate" from the internal strife. This led to some debate. On one hand, people are sick of the endless bickering and fighting. On the other hand, Hong Kong faces internal and external challenges and cannot afford to sit still. John Tsang did not explain what the "internal strife" is, or how it came about, or how it can be stopped.

Earlier this week, John Tsang presented his policy platform. People were looking forward to see how he plans for Hong Kong to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate." Instead, people were surprised to see the policies include restructuring the government, introducing a progressive tax rate with a negative tax for low-income people, etc. These issues about public administration, fiscal policies and welfare systems are surely controversial, so this is no way to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate."

John Tsang also brought up Article 23 legislation and restarting the constitutional reform process. There is no way to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate." So which one is the real John Tsang? The one who wants to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate" or the one who wants to take on any number of new actions?

Of the election issues, the citizens are most concerned with the housing problems. Everybody knows that the housing problems (high prices/rents, access, etc) are due to shortage of housing supply. This did not happen in one or two days. During the ten years of John Tsang's tenure as Financial Secretary, he underestimated government revenues and failed to make long-range investments. He also failed to find more land for housing development while he headed the Steering Committee on Housing (Land) Supply. Now candidate John Tsang says that his goal is to have 60% of the people living in public housing. When asked how, he said that this was a long-range goal which will not be realized during his term. So what does that mean? He doesn't explain.

On the matter of constitutional reform, the pan-democrats were delighted to see that his policy platform did not mention the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Does this means that he plans to bypass it? When pressed hard by the media, John Tsang said that the August 31st resolution must be the basis for any proposal. How can the citizens or the Central Government trust someone who is so shifty on the central issue here?

Theoretically, one should get a clear picture of a candidate once one reads through the policy platform. Once you understand the concepts and approaches, you can decide whether to support the candidate or not. But one cannot figure out who John Tsang is from his policy platform ...  Those people who have replaced their "I want genuine universal suffrage" slogan with "I want John Tsang" should really think about: Which is the genuine John Tsang?

Why does this story have no legs anymore? What is nothing more being said? Well, an intelligent discussion requires that you know the basic facts. Here are some of the different versions of what happened. Which is true? Well, the only thing for certain is that they can't all be true. When you have a plethora of contradictory facts and fictions, what can you really say? We will just have to wait and see.

(Mingjing News) January 29, 2017.

Yesterday Mingjing News reported that a certain Chinese department has a multi-billionaire tycoon under control. On Lunar New Year's Eve, several dozen public security bureau and national security bureau officers arrested the man, who was said to manage the assets of the families of top leaders to the tune of thousands of billions RMB.

Mingjing News did not name the tycoon. But they said that the tycoon was arrested and taken away in Hong Kong. At the time, he had eight bodyguards with him.

(Boxun) January 30, 2017.

An informed Beijing source told us that the arrest of Xiao Jianhua was made by the Hong Kong Police. Another informed source told us that the arrest was not made by the Hong Kong Police and the arrestee was taken to China by irregular channel.

(Boxun) January 31, 2017.

According to a knowledgeable person, Xiao Jianhua was taken back to mainland China on Lunar New Year's Eve and detained presently at a secret location in Beijing. The arresting team had done their preparation well, using the Lunar New Year's Eve period when the media don't pay too much attention and using a legal method to cross the border (albeit Xiao Jianhua was held under duress). But hey did not expect Xiao's wife would contact the Hong Kong Police on January 28 and thus drew the attention of the Hong Kong authorities.

The arresting team persuaded Mrs. Xiao to withdraw her police report on January 29 and said that her husband was safe and sound. But in the evening, the overseas Mingjing News reported the incident without naming the individual.

The arresting team did not anticipate that after Boxun named Xiao Jianhua and drew media attention, the Hong Kong Police would disclose the exact details of Mrs. Xiao filing a report, canceling the report and how Mr. Xiao was "taken across the border" by car.

(Mingjing News) January 30, 2017.

Tomorrow Stock Holdings Limited Company
Concerning the recent attention to me, I made this special statement: I, Xiao Jianhua, am presently undergoing medical treatment overseas. At present everything is fine! Business is as usual at the Tomorrow Group! I thank everybody for their concern!
Xiao Jianhua
January 30, 2017.

(Boxun) January 31, 2017.

Xiao Jianhua issued a statement through his company Tomorrow Group. This statement was published as an advertisement in Ming Pao:

Solemn Statement

1. I thank everybody for your concern. I am presently undergoing medical treatment overseas. After the treatment is complete, I will meet with the media soon.
2. I believe that the Chinese government is a civilized government with rule of law. Please do not misunderstand! There is no issue of being being kidnapped back to the mainland.
3. I am a patriotic overseas Chinese. I love the Party and the Country. I have never taken part in anything that hurts the national interests and the image of the government. I have never supported any opposition forces or groups.
4. I am a Canadian citizen as well as a permanent resident of Hong Kong. I am protected by the Canadian Consulate as well as Hong Kong law. I also hold a diplomatic passport with diplomatic protection. Therefore you should not have to worry!
Xiao Jianhua
January 31, 2017.

(SCMP) January 31, 2017.

A government source with knowledge of the investigation said Xiao, 46, left the Four Seasons Hotel on Friday morning, accompanied by an unidentified number of people. The source said the people with Xiao were not triad members as reported. The hotel had already handed over surveillance camera footage to the police, the source added.

Another source said Xiao left Hong Kong for Shenzhen at about 3pm on Friday. Police officers examined CCTV footage and did not find any scuffles in the hotel involving Xiao or his two female bodyguards.

The Post has also learned that Xiao is not a holder of a Hong Kong permanent ID card or an SAR passport.

The Canadian embassy in Beijing declined to confirm whether Xiao was a Canadian citizen, or whether it had received any recent requests for consular assistance from any Canadian citizens in China.

Hong Kong police said they received a request for police assistance report on Saturday concerning a mainland citizen in the city.

The police statement did not name the person, but it was issued in response to media queries about Xiao. A relative of the mainland citizen asked on Sunday for the report to be withdrawn because the subject told the family member he was safe, the police statement said.

Police said that based on initial investigations, the subject entered the mainland on Friday via one of Hong Kongs boundary control points.

A source said Xiaos wife filed and later withdrew the report to police.

Mingjing News, a New York-based website covering Chinese political rumours, reported over the weekend that an unnamed billionaire who controlled trillions of yuan in assets was captured by mainland police and state security agents in Hong Kong on Friday night.

On Monday, Bowen Press, an offshoot of Boxun, another overseas website for Chinese political rumours, reported that Xiao had been taken away for opposing the Communist Partys leadership. But sources conflicted on whether Hong Kong police were involved in the operation, the report said.

(Financial Times) January 31, 2017.

Mr Xiao was abducted from the Four Seasons hotel in central Hong Kong in the early hours of January 27 by a group of Chinese public security agents, according to people briefed on the incident. At a time when he should have been preparing to celebrate Chinese new year with his family, he was instead whisked across the border into mainland China.

(New York Times) January 31, 2017.

A Chinese-born billionaire who has forged financial ties with some of the country's most powerful families was taken by the Chinese police from his apartment at the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong late last week and spirited across the border, a person close to the businessman said on Tuesday.

The billionaire, Xiao Jianhua, who has been missing since Friday, is in police custody in China, where he apparently is safe, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of arrest.

(CNBC) January 31, 2017.

Mr Xiao was accosted in his Hong Kong waterfront apartment at around 1am on Friday, the eve of Chinese new year, by "five or six plain-clothed Chinese public security agents", who then took him and two of his bodyguards to the mainland, said one person familiar with the investigation.

The Four Seasons has provided Hong Kong police with CCTV footage of Mr Xiao, who is normally followed everywhere by a group of female bodyguards, being led away by the Chinese security agents, the person said. It is unclear what happened inside the room where Mr Xiao was living but there was no scuffle in the hallway or elevator and he appeared to go with them willingly once they all left his room, the person added.

(Apple Daily with video) February 1, 2017.

An authoritative source told Hong Kong's Apple Daily that China did not send any national security agents to Hong Kong because of the sensitivity over the Causeway Bay Books case. This time, they went through Hong Kong triads to take Xiao Jianhua and his wife Zhou Hongwen away.

According to information, the triad gangsters took Xiao and Zhou away on Lunar New Year's Eve and left through the Huanggang port of entry for China. After reaching Shenzhen, Zhou was released and she returned to Hong Kong. Xiao was taken to Beijing/Tianjian for interrogation.

After Zhou Hongwen got to Hong Kong, she filed a police report and contacted the media. Then she received a call from Xiao to tell her not to magnify the case. Zhou canceled the police report and said that her husband has called to say that he is safe and sound.

Financial Times cited an authoritative sources who said that 5 to 6 mainland plainclothes public security bureau agents went to the Four Seasons Hotel at around 1am on Lunar New Year's Eve and took Xiao, Zhou and two female bodyguards to mainland China. The hotel has provided surveillance video to the Hong Kong Police showing Xiao leaving in the company of his female bodyguards and a group of individuals. The process was peaceful.

- (Lam Wing Kee @ Apple Daily) If law enforcement agents came down from China to Hong Kong to make the arrest, it would be a violation of the Basic Law and One Country Two Systems. If mainland China directed triads to break the law, it is another story. This may not be a violation of the Basic Law, but it is just as serious a crime and should be deplored. But when the facts are still unclear in the case of Xiao Jianhua, how can we prove either mainland China enforced the law across the border or directed triads to break the law?

(The Guardian) February 1, 2017.

A billionaire with links to the family of Xi Jinping was reportedly taken from his apartment in the Four Seasons in Hong Kong by Chinese police and taken to the mainland.

Xiao Jianhua, one of Chinas richest men, is currently in police custody on the mainland, the Financial Times and New York Times reported.

(SCMP) February 1, 2017.

A Chinese billionaire who disappeared mysteriously from his luxury Hong Kong hotel over the Lunar New Year weekend is now on the mainland and assisting investigations into the stock market turmoil of 2015 and the case of a former top spy, several sources have told the South China Morning Post.

A source familiar with Xiao Jianhuas movements said the founder of Beijing-based Tomorrow Group was persuaded to cooperate rather than coerced by mainland agents who visited him at his serviced apartment in the Four Seasons Hotel last Friday. It remains unclear in what capacity the mainland agents came to Hong Kong, or which agencies they represented. 

Xiaos company took out a full-page advertisement in a Chinese-language newspaper yesterday, reprinting a statement it released a day earlier claiming he was receiving treatment overseas. Xiao claimed in the newspaper ad to be a Canadian passport holder, although this has not been confirmed. He has also claimed to have a diplomatic passport. Antigua and Barbuda named him ambassador-at-large in 2015, according to a report on news portal Caribbean360.

A source close to the tycoon said Xiao was currently on the mainland and could communicate directly with his family.

Hong Kong police on Wednesday said reports that it was involved in the operation on Friday were purely speculative and carried no truth. The Security Bureau said earlier the Basic Law authorised only local authorities to carry out law enforcement in the city. A bureau spokesman said police had contacted mainland authorities for information.

(SCMP) February 1, 2017.

A source close to missing billionaire Xiao Jianhua told the South China Morning Post that the tycoon is currently in mainland China.

The source, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Xiao could communicate only with his family. His family members can communicate with him. Thats not bad, at least we know he is safe and well.

(SCMP) February 2, 2017.

Missing billionaire Xiao Jianhuas decision to hire an all-female bodyguard team is very unusual, say security experts. Xiao, who is understood to have left Hong Kongs luxury Four Seasons hotel with mainland agents, was seen on video accompanied by two female bodyguards. Previous media reports said he would, at times, have up to eight female bodyguards on each shift.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 2, 2017.

Initium Media, citing a source familiar with Xiao, reported on Wednesday that Xiao Jianhua's wife, Zhou Hongwen, fled to Japan after withdrawing a request for police assistance on his case on January 29 just one day after filing the report.

 

According to Initium, the couple had temporarily moved to Japan in 2016 because they felt Hong Kong was no longer safe after the high-profile case of the suspected kidnapping of Lee Bo. They also made Japan the main base for their businesses.

After Xiao and Zhou received insider information telling them that nothing would happen if they returned [to Hong Kong], they came back to live at the Four Seasons Hotel, reportedly under the protection of security guards.

Yet Hong Kong police while not explicitly naming Xiao have since confirmed that a mainland Chinese citizen entered the mainland through a Hong Kong boundary control point.

Citing CCTV footage, Sing Tao Daily reported that Xiao was taken from his room at the Four Seasons Hotel by six men in plain clothes. He apparently did not make an effort to resist.

On Wednesday, the police issued a statement refuting media allegations that it was involved in the case of suspected abduction. Such reports were purely speculative and carried no truth, it read.

(Reuters) February 2, 2017.

The Hong Kong police said in a statement to Reuters that Xiao had entered mainland China through a border checkpoint on Jan. 27 and that they were seeking more information on the case from Chinese authorities.

A police source briefed on the investigation said the case was initially treated as a "kidnapping" following a complaint from someone connected to Xiao, but after a review of CCTV footage at the Four Seasons and at the border checkpoint, police concluded that Xiao had voluntarily left Hong Kong.

(Today) February 3, 2017.

It reads like the plot of a bad thriller a Chinese billionaire sits with his entourage of female bodyguards in his apartment in the Hong Kong Four Seasons in the early hours of Chinese New Years Eve. The women are employed not only to protect him but also to wipe the sweat from his brow and back.

Suddenly, half-a-dozen public security agents from mainland China burst in, overpower the bodyguards, bundle the billionaire out of the hotel and take him across the border to face the wrath of the Communist party.

But this is not the script for a kung fu potboiler. The billionaire is Mr Xiao Jianhua, one of Chinas most politically connected and wealthy men, and his abduction from the heart of Hong Kongs financial district last Friday has shaken the city to its core.

... Either the Hong Kong government and security services were complicit in the snatching of Mr Xiao or they were negligent in allowing it to happen right under their noses. Hong Kongs status as a global financial centre has now been damaged.

(HK01) February 4, 2017.

An informed source has disclosed more details of the case. On early morning of Lunar New Year's Eve, Xiao Jianhua returned to mainland China in the company of six members of a "powerful department in mainland China." According to information, these individuals had rented a room next to Xiao Jianhua's room in the Four Seasons Hotel for quite some time. They observed that Xiao Jianhua was frequently on the fourth floor with a varying number of bodyguards. So they waited until there were only two bodyguards before they showed up and "invited" him to go to the mainland with them. The hotel security staff was not aware of what was happening.

 

Recently, Xiao Jianhua had increased his security detail to eight bodyguards, including two foreigners. He usually moves around with at least four bodyguards around him. The mainland agents decided that they will not act when there are five or more bodyguards around, because things can get out of control. So they waited until there were only two bodyguards around in the early morning and then showed up. Previously, Financial Times cited a source said that the action took place at around 1pm on Lunar New Year's Eve with five to six plainclothes agent taking part.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

There was no evidence so far that suggested mainland law enforcement agents had acted on Hong Kong soil and taken missing mainland billionaire Xiao Jianhua from the city, Hong Kong police chief Stephen Lo Wai-chung said on Saturday.

More than a week has passed since the high-profile tycoon went missing after leaving Hong Kong for Shenzhen. Lo said the force took the case very seriously and was looking at it from all angles, even though Xiaos wife had withdrawn the missing report to police on the case.

Up to this moment, we have not seen mainland counterparts exercising their authority in Hong Kong, Lo said on a radio programme on Saturday morning. The probe is not over. We will continue to investigate as members of public are concerned about the case.

The police chief, however, refused to say if any triads were involved.

(Apple Daily) February 4, 2017.

Lo Wai-chung declined to comment on the information about Xiao Jianhua being taken across the border by triads. He said that the police will examine all possible angles.

(Mingjing News) February 4, 2017.

According to an authoritative source, Xiao Jianghua was persuaded by an important friend to return to mainland China to assist in the investigation, with guarantees for the safety of both his own person and wealth. The mainland department did not send anyone directly to Hong Kong to pick him up. Therefore, there was no kidnapping as such. This authoritative source also said that Xiao is suffering from all sorts of ailments and will require extensive treatment in mainland China.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

Xiao Jianhua, the Chinese tycoon who vanished from the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong last week and is now believed to be on the mainland assisting several investigations, entered the mainland via normal border control procedures, sources from both the mainland and Hong Kong told the South China Morning Post.

The sources said Xiao, founder of the Tomorrow Group, had been negotiating with mainland authorities about returning to help with investigations including bribery and possible stock market manipulation.

Xiao is allowed to contact his family and is able to direct the business of Tomorrow Group through close associates, the sources said, as the authorities want to contain impact of the case on financial markets. Xiao directly or indirectly controls dozens of financial and insurance companies.

Four visitors from the mainland met Xiao in Hong Kong on January 27 at a prearranged rendezvous, according to the sources, who declined to be identified. He had been friends with two of them for years, and the other two were negotiators he did not know, they said.

One source said none of the visitors were mainland law enforcement personnel. After the meeting, Xiao agreed to go the mainland with them, but requested his two female bodyguards accompany him, one source said. The group of seven left the hotel together, sources who have seen the hotel security footage said.

People familiar with the case confirmed that Xiaos border crossing exit records were in order, making his case different from the Causeway Bay bookstore incident when the booksellers taken to the mainland had no exit record.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

More details of the tycoons disappearance emerged on Thursday as a senior government source with knowledge of the case told the Post that the founder of Beijing-based Tomorrow Group left the Four Seasons Hotel in Central smoothly with two female bodyguards and six other unidentified people in plain clothes at around 3am last Friday.

The group was picked up by two cars, driven by two men, at the main entrance. It was 3pm when Xiao crossed the border into Shenzhen in a vehicle at Lok Ma Chau.

Police are investigating where Xiao went and with whom he met during the 12-hour gap, the source said. Officers are trying to get as much CCTV footage as possible, from private buildings and the government, so as to join the dots and map out his routes before he left the city.

The source did not disclose the model of the cars that picked up Xiao and the others at the hotel, or whether Xiao left for Shenzhen in the same vehicle that picked him up.

One woman was left behind at the Four Seasons Hotel, as Xiao checked in with three women but was last seen leaving the building with two, the source said. The source declined to say whether the woman staying behind at the hotel was Xiaos wife.

(The Daily Beast) February 4, 2017.

A Chinese billionaire exited his harborfront serviced apartment, rode the elevator down to the ground floor, walked through the front door of the luxury hotel where he lives, and promptly disappeared.

For those in Hong Kong, and much of the rest of China, that meek description can bring chills. Xiao Jianhua, who lives in the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong, was most recently seen in the building lobby of his glitzy residence on the eve of Chinese New Year, in the last week of January. Hong Kongs South China Morning Post, once a newspaper of high repute that has been relegated to a dressed-up mouthpiece of the Chinese government, cited an anonymous source who claimed Xiao crossed into mainland China.

(HKG Pao) February 4, 2017.

Legislator Claudia Mo (Civic Party) introduced a motion to hold an emergency hearing on the Xiao Jianhua affair next week. She said that the case involves One Country Two Systems and affects the position of Hong Kong as a financial centre, according to foreign media reports. Legislator Jeremy Tam (Civic Party) supported Mo's motion and said that the Hong Kong government must answer directly whether there had been cross-border law enforcement or triad action.

However, legislator Ann Chiang (DAB) said that Xiao Jianhua was found to have exited Hong Kong on his own and took out an newspaper ad the next day. This meant that he was not kidnapped back to the mainland. Xiao's wife has also withdrawn the police report. Chiang said: "I don't understand why Claudia Mo is even more concerned than Xiao's wife?" Legislator Wong Kwok-kin (FTU) said that the case of Xiao Jianhua is still developing with many unclear points. So one should wait until the outline of the case becomes clearer and we have more facts at our disposal before holding a hearing.

The vote was 33 to 26 not to hold the hearing at this time.

(Bastille Post) February 5, 2017.

According to an informed source, mainland "negotiators" came at 1am on the night of Lunar New Year's eve to meet with Xiao Jianhua at the Four Seasons Hotel in the company of his Hong Kong business associates. The "negotiators" wanted Xiao to go back to the mainland to assist in an investigation of corruption and market manipulation.

In the end, Xiao Jianhua agreed to go back to the mainland to assist in that investigation. The key was that all his mainland friends and relatives were arrested at a Lunar New Year's dinner. If Xiao does not go back, these people were be held legally responsible for the case. After due consideration and negotiating the conditions, Xiao agreed.

When the Hong Kong Police reviewed the Four Seasons security videos, they saw seven persons leaving calmly together. There was no sign of Xiao being held under duress. The group included Xiao Jianhua and two female bodyguards. The "negotiators" agreed to visit a relative of Xiao first, before they crossed over the Huanggang Port. If Xiao was being held under duress, then he could have cried for help when the car across over the Huanggang Port. At that location, the Immigration Department checked the ID and photo of each passenger. Xiao had plenty of opportunity to seek help, but he didn't.

(Next Magazine) February 9, 2017.  Issue# 1405, p.11.

According to an informed source, "He used to have just a few women and one or two bodyguards around him. About three or four months ago, he got wind that something is not right. So he went around in five to six vehicles with twenty to thirty big, strong bodyguards. It was an awesome formation." Unfortunately, the many bodyguards can save him from being ambushed, but they cannot stop the national special agents from knocking on the door and taking him "calmly" away by force.

(SCMP) Dont wail abduction next time someone appears to leave Hong Kong against their will. By Mike Rowse. February 9, 2017.

I think we are going to have to call all the media together and agree which words to use when incidents arise of people moving from Hong Kong to the mainland in circumstances that suggest it may not have been entirely their own idea in the first instance.

You see, when I read the word abduction it conjures up several exotic possibilities, for example alien abduction, as portrayed in some films and TV series, whereby creatures from another planet take the victim into custody on a space ship for examination; or kidnap of a potential bride as apparently practised at various times in the past when the law and order situation was less satisfactory and courting techniques less sophisticated.

Even when the circumstances are more mundane, the implication I get from the word is of a forceful laying on of hands so that a person is removed entirely against his own will from one place where he was peacefully going about his own business and taken to another place. The victim may be unconscious, or rendered helpless in some way through handcuffs or other bindings. He may well be gagged so as to prevent him calling out for help.

All of which is by way of introduction to the recent spate of cases featured prominently in the local and international media. Let us start with the most recent episode, the strange case of prominent mainland businessman Xiao Jianhua.

According to all accounts, Mr Xiao was sitting peacefully in his suite at the Four Seasons Hotel in the company of a number of female bodyguards when he was visited by a group of men. From their appearance, manner and bearing witnesses deduced that the group was from the mainland. Members apparently pushed their way past the bodyguards and had a spirited discussion with Xiao. Subsequently, Xiao got into a private car, accompanied by two of his bodyguards, and was driven to one of the border crossing points where he passed peacefully through immigration and returned to the mainland.

My question is this: is it fair to say that Xiao was abducted? At the risk of being mocked as naive or a stooge of Beijing, I am going to stick my neck out and say I am not so sure. Clearly the conversation in the hotel must have been very persuasive, and may well have included threats and inducements (bad things will happen to your family, or assets, or both, friends only want to talk to you for a few days, then you can come back etc).

So, under pressure certainly, but by force? What kidnapper allows the target to bring his own bodyguards with him? If he was really there under criminal duress, would Xiao not have mentioned it to the immigration officer on the Hong Kong side?

Inevitably, the Xiao stories also brought to mind the case of the five Causeway Bay booksellers. Three of them were clearly not abducted as they were already in the mainland of their own free will when they were arrested.

The case of Mr Lee Po is more suspicious because he apparently did not pass through immigration channels on either side of the border. Notwithstanding Lees own claim later that he had gone voluntarily, I think it is fair to put this one closer to the abduction end of the spectrum. The case of the fifth bookseller, a Swedish national who disappeared from Thailand, seems even more serious.

Why am I making an issue of terminology, perhaps even being a bit pernickety? Simple: I have it on good authority from a reliable source that there have been number of bona fide abductions from Hong Kong, usually in connection with commercial disputes, and often involving corrupt officials on the mainland side.

If we want our police to clamp down on these and protect local citizens, then we need to reserve words like abduction for the more serious cases, not just trot it out casually to spice up a more questionable story.

(New York Times) A Video, a Wheelchair, a Suitcase: Mystery of Vanished Tycoon Deepens. By Michael Forsythe and Paul Mozur. February 10, 2017.

In the early hours of Jan. 27, Xiao Jianhua was taken out of the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong in a wheelchair, his head covered by a sheet or a blanket, according to people were who have seen or been briefed on video footage captured by security cameras in the hotel.

Mr. Xiao, 45, who was not known to use a wheelchair, was accompanied by about half a dozen unidentified men who were also pushing a large suitcase on rollers. He is believed to have been transported by boat from Hong Kong, eluding border controls, and is now in police custody in mainland China, according to two people familiar with the investigation into his whereabouts.

On the night he disappeared, the men in plain clothes were recorded by closed-circuit security cameras entering his suite with a wheelchair and the large suitcase, according to one of the people familiar with the footage.

Some time later, the men emerged from the suite with Mr. Xiao in the wheelchair, along with several women and the suitcase. Mr. Xiao was not struggling but seemed fatigued and his head was covered, according to the people familiar with the video. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the news media or feared retaliation by the Chinese government.

The lobby of the Four Seasons apartment tower is separate from the main hotel, with its own front desk and a single door that opens with a key card. Hotel staff members there questioned the men who left with Mr. Xiao, and they were told that the men were part of his security detail and that he was ill and needed medical attention, the people said.

- Hong Kong Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung said that the investigation by the Hong Kong Island Major Crimes Unit showed that Xiao Jianhua left Hong Kong for mainland China via a land border crossing. By 'investigation', this means (1) the Hong Kong Immigration Department had an exit record for Xiao Jianhua; (2) the Hong Kong Immigration Department had a surveillance video of Xiao Jianhua crossing. The New York Times said that no such thing occurred as Xiao Jianhua went by boat. Why were the Hong Kong Police and/or Immigration Department lying?

- Here is the most basic article about Xiao Jianhua:

(Next Weekly Issue Number 1243, January 2, 2014)

For years, Xiao Jianhua only had this photo on the Internet:

Next Weekly managed to follow him around and got a bunch more photos.


It is in the middle of November with temperature over 20 degrees centigrade, but Xiao Jianhua wore a sweater and a wool cap. When he got in the van, his female assistant wrapped him up in a wool blanket from neck to toe.

Xiao Jianhua paced around the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel, pacing back and forth while speaking on the telephone. His female assistant came up and adjusted his coat like a nanny looking after a child.


Xiao Jianhua usually has three or so young and pretty female bodyguards around him.


In late November our reporter approached Xiao Jianhua to get an interview. Before even getting close, the female bodyguards rushed up to stop the reporter and block the camera. Xiao Jianhua walked away quickly. Xiao's personal secretary later called and suggested an interview by written correspondence. Later the reporter approached him again at the fourth-floor ifc platform and this time Xiao reacted calmly, put his arm on the reporter's shoulder and said, "Let's be good friends."

Xiao Jianhua spoke with a husky voice. He explained that he has a case of laryngitis that has persisted for many years. One of the reasons why Xiao is in Hong Kong is to get medical treatment for this problem. Xiao said that he is not going to do the interview because his throat felt uncomfortable at that moment. Nevertheless he kept talking. "I don't manage what goes on in the company. I am just an advisor for investment. I will read annual reports, I have some general principles. Infrastructure, energy and high technology areas are better." The smiling Xiao insisted on finding another time for the interview. He said repeatedly: "I promise. If I lie to you, let me be a little dog!" But when asked for a method of contact, he smiled and said: "I don't take telephone calls and I don't know how to use a computer." But the reporter said that he is often talking on the telephone. Xiao switched the subject: "You are really cool. Why don't you come and work here? You can help us deal with the deal. Then he said that he has to meet with a client and he ditched the reporter.


Xiao Jianhua (in red wool cap) loves to stroll around the fourth floor platform of the ifc building while talking business. His female assistant always brings a luggage case equipped with a foldable seat just in case Xiaos wants to sit.

(Reuters) February 11, 2017.

Missing China-born billionaire Xiao Jianhua was whisked in a wheelchair from a luxury Hong Kong hotel in the early hours of Jan 27 with his head covered, a source close to the businessman told Reuters.

Xiao was carried into his own car at the entrance to the Four Seasons serviced apartments in the heart of the Asian financial hub in what appeared to be a "smooth operation", another source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

The comments from the sources confirmed a report in the New York Times on the disappearance of Xiao, who has close ties to senior Chinese officials and their families.

Despite a statement issued in Xiao's name over 10 days ago that he was seeking medical treatment overseas and had not been abducted, his disappearance has rekindled fears over Hong Kong's status as an independent judicial entity of China.

"It is uncertain if Xiao was conscious when he left," the second source said, adding that it took at least a few people to carry the billionaire into the car.

"There was no struggle in the whole process. You could even say it was efficient. It was a smooth operation."

Reuters could not independently verify the circumstances at the time Xiao was taken out of the hotel or the condition of his health.

Assistants of Xiao were waiting in the lobby of the hotel's serviced apartments when at least five people, dressed in casual attire, came in, said the second source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The group, which some media have reported were mainland Chinese agents, were escorted to Xiao's room by his assistants and they left shortly after with the businessman and some luggage, the second source said.

The source close to Xiao who said the billionaire left the hotel in a wheelchair said his head was covered with some cloth, but it was not clear what the material was. The source added that as far as he knew Xiao did not use a wheelchair and there was nothing wrong with his legs.

A Hong Kong police source who was briefed on the probe into Xiao's disappearance had previously told Reuters the case was initially treated as a "kidnapping" following a complaint from someone connected to Xiao.

But after a review of CCTV footage at the Four Seasons and at the border checkpoint, police concluded that Xiao had voluntarily left Hong Kong.

They said Xiao had entered mainland China through a border checkpoint on Jan 27 and that they were seeking more information on the case from Chinese authorities.

Police and the Four Seasons did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday.

(Bastille Post) February 14, 2017.

The New York Times report is very different from the Hong Kong Police version. According to the Hong Kong Police, Xian Jianhua went to the mainland on January 27 via a border crossing. But the New York Times quoted two "persons who are informed about the investigation of the whereabouts of Xiao Jianhua" that Xiao was taken by boat to mainland China while skirting any border inspection. If the New York Times is right, then the Hong Kong Police is lying. According to an authoritative source, the New York Times story is "rubbish." The Hong Kong Police version is supported by facts (such as computer records and surveillance videos) but the boat route came from nowhere. According to information, Xiao Jinhua and six other persons (including his two female bodyguards) left the Four Seasons Hotel in two vehicles and went to mainland China via the Lok Ma Chau crossing.

- (SCMP) February 15, 2017.

In response to concerns that Xiao was abducted by mainland agents, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said: No one should speculate on a matter like this, and anyone who has information should provide it to police.

After a report on Saturday that Xiao was believed to have been transported by boat from Hong Kong and eluded border controls, Hong Kong police spokesman Wilson Fok reiterated on the weekend that Xiao entered the mainland via a border control point. Authorities on the mainland have not provided any information regarding Xiao.

(EJ Insight) February 3, 2017.

In a surprise announcement, University of Hong Kong (HKU) vice chancellor Peter Mathieson said he will be leaving his post in January next year, one year before his five-year term ends. Mathieson sent a message to HKU staff, students and alumni on Thursday about his plan, citing personal reasons, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Mathieson, 57, took up the job in April 2014 after serving as dean of the University of Bristol medical and dentistry faculty. He said he decided to leave HKU after extensive consultations with his family, adding he was himself surprised by his premature departure. The departure of one person must not be allowed to derail the progress being made at this great and venerable university, Mathieson wrote.

HKU should continue with the many reforms and modernization to achieve the strategic vision that he and his team had set out for the next 10 years, he said, adding that he is optimistic about HKUs future. "Perhaps most of all, repeatedly during the past three years we have articulated, promoted and defended the universitys core principles during a period of unprecedented political complexity in Hong Kong, ensuring that our students and staff can continue to flourish in an environment that respects their freedom of speech: long may this continue.

Internet comments:

- (EJ Insight) Matheison will take up a similar position at the University of Edinburgh which has announced his appointment. Mathieson receives an annual salary of HK$4 million (US$515,519) at HKU. Timothy OShea, the sitting University of Edinburgh president, was paid HK$2.63 million in 2016.

- Well, well, well. In Hong Kong, the tax rate is 15% so Mathieson's after-tax income was about HK$3.4 million per annum. In Scotland, the tax rate is 35%, so Mathieson's after-tax income will be about HK$1.7 million per annum. Therefore Mathieson will be taking a 50% cut in income. Alternately, he is pissing away HK$1.7 million per annum. What sort of compelling personal reasons were those? Is it worth that much to proverbially "spend more time with the family"?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson added that his new salary would be lower than his current one, but the pay cut was not an important factor.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson cited sentimentality about Edinburgh as a pull factor, saying that the city was his fathers hometown and his family name is of Scottish origin.

- According to the 2016 QRS university rankings, University of Edinburgh is ranked #19 and the University of Hong Kong is ranked #27. According to the 2017 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, University of Edinburgh is ranked #27 and the University of Hong Kong is ranked #43. Therefore Peter Mathieson will be advancing his career.

- Here are the responses from those in authority:

(EJ Insight)  January 3, 2017. The Education Bureau said it was a personal decision by Mathieson, adding HKU can select a successor as quickly as possible in the schools long-term interests and the well-being of students. HKU Council chairman Arthur Li said he respected Mathiesons decision, adding that there was absolutely no political reason behind it.

- There is nothing else that the Education Bureau can say because they know as much or as little as anyone else. HKU personnel issues are left for HKU to handle.

- As for Arthur Li, how can he know that there was "absolutely no political reason" behind it? Is this what he really said? I doubt it. It is more likely that he said: "I am not aware of any political reason."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson said he only discussed the decision with Li for the first time on Wednesday, by which time he had already accepted the job offer. I just informed him of the decision Id made and that I was going to resign, and I resigned later that day, he said.

- Here are the students who made Peter Mathieson's job impossible:

 (EJ Insight)  January 3, 2017. HKU student union president Althea Suen called Mathiesons decision ridiculous and irresponsible while her predecessor, Billy Fung, said Mathieson does not deserve the title of defender of HKU core values. Fung said Mathieson has not done anything beneficial to the school.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Law student Michael Mo, who made headlines in recent months by complaining about alleged vote bribery during a campus election of the HKU Council, slammed the outgoing chief for failing to uphold electoral fairness, safeguard institutional autonomy, and protect students when Billy Fung was arrested by police following a chaotic Council meeting last year.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Billy Fung Jing-en, former student union leader, said Thursday: HKU was merely a stepping stone for [Mathieson] to gain China experience, polish his CV, then leave.

- ( https://www.hk01.com/港聞/69329/-馬斐森辭職-葉建源-活於李國章陰影下-工作無癮 ) Althea Suen said that Mathieson was irresponsible and his resignation will affect the next vice chancellor. She said that Mathieson failed to defend the core values of Hong Kong University, even causing them to be eroded. She said that Mathieson worked against the students: "When the students demonstrate, he summoned the police. He had no idea what the students were protesting or fighting about." This has disappointed the students.

Billy Fung said that Mathieson's resignation is telling the world that HKU has a lot of problems. He is worried that the university management structure is incomplete, with the pro vice chancellor position still unfilled.

- (Oriental Daily) January 3, 2017. Second-year political science student Cheng said that Mathieson should leave as quickly as possible. He said that while Mathieson claimed to be defending academic freedom, he regarded the students as thugs when they engage in political resistance. He said that HKU does not need such a vice-chancellor. He has no hope for the next vice chancellor because none them will promote academic freedom.

- Every day you learn something new. The lesson of this day from student Cheng is: Political resistance = academic freedom.

- When a bunch of students and non-student professional demonstrators surrounded the HKU Council members and screamed: "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him! Kill him!" (see #627), Peter Mathieson called in the police to protect the council members. How did Mathieson fail to defend HKU core values? Is "killing people" a HKU core value?

- (Dictionary.com) Academic freedom:

1. freedom of a teacher to discuss or investigate any controversial social, economic, or political problems without interference or penalty from officials, organized groups, etc.

2. freedom of a student to explore any field or hold any belief without interference from the teacher.

By calling in the police, Mathieson is interfering with the the freedom of the students to explore the theory and practice of "killing people."

- Here are grown-ups speaking:

- ( https://www.hk01.com/港聞/69329/-馬斐森辭職-葉建源-活於李國章陰影下-工作無癮 ) On radio, Legislative Councilor Ip Kin-yuen (education sector) said that he can appreciate Mathieson's decision, because the latter had been living under the shadow of Arthur Li for the past two years.

As an example, Arthur Li met with HKU alumni in November last year and criticized the HKU drop in rankings. At the time, Mathieson could not rebut Li immediately and had to wait until the December Council meeting to cite other rankings to show that HKU's position has been steady. "Arthur Li kept debasing Hong Kong University and the vice-chancellor can only try to patch things up afterwards. This is not an very interesting job." Ip is worried that the next vice-chancellor will have to obey Arthur Li.

HKU Council member Cheung Tat-ming said that he expected this to happen because the situation was forcing Mathieson to consider his direction. At HKU, Mathieson's post was basically overridden by the HKU Council, with more than half of his staff positions not filled yet. Even though Mathieson has many inadequacies, Cheung can appreciate his predicament. Cheung also believes that Mathieson is naive. Cheung said that the selection process of a new vice-chancellor will be led by Arthur Li. If Li wants to focus on rankings and academic research, can the next vice-chancellor meet those goals while maintaining diversity and academic freedom at the university?

- Ip Kin-yuen says that there is nothing unseemly about the drop in QS World University Rankings. Since he can't understand anything but $money$, how about the drop in donations?

(Oriental Daily) December 22, 2015.

For the 2012/2013 academic year, Hong Kong University ran a surplus of $12.3 billion. For the 2013/2014 academic year, the surplus was $2.5 billion. For the 2014/2015 academic year, the surplus dropped more than 50% to $1.23 billion.

For the 2014/2015 academic year, the contribution from the University Grants Committee, tuition income, research revenues, rent incomes, etc all increased slightly. But donations and investment earnings dropped 55% and 44% respectively. Specifically, donations and benefactions went from $1,626,785,000 to $681,949,000.

Reference: The University of Hong Kong Annual Report

If a student studies normally, he/she will complete his undergraduate degree in four years. Professional student demonstrators may take a few years more. In any case, they will have to leave school and enter society. By definition, they are transients. So what do they care about the university rankings? Or donations and benefactions?

- (Hong Kong Economic Journal) February 2, 2017. Professor Yau Shing-tung said: "I have been in America for 47 years. I have never heard of any university letting students become part of the selection committee. In fact, even professors can't join." Using Harvard University as the example, as a professor he received an email invitation from the board of trustees to give his opinion. The board makes the final decision. "A student who had just graduated from secondary school knows nothing about how the university. He has not even learned the foundations. Why does he think that he is qualified to select the university president?"

Yau said that higher education is not democratic to begin with. "If we have a democracy, then why I am your teacher? How come I can decide whether you get a doctorate degree or not? We are not equals, because I know more than you do. Why else would you come and learn from me?"

- (SCMP) Hong Kong losing talent because of bickering and grandstanding. By Alex Lo. February 4, 2017.

In todays no-can-do Hong Kong, bickering and grandstanding is the norm. Is it any wonder that good and smart people are leaving in droves? Soon we will be left with incompetent sycophants and rabble-rousing windbags in positions of power and influence.

News reports on the resignation of University of Hong Kong chief Peter Mathieson have described it as a shock and a surprise. But is it really?

The vice-chancellor once called it the best job in the world; it looks more like one of the worst. Caught between the student Red Guards on campus and the imperious and disruptive Arthur Li Kwok-cheung as council chairman, it must be a total nightmare. Who wouldnt quit for the literally greener and more peaceful pasture of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, over the daily urban jungle warfare in Hong Kong?

Already, the usual suspects are speculating why Mathieson quit two years ahead of his contracts expiry. The pan-democrats claim the pro-government management headed by Li is to blame. Others say its the highly politicised and divisive student body led by a few overly radicalised scholars. They are probably both right. Mathieson says he is quitting for personal reasons, the classic non-explanation when someone of importance prematurely quits his or her job in Hong Kong. A baptism by fire: HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathiesons term marked by political storms and mass protests

His resignation follows a pattern of eminent outsiders who failed to lead such public bodies because of constant infighting. West Kowloon Cultural District Authority CEO Michael Lynch quit in 2015 citing you guessed it personal reasons. His predecessor Graham Sheffield just bought a plane ticket and skipped town five months into his job. I am not condoning Sheffields behaviour, but can kind of understand it. The arts hub is a classic basket case of a public body led astray by bad government policymaking and constant politicising by the opposition.

HKU will soon have to launch a global search for a replacement. It already has two unfilled senior posts those of the provost and the vice-president for institutional development. Its telling that it will have so many senior vacancies. As the citys oldest and most prestigious university, you would think people would be fighting over each other for a shot at the top. The university needs more than a scholar or manager, but a real politician and diplomat, to lead it. Good luck finding such a person.

- (SCMP) Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson does not deserve Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. February 7, 2017.

Peter Mathieson doesnt deserve Hong Kong. Thats what I say. Everyone is aghast that hes prematurely quitting as University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor for a similar job at the University of Edinburgh. But so what? Our academic freedom thrived long before we ever heard of him and itll survive long after hes gone.

His exact words in quitting were: There are very few universities in the world that could have tempted me to leave HKU but Edinburgh is one of them. Translation: HKU sucks compared to Edinburgh. That makes him an opportunist.

HKU hired him in 2014 from Bristol University at an inflated salary, which he jumped at. We need to wonder if he would have landed the Edinburgh job if he was still medicine and dentistry dean at Bristol. The prestige of HKU acted as a stepping stone.

Mathieson said he would be taking a big pay cut but money is not the most important thing. Very noble. But the point is not that Edinburgh will pay him less. Its why HKU paid him so much. He gets nearly HK$6 million a year, double what hell get at Edinburgh. If such extravagance sounds familiar, think of Jay Walder.

The MTR hired him in 2012 to run our railway at a bloated yearly salary of over HK$7 million, plus several million more in bonuses. It was far more than the HK$3 million he got as head of New York Citys subway system. Walder naturally jumped at it. He screwed up so badly that the MTR let him go after just two years but still gave him a golden handshake of a years pay.

Similar extravagance was extended to expatriates who came and prematurely quit top jobs at the West Kowloon Cultural District. This is what we are suckers who either cant produce our own talent or have no faith in them. We pay top dollar to outsiders who either cant handle the job or use us as a stepping stone.

Mathieson was treated by some as the great white hope against meddling in academic freedom by HKU Council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. It has been over a year since Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying named Li as chairman. I dare anyone to come forward with credible proof, not politically biased claims, that academic freedom at HKU has declined.

- (Sing Tao) February 6, 2017. The Hong Kong Student Union is demanding that a full-time undergraduate student and a full-time graduate student be included on the Vice Chancellor Selection Committee.

- Why? The students are not competent to assess the academic achievements and research accomplishments of the candidates. For that matter, they are not competent to assess the management ability and administrative experience. The only question that they can ask is: "If the students lay siege to the Hong Kong University Council and refuse to let council members leave upon threat of violence, will you summon the police to come on campus? Yes or no?" And then they will veto anyone YES man/woman.

(EJ Insight) Why democrats should choose lesser evil and support CE bet. By SC Yeung. February 3, 2017.

The nomination process for the chief executive election will kick off in two weeks time.

Carrie Lam appears confident of obtaining more than the required 150 nominations from the pro-Beijing camp to qualify as a candidate, while other aspirants may still be struggling to gather enough support from election committee members to be able to join the race. While Beijing loyalists appear to be backing Lam at John Tsangs expense, the opposition members in the election committee seem divided.

Thats not what many ordinary Hong Kong people expect from the pan-democrats. They want their representatives in the electoral panel to use their 300 votes well by supporting Tsang or any of the other candidates to make the decidedly small-circle election more competitive. They dont want Lam to become Hong Kongs next leader without even breaking a sweat.

However, some democrats such as legislator Eddie Chu are against nominating any of the four aspirants, preferring instead that their representatives in the election committee cast blank ballots to register their anger over an election where the true voice of the people is ignored.

But is boycotting the nomination and election process a good way to advance the cause of democracy?

On Thursday a coordinator for strategy of the more than 300 pan-democrats in the election committee said theres a big chance the bloc will nominate former financial secretary John Tsang or retired judge Woo Kwok-hing as a candidate in next months chief executive election.

Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok said Tsang and Woo hold views that are closer to the values and beliefs espoused by the pan-democratic camp, compared with former chief secretary Carrie Lam and New Peoples Party chair Regina Ip.

Kwok said he hopes the two could join the race to make it more competitive. Pan-democratic members of the election committee have yet to meet the chief executive contenders before coming to a final decision.

He said any candidate the group nominates should either satisfy or at least not violate three principles someone who could unite Hong Kong, protect the core values of the SAR and restart the political reform process outside of Beijings Aug. 31, 2014 framework.

With more than 300 votes in the committee, the pan-democrats should be able to nominate their own candidates and spur establishment candidates to focus on key issues, such as how to push forward Hong Kong democracy and how to stop the disqualification of democratically elected lawmakers.

But should the pro-Beijing camp focus their awesome nominating power of more than 600 votes on Lam, other aspirants would have less chances of making a good showing in the electoral fight. To ensure that Lam will face a tough election, the pan-democrats have the responsibility to send either John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing, or both, to the race.

Such a situation would prompt the candidates, including those supported by the pro-Beijing camp, to be more aware of what the Hong Kong people expect of them, and to seek their support.

In fact, several pan-democratic members of the election committee, who are pushing for genuine universal suffrage, have made it clear that they wouldnt support an aspirant who will accept Beijings political reform proposal. They insist that candidates who dont oppose the Aug. 31, 2014 roadmap have no right to join the race.

These electors still remember their experience in the 79-day Occupy Movement of 2014, and believe that the peoples sacrifices in those protests should not just go to waste. However, the fact remains that the candidates could not just ignore Beijings roadmap as the central government is ultimately ruling Hong Kong. If the pro-democracy electors could not accept this reality, they might as well quit the committee and not participate in the election at all.

In fact, the pan-democrats have been debating whether to adopt a lesser evil approach and nominate a candidate whose values and beliefs are closer to theirs, or simply cast blank ballots and thus abandon their right to nominate a candidate. Based on the chief executive hopefuls track records, it could be said that both Tsang and Woo are preferable to Lam and Ip.

One point worth mentioning is that Tsangs suggestion of developing land in the New Territories both for the village houses of indigenous people and flats under the governments home ownership scheme originated from lawmaker Edward Yiu, who is opposed to the lesser evil approach.

Writing in his blog, commentator Martin Oei said Tsang is the only candidate who has adopted some policy initiatives from the democratic camp as part of his campaign platform. That being the case, shouldnt Tsang be considered a better chief executive material than Lam and Ip?

The democrats, in fact, can listen to their supporters views via a public nomination process initiated by Benny Tai of the University of Hong Kong, which will be held from Feb. 7 to 22. That could be the best way to engage the public in this small-circle election. And the democrats will have no choice but to abide by the results. If most of their supporters cast blank ballots during the nomination, then they should abandon their nominating right. But if their supporters signify their preference for a candidate or more than one candidate, then they should follow the peoples choice.

The democrats in the election committee should understand the rules of the game. They are participating in a small-circle election not to show that they have the moral high ground but to show their strength to fight the combined forces of the Liaison Office and the Beijing loyalists. Lets be clear about that matter.

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 1, 2017.

Strategically, the Chinese Communists are preparing to make four moves in Hong Kong.

1. Divide the pan-democrats (by absorbing the moderates and destroying the radicals)
2. Cause the people to abandon the pan-democrats
3. Eliminate the pan-democrats altogether
4. Unify Hong Kong under Communist rule

We can see how the Chinese Communists have been sapping the pan-democrats from the emergence of the Localist movement and its subsequent schisms. By positioning the Localists as standing for Hong Kong independence and by using the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 (against the two Localists' Legco oaths of office), the Chinese Communists have set up the Localists on the opposite side against the people.

The Chinese Communists are now going to use the Chief Executive election to further the takedown of the pan-democrats.

At this time, the pan-democrats are faced with a dilemma:

1. If they don't vote for John Tsang, the people will condemn them for not respecting the people's will.

2. If they vote for John Tsang who becomes Chief Executive, then Tsang will enter with high public support and the pan-democrats will lose their selling point. Besides, how can you vote for someone and immediately turn around to obstruct all his policies?

Some people think that those people with high principles are detached from practical reality. In fact, the opposite is true. The pan-democrats are in fact most concerned about the practical consequences.

If and when John Tsang is elected, the pan-democrats will be divided:

1. The moderates will join the establishment, with some of them even taking government jobs.

2. The right-wing and the ardent pro-democracy activists will leave in disappointment and even retaliate/boycott against the pan-democrats.

3. The remaining pan-democrats will lose support. The citizens want to rehabilitate/recuperate/recover as John Tsang says. The voices of opposition will die down. John Tsang will initially avoid the more controversial issues (such as constitutional reform) and focus on livelihood issues to enhance his public support. The pan-democrats will find it impossible to fight a popular government head on. Their seats will be eventually taken over by the pro-establishment camp.

The 327 pan-democratic elector votes are a bait and the two Evils (John Tsang and Carrie Lam) becomes a trap for the pan-democrats. This may not have been the original plan of the Central Government, but they definitely don't mind reaping the harvest now.

Can the dilemma be solved? If the pan-democrats don't vote for John Tsang, the citizens say that they will pay the pan-democrats back in the next elections. They may even vote for the pro-establishment camp just to spite the pan-democrats.

The Civic Party is divided in their opinions, Demosisto does not want to vote to John Tsang, Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung and Albert Cheng indicate that they may also run for Chief Executive ... this means that some people have discerned that there is a serious problem now.

- (The Stand News) February 3, 2017.

The pan-democrats probably didn't expect that they would leap from the ecstasy of winning 327 seats on the Election Committee to the dilemma of choosing between two Evils now. Some of them want to stick to their principles and ideals, while others want to be pragmatic. Before they even cast their votes, they are seriously divided and the people are displeased with them. Regardless of what happens, some people will abandon the pan-democrats afterwards. The Central Government may not have planned this originally, but this outcome suits them just fine.

... The citizens want to rehabilitate/recuperate/recover. That is not wrong. The problem lies with the pan-democrats.

The biggest mistake of the pan-democrats is that their goals were fuzzy. In order to win over the largest number of supporters, the pan-democrats usually embrace as many issues as possible including many unrealistic goals. This allows them to win support across the entire political spectrum. For example, the Democracy 300+ has three principles:

1. No support for the re-election of CY Leung
2. Oppose the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee and restart the process for double universal suffrage as soon as possible
3. Defend Hong Kong core values

That was how they won 327 Election Committee seats by promising different things to different voters. So now they are in a situation in which some people want principles and others want pragmatism, some people want war and others want peace. So whatever the pan-democrats eventually do, some people will be crying betrayal and deception.

This mistake had appeared previously during the Umbrella Revolution. The supporters had varying demands: some people want genuine universal suffrage, some people want CY Leung to leave office, some people sympathize with the students, some people oppose police violence, some people are anti-Communist, some people are anti-social, etc. Because the pan-democrats could not lead the masses with clearly articulated principles and goals, the movement was doomed to fail.

- Civic Party legislative councilor Dennis Kwok Wing-hang on TVB, showing us how to "have one's cake and eat it too":


"When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person"

(HKG Pao) February 3, 2017.

Yesterday on television, Dennis Kwok said: "We received a lot of feedback that the most basic expectation of the people of Hong Kong is that there must be a competitive election. Thus, we deal with the nomination and the election separately. When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person. Therefore, we still have a great deal of hope for his position on the August 31st resolution." [Kwok did not specify whether this 'he' is John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing.]

Film director Ko Chi-sum responded on Facebook: "'When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person.' Whoever said this is suffering from split personality. So this lawyer is saying: Just because you and I were down at the marriage registry does not mean that I am marrying you."

- Kwok says: "I nominate him but I don't support him. However, I hold great hopes about him." I am the one who is going to get a case of split personality the more I listen to people like him.

- "The nomination is completely different and separate from the election"? When I heard this, I thought that I must be hallucinating.

- First, they tell us that one-person-one-vote based upon the August 31st resolution is totally unacceptable because it is a universal standard to have one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. 32 countries in the world have it, so must we. Without civil nomination, it will still be a "small-circle election" restricted to a few candidates screened by the Chinese Communists through the 1200-person Election/Nomination Committee. Therefore they cast the veto. That is why we wind up with the same Chief Executive election system this year as before.

Now that the election is here, they actually competed and won 327 seats on the Election/Nomination Committee and they are debating and rationalizing their strategies in this "small-circle election" that they previously denounced.

Fuck! So why didn't they accept the August 31st framework and take universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote) just as the United States and the United Kingdom recommended, and then come back to fight for the seats on the Election Committee? All they had to do was to round up 150 nominations for John Tsang and the people will elect John Tsang via one-person-one-vote!

- You want to know why they are wasting your time? It's because they want your money. The longer it takes to reach "genuine universal suffrage", the more money you are going to donate to them!

- Which orange is less rotten to the pan-democrats?

- Look7s Facebook

Not supporting John Tsang means supporting Carrie Lam?

I only know that John Tsang supports the August 31st resolution and Article 23.
I want genuine universal suffrage.
I reject you!

- (The Stand News) By Wan Chin. February 5, 2017.

Only evil people will choose the less evil politicians. The people of Hong Kong are supporting John Tsang who had supported the legislation of Article 23 and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee because he likes to watch Hong Kong soccer and he is sympathetic to the amount of homework assigned to elementary school children (who study at the schools which receive vast amount of subsidies given to them by the Secretary for Finance John Tsang).

Carrie Lam also supported the legislation of Article 23 and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. But she does not watch Hong Kong soccer and she has no sympathy for elementary school children.

The most evil rulers in history are the Chinese Communists. Any Hong Kong politician is automatically less evil when compared to the Chinese Communists. Therefore, as far as these born slaves are concerned, we can forget freedom/democracy because any dickhead can rule over these slaves.

- Wan Chin Facebook

Why is John Tsang being supported by the treacherous pan-democrats? John Tsang is a believer in small-government/big-market. Small-government/big-market means meting out public powers to financial groups and privatizing government services. The privatization of Link REIT, the merger of the train/subway services, Mandatory Provident Fund, selling off public housing, privatizing education, outsourcing cleaning/security services, commercializing healthcare, internationalizing the universities, privatizing columbaria, privatizing welfare services ... Haven't you had enough already? How dumb can Hongkongers be to donate money to John Tsang?

What was being done here? Damn it! This is known as neoliberalism ... I must congratulate the people of Hong Kong. The 300+ pan-democratic votes should be fucking handed over to John Tsang. The people of Hong Kong should remember to find nails for their coffins.

- (SCMP) John Tsang the most imperfect of our imperfect leadership hopefuls. By Alex Lo. February 13, 2017.

Among most pan-democrats, John Tsang Chun-wah is considered the lesser of two evils if it comes down to a choice between him and Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor for chief executive. He is also, presumably, better than Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a dark horse in the race.

Evil is a strong word. For the record, I dont think the three of them are evil in the theological sense of the word. But lets play along with the pan-democrats semantics. I would think Tsang is the evilest of them all. Why?

Evil requires agency; you choose to do something bad. So what are the worst things that have tainted the government careers of the three leadership hopefuls? With Ip, its the failure to pass a national security law required under Article 23 of the Basic Law on sedition, secession and subversion in 2003, when she was security secretary. For Lam, the former chief secretary, it would have to be the democratic reform debacle in 2015. And for Tsang? His misestimates of the budget year after year leading to massive giveaways that are surely among the most wasteful in the annals of public finance. I would argue that Tsang has done far more damage to Hong Kong than the other two.

If you believe we have a constitutional duty to achieve universal suffrage under the Basic Law, then we have no less a constitutional obligation to enact a national security law. In fact, if we had done so in 2003, there would have been less mistrust between the city and the central government, which might have imposed a less restrictive framework on the failed electoral reform package. Ip didnt pick the job; Article 23 was handed to her.

As for the failed reform package, once Beijing had imposed its restrictive conditions, there was nothing Lam could do as its chief saleswoman in Hong Kong other than taking the blame.

By contrast, Tsang chose to give away HK$220 billion between 2007 and 2014, most of which ended up going to the moneyed and propertied classes. And this is the guy who thinks we need to save for the future so we shouldnt spend on welfare, health care or anything to improve our living standards.

For misusing the public coffers and impoverishing us at a time of plenty, I say Tsang is pretty much disqualified from the top job.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Congratulations to chief executive candidate John Tsang, the lesser of two evils? By Kent Ewing. February 14, 2017.

Congratulations to John Tsang Chun-wah, who in his nine years as Hong Kongs finance chief could not forecast an accurate budget and whose biggest idea during that time was to put 16 overpriced food trucks on our already overcrowded streets.

Five dumplings for HK$40? No thanks.

And yet, according to recent opinion polls, by a double-digit margin this is our citys most popular choice to become the next chief executive. How did a man of such demonstrably limited accomplishment and ability become the peoples choice to save Hong Kong from the suffocating grip of the central government on the one hand and the chaotic fantasies of localists on the other?

Tsang, 65, may not have many highlights to boast about in his 35 years as a Hong Kong bureaucrat, but he has shown an astute feel for the changing political pulse of the city. Indeed, although he only recently announced his candidacy to be Hong Kongs next leader, he has spent the past year using his weekly blog, Facebook page and public utterances to create a softer, more pro-Hong Kong image than his former boss and current chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, widely perceived as a Beijing puppet who as a matter of course puts the interests of the Chinese leadership ahead of those of the 7.3 million people who live here.

For Gods sake, Leung wouldnt even go so far as to support the citys football team in its World Cup qualifying matches against China, making it look like Tsang was bravely defying the powers-that-be in Beijing by openly cheering for the local squad.

That hardly makes Tsang a political genius, but Leungs tone-deaf response to the people he is supposed to serve has allowed the man once dubbed Mr. Pringles (due to his uncanny resemblance to the famous crisp mascot) to now cast himself, by comparison to Leung, as Mr. Everyman, even if that perception is light years from the truth. Mr. Everyman, for example, does not define the middle class as people who, like himself, drink coffee, enjoy French movies and (before his December resignation as finance secretary) earned HK$319,000 a month.

Talk about tone deafbut, again, five years of comparisons with the reviled CY have inevitably redounded to Tsangs favour. Vis-a-vis his foremost rival in the CE electionformer chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who remained lockstep loyal to Leung during her nearly five years as the citys No. 2 officialTsang also appears as the populist more in tune with the hopes and dreams of ordinary Hong Kong people while Lam is Beijings new chosen one denounced by a growing army of critics as CY 2.0.

This newly minted Tsang image is tempting pan-democrats, who have traditionally condemned the small-circle CE election as a farce and run a protest candidate of their own, to throw their support behind Tsang this time around even as one of the more radical and histrionic members of the pan-dem camp, Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, contemplates jumping into the contest.

The pan-dems control a quarter (326) of the 1,194 seats on the Election Committee, enough to possibly be a kingmaker in a Lam-Tsang contest but not enough (601) for one of their own to be elected.

But would pan-dem support for Tsang legitimise a farcical election and undermine the camps claim to be the standard bearers for true democracy in the city, as Long Hair claims, or would such a move be a savvy acknowledgement of political reality in a choice between the lesser of two evils?

It should be noted here that Long Hairwho pledges to join the race if he receives nominations from at least one percent (37,790) of the Hong Kong electorate in an ongoing unofficial public nomination campaignhas excoriated his pan-dem colleagues in the past for putting up CE candidates (namely the Civic Partys Alan Leong Kah-kit and the Democratic Partys Albert Ho Chun-yan) who he maintained lent legitimacy to Beijings control of the Election Committee and thus to the undemocratic final result. Now he wants to be that candidate? Go figure.

Anyway, whether Long Hair receives 37,790 nominations or notand he probably willit is hard to imagine most pan-dems supporting as a serious CE candidate a man whose political career has itself been largely defined by farce and folderol.

Tsang will continue to court moderate pan-dems with his mildly populist rhetoric while at the same time shoring up his support in the business community. Meanwhile, he is likely to maintain his lead over Lam in public opinion polls as she suffers the double curse of being considered CYs most loyal underling and Beijings golden girla lethal public-relations combo in todays Hong Kong.

As for the other pro-establishment candidate hoping to lead the city, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yees campaign has failed to gather enough steam to make her a contender; embarrassingly, in a South China Morning Post survey released last week, public support for the former security tsar even lags behind that of retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, whose quixotic quest has been largely ignored by the movers and shakers in Hong Kongs business and political circles as well as by much of the public.

That leaves the popular Tsang, the Beijing-anointed Lam and an Election Committee over which, even with its increased pan-dem membership, the central government still exercises sufficient control to assure that its chosen candidate wins.

Will Beijing force Lam on the people of Hong Kong or maybe, just maybe pull back in the interest of restoring some semblance of harmony and stability and allow Tsang to become the citys fourth chief executive?

And, indeed, if the latter small miracle were to occur, it would need to be followed by a somewhat larger one: Tsang would have to be equal to the task.

Do you support/oppose the following Chief Executive candidates:
John Tsang: 56.6% support, 19.9% oppose
Carrie Lam: 45.9% support, 37.1% oppose
Woo Kwok-hing: 27.9% support, 39.7% oppose
Regina Ip: 24.7% support, 54.5% oppose

If the Chief Executive election were to take place tomorrow and these are the only candidates, who would you vote for?
John Tsang: 38.0%
Carrie Lam: 35.3%:
Woo Kwok Hing: 10.1%
Regina Ip: 7.3%
None of the above: 5.4%
Don't know/hard to say/no opinion: 3.9%

(YouTube) Man attacked by tiger at zoo in Ninggo, East China

(Shanghaiist) January 30, 2017.

A man was mauled to death by tigers in front of his wife and kids at a zoo in Ningbo on Sunday after allegedly climbing into their enclosure by mistake while trying to avoid paying for an entrance ticket. The man surnamed Zhang was visiting the zoo with his wife, kids, his coworker surnamed Li and Li's wife. Li told CCTV News yesterday that while the women and children bought tickets and entered the zoo normally, both the men decided to try their luck scaling the zoo's 3-meter-tall outer wall, despite warnings and wire netting.

Once over, Zhang continued on, scaling the next 3-meter wall in their path, unassumingly hopping down inside the tiger enclosure. Li did not follow his friend. What happened next was horrifying caught on video. Footage circulating online show a pack of tigers surrounding Zhang before staff used fireworks and water guns to scare them away. However, one tiger remained unperturbed and continued to drag Zhang away. Eventually, workers shot and killed the tiger and carried Zhang out of the enclosure. In total, the rescue took over an hour. Zhang was rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment where he succumbed to his injuries and died.

Since then, mourners have flooded onto Chinese social media. Not for Zhang, but for the tiger that was killed. "A fucking idiot climbs over two walls into a tiger's home and the tiger gets shot and killed for doing what is natural. How is that fair? They should have just let him die," argued one among many netizens who have criticized the zoo's response.

Internet comments (from Hong Kong):

- (Bastille Post Facebook)

- They should have used the policy at South African wildlife parks. If a person is injured while intruding into the park, they should shoot the person rather than the animal on humanitarian grounds. The animal is not at fault. Tolerating human mistakes merely means that they will persist.

- It is so fucking sad for the lion. The mainlander deserves no sympathy.

- It is alright for you to die. But you also caused the tiger to die with you.

- So sad for the tiger!

- Japanese soldier in TV show:

"No Chinaman is ever innocent"

- The meaning of the whole incident is that Chinese people must never climb the wall (and visit the Internet world outside).

- He climbed the wall in order to avoid paying the admission fee. He deserves to die.

- Beast eats beast. This is business as usual.

- The family will demand reparations because the zoo wall was only 3 meters tall. If the wall was 5 meters tall, Mr. Zhang would still be alive.

- (HKG Pao)

- Apart from "He fucking deserves to die" I can think of nothing else to say.

- Mainlanders are mostly stupid, ignorant, lacking in the sense of crisis, unable to properly deal with things, barbarously unreasonable. The policies and reactions of the administrators were also incompetent ... that is what they are mostly. So pathetic.

- There are too many fake products in China. This guy probably thought that it was a paper tiger.

- Mainlanders will do anything. Last time, a woman got out of the car and got hauled away by a tiger. Here is another case.

- Being an animal is very unsafe in mainland China. The tiger did nothing wrong. The man went in to provoke the tiger. The tiger attacked the man in order to defend its turf and companions. Why did the tiger have to die? Sooner or later, these people are going to kill off all the animals at the zoo.

By midday, there were most than 10,000 LIKE's/SMILEs for this post compared to fewer than 800 SADs. Is this an incident to LIKE? Does the man deserve to die just because he is a mainlander? Do people become cold-blooded and inhumane when they read Apple Daily too often?

So far the story about the man named Zhang has multiple versions. One version has it that he went in there to save his son. Would you be ashamed to have said that Zhang deserves to die? Can't you wait for the investigation to finish and all the facts are known?

- (Apple Daily) January 29, 2017.

- According to an eyewitness, a zoo keeper was feeding the tigers at the time. A male tourist leapt over the fence and went up to tease the tiger up close. The tiger pounced and bit the tourist. The other tigers also surrounded the tourist. According to other tourists, the tiger hill is separated from the viewing area by a river. The tourist would have to traverse the river in order to reach the tiger.

- Mainland tourists want to touch and feel everything that come across. It is fortunate in this case that only one person has died. This is an improvement of sorts already.

- Mainlanders can't tell the difference between cats and tigers.

- In summary
(A) it is the fault of the tiger
(B) the zoo should never have any real tigers in there
(C) the zoo should use the public address system to remind people not to provoke the tigers every 5 seconds
(D) the zoo did not feed the tiger
(#) the zoo did not instruct the tiger not to play with tourists

- The Shina animal fucking deserves to die. It is a tragedy for the tiger to be killed. I hope that the Shina animal race will be exterminated.

- Maybe the guy wanted to commit suicide, so he tried to do the tiger a favor by offering himself as food. Unfortunately the zoo keepers killed the tiger in order to save the guy.

- This is good news for the Lunar New Year to see a Chinaman eaten by a tiger.

- What a stupid man! Even kids know not to provoke a tiger! But an adult does not know that! He deserves to be bitten to death by the tiger!

- "It was reported that the tiger has been killed." That can't be true. The tiger is a Class I protected animal in mainland China. Even if a human life is at risk, the zoo keeper cannot shoot to kill a tiger. According to the news report, the zoo keepers used firecrackers, water guns, etc to chase away the tigers. They did not use hunting rifles. If the tiger died, the zoo would have no legal defense.

- Stupidity has no cure, especially when it is embedded in the genes.

- This is the typical egocentricity of mainlanders. They think that they are the center of the universe and everything has to go as they wish.

- Tigers are a rare species which must not be touched. There are 1.4 billion mainlanders, so killing a few is immaterial.

- Every time that a bad thing happens, there is a battle of words between Hongkongers and mainlanders. If this incident occurred anywhere else in the world, we would just be saying RIP. But since the deceased is a mainlander, we end up with tons of racist comments.

- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook

Whose fault was it?

The zoo, because they charge high admission fees and force people to commit crimes

The zoo, because they did not build an intrusion-proof facility

Mr. Zhang, because he climbed the wall in order not to pay the admission fee like he should. [In like manner, when someone gets electrocuted by sticking two fingers in the wall plug, it is always the fault of the electricity supply company.]

The tiger, because it was not tamed.

Humankind, because one should never capture animals to exhibit for profit.

In summary, it is society's fault. It always is.

- (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2017. According to the relative Mr. Yang, "No matter what, Mr. Zhang went in over the back wall. The zoo management was negligent because they allowed the opportunity. If they gave no opportunity, nobody would have tried to scale the wall. Since the zoo was negligent, people were tempted to scale the wall and avoid paying the admission fee."

- If you rob the bank because you saw a flaw in the security system, does that mean that it was all the bank's fault? If you get arrested, can you blame the bank for everything?

- When you want to think that way, no high wall can hope to stop you from fulfilling your own death wish.


Surveillance video screen capture

(SCMP) January 30, 2017.

Street food lovers and hawkers ushered in a peaceful Year of the Rooster with thousands enjoying delicacies and soaking up the atmosphere in Mong Kok over the first two nights of the Lunar New Year, but not without a heavy police presence.

According to a police source, around 300 police personnel were on the ground to patrol the Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po districts. Most were stationed in Mong Kok, the scene of a riot last year, which saw more than 100 officers injured. Some 200 were scheduled to be deployed in the two districts last night.

Hours into the first day of the Year of the Monkey last year, protesters hurled bricks, set fires and clashed with police. Radical localists alleged the riot began as a protest against a crackdown on illegal street food hawkers, but health minister Dr Ko Wing-man countered that food safety inspectors were merely patrolling the area.

In contrast, the atmosphere was lively and orderly in the area on Saturday, the first day of the Lunar New Year, and up to 10pm yesterday. Some 20 hawkers set up each day along Portland Street, outside Langham Place.

A first-time hawker, who wished to be known only by his surname Lo, said he was a little worried about setting up stall in the area after the Mong Kok riot, but felt that it is only Lunar New Year with hawkers around, so he decided to go ahead with it. Lo said there were hundreds of police officers around on Saturday night, taking down the ID numbers of some of the hawkers, but no arrests were made.

Another hawker, who did not wish to be named, said Portland Street was closed to vehicles on Saturday night. While he thought the heavy police presence dampened the festive spirits a little, he acknowledged that officers helped to keep order, with thousands of people streaming through the stretch of Portland Street outside Langham Place.

A customer said he enjoyed the lively atmosphere created by the hawkers, and was relieved that there was no repeat of last years riot. I grew up eating local street food from hawkers and this is an important part of Hong Kong culture, he said.

Internet comments:

- HK Discuss Forum Facebook

Here are some observations along Portland Street near Langham Place (Mong Kok).

First of all, the snacks are extremely expensive. $15 for a stick of squid; $30 for a small bag of fish balls; $20 for two pieces of stinky tofu; $18 for a small bottle of coconut juice. The prices are at least 50% more expensive than at the food stall located around the corner.

The food stall pays very expensive rent. The unlicensed vendors pay zero rent. When the unlicensed vendors are charging 50% more than the food stall, it is not standard economics in operation. Somebody is taking advantage of the fact that citizens are willing to pay a premium for inferior products during the Lunar New Year period.

Next, the situation is undesirable and dangerous to the general public. The unlicensed vendors are not inspected for hygiene by Food and Environmental Hygiene inspectors on a regular basis. An Internet user said that he and his girlfriend got diarrhea after eating there. Some of the unlicensed vendors used open fire from liquefied gas containers to barbeque meat and vegetables. An explosion from a gas leak would be disastrous in such a crowded area. Other unlicensed vendors used boiling soup on their carts, such as the curry sauce for the fish balls. If the cart gets tipped over, the boiling soup may land on passersby.

Next, an Internet user saw photography equipment being unloaded from a van. A woman with a backpack then came with a cart of fish balls to be filmed. Two foreign men then came with a cart with grilled barbequed meat. The two men clearly had never done this before. Both carts were spanking brand new. So the woman and the two men were most likely actors hired for the making of a documentary on The Fishball Revolution v. 2.0.

Next, the unlicensed vendors are far too orderly in the manner in which they spaced themselves out. A free market would require some time before the economic actors sort out their differences to achieve an equilibrium. Instead, everybody knew exactly where they were supposed to go. Clearly, everything was arranged by an invisible Black Hand. So which triad gang took charge here? Wo Shing Wo? 14K? or Sun Yee On? How much are they being paid per vendor?

Finally, late into the night, the unlicensed vendors packed up and depart, leaving behind mounds of garbage.

The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department hired several dozen cleaners to remove the garbage and clean up the streets. That was when the Siu Lai Cleaning Company team sent by Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai showed up and posed for the camera showing them cleaning the streets as if the FEHD never did anything.

(Video) Mong Kok street scene after the unlicensed vendors have left.

- (Oriental Daily) January 28, 2017.

At Siu Wai Wan, a stick of five fish balls cost $15 (or $3 per ball). At Chai Wan, a small bag of sauges, ox tongue and chicken cutlet cost $100. The consensus is that the price is exorbitantly high, given the small quantity and the undistinguished quality. Some of the vendors do not even have a price list: You ask them for the price and they will only say: "$100 for an assorted collection." But some say that this is only once a year, so they are willing to pay.

- Better than highway robbery? It is highway robbery!

- At first, it was reported that League of Social Democrats chairman Avery (The General) Ng had said up a stall under the overhead bridge in Sham Shui Po. But when he learned that the unlicensed vendors were able to set up in Mong Kok, he rushed over there.

(Oriental Daily) January 29, 2017.

The League of Social Democrats' cart was constructed by chairman Avery (The General) Ng himself. According to vice-chairman Raphael Wong, they are selling Happy Oden (Kanto-daki) food and he wishes everybody a happy year ahead. Wong disclosed that they began cooking the soup five days ago, so it is going to be dense and full-bodied.

According to a citizen who sampled the food, "Not much flavor," "The daikon was not sweet enough" and "the shrimp cake is not sweet enough."

- Fucking dickheads! The intention was never to serve good food to the People.

They were afraid that the FEHD/Police would crack down in Mong Kok, so they began operations in Sham Shui Po. After some pioneers took the risk and set up successfully in Mong Kok, they rushed down to reap the harvest.

When they got down there, there were dozens of League of Social Democrats members to look over this one cart. No other authentic vendor had such a stellar cast of public figures.

Then they called the media to come down and take photos/videos. After all, that was the main purpose of the entire project.

The reason for relaxing existing laws against unlicensed vendors during the Lunar New Year period was purely humanitarian. Poor people should be allowed to make some money during festive holidays.

Does Avery Ng look like he needs money? Why is he working a Oden-food cart wearing a light beige suit? The answer is obvious: He will look cool and handsome in the media photos.

Does Raphael Wong look like he needs to sell daikon to eke out a living? Does Tsang Kin-sing look like he needs to sell fish cakes to eke out a living? How much money are these LSD hacks going to make this night? 20 cents? 30 cents? Any money that they make is actually depriving some other truly indigent vendor! And did you know that they were charging HK$40 per order of their Oden food?

As I said before, Fucking dickheads!

- The government ran ads to tell people not to patronize unlicensed vendors because of the public health risks. Here is the reason -- ingesting cigarette ashes can be hazardous to your health!

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat WIng-yin. January 30, 2017.

On Lunar New Year's Day, I went by a certain public housing estate. A group of people were gathered around on an otherwise empty street. I walked up and saw that a grandmother-daughter team was selling Shumai. They were set up on a crudely constructed wooden cart; the shumai were placed on a square oil can. Hygiene was out of the question, and the food was undistinguished. But many people were buying.

There is a certain atmosphere around the Lunar New Year. One may not patronized itinerant vendors normally, but one makes an exception during the Lunar New Year period to help out others.

The shumai on the wooden cart was being sold at $1 apiece. The daughter sold the food while the grandmother collected the money. They were very polite: "Thanks a lot! We give you the best wishes for the year. Please be care because the food is hot. Have a nice day! ..."

It is a wonderful feeling to see an advanced city go back to the order and warmness of a rural village.

When my daughter was young, she asked: "Why are these vendors allowed to set up all over the street? Do they worry about being arrested?" In primary school, she was that unlicensed vendors are breaking the law and that citizens should not patronized them. The exception made during the Lunar New Year taught my daughter that the law should be enforced in a humane manner.

Last year, the Localists started the Brick Riot by using the unlicensed vendors as the cause. From now than on, everybody is intimidated by the mere mention of "vendors". As soon as someone says, "I am a vendor" and "I am only trying to make a living," everybody backs off. Even the police have to provide protection for them.

Over the past few days, the section of Portland Street between Argyle Street and Shan Tung Street has been turned into a pedestrian walk. There are "I want genuine universal suffrage" flags all along the street.

What were the police doing? They blocked the street off with POLICE safety cones, and they protected the law-breaking vendors against any potential trouble.

Previously, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department recommended to the Mong Kok District Council to use MacPherson Field as a Snack Market during the Lunar New Year period. The District Council rejected the proposal because it implied too much noise and congestion to the residents. So now instead of a properly managed market, they want vendors all over the streets. The logic of politicians is always hard to understand.

The itinerant vendors leave behind a pile of filthy garbage, puddles and stains. Who is going to clean it up? Who is paying for it? Are residents blocked from accessing their homes? What danger do the kerosene burners bring to the neighborhood? ... Does anyone care about these problems? Law, humane considerations, special privileges, politics ... our lines are increasingly fuzzy.

Have you seen this Priority Seat Hunter t-shirt around Hong Kong before?

(Wikipedia) Priority Seat

In Hong Kong, Priority seats were first introduced in the MTR in 2009 with the Priority Seats Campaign. The Smiley World Characters, large red stickers with big smiley faces, were stuck on the top of the priority seats so as to attract peoples attention. After the setup of priority seats in MTR, bus companies started to follow. Priority seats were introduced to the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) in May 2011, and then followed by Citybus and New World First Bus (NWFB) in June 2012. In accordance with the press releases, the KMB first introduced priority seats to 87 of their buses. In each bus, several priority seats were located at the front of the lower deck. The headrests of such seats are in green with words of PRIORITY SEAT and symbols of elderly, handicapped, pregnant women, and people with infants or young children to help passengers identify them. Advertisements were also broadcast in order to raise the awareness of passengers to offer seats. Receiving positive and supportive feedback after the 6-month trial, in the year 2012, the KMB decided to have priority seats set up in all of its buses and the headrests of such seats were changed into dark purple.

The tribe of Priority Seat Hunters represent a backlash against this sort of leftist retardism in society. Some young people of Hong Kong believe that they should have equal rights to all seats on public transportation. There is no reason why they should yield these seats to anyone else.

A Priority Seat Hunter is a young person who races to occupy a Priority Seat, even if there are empty non-priority seats available nearby. When asked to yield to persons with special needs, they will say: "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!" and they will not move. They have little or no fear of physical violence because it is highly unlikely that the elderly, the disabled, the physically handicapped, the pregnant women or people carrying infants can beat them in a fist fight.

This is the beginning of a new Equal Civil Rights Movement in Hong Kong. Finally there is something that will make the young people of Hong Kong become famous all over the world as Global Leaders and Thinkers!

- The sign only says "Please offer your seat to anyone in need." It is a request. You are not obliged to fulfill it.

By contrast, this NO SMOKING sign says that there is a HK$5000 penalty. They don't even bother to say "Please."

- I grew up in England, so I had some very British ideas about etiquette and manners. I am glad that you have straightened me out. The next time that I see a "Please Queue Up" sign in Hong Kong, I can just ignore it!

- (Video) It is not just about taking a Priority Seat for yourself. You also have the right to determine who can sit next to you. Here is a young man exercising that right. Seated next to him is a 3- or 4-year-old boy. Our young man minded very much because he wanted more space. So he bellowed at the 3-year-old saying "Stand up! If I touched you, you can report to the police. You stupid dick! Am I not allowed to move?" When the 3-year-old's grandpa demurs, the young man slugs the old man. This is the dawning of the era of the New Hong Kong Human Being.

- (Video) Last night on the 98A bus, a young man and a young woman occupied the priority seats. A grandma using a cane asked them to let her use the seat. They told her: "If you want a seat, you should take a taxi!" "We are all paying the same fare, so why should I yield my seat to you?" They kept cursing her out. So I took my mobile phone out to record their ugly action.

The two principals asked why they were being filmed. I said: "I am going to post this on Facebook and let the world know who you ugly people are." The young man replied in a mocking manner: "Yea, I am so fucking scared!"

The two principals have posted their version in a video in which they explained to the man who took the first video: We were not paying attention at first. That grandma sat down in the seat behind us and began to curse us while slapping the back of our seats. So that was when we told her to take a taxi if she wants to a seat.

- Lewis Loud Facebook

A grandma with mobility problems could not get a seat and a middle-aged Internet user cursed out a young couple for refusing to yield the priority seat. They said: "If you want a seat, you should take a taxi" and "I paid money too so why should I yield my seat?"

Without getting into the details of the case, such incidents will only continue to happen. This is not the first instance, and it won't be the last. Apart from the Epochal conflicts in Hong Kong being particularly serious, this is an unavoidable problem. You cannot not avoid this whether you are in Hong Kong Island, Kowloon or New Territories. The issue is very simple: Why are there so many fucking people in Hong Kong?

You can say that the young wastrels were deliberating causing trouble, or the old wastrels had bad attitudes. This is avoidable if there are fewer people in Hong Kong. If there are plenty of seats for everyone, we wouldn't need to quarrel. At the time when the future of Hong Kong was being negotiated, there were only three to four million people in Hong Kong. At the time, that was already too many. Now we have 7 million. Some bastard even said that Hong Kong needs 10 million people in order to have a future. This crazy bastard's friend now says that he wants to run for Chief Executive.

Seven million can fit in Hong Kong. But the traffic system, leisure facilities and community services cannot take care of everybody. It is very humiliating to live in a Hong Kong with seven million people. You have the money to take the bus, but you can't get a seat. You expect to have to stand, and you need to get into a fight if you want a seat whether you are a justice warrior or an old wastrel. This is the humiliation that we are all accustomed to. There are plenty of people in Japan too, but they cannot compare with Hong Kong. Apart from rush hour, there are always seats even in mega-cities such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. Young people and old people do not have to fight for seats. I can sit in the priority seat while old people sit in ordinary seats. In Hong Kong? You can't get a seat no matter what time you get on.

At the time when Hong Kong was most inundated by the individual travelers, Hong Kong "received" one hundred million visitors each year, including more than 70 million mainlanders. During that period, the Hong Kong subway and other transportation systems were the battlegrounds for the two groups. You can say that establishing the priority seats intensified the conflict.

The American Edward T. Hall defined the notion of interpersonal distance as four groups: intimate distance is 0.5 meters or less; personal distance is 0.5 to 1.5 meters; social distance is 1.5 meters to 3 meters; public distance is 3 meters or more. If you keep letting strangers get inside your intimate zone, you may tolerate it once or twice but you become uneasy, irritable and combative over the long term because human psychology won't tolerate rubbing shoulders.

So the solution is that you either increase the number of seats or you reduce the number of people. Uneasiness and combativeness appear only because there is not enough resources. The precise reason is unimportant. Right now, the four Chief Executive candidates can talk about constitutional reform, August 31st resolution, the TSA test, etc. Whoever can make sure that people don't have to wait 10 trains before being able to get on at Admiralty should be made Chief Executive. Who cares about political issues as long as you can solve the problem of getting around town?

- How do you reduce the number of people in Hong Kong?

How about running extermination camps? You probably don't have the stomach for it, so that is not your Final Solution.

How about expelling all foreign-borns? According to the Census and Statistics Department, 35% of the population of Hong Kong is foreign-born (30% being born in mainland China, Macao and Taiwan). Getting rid of these foreigners means that there will be 35% less volume in all traffic (subway, buses, minibuses, trams, ferries, taxis, etc). You don't need any justification other than good old Sinophobia because the Americans, Europeans, Vietnamese, Indonesians do it all the time.

- Of course, this may be hard to carry out, as some well-known pro-democracy activists (Leung Kwok-hung, Claudia Mo Man-ching, Lee Cheuk-yan, etc), self-determination activists (Nathan Law Kwun-chung, etc) and pro-independence activists (Edward Leung Tin-kei, Cheng Kam-mun, etc) were born in China.

- Great idea! But wait ... it means having to expel my mother! My dad and my brothers are going to kill me if I say that I support this idea! Never mind.

- All foreign-borns? That includes Americans, Brits, French, Aussies, Japanese, Indians, etc. And there goes the NED funding ...

- How does 20-year-old Joshua Wong tell an 85-year-old great grandma who was born in China and came to live here since one month old that he is more "Hong Kong" than her?

How about stopping all visitors from the outside? According to the Tourism Commission, the total number of visitor arrivals is about 60 million (not 100 million as Lewis Loud claimed), of which mainlanders account for 77%.

If the 60 million visitors stay an average of 3 days per person, that would be 180 million visitor-days per year. On the average day, that is 180 million / 365 days or about 500,000 visitors. So Hong Kong will only have to deal with 7.3 million residents but no longer the 500,000 visitors.

We must not forget that these visitors bring in HK$332.3 billion in expenditure. According to Reuters, the fiscal reserves is estimated to be HK$ 870 billion only. The government won't be able to pick up the whole tab. This means that sacrifices will be made. Better you than me, of course.

- Suppose you have 500,000 fewer people than before out of a population of 7.3 million. This is about 7% fewer. If you say that it took ten trains to go by before you were able to get on at Admiralty during rush hour, it will now take you nine trains.

To be able to get on at Admiralty without waiting at 6pm on a weekday, you need to reduce the population by 90%. And at 10pm, you will be the only person on the whole train. And that $10 MTR trip now from Admiralty to Tsim Sha Tsui will cost $100.

- P.S. Those visitors are not just tourists. For example, they could be foreign business people. Are you going to tell Citibank/Bank of America/Goldman Sachs/Morgan Stanley/JP Morgan etc that their foreign employees will no longer be allowed to come to Hong Kong?

That is a rhetorical question and I don't expect you to answer. But I guess if Donald Trump can ban Muslims from entering the United States, then anything is possible.

- If you can't find a way of reducing the number of people, you have to increase the number of seats. 

The incident took place in a bus. So let us look at how to increase the number of bus seats. The largest bus company KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) has a fleet of almost 3800 buses with a workforce of 12,000. For example, we can quadruple the size of KMB, so that they have 16,000 buses operated by a workforce of 50,000. There will be buses every 3 minutes instead of every 12 minutes arriving at the bus stop. How wonderful!

Except that the price will quadruple as well. For example, it costs $9.80 to take the KMB #103 bus from Hong Kong Baptist University to Hong Kong University right now. It will cost $39.20 in future.

- Minor drawback: if you put another 12,000 buses on the road, this town will be a living traffic nightmare. Because of traffic congestion, the buses will not be evenly spaced out. Instead you go down to the bus stop and you will find ten #1A buses in a row, none of them moving because of the traffic congestion that began miles down the road. By that time, you will be demanding reducing the number of vehicles on the road ...

- This Lewis Loud guy is sneaky. He did not dare to say: "In the Japanese mega-cities such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, there are always seats available" because Japan is world-famous for attendants pushing/shoving passengers onto trains during rush hour (video). So he added "Except for rush hour ..." in front.

But when it came to Hong Kong, he wrote about having to let ten trains go past before being able to get on at Admiralty station. But he neglects to add "During rush hour ..." If he goes there at 10pm, the trains are not crowded at all.

- "The American Edward T. Hall defined the notion of intimate distance as being 0.5 meters or less. If you keep letting strangers get inside your intimate zone, you become uneasy, irritable and combative over the long term because human psychology won't tolerate rubbing shoulders." Meanwhile at the June 4th candlelight vigil in Victoria Park, they are fitting 2.81 persons per square meter (HKU POP). No wonder those demonstrators want to fight with the police.

- This is typical Yellow Ribbon. It seizes on a problem and proposes a superficial solution which is a non sequitur that satisfies a different agenda and which has foreseeable disastrous consequences.

For example, everybody knows that the top Chief Executive election issue is how to provide more housing for the 290,000 persons on the waiting list for public housing.  (YouTube) Roy Tam (Greensense) declared on RTHK: "If no demand is made to the Central Government to stop one-way visas (=mainland immigrants), then I am sorry to say that not a single inch of country park will be allowed to be used for housing."

- If (a) Hong Kong has too many people and not enough housing; and therefore (b) we shouldn't let more people come in, not even for family reunion (90% of the one-way-visa mainland immigrants come here for that reason), then the same logic applies to the families of all non-Hong Kong residents (such as those working for international corporations in Hong Kong). This is a clean-cut case to file with the Equal Opportunities Commission. This means going back to the drawing board to find another reason to carry out the true agenda of barring mainlanders.

- (Polymerhk) Three Rules of Discipline in the New Epochal Revolution

(A) Thou Shalt Not Yield Your Seat

The Hong Kong Communist government is introducing Priority Seats in the public transportation systems in order to foster the spirit of young people yielding seats to senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, pregnant women or people with small children.

This is wrong in our time of Epochal Revolution. In China, seniors tripped onto the ground and nobody helps them, ostensibly for fear of lawsuits. In truth, they are merely following the Survival of the Fittest rule of the jungle. If the senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, pregnant women or people with small children cannot take care of themselves, they should be taking taxis instead of public transportation. Every one of us must fight for our seats, the winner sitting down and the loser having to stand. This is the only way that China will be able to fend off the American imperialists.

Besides, senior citizens often criticize young people for not being to endure pain and suffering. This implies that the senior citizens can endure pain and suffering. So let them show us their endurance. After all, if we yield our seats to them, it may seem that we think that they have no endurance. We must not insult them in such a blatant manner.

Some young people deliberate hunt for the Priority Seats. I think that this is overdoing it. In my opinion, all seats are equal. I will take any seat I can find and refuse to yield under any circumstance.

(B) Thou Shalt Not Donate Blood

Periodically the Hong Kong Red Cross will ask the public to donate blood because the supplies are low. Normally that is a good thing for young people to do. But during a time of Epochal Revolution, this is a fucking rip-off. On the Internet, there are rumors that the Red Cross is handling over their blood to satisfy the needs of rich Chinese people (The Campaign To Stop Donating Blood/Organs). The Red Cross has issued denials. They say that most of the blood is used for Hong Kong patients in public hospitals, with 60% of it for senior citizens. When they say "most of", it means that "some of" the blood is going to the mainland. We cannot quantify what "most of" and "some of" means, so we don't know what they are actually doing. But pursuant to (A) above, there is not a reason for young people to donate blood to help seniors under the law of the jungle.

In any case, the fact is that the mainland Chinese people give blood only if they get paid. This is a market activity. You give blood and you get paid. So why is it that mainlanders get paid while Hongkongers have to do it for free? There is no justice.

(C) Thou Shalt Not Buy Charity Flags

On Saturday mornings, primary school children sell small flags for various charity organizations to help the needy. I used to believe that but I know now that this is all bullshit. For example, the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals is the best known of the charity organizations. But did you know that they are actually a big landlord with 110 properties around Hong Kong collecting HK$400 million in rent per year? Compared to that income, the amounts raised by flag-selling is less than peanuts. So this flag-selling business is a completely waste of time and money in this time of Epochal Revolution.

Q1. What do you think is the single most essential quality of the next Chief Executive?
25%: Insist on "One Country Two Systems", "Hong Kong run by Hongkongers" and "High degree of autonomy"
19%: Trusted by the Central Government
16%: Promote social harmony
16%: Have an excellent governance team
10%: Honest and open-minded
8%: Relatively high public opinion support
3%: Clear ideas about running Hong Kong
2%: Other
1%: No opinion

Q2. Which do you think is the single most essential issue that the next Chief Executive must deal with?
35%: Relieve housing problems
18%: Stimulate Hong Kong economy
16%: Relieve the poverty problem
14%: Improve relationship between the executive and legislative branches
8%: Restart constitutional reform process
7%: Resolve mainland-Hong Kong conflicts
1%: Other
1%: No opinion

Q3. With respect to the 2017 Chief Executive election, which is fits your idea better?
52%: I want the person that I like most to win
40%: I want the person that I don't like most to lose
7%: Don't know/hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that the pan-democrats should send a representative to run in the Chief Executive election?
48%: Yes
46%: No
4%: Don't know/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, who would you support?
30%: John Tsang
26%: Carrie Lam
16%: Jasper Tsang
6%: Regina Ip
5%: Woo Kwok-hing
4%: Others
13%: No opinion

(EJ Insight) November 4, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang has the best chance of winning the Hong Kong chief executive election next year if he runs as widely expected, a survey shows. More than 28 percent of respondents said they support Tsang to become Hong Kongs next leader.

Retired judge Woo Kwok-hing came in second with a support rate of 13.5 percent, followed by former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New Peoples Party. Only Woo has declared his candidacy.

The survey was commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal and conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). It was carried out between Oct. 26 and Nov. 2 by phone, with 1,005 Cantonese-speaking respondents aged 18 and above.

(EJ Insight) December 19, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang still leads the chief executive race if he runs as widely expected but Chief Secretary Carrie Lam is catching up fast thanks to Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings decision to drop out, a new survey shows.

The survey was commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal and conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

About 32.6 percent of respondents said they support Tsang to become Hong Kongs next leader compared with 28.4 percent in a previous survey between Oct. 26 and Nov. 2. Lam had a support rate of 23.9 percent, up from 10.3 percent, beating retired judge Woo Kwok-hing and former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang for second place. Woo came in third with a support rate of 11.4 percent. Jasper Tsang and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New Peoples Party, had less than 10 percent. 

The survey came after several new developments in the past 10 days. Leung said on Dec.9 that he would not not seek a second term, citing family reasons. The next day, Lam said she would reconsider her decision to retire in light of the new developments. On Dec. 12, John Tsang submitted his resignation, paving the way for him to join the race despite no clear signal from Beijing. Three days later, Ip officially launched her election campaign with the slogan Win back Hong Kong.

Lam may have benefited the most from the new developments, with the increase in her support mainly coming from the 9.5 percent held by Leung in an earlier poll, according to Francis Lee, a professor in CUHKs School of Journalism and Communication.

The survey also found that one-half of the respondents who claimed to be in the pro-democracy camp support John Tsang while 49.4 percent of those from the pro-establishment camp support Lam. Among young respondents, Tsang beat Lam, 54.1 percent to 7.3 percent.

Asked who has the best chance of winning the election, 31.6 percent chose Tsang, followed by Lam (28.8 percent), far ahead of other competitors.

(EJ Insight) January 26, 2017.

John Tsang continues to be the top choice of Hongkongers in the chief executive race, but the former financial secretary has seen his lead over key rival Carrie Lam shrink significantly, a new survey shows.

According to a poll conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), 33.5 percent of respondents said they want Tsang as Hong Kongs next chief executive, while 30.9 percent said they back former chief secretary Lam. It marks a huge narrowing of the gap between the main contenders, as a previous survey last month showed the support levels of Tsang and Lam at 32.6 percent and 23.9 percent respectively. For the survey, CUHK researchers interviewed 1,036 people between Jan. 18 and 24.

The survey, the third of its kind commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal, showed that retired judge Woo Kwok-hing another candidate for the citys top job has seen his support rate drop to 8.1 percent from 11.4 percent. Meanwhile, former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New Peoples Party, were backed by 7.2 percent and 6.4 percent of the respondents respectively.

John Tsang and Lam have both seen their support rise since they announced their candidacy last week and they are extending lead over other candidates, but clearly Lam has become a much bigger threat for Tsang in the race for Hong Kongs top post.

Asked who is likely to be the final winner in the CE election that will be held in March, 63.5 percent of the respondents chose Lam, significantly up from 28.8 percent in the previous survey. The corresponding figure for Tsang was only 17.4 percent, down significantly from 31.6 percent. As for Jasper Tsang, Ip and Woo, less than 5 percent of the respondents expressed optimism about their prospects.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2017.

Chief executive contender Carrie Lam has said she was very late in launching her campaign, when asked why she appeared to have lower popularity ratings than rival John Tsang.

The two were the highest rated in a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal. Tsang enjoyed 33.5 per cent support and Lam received 30.9 per cent. However, in another survey question which asked for preferences if Tsang and Lam were the only candidates, Tsang received 48.7 per cent approval whilst Lam received 39.9 per cent.

Internet comments:

- WTF! How did this happen?

Who do the People want? 33.5% for John Tsang, 30.9% for Carrie Lam.
Who do the People think will win? 17.4% for John Tsang, 63.5% for Carrie Lam.

I know how to run the Blame Game: 28 pan-democratic legislators vetoed the constitutional reform bill in June 2015. Had that bill been passed, the Chief Executive will be voted upon by one-person-one-vote by the 3.3 million registered voters in Hong Kong this year. John Tsang would likely win.

By that veto, the Chief Executive will be voted upon by 1,200 electors from a small circle loaded with special interest groups. It is said that the pro-China camp has 800 of those votes. Carrie Lam becomes a shoo-in.

Why did the 28 pan-democratic legislators veto the bill? Because they promised that they will work immediately to get us an even better deal (one-person-one-vote with civil nomination of the candidates). But so far they have failed to make an inch of progress on that promise. Not an inch.

- The United States and the United Kingdom told the pan-democrats to take the original deal. But nah, they would not listen. So this is how we got here.

- It is not true that the pan-democrats are not making progress. According to Basic Law Article 159:

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

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

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

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

The pan-democrats are working hard on the key decision-makers.

With respect to the Chief Executive, the pan-democrats now control 325 votes out of 1194 votes of the election committee by infiltrating various sectors. The plan is to reach 400 votes by 2022, 500 votes by 2027 and 600 votes by 2032. And then we will be able to control the Chief Executive post.

With respect to the Legislative Council, the pan-democrats now control 27 seats out of 70. They plan to increase the number of seats by infiltrating the functional constituency. The goal is to reach 32 seats by 2020, 37 seats by 2024, 41 seats by 2028, 45 seats by 2032, 49 seats by 2036 and 53 seats by 2040. And then we will be able to have that 2/3 majority in the Legislative Council.

As for the National People's Congress, China will have melted down by 2040. There won't be any National People's Congress in China, and there won't be any Hong Kong deputies. Gordon Chang guarantees that this will happen (although there is some uncertainty about the timing).

So it is important to realize that we are fulfilling out a long-term strategic vision in which we will have genuine universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (and the Legislative Council) by year 2040. It is important to keep the faith and keep donating more money more frequently to those genuine pan-democrats (such as Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, Lau Siu-lai, etc) but not to the faux pan-democrats (such as Neo Democrats, Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, etc).

(HKG Pao) January 25, 2017.

At the Legislative Council meeting yesterday afternoon, the police was asked if they have learned from the Mong Kok riot last year to increase police deployment in order to prevent a recurrence.

Commissioner of Police Steven Lo Wai-chung said: "We will analyze intelligence on the Internet about people who want to demonstrate openly or cause trouble. We will make a risk assessment and then deploy accordingly."

So if you get on the Internet now, what will you find? Oh, yes, there is a big battle going on ... fire is being exchanged so rapidly that if you sleep early tonight, you may be able to follow the story when you wake up in the morning.

(Wen Wei Po) January 25, 2017.

It all began with Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration) shared a Facebook post by a person named Matthew Lam:

Matthew Lam's Facebook


The Lunar New Year Fair stall is open!
Please come to Stall #174 at Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan district to support!
There is also Pepe's hoodie too!

In the middle of the accompanying photo, there is a black t-shirt with the words "Only We Are The People of Hong Kong."

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) also offered a "Praise". An Internet user named "Dai Cing" commented: "Even if the Food and Environmental Department won't approve (Youngspiration's stall at the Lunar New Year Fair), it does not mean that your merchandise cannot be sold elsewhere."

This seems to imply that the black t-shirt came from Youngspiration.

The Civic Passion-friendly Facebook user Chau Yau Luan wrote: "The Hong Kong Indigenous product for the Lunar New Year is plagiarized from Wan Chin. The t-shirt slogan was plagiarized from Wan Chin's slogan: 'In this world, only we are the people of Hong Kong."

The immediate response from pro-Youngspiration KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) was that Youngspiration had never seen the original Wan Chin quote. This was all a lucky coincidence. Something about great minds think alike.

Really? Wan Chin responded with an obscene curse and brought back the history. On March 7, 2015, Wan Chin posted on his Facebook: "In this world only we are the people of Hong Kong."

On July 10, 2016, Youngspiration posted themselves "In this world, only we are the people of Hong Kong" in quotes and the hashtag #credit_MasterWanChin?

So how can Youngspiration say that they never saw Wan Chin's original saying? Wan Chin said: "If you are not a political ally, you should not be using Wan Chin's quotation. There is still ethics in politics. These fucking bastards are fucking shameless." Wan Chin also posted t-shirts that the Hong Kong Resurgence Order sold in 2014. The design is different, but the slogan was "In this world only we are the people of Hong Kong." Wan Chin said that this is the original version.

Civic Passion's ex-leader Wong Yeung-tat then said on his Internet program that "Youngspiration plagiarizes policies and slogans. They even sell t-shirts." Wong said that even the traditional pan-democrats steals his slogans (such as "I am a Hongkonger" and "Localism") and the citizens buy those products. Wong said: "This proves that the people of Hong Kong have not wised up yet."

Internet user Marco Chan said that "Youngspiration plagiarized Wan Chin's famous quote to sell t-shirts to make money. They did not acknowledge the source. Such plagiarism is shameful!" Internet user Teddy Chun said: "Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous are a bunch of morally decadent and shameless gamblers. These fake independence advocates lied to get our votes and abandoned the supporters afterwards. They are opportunists who have no genuine political beliefs. Right now they are pretending that they are City-State supporters? They are political parasites."

Next the Youngspiration's KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) said that Youngspiration added a comma after "In this world" so this is not a literal copy. To this Wan Chin replied: "The insertion of the comma created a pause and therefore destroyed the certainty in my original sentence." Now someone has made a t-shirt with "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" without "In this world." That is even worse because it sounds like you are arguing with someone. My original sentence was meant in sorrow for myself.

Yau Wai-ching responded to Wong Yeung-tat by saying that Matthew Lam's t-shirt is not a Youngspiration product. She said: "Why don't you produce the entire list so that everybody can see what was plagiarized. There is no need to talk further. I might as well as say that I plagiarized you by breathing the air."

Pro-Youngspiration KOL Lewis Loud posted that the "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" t-shirts were offered by Matthew Lam, who is in no way connected to Youngspiration whatsoever. Nobody from Matthew Lam's group is a Youngspiration member/volunteer. Shortly afterwards Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) shared the Lewis Loud's post, and gave no sign that Wong or Hong Kong Indigenous knows Matthew Lam either.

OH PLEASE!!! Matthew Lam is a host on an Internet program on Channel I, founded by Ray Wong and Edward Leung. It is stone cold to cut Lam off as if he was an alien from Mars. But, of course, Lewis Loud was very careful and said very correctly that Matthew Lam is not a Youngspiration member/volunteer, and Ray Wong shared without commenting.

Is Youngspiration the same as Hong Kong Indigenous? Of course not. They are two different organizations with different sets of people. However, when Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) was barred from running in the Legco elections, he told his supporters to vote for his Plan B: Youngspiration. He said that the voters can do so confidently because he assures them that the two organizations are "99% alike."

- Loki Tham's Facebook


Hi, Yau Wai-ching wanted us to prepare a list of their plagiarisms versus original creations. So here we go:
(1) Re-fucking of Shina (original creation)
(2) Ap Lei Chau accent defense (original creation)
(3) "Zero cost + lots of fun" eventually costing several million dollars which they want others to pay (original creation)
(4) Bring up the rear but left by taxi (original creation)
(5) I hate pan-democrats before the election, but I want to cooperate with them after I screwed up (original creation)

- Hey, if you create a line of t-shirts with these slogans, nobody can possibly charge you with plagiarism. What you did was so asinine that no sane person can dream it up.

- Donald_Trump Facebook

Youngspiration has always been a market-oriented organization
Plagiarism is its policy platform
They will copy whatever is selling hot.

At first, they saw that there was a market for Yellow Ribbon Umbrella Soldiers (2015)-> So they entered the District Council elections as Umbrella Soldiers
Next they saw that there was a market for Localism (beginning of 2016)-> So they said that they are Localists (although they have never taken part in any Localist actions)
Next they saw that there was no market for the referendum advocated by Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order (March 2016)-> So they pilloried the idea of referenda
Next they saw that there was a market growing for the referendum advocated by Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order (March-May 2016)-> So they advocated the referendum, even saying that there should be an electronic referendum in five years' time
Next they saw that there was a market for self-determination-> So they said that they were for self-determination.
Next they saw that there was a market for Hong Kong independence-> So they abandoned self-determination for Hong Kong independence
Next they saw the self-determination advocates win big in the Legco election-> So they abandoned Hong Kong independence for self-determination
Next they saw that their own pseudo-independence movement has been devastated-> So they are heading straight back into the arms of the pan-democrats

Conclusion: Youngspiration has always been a market-driven political party. They will want a share of anything good.
It is nothing for them to copy a slogan for a t-shirt.
It would be against their principles not to do so.

Do you think that they can spare the time to start the Epochal Revolution?

- Lewis Loud Facebook

Right now those followers of evil cults are spinning that Matthew Lam has a program on Channel i and therefore he is with Hong Kong Indigenous, therefore he is with Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration, therefore he is with Youngspiration.

Passion Times program hosts are not necessary Civic Passion members
Channel i program hosts are always Hong Kong Indigenous members?

How do you move the goal posts around?  Let me meekly ask: Didn't you start with accusing Youngspiration with plagiarism?

If you made a mistake in cursing people, you made a mistake. If you like, you can curse Local Study Society. But the problem here is that you made a mistake over the t-shirt issue. You are saying that the Local Study Society people are with Hong Kong Indigenous in order to be consistent with your stupid initial deduction. A person who has taught for decades obviously won't acknowledge his mistakes.

The ultimate point is that the stall was rented for the sake of Ng Lai-ying and Kwong Chun-lung. According to the logic of the Hot Dogs (=Civic Passion) and Wan Chin, they must be Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration in order to match their previous assumption that "Those Youngspiration bastards plagiarized my sound bite."

Wan Chin: Sorry, I was wrong. Virtuous kidney brother is right.
Ray Wong: I am laughing

- Here is how to dig an even deeper hole to bury yourself in.

At first, Youngspiration was selling a t-shirt that plagiarized Wan Chin's "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" at the Hang Seng Business School Local Study Society stall. They said that this t-shirt was designed by Youngspiration and friends. They emphasized that they have the real thing. This roused public rage because people knew where the source of the quotation.

To defuse the bomb, Lewis Loud posted several thousand words on behalf of Youngspiration. He said that Youngspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with the stall. He made it out as if the stall operator Matthew Lam had popped out of nowhere. Within moments, people uncovered the fact that Matthew Law is a program host with Channel i, which is owned and operated by Hong Kong Indigenous.

After foundering around, Lewis Loud has now come out and accused the critics of being followers of evil cults. He even trotted out a statement of apology from a fake Wan Chin Facebook account. Unfortunately, there was a typographic error as the honorific "Virtuous brother" became "Kidney brother." This will only make sure that his name will hereafter be "Kidney brother Lewis Loud."

As always with the Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders), they will act dumb and deaf when it comes to the inanities of Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. If pressed hard, they will say that it is important to be fair, balanced and objective in front of the facts and only the facts. If not all the facts are known, then no conclusion can be made. Next, they will sneakily share other people's posts that make silly excuses for Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. If exposed, they will switch the subject to the paramount importance of unity and the immediate cessation of hostilities within the Localist movement.

Why do these people act this way? Because they know that their supporters suffer from amnesia and must rely on the KOLs to tell them what to think and say. Fraudsters can't make a living unless there are plenty of suckers out there! And a group of fraudsters and amnesiacs should not be telling us what the future should be.

(Wen Wei Po) January 26, 2017.

At 10pm or so yesterday, a citizen went to the Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park. As he walked past Great George Street in Causeway Bay district, he spotted a red/black poster. The citizen said: "The poster was eye-catching. Apart from the big letters 'Take back the Lunar New Year', it said 'Lunar New Year eve 11pm' underneath and a black banner above saying 'Lunar New Year Fair entrance.'"

He said that although he was perplexed, he did not pay too much attention. He continued to walk around Victoria Park. Half an hour later, he left via the Causeway Road exit. He spotted a middle-aged woman affixing the same poster on the concrete post. "The woman wore a mask and she worked quickly. As soon as she affixed the poster, she left. There were no policemen or security guards around. I went over to look. Indeed it said 'Take back the Lunar New Year'."

The citizen said that the poster reminded him of the Mong Kok riot last year on Lunar New Year's Day. He got scared and got the police. "If someone tries to cause trouble at the Lunar New Year fair, it will put the children and senior citizens in danger. These troublemakers are ruthless!"

A number of police officer arrived quickly and canvassed passersby and business operators. According to information, there are at least 6 such posters around the Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park.

- Valiant Frontier Facebook

To all those locals (that is, Hongkongers), when you go to the Lunar New Year Fair at Victoria Park tomorrow,
remember to bring surgical mask (the air is polluted)
bring a hat (be careful about bird droppings)
bring a change of clothing (you may sweat in crowded conditions and your clothes will get wet)
do not bring your Octopus card (it will be a waste of time to report a loss of property if you drop it)
do not bring any banned items (such as nail clippers, long umbrellas, flintstones, etc)
everywhere else you can improvise at the scene
there won't be any help hotline, so you can call the Civil Affairs Bureau which is in charge
use the red flower as the sign
at 815pm, a cup with be thrown as the sign
the crazy shopping spree begins!

The Valiant Frontier is a bit-player in the game with not more than 5 members. For example, they sponsored the Occupy Yuen Long show (#171 and #168) and dispersed on their own when they saw the heavy police presence. They are making this Facebook post now to make a splash about themselves.

- Even if we don't show up, we will have succeeded. The purpose of every single resistance effort is ultimately to increase the cost of governance. By posting a few words on the Internet, more than 1,500 Hong Kong police officers were placed in standby. Therefore we have achieved yet another major victory on the road of Epochal Revolution.

- You fucking bastards! The police overtime is paid for by the taxpayers! The money could be better used than fattening a bunch of police officers. For the police, the standby time was "zero cost, lots of fun as they party, sing karaoke, eat food and watch television, so why not?"

(SCMP) Anson Chans invitation to Trump inauguration is more about ego than substance. By Alex Lo. January 13, 2017.

Anson Chan Fang On-sang is not Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. So our former chief secretarys invitation to attend Donald Trumps inauguration in Washington isnt as heart-stopping for Beijing as Tsais congratulatory phone call with the US president-elect or his alarming take on Americas one-China policy.

Does her invitation signal a policy change in Washington when it comes to Hong Kong? Or is it just one of Trumps typical flip-flops because he neither knows nor cares much about the citys politics within the overall Sino-US relations?

Most likely its the latter. Trump has been having a blossoming bromance with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Russias democratic development is not something that particularly interests or worries him. And while he and key members of his incoming cabinet have been critical of China, it has to do almost exclusively with currency, trade and maritime conflicts in the South China Sea. Given Barack Obamas lukewarm interest in Hong Kong politics, its even harder to imagine Trump to show any interest in that direction at all.

So what to make of Chans visit to Washington? Its quite an ego trip for this prima donna of Hong Kong politics. In a normal world, someone with her background would be there to promote Hong Kong and the country as a whole. There isnt a more important geopolitical and economic relation in the 21st century than that between China and the US. But given the narrow egocentricity of the citys pan-democrats, Chan will do no such thing rather the opposite.

The trip is a big deal for Chan, though, who is now 76. She has friends in high places within the Republican Party.

They know my past experience, she said, What values I stand for, my public service record, and support the work I am doing. So in their words, the move is their way of honouring my legacy.

Its not clear what legacy is being referred to. The disastrous opening of the then new airport in Chek Lap Kok when she was chief secretary? Or her failed power struggle within the first post-1997 administration in which she was sidelined? That paved her way to joining the pan-democratic camp. That is, perhaps, a legacy of sorts for this conscience of Hong Kong.

(SCMP) Anson Chan hard to Trump on double standards with US visit. By Michael Chugani. January 17, 2017.

If youre wondering how best to define double standards, think of former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang. This self-proclaimed champion of democracy is in the United States capital waiting to attend president-elect Donald Trumps inauguration on Friday. Trump? Democracy? Isnt it immoral to mention the two words in the same breath? If theres one American president who doesnt exemplify democracy, its Trump.

The man is a bigot, bully and misogynist who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, accused a judge of being biased because he is Mexican, proposed a ban on Muslims entering the country, refused to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, ridiculed a disabled reporter, claimed Barack Obama wasnt born in America, and admitted to sexually groping women. Yet Chan swoons over being invited to his inauguration by Republican Party buddies.

Our very own conscience of Hong Kong a label awarded her by the Western media sees no qualms with being associated with this future president. She gushed with pride when explaining why she was invited: to celebrate the values she stands for. I am not sure what her values are but she doesnt seem to mind having them celebrated by a bigot.

Top performers, including Elton John and Andrea Bocelli, have refused to perform at Trumps inauguration. A fast-growing number of Democrat lawmakers are boycotting the event after he savaged a respected civil rights leader who fought alongside Martin Luther King. People who believe in democratic values, racial equality and religious freedom are repulsed by Trumps sexual comments about women and are staying away.

But Chan boycotting the event? No way. Our champion of democracy is too star-struck to do that. This may seem personal but it is not, although Chan has never refrained from being personal in attacking her political foes. I have lost count of the times she mocked Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. And just recently she accused outgoing chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor of obeying orders with her decision to build a Hong Kong version of Beijings Palace Museum.

Chans pan-democrat buddies routinely boycott Leungs events. But compared to Trump, Leung is a saint. Compared to Chan, Lam is an angel. One of Chans favourite lines is that we should speak truth to power. She no longer has any power although when she did she was not known for championing democracy. And that is the truth.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Has Hong Kong lost its conscience? The shunning of a pro-democracy icon: Anson Chan. By Kent Ewing. January 23, 2017.

Back in the citys early heady and hopeful post-handover days, when Anson Chan Fang On-sang spoke, people listened. Then serving as chief secretary, she came to represent the core valuesfree speech, clean government, democratic development and the rule of lawon which the city should never compromise under the one country, two systems arrangement with the mainland.

When her boss, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, showed clear signs of hedging on those values, the two clashed and Chan would then resign in 2001, citing personal reasons, well before the end of her term. But she would continue to speak out for those core values and become one of the citys leading figures in its painful quest for greater democracy.

It was Chan who came out of retirement in 2007 to throttle the comeback dreams of Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, the once-despised secretary of security who had failed in her strident efforts to ram anti-subversion legislation down the throats of the Hong Kong people. In a Legislative Council by-election widely perceived as a battle for Hong Kongs soul, Chan won decisively over Ip, and it seemed the forces of light had prevailed.

But now look at our city. The ever-resilient lp finally managed to win a LegCo seat and, over the past eight years, her hard work and dogged commitment have made her one of the councils most popular lawmakers. She has also been appointed to the Executive Council and is now a chief executive candidate.

Meanwhile, Chan, now 77, has been reduced to a voice in the wildernessthat same wilderness occupied by Martin Lee Chu-ming and other formerly iconic but now ageing Hong Kong pro-democracy leadersbordering on irrelevant to the rough-and-tumble of the citys current political battles.

With the launch in 2013 of her think tank, Hong Kong 2020, Chan tried to remain in the mix of Hong Kong affairs. But todays younger generation, even if they recognise who she is, regard her as a relic of the past, and the Beijing-fearing media blast every effort she makes to uphold free speech and advance the cause of democracy.

Chan has long stood squarely in the firing line of Beijing mouthpieces such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, but you know times have changed when columnists in the citys leading English-language publication, the South China Morning Post, now owned by Chinese Internet giant Alibaba, start unloading on a public figure who not so long ago was hailed in its pages as one of the most able and trustworthy officials in the Hong Kong government.

According to the SCMPs Alex Lo, Chan is now the prima donna of Hong Kong politics whose invitation to attend US President Donald J. Trumps inauguration last Friday amounted to nothing more than an ego trip for the woman once dubbed Hong Kongs conscience. Lo went on to sum up Chans political legacyquite unfairlyas a failed power struggle within the first post-1997 administration in which she was sidelined.

As if Los column was not enough of a hatchet job, less than a week later another of the newspapers columnists, Michael Chugani, launched an even more one-sided and churlish attack on Chan, denouncing her for the double standards he claimed she displayed in making a trip to the US capital to attend the inauguration of a president who is a bigot, bully and misogynistabhorrent qualities that he implied she was endorsing by her very presence.

If Chan truly believed in democracy, Chugani unreasonably suggested, thenlike some pop stars and opportunistic US Democrats using the event to score partisan political points on the very first day of a new administrationshe, too, would have boycotted Trumps inauguration.

Not only was Chuganis fusillade mean-spirited, it was also wilfully purblind to Chans purpose in going to Washingtonwhich was obviously to say and do all she could to nudge the new Republican administration and congress into putting more pressure on Beijing to live up to the principles stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that paved the way for the citys 1997 handover from British to Chinese rule.

Trumps personal flaws notwithstanding, he is now the 45th US president and, prior to his inauguration, made it abundantly clear that he thinks Sino-US relations are due for a shakeup, even questioning the one-China policy that the US has maintained toward Taiwan for nearly four decades. To have his ear and/or the ear of his advisers and congressional Republicans for even a moment was surely worth the trip to Washington.

Indeed, it would have been foolish of Chan to turn down such an opportunity. This is not the time for Hong Kong democrats to join the anti-Trump parade.

Of course, thats not the way Chans Washington sojourn is being portrayed in todays conscienceless Hong Kong, where democracy is more of a game than a goal and the double-barrelled one country, two systems mantra has lately been reduced to single-shot nationalism.

The trashing of Anson Chan is just another reminder of this sad truth.

Internet comments:

- Susanna Chui-yung Cheung's Facebook

 

Shame on you, Anson Chan Fang On-sang! You are not someone like Tsai Ing-wen who has to shine the shoes of the American president because she has an official government job. What did you have to go to Washington DC to attend the inauguration ceremony of a President who discriminates against women, vulnerable groups and colored peoples? Why do you ignore the demonstration marches of American women and other women all around the world against this newly elected American president?

Anson, you regularly promoted core values such as human rights, freedom and democracy. But you stood behind Trump to greet people. This has completely revealed your true face.

The conscience of Hong Kong? Are you qualified? Don't you feel ashamed and embarrassed? As a Hong Kong woman, I will stand up and say NO to you! What about the rest? How do you see it? What do you think?

- If you go to Donald Trump and ask for a favor (namely, please pay some attention to the plight of democracy in Hong Kong), you cannot be so rude as to criticize Donald Trump for tweeting things like:

What good is a democratic Hong Kong when its shores come under the rising tide from the melted Artic icecaps?

- (Oriental Daily) January 9, 2017. Anson Chan proudly announced to the media that she has been invited by American president-elect Donald Trump to attend the inauguration ceremony in Washington DC. She said that "she is very delighted." But this Democracy Grandma who has been embracing Universal Values seemed to be oblivious of the fact that Trump has been hit with wave after wave of scandals, such as barging into the women's dressing rooms to watch them change clothes; engaging in sexual harassment; threatening his rentiers; hiring illegal aliens as workers; etc. Democracy Grandma said that she would be delighted to debrief the incoming government about the situation in Hong Kong and ask them to support democracy, freedom and rule-of-law in Hong Kong.

Late last year, Democracy Grandma traveled to Australia and New Zealand to ask those governments to intercede in Hong Kong's internal politics. When she arrived in New Zealand, government officials refused to meet with her. In 2014, she went to the United Kingdom but Prime Minister David Cameron refused to meet with her. She said that the United Kingdom should not sacrifice the interests of Hong Kong just because they want closer ties with China in trade, culture, etc.

- Some famous examples of traitors: Puyi, Wang Jingwei, Pierre Laval, Vidkun Quisling, etc.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong is solely Chinas policy, according to what Theresa May told Donald Trump. By Michael Chugani. January 31, 2017.

It is imperative that the United States remove the Statue of Liberty until such time as Donald Trump is either impeached as president or dumped at the next election.

For over a century the statue has shone as a towering beacon of everything that is good about the country. It is the soul of America. There can be no greater insult to this icon than to have it standing while the morally corrupt Trump is president.

As a loyal American, it distresses me to say my president is a disgrace to the office he holds. I never thought the day would come when the country founded on equality would deport or incarcerate people solely for their religion or place of origin.

Not only must the liberty goddess go, the State Departments annual report that attacks countries for human rights abuses must go too. The Trump administration has no moral authority to criticise world behaviour.

Morality is clearly not a trait of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who behaved like Trumps lapdog by refusing to join world leaders in condemning his Muslim ban. Her exact words were: The United States is responsible for United States policy on refugees. The UK is responsible for UK policy on refugees.

That astonishing statement is a blank cheque for every country to do as it pleases. China is responsible for its policy on Hong Kong. Former governor Chris Patten, please shut up. North Korea is responsible for its nuclear policy. The US, Japan, and South Korea must accept that. Burma is responsible for its human rights record. No one must interfere.

I cant help wondering if former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang has buyers remorse. Didnt she gush with pride after Republican Party buddies invited her to Trumps inauguration? She even hoped to discuss Hong Kong with the president. She has been mute since the inauguration. Sorry, Mrs Chan, but Hong Kong is Chinas business. The British prime minister in essence said that.

And what about self-proclaimed democracy crusaders such as Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who make regular pilgrimages to the US to seek support for their cause? Will they still want democratic help from an administration led by a bigot and a self-confessed sexual groper who has now imposed a religious test on people entering the country? Just wondering.

- The Hong Kong pro-independence/self-determination crowd always says: Hong Kong affairs should be dealt with by Hongkongers, therefore China must butt out. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES. Then they rush over to the United States/United Kingdom/Australia/New Zealand/Japan/Taiwan to ask those foreign governments to intervene on their behalf. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Is this a contradiction? A case of split personality? Of course not. Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES. In the United States/United Kingdom/Australia/New Zealand/Japan/Taiwan, they have FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES where in China they don't have FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Are you skeptical? Then you hate FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

- (HuffPost) February 2, 2017. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was widely criticised for being one of the few western leaders to not publicly oppose Trump's travel restrictions on those Middle Eastern countries.

While Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau none-too-subtly tweeted "Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength", British Prime Minister Theresa May's office said "we do not agree with this kind of approach" and leaders from Scotland, Sweden, Germany and France spoke of their disapproval, Turnbull stayed silent.

"I am not about to run a commentary on other countries' practices," Turnbull said when asked for his response to the executive order. "It's not my job as Prime Minister of Australia to run a commentary on the domestic policies of other countries."

- (The Guardian) October 13, 2016.

The prominent Hong Kong democracy activists Martin Lee and Anson Chan have urged the Turnbull government to stand up to China publicly over the deteriorating state of civic freedoms, warning there has been a progressive diminution of the one country, two systems policy.

Lee, the founding chairman of Hong Kongs democratic party, and Chan, a former chief secretary in both the British colonial government of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong special administrative region government under the Chinese sovereignty, made the appeal at the National Press Club on Thursday after a meeting with Australias foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop. Lee said he would like governments, including the Australian government, to voice its concerns publicly as well as in private.

You can meet with Australian politicians as often as you like, but they won't say a word on your behalf. Why? Because it is not their job to run a commentary on the domestic policies of other countries. Capisce?

- (Wen Wei Po) In Hong Kong, it is the customary to describe those remnants of the British colonial administration as "old worn-out batteries." This means that there people have no energy left to give although they still maintain an exterior faade. Anson Chan is an old worn-out battery. Not only that, but the exterior casing is showing cracks already and the electrolytes are seeping out already. If she does not get discarded and buried deep underground in a landfill immediately, she will pollute the political environment of Hong Kong.

- If Wang Dan can accept US$200,000 from Chen Shui-bian,
  If Neville Chamberlain get reach a deal with Adolf Hitler in Munich,
  If Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho can share the Nobel Peace Prize,
  If Donald Rumsfeld can shake hands with Saddam Hussein,
  If Martin Lee can consort with the late Senate Jesse Helms,

then surely Anson Chan can hang around with Donald Trump
just as pigs can fly ...

- (Ta Kung Pao) February 1, 2017.

For the longest time, the pan-democrats look up to America. The major reason was obviously the financial aid flowing from the National Endowment for Democracy. The so-called American ideology was also important. When it comes to freedom and democracy, American is the beacon. Our pan-democrats groveled to meet with important American political figures and get their photos taken for media publicity.

Since assuming the presidency on January 20, Donald Trump has done at number of things that drew fierce international criticisms. Three things should be highlighted. Firstly, Trump claimed that his inauguration drew the largest audience in history. When presented with the facts, Trump preferred "alt-facts" and threatened the media. Secondly, Trump signed an executive order that prohibited citizens from seven Middle East countries plus all refugees from entering the United States. Thirdly, he fired the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out his order.

These issues all involve the "highest principles" of freedom and democracy that the Hong Kong pan-democrats cherish. When these "highest principles" are being ripped up by Donald Trump, the hypocritical masks of the Hong Kong pan-democrats are also being ripped apart. In the future, when we speak of democracy, nobody will think that American democracy is a model to follow; when we speak of human rights, nobody will think that America is better than China; when it comes to freedom, America and the rise of ultra-rightists in Europe show that things are not what they seem anymore.

When Trump hollered at the American media, the Hong Kong Journalists Association refused to issue a single word of condemnation; when Trump issues executive orders that violate civil rights, the Civic Party barristers refused to utter a single "No"; when Trump signs a series of outrageous executive orders, the Hong Kong political commentators became deaf, dumb and blind; instead thousands of words are devoted to the man-eating Ningbo tiger and the Chinese psyche.

- (EJ Insight) Trump gives China more reason to fear full-scale democracy in HK. By Michael Chugani. February 7, 2017.

... While Trumps victory has very little, if any, political significance for Hong Kong, although it has great significance for China, it will still have opened Beijings eyes wider on how unpredictable so-called genuine democracy can be. Will the central government want unrestrained democracy in Hong Kong? What if such a system produces a separatist as chief executive or someone who can be manipulated to let Hong Kong become a base to undermine China? These scenarios may seem preposterous to Hong Kong people but they are very real concerns for China.

Trump became president through democracy but it took him just a few weeks in office to tarnish democracys good name. He has given ample reasons for China to fear even more about full-scale democracy in Hong Kong. And he has given ammunition to those who argue that in todays world, democracy doesnt solve but create problems, holds back progress, and is not the best form of government compared to others as Churchill claimed.

Hong Kongs democracy camp has always relied on the US to champion its cause. People such as former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Martin Lee Chu-ming, and Joshua Wong Chi-fung have often made pilgrimages to the US for support in their fight for democracy. Anson Chan even gushed about being invited by the Republican Party to Trumps inauguration.

Now that the US is governed by Trump who has shown himself to be an authoritarian, bigot, bully, and misogynist can Hong Kongs democracy advocates, who say they oppose Chinas authoritarian rule, consider it morally right to seek US support for their cause?

The peril of democracy is that there is no guarantee only morally upright people will be elected. The built-in safeguard is that voters can throw out people like Trump at the next election if they choose to. But that is cold comfort because demagogues can do a lot of damage while in office.

Will Trumps bizarre presidency make Hong Kong people think twice about their yearning for democracy?

- Hong Kong National Party grovels to The Donald:

- The Hong Kong National party wrote that the politicization of the business environment is "evidenced by our first-hand experience: we have not so far been able to register as a Hong Kong legal entity with our name, and our short-term tenancy for Lunar New Year market stall has been unilaterally cancelled by the government for the sole reason that the products to be sold may contain certain political messages."

The Companies Registry rejected the application because the entity Hong Kong National Party espouses Hong Kong independence in contravention of Basic Law Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." There is nothing to stop Chan Ho-tin and his buddies to meet as the Hong Kong National Party. The problem is that they want to register as a company that can do business legally when their purpose is against the law. Do you think that the the Puerto Rican Independence Party can get listed for NASDAQ trading?

The cancellation of the Lunar New Year market stall was made on the basis of public safety. For example, look what happened to Nathan Law and Joshua Wong in A Tale of Two Cities. The Lunar New Year market is very crowded at time, including many children and senior citizens. If a fight breaks out between the Hong Kong National Party and its opponents, there can be a stampede. For example, do you think that the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade should feature an Adolf Hitler balloon?

Donald Trump is a businessman made famous by the book Trump: The Art of the Deal which is summarized in 11 steps:

  1. Think big
  2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
  3. Maximize your options
  4. Know your market
  5. Use your leverage
  6. Enhance your location
  7. Get the word out
  8. Fight back
  9. Deliver the goods
  10. Contain the costs
  11. Have fun

The Hong Kong National Party letter is written by some pseudo-intellectual egghead who uses language that must be completely foreign to Trump. For example, Trump is going to rip this letter up as soon as he gets to the start of the second paragraph: "Having the only common-law financial hub in East Asia trapped under China's colonial sovereignty is against the interest of the United States." Trump does not care about any imagined difference between common-law and civil-law. More countries in the world follow civil law than common law, including Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain and Switzerland.

In order to pitch Trump, you need to list for his benefit just what are the downsides and upsides of Hong Kong independence. Given the size of the Hong Kong economy relative to that of China, there is no upside and plenty of downsides.

Reference: New York Times Donald Trump Soured on a Deal, and Hong Kong Partners Became Litigants. May 30, 2016.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 9, 2017.

President Donald Trump has sent a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping on the heels of his remarks about Taiwan that angered Beijing. In his missive, which thanked Xi for his congratulatory letter about his inauguration, Trump said he looks forward to working with President Xi to develop a constructive relationship that benefits both the United States and China, spokesman Sean Spicer said in a statement.

The note appeared to be an effort to get on better footing after the US leader, during the transition period that followed his election and preceded his inauguration, enraged China by suggesting US policy toward Taiwan might not remain unchanged. Just after he won the November election, Trump provoked Beijings ire by accepting a congratulatory call from Taiwans President Tsai Ing-wen.

- The fact that President Donald Trump spoke to Tsai Ing-wen by phone and only wrote a letter to Xi Jinping is an obvious insult directed at Xi Jinping. We look forward to President Trump taking strong actions against China in the very near future.

- (SCMP) February 10, 2017.

US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed the one-China policy in his first phone call with Chinas President Xi Jinping after taking office.

In the Friday morning call that was not announced beforehand, Trump told Xi that he fully respected the importance of the one-China policy and that his administration would adhere to it, the state-run China Central Television reported.

Trump made the pledge at Xis request, according to the White House. The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honour our one-China policy, the White House said in a statement.

Friday mornings call was the first between the two leaders since Trump was sworn in as US president in late January. The call marked a major shift in Sino-US relations, which entered into a period of greater uncertainty after Trump took office.

Xi was quoted by state television as saying he appreciated Trumps reiteration of the one-China policy and hoped to work with his US counterpart to promote the steady development of bilateral ties.

Both leaders also agreed to keep close communications, state television reported. The White House described the call as "extremely cordial and the two leaders also extended invitations to meet in their respective countries.

- The shards from the shattered glass hearts of pro-independence Hongkongers are scattered all over the floor ...

(Ming Pao) January 24, 2017.

The government characterized the police-civilian clash during Lunar New Year's Day last year as a 'riot' which caused many injuries. Ming Pao interviewed Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) and he re-iterated that "the original intention was to protect the vendors, but the police mismanaged the situation and caused a huge clash." He said: "We did not plan it. It was a sudden explosion."

Ray Wong said that the huge clash was the acme of Localism. But at the same time, it led to the government oppressing Localism during the Legco elections and the oath ceremony. One year later today, the Localists and the pro-independence elements have gone from strength to weakness. Wong admitted that he had been young and overbearing, making too many enemies. When others needed help, Wong was less than forthcoming. Whereas he criticized the pan-democrats before, he now says that he must mend the relations with the non-establishment camp, including the pan-democrats. "When we share the same position, we can have a certain degree of cooperation." He hopes that both sides will spend less time criticizing each other.

Ray Wong said that Hong Kong Indigenous rose up rapidly after the Lunar New Year clash. "We got many more supporters." During February and March last year, they received a lot of public opinion support. Some of that support became their votes in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. But in the September Legislative Council elections, Edward Leung was ousted by the government. After the election, the two Youngspiration legislators were caught in the oath of office imbroglio. All this led Localism into the abyss.

How many supporters does Hong Kong Indigenous left? Ray Wong said that he does not know, but he knows that those left are the most hard-core supporters. Have the Localists become rats scurrying across the street? Ray Wong said: "I don't feel so. It isn't that bad. When I walk down the street, nobody is scolding me."

Ray Wong said that learned about the weakness of the Localists only after the establishment counter-attacked. In the past, they depended too much on Internet mobilization and lacked mass support. Their propaganda methods were exclusionary in nature, and they are inexperienced in dealing with political struggles and internal conflicts. Ray Wong said that he saw during the Basic Law Interpretation episode that public opinion is easily influenced and he has to think about adjusting the propaganda to the people.

The Basic Law Interpretation episode caused Ray Wong to want to re-examine their relationship with the pan-democrats. "We have reflected on whether we are too hostile and opposed to the pan-democrats. He said that the pan-democratic parties and the localists were opposed to the Basic Law Interpretation." But why didn't the pan-democrats support Youngspiration to fight the case in court?" Ray Wong said that the pan-democrats and Hong Kong Indigenous have completely different political beliefs and methods of resistance. Previously Hong Kong Indigenous vigorously criticized the pan-democrats. Under such circumstances, "Where is the room for co-operation?" Ray Wong said that the difference in opinions is merely a struggle over the future path of Hong Kong. All sides can still divide the labor, with the pan-democrats focusing on economic and livelihood issues , the self-determination camp focusing on referenda to determine the future of Hong Kong and the localists focusing on identity.

When asked about apologizing to the pan-democrats, Ray Wong said: "No." He said that there is no point in being still engrossed in what is in the past.

(SCMP) January 28, 2017.

Mong Kok might have regained a sense of calm a year after violence swept through the retail hub on the first night of Lunar New Year, but key figures of the unrest are still bearing scars of the overnight chaos that lasted more than 10 hours. You could say we were like a raging fire being put out very quickly, said Ray Wong Toi-yeung, the leader of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous who was accused of instigating the Mong Kok riot last February. We do not have the power to start any social movements at this point as many core members are facing charges.

Having been charged with one count of rioting, Wong, 23, could not comment further on what happened a year ago. But he said many supporters had turned away from him and that his group had since reflected on its actions. The main reason (for losing supporters) is that we often misjudged situations and lacked experience, he said. We must take responsibility for that.

Wong described the party as experiencing a time out after raising its local stature, no more evident than when localist Edward Leung Tin-kei, 25, stunned pundits and politicians by garnering 15.4 per cent of votes cast in the Legislative Council by-election for the New Territories East constituency just three weeks after the riot.

Wong blamed the governments aggressive political attacks for curtailing support for his group, claiming his voice was not heard in mainstream media. You can see how the government attacked us by disqualifying Leung from the Legislative Council elections, he said. We often have no chance to dismiss negative reports against us.

He added that he and his members would engage in more community work to win back supporters and wait for the right moment to initiate social movements again.

Internet comments:

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook:


The complete list of lies from Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration
[It is not the first time that they lied, and it won't be the last time]
- When Youngspiration was formed, they said that they were Occupy/Umbrella soldiers. But nobody has ever seen them before.
- Yau Wai-ching explained at a forum that because they were rookies, nobody remembers them. After the Umbrella Revolution, she was photographed as helping someone hit by pepper spray to wash out the eyes.
- Edward Leung said at a by-election forum that this is a "resistance with no red lines" but now he says that he has a "red line" (=not having to go to jail).
- Before the by-election, Edward Leung said that "he really hates the pan-democrats" and that "he really appreciates Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)."
- When he was canvassing for votes, he said: "I am offering my life to the fight." After he returned to Hong Kong, he said that he was afraid of dying."\
- Edward Leung said: "If one day I am no longer myself, you should just topple me."
- After being accused of forsaking Localists in order to get close to leftist retards, Ray Wong promised that he will not do so in the future. But today, Ray Wong said that he is going to cooperate with the pan-democrats because he needs resources.
- After Hong Kong Indigenous got disqualified from the Legco elections, they told their supporters to vote for Youngspiration because the two organizations are 99% alike.
- "Edward Leung Tin-kei" = "Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang". That may just be true if the measure is the degree of despicability.
- Edward Leung told supporters to transfer their votes to Youngspiration and he promised that he will monitor what Youngspiration does during the elections.
- Wong Chun-kit released false information to Local Press
- Leung Chung-hang denied that they used obscene language during their oaths of office. He said that "People's Re-fucking of Shina" came out like this merely due to his Ap Lei Chau accent.
- Ray Wong said that there was zero cost to having fun (with the oath of office), so why not?
- Yau Wai-ching lied by publicly thanking Raymond Yuk-man for telling voters to vote for her instead.
- Leung Chung-hang mobilized the masses to start the battle at the China Liaison Office and then quickly left by taxi.
[continuously updated]

- Ray Wong must be on drugs? Here is a list of landmark clichs from the history of Hong Kong Indigenous:


Ray Wong: When is the Epochal Revolution taking place?
    SH Tam: Soon
Ray Wong: Zero cost. A lot of fun. Why not do it?
Ray Wong: Traitor.
    Crane Liu: Traitor. Article 23 legislation. The Junggar Desert needs you to plant trees for labor reform
Ray Wong: Eating Hot Dogs (Civic Passion) again?
Ray Wong: What about the 100 Viagra pills?
Ray Wong: And the $530,000 in cash?
Ray Wong: Where is Watermelon Kei?
    Edward Leung: What do you want me for?
Ray Wong: May the Heavens strike down all you traitors!

- Chau Yau Luan's Facebook

|
Ray Wong said that nobody is helping the Localists? Is that true?
After Lunar New Year last year, the Localist camp was united in an unprecedented way to support Edward Leung, who ultimately received 60,000 votes in the New Territories East Legco by-election. Leung declared boldly that the world is now divided into the pro-establishment, pan-democratic and localists camps.
Six months later in the September Legco elections, Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration joined together to attack Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order with smears and rumors. After Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching won, they were high-spirited and demanded Cheng Chung-tai to give up his idea of a permanent continuation of the Basic Law.
After the oath of office ceremony, Leung and Yau lost their seats and the entire Localist camp was forsaken by public opinion.
Now Ray Wong comes out and says that nobody is helping them, and they want to surrender to the pan-democrats in order to beg for a few crumbs to eat?
Fuck your mother, Ray Wong Edward Leung Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. You are just a bunch of Secondary School Form Two sick kids who spout Hong Kong independence talk.


John Tsang: Recuperate/Recover/Rehabilitate/Heal refers to the cessation of infighting. If infighting continues, governance will be stalled and the competitiveness of Hong Kong will be affected. In truth, all political camps are tired of the enmity and rifts over the past few years. Only a few extremists are still glad about doing it. Faced with this situation, we should let society recuperate/recover/heal. This is not only the desire of the majority of the people of Hong Kong. It is also the way for Hong Kong to continue to move forward.

The big question is: Who are the few extremists that John Tsang is talking about? Why are they so keen on promoting infighting?

Here is a good candidate:

(League of Social Democrats) January 19, 2017.

Four Crimes of John Tsang

Crime #1: He is a miser who wants to hoard the money in order to benefit the investors

He would rather benefit the hedge fund investors than the grassroots and the senior citizens. He spend $219.7 billion to establish a Future Foundation and inject 23%-33% from the budget surplus each year into this Foundation. This money cannot be touched before 2025. Hereafter, its use is unspecified. The Future Foundation is invested with the Long-term Increase Group of the Foreign Exchange Reserves, including investments in private stock equities and overseas properties. Returns on investment are put back into the Foreign Exchange Reserves. John Tsang has locked the money down in order to create a fiscal crisis. People are starving and freezing to death by the roadside, but our Secretary for Finance won't release one cent!

Crime #2: You always agree with your boss.

John Tsang: "If we can seize this opportunity (One Road One Belt), the development of Hong Kong over the next 30 years, even 50 years, will have a backing." (According to the One Road One Belt Office commissioner, scholars have said that the results won't be realized until 30 years later)

In Hong Kong, the corporate and personal taxes are the lowest in the world. But our Secretary for Finance insisted on keeping the tax system and maintain the low tax rate.

Crime #3: Trust in the market and let housing prices soar

Cheung Bing-leung said: "As for the number of residential property transactions involving double stamp duty, they have increased by 50% for August/September 2016 compared to last year. The 2,600 transactions in September was a new record high, being 29% of all residential property transactions. In October, the 2,100 transactions were 28% of all residential property transactions. Between March-October, the housing price indicator rose up by 11.9%, for mostly small- and medium-sized units."

The price of land kept rising. Chinese-capital corporations are speculating on land. At Kai Tak, the price of land was $13,000 per square foot. This is even more expensive than the price of an apartment in the same district. That is, the flour is even more expensive than the bread now. For the first half of October, there were 130 transactions of amounts more than $30 million. According to the developers, 30% of the buyers were mainlanders.

The Government's 3rd Quarter Economic Report: "In September 2016, the overall housing prices are 71% more than the peak period in 1997. The purchasing power of the citizens (that is, the mortgage payment for a 45 square meter apart unit compared to the medium household income (which includes public housing households) has risen to 59% in the third quarter of this year. This is far higher than the long-term 6% between 1996 and 2015. If the interest rate were to rise to the normal 3%, the purchasing power of the citizens would soar to 77%."

Crime #4: Egocentricism, unable to regard the Citizen as his Boss.

He decided to stop paying interest. In the 2015 budget, our Secretary for Finance deleted the interest income from the Hong Kong International Airport (which averaged $5 billion over the past five years). He bypassed the checks and balance of the Legislative Council, and willfully went ahead to build the third runway for the airport. In so doing, the government forsook the income and the citizens will be paying for the construction fee for this "Great White Elephant" project.

- A brief introduction: (Wikipedia) The League of Social Democrats (Chinese: 社會民主連線; LSD) is a social democratic political party in Hong Kong established in 2006.

What do they want?

(Wikipedia) Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Specifically, the current demands of the Hong Kong League of Social Democrats include:

  • Genuine universal suffrage for Chief Executive in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination
  • Genuine universal suffrage for Legislative Council in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination, with the elimination of the Functional Constituency
  • Stop government-business collusion
  • A universal retirement protection scheme in which all persons above retirement age will received the same retirement amount coming from the Foreign Exchange Reserves
  • Cash handouts to all citizens coming from the persistent budget surpluses
  • Increasing the minimum hourly wage
  • Capping the maximum number of working hours per week
  • ...

What do they do to get what they want?

(Wikipedia) Members of the party pioneered the use of theatrics and disruptive tactics in Hong Kong. Heckling and the throwing of projectiles have since become a frequent occurrence at Legislative Council and public meetings. Their members have been ejected from Legislative Council meetings on numerous occasions.

(League of Social Democrats) Our organization emphasizes that "change does not fall down from the heavens because it can only come through continual resistance/struggle." We advocate "resistance all the way inside and outside the Legislative Council." In the streets, our members practice civil disobedience. Over the years, we have the highest number of people arrested and prosecuted among all political parties in Hong Kong. Inside the Legislative Council, our representative Leung Kwok-hung actively filibuster on behalf of the masses to stop unjust expenditures.

John Tsang had a previous encounter with the League of Social Democrats:

(SCMP) December 8, 2013. Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah was hit on the head by an egg thrown by a protester attending a government forum yesterday. "Luckily I'm not wearing a good suit today," Tsang fired back at the audience at the forum in North Point. In fact, he was dressed in a tracksuit. He added that he appeared to have foreseen the incident.

The police arrested two men, aged 24 and 25, on suspicion of common assault and disorderly conduct. One was believed to have thrown eggs and another a doll. Neither is thought to have thrown the egg that hit Tsang. "Our one demand is that there should be public nomination in the chief executive election," one protester, surnamed Chan, told the media before being arrested. It is understood that both Chan and the other man held are members of the League of Social Democrats. They were last night being held at North Point police station.

(SCMP) November 7, 2014. Defending himself, Chan said that he had been throwing eggs onto the stage without aiming at anyone in particular. Citing Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami, he said that eggs represented people who fought against their government. "Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg," Murakami once said. Chan said that it was common for protesters to throw eggs at politicians in foreign countries, and such an act was not an attack but rather a way to express a view.

(SCMP) November 29, 2014. A radical pro-democracy activist was sentenced to three weeks in jail yesterday for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah at a political forum as part of a protest last year.

(SCMP) May 20, 2015. Derek Chan Tak-cheung, secretary general of the radical League of Social Democrats, who threw eggs at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah at a political forum in North Point vowed to continue demonstrating on behalf of the underprivileged after he finished a three-week jail term yesterday. "I met old people in jail who had committed petty crimes to get by, such as stealing minor stuff at the supermarket," he said. "If I have learned anything from the experience, it is how the government is sitting on billions of surplus while the poor and old are out on the street worrying about their livelihood."

John Tsang can bring the League of Social Democrats to the table for his Grand Unity/Reconciliation/Healing if he has concrete proposals on universal suffrage, universal retirement protection, etc. I look for the day when John Tsang and Leung Kwok-hung hold up their hands up high to celebrate their accord on how to stop government-business collusion!

- On the core issues of the League of Social Democrats (e.g. universal retirement protection, constitutional reform, etc), John Tsang holds the position that they are controversial and cause deep social rifts. But deferment is not a neutral act, because it means that the status quo will continue. So John Tsang and the League of Social Democrats have irreconcilable differences.

- Recently the minimum wage was increased from $32.50 to $34.50. The League of Social Democrats considers that to be woefully inadequate. But if you raise it to $38.50 like the labor side wants, you will find that the labor side will demand $44.50 next (to keep up with inflation blah blah blah). How are you going to reach an agreement with someone who practices confrontational politics?  If you yield an inch, he is going to push for another inch. This is never ever going to end. It is called Permanent Revolution.

- The Social Democratic theory is that a country must go through two distinct revolutions. The first is the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution which socialists would assist. However, this revolution will be incomplete because the bourgeoisie by its nature is incapable of instituting full political democracy and solving the land ownership issue. The second is the Socialist Revolution in which the revolution will be completed by a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

So there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the League of Social Democrats will stop with "genuine universal suffrage" in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. If and when they get there, they will bring out Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If you ask them right now, they will deny it because such an agenda is taboo in capitalist Hong Kong at this moment. Their immediate task right now is to make things so bad that the masses will eventually come to accept this agenda. Good luck, John Tsang!

- (Sing Tao) February 8, 2017.

When John Tsang went to visit at Shue Yan University, several students greeted him with "I want civil nomination" and "I don't want small-circle elections." They chanted "I don't want the August 31st framework" and then they left on their own. If John Tsang went there to communicate, those students were not interested.

#1. (Oriental Daily with video) January 21, 2017.

Yesterday Carrie Lam was leaving her election campaign office in the Wanchai Convention Centre as reporters ran after her. She came down the escalator. At the bottom of the escalator, a male cameraman rammed a camera at her left arm and left breast with force. She cried out "Waaahhh!" and her expression immediately darkened. A security guard separated the two. Carrie Lam walked quickly towards her van.

- Carrie Lam is unfit to become Chief Executive because she was so rude to the reporters. She answered just a couple of questions. She did not stay and patiently answer all of their questions. And she left in a hurry, forcing them to chase after her. After the physical contact, her expression darkened and she did not apologize to the reporter. The People of Hong Kong do not want such a bad-mannered woman as their Chief Executive.

- Indeed, we expect that the Hong Kong Journalists Association will be coming out with a statement to condemn Carrie Lam for being unfit to become Chief Executive. All journalists must be treated with the utmost respect, and she has failed miserably here just as she had throughout her entire life.

- Spoof:

The Hong Kong Journalists Association strongly condemns the violence
Carrie Lam assaulted a reporter who was gathering news
She has committed an egregious violation of the freedom of press
She disregarded the personal safety of the reporter
And used her chest to assault the photography equipment
She owed an apology
But she left wordless with a dark expression
All rights to seek redress for the damage to the equipment and the injury of the reporter are reserved.

- It would be sexist to say that Carrie Lam is a woman and therefore she is emotionally unstable. But her Emotional Quotient as shown in this case is extremely questionable.

- From the logo on the camera, the male reporter is from NOW TV. This is a pro-Occupy Central Yellow Ribbon media outlet. He was probably under orders to create a physical clash. He rammed his camera at full-speed at Carrie Lam in front of the other cameramen in order to make her look bad. He made sure to look at the on.tv camera and gave his most evil grin.

NOW TV is owned and operated by Richard Li whose father is Li Ka-shing. The Li family stands to gain most from a Second Coming of Property Hegemony as practiced under the regime of Donald Tsang/John Tsang, whereas they were put under clamps under CY Leung/Carrie Lam.

- This is a smear job on the professional journalists at NOW TV, which created the extensive series abut Property Hegemony (YouTube, with English sub-titles).

- The Gospel of Matthew:

5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth
5:39 But I saw unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Carrie Lam failed to let the NOW TV cameraman hit her on the right side as well. She is Roman Catholic but she failed to act in accordance with the Gospel of Matthew. No Christian can possibly vote for her!

#2. (Apple Daily with video) January 21, 2017.

After her announcement to run for Chief Executive, Carrie Lam has been putting public appearances to be closer to the people. Yesterday she gave up her chauffeur-serviced automobile to try the MTR subway. Lam was clearly not familiar with riding the subway. She did not even know how to use the Octopus card. She stood in front of the entrance and looked at the gate. She clearly did not know what to do. Her assistant told her "It's alright. You can proceed" and then she went through the gate.

At the new Lei Tung Station, she shook hands with citizens. She met with citizens and shook hands. She spotted the words "Wong Chuk Hang station" on the wall. So she thought that she was in the Wong Chuk Hang station. She said to the citizen: "New station? Wong Chuk Hang." The citizen corrected erh: "No. It's Lei Tung."

- (Wikepedia) Carrie Lam

Born to a low-income family of Zhoushan ancestry in Hong Kong, Lam was the fourth of five children. Lam grew up in Wan Chai. She completed her primary and secondary education at St. Francis' Canossian College, a neighborhood Catholic girls' school. Despite being raised in a tong lau subdivided flat, which only allowed Lam to do her homework on a bunk bed, she still managed to always rank first in class and even became the Head Girl.

With a privileged background such as this, Carrie Lam clearly has no idea what regular folks have to deal with. It would be immoral for her to become Chief Executive.

By contrast, the highly popular John Tsang could only afford to attend the working-class LaSalle College located in the middle of the slums of Kowloon Tong. When the old school building was falling apart, it was Li Ka-shing's Cheung Kong Holdings which helped to build a new school out of the kindness of Li's heart.

- You bastard! You lie like a rug! Knowing that LaSalle College desperately needed  a new school building, Cheung Kong Holdings swapped LaSalle College's land along Boundary Street for the construction of a new school building. On that most lucrative parcel of land, Cheung Kong Holdings built its Beverly Villas and made a ton of money. Out of the kindness of Li Ka-shing's heart? And pigs will fly. Suce mes couilles!

- (The Standard) May 3, 2016. Lam recalled that one of the most memorable lows for her was placing fourth in class for a mid- term examination. That was the one and only one time in her 13 years at St Francis' Canossian School and St Francis' Canossian College when she failed to come in top of the class. She cried when went back to home, as she was worried about how the teachers and relatives looked at her. Asked for her reaction. Lam said: "I took the No1 place back."

This sort of obsessive compulsion to come first is psychopathological. The fact of life is that we cannot all be Number One at the same time. There is only one Number One, but does that make the rest of us losers? No, because we the majority in a democracy can make you suffer if we so wish! So just shut up and sit down, okay!?

By contrast, John Tsang has said that he never finishes first. That is why John Tsang is the People's Choice now. Down with Carrie Lam! Death to Carrie Lam!

- The Apple Daily video shows clearly that Carrie Lam was completely at a loss at the gate (0:41 into the video). If there should be a terrorist attack in Hong Kong, is she going to freeze like this? Can she be put in charge of our personal safety? Obviously not!

- John Tsang should use this video to make an attack ad against Carrie Lam. She was so pathetic! See for yourself!

- (Apple Daily) This episode is nowhere as pathetic as when Carrie Lam went to attend the funeral of Hong Kong singer Barbara Fei. Her chauffeured car took her to the Hong Kong Funeral Home in North Point, Hong Kong Island. She entered, came back out shortly, got back into the car and went to the Universal Funeral Parlour in Hung Hom, Kowloon. She had gone to the wrong funeral home! Hong Kong cannot afford to have Carrie Lam as its Chief Executive!

- This was the first day without her government assistant and she was foundering already. Her former assistant will probably be a better Chief Executive than her.

- (Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017. John Tsang went to attend a meeting with the Liberal Party at the Legislative Council building. Visitors are required to register, but John Tsang forgot to bring his Hong Kong ID. Eventually a worker from John Tsang's campaign office brought the ID over so that John Tsang can enter the building. This was not the first time that John Tsang forgot to carry his ID. Previously in November 2014, John Tsang forgot to bring his ID while testifying in a court trial.

- Under the CAP 115 Immigration Ordinance article Section 17C (1)

(1) Every person who- (a) has attained the age of 15 years; and (b) (i) is the holder of an identity card or is required to apply to be registered under the Registration of Persons Ordinance (Cap 177); or (ii) is the holder of a Vietnamese refugee card, shall have with him at all times proof of his identity.

The maximum fine is HK$5,000.

Since John Tsang was making $320,000+ per month before, he can easily afford to pay $5,000.

#3. (Bastille Post) January 21, 2016. Yesterday Carrie Lam met with senior media executives. She was asked what was the worst outcome in the Chief Executive election. She said that the worst case is when a person was elected and the Central Government refuses to appoint that person. That would be an international scandal as well as constitutional crisis. She said that she has entered the election in order to stop this from happening. She did not identify the person(s) or reason(s).

- According to Article 45 of the Basic Law: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." This means that once a person wins the local election, he/she must be appointed by the Central People's Government. It is all written down in black-and-white. Carrie Lam is lying as usual!

- (Apple Daily) Chief Executive Woo Kwok Hing accused Carrie Lam of "firing an arrow behind the back from inside a black box." As such, Lam needs to explain to the public and the other candidates the basis of her statement. If she cannot give a credible explanation, then "it will lessen confidence in the election as well as the Central Government." Woo also called on those senior media executives who attended the meeting to tell us what happened because the public interest is involved.

- (Apple Daily) Carrie Lam's campaign office said that Lam was only worried about "just in case." As such, she was not referring to any specific individual.

This explanation, like everything else that Carrie Lam has done over her entire life, is woefully inadequate. There are only four persons who have declared so far: Carrie Lam, John Tsang, Regina Ip and Woo Kwok Hing. Carrie Lam has to tell us which of these people will not be appointed by the Central Government and for what reasons. We the People of Hong Kong demand this.

- (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2017. Neo Democrats convener Yam Kai-pong and Sai Kung district councilor Gary Fan Kwok-wai went down to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to denounce Carrie Lam for violating the Election Ordinance through her statements to the media tycoons. Yam also demanded that all attendees must tell just exactly what Carrie Lam said during the meeting because the public has the right and the need to know what transpired in this closed-door meeting.

- (EJ Insight) January 25, 2017.

Chief executive hopeful Woo Kwok-hing may file a complaint with the Electoral Affairs Commission over remarks made by former chief secretary Carrie Lam, an election rival, RTHK reports.

Lam had been quoted as saying at a closed-door meeting that she decided to join the race to prevent a worst-case scenario where the central government refuses to appoint an election winner who is not acceptable to it, which in turn could trigger a constitutional crisis. She later denied that her remarks were aimed at her rivals, saying she had simply made a factual comment because the Basic Law does stipulate that Beijing has the final say on whether to appoint the candidate selected by the 1,200-strong Election Committee.

But Woo, a retired judge and a former chairman of the commission, said Lams remarks could have breached the relevant election ordinance and he may file a complaint with the commission if there was sufficient evidence.

Woo also called on those who were present at the meeting to make public what Lam had said. Its difficult for the time being to decide what was the truth. If the 20-odd media tycoons who had been in the meeting with her were to divulge what theyve heard, then the case may be different. We may have sufficient evidence to see one way or the other clearly, he said. And that would be the basis for deciding whether a complaint should be laid and whether she should be prosecuted, whether she has committed a crime, Woo said.

- Carrie Lam needs to be jailed immediately. The evidence is so clear that a trial won't even be necessary. Besides Judge Woo has already pronounced sentence.

#4. (The Stand News) January 21, 2017.

Today Sing Pao published an editorial to point out that Carrie Lam's family was focused on England until the opportunity came for her to run for Chief Executive. Her husband went to teach mathematics at the Beijing Normal University; her 25-year-old son graduated in mathematics from Cambridge University in 2010 and came back to Hong Kong in 2013 to intern at Chow Tai Took and another investment company with mainland background. So why would Carrie Lam give up her plans to retire to England?  After all, her family has right of abode in the United Kingdom. And what has she really done for Hong Kong? How can the Central Government possibly trust Carrie Lam?

Meanwhile John Tsang is completely different. At age 14, he immigrated to New York City (USA) with his parents and three siblings. He lived on 8th Street in Lowest East Side and attended Stuyvesant High School. He has degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston State College and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. John Tsang was naturalized as a United States citizen but renounced American citizenship in 1998. His wife, his son and his daughter are still American citizens. In 1982 at age 31, he returned to Hong Kong and served in various positions in the British colonial administration, including a two-year stint as Private Secretary to the Governor Chris Patten. After the 1997 handover, John Tsang continued to serve the People, including stints as the director of the Office of the Chief Executive as well as the Financial Secretary under his dearest friend Donald Tsang. As such, John Tsang is "red and expert" and the Central Government can fully trust him to be loyal to the People's Republic of China/Chinese Communist Party.

- As the most trusted Hong Kong media outlet of Xi Jinping, Sing Pao has once again hit the truth on the nail. Only Sing Pao tells it like it is.

- If the Chinese Communist Party cannot trust the Private Secretary of Lord Chris Patten , who can they trust? After all, they branded Patten "a sinner for a thousand years", but the Jade Emperor has still not struck Patten down with lightning. This means that Patten was right and therefore his Private Secretary can do no wrong.

#5. (Bastille Post) January 22, 2017.

Carrie Lam told reporters that she had moved out the Chief Secretary's residence into a rented apartment near her campaign office. She moved late at night. By midnight, she found out that there was no toilet paper at the new apartment. So she went downstairs to buy toilet paper at the convenience store. To her surprise, she found out that the convenience stores do not sell toilet paper.

What is to be done? She took a taxi in the middle of the night to fetch toilet paper from the Chief Secretary's residence that she had just moved out of. Carrie Lam said that she shared this story with the reporters because too many things have been happening and she needs time to adjust.

- If she can't even clean her ass, she is definitely not fit to become Chief Executive.

- This major event was reported by Juliana Liu on BBC, January 23, 2017. Run out of toilet paper? Most of us would solve the problem with a quick trip to the shops. But in Hong Kong, politician Carrie Lam took a taxi to her former official residence in the city's exclusive Peak district to fetch more rolls. She shared the details of her loo paper adventure to reporters over the weekend, instantly making her a laughing stock on social media. "I'm laughing so hard, I'm on the floor," a user called Robhimx wrote on Twitter.

Mrs Lam is currently seen as Beijing's top pick to become Hong Kong's chief executive, the highest position in the city. But many are now questioning her common sense and her knowledge of the city. Some wondered why she couldn't simply ask the housekeeping staff of her serviced residence for toilet paper. Or, when she found her local convenience store had no loo paper, why she didn't purchase the ubiquitous tissue packets for temporary use. "So, where did she get her toilet paper BEFORE she moved into the government house?" asked another online commentator.

- Hong Kong cannot afford to have a Chief Executive who loses face in front of a global audience. Carrie Lam must drop out of the race now!

#6. The We Support Carrie Lam Facebook

Previously, in response to a media question, Carrie Lam said that her campaign will not have a presence on Facebook. A few days ago, certain purported supporters started their own We Support Carrie Lam Facebook. They proclaimed: "This is not an official organization. We did not even ask or contact Carrie Lam and her campaign office."

- I have already lodged complaints with the Independent Commission Against Corruption , the Electoral Affairs Commission, the British Parliament, US President Donald Trump, Human Rights Monitor, Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner about this egregious and blatant cheating. If her campaign ran a Facebook, Carrie Lam would have to pay someone to do that. If some fans ran a Facebook which works just like a campaign tool, Carrie Lam does not have to pay a cent while reaping the rewards. Carrie Lam should go to jail for this.

- Thank God that there is still one media outlet (Apple Daily) looking out for public justice. We must not allow Carrie Lam get away with this.

- If Carrie Lam cannot control a rogue Facebook, how is she going to function as Chief Executive? Carrie Lam is unfit to be Chief Executive.

- (EJ Insight) Why Carrie Lam should distance herself from Beijing loyalists. By SC Yeung. January 26, 2017.

An unofficial fan page supporting Carrie Lam has fired a shot at the opposition camp ostensibly to draw public attention to the former chief secretary as she seeks Hong Kongs highest office.

But the move could do more harm than good.

It creates the impression that Lam is in the camp of those who refuse to make Hong Kong a harmonious society by being focused on triggering conflict with pro-democracy or pro-independence forces.

The fan page, called We Support Carrie Lam, was launched last week and starts harmlessly enough. On Tuesday, it posted Lams profile, introducing her as a hard-working woman who has been a kind and fearless public servant.

The story then said she abandoned her stable life as she wanted to be the guardian of Hong Kong.

Turning into the dark side, it said her decision to be Hong Kongs guardian set off the fat, black devil and a group of yellow monsters to block her way.   

The  story is ephemeral and hard to comprehend but the black devil and yellow monsters it refers to might be the pro-democracy camp or the pro-independence camp or both.

Yellow was the color of the 2014 Occupy Central protests and black is ascribed to pro-independence and localist forces.

The pro-Beijing loyalists blame the pro-democracy camp for deepening social divisions in Hong Kong. At the same time, Beijing has eased up on the latter, for instance by reissuing home return permits to prominent opposition figures.

So whats the point in the pro-Beijing camp not extending the same gesture to the opposition? 

While the fan page was not published officially by Lams campaign, it is quite clear it was founded by Beijing loyalists and aims to continue the political legacy of Leung Chun-ying after he steps down as chief executive in July.   

In fact, as a former chief secretary, Lam should understand why her boss failed to win the trust of Hong Kong people and why he continues to struggle to shore up his profile.

His administrations hostile approach to the opposition has been at the core of Hong Kongs social disharmony in the past four years.

Leungs governing style has not only failed to convince Hong Kong people to bow to his rule but also firmed up their resolve to fight for their core values such as freedom of speech and of assembly.

In the Election Committee election, they gave 325 seats to the pan-democrats, making them a key player in the selection of Hong Kongs next chief executive in March.

Now Lam appears to be following in Leungs footsteps by catering to pro-Beijing loyalists. It can only mean she will be under the control of Beijings Liaison Office instead of being a genuine leader of Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, the Heung Yee Kuk, which represents indigenous rural interests in the New Territories, has thrown its support behind Lam.

That could be a double-edged sword because it could turn off a section of the population that disagrees with the small house scheme the Kuk supports.

The central government reminded Hong Kong that the chief executive should be a person who is able to reflect the Hong Kong situation comprehensively, accurately and objectively.

Lam should carefully consider what it means and not pursue a line skewed toward Beijing loyalists as she seeks the 150 votes needed to garner nomination.

And if she wants to win the hearts and minds of Hongkongers, she has to run an inclusive campaign that caters to all people.

- Yes, Donald Trump is a fine example on how to run an all-inclusive campaign that campaigns that caters to all people. That is why the American people all love him. Carrie Lam would do well to learn from President Trump.

- (Bastille Post) February 10, 2017.

Since the We Support Carrie Lam Facebook page is run as a sponsored page which pays a fee Facebook, it works just like an advertisement. Reportedly the Carrie Lam campaign office has filed a police report because they have to dissociate with the We Support Carrie Lam Facebook.

#7. The Countryside in Autumn

(Kinliu) The media has found a Chinese essay entitled <The Countryside in Autumn> written 48 years ago by a St. Francis' Canossian College primary six student named Cheng Yuet-ngor. The media invited Chinese University of Hong Kong School of Chinese lecturer Dr. Vichy Ho Wai-chi to comment.

Dr. Ho was not told who the author was. Dr. Ho began by praising the essay as so "excellent" that not even a secondary school form six student could have written it. Then he switched to say: "Although the writing is good, there is no self ... the writer did not want outsiders to see her inner world, or else she was trained not to need to be understood ... she was also unwilling to share her ideas and she refused to let people see through her."

- Commentator Stephen Siu also spent almost 30 minutes criticizing this essay on his Internet radio program.  Siu said that the essay was mostly copied from fiction because the scenes (such as farmers harvesting hay) could not have occurred in Hong Kong. He concluded by calling her a "strong-headed and cruel bureaucrat."

In Lam's defense, Chris Wat Wing-yin wrote: "When I was a 12-year-old in primary six, I must have written dozens of these essays. For a child with no experience in the countryside, there was no choice but to write fiction based upon what I had read before elsewhere. But who would have thought that a piece of child writing would become the basis of mass struggle criticism sessions 48 years later?"

This will not wash!!! Academic plagiarism must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without any statute of limitations! I have lodged a complaint with St. Francis' Canossian College that one of their students committed academic plagiarism 48 years ago.

- A plagiarist is obviously unfit to become Chief Executive. Down with Carrie Lam! Death to Carrie Lam!

#8. (EJ Insight) January 25, 2017.

Chief executive contender Carrie Lam said that leadership hopefuls would need to reflect if they are unable to win enough nominations from the pro-Beijing camp. The pro-Beijing camp controls some 800 votes in the 1,194-member election committee, of which candidates have to win at least 150 to be nominated.

- If Carrie Lam does not get nominations from the pro-democracy camp, she would need to reflect on why people who love FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES hate her.

- If a candidate cannot get nominations from the pro-Beijing camp, it means that they love FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES. As such, they should stand tall and be proud.

- If the pro-Beijing camp controls some 800 votes out of 1,194 votes, it means that you cannot win if none of them will vote for you. That is simple arithmetic.

- The actual context was that Carrie Lam is threatening the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and the Chinese Manufacturers' Association that if they won't nominate her, she will go out and embrace FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES to get enough nominations.

#9. This is the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook:

Text: "Woo Kwok Hing says that I have violated the Elections Ordinance. You are fucking stupid. Do we still have law in Hong Kong? Do you think that this is still 20 years ago? We have adopted rule-of-man a long time ago. Pedant! Here you go! (photo of Carrie Lam raising middle finger)"

- Once again, Carrie Lam has exceeded the boundary for civilized behavior by hurling an obscene insult at a rival candidate who was merely stating an obvious point of law. Carrie Law should quit immediately in shame.

- Just because this "Carrie Lam for CE 2017" Facebook was an unofficial site launched by a citizen named Eric Chan does not make Carrie Lam any less culpable. She can always take action.

If she complains to Facebook to get this unofficial page removed, then we will know for sure that she hates FREEDOM OF SPEECH in Hong Kong.

If she fails to complain to Facebook to get this unofficial page removed, then we will know that she condones the middle-finger sign to Woo Kwok Hing.

- We thank Eric Chan for his courageous fight to gain freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law and universal suffrage for Hong Kong. If he can have a PayPal account, I will send him HK$1.

- While most newspapers censored themselves and refused to report on the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook, Apple Daily columnist Yoyo Ko Wai-yin has courageously stepped up to denounce Carrie Lam's vileness.

Yoyo cited Woo Kwok Hing who told Carrie Lam to use a towel to wipe her ass and then the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook responded: "Use a towel to wipe your ass? Are you keep the towel afterwards? If you keep it, will you use it to wipe your face? How disgusting can you be?" Yoyo said: "If you want to understand the kind of person Carrie Lam is, just observe the quality of the people around her."

The Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook posted Yoyo's column with the comment: "The Carrie Lam for CE 2017? At the risk of offending Yoyo, this page is so fake and yet someone can still think that it is for real. There is no cure for mental retardation."

Internet user Hero Matsuzaka wrote to the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook: "Wow! This is not the real Carrie Lam campaign page? I added you because I support Carrie Lam!" The administrator responded: "Sorry, we are actually the real thing. That previous response to Yoyo Ko was the result of some hacker hacking into our account and typing that text."

- Internet user Guile Lsk commented: "No wonder there are so many cases of fraud in Hong Kong ... they can even believe this ..."

- Yoyo got played like a yoyo.

- (SCMP) February 5, 2017. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen warned that it could be an offence under the law for anyone to pay for electoral advertisements online without a candidates consent. Tam was speaking in response to a media question about Facebook pages created by the candidates supporters and critics.

- CAP 554 Election (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, section 26: Illegal conduct to publish false or misleading statements about a candidate.

(1) A person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.

- Because Carrie Lam failed to show leadership by stopping unofficial Facebook pages, a certain pro-democracy freedom fighter associated with VJ Media is in danger of being arrested. Previously, this valiant warrior had started a fake Wan Chin Facebook page without any consequences. Given that there is zero cost and lots of fun for this sort of thing, why not open a Facebook page for an election candidate? Unfortunately he may be politically persecuted for his courageous act of civil disobedience.

#10. (Bastille Post) There is a newspaper report that a "pan-democratic elector" received a phone call from a worker at the China Liaison Office to offer to arrange a meeting with Carrie Lam. The person said that the China Liaison Office will help to contact Carrie Lam. The report said that this proves that Carrie Lam wants to have some pan-democratic electors nominating her as opposed to only pro-establishment electors.

- You cannot even call this coming out of the closet, because it was obvious from the start that Carrie Lam is the favorite daughter of the China Liaison Office.

- Eh, this news story is poorly made up. Firstly, aren't the pan-democrats always saying that they don't have anything to talk to the China Liaison Office about? Secondly, Carrie Lam and her campaign staff have their own very good direct connections with the pan-democrats, so why would she need to go through the China Liaison Office?

- Hehehe, nowadays if you receive a phone call from someone who says that he works for the China Liaison Office, it is obviously fraudulent. Did the person also ask you to wire a few million dollars to a designated bank account?

- So why did the newspaper carry this fake story? The reason is simple: John Tsang won't be able to procure 150 pro-establishment electors to nominate him and therefore he needs the support of the pan-democrats. So if the China Liaison Office does that for Carrie Lam, then surely John Tsang can do so himself. Right?

#11. (Oriental Daily) January 27, 2017.

Today Carrie Lam traveled out to Sha Tin to reach out to the people. She spotted an old beggar woman and talked to her. Did she have a place to stay? Is she a Hongkongers? A shake of the head. Carrie Lam switched to putonghua and continued speaking. She held the woman's hand and gave her HK$500. "It is tough for you. Have a good New Year! Take care of yourself." The woman told the media that she came from Hubei to Hong Kong for a couple of days because her relatives borrowed some money. Somebody else took her here to Hong Kong even though she does not want to come herself.

- Like so many other Hubei grandmas, this old beggar woman was hired to perform as a beggar (see 200701#055). She is in violation of the terms of her visit permit and she faces a maximum penalty of HK$50,000 and 2 years in jail.

As a defender of rule-of-law, Carrie Lam should have called the police to have her arrested, jailed/fined and deported. When she feigns loving care, she is promoting rule-of-man.

- On Lunar New Year's Day last year, the unlicensed peddlers were trying to eke out a living. Technically they were unlicensed and therefore cannot conduct business. In the past, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Hong Kong Police have looked the other way during the first days of the Lunar New Year. Last year, the witch of a Chief Secretary Carrie Lam ordered the police to charge and club the unlicensed peddlers, throwing their wares onto the ground. A few passersby (including Hong Kong Indigneous and Lau Siu-lai) went up to protect the poor vendors. This was the cause of the Mong Kok Fishball Revolution.

If Carrie Lam had the same degree of loving care for those unlicensed vendors as she feigned to have for that Hubei grandma today, the Mong Kok 'riot' need never have happened.

- (Headline Daily) According to retired judge Woo Kwok Hing and Chief Executive candidate, Carrie Lam is a co-conspirator with a person who is violating CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance s 26A Punishment of person begging alms:

Any person who wanders abroad, or places himself or herself in any public place, street or waterway to beg or gather alms, or causes or procures or encourages any child or children so to do, commits an offence and is liable on conviction-

(a) for a first or second offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 1 month; and
(b) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance s 26A is derived from the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the United Kingdom. If the law exists in the United Kingdom, it must represent a universal value that Hong Kong must maintain as its own core value.

- The Vagrancy Act 1824 also criminalizes "every petty chapman or pedlar wandering abroad, and trading without being duly licensed, or otherwise authorized by law." That means that the Hong Kong Police were correctly enforcing the law on Lunar New Year Day last year. Anyone who supports the unlicensed vendors is aiding and abetting law-breaking.

- Woo Kwok-hing is a retired judge who wants to defend rule-of-law. If and when Woo Kwok-hing is elected Chief Executive, he will order the police to arrest all unlicensed vendors anytime anywhere. Rule-of-law demands it.

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching stand in the street to solicit donations. That's a violation of CAP 228. According to retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, they should be arrested.

- On June 4th and July 1st, the streets leading to Victoria Park are filled with various pan-democrats begging to money. They should all be arrested for violation of CAP 228 s26A.

(HKG Pao) At the request of film director Ko Chi-sum, a poll was held on the question: "Are the pan-democrats engaged in illegal begging on July 1st?" Out of 2553 respondents, 2429 (=95%) chose LIKE.

- Don't forget the Four Mendicants known as DQ4.

- There are other goodies in the UK Vagrancy Act.

The Vagrancy Act 1838 prosecutes every Person wilfuly exposing to view, in any Street, or public Place, any obscene Print, Picture, or other indecent Exhibition. This should get rid of the pornographic magazines on sale at Hong Kong newsstands.

The Vagrancy Act 1898 prohibited soliciting or importuning for immoral purposes. This should get rid of the single-prostitute brothels in Hong Kong. But it was noted that in practice the Vagrancy Act 1898 was almost solely used to convict men for gay sex. That should not please the Rainbow Coalition.

- Just because the Vagrancy Act 1824 still exists in the books does not means that it is being enforced rigorously. (FT) February 12, 2014.

A number of people in England are, it seems, now routinely searching bins for discarded food so that they and others can eat.

And if this was not sufficiently concerning, the state appears to be seeking to criminalise these people for doing so.

These prosecutions are not being brought under any modern legislation. Indeed, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are invoking the Vagrancy Act 1824, a statute originally passed to deal with the poor in the post-Napoleonic era.

Set out below is the story of one such prosecution.

It is a particularly interesting case which made the news in the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago. Three men were charged by the police under the Vagrancy Act for taking food from two bins behind a north London branch of Iceland, a well-known UK retailer. The CPS upheld this prosecution as being in the public interest. However, following adverse media publicity and a very public intervention by Iceland, the CPS suddenly and rather dramatically dropped the prosecution just days before the trial was to take place.

The story of this prosecution is perhaps significant in a number of ways.

First, it shows that in 2014 people taking discarded food for their own consumption can still be prosecuted.

Second, it points to how quickly a prosecution can be dropped when there is a national media storm.

And third, it demonstrates the casual attitude the police and CPS have to the important requirement that any prosecutions should always be in the public interest.

- Carrie Lam stopped and spoke to this grandma. She gave $500 and therefore aided/abetted in a crime. If Carrie Lam did not stop for this grandma, the media would have characterized her as cold-hearted and insulated from the hardships of the poor and vulnerable people. It does not matter what she does -- the conclusion is that she is unfit to become Chief Executive. That is all we need to know.

- Giving $500 to a beggar is going to impose a great deal of pressure on the people of Hong Kong. If you give anything less than $500, the riposte is going to be: "What an insult! Am I to be worse than a beggar!?"

- (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2017. About 20 spontaneously organized citizens against Carrie Lam outside her apartment in Wanchai. Two of them dressed as beggars and posted big-character wall posters on the wall. They were protesting against Carrie Lam for giving $500 to an old woman. They said that her action is encouraging mainlanders to come to Hong Kong to beg. When Lam's campaign public relations specialist Tai Kin-man walked by, the demonstrators handed him a roll of toilet paper to give to Carrie Lam.

- The people of Hong Kong are angry at Carrie Lam. Therefore she must obey their wishes and quit now!

#12. (SCMP) January 12, 2017.

Hongkongers can expect a bright outlook for the Year of the Rooster if they can get united, according to a message received during a Lunar New Year ritual at Che Kung Temple in Sha Tin on Sunday. But the deity appeared to offer only vague hints on the citys coming chief executive election. Its words were cryptic: The message that is being circulated is not wrong.

These words were on lucky stick number 61 drawn by Heung Yee Kuk chairman Kenneth Lau Ip-keung at the annual ceremony held on the second day of the Lunar New Year. But what exactly was meant by a message being circulated remained something of a mystery.

In performing the ritual at the Sha Tin temple, Lau drew a stick for Hong Kong bearing the number 61 「傳來信息果無差,轉運時來自興家;篤志雲程須着力,何天今日賜榮華。」, with the message corresponding to the stick being all things are going to be auspicious「凡事吉利」. The stick is chosen from a container filled with 96 fortune sticks 35 of which are good, 44 neutral and 17 considered bad.

Written as a poem in Chinese, this years message on stick number 61, roughly translated, read: The message that is being circulated is not wrong. There will be good fortune and subsequently good development. Work hard and work toward the goal. There will be good fortune and prosperity.

Lau said of this years message: Che Kung told us that Hong Kong would have a good year ahead. So long as Hongkongers can get united, there will be good development. As to the deitys words being applied to the citys leadership race, Lau speculated the message was telling Hong Kong it would see good change after we have the new chief executive. I cant over-interpret what Che Kung meant by the message being circulated is not wrong, he added.

Che Kung Temple is dedicated to a military general of the ancient Song dynasty. During Lunar New Year, the temple is packed with worshippers. A windmill is located inside the structure, and turning it clockwise signifies good luck in the year ahead.

- (Oriental Daily) January 29, 2017. Outside the temple, fortune teller Chan Tin-yan said that lucky stick number 61 is a good fortune stick, but Hong Kong cannot enjoy any good fortune while CY Leung is still Chief Executive. So even though stick number 61 is lucky, we must treat it as unlucky. Chan also said that Hong Kong favors women over men this year. Two out of the four declared candidates for Chief Executive are women. So they must be considered Regina Ip was knocked down by a unicorn character the year before last and her bad luck will run for three whole years. Therefore Regina Ip has no chance of winning. By comparison Carrie Lam stands a better chance. But if Carrie Lam wants to continue CY Leung's policies, then Hong Kong will only worse, with a riot taking place in October 2017.

- Feng shui master Chan Tin-yan has spoken. Carrie Lam should drop out of the race immediately for the greater good of Hong Kong. If she refuses, it will show that she hates Hong Kong and wants to destroy us all.

#13. (SCMP) February 3, 2017.

Anyone expecting to see ice queen Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Friday instead met a sunny, upbeat chief executive candidate at her carefully choreographed maiden political rally. With her old image in cold storage, a smiling, heavily made-up Lam wore a Unicef-blue T-shirt emblazoned with her campaign slogan We Connect. As she walked into the auditorium of the Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai, the room broke into a din as millionaires and supporters alike clapped thundersticks to welcome her. A minor hiccup occurred when one shoe slipped off. 

Video: https://www.facebook.com/1734632993517816/videos/1743887989258983/

- Carrie Lam is a walking disaster. The wheel is going to fall off the government if Carrie Lam becomes the Chief Executive.

#14. (Oriental Daily) February 5, 2017.

At 3pm on Sunday, there was an "anti-Carrie Lam, anti-anointment" demonstration march with about 150 participants. The marchers assembled at East Point Road, Causeway Bay, and marched to Convention Plaza Apartments, Wanchai, where Carrie Lam resides. Along the way, the marchers changed slogans. They said that the current election system is not accepted by the citizens for it is as ugly as it can be. They demanded Carrie Lam not to run for Chief Executive but to leave Hong Kong to reunite with her family in Beijing.

When they arrived at Carrie Lam's apartment building, they wanted to hand her a roll of toilet paper. However, Carrie Lam's election campaign office declined to accept. The demonstrators eventually left a petition letter and dispersed peacefully.


Toilet paper salespersons Gary Fan Kwok-wai and Claudia Mo Man-ching.

-  Hong Kong is angry at Carrie Lam. According to the march organizers, 500,000 persons marched today, even more than the 400,000 who marched against Tung Chee-hwa in 2004. Carrie Lam should leave town immediately and never come back.

#15. Sing Pao front page, February 5, 2017.

The next Chief Executive must satisfy the four criteria set by the Central Government: He or she must love the country and Hong Kong, have an ability to govern, is trusted by the central government, and is supported by Hong Kong people. Based upon what happened over the past several years, the masses want a Chief Executive who must satisfy these ten criteria:

1. He or she must not betray the people of Hong Kong
2. He or she must respect the rule of law and develop democracy
3. He or she must go among the masses and listen to public opinion to set policies
4. He or she must return the wealth back to the people so that everyone has a place to live in
5. He or she must known how to set up Facebook and Instagram accounts to communicate with Internet users and allow comments
6. He or she must know how to ride the MTR
7. He or she must know how to solve the problem of no toilet paper
8. He or she must not encourage begging
9. He or she must pretend to be Steve Jobs, must not be combative, must not be self-assured, must not be boastful, must not make random comments, must not play word games to mislead people
10. He or she must be humble, actively care for others, must have ability to unite and communicate with others.

- The most influential newspaper in Hong Kong has come out with a list of criteria that the people of Hong Kong really and truly want. Carrie Lam fails on all ten criteria. Meanwhile, we know for sure that John Tsang satisfies #6, #7, #8 and #9. Therefore we will all vote for John Tsang.

- Ahem, unless you are one of the 1,194 Election Committee members, you don't have a vote. However, you can open your wallet and give $10,000 to John Tsang.

- John Tsang earned good pay working for the government over several decades. His last monthly paycheck was more than $320,000. He does not really need the money as such. You are giving him $10,000 so that he can show that he is widely supported by the people.

#16. Carrie Lam's campaign slogan in English is "We Connect".

Is she the only person on the planet who does not know that "We-connect" is a dildo app? It just shows how removed she is from reality. If Carrie Lam is elected, we Hongkongers will never be able to face the world.

#17. (Ming Pao) February 6, 2017. Our newspaper learned that National People's Congress president Zhang Dejiang and United Front Work Committee head Sun Chunlan were in Shenzhen to meet with many Hong Kong pro-establishment political parties and groups. According to an informed source, Zhang Dejiang said that the Hong Kong Chief Executive election is not an anointment by the Central Government because an election would not be needed. However, the Central Government has decided that Carrie Lam is the only person that they support because of her patriotism and experience.

Zhang Dejiang also said that he noticed that certain Hong Kong newspapers believe that it was the decision of two persons (Zhang Dejiang and China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming) to support Carrie Lam. He said that it was the unanimous decision of the Central Committee.

- On the Internet, there is saying: "No photo = no truth; with photo = truth." There is a famous photo of Xi Jinping shaking hands with John Tsang. There is no photo of Xi Jinping shaking hands with Carrie Lam. This proves that John Tsang is the only person that Xi Jinping supports.

- John Tsang told NOW TV that the Xi Jinping handshake was one reason why he entered the Chief Executive election. The handshake only lasted 3 seconds, but Xi must have sent an electromagnetic surge to signal to Tsang to run for Chief Executive. In the photo, CY Leung tried to jump in between the two, but Xi refused to let go.

- Every Hongkonger knows that there are two Centrals. Firstly, there is the Xi Jinping core. Then there is the Zhang Dejiang and China Liaison Office clique who are furnishing false information about Hong Kong to Xi Jinping. The Hong Kong pan-democrats tried to funnel the truth about Hong Kong to Xi Jinping, but the two Zhangs have blocked all access. The candidacy of John Tsang is in fact a way to signal to Xi Jinping that the people of Hong Kong want someone other than that woman handpicked by the two Zhangs. If elected, John Tsang will get the same 45 minutes that CY Leung recently got to tell Xi Jinping what was really happening in Hong Kong all these years. And all that is well ends well.

- (Bastille Post) The tricky thing about this theory of Two Centrals cannot be refuted. The Central Government cannot issue a statement of support for Carrie Lam, because they would be meddling in Hong Kong politics. Even if the Central Government issues such a statement, skeptics will say that this is just the other Central spreading false rumors. Xi Jinping will have to appear in person to shake Carrie Lam's hand for more than 3 seconds and say that she is his sole preferred candidate.

However, the historians have gone back into the archives and came up with an economic conference of the Politburo late last year in which Xi Jinping walked over to Zhang Dejiang afterwards to say, "The political situation in Hong Kong is extremely complicated. You should give good support to Carrie Lam." This was an economic conference, but Xi Jinping addressed the Hong Kong issue in front of all the members of the Politburo. Isn't his preference loud and clear?

- Given the crowd of sycophants and eunuchs who cluster around Xi Jinping, how did he ever manage to catch the "big tigers" Zhou Yongkang, Xu Ciahou and Guo Boxiong?

- The gerontocrats in Zhongnanhai don't know how to use computers. Even if they do, they are blocked by the Great Firewall of China from visiting Facebook. Therefore they have no idea about what true Hongkongers are thinking. John Tsang articulated this point by saying that he plans to gather the feedback of Hongkongers on constitutional reform and present to the Central Government. He is confident that the Central Government will make an accurate assessment and come to a good decision.

- Of course, the new Chief Executive has been anointed. It began with the withdrawal of CY Leung. The truth is that CY Leung is with the Jiang Zemin clique and Xi Jinping ordered him not to run for re-election. The Jiang Zemin clique immediately picked Carrie Lam to continue CY Leung's line. They even spread rumors to say that Carrie Lam was anointed by Xi Jinping. In truth, Xi Jinping had signaled his true intentions by the 3-second handshake with John Tsang.

Xi Jinping does not mind a competition between Carrie Lam and John Tsang. Because if the pan-democrats don't want Carrie Lam, then they will be forced to ignore John Tsang's support for Article 23 legislation and the NPCSC's August 31st resolution. When the election comes, Xi Jinping will signal his preference and then John Tsang will win by a huge margin with support across the entire political spectrum. After his coronation, John Tsang will be able to carry out Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform based upon the August 31st framework. And the Yellow Ribbons can't even complain because this John Tsang is their man.

- (EJ Insight) By SC Yeung. February 9, 2017.

While most of Hong Kongs mainstream media reported Zhang Dejiangs recent visit to Shenzhen to meet the citys elites regarding the chief executive election, Beijing mouthpieces didnt give much prominence to the news.

On Wednesday, a local deputy to the National Peoples Congress, Priscilla Lau, said Beijing doesnt want the chief executive election to be a one-horse race, public broadcaster RTHK reported. Lau also denied speculation that Zhang, the NPC Standing Committee chairman, had told members of the Election Committee during the meeting to support the bid of former chief secretary Carrie Lam to succeed Leung Chun-ying as chief executive.

Talks that Zhang held with Hong Kong personalities should not be seen as moves by the central government to interfere in the citys affairs, she added. Lau clearly wants to squelch speculation that the meeting was intended to drum up support for Lam as the next chief executive. At the same time, however, her remarks also made her the first Beijing loyalist to confirm Zhangs visit to Shenzhen to meet with people from Hong Kong about the election.

Now if Beijing really wants to lend credibility to next months political exercise, it should see to it that its loyalists on the Election Committee give both Lam and her chief rival John Tsang a fighting chance and allow for a two-horse race. But it seems there are so many people who want to speak on behalf of the top leaders in Zhongnanhai.

China watchers are beginning to doubt whether the Liaison Office as well as the central government department in charge of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, which is led by Zhang, have any right to speak on behalf of Beijing regarding the upcoming election, or if their statements truly reflect the thinking of their top boss, President Xi Jinping.

There is, in fact, speculation that Zhangs strong support for Lam is aimed at protecting himself amid the ongoing political maneuverings in Beijing.

If that is the case, then its understandable why the Beijing mouthpieces in Hong Kong have devoted scant coverage to Zhangs visit. Editors of these establishment papers are acutely aware of the sensitivity of the subject and wouldnt want to breach the red line as far as the Communist Party is concerned.

In fact, the Shenzhen visit may have been Zhangs own initiative, and therefore without any endorsement from the partys other top cadres.

Some newspapers, which are controlled by pro-Beijing tycoons, gave full play to Tsangs election platform, while playing down CY Leungs criticism of Tsangs proposals on housing. At the same time, they carried articles on the Liaison Offices firm support for Lam.

However, the more balanced media coverage doesnt mean the Liaison Office is relaxing its efforts to interfere in the election.

#18. (HKG  Pao) January 8, 2017.

Before Zhang Dejiang came down to Shenzhen, CK Hutchinson Holdings chairman Li Ka-shing met with Carrie Lam for one hour. Mr Li's two sons did not attend this meeting. Neither Li nor Lam has commented on this meeting.

(Post 852) January 8, 2017.

This afternoon, <Civic Passion> reporters saw Li Ka-shing and his two sons Victor and Richard Li went down to the China Liaison Office to meet with director Zhang Xiaoming. SHK Holdings executive director Adam Kwok Kai-fai was also seen going into Carrie Lam's campaign office today.

- Previously everybody in this town knows that the only reason why John Tsang is in this race was because he was assured of full backing by Asia's wealthiest man Li Ka-shing. John Tsang is the favorite candidate of Li and other property hegemons. During the reign of the two Tsangs (Donald and John), government and business worked together to make sure that the total stoppage of public housing construction would create soaring prices in the private sector. CY Leung and Carrie Lam came in to change everything. So if the property hegemons can install John Tsang as Chief Executive, happy times will be here again.

It is now apparent that Carrie Lam is conniving with the China Liaison Office to pry the property hegemons from the John Tsang camp. What kind of Devil's pact will she make in order to satisfy her egocentric wish to become Chief Executive?

- (EJ Insight) By SC Yeung. February 9, 2017.

On Wednesday afternoon, billionaire Li Ka-shing, together with his two sons, was seen visiting the headquarters of the Liaison Office in Hong Kong. Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the office, was seen accompanying Li after their meeting.

The news was reported by online media outfits HKGpao and Passion Times. The former is run by a known supporter of CY Leung, while the latter was founded by former radical lawmaker Wong Yuk-man.

Of course it wasnt known what Zhang and Li talked about, but the meeting raised speculation that Zhang could have urged Li to support a specific candidate in the race. Some media reports said Li was a backer of Tsang, but the tycoon never confirmed such talk. He told the press that he hoped Hong Kong would have a new leader accepted by Hong Kong people.

What is clear is that the Liaison Office has continued to work proactively to secure support for Lam.

- [Yawn] Every single fucking year as far as memory goes, Li Ka-shing and his two sons go down to the China Liaison Office to exchange Lunar New Year greetings. It would be gauche to discuss political deals on such occasions, all the more so in front of a Civic Passion reporter.

- (Bastille Post) When Zhang Dejiang came down to Shenzhen last week, he met with many important people in Hong Kong, including Li Ka-shing. Obviously the Chief Executive election would be one subject for discussion. But no paparazzi managed to take photos of Zhang Dejiang and Li Ka-shing, so there was no hype. The traditional meeting between Zhang Xiaoming and Li Ka-shing was filmed, so there was plenty of hype.

At this point, the best guess at Li Ka-shing's choice is that he won't -- at the nomination stage, he will not nominate anyone. However, given that Carrie Lam is safely nominated already with the 194 nominations from the National People's Congress/Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates plus 18 more from the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce while John Tsang still says that he has only 5 nominations, Li's neutrality is not neutral. A candidate requires 150 or more nominations to run in the election.

#19. (HKG Pao) After the arson attack in the MTR system, Carrie Lam posted on her Facebook: "I understand that there was a major incident in the MTR. I am deeply shocked. I offer my deepest sympathies to those injured and wish them a quickly recovery." As for the time when this report appeared, there were more than 4,000 unhappy faces about this post. The commentators told her not to bother, because she does not care about citizens; furthermore, some even said that she caused the arson attack. "The idiot saw Carrie Lam talk the MTR the other day, so he set the fire off because he thought that she might be there again. Therefore Carrie Lam must be held responsible for causing this arson attack."

- The Carrie Lam campaign team cannot deny the truth of the condemnations. Therefore they are resorting to diversionary tactics. They noted that those critical comments appear to come from a bunch of Facebook users with IP addresses located in England and America and they have very few posts, photos and friends. So these users were registered solely for the purpose of generating large numbers of critical comments against Carrie Lam.

This is a lot of hogwash. In this age, everybody does that. But Carrie Lam does not seem to know how, which is why she seemed to be at a disadvantage. Tough shit! Why should a no-tech person become the Chief Executive? She should just go away and hide.

#20. D100+ Facebook.


... Recently the Campaign Office of Carrie Lam sent out a letter the Election Committee members. The two-page letter clearly required only $1.7 in postage, but she used $2.90 stamps. How do we expect Carrie Lam to handle our finances? Legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching received such a letter and wrote on her own Facebook: "I am worried about how this Missus can handle finances."

- (Hong Kong Post) Here is the postage rate table for local mail. The weight of Carrie Lam is less than 30g, but it is on A4 paper. Therefore the correct postage is $2.90. If you affix a $1.70 stamp, the recipient may have to pay the difference of $1.10. And that would give the critics yet another shot at Carrie Lam's ineptitude.

Since the 1990's, the Hong Kong government and the universities have promoted internationalization by admitting more non-local students. For example, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong during the 2015-2016 academic year, non-locals account for 12.1% of undergraduates and 50.2% of graduate students. More specifically, 1445 out of the 2002 non-local undergraduates students come from the mainland; 1432 out of the 1512 non-local graduate students come from the mainland. This means that the so-called internationalization is really mainlandization.

Our Student Union president asked vice-chancellor Joseph Shen directly and learned that CUHK is paying the difference between the $200,000+ education costs and the $120,000 tuition fees for non-local students. Non-local students have been accused of hogging local educational resources for a long time already.

(Wen Wei Po) January 20, 2017.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union held a discussion forum on campus to discuss the issues of the ratio of mainland students at universities and the associated cultural issues. The invited discussants include Neo Democrats district councilor Roy Tam Hoi-pong, Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow Ho-fai and former Scholarism spokesperson Tommy Cheung Sau-yin.

The forum went on for two hours. At the peak, there were ten students who hung around to watch. The forum began with Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Chow Shu-fung citing statistics to say that the ratio of mainlandersamong non-local university students is high such that "internationalization" only means "mainlandization."

- "Internationalization" = "mainlandization"? According to the University Grants Commisttee, the percentage of mainlanders among all non-local students was 94% in 2005-2006 but is 72% in 2015-2016. So there has been an attempt to recruit more students from elsewhere.

Cheung Sau-yin said that the Chinese University of Hong Kong should accept fewer mainland students, so that more slots will be open for international students in order to further "internationalization." Cheung said that when Hong Kong students travel overseas as exchange students, they are required to have good local language skills. So if they go to the United Kingdom or the United States, they must speak good English; if they go to Japan, they must speak good Japanese; etc. In like manner, the Chinese University of Hong Kong should make the currently optional Cantonese courses compulsory for all non-local students, including both mainland and international students so that they can learn to melt into local culture.

Roy Tam Hoi-pong said that mainland students form the majority of graduate students at the various universities. Tam said that when universities accept graduates students, they should give priority to Hong Kong students.

- According to the data at the Legislative Council, the acceptance rate for non-locals at the university graduates schools is about 10% compared to 25% for locals. The reason why the graduate schools have so many mainland students has to do with the total number of applicants