(SCMP) March 13, 2017.

Lam raised the “white terror” issue on Sunday during an otherwise bland forum in which she went head-to-head for the first time with rivals John Tsang Chun-wah and Woo Kwok-hing.

One question was about concerns that “white terror” could spread all over Hong Kong as even lawmakers could face lawsuits from the chief executive, a reference to incumbent Leung Chun-ying’s legal action against pan-democrat councillor Kenneth Leung over his receipt of HK$50 million from Australian firm UGL.

Lam replied: “I have recently become a victim of white terror. Whatever I say will draw criticism on the internet. I have been prepared for that. But this kind of white terror has extended to those who support me, including [popular actress] Josephine Siao ... It drew personal attacks against her on the internet. This kind of white terror should not be tolerated.”

Last week, Siao praised Lam and thanked her for her help in charity work when Lam was social welfare director in a video uploaded on to the former chief secretary’s Facebook site.

This drew criticism of Siao, who has hearing problems, with critics saying she was getting “blind” after becoming “deaf”. Some also accused her of being “brainless” for supporting Lam.

Tsang came to the defence of Siao’s critics, saying “freedom of speech is Hong Kong’s core value.” He added: “Online comments are not white terror. There has been a series of incidents lately – everybody knows what they are – real white terror.”

He referred to media reports that Beijing was working behind the scenes to exert pressure on Election Committee members to vote for Lam.

(HKG Pao) March 9, 2017.

Carrie Lam's campaign Facebook posted a video of actress Josephine Siao Fongfong recalling how Carrie Lam helped her a decade ago to set up a charitable organization to protect children. She is just recalling some personal experiences.

As is common, hundreds of negative comments poured in. The gentler comments were "I am very disappointed in you, Siao Fong Fong" and "When you're old, you become stupid. There is no cure for it." Even "Who the fuck does she think she is? I don't think that she has ever accomplished anything" and "dog slave" were relatively mild by comparison. The nastiest comments refers to her hearing problems: "I thought that she was just deaf, but now I learn that she is blind"; "she is not just deaf -- she has eye sockets but no eyeballs in them"; "deaf, blind, dumb and now even dumber."

One commentator wrote: "Siao Fongfong joined the cheering squad for 689 v2.0 who has been destroying procedural justice in Hong Kong for the past several years. The people of Hong Kong have finally seen the ugliness behind your human face."

Internet comments:

- "Who the fuck does she think she is? I don't think that she has ever accomplished anything." Is this the "sincere statement of fact" that John Tsang so embraces? The writing on the subway wall and tenement halls? Well, here are some of the things that she has done (Wikipedia):

- By comparison, for services to the British Empire from 1982 to 1997, John Tsang received no mentions, honors or medals (aka "soda water bottle caps") of any sort. So who "hasn't ever accomplished anything"?

- (Headline Daily) Carrie Lam said: "I don't have a problem with the attacks and smears against myself. But here is someone who is completely innocent, and only wants to express her views based upon her personal knowledge. She has now drawn all manners of irrational and insulting comments ... I will let the public decide whether Hong Kong society should accept, praise and support these ways of expression of opinion."

At the Professional Teachers Forum, John Tsang held a different opinion. He said that Internet comments "are not White Terror. Recently a lot of things have happened. Everybody knows what they are. Those things are the real White Terror." He added: "Internet comments are often sincere replies. Young people see certain things, they want to express their views and they post onto to the Internet. They don't want to go after certain people. It would be White Terror if you suppress this sort of thing."

- The golden rule here is "Freedom of Speech" = "The right to insult/abuse other people." So you should just Shut The Fuck Up!

- Using your own freedom of speech to attack other people's freedom of speech means that there is no freedom of speech.

- John Tsang meant to say: When someone calls a 70-year-old grandma with hearing impairment "deaf, dumb and demented", that speaker should be respected for sincerely making a statement of fact. In other words, John Tsang sincerely thinks that it is a fact that Josephine Siao Fongfong is "deaf, dumb and demented."

- John Tsang quoted Paul Simon's <Sound of Silence> again: "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls." He laughed and said that the walls of the subway in Hong Kong are very clean, because the Internet has become the "subway wall." On the Internet, one can find very wise words. One must pay attention in order to understand how young people feel and think.

- "Recently a lot of things have happened. Everybody knows what they are." Hey, buddy, it turns out on the Internet, nobody knows what you mean. What is this 'they'? Can you explain? Do you mean "cyberbullying a 70-year-old woman with hearing impairment"? The kidnapping of the five Causeway Bay booksellers? The threat to arrest director Ko Chi-sum for daring to use the term "dog judge"? The spate of street crimes committed by fake South Asian asylum seekers?

- Once upon a time, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung asked for tolerance for Szeto Wah's position on constitutional reform, because Szeto Wah has a brain tumor.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 14, 2017.

This past Sunday, the Professional Teachers Union hosted a Chief Executive election forum. The attendees were mostly John Tsang fans, so this was safe for John Tsang to attend.

During the meeting, someone brought up the topic of White Terror. Carrie Lam said that she is keenly aware, because the White Terror incidents against her are endless.

First of all, the Electors who nominated Carrie Lam were enumerated together with their respective companies and locations, with the hint that everybody should cause trouble there, such as by reporting false violations to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Fire Services Department, or to place false food delivery orders ...

The movie queen Josephine Siao Fongfong made a video for Carrie Lam and was pilloried: "Grandma Fongfong should die as quickly as possible, so that she won't harm the next generation!" "Drop dead! I knew that you are deaf, but I didn't expect that you are also stupid!" "I only thought that you are deaf, but it turns out that you are blind as well!" "There is no cure for the simplemindedness of Fongfong. When she was young, she was fooled/deceived by Patrick Tse; when she became old, she was fooled/deceived by Sai Wan (China Liaison Office)." There are too many of these vicious remarks to be enumerated. These cyberbullies not only cursed out Siao Fongfong, but they also joked about her hearing impairment. The most shocking of all was the response of HEA Tsang: "Internet comments are sincere words. Young people are merely expressing their opinions on the Internet ..." So it turns out that John Tsang supports cyberbullying. Our future Chief Executive appreciates vicious scorning and supports discrimination against physically handicapped persons.

John Tsang believes that "Elder Sister Fongfong is deaf, blind and dumb" is a statement of fact; and "Those parents who support Carrie Lam to become Chief Executive will find their children are the next to jump off the building" is merely an expression of opinion and a statement of fact; and a person can immorally heap praise upon terrorists in order to appeal to voters ...

No amount of White Terror anywhere is more terrifying than this type of unrestrained Chief Executive election terror.

- How to explain John Tsang's response?

(1) He had no idea what is happening on the Internet. He is insulated because he only reads the comments on his own Facebook/blog. His own fans fawn on him, and Carrie Lam's fans do not go there to post nasty comments.

(2) He does not read the comments on Carrie Lam's Facebook. He has no idea what his own supporters are doing over there.

(3) He does read the comments on Carrie Lam's Facebook. He knows what his own supporters are doing over there. He either approves of what they are doing and/or he doesn't care one way or the other and/or he is too afraid to ask them to cease and desist because these so-called supporters of his may turn on him instead.

It does not matter which is right, because they all say that he is not the Chief Executive who will mend social rifts. He is creating more social hostility, both actively and passively.

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 13, 2017.

The audience which attended the forum are teachers. But what I saw was a Yellow Terror show. When HEA Tsang said that he approved of the White Terror attacks against Carrie Lam and her supporters, the teachers responded with thunderous cheers and clapping. Is this what educators do? Isn't it scary that children are being educated by such people?

- Perhaps this explains why Carrie Lam did not want to have a Facebook previously. In the Yellow Ribbon world, Facebook is not a communication tool; it is a place to vent your venom.

- Everybody is talking about White Terror, as if they know what they are talking about. Well, they can't even agree on the definition of White Terror, so what is there to talk about? Here are the better known White Terrors in history:

(Oxford Dictionaries) White Terror: Any of various periods of violent repression, especially one led by conservative or reactionary forces against a communist or left-wing regime.

(Wikipeida) White Terror (Taiwan): The term "White Terror" in its broadest meaning refers to the entire period from 1947 to 1987. Around 140,000 Taiwanese were imprisoned during this period, of which from about 3,000 to 4,000 were executed for their real or perceived opposition to the Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party) government led by Chiang Kai-shek. Most actual prosecutions, though, took place in 1950–1952. Most of those prosecuted were labeled by the Kuomintang as "bandit spies" (匪諜), meaning spies for Chinese communists, and punished as such. The KMT imprisoned mostly Taiwan's intellectual and social elite out of fear that they might resist KMT rule or sympathize with communism.

(Alpha History) The Shanghai Massacre. In April 1927 Guomindang forces, aided by urban gangsters and warlord militia, attacked members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Shanghai. Hundreds of communists were rounded up, arrested and tortured; most were executed or assassinated. The Shanghai Massacre or ‘April 12th Incident’, as it is sometimes called, was a pivotal moment in the Chinese Revolution. It triggered a nationwide purge of communists from the Guomindang and years of anti-communist violence, dubbed the ‘White Terror’.

(Wikipedia) First White Terror: The term White Terror describes a period of the French Revolution during which a wave of violent attacks swept across much of France in 1795. The victims of this violence were people identified as being associated with the Reign of Terror - followers of Robespierre and Marat, and members of local Jacobin clubs. The violence was perpetrated primarily by those whose relatives or associates had been victims of the Great Terror, or whose lives and livelihoods had been threatened by the government and its supporters. The White Terror was essentially a series of unco-ordinated attacks by local activists who shared common perspectives but no central organisation. The name 'White Terror' derives from the white cockades worn in the hats of royalists.

(Wikipedia) Francoist Repression: In Spain, La Represión Franquista (“Francoist Repression”) also known as the White Terror was the series of acts of politically motivated violence, rape, and other crimes committed by the Nationalist movement during the Spanish Civil War (17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939) and during the first decade of Francisco Franco's dictatorship (1 October 1936 – 20 November 1975). The mass killings of the Spanish Republican loyalists, which included Popular Front adherents, liberals, Socialists, Trotskyists, Communists, anarchists, Protestants, freethinkers, intellectuals and, among other things, people branded as Catalan and Basque separatists and Freemasons, occurred from the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, in July 1936, and continued unabated until 1945. Estimates of the White Terror's death toll range from 150,000 to 400,000 people.

(Wikipedia) White Terror (Hungary): The White Terror in Hungary was a two-year period (1919–1921) of repressive violence by counter-revolutionary soldiers, with the intent of crushing any vestige of Hungary’s brief Communist state. Many of the victims of the White Terror were Jewish.

(CNN) February 8, 2017.

Trevor Noah began by playing the recent clip of Trump telling military personnel that the “dishonest media” is actively refusing to report on terror attacks. As for the list of “underreported” terror attacks provided by the White House, it contained high-profile incidents like the ones in San Bernardino, Paris, Nice, and Orlando. “But like an Ashy Knees Anonymous meeting, there were no white people in it,” Noah joked.

Left off the list were Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof, Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear, and any other attacks committed by white Christians. “It’s not like the Trump people didn’t see these attacks, they just don’t like to talk about them,” Noah said, pointing to last week’s attack on a Quebec mosque as a prime example. Press secretary Sean Spicer was happy to talk about the Quebec shooting when it was believed to be committed by a Moroccan Muslim shooter, but once it turned out to be a white extremist, he had nothing to say. Trump himself never said one word about it in public.

Summing up the Trump administration’s perspective, Noah said, “When a Muslim person commits terror, it’s part of a deadly conspiracy, but when white extremists commit acts of terror over and over again, that’s merely a continuing series of isolated events.”

Noah then called a report stating Trump plans to focus the country’s counterterrorism campaign solely on Islamic terrorism “the most disgusting part of all of this.” After declaring “America first,” he said Trump is “ignoring all the hard-working white American terrorists” out there.

Afterwards, Carrie Lam said that she had not checked a dictionary beforehand. But she believes that certain speeches that threaten or insult people should be considered White Terror. She thinks that society should think about whether such speeches are appropriate or not.

- I think that it would be fair to say that if you can brandish the term White Terror while it is happening, then it cannot be White Terror. During the various instances of White Terror (China, Taiwan, France, Spain, Hungary, etc), you would be executed/assassinated if you openly articulate your opposition to the White Terror.

- John Tsang said that the "real white terror" is the media reports that Beijing was working behind the scenes to exert pressure on Election Committee members to vote for Carrie Lam. This is an insult to all the victims of White Terror in Republican China, Taiwan, France, Russia, Hungary, Spain, Greece, etc. This is a mistake just like the policeman who compared the situation of the Hong Kong Police to Jews in Germany, or the Liberal Studies teacher who compared the Hong Kong Police to Nazi Storm Troopers. The original case was a tragedy, but the comparative case is farcical.

- This is similar to the Localist cry that Hong Kong is being colonized by China and that they would rather have the British colonial administration back in charge. Do you even know what a colonial empire actually does? Here are the Ten Most Evil Empires in History, with number 1 being the British empire.

- (SCMP) In Hong Kong, ‘white terror’ is whatever you want it to be. By Michael Chugani. March 14, 2017.

What exactly is white terror? Don’t ask. Just remember that in Hong Kong, its historical meaning of political jailings and heads being lopped off has no relevance. Here, its meaning is ever-shifting. It can mean whatever you want. Former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, our self-proclaimed media freedom defender, cried foul two years ago when the media revealed that Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying had given her a HK$3 million donation. She termed the revelation white terror.

Democracy camp stalwart Martin Lee Chu-ming likewise called it white terror when it was revealed that he too had received money from Lai. It was white terror when the left-wing media assailed former University of Hong Kong law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as being unfit to be the school’s pro-vice-chancellor.

So, what is not white terror? Well, it is not white terror when you want it to be free speech. Chief executive hopeful Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor learned that the hard way last Sunday during a forum for the three candidates. Foolishly trying to mimic the tactics of hypocrites, she described as white terror the sickening online attacks on her supporter Josephine Siao Fong-fong, an icon of Hong Kong’s golden age of Cantonese cinema.

Rival candidate John Tsang Chun-wah immediately mocked Lam, describing the attacks as free speech rather than white terror. The audience of mostly Tsang supporters applauded. Let’s try to understand what kind of free speech Tsang was defending that elicited such applause. Siao suffers from a hearing problem. Netizens mocked her for not only being deaf, but blind and brainless for supporting Lam.

If that is free speech, then why was it white terror for the left-wing media to attack Johannes Chan as being unfit for the job of pro-vice-chancellor? Why was it white terror to reveal that Lai had donated money to democracy camp leaders? If John Tsang doesn’t think it is white terror for netizens to mock Siao as deaf, blind, and stupid, would he at least call it cyberbullying? Could he please clarify if cyberbullying is also free speech? Who knows, his answer may elicit more applause.

I am befuddled as to why netizens cyberbullied Siao, a jewel of Cantonese movies, for supporting Lam but applauded silver screen icon Chow Yun-fat for supporting Tsang. Could it be that Beijing prefers Lam instead of Tsang as chief executive? Go on, take a guess.

- (Cable TV) At the March 19 forum, legislative councilor Elizabeth Quat asked John Tsang: "With respect to the Siao Fongfong incident, you previously said that freedom of speech should be respected. I am concerned that cyberbullying and verbal violence is being rationalized and promoted. Have you read what they wrote about Siao Fongfong? If so, will you withdraw your previous statement?" John Tsang replied: "Of course we won't accept cyberbullying. I said that there is freedom of speech in Hong Kong, and everybody can say what they want to say. But each person should respect all persons, especially oneself. Freedom of speech is a core value of Hong Kong. It is very precious. We should treasure it."

- A string of words with no meaning whatsoever. Is this how John Tsang is going to muddle through constitutional reform, Basic Law Article 23 legislation, universal retirement protection, standard working hours, etc. Is he always going to take both sides on every issue?

- Yes, I can do one for him: "Of course, we want universal retirement protection. Senior citizens have contributed to bring Hong Kong to where it is today, and we should provide them with a comfortable retirement. But the money has to come from somewhere, and we should be careful about spending away what we don't have. Small government is a core value of Hong Kong. It is very precious. We should treasure it." In so doing, everybody will be pleased and nothing will be achieved.

- More "sincere statements of fact" about 90-year-old Sir David Akers-Jones and the importance of the Hong Kong core value of freedom of speech.


- More matter how capable or how familiar with New Territories David Akers-Jones was, the Brits simply won't promote him to become Hong Kong Governor.
Now we understand everything. Once again I admire the wisdom of the Brits when it comes to deploying people.
- David Akers-Jones. He may be the lowest-class Brit.
- What more do you want at age 90? Do you think that you were born in the 1990's? Get your pension! All the money from the prosperous Hong Kong has been spent!
- He has Alzheimer's disease. Does he recognize you?
- He wants to die now that he is old.
- Conspiring with the remnants of the British colonial administration!
- David Akers-Jones was appointed by the Chinese government which many Hongkongers believe was to protect their interests in Hong Kong. He is a typical "worn-out old battery".
- Godfather for 689 (CY Leung).

- (SpeakoutHK) March 23, 2017.

John Tsang claims that he is the only candidate who can unite Hong Kong. First, Tsang has made sure that the hearing-impaired people of Hong Kong are united against him. Now, Tsang has made sure that the blind people of Hong Kong are united against him as well.

Chong Chan Yau is a Social Welfare sub-sector elector. He is the first and only blind Administrative Officer in the history of Hong Kong. Recently, Chong declared that Woo Kwok Hing's polices on social welfare are most closely aligned to his demands and therefore he will vote for Woo. Frankly, Chong Chan Yau has the right to make his own choice which seems to be based upon reason. However, Chong is breaking ranks with the pan-democrats who are going "all-in" for John Tsang.

Immediately, Chong's Facebook was overrun with comments such as "sinner for one thousand years," "stupid idiot", "stubborn ox", "unable to see because he has no eyeballs", etc.

- What other group can John Tsang unite next? Widows? Orphans? Senior citizens who have age-related memory loss? Paraplegics?

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) March 28, 2017.

1:24 Ronny Tong: I was very much astounded. There is a clear difference between freedom of speech and insulting other people. Freedom of speech is a human right. Insulting other people is violating the human rights of these other people. The two cannot co-exist. So you cannot beautify the insulting of others as a form of freedom of speech. Precisely because these speeches insulting other people fill up our public space, the rifts among us are deepening. Sorry, if you are the kind of person who has been doing this sort of thing, you should not blame or accuse others for not doing their utmost to mend social rifts. This responsibility is with every single person.

(Apple Daily) March 12, 2017.

The China Liaison Office is alleged to be supporting Chief Executive candidate Carrie Lam with the talk that the Central Government will not even appoint John Tsang if he is elected. National People's Congress Standing Committee member Rita Fan even said that she believes that state chairman Xi Jinping has decided to support Carrie Lam? But does the support of Carrie Lam represent the will of the Central Government/Xi Jinping?

Recently, the newspaper Pacific News which is supposed to belong to a state-owned enterprise in the Xi Jinping faction has been criticizing Carrie Lam many times. In its most recent issue, Pacific News has heaped praises on John Tsang.

Pacific News was founded in June 2015. The most recent edition was published on February 28 with a retail price of only $1. In each issue, the newspaper carries the advertisements for the China Pacific Life Insurance Company, which is a state-owned enterprise in the Xi Jinping faction.

In the most recent February 28 issue, there was an essay of almost 4,000 words. More of half of that essay was devoted to praises of John Tsang: "We were surprised to find the gentle man was so touch, connected and persistent." The remaining 1,000 words were critical of Carrie Lam, saying her tough image has lost shaped in recent years. "Although her rally featured stars, it reminds people of the Red Guard rallies during the Cultural Revolution."

Pacific News has about the same position as Sing Pao. When it was founded in June 2015, it was clearly critical of Chief Executive CY Leung intensifying conflicts and supportive of Financial Secretary being willing able to sooth the conflicts. On the next day, John Tsang got to shake hands with Xi Jinping. Over the past 11 issues, Pacific News has frequently mentioned the speeches of Xi Jinping.

(Orange News) March 12, 2017.

Solemn statement from the China Pacific Life Insurance Company, Ltd.

Recently a certain Hong Kong media outlet claimed that a newspaper Pacific News (believed to be a state-owned enterprise) has published commentary on the Hong Kong Chief Executive election, and reported that Pacific News had published our advertisements, implying thus that the articles in Pacific News represents the viewpoints of our company. Upon investigation, we determined that this report has no factual basis and has seriously damaged the reputation of our company. With respect to his, our company solemnly states the following:

1. To date, our company or any of its subsidiaries have no ownership or any other relationship with this Pacific News. We have never authorized Pacific News to publish any advertisement related to our company, and we have never submitted any articles to Pacific News.

2. Any hint that that China Pacific Life Insurance Company or any of its organizations are related to Pacific News, or any hint that the essays published in Pacific News represents the viewpoints of the state-owned enterprises of our companies is misleading.

3. Any organization or persons which use the logo of China Pacific Life Insurance Company or the name of China Pacific Life Insurance in promotions/advertisements without our group's authorization are seriously violating our rights.

4. Our group reserves the right to seek legal redress against the organizations/persons who violate our rights.

Thus stated.

China Pacific Life Insurance Group

March 12, 2017.

Internet comments:

- Who is Pacific News?

- What kind of newspaper is this? Pacificnews.com.hk has its 11 past issues available in pdf form. It has no other content such as real time news from itself or elsewhere. It has no information on physical distribution channels. It has one contact telephone number at 3525-0592. Its physical address is P.O. Box 93, Fo Tan Post Office.

- It looks like Pacificnews.com.hk was set up purely as a ruse. This leads to some interesting questions.

Q1. What is the purpose of this fake newspaper?
A: The essays support the wonderful John Tsang as the choice of Xi Jinping and denigrate Carrie Lam/CY Leung.

Q2. How much effort does it take to set up this fake newspaper?
A: There were 11 past issues. the first two issues had four pages of content and the other nine issues had eight pages of content, some of which are copied from elsewhere (e.g. comments of Deng Xiaoping). Still, someone has to write the essays on the CE election from scratch in a meaningful way, and someone has to lay out the 8 pages in newspaper format together with inserts of China Pacific Life Insurance Company advertisements. This project is going to cost at least several tens of thousands of Hong Kong dollars.

Q3. Who is behind this?
A: There is not enough information to tell. But this is someone who wants to raise John Tsang's chances at the expense of Carrie Lam by suggesting that Xi Jinping really wants John Tsang. The evidence consisted of a handshake plus the support of China Pacific Life Insurance Company.

- On the Internet, there is always freedom of expression. So let me express my view that the culprit is Apple Daily. Pacific News served no purpose because it was inaccessible -- until Apple Daily reported it. Either Apple Daily was the mastermind (and this is easy for them with their editorial resources); if not, they are at least an accessory.

 - Is Pacific News another Sing Pao? I don't think that it can be so simple. Pacific News is not sold publicly. Even though it lists a sales price of $1, you can't find it at newsstands or convenience stores. It is merely circulated within a small circle of people. As such, it may be the channel to communicate "certain directives of the highest order." The critical fact is that on the day when the electors received their notice of election, they received a mailed copy of Pacific News. This is extraordinary because Pacific News has obtained the mailing addresses of the 1,194 electors. This was not a shoddy organization! I am sure that many electors are wondering about the meaning behind this.

- I am scratching my head as I ponder how a state-owned enterprise could support John Tsang. Can there be a relationship chain such as the following?

Xi Jinping <-> Pacific Life Insurance Company <-> John Tsang <-> Civic Party/Democratic Party <-> Jimmy Lai <-> Mark Simon <-> CIA <-> Donald Trump.

Is Xi Jinping really working with Donald Trump to seal a deal over the Hong Kong Chief Executive post?

- The entire Pacific News episode is to communicate that John Tsang is the true preferred choice for Xi Jinping, as evidenced by this newspaper's apparent connection to a state-owned enterprise in Xi's faction. Of course, the 3-second handshake between Xi and Tsang was the main piece of evidence. And now Pacific News seals the deal.

(Bastille Post) Today, CY Leung was voted in as a vice-president of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Afterwards, Xi Jinping walked over to Leung and spoke to him for more than 40 seconds (see video). It would seem that Chairman Xi was giving Leung encouragement and instructions, and Leung kept nodding his hand positively.

Does Xi Jinping prefer Carrie Lam (= CY Leung 2.0) over John Tsang? Or is John Tsang the real CY Leung v.2 instead?

Video: TVB The vote was 2066 for, 13 against, 16 abstain, 6 no action. Surely that must be a sign of approval of the CY Leung line.

- (SCMP) March 15, 2017.

The handshake and chat between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in Beijing on Monday may have lasted for only about one minute, but a body language expert has said Xi’s facial expressions gave away his mixed confidence in Leung.

Dr Leow Chee-seng, a professor of non-verbal communication and human behaviour at the IIC University of Technology in Cambodia, was analysing footage of the exchanges between mainland and Hong Kong leaders after Leung was elevated to the post of vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

Leow, who has not followed local politics closely, believed that while Xi was showing support for Leung, deep down, he doubted Leung’s management style.

“Xi will keep a close eye on his performance. It is like parents allowing their kids to go out, but actually they are worried,” Leow said.

This was followed by a handshake and a 45-second chat with Xi.

Leow used software to dissect the video of the exchange into 0.125-second segments to observe Xi’s micro expressions.

He said that while Xi was trying to empower Leung, the president’s raised eyebrows, contracted ocular muscle around his eyes and asymmetrical smile showed he actually lacked confidence in Leung.

“The raising of his eyebrows showed concern and interest [in the initial conversation], but the slight contraction of ocular muscle revealed his doubts,” Leow said.

“Xi kept a tight-lipped and reserved smile during the chat most of the time, which indicated that he had a wait-and-see attitude,” Leow added.

The professor noted that later in the chat, Xi also tilted his head down with a smile but made no eye contact with Leung.

The president then ended the dialogue with an asymmetrical smile of “contempt”, which suggested that while he was giving authority to Leung, he was “not very confident in him”, Leow said.

Leow also studied Leung’s manner in which he walked up the stage to bow to the audience after his vice-chairmanship was confirmed.

“The even stride length showed his confidence. However, you can tell that his stress level increased when he tightened his fist before bowing to the audience,” Leow said.

(Apple Daily) Do Not Let The Conspiracy Be Realized. By Jimmy Lai (Founder of Next Media). March 12, 2017.

Chief Executive candidate Woo Kwok Hing opposed the pan-democrats giving their votes to a single individual in the first round of the Chief Executive election. He said that the votes should be divided (between himself and John Tsang). In the second round, the pan-democrats can rally around a single individual. His intention to slice away votes has become very clear. Nothing in the world stays hidden forever, as the truth is often revealed by the subconscious Freudian slip. Woo Kwok Hing had me perplexed when he came out to run for Chief Executive. After going retiring (from the Court of Appeal of the High Court), Woo Kwok Hung had not appeared to be ambitious and vigorous. So why did he make a big splash to enter the race for Chief Executive? Is this joke going too far?

His background suggests that he has no empathy with pan-democratic ideas before his retirement. Apart from pro-establishment comments, he has never said anything good about the pan-democrats. He has never contacted any pan-democrats, or joined any pan-democratic assemblies. Once he announced his intention to run in the election, his talk about pan-democratic ideas make him sound like the second coming of Leung Kwok-hung.

Even more curious is that the fact that this son Alan Woo is the member of the Y. Elites Association and the Hong Kong Youth Association which are unification organizations under the China Liaison Office. Alan Woo is also a member of the Maoming City (Guangdong province) People's Political Consultative Conference. Alan Woo works at the law firm of his uncle-in-law David Tang Kwok-keung, who is a member of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade and an arbitrator in construction and labor laws for the China Chamber of International Commerce. Those are associations which focus on China, and the law firm's business is mostly related to China.

The leader of Woo's election team is Chung Shui-chun, a former aide to legislative councilor Elizabeth Quat (DAB). By comparison, that is a minor issue. The major issue is that Woo's background suggests that he has a placid character, but he has suddenly reversed everything in his prior background. He has now picked up the Yellow Flag to fight the Red Flag! In this world, there is no love without a cause. There is no reason for a sudden switch from pro-establishment to pro-democracy. Our old warhorse has decided to come out to slice away votes because he loves his son. That is fair enough. But we cannot regard him as a pan-democrat!

Why was CY Leung ordered not to run for re-election? It was not because he performed poorly! No, he manipulated Hong Kong independence, giving the excuse to amend the Basic Law. He patiently waited on the leaderless pan-democrats to implode and then he wrecked the Umbrella Revolution. He performed magnificently. I was somewhat surprised when he declined to run for re-election. But I understood upon further reflection. At a dinner, I told Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Lee Wing-tat that Leung will get a promotion as a reward. Indeed, even before he left the Chief Executive post, the word is that he will become a vice-president of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Given Leung's formidable accomplishments, why was he not allowed to run for re-election? Simply put, the Central Government was afraid that he might lose in the second round of secret balloting. Leung's hate-based tactics have created social rifts, such that even the pro-establishment tycoons hate him. Over the past several years, many influential persons have complained to Beijing about him. So even the Central Government is unsure whether they can totally control the votes. With CY 2.0, the Central Government will have fewer worries. But in order to guarantee the election of CY 2.0, the Central Government got Woo Kwok Hing to come out and pose as a pan-democrat so that the naïve pan-democrats will route some of their votes to the deceptive Woo.

Conspiracy theory! Fat Guy Lai has so many conspiracy theories running inside his head! I had dinner with Stephen Siu the other day. He said: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories!" Huh? Stephen Siu knows all about Chinese history and he can rattle off modern history even in his dreams. But he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories. Is this too profound? In politics, anything goes. I believe that authoritarian politics is dirty and disgusting, and anything goes. Stephen Siu may have his reasons, but I am merely convinced by the facts.

Whether in the District Council or Legislative Council election, which pan-democrats in any district have not encountered the sudden emergence of 'pan-democratic' opponents who come out to make passionate and stirring presentations to excite people? The newcomers slice away a number of votes from voters who were unaware of what is going on. So what if they lose their elections? They will have succeeded in slicing some votes away. Afterwards they melt away without a trace! These fake 'pan-democratic' candidates are part of the conspiracy set up by the Central Government. How can there not be a conspiracy? Slicing away votes is Standard Operation Procedure for the Central Government. Look at the Hong Kong independence promulgators such as Raymond Wong Yuk-man and Wan Chin. After the election, the Central Government puts the leashes back on and do you hear them talking about Hong Kong independence anymore? Where is Hong Kong independence vanguard Edward Leung today? Weren't Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-heng so vocal in opposing the Central Government before, but where have they gone now? Are they resisting shoulder to shoulder with the pan-democrats? [Sigh] If the Central Government sends out fake 'pan-democrats' in the District Council elections, how can they not also slice away votes in the Chief Executive election? Do not treat big robbers as small robbers, and small robbers as non-criminals. They are all criminals. Please do not be so naïve. They are running conspiracies everywhere. We need to get used to it.

Speaking of naïveté, the editor of the commentary section in Apple Daily is truly naïve. Hon Lin-shan is clearly a Chinese Communist mole, but his specious essays are occasionally published there. Why? Does freedom of speech mean that we don't have to distinguish between right versus wrong anymore? "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung entered the Chief Executive election because he wanted to raise the democracy banner and affirm his ideas. Hon Lin-shan wrote in Apple Daily that the pan-democrats must rally to support Long Hair or else they will end up like the Democratic Party marching into the China Liaison Office to work out a compromise which castrated and divided the forces of democracy. Nonsense! Of course, he wants the pan-democrats to waste their votes alongside Long Hair and blow away whatever remaining means of resistance left. Indeed, ideas are important. But if our votes can be used for resistance, or even reverse the course of events, then by what right do we have not to use our votes in a pragmatic manner? If we divide our votes or if we cast our votes for the purposeless Long Lai, we are not promulgating democratic ideas. Instead we are merely showing that we pan-democrats are arrogant, irresponsible and detached from reality. Yes, we are standing on a pile of eggs. But these eggs were not left under the high wall in order to show people how tragic and noble our cause is or how we stand on high moral grounds. No, these eggs are the sole weapons of resistance in our hands. They are not there to be shown off; they are there to be thrown at the high wall in resistance. Yes, it may be that our resistance is futile. But at least it is resistance. The only thing that we can do is to resist. We will resist with whatever strength that we have left.

Benny Tai came out to fight for democracy for the people of Hong Kong. He did it solely in order to contribute his lot to society. He is someone whom I admire I lot. He is a good example of resisting the powers-that-be. Good people often are pure at heart. But sometimes being too pure could lead a person to become too naïve and thus end up doing bad things. His intentions with PopVote are very good. But has he thought about what happens if the Central Government mobilizes people to vote for Woo Kwok Hing? Must the pan-democrats follow the voting results and cast all their votes for Woo Kwok Hing? If so, we would be accomplices in the vote-slicing conspiracy of the Central Government. Why should we give a conspiracy a chance for no good reason?

(The Standard) March 13, 2017.

It's a common establishment trick to support obscure candidates to split the votes of pan-democrats in the District Council and Legislative Council elections to increase the chances of its own people.

But it would be too far-fetched to generalize this to call retired judge Woo Kwok-hing a mole, and radical activist James Hon Lin-shan an associate of communists, simply because of Woo's candidacy, and Hon's backing for dissident lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung in running in the Chief Executive election.

However, Next Media boss Jimmy Lai Chi-ying made precisely those allegations, decrying Woo - who is now one of the three official CE candidates - and Hon, who is urging pan-democrats in the Election Committee to abstain from voting for anyone, after "Long Hair" quickly dropped out of the race.

Lai's claim that Woo and Hon are communist accomplices is serious. Without evidence, it's nothing more than just another conspiracy theory based on paranoia or hallucinations.

Yesterday, Woo, John Tsang Chun- wah and Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor participated in a forum to trade barbs over policy issues. Lai's criticism appeared in his Apple Daily publication on the same day. That couldn't have been coincidental.

The media magnate based his inference about Woo from the retired judge's son Alan, saying the younger Woo is a member of the China People's Consultative Conference of Maoming municipality, as well as the Hong Kong United Youth Association, and Y.Elites Association that have strong mainland connections.

Lai also cast aspersions on Alan Woo's uncle David Tang Kwok-keung's links to some mainland trade bodies, to fortify his claim that Woo was a communist mole - planted to split the 325 pan- democratic votes.

Lai didn't refer to Tsang by name, but it goes without saying he fears Woo will split the pan-dem votes at the expense of the mustachioed one, who has Lai's backing for the CE's post. Woo has dismissed the claim as "nonsense," describing it as a trait reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution. Lai has gone too far to rest his assertions on the background of family members. It's ironic that as he criticized the communists, he was employing the tricks that they're notorious for.

Then, just who is Hon whom Lai has decried so fiercely? Hon is a retired secondary school teacher. He gained popularity in 2012 at the height of the vigorous protests against national education, during which he went on a hunger strike for 171 hours, to be the last one to quit the protest.

The accusation that he's a Beijing agent simply flies in the face of the facts - a theory without substance or evidence.

As Lai slammed his own editorial department at Apply Daily for running Hon's commentary in the opinion section, could he be guilty of adopting Chairman Mao Zedong's tactic of condemning his own comrades for betraying him?

Then, could there be more to Lai's outburst?

It may be an attempt to rescue Tsang's election bid, for which support may be dissipating more quickly than feared. But no matter how desperate Lai may be in his personal crusade to save the former financial secretary from certain defeat, it's grossly unfair for him to label whoever is standing in his way a communist associate.

(EJ Insight) Why pan-democrats still support Tsang instead of Woo. By Wong On-yin. March 15, 2017.

Just two weeks ago, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was still very much in the pan-democrats’ favor, and thanks to their endorsement, he was able to secure his candidacy without having to tap into pro-establishment votes.

However, things suddenly took a nasty twist. A media tycoon, who is also the chief political donor of the pan-democrats, recently wrote a newspaper article lashing out at Woo, referring to him as the “fifth columnist” working for the Communist Party and blaming him for sabotaging the democratic cause.

His article was immediately followed by a stampede of his pan-democratic flunkeys and hangers-on, who echoed his accusations against Woo.

The candidate found himself suddenly and unexpectedly coming under fire from people who had treated him as an ally just a week ago.

But Woo proved himself to be far from being a pushover and refuted the fabricated accusations point by point in a laid-back but highly convincing and witty way.

The latest onslaught mounted by the pan-democrats and their big tycoon boss against Woo reminds me of an ancient Chinese proverb: “A person who carries a piece of authentic jade often draws envy.”

This saying is often used in Chinese literature to refer to people who are envied by others for their gifts and talents. It strengthens my conviction that Woo is the real deal for the top job.

I can think of only one possible reason why pan-democrats are suddenly doing an about-face on Woo and mounting a ferocious mudslinging campaign against him.
It’s because Woo, whom they first considered as Plan B, has been outperforming and outsmarting their favorite Plan A, former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, in every single way over the past several weeks.

As a result, Woo’s popularity is continuing to soar not only among the public but also among the pro-democracy members of the Election Committee, something that the pan-democratic mastermind didn’t expect.

Fearing that Woo’s soaring popularity might threaten John Tsang’s chances of winning, thereby jeopardizing their plan of milking Tsang for political rewards after he got elected, the desperate pan-democrats are making a last-ditch effort to resuscitate Tsang’s campaign and boost his odds by smearing Woo.

Contrary to the views of other political commentators, I believe former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is far from being able to seal her victory. In fact, her odds of winning are diminishing.

Notice that throughout the recent annual meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, none of the Beijing leaders had stepped forward and publicly rooted for Lam as expected, not to mention that Lam had only received 579 nominations.

You can tell Beijing still has reservations about her.

There is also talk among members of the pro-establishment camp that they will be allowed a relatively higher degree of freedom when casting their votes this time around.

It is very likely many of those who were forced to endorse Carrie Lam during the nomination period may switch their support to either Tsang or Woo on election day.
That said, unlike what most political pundits think, I believe this CE election is more likely to be a battle between Tsang and Woo than between Tsang and Lam.
Recent developments only prove my point.

For our Beijing leaders, Woo is definitely a viable choice. By steering a middle course between John Tsang and Carrie Lam and choosing Woo to be the next chief executive, the central authorities can avoid the risk of alienating Beijing’s Liaison Office and the diehard leftists in Hong Kong, who have remained the staunchest supporters of Carrie Lam and deeply suspicious of Tsang.

As far as the poor and desperate pan-democrats are concerned, for now they are simply left with no choice but to continue to support John Tsang, despite the fact that they might be getting increasingly aware that they could be betting on the wrong horse.
And since Tsang is their media tycoon boss’s top favorite, they have to do as he wishes.

After all, you can’t act against the wishes of your No. 1 donor in politics.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Why did Hon Lin-shan anger Jimmy Lai? Mainly because Han supported the candidacy of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung. When Leung abandoned his campaign, Han declared the three official nominees (John Tsang, Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing) are all pro-establishment and do not deserve any support. This is the viewpoint of the radical pan-democrats and is unsurprising. But Jimmy Lai found this intolerable, such that anyone who opposes giving all 326 pan-democratic votes to John Tsang must be a Chinese Communist mole. How much Hon Lin-shan has Jimmy Lai read? This is the man who even attends the Falun Gong forum against Chinese Communist live physical organ thefts. If Han is a Chinese Communist mole, then there must be about 7.3 million Chinese Communist moles in Hong Kong. I am curious if the Apple Daily commentary section will continue to feature Hon Lin-shan's essays.

- (HKG Pao) Oh, this is so bizarre. If Woo Kwok Hing was "suddenly democratic", then what is John Tsang? As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was a close-fisted miser who did nothing to benefit the masses. Once he entered the Chief Executive race, he declared that he will stop the TSA and mend social rifts. He also suddenly discovered a conscience and said that he will try to push for Article 23 legislation. What happens when HEA Tsang does not HEA anymore? Why this sudden and total reversal of his prior background? Let me cite Jimmy Lai's conspiracy theory and give you this obvious conclusion: "John Tsang entered the Chief Executive election in order to slice votes away!"

This leads to some obvious questions, which have some obvious answers.

Q1: Whose votes is John Tsang slicing away?
A: There are three candidates: Carrie Lam is pro-establishment with all her 580 nominations coming from pro-establishment electors. John Tsang had 80% pro-democracy nominations and Woo Kwok-hing had 100% pro-democracy nominations. John Tsang cannot be slicing pan-democratic votes away from Carrie Lam. Therefore John Tsang is slicing votes away from Woo Kwok Hing.

Q2. For whom is John Tsang working?
A: If John Tsang is slicing votes away from the 'pan-democrat' candidate Woo Kwok Hing, then he must be a Chinese Communist mole.
[Note: The possibility cannot be excluded that a Chinese Communist mole may not be aware that he/she is working as a Chinese Communist mole. In fact, this is the most effective of Chinese Communist moles.]

Q3. Is it possible for both John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing to be Chinese Communist moles?
A: Both John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing are under clouds of suspicion because their current postures are completely at odds with their prior backgrounds. It is entirely possible that both are Chinese Communist moles because the Chinese Communists want to create the impression of a vigorous Chief Executive election whose ending was scripted by them many months ago. Their worst fear was that the Chief Executive election had only one pro-establishment candidate and the pan-democrats would boycott the process altogether.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing said that Jimmy Lai had "charged him with two big crimes." Woo said about rival John Tsang: "When a candidate's wife and children have American passports, does this mean that he was sent by the CIA? When a candidate's worked previously as the private secretary to the last British colonial governor, does this mean that he is a British spy? In English, this is called baloney. In Cantonese, this is called nonsense." Woo said that he is not trying to slice away votes; instead he is trying to get as many votes as possible for himself. "I would never say that Mr. Tsang is slicing away my votes."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Hon Lin-shan has rebutted on the Internet: "A certain local pro-democracy/pro-freedom-of-speech newspaper owner is pretty scary when he wants to support a certain pro-establishment Chief Executive candidate." Han said that a veteran media worker such as Jimmy Lai ought to know that it is a grave crime to interfere with editorial independence. "Right now, he is openly criticizing his own employee. This shows that Mr. Lai no longer knows right from wrong. He is letting emotions rule over reason. This is regrettable ... this time, Boss Lai has smeared me and led the way in violating media ethics and suppressing freedom of speech. Will this cause his employees to become nervous, such that they will sent all submissions to their boss to pre-screen and decide whether to publish or not?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Jimmy Lai says that his conspiracy theories are not just wild ideas spinning inside his head. Instead, he based his theories on facts.

Let us look at the facts.

In 2011, a Foxy document was published showing that Next Media founder Jimmy Lai donated more than $10 million each to the Democratic Party and the Civic Party between 2006 and 2010. In 2014, a series of files were published on the Internet, showing that Jimmy Lai contributed 23 sums of money totally more than HK$40 million between April 2012 and July 2014 to individuals/organizations including the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party and the League of Social Democrats.

Previously during John Tsang's nine years as Financial Secretary, Next Media (including Apple Daily and Next Magazine) called Tsang an incompetent miser who regularly under-estimated the government budget surplus and refused to spend the accumulated surplus. Similar criticisms of John Tsang came from the pan-democratic camp (including the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats) during those years.

In late 2016, John Tsang resigned as Financial Secretary in order to run for Chief Executive. Next Media supported the candidacy of John Tsang, and they no longer criticized Tsang's record as Financial Secretary. Their support did not waver even as John Tsang expressed support for Basic Law Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform based upon the NPCSC's August 31st framework, both of which are against the core pan-democratic values.

During the nomination phase, the Democratic Party said that their seven legislators will nominate John Tsang. They have also announced that they will do the same during the voting phase. This means that all seven Democratic Party legislators will vote for John Tsang.

As for the Civic Party, member Dennis Kwok spoke for Democracy 300+ in favor of John Tsang. When Woo Kwok Hing proposed that the pan-democrats should split their votes between himself and Tsang, Kwok said that he disagreed. Kwok said "We should vote for the candidate who can best unite the people of Hong Kong"; "I call on Woo to listen to what Democracy 300+ decided upon at our meeting the other day." Kwok also asked Woo to "recognize the situation" and "see where he stands." Civic Party chairman Alan Leong wrote on Facebook to those pan-democratic electors who don't want to vote for a single candidate: "You come out and explain yourself to your voters and to the people of Hong Kong, and then accept the political consequences!"

Is it a conspiracy theory to say that there is a Democratic Common Sovereign who is throwing money around to make politicians do his biding in spite of their stated principles of democracy?

- Bwahhhh! A media organization owner is criticizing what his newspaper section editor chooses to publish! What does the Journalists Association have to say about this egregious violation of editorial independence? Absolutely nothing, of course.

If the same thing happens with the Malaysian owner of Ming Pao, it will be hell to pay!

- Why are there double standards? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY. Or something.

- How many moles are there under the bed?

- (Bastille Post) March 13, 2017. First we have Jimmy Lai popping out to attack Woo Kwok Hing and Hon Lin-shan for taking votes away from John Tsang. Next we have the Professional Teachers Union promising that their 35 votes will go to a single candidate. This is in spite of the fact that Carrie Lam's policy platform with an increased $5 billion for education would have been better for contract teachers and kindergarten teachers. Can you sense the panic in the air?

Back in the beginning, the mainstream pan-democrats felt that John Tsang can get more than one hundred votes from the Commerce/Industry sector and cost Carrie Lam her victory. But now John Tsang is facing pressure from both ends. On on hand, the radical pan-democrats such as Hon Lin-shan are refusing to vote for these candidates because they consider all three of them to be pro-establishment. On the other hand, the Commerce/Industry sector can see the writing on the war due to recent developments (e.g. the case of Xiao Jinahua; Zhang Dejiang's meetings; Gu Zhuoheng's INTERPOL Red Notice; CY Leung appointment as CPPCC vice-chairman). The theory of Two Centrals is now thoroughly bankrupt, so that the only choices are: Support the Central Government or oppose the Central Government. With two weeks left until the election, there is not going to be any reversal (as the Central Government did in switching from Henry Tang to CY Leung in 2012). So why would a businessman sidle up to John Tsang whom the Central Government does not endorse and whose pan-democratic camp is falling apart?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Here are Apple Daily's appraisals of the government budget proposals over the nine years of Financial Secretary John Tsang:

2008: Money Lord gives out money until a deficit is hit; $115.6 billion surplus this year, $7.5 billion deficit next year

2009: Financial Secretary John Tsang handed out candies until a deficit was hit; this year he became a miser. Yesterday's budget proposal lacked anything that could relieve livelihood hardships

2010: Government budget not useful, John Tsang waiting to get off work; the usual tax and rate rebates are no help for resolution of deep conflicts

2011: Surplus of $71.3 billion but still no tax refunds; grassroots complain that they can't keep up with inflation; the whole city wants to beat up John Tsang. Money Lord John Tsang throws $6,000 at everyone in order to deflect attention, so that nobody pays attention that he is so lay in preparing the budget. $6,000 cannot cover up the fact that this lame-duck government has come out with the most short-sighted and bad budge in history. Apart from protesting, we should holler in anger. Doling out money should win applause, but people are actually even more upset. It is regrettable that the Hong Kong government and Financial Secretary John Tsang were able to accomplish the impossible.

2012: The budget was the standard fare over the last five years; John Tsang HEA to the very end. Same thing over five days; this is the best summation of Financial Secretary's five budgets over the past 5 years ... legislators say that his farewell budget was the same conservative: he came lazily, and he went lazily. Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan said that the John Tsang's budgets were lousy over all the years: "I hope that you won't HEA during the next administration, or else the citizens will have no luck."

2013: "You may be in deep trouble, but I will continue to HEA as Financial Secretary!" "Word play to increase taxes; refuse to introduce universal retirement protection; John Tsang forwards preventative budget." "Everybody curses the Financial Secretary for being a miser; Sze Wing Ching: He is being over-cautious now."

2014: John Tsang prepared seven budgets already, and this one gets the poorest score. He is cursed out as a miser. The estimates were wrong every single year. No relief in sight; grassroots raise fingers. John Tsang persist with estimation error: last year he estimated a $4.9 billion deficit for this year, which turned out to be a $12 billion surplus. Reserves increased to $7.459 trillion, or 21 months of government operations.

2015: John Tsang issues his third budget during the CY Leung administration; as in the past, he was wrong in his estimates of revenue/expenditure. Financial Secretary Mr. John Tsang's new budget makes no mention of how to deal with the housing market, especially the worries over the rapid rise in the prices for small apartment units; concerns that the government is ignoring this biggest threat to economic and financial safety.

2016: Money Lord hands out candies of $38.8 billion; salary tax refunded 75% up to $20,000. "The budget was intended to give to the people of Hong Kong." Money Lord condemns violence but does not avoid responsibility: scholar says that Tsang is better than CY Leung. Talks about Localists is regarded as declaration to enter the Chief Executive election.

- (SCMP) It seems the rules are different for Apple Daily. By Alex Lo. March 15, 2017.

In this day and age in Hong Kong, if the owner of a media outlet openly castigates his editorial staff for airing the opinions of someone he finds objectionable, pan-democratic groups like the Civic Party and the Journalists Association would be jumping up and down, shouting about editorial interference and censorship.

But not if it’s by one of their own, especially if that person happens to be a sugar-daddy who has secretly funded so many pan-democratic political parties over so many years.

Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the pernicious boss of Next Media and Apple Daily, has openly criticised his fruity editors for running commentaries by retired teacher and pro-democracy activist James Hon Lin-shan. Without a shred of evidence, Lai has accused, in his own newspaper, Hon and chief executive hopeful Woo Kwok-hing of being secret agents of Beijing. The accusations are absurd, the outcome of paranoia among some radical groups who think Woo is being fielded as a candidate in the election to steal votes from John Tsang Chun-wah, their favoured candidate. It’s called “vote-snatching”, which for some pan-dems seems to mean no other candidates should run other than the ones they support.

Lai has also criticised fellow activists “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Benny Tai Yiu-ting for being politically naive. No doubt Lai is the only one who knows what he is doing.

I have no idea why so many pan-dems are fixated on Tsang. It’s probably only because Beijing doesn’t seem to want him as chief executive. But whatever Tsang is, he is not a pan-democrat.

Woo had an unimpeachable career as a high court judge, and was the head of numerous high-profile public commissions and inquiries, including those into the deadly Garley building fire and academic freedom. You can question his leadership ability, but not his integrity.

As for Hon, he has been a member of the pro-democracy Professional Teachers’ Union and taken part in every mass protest since the furore over national education in 2012. I can’t think of an activist more ideologically aligned with the editorial line of Apple Daily, at least until the boss has said otherwise.

So where’s the outrage? Where are our freedom lovers, the usual suspects who cry censorship and press oppression at the drop of a hat? Oh wait, it’s Lai and Apple, and they always get a free pass.

- Legislator Fernando Chiu-hung Cheung's Facebook

Why am I swearing not to support John Tsang under any circumstance?
As an Elector, I will state first that I absolutely won't support Carrie Lam. But I also absolutely won't support John Tsang. Here are my reasons:
1. John Tsang adheres to the August 31st resolution with zero will to resist;
2. John Tsang will push for Article 23 legislation;
3. Even with the heavy surplus, John Tsang ordered all government departments to cut back expenditure by 2% within three years;
4. The Hong Kong government has reserves of more than 3 trillion. How much reserves does Hong Kong need? John Tsang said: "The more the better."
5. John Tsang said: "You always agree with our boss." How can a person who only knows to obey his boss and sail whichever way the wind blows become a leader?
As one can imagine, Hong Kong under John Tsang will continue to have wealth inequality and people won't be able to make a living!

A small number of the 326 Democracy 300+ votes will elude John Tsang. If Tsang wants to win, he is going to need even more Commerce/Industry sector support.

- With the big financier making his position loud and clear, his various lackeys fall into line quickly:

(RTHK via YouTube) Alan Leong, chairman of the Civic Party, recipient of millions of dollars from Jimmy Lai over the years

Although the police platform of Woo Kwok Hing is more representative of the values of the democrats, based upon what we saw from our meetings with John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing and their performances in the public forums, we feel that John Tsang is by comparison more forceful candidate to oppose Sai Wan (=China Liaison Office) perfidy and to unite Hong Kong. Therefore tonight at the expanded executive committee meeting, the Civic Party decided all our Electors will vote for John Tsang during the first round of voting on March 26. This decision does not mean that that we will let down our guards on any act of governance.

(Speakout.hk) March 15, 2017.

When you elect the Chief Executive, should you just consider political position and ignore abilities? It is no joke that Civic Party chairman Alan Leong said that they will vote for John Tsang for being the person best able to repel Sai Wan perfidy. Well, did John Tsang say that he was the best candidate to unite Hong Kong and build trust with China? Now he has been declared as the designated candidate to lead the people of Hong Kong to fight against China!

In 2014, the non-establishment camp started Occupy Central and eventually vetoed the one-person-one-vote constitutional reform. Then they erased their memories and actively participated in his small-circle election.

Even under the small-circle election system, the 1,194 electors could select a fine Chief Executive if they act responsibly. But Alan Leong is candidly telling us that they will vote for John Tsang because he is best able to fight against the Central Government. Meanwhile the other candidate Woo Kwok Hing has accomplished his historical mission and will get zero votes.

In truth, Woo Kwok Hing's policy platform is closer to the pan-democrats. As such, he should be able to gain votes from principled pan-democrats. However, Alan Leong has made it clear that Woo Kwok Hing will lose badly. For the Civic Party, abilities and policies count for zilch. The only thing that matters is "Resistance."

- If John Tsang is scraping for Commercial/Industrial sector votes, then the endorsement by the Civic Party for him because he can resist Sai Wan best is a spoiler.

- On one hand, John Tsang says that he is the best candidate possible to unite the pro-establishment and pro-democracy camps for Hong Kong. On the other hand, the Civic Party says that John Tsang is the best possible candidate to lead Hong Kong to fight against China. Who is the real John Tsang?

- How come no reporter has asked John Tsang for his thoughts on being called a Resistance Fighter by the Civic Party?

- Democracy 300+/PopVote just got tossed out of the window. The Civic Party will vote for John Tsang irregardless of the PopVote results.

- Why won't they wait for the PopVote results? It is called 'over-compensation.' Two weeks ago, Civic Party went 'all-in' to nominate Woo Kwok Hing. After the Money Man let the whole world know that there is one and only one choice: John Tsang, the Civic Party immediately jettisoned Woo Kwok Hing and went 'all-in' for John Tsang.

- Alan Leong said that the Civic Party will cast all 25 of their votes for John Tsang in the first round. He doesn't say what happens in the second round. Why? Because everybody knows that Carrie Lam will get the 600+ votes to win in the first round and there won't be a second round.

(YouTube) MTR public interest commercial: Getting frustrated about being hit or blocked by passengers with large backpacks when travelling on the MTR? Ride with manners. Please put down your large backpack, so as not to hit other passengers or block their way.

(Apple Daily) Famous Hong Kong blogger Lam Kay responded: "Let us heed the MTR's call and choose to use luggage cases (instead of backpacks). Let us all tow luggage cases! In order to protect the rights of the smugglers, the MTR senior management will not attack you. So you can feel easy about towing luggage cases! Alternately, you can also use handcarts or modified baby carriages! You also have priority to take elevators!"

(Ta Kung Pao) March 9, 2017. The Localist Action Facebook is holding a "Let us all be backpackers on MTR" action at 6pm on Sunday (March 10) at the Admiralty MTR station at the last car. They called for citizens to carry backpacks into the same subway car.


Tonight, 6pm, Admiralty Station, Tsuen Wan line, last car, we won't leave until we meet, 610pm, enter the carriage.

Meanwhile Ronald Leung of the North New Territories Parallel Trade Concern Group is holding his own event "People Towing Luggage in MTR" along the MTR East line on Friday afternoon. Leung said: "99% of students carry backpacks. The MTR is targeting them this time. How can you tolerate this? It is time to show your anger!"

(Local Press) March 10, 2017. On March 10, the Local Action spokesperson argued with the MTR employee inside the MTR station. He said that the MTR is discriminating against backpackers while rarely issuing warnings against parallel traders who tow large luggage cases. He also demanded to know that if a backpacker his backpack on the floor and it gets stolen or damaged, then how will MTR deal with it? The MTR employee said that questions can be addressed to the corporate public relations department. The Local Action spokesperson said that South Korea, Japan and other Asian regions have perfect railway setups with luggage racks in each car to place luggage. He said that MTR should reflect deeply instead of making this the responsibility of passengers.

(Oriental Daily) March 10, 2017.

At around 530pm, there were at least 10 police officers patrolling the Admiralty MTR station. At first, the Local Action Facebook told people to gather at the platform for the Tsuen Wan line. Later it was changed to the platform for the Central line. At 630pm, a bespectabled man with a backpack appeared and began to argue loudly with an MTR employee about the MTR commercial. The MTR employee advised the man to contact the corporate public relations department. There was no other supporter present.

After arguing for about 10 minutes, the man boarded the train and went to the Prince Edward MTR station. There he argued with two MTR employees about the contents of the commercial. The two MTR employees refused to answer. The man said: "It is useless to hire you people." The man proceeded next to the Kowloon Tong MTR station. There he chased after an old lady who was hauling a handcart. He said that she was a parallel trader. The old lady was able to leave with the assistance of MTR employees.

(Headline Daily) March 13, 2017.

Ronald Leung of the North Territories Parallel Trade Concern Group called for a flash demonstration at the Mong Kok MTR station to support backpackers. He showed up himself, and one other person heeded his call. The two entered the Mong Kok MTR station and took the train to the Tsim Sha Tsui MTR station. The entire action took 10 to 15 minutes.

Internet comments:

- The most popular comment was: "They need to conduct a head count at the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital -- one of their patients has escaped!"

- Here is a valiant warrior who had the courage and might to pick a fight with a grandma! He has made us all proud of him!

- Here was the "Local Action spokesperson" going after citizens who were towing handcarts and luggage cases. Then there was Ronald Leung who called on the people to tow handcarts and luggage cases for the same cause. Can they please coordinate their scripts? I can't do both things at the same time!

- Once upon a time, they paid $2,000 per day for Occupy Central demonstration. Today, there is a new guy in the White House. Mr. Trump wants to see quantifiable return-on-investment (ROI) and this type of thing has negative returns. The paymaster has shut off the money faucet, so nobody came today.

- Not only does this guy have time on hand to waste, but reporters were wasting their time following him around just in case something happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbt1BatfqNM&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKkzDAJW2T8&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQ5_zaNjds&t=0s

- The "Localist Action spokesperson" asked the MTR employee about what happens if he places his backpack on the floor and it gets stolen or damaged. The MTR employee is clearly a fan of actor/singer Leon Lai, and quotes Lai's famous saying: "I am unable to answer a hypothetical question."

- The "Localist Action spokesperson" went after an old lady? How about this one? Legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching.

Note: Claudia Mo tows a luggage case for the media to take pictures. She was trying to show her opposition to mainlanders getting multiple visit visas.

- "Because Shenzhen residents can get multiple-visit visas, we Hongkongers should go out and kick any suitcase that we see on the street." I completely fail to see the chain of logic.

- (HKG Pao) In 2014, the <Shopping every day> video showed tourists towing luggage that rolled over others with utter indifference. This let to regular citizens fighting back by kicking the luggage cases. That video was shared hundreds of thousands of times as Internet users gave plenty of LIKE's. The mindset was that these Internet users regard the people who tow luggage cases as inferior beings who only know to shop every day, whereas they themselves are more civilized, better cultured and therefore superior.

That's fine.

Now we have this MTR video. Any normal person who watched it must surely know that this was light comedy to deliver a public message. A problem about public behavior was described humorously and a solution was proposed (putting the backpack on the floor). So why did some Internet users react adversely? This is because these people think that the biggest problem in Hong Kong is the people who tow luggage cases and not those who carry backpacks. "Both luggage case and backpack are large items that may interfere with others. So why only mention backpack and not also deal with luggage cases?"

I don't know which causes more aggravation than the other. I am only certain that even if the luggage cases create interference, it does not mean that backpacks don't. These are two completely different matters. To say that luggage cases are more serious and thus absolve the backpackers is making a mistake that schoolchildren often make: "Fellow student A also made the same mistake. Why am I being admonished?" Dear little friend, you get admonished when you make a mistake. Even if Fellow Students A through Z also made the same mistake, it does not mean that you are right.

- The Kowloon Tong MTR station is the interchange between the MTR East line from Hung Hom to Lo Wu and the Yau Ma Tei-Tiu King Leng line. Hundreds of people would be towing luggage and handcarts at all times of day. Of all the people, why did the "Localist Action spokesperson" have to pick a grandma? Because he knows that he can physically manhandle her?

- Here is the answer to everybody's question: Who is that man? (Post 852) April 17, 2015. 28-year-old waiter Lo Kin-man was charged with two counts of obstruction of police business when he used the light on his mobile phone to shine at the eyes of police officers during Occupy Mong Kok. Today he was found not guilty on both counts. The magistrate said while the behavior was "unnecessary, uncivilized and provocative" and caused inconvenience to the police in their line of duty, it did not constitute obstruction of police business. Afterwards, Lo said that he was delighted with the verdict.

- Did the courtroom watchers immediately take out their mobile phones and shine the lights on the magistrate?

- Lo Kin-man was the only person who answered the call of Localist Action. He is not the Facebook administrator, much less a spokesperson. Did Localist Action call the action but did not show up themselves? Or did they show up and left because there was only one person there?

- Hong Kong-style demonstration: Two demonstrators, many more photojournalists

- Compared to the Localist Action demonstration on Friday, the attendance just jumped up by 100%. Freedom is on the rise and democracy is on the march!

- The Hong Kong Politically Neutral Party Facebook

Localist leader Ronald Leung initiated a protest against the MTR video against backpackers. The peak attendance figure was 2. Our party issues the following statement:

1. Our party congratulates Mr. Leung for completing this action. This is exceptional and shows that political figures have become increasingly mature.

2. The number of attendees at this demonstration was 2. This showed that the organizers was able to hold up half the sky. Our party can sense his powerful political energy.

3. The number of protestors helped the political parties, the MTR, the media and the Hong Kong Police to count correctly, so that there are no arguments over numbers to cause social rifts and disharmony.

4. According to Ming Pao, Ronald Leung said that the success of an action must not be measured by numbers. Our party remains politically neutral on this.

5. As to whether MTR riders can carry backpacks into the trains, our party recommends MTR to encourage the backpackers to use the priority seats.

The Hong Kong Politically Neutral Party
March 13, 2017 19:35.


"The New Tibet" -- Hong Kong under the Second Colonization
Guests: Jason Chow (Hong Kong National Party spokesperson), Wong Yuan-cheung (Hong Kong Tibetan Han Cultural Association vice chairman)
Date: March 10, 2017 (Friday)
Time: 7pm-9p
Location: City University of Hong Kong, Amenities Building, Herbalgy Lecture Theatre (LT-401)

(Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017.

The Herbalgy Lecture Theatre has more than 200 seats, but fewer than 100 persons showed up. Even so, many of these came to protest, not to listen.

Wong Yuan-cheung (Hong Kong Tibetan Han Cultural Association vice chairman) failed to show, so that left Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow on his own.

Chow began by saying that the "Chinese government" is "eroding Tibetan culture." Someone in the audience asked him for "evidence." Chow was embarrassed, and said that this was what the western press says. As more interjections came, the organizing host said that questions should be left for the Q&A portion afterwards.

After this went on for about 20 minutes, several citizens left their seats, shouted out slogans and paraded banners such as "Tibetan independence, get out of China!" and "Say NO to Tibetan independence." Other people left angrily, which made it hard for the meeting to continue. The organizers announced a 10-minute break just 30 minutes into the meeting.

After the ten minutes, about half of the audience had gone already. About 50 or so people were left. At this time, Jason Chow switched from Tibet to Hong Kong. He said "Hong Kong's situation is the same as that of Tibet" in that they have both been re-colonized. He said that when Hong Kong middle-school students speak putonghua even outside school, it means that "Hong Kong has been culturally infiltrated by China."

At this point, several middle-aged men got up and place a banner with "Oppose Tibetan independence, oppose separatism" in front of the speakers.

With more and more people leaving and Jason Chow running out of what to say, the organizers announced that the meeting was over.

(Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017.

Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow was invited by the City University Student Union to speak. Chow arrived 30 minutes early and was escorted by the Student Union officers. A large number of security guards were posted in various locations around the lecture theatre.

Because the guest from the Tibetan Han Cultural Association could not attend due to an illness, Jason Chow was the solo act for the evening. The poorly informed Jason Chow spoke about the history of Tibet, using the narrative of the Tibetan independence movement to say how the Central Government and the People's Liberation Army persecuted the people of Tibet, etc.

After reading off certain pieces of "history" used by the Tibetan independent movement, the City University Student Union played a short video about the Tibetan independent movement as packaged in the form of freedom and democracy. Jason Chow does not know much about Tibet, so he kept mispronouncing the names of Tibetan places. He was also confused about Tibetan Buddhism. His many elementary mistakes caused the audience to shake their heads. A student joked that "He knows very little, but he wants to act like a representative; instead he showed us his shortcomings."

The meeting went on for almost two hours. Jason Chow kept repeating himself; he spoke about Tibet, then Hong Kong. He kept saying that Tibet is being colonized and forced to severe itself from its culture and language, and that is why Tibet wants to be independent. He said that Hong Kong is also being colonized and forced to severe itself from its culture and language. But he turned around and said that the culture and language of Hong Kong are actually close to China. Nevertheless, Hong Kong has to be 'independent' as well. His logic could not be understood. An audience member asked Jason Chow that, given his opposition to putonghua, just how a person can get by in this society without the Two Languages/Three Dialects (English, Cantonese, putonghua). Chow said that knowing Two Languages/Three Dialects is actually very useful. But Chow did not explain how young people will learn putonghua if its teaching or even usage is banned in school.

Towards the end, Jason Chow said that the Hong Kong National Party is pursuing Hong Kong independence. An audience member raised doubts because there is no way that Hong Kong could do so with respect to politics, economy, national defense, etc. Jason Chow declined to address any of these realities. He stated generally that "there are no problems" with water supply, economic structure, diplomatic relationships, etc.

After a while, Jason Chow admitted that young people in Hong Kong are physically weak and feeble, and they can't serve as soldiers at war. However, Hong Kong can rely on foreign troops to "defend" Hong Kong. "As long as Hong Kong has it own popularly elected government, it is not 'colonization' even if foreign troops are stationed here. We will still be 'independent'. The Americans won't be 'in charge'."

(SCMP) March 11, 2017.

A leading figure of a radical localist party has likened the influence of mainland China on Hong Kong to Tibet’s experience after the Communist Party established control of the region in the early 1950s. Jason Chow Ho-fai, spokesman from the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, presented at a seminar titled “New Tibet – Hong Kong under re-colonisation”.

But a total of 15 people walked out in protest at different times throughout the session. The event was held by City University’s students’ union to mark the 58th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising. Those who left held slogans or banners with the words “Opposition to Tibetan independence” or “Anti-Tibetan independence, Anti-Separatism”.

Chow said that the political situation faced by Hong Kong was similar to that of Tibet. “Both places have been deprived of the rights of national self-determination … how do we want to go forward into the future?” Chow asked.

He claimed that evidence of “re-colonisation” of the city by the mainland included schoolchildren speaking Putonghua in private conversations, and some companies listing competency in the language as a job requirement. “My party supports independence. Maintaining the status quo would mean suicide,” he said.

He urged Hong Kong to start preparing for independence, such as reducing reliance on the mainland. “Can we stop purchasing things from Chinese companies? Can we stop considering our local culture as inferior?” he said.

But the audience questioned whether Hong Kong could be sustainable if it became independent. “If we cannot purchase water from the mainland, what can we do? If we introduced an army from another country, are we going to be another country’s colony?” a woman asked. Others also questioned how Hong Kong could establish strong diplomatic ties with other countries if it were independent.

Reference: Hong Kong National Party

Internet comments:

- The United States will station their troops in Hong Kong to defend against China unconditionally? Well, you can't expect them to pay the bill, right? So they'll charge you for the costs of stationing the troops (such as living quarters, food, drinks, recreation, prostitutes, gambling, narcotics, etc). Next they will tell you that the troops need certain equipment for an effective deterrent/defense. So a Patriot system here, a THAAD system there, a few Aegis destroyers in the harbor, a few nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles for Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) ... before you know it, everybody is paying $10,000 a month in taxes to compensate these kind-hearted non-colonizers.

- (Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus) June 1, 2016.

A 20-year-old woman missing since late April was found dead on May 16, 2016. The suspect is a former Marine who is a civilian employee of the U.S. military at Kadena Airbase. Local police report that he confessed to the woman’s rape and murder, and told them the location of her corpse. This crime comes barely six weeks after a U.S. sailor assigned to Camp Schwab was arrested for the rape of a Japanese woman in a Naha hotel.

This incident is one of more than 500 crimes designated as heinous under Japanese law, including approximately 120 rapes, committed by U.S. forces in Okinawa since it reverted from U.S. military occupation to Japanese administration in 1972. The 120 reported rapes are only “the tip of an iceberg” since most rapes in Okinawa and elsewhere go unreported.

See also: Shen Chong case

- Ha ha ha, "the young people of Hong Kong are physically weak and feeble." As Marx said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." There is no use repeating a well-known fact; the point is what are you going to do about it. The young people of Hong Kong can begin now with 100 push-ups!

- Young man, study history! Your account of Hong Kong has many more parallels with Manchukuo than with Tibet.

- Someone in the audience should ask the simplest of all questions of Jason Chow: "Mr. Chow, have you ever visited Tibet?" If not, then all his so-called knowledge came from the Tibet Government In Exile, the CIA and Falun Gong.

- Mr. Chow has stated that the source of his knowledge about Tibet is the 'western press.'

- If it's in the Washington Times/New York Post/Daily Mail, it must be true.

- Especially Page Three - those are real boobs, nothing fake about them.

- Even as the 'pro-democracy' legislators are fighting against the presence of Chinese Customs at the Hong Kong end of the Express Rail Link because of 'sovereignty', the Hong Kong National Party is inviting the United States to station their troops without any worries over sovereignty, extraterritoriality or colonialism.

- Jason Chow learned all about Tibet from the western press. Here is how the western press covered the 2014 Kunming incident vs. the Lee Rigby murder (London 2013):

- Using the language of the western press for China, the 2017 Westminister 'incident' can be summarized: There was a traffic accident, after which the British citizen driver had an argument with the London police.

- Yau Wai-ching's Facebook, April 11, 2017

(EJ Insight) September 1, 2016.

The chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, which publishes the Chinese-language newspaper Sing Pao Daily News, has rejected reports that he is absconding from the mainland in a bid to avoid arrest over alleged financial irregularities.

Gu Zhuoheng said in a statement late Wednesday that he is being subjected to malicious attacks and that there is no truth in the allegations that he is a wanted man in China. He added that he is a victim of a political revenge attack for not bowing to “certain forces”.

Media reports that suggested that he was absconding to avoid arrest for a purported financial crime were totally false and libelous, he said. The false allegations affected his employees’ morale and the reputation of his newspaper, Gu said.

His statement came after the Hong Kong China News Agency carried a report Wednesday that suggested that Gu is a fugitive from justice in China in connection with a financial scheme.

The report, citing the Shenzhen police department, alleged that Gu was involved in a case related to illegal soliciting of deposits worth about 130 million yuan (US$19.46 million) from the public. The police are trying to track him down but he has fled overseas, the report said.

Pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po, meanwhile, also published a report that was critical of Gu, accusing him of lacking the integrity that a media person should possess.

Gu said in his statement that he has been facing attacks since last year because he has refused to succumb to some political powers. He insisted that he is still free to cross the border between mainland and Hong Kong. Meanwhile, he urged his staff to watch out for their personal safety while continuing to do their work.

Sing Pao also lashed out at Wen Wei Po, saying its attack on Gu was tantamount to trampling on press freedom and editorial independence. The negative media reports on Gu came a day after Sing Pao Daily News published a commentary that was severely critical of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Leung had deliberately stoked fears about separatism in Hong Kong in a bid to consolidate his power and win a second term in office next year, the commentary suggested, adding that Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong may have been acting in concert with Leung. Before Leung took office, there was hardly any talk of independence in Hong Kong, the paper noted.

As Sing Pao is generally considered to be a pro-establishment newspaper, the strong front-page commentary raised a lot of eyebrows. Political commentator Ching Cheong suspects it was the commentary that landed Gu in trouble. Johnny Lau Yui-siu, another political observer, said the report carried by Hong Kong China News Agency on Gu’s alleged crime might have been directed by Beijing. It may have been aimed as a warning to Hong Kong media to tread carefully before the Legislative Council election this Sunday, Lau said.

Gu also pointed out in his statement Wednesday that the “malicious attacks” on him came a day after Sing Pao carried the commentary that “resonated strongly with the Hong Kong public”.

(Global Voices) How the pro-Beijing Sing Pao newspaper turned against CY Leung. By Oiwan Lam. September 24, 2016.

In Hong Kong, you’re either from the pro-Beijing camp and supportive of the central government of China, or from the pan-democracy camp and for less central control from China. But for three weeks, one of Hong Kong’s oldest newspapers has been blurring the line.

Sing Pao Daily, which is otherwise known to be pro-Beijing, has been running anonymous critiques of the city’s top leader, Chief Executive Leung Chun Ying — who came to power with Beijing’s blessing — and the powerful Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, which is Beijing’s top representative body in Hong Kong.

Some critics believe the shocking move from Sing Pao Daily shows fissures within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp and represents views from a powerful sector within the pro-Beijing camp that has been marginalised by the chief executive and the Liaison Office.

Specifically, the paper has accused Leung of “inciting” independence in Hong Kong and cozying up with members of organised crime or the Triad. The anonymous commenter has also accused the Liaison Office of interfering in Hong Kong’s domestic affairs and manipulating local legislative elections by supporting groups that divide the pan-democracy camp.

On September 12, a commentary in the paper went so far as to claim that Leung was part of a “Gang of Four” trying to destablise Hong Kong. The Gang of Four is a term used for four Chinese Communist Party officials who became incredibly powerful during the latter part of Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966–76) and were later charged with treason.

The next day, Sing Pao published a widely spread netizen-photoshopped picture of Leung sitting in a prison cell (see top photo) with a commentary attacking Jiang Zai Zhong, the CEO of the media group Ta Kung Pao, for turning his newspaper into Leung and the Liaison Office’s mouthpiece.

Leung dismissed the newspaper’s accusations and simply said “it was not worth commenting on – you know what is going on very well.”

Some analysts believe the continuous anonymous critique is meant to ‘bombard’ Beijing with discontent and will not stop until Beijing finalises the list of candidates for Leung’s replacement in the 2017 chief executive election. Leung was selected by a 1,200-member election committee with Beijing’s blessing as the city’s chief executive in 2012.

Others believe that the newspaper wants to drive home the need for an ongoing corruption investigation into the Liaison Office to deliver results. Since January 2016, a team from China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has been investigating the Liaison Office, looking into their financial records and reviewing the effectiveness and functioning of the Beijing body in Hong Kong.

Soon after the first commentary was published, various other newspapers in Hong Kong, including Wen Wei Po which is run by the Liaison Office, fought back and attempted to discredit Sing Pao, by attacking its owner. They published news reports accusing its chairman, Gu Zhuheng, of being a “fugitive” who was involved in an illegal money lending platform and is wanted by police in the Chinese city Shenzhen. Gu denounced the accusation, claiming that it was “false” and “libelous”.

Gu Zhuoheng took over Sing Pao Daily, one of Hong Kong’s oldest papers, by injecting capital into the corporation when the paper was on the verge of bankruptcy in August 2015. At the time, people in Hong Kong believed that Gu was backed by the Beijing government in taking over the paper, in order to strengthen the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) control over media in Hong Kong. The Liaison Office already runs three newspapers in Hong Kong and most big media houses are editorially aligned with the pro-Beijing camp.

The first front-page commentary, published on August 30, created an uproar for holding Leung accountable for the rise of the independence movement in Hong Kong. Here’s a translation courtesy of Hong Kong Free Press:

In fact, Hong Kong independence has no market in Hong Kong… Leung Chun-ying deliberately encouraged Hong Kong independence to consolidate the authority of his governance and the hawk faction.

The paper then urges the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) to investigate Leung and the Liaison Office over power abuse:

Hong Kong society expects the CCDI to investigate the work and the role of the Liaison Office along with a recommendation to disband the group that hurts the interests of the country and Hong Kong.

Sing Pao’s opinion actually echoes the view of many people in Hong Kong, who sarcastically labelled Leung as the father of Hong Kong’s pro-independence movement, as he kept making public speeches on the “non-existing” separatist tendency.

According to the “one country, two systems” principle underwritten in 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back to the people of China from the UK, the city’s capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years until 2047. But Beijing has been showing signs of impatience in recent years, encroaching more and more on Hong Kong’s internal affairs, including disqualifying pro-independence candidates from elections and deploying strategies that split the pan-democrat votes and weaken their camp, which unlike the pro-Beijing camp, supports less central control from China.

Sing Pao ran another commentary, two days before voting in local elections began on September 2. The piece criticised Leung and the Liaison Office for providing resources and assistance to a pan-democratic political group called Youngspiration. The group is running against Scholarism, a student activist group behind the series of pro-democracy protests in 2014, known as the Umbrella Revolution. The paper also made accusations that a number of the group’s key members came from a non-profit organisation that is affiliated with Lau Nai Keung, a pro-Beijing businessman who is a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. But Youngspiration has denied any linkage to Lau.

The anonymous commentator then questioned why Leung banned six pro-independence candidates running for legislative elections, but allowed members of Youngspiration to run the race, given that the group has openly claimed to support the self-determination of Hong Kong.

This was not the only time local elections in Hong Kong have seen the sudden rise of “radical” political groups within pan-democrats. For example, during the district council election in 2015, Anthony Cheng, who is connected to a pro-Beijing businessman, was offering election funds to new political groups, which had the potential to compete with other pan-democratic parties.

Sing Pao continued to bombard Leung and the China Liaison Office after the legislative elections. After newly elected lawmaker Eddie Chu received a death threat, Sing Pao accused Leung of actively seeking the Triad or organised crime’s support when he started his election campaign in 2012.

The paper reminded the public of a dinner in February 2012 in which Leung and his election team were sitting with a dozen representatives of the indigenous rural community, two of whom are believed to be aligned with the Triad. The dinner meeting was Leung’s election campaign.

Leung did not shy away from the Triad after coming into office, which analysts say has undermined the rule of law in Hong Kong. After Leung became the chief executive, in August 2013 members of the Triad were called to stop anti-government protesters from approaching a town hall meeting that Leung was attending. During the pro-democracy protests in 2014, members of the Triad were mobilised to attack sit-in protesters in Mong Kok.

(EJ Insight) October 11, 2016.

For the past four weeks, Hong Kong people have been rushing to buy a newspaper so quickly that the stalls have sold out by mid-morning. Is it Apple or Oriental Daily, the best-selling titles in the city? No, this is Sing Pao, a modest and little-read paper.

It has leapt into the news with remarkable stories “revealing the secrets of the ‘Gang of Four’ who are causing chaos in Hong Kong”. The Four are Chief Executive CY Leung: Zhang Xiaogang, head of the Central Government Liaison Office; Jiang Zaizhong, chairman of the two main Communist dailies in Hong Kong; and a fourth man whose name it has not revealed. It has even attacked Zhang Dejiang, the third most powerful man in China and chairman of the National People’s Congress (NPC), the parliament. He is also the top official for Hong Kong and Macau affairs. The newspaper has accused the Liaison Office of selling seats in the NPC and the advisory body, the CPPCC, the China People’s Political Consultative Congress.

Here is part of an article from October 3: “Everyone in political circles in Hong Kong knows that, to follow the path to the CPPCC in provinces and cities in the mainland, they must make contact with the Liaison Office and offer advantages in order to obtain a paper of recommendation.

“Those in political circles say that the officials of ‘the Western district” (the Liaison Office) are increasingly knowledgeable about what to eat and drink. It must exactly suit their taste. The meals have moved into private homes and private clubs in order to escape detection. To obtain nomination for a CPPCC seat for a mainland city or province, you must invite a famous chef from Japan or fly fresh fish in from Japan, if you want to succeed. Zhang Dejiang is complacent about this NPC corruption system and promotes it openly; he is beside himself with laughter, like CY Leung and Zhang Xiaogang, and accustomed to ‘feeling good’.”

The paper said that the independence issue here was created by the Chief Executive as part of a plan to be nominated for a second term, by presenting a city in chaos that needs a strong, reliable leader to keep control. It has called Wen Hui Bao and Ta Kung Pao, the two main Communist titles in the city, “clown papers”.

These attacks are the more extraordinary because the owner of Sing Pao is no Hong Kong democrat but mainland businessman Gu Zhuoheng, who injected new capital in 2014 to save it from bankruptcy. At the time, most people saw this as part of Beijing’s strategy to extend its control over the Hong Kong media. Until these recent attacks, its editorial line had always been pro-Beijing.

According to mainland websites, Gu graduated with a degree in law and is a successful businessman with interests in mining, wealth management and real estate. There is limited public information about him.

In response to the attacks, Wen Hui and Ta Kung have accused Gu of being a criminal who stole 130 million yuan (US$19.37 million) from an online financial platform in Shenzhen and fled abroad to escape arrest. They quoted Shenzhen police as saying he was a wanted man. Gu has called the accusations “false and libelous”.

While Hong Kong people much enjoy these juicy revelations of infighting and name-calling within the mainland bureaucracy, they are confused as to the motives behind it. Gu himself is not a well-known figure here or in the mainland and has not given an explanation.

There are two main explanations. One is that Sing Pao would not dare to be so outspoken in criticising powerful government figures without strong backers in Beijing. These backers do not want Leung to have a second term as chief executive and are using the paper to blacken his name. In its Oct. 7 edition, the paper, gave lengthy coverage to a speech by Finance Secretary John Tsang in Los Angeles, in which he stressed the importance of unity in Hong Kong society and said that this was the responsibility of everyone. Beijing has not indicated its preference for the next chief executive; lobbying behind the scenes is intense.

The other explanation is less heroic. “I do not bother to read Sing Pao at all,” said a veteran Hong Kong journalist who has covered the mainland for 30 years. “These stories are all nonsense. Gu wants amnesty for criminal offenses in the mainland, allowing him to go back and continue his businesses there. If the government offers this, he will stop the criticisms at once. It is media blackmail, common in the mainland, where journalists threaten to report negative news about a person or a company but will spike the story if they are paid enough.” The tactics and language used by the paper are typical of the mainland and of an earlier era, such as the Cultural Revolution, when politicians used the ‘pen’ to wage war against their opponents and called them nicknames.

We will learn the answer sooner or later. In the meantime, enjoy the ride.

(SCMP) October 20, 2016.

Mainland state media yesterday repeated news that the boss of local newspaper Sing Pao Daily News was allegedly involved in illegal financial activities with a Shenzhen-based finance platform.

The report by Xinhua said Gu Zhuoheng, 44, chairman of pro-establishment Sing Pao Media Enterprises since October 2014, was wanted by Shenzhen police for an alleged connection to a case of illegally receiving some 150 million yuan (HK$173 million) from financial platform cnmeidai.com, based in Shenzhen.

Gu denied similar reports, published previously, in a statement in August, saying he had no relationship with the platform, which claimed to be China’s first online medium of its kind providing services from peer-to-peer lending to financing for small and medium-sized enterprises. Gu also stressed that he had been free to travel between Hong Kong and the mainland.

He earlier claimed he had been under revenge-driven political attack since last year because he would not submit to a “certain power”. He has not identified the power. The details of the case had been carried by mainland media including Southern Metropolis Daily in April last year, and the semi official Hong Kong China News Agency in August this year. Some pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong also repeated the reports.

The details of the case had been carried by mainland media including Southern Metropolis Daily in April last year, and the semi official Hong Kong China News Agency in August this year. Some pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong also repeated the reports.

(EJ Insight) February 22, 2017.

Police are investigating alleged stalking of Sing Pao staff by suspected mainland operatives. The newspaper has also received threatening e-mails and phone calls, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Sing Pao has been publishing a series of front-page articles critical of some chief executive candidates and Beijing’s Liaison Office since August.

The stalking started in mid-February when large groups of suspected mainlanders began harassing staff and taking their photos. One of the targets was chief editor Lau Mei-yee.

Police said they received a report from a woman on Feb. 19 that her personal safety was at risk, according to Ming Pao Daily. Recently the woman contacted the police again concerning slanderous flyers with her photo and plastered in her neighborhood. Other management staff of the newspaper have also had their photos posted on flyers. The flyers say Sing Pao chairman Gu Zhuoheng owes money to his employees. The photos are said to have been taken from their Home Return Permits. The police confirmed to HKEJ that Sing Pao has filed a case against the suspects.

Sing Pao believes the incidents are most likely tied to the articles. It said its website has been hacked in the past month, causing disruptions on February 18 and 19. In addition, its e-mail accounts have been swamped with spam mail every seven minutes or so at one time.

Gu issued a statement condemning the threats to Sing Pao’s management. He challenged anyone who is dissatisfied with the newspaper to express their opinions by lawful means instead of resorting to rogue tactics. The newspaper said it is worried about the safety of its employees but vowed to continue its editorial line.

Legislator James To expressed concern over the incidents, describing them as a challenge to Hong Kong’s freedom of the press. He urged the police to investigate and ensure the safety of Sing Pao workers.

(EJ Insight) February 27, 2017.


 Sing Pao chairman Gu Zhuoheng said the attacks on the newspaper's staff have reached a "crazy level". In the latest incident, assailants splashed red paint (inset) on the house of an executive

Sing Pao Daily has called the police after assailants splashed red paint on the residence of a member of its management team. This is the fourth time that the Chinese-language newspaper has called the police in a week’s time after members of its management team and editorial staff reported being harassed and stalked by unknown individuals, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports. Some of the staff have been receiving nuisance calls while others found threatening leaflets around their homes. Police have classified the latest incident as a case of criminal damage.

Sources at Sing Pao said the harassments started after the newspaper started coming out with stories that are highly critical to the Liaison Office.

Gu Zhuoheng, chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, has refused to stop the publication of such stories, the sources said. Sing Pao said in a statement that it has gathered evidence suggesting that the criminal acts involved people from the mainland. It urged the central government to take necessary actions to stop such acts.

Sham Yee-lan, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said she feels frustrated by the violence inflicted on journalists, Apple Daily reported.

Sing Pao quoted its chairman Gu as saying that the attacks on the newspaper staff have reached a “crazy level”. Gu also said the culture of corruption in the mainland has had a damaging impact on the rule of law and development of democracy in Hong Kong.

(SCMP) February 27, 2017.

Chinese-language newspaper Sing Pao Daily News called the police on Sunday after the home of a senior staff member was splashed with red paint as the recent harassment against the publication intensified. It was the fourth time the newspaper had called the police since February 19, after the newspaper’s editorial staff spotted suspicious people following its managing staff and lingering near their office in Kwun Tong and their homes.

Among those shadowed was chief editor Lau Mei-yee, the Post learned. A police source said earlier that Lau had filed a report on February 19 about threats to her personal safety . She also called on behalf of the newspaper.

On one of the occasions, a picture of at least one staff member was posted near an employee’s home. The newspaper said it thought the picture was taken from a home return permit, the travel document that enables Hong Kong residents to travel to mainland China.

The newspaper said late last week that it received a large number of nuisance phone calls and emails containing computer viruses directed at certain employees. In the latest incident on Sunday, red paint was sprayed outside the home of a female senior staff member. Leaflets with intimating messages were also posted at her home.

The Post learned from a source that police would provide protection to senior staff. A police spokesman confirmed the security arrangement on Sunday. A police source said multiple senior staff members were covered by the arrangement.

The Kowloon East regional crime unit has taken over the investigation of four recent cases. They are the case on Sunday morning, the sighting of suspicious people reported on February 19, leaflets being posted near a senior staff worker’s home reported on February 21 and a large number of nuisance phone calls and emails directed at certain employees reported on Friday. The force spokesman said: “Police are paying great attention to these cases … and will provide appropriate protection according to the needs of the people concerned.”

In a statement on Sunday, the newspaper “strongly condemned” interest group(s) involved in the city and mainland China over suspected use of triad gangs to intimidate staff in a bid to disturb the chief executive election. “[The groups] used such extreme violent and base acts to make sure the candidates they like would be elected.”

(SCMP) March 9, 2017.

Mainland authorities have sought assistance from Interpol for the arrest of Sing Pao Daily boss Gu Zhuoheng over suspected illegal financial activities, according to sources.

Gu, chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, which owns the long-time pro-establishment daily, is wanted by Shenzhen police for an alleged connection to a case involving the illegal receipt of some 150 million yuan (HK$173 million) from Shenzhen-based financial platform cnmeidai.com.

A source with the Shenzhen authorities concerned said the intergovernmental organisation based in Lyon, France had recently issued a “red notice” over Gu’s arrest. His assets on the mainland have also been frozen.

The Post has not been able to independently verify the information provided. Local newspaper Sing Tao Daily also carried a report, citing sources, on Thursday. The Post has made inquiries to Interpol to confirm the reports.

Issued at the behest of a member country, a red listing means the person concerned is wanted by national jurisdictions for prosecution or to serve a sentence based on an arrest warrant or court decision. Gu’s name could not be found in Interpol’s online database for red notices on Thursday morning. At least 47 other people are wanted by China, according to the list. The international body’s role is “to seek the location and arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition or similar lawful action”. But the red notice itself is not an international arrest warrant.

According to information provided by the source, Gu set up cnmeidai.com with a partner in Lo Wu in July 2012 as a peer-to-peer online investment and financing platform promising “10 to 20 per cent” annual returns. It then went bust in November 2014, and about 350 investors suffered cumulative losses amounting to some 960 million yuan, the source added. It is understood that the financial platform’s chief financial officer as well as Gu’s wife are being scheduled for trial.

Gu had previously denied having any relationship with the platform and described his case as a revenge-driven political attack because he would not submit to a “certain power”. He did not identify that “power”.

(Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

Many persons on the Interpol red notice will flee to western countries and then plead political persecution for anti-government activities in order to avoid or delay extradition. Whether anti-government speech can gain political asylum depends on the evidence. In this case, a peer-to-peer financing platform prevented their users from withdrawing their own money in mid-November 2014. During 2015, the police began to arrest those concerned with the platform. In 2016, the platform owner's newspaper began publishing anti-government material in a column. It will be hard to convince a foreign court that this was political persecution, because the criminal case preceded the anti-government speeches.

(The Standard) March 10, 2017.

Hong Kong authorities could freeze the assets of the Sing Pao Daily boss Gu Zhuoheng after Interpol issued a "red notice" for his arrest following Beijing's request for assistance over suspected illegal financial activities.

In an exclusive story yesterday, The Standard's sister paper Sing Tao Daily cited sources that Interpol had issued the red notice on Gu, the Sing Pao Media Enterprises chairman.

Xinhua News Agency confirmed yesterday that Gu was allegedly involved in Shenzhen-based financial platform cnmeidai.com illegal fund- raising case involving up to 1.35 billion yuan (HK$1.51 billion), with a few hundred people falling victim.

According to a picture of the warrant obtained from a source, Interpol issued the red notice on February 28 this year and the warrant is effective until February 28, 2022.

The red notice stated that Gu was born in 1972, has an alias of Gu Jianhong, is 178cm tall and weighs 80kg. It stated he was charged with the "crime of illegally absorbing public funds" under Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. He faces up to 10 years' imprisonment.

The crimes were allegedly committed from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014 in Shenzhen City.

According to Sing Tao Daily, Gu and his wife set up cnmeidai.com in Shenzhen in 2012 to attract the public to lend on the internet platform with interest rates of 10 to 20 percent to attract investors. Investors had steady returns in the beginning and the investment amount grew to 1.35 billion yuan.

In November 2014, investors found that they could not withdraw money from the platform. Gu consoled investors and also signed letters of demand with some investors but, after the letters expired, investors could not contact him.

According to mainland immigration records, Gu left China on February 25, 2015, and has not returned.

On May 27 of the same year, the People's Procuratorate of Luohu District, Shenzhen, issued an arrest warrant on Gu for allegedly illegally taking in public funds.

As Gu was on the run, Shenzhen police applied for a red notice on him from the Ministry of Public Security.

A Hong Kong police chief inspector told Sing Tao Daily that when officers are investigating cases involving money laundering and there is a chance of a suspect escaping, they can send a No Consent Letter to banks to freeze the suspect's bank accounts.

Once the No Consent Letter is sent, the Department of Justice can apply for a freeze order from the High Court and freeze all the suspect's assets, Selwyn Yu Sing-cheung, a senior counsel told Sing Tao Daily.

The police did not comment.

The Hong Kong Company Registry said Gu has 18 companies.

(Ta Kung Pao) (Ta Kung Pao) March 11, 2017.

Our investigation revealed that Gu Zhuoheng was originally named Gu Jianhong, from Weifang city, Shantong province. He married Shen Wei, from Liaoning province. He traveled to Brazil and came back saying that he speaks Portuguese and has Brazilian residency.

The legal cases related to Gu Zhuoheng began with the Ludun Milk Industries Company. At the time, Gu Jianhong had established the Beijing Asia-Pacific Land Properties International Investment Limited Company and purchased the Ludun Milk Industries Company as a rich wealthy Brazilian Chinese. He then changed the named of the company to Liya (China) Beverage. Gu signed a contract with the Chifeng city government in Inner Mongoloia, with the stated intention of investing 1 billion RMB to develop coffee-related projects.

The original owners of Ludun Milk Industries found problems with the original sale and went to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to take back their control. But during the time that Ludun was Liya, a company named Guoli Steel Beam used a piece of Ludun land as collateral to obtain a 46 million RMB loan from the Bank of Agriculture. Gu Jianhong was the legal representative of Guoli Steel Beam. After the Ludun ownership was reverted, Gu's partner cried to the media about his assets being forcibly taken away and said that he is broke, which is a position very different from the proposal to Chifeng city. Gu himself did not appear.

In 2010, Gu Jianhong and Shen Wei went to Shenzhen. At first, they stayed at a cheap 50 RMB/night hostel to save money. Due to the impact of the Beijing Ludun affair, Gu did not want to use the name Gu Jianhong. So his wife Shen Wei established the Shenzhen Century Star Space Audio-visual Production Company to boost his their son Gu Wenzhi as a Brazilian star actor. The company attracted parents to pay high fees to sign their children up. Several months later, Shen Wei absconded with the money, leaving debts of more than 1 million RMB in tuition fees and office rent.

In 2010, Shen Wei bought the Shenzhen Jiumo Electronics Company and changed its name to Shenzhen City Dinghuo Investment Guaranty Limited Company. In 2012, Gu set up cnmeidai.com and claimed that investments are guaranteed by the Shenzhen City Dinghuo Investment Guaranty Limited Company with 10% to 20% return on investment. Due to its success, Gu established the Xunda Wealth in Tianjin city and Zhongyong Capital in Hangzhou.

In 2014, Gu Jianhong applied to the Beijing Public Security Bureau to change his name to Gu Zhuoheng. He began to present himself as the chairman of the Shenzhen Dinghuo Property Management Group. When cnmeidai.com was first established, investments could withdraw their money at any time with a steady return on investment. The cumulative total investment was as much as $1.35 billion RMB. In July 2014, Gu acquired South Asia Mineral Industries and Sing Pao. According to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Gu increased his holdings in South Asia Mineral Properties to 322 million shares. After the acquisition, Gu changed the name of the company to Dinghuo Mineral Industries. He also invested 20 million in Sing Pao and became its chairman.

On September 5, 2014, Gu Zhuoheng was taken away by the police at the Shenzhen airport. He was found to be carrying forged ID and military pass. He posted bail. In November 2014, investors who could not withdraw money from cnmeidai.com came down to Shenzhen to seek recourse. Gu Zhuoheng met them as a person in charge, and signed a letter of demand. He said that he owns a piece of land in Pingshan worth 1.5 billion RMB at the time. He told the investors not to worry. The immigration control system showed that Gu Zhuoheng left mainland China on February 25, 2015 and has not been back since. When the letter of demand became due, the investors were unable to reach Gu Zhuoheng.

When Gu originally went to head Sing Pao, he was the temporary chairman holding an unknown number of shares. In April 2015, debt holders filed in court for Sing Pao to go into bankruptcy. In July 2015, Gu increased his Sing Pao holdings to 261,473,945 shares (13.26%). At the time, the company which filed in court against Sing Pao was the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company, who two directors are Wang Xuehua and Liao Qiaocheng. The names of these two individuals are identical to cnmeidia.com's assistant to the chairman and customer services manager. Wang Xuehua was arrested in mainland China, and the court documents showed that she admits that she was a Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company director. Afterwards Sing Pao stopped publication for 20 days because it was unable to pay its printing bills. Gu then formally became the Sing Pao Media Group chairman.

So far Gu Zhuoheng has been saying that he is not connected to cnmeidai.com. On the day before yesterday, Gu Zhuoheng issued a statement to say that there is no basis for saying that he is wanted by the INTERPOL. However, an Internet media outlet has obtained a copy of the INTERPOL Red Notice dated February 28 and effective until February 28, 2022. Gu was said to have broken Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China for the crime of illegal absorbing public funds with a maximum jail term of 10 years.

In August 2014, Gu Zhuoheng applied for a non-immigrant visa at the US Consulate in Guangzhou. Recently he posted photos of his life in the United States. According to information, he met a woman named Gao in Hong Kong and they now have twins.

(Ta Kung Pao) March 11, 2017.

Once it was reported that Sing Pao Media Group chairman Gu Zhuoheng is wanted by the INTERPOL, the 170,000 square meter land under his name became of interest to the public. This land is estimated to be worth 3 billion RMB.

At present, there are two guards at the location. One of the guards worked for the Huang family in Taiwan. The other guard works for people who have financial disputes with Gu Zhuoheng. The two guards did not stop our reporter from entering the site. Our reporter went through a weed-covered path and saw the abandoned factory buildings. Some of the buildings have collapsed, and others appeared to have suffered from fires.

According to the guard for the Huang family, "In 2013, the Taiwanese businessman Huang Wencai wanted to sell the land for 200 million RMB. At the time, the Shenzhen investor Zhang Yinjin expressed interest. But they disagreed with the details, and it became a dispute. Gu Zhuoheng got to know Huang Wencai's daughter and said that he knows certain powerful people who can settle the dispute. However, the land needs to be signed over to Gu in order for this to work. This was how he obtained the land by deception. Cnmeidai.com owes a few hundred million RMB to investors. But this land is worth at least 3 billion RMB at this time. If the land is really Gu's, what does he need to be a fugitive. He can sell the land directly and he will have the money to cover what he owed. We were sent here to keep guard because the Huang family is afraid that someone is going to illegally develop this land."

This plot of land is located close to the soon-to-come Pingshan subway station in the busy Liulian community and it is a dozen minutes from the Pingshan High Speed Rail station. Therefore it has great investment potential.

(Wen Wei Po) May 5, 2017.

On trial today for the Cnmedia.com case, Gu Zhuoheng's wife Shen Wei denied completely that she had any part in this. Is she the wife of Gu Zhuoheng? Shen Wei said they agreed to divorce in 2012, and they only see each other when she brings the children down from Nanjing to visit during the summer. She knows nothing about Gu Zhuoheng using her name to establishment the Cnmeidai.com operation.

Under cross examination, Shen Wei admitted that she and co-workers went to various banks to obtain 15 cards. Some of the money from investors ended up with Shen Wei, but she said that this was just money for purchasing a home and providing for the education of the children. She denied ever investing the money overseas or buying land and luxury houses.

Cnmeidai.com CFO Wang Jing was also on trial. She said that she was only responsible for company finances in accordance with instructions from Gu Zhuoheng to transfer the investors' money for investment or other uses.

Internet comments:

- What does it mean if you go to the INTERPOL website and fail to find Gu Zhuoheng's name among the Red Notices? Well, it means nothing, because (INTERPOL):

Can I look up a Red Notice?

While most Red Notices are restricted to law enforcement use only, some member countries choose to make an extract publicly available. This includes information such as the individual’s name and the criminal charges for which they are wanted. The full Red Notice contains additional information for law enforcement purposes only. See public extracts of Red Notices.

(Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

According to a senior Hong Kong Police official, Gu Zhuoheng is indeed on the Interpol's most wanted list. Here is the relevant "Red Notice."

The charge against Gu Zhuoheng is Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China:

Article 176. Whoever takes deposits from people illegally or in disguised form and disrupts financial order shall be sentenced to not more than three years in prison or criminal detention. He or she shall be fined, additionally or exclusively, not less than 20,000 yuan and not more than 200,000 yuan. If the amount involved is large or if the circumstances are otherwise serious, he or she shall be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than 10 years in prison. In addition, he or she shall be fined not less than 50,000 yuan and not more than 500,000 yuan.

If the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph is committed by a unit, the unit in question shall be fined, and the individual directly in charge of it and other people who are directly responsible shall be punished in accordance with the provisions in the preceding paragraph.

The crime occurred in Shenzhen city, from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014.

- (SCMP) What’s an Interpol red notice and what power does it wield over wanted Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui? April 19, 2017.

What is an Interpol red notice?

An Interpol red notice is a request to locate and provisionally arrest someone pending extradition. It is issued at the request of a member country of Interpol or an international tribunal based on a valid national arrest warrant.

When a red notice is published, it informs all 190 Interpol member countries that the person is wanted based on an arrest warrant issued by a country or an international tribunal.

What happens after a red notice is issued?

Police all around the world are alerted as the red notice is sent to all 190 Interpol member countries.

Each member country decides for itself what legal action to take over a red notice.

Many of Interpol’s member countries consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty.

Is it an international arrest warrant?

No, the Interpol red notice is not an international arrest warrant, although it is often described in the media as “the closest” thing to one.

Interpol cannot insist or compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a red notice, nor can it require any member country to take any action in response to another member country’s request.

Interpol also does not send its own officers to arrest the subject of the red notice.

Can the public look up an Interpol red notice?

While most red notices are restricted to law enforcement use only, some member countries choose to make extracts publicly available.

They can post an abridged version of the red notice on the Interpol website, including information such as the individual’s name and criminal charges, but that is only an option and they are not required to do so.

The requesting country of a red notice can also ask that it not be publicised.

Has China requested Interpol red notices before?

In 2015, China published a list of 100 of its most wanted corruption suspects, who all had Interpol red notices issued, as part of its graft-busting Operation Skynet to bring back fugitives hiding overseas. At least 40 of that 100 have been brought back to China.

As of now, the Interpol website lists 46 people publicly who are wanted by China, and 152 people with Chinese nationality are on Interpol’s public red notice list.

Do China and the US have an agreement on extradition?

China and the United States do not have an extradition treaty but they signed an agreement on mutual judicial assistance in 2000 to “improve the effectiveness of cooperation between the two countries in respect of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.”

According to the agreement, China and the US should provide mutual assistance in investigations, prosecutions and proceedings related to criminal matters, including serving documents and locating or identifying persons.

- Red paint splashed on the front of the home of a senior Sing Pao staff member? Sing Pao must be paying their staff a pittance -- this is the standard iron gate for an old public housing apartment. Reference: Income and Asset Limits for Public Housing.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

On May 13, 2016, Wang Xuehua (assistant to the chairman of cnmeidai.com) and cnmeidai.com's legal representative Hao Jianguo stood trial in the Luohu District People's Court, Shenzhen City. They testified that Guo Zhuoheng was the real boss of cnmeidai.com. Hao said that in November 2014, Gu used the money that was collected from investors to purchase the newspaper Sing Pao in Hong Kong. Wang and Hao were sentenced to seven years in prison each.

According to the verdict document, Gu Zhuoheng and Hao Jianguo established cnmeidai.com in Luohu District, Shenzhen City. They promised to pay 10% to 20% annual interest to investors who deposit their investments into the personal account of Gu's wife Shen Wei. In November 2014, the company collapsed and the investors could not get their money back. There were 350 victims, who invested $960 million RMB. Shen Wei was arrested in Beijing and will stand trial with cnmeidai.com Chief Financial Officer Wang Jing.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

In 2012, Gu Zhuoheng and his wife Shen Wei established cnmeidai.com in Shenzhen with a promise of annual return rate between 10% and 20%. It had attracted as much as 1.35 billion RMB in investments. In November 2014, the investors found that they could not withdraw money from the cnmeidai.com. The investors went down to the Shenzhen office of cnmeidai.com to demand their money back. At the time, the person in charge Gu Zhuoheng assured them: "Nobody will lose even half a cent of their investment!" He even signed IOU's with some of the claimants. But when the money came due, Gu was nowhere to be found.

According to the mainland Chinese border control data, Gu Zhuoheng existed China on February 25, 2015 and never went back again. Gu stayed in Hong Kong for a while, and traveled frequently between Hong Kong and Thailand. Later Gu Zhuoheng went and stayed in the United States. According to information, Gu applied for a tourist visa from the US Consulate in Guangzhou before the implosion of cnmeidai.com.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

Gu Zhuoheng took over Sing Pao in 2014. From late August 2016, Sing Pao published a series of headline articles under the name of a commentator (Han Jiangxie 漢江泄) about the secrets of the Central Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Chief Executive election. Speculation is that Gu Zhuoheng wanted to manufacture an appearance of political persecution in order to seek political asylum overseas.

Sing Pao was founded on May 1, 1935. In recent years, its has changed hands several times. On August 6, 2015, the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company asked the High Court to declare bankruptcy, so that Sing Pao stopped publication for 20 days. According to the company registry, the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company has a director named Wang Xuehua, who has the same name and address as the cnmeidai.com person who was sentenced to seven years in prison.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

At around 4pm on February 24, two men and twelve women went to demonstrate at the Sing Pao office in Kwun Tong. They represented friends and families who lost money with cnmeidai.com. They shouted slogans such as "Give us our money back." According to a man named Ng, his mainland friends/relatives lost more than $10 million. Two days later, another group of cnmeidai.com victims protested at Sing Pao, demanding their money back and telling Sing Pao workers not to become co-criminals. On March 1 at 5pm, another dozen of so victims went to demonstrate at Sing Pao again. The police came and checked their ID's. The victims left peacefully.

At this time, the support rates are 41.2% for John Tsang, 34.3% for Carrie Lam and 11.8% for Woo Kwok-hing. 6.9% said none of the above and another 5.9% said "No answer/refused to answer".

But who is going to the eventual winner? 69.7% believe that Carrie Lam will win and 17.4% believe that John Tsang will win. 58.4% believe that public opinion won't influence the election outcome.

Why do people support John Tsang?
51.8%: Mend social rifts
20.9%: Improve people's livelihood
11.8%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
9.7%: Improve the economy
1.9%: Trusted by the Central Government
3.9%: No answer/refused to answer

Why do people support Carrie Lam?
38.8%: Improve people's livelihood
23.9%: Trusted by the Central Government
18.6%: Improve the economy
7.5%: Mend social rifts
3.2%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
8.0%: No answer/refused to answer

Why do people support Woo Kwok Hing?
65.1%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
17.5%: Mend social rifts
12.4%: Improve people's livelihood
0.5%: Improve the economy
0.0%: Trusted by the Central Government
4.4%: No answer/refused to answer.

(Economic Journal) Among so-called pan-democrats, how do you think that the pan-democrats on the Election Committee should vote?
39.2%: John Tsang
9.9%: Carrie Lam
8.2%: Woo Kwok-hing
18.8%: Blank votes
23.9%: No answer/refused to answer.

#001. (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 7, 2017.

I watched the first debate this past Sunday. My daughter asked: "Is there really going to be a debate? That would be interesting to watch ..." The result was a boring event, forgettable, no hostilities, no dramatic action such as calling "You are a liar!"

The absence of John Tsang took away the interest in this debate. He declined to attend this first debate; he even demanded the organizers Path To Democracy to join the debate from a different location? Hey, if you become the Chief Executive, will you deliver your governance report through your Facebook/blog?

As the saying goes: You can lose to someone but you should not lose because of your demeanor. In this case, you did not even dare to face a little woman. John Tsang has lost his first battle without even taking part in it.

It takes preparation to participate in forums. You have to memorize certain facts and policies, and you need to be quick on your feet about the unanticipated. John Tsang wants to be in his comfort zone: watching a movie; drinking coffee; eating hot dogs; shooting the breeze ... or watch his his alma mater compete in track & field wearing a school blazer. He is not known as HEA Tsang for no reason; he even HEA's in the midst of the battle.

Actually he has improved. Everybody in government knows about his work habits. He does not take telephone calls on Saturdays and Sundays. His underlings cannot reach him; he won't even receive his boss's call. It is nice to have this guy as your boss; but good luck with such a Chief Executive.

After skipping out the first forum, John Tsang has also skipped the next one hosted by the insurance sub-sector. What was the reason? He needed to go to Sheung Wan to have photos taken with boxer Rex Tso Sing-yu, who is preparing for a fight on March 11, 2017. If John Tsang is elected Chief Executive, he will have time to visit each of the 18 districts of Hong Kong/Kowloon/New Territories and have selfies taken to garner millions of Facebook LIKE's.

John Tsang is also famous for his meetings. As a principal official, he is a member of the Executive Council. According to other participants, HEA Tsang has practically said nothing at these meetings, never mind joining in discussions or offering ideas. During the meetings, he either toys with his mobile phone or he doodles with cartoon drawings. This is thoroughly consistent with his enthusiasm for finding joy and fun in life and refusing to debate other people on facts and policies. John HEA Tsang, truly a middle-class person enjoying his cup of coffee.

Internet comments:

- John Tsang refused to attend the Path To Democracy forum because "he only participates in forums with a high degree of represenativeness." What can citizens with no voting rights and no status say to Mr. Tsang?

- Rex Tso was not fighting for a world championship on Saturday. He was training to fight for a world championship title defense. (TVB) John Tsang said: "I love sports deeply. I have never stopped doing sports. I believe that I am the candidate that knows sports best. There should be no doubts."

- (TVB) Why did John Tsang not bother to go to the insurance sub-sector forum? Because 12 out of the 18 nominated Carrie Lam. So why waste his time on a lost cause?

- (TVB) If John Tsang knows sports best, then why didn't he get the nominations of the Sports sub-sector Election Committee members? Well, he said that he will try to get their votes.

- (Headline Daily) March 7, 2017. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was in charge of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Development Bureau, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, and the Innovation and Technology Bureau. He is the chairman of the Steering Committee on Land Supply in charge of coordinating land supply for development purposes. Between December 2015 and August 2016, he called no committee meetings even as the government scoured for land, even floating the idea of using country parks for housing development.

In September 2016, the Wang Chau affair was big news. As a member of the Wang Chau/Queen's Hill Land Development Working Group, John Tsang did not attend because he said that he had to travel. With respect to the North East New Territories Development Plan, John Tsang aid on September 24, 2012 that he supports development in North East New Territories. He said that he started this project in 2010. But when the pan-democrats filibustered the initiative, such that the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council failed seven times to pass the bill, John Tsand said nothing.

After the physical clash at by protestors on June 13, 2014, many senior government officials called for the measure to pass in order not to delay other livelihood projects. John Tsang re-surfaced and posted on his blog to ask the Financial Committee approve the budget allocation.

When Secretary for Development Paul Chan (who reports to John Tsang) worked to develop government-owned land, John Tsand offered him no support. Instead, Carrie Lam (who was not in charge of the Development Bureau) had to come out to support North East New Territories development.

The Chief Executive job is tough. Does John Tsang have the courage and persistence to pick up this hot potato? Or will be just take it easy, to the point of even avoiding forums that he felt was 'unsafe'?

- (Ta Kung Pao) The reason why John Tsang does not participate in debates is that he is inarticulate and therefore afraid of losing. Everybody knows that he is less articulate than Carrie Lam. But a debate is not about speaking louder and faster. You have to have good thinking, knowledge and demeanor.

Being inarticulate may just be the excuse not to participate in public forums. Over the years, John Tsang has rarely been confronted in the public. He never touches controversial or sensitive topics. He underestimated the budget surplus each and every of his nine years as Financial Secretary but he makes people happy by handing out 'candies' next year. On the constitutional reform and Article 23 legislation, he began to waver as soon as he encountered opposition and flip-flopped 180 degrees.

Although John Tsang has certain shortcomings in his campaign, one must admit that his public relations work is not bad: he hikes around the country side; he eats BBQ pork on rice; he teaches fencing; he watches the marathon; he plays street basketball; etc. This makes him a friendly person. But as long as you have a good public relations team, this sort of thing is easy. But is this all that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is expected to do?

#002. (SCMP) March 6, 2017.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has for the first time publicly denounced the notion of Hong Kong independence in his annual work report, warning that the movement would “lead nowhere”. While Beijing’s firm rejection of such separatist sentiments is well-known, the mention of Hong Kong independence in the annual government report was unprecedented. It is likely to be read as a strong signal to candidates of the coming chief executive election that the winner would be expected to handle the issue without compromise.

(Bastille Post) March 6, 2017

What do the three Chief Executive candidates think about Hong Kong independence? Woo Kwok-hing said that everybody knows that the Central Government is against Hong Kong independence. Carrie Lam emphasized that Hong Kong in an inalienable part of China and the enactment of national security laws in Hong Kong will protect the personal safety of the citizens of Hong Kong. John Tsang said that Hong Kong independence is a "false issue" which the people of Hong Kong won't support, and therefore it is not worthy of discussion. Ever since he declared candidacy, he has said that very few people support Hong Kong independence, and so this was not a real issue that has to discussed seriously.

If Li Keqiang comes out now with a stern warning about Hong Kong independence, it would be a clash if John Tsang continues to insist that this is a false issue not worthy of discussion. John Tsang probably did not intend to clash with the Central Government, but his initial position turned out to clash with the latest statement from the Central Government.

By including Hong Kong independence as an issue is Li Keqiang's work report, it means that the Central Government treats this as a real issue, even as a serious issue.

In June 2016, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey conducted a telephone survey. 17% of Hong Kong citizens support Hong Kong independence; amongst persons aged 15-24, it was almost 40%. If the Central Government continues to insist that this is a false issue not worthy of attention, we would probable consider them to be ostriches with their heads buried in the sand.

Over the past, the Central Government may have thought that Hong Kong independence was a false issue. After Occupy Central 2014 and Mong Kok riot 2016, they are beginning to regard this as a real issue.

I do not think that Hong Kong independence is a false issue. It is an issue about committing political issue. Many Hongkongers feel that Hong Kong belongs to China; the Basic Law says that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China; on the international scene, China is a major political, economic and military force. Hong Kong has no chance of attaining independence. If you use Hong Kong independence as a political goal to attract young people to support you, you will be leading Hong Kong into a dead-end fight against the Central Government.

Therefore the Hong Kong independence issue must be confronted. Do not bury your head in the sand. Do not let  young people harbor any illusions about this.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) March 7, 2017. Previously John Tsang believed that CY Leung unnecessarily started the whole Hong  Kong independence issue on his own. Therefore, the issue will go away by itself if no further attention is paid. In truth, CY Leung has to follow the orders of the Central Government on matters of national security/secession. If John Tsang does not even understand this basic fact, his political wisdom is very dubious. No wonder even Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai called Tsang "a bit stupid."

#003. (SCMP) February 26, 2015.

After coffee and French movies, John Tsang Chun-wah has now moved on to his next bourgeois preference: food trucks. If the financial secretary has his way, food vans - like those featured in last year's Hollywood foodie movie Chef - may be cruising the streets of Hong Kong.

In the movie, the main character rediscovers his love for food while selling Cuban sandwiches and yucca fries from the open window of a food van travelling across the US. In Hong Kong, vans would more likely be touting fish balls and chow mein.

In Tsang's 2011 budget speech, he identified himself as being "middle class" - despite earning HK$301,000 a month back then - because he drank coffee and watched French movies. He was, perhaps understandably, ridiculed for this.

Now, in his budget speech, he has drawn from his time in the US for his latest idea. "I have asked relevant departments ... to facilitate alfresco dining operations, and to consider introducing food trucks, which are popular abroad, to the mix of Hong Kong's existing food scene," he said.

A government source said food trucks would sell more "gourmet" products, not "merely fish balls and egg waffles". Tsang, however, seems to be OK with the more common snacks. "Food trucks can sell fish balls. Food trucks can also sell beef offal. It's not a big problem," said Tsang. "Most important is ... trucks selling specialty foods will be regulated and have a hygiene guarantee and licensing."

(Ming Pao) February 22, 2017.

Atlantic Sunrise's food truck began being stationed at the Golden Bauhinia Square. It was Lunar New Year at the time, there were many pedestrians including tourist groups. Business volume ranged between $4,000 to $19,000 per day for $170,000 over 14 days. On the day before yesterday, the food truck moved to Central Habourfront. The location was far from the ferry piers with few pedestrians, and it faced the windy Victoria harbor. When our reporter bought a hot bun yesterday, it went cold within 10 seconds.

According the owner Mr. Cheung, they made $3,028 on the day before yesterday. It was worse yesterday in the drizzle when they made a mere $900. Mr. Cheung said that they invested $1.6 million to furnish a truck and a central kitchen. Apart from this investment, they needed to make $5,000 per day to break even to pay for rent, wages and materials.

(HK01) March 3, 2017.

On February 23, we went to the Central Harbourfront trial site. During the afternoon, fewer than 10 people walked past the Atlantic Sunrise truck per hour. Over the course of several hours, fewer than 10 persons made purchases. In the evening, a few Leon Lai fans passed by on their way to watch rehearsals. The operator said: "There was nothing we can do. We made only $900 today. If our owner Mr. Wong sees the figure, he might jump into the harbor. It is better if he does not come."

On March 6, the food trucks shuffled their locations. Ho Yuen Express took over the Central Harbourfront site. Based upon prior experience, they came up with a special discount on $1 chicken wings with a minimum purchase of 8 and a maximum purchase of 16 per person. "Central is going to be tough. I hope that we don't lose too much money. We knew that Central will be tough, but we have to find confidence to come up with ways. Everybody likes our chicken wings, so we are going to offer discounts here." Are they losing money with $1 chicken wings? Ho Yuen Express began selling friend squids outside the Wong Tai Sin Temple with floating price for the first three days before settling down on $58 per squid.

(Headline Daily) April 6, 2017.

Former Financial Secretary John Tsang boasted that he shared a dream with the people of Hong Kong with the food trucks included in his 2015-2016 budget speech. Since inception, there have been bad news about business hardships. Recently, the Tourism Commission ordered the travel agencies to transport busloads of tourists to these food trucks. According to the mainland tourists who were forcibly transported there, the food was too expensive.

What the government wants is to have special $25 meals for tourists that will be sold by the hundreds. The food truck operators do not think that they can cover their costs of operation.

From the viewpoint of the tourists, this is a situation in which the government wants to save John Tsang's face and bail out the food trucks. Therefore they are forcibly transporting mainland tourists right to the food trucks to make purchases. Does this sound like the "bad market practice" in which "tourists are forced to make purchases at designated locations" that the government adamantly opposes for the zero-cost tourist groups?

The food trucks were doomed from conception, because it did not arise from market factors. As John Tsang said upon losing his election, "I seemed to have shared a dream with the people of Hong Kong. Today, we finally woke up."

(EJ Insight) Food trucks: A bureaucrat’s dream that’s failed. By Stephen Vines. April 21, 2017.

It comes as absolutely no surprise to learn that the government’s absurd food trucks scheme is unraveling just two months after its less than stellar launch.

Its demise was predicted by myself and others before the scheme was launched, not least by people in the food industry who quickly identified why it was not going to work.

As matters stand, only 12 of the trucks chosen to take part in the scheme have actually got off the ground. One company has dropped out and another three are struggling to make their way through the bureaucratic fog before they can launch.

Four of the government-designated sites for the trucks have proved to be duds and so more sites are being offered.

Meanwhile, customers have been complaining about high prices, eyebrows have been raised over the lack of fulfillment of original claims about how this scheme will bring innovative and quality food to the market.

And as for the claim about how it would boost the reputation of local cuisine, well that’s just a joke.

The crucial problem here is the hubris and stupidity of the bureaucrats who dreamed up this scheme and even now remain in denial over their failure.

In other places where food trucks flourish, such as New York and London, they’ve been established by can-do entrepreneurs with lively ideas.

Costs are minimal because there is no overbearing bureaucracy stipulating what they must do, and, crucially, they move around catching customers at their convenience and are not stuck in fixed locations according to the dictates of officials sitting in air-conditioned offices filling out forms.

In Hong Kong regulation and control is the name of the game. It started with a bunch of po-faced bureaucrats and “food experts” presiding over a so-called Cook Off Challenge to determine who qualified to take part in the scheme.

The bureaucrats then hit the winners with a bulky set of regulations including seven annexes of rules and requirements.

Among these rules were stipulations about where they could go and, astonishingly, a requirement stipulating that menu changes could only be made following bureaucrat approval.

Whereas in other jurisdictions food trucks are generally operated from reconditioned second-hand vehicles, in Hong Kong operators had to buy new vehicles and meet fitting-out specifications making them very costly.

One operator spent HK$1 million, others have not publicly disclosed their costs but even this very large amount is not the end of the story because there is a raft of other expenses to be met before the trucks get anywhere near a customer.

So, instead of encouraging new entrants to the industry this scheme has a built-in bias towards existing food chains and the relatives of very rich people.

But even well-heeled truck operators need to be aware of the bottom line so their prices are accordingly high and customers have been complaining.

They can’t offer really simple, tasty food that Hong Kong people used to buy from street hawkers before they were hounded off the streets.

Why? Because the busybodies administering the farcical cook off were looking for something ever so sophisticated.

This meant that even much loved items had to have a twist; whatever that means.

Greg So, the designated government food boss, has announced some relaxation of the rules for the food truck scheme to stop it going entirely off the rails.

But this tinkering will not work; indeed it only serves to underline the basic fallacies of this enterprise.

There is a simple lesson to be learned here: government bureaucrats are lousy entrepreneurs and make entrepreneurs lousy when they regulate their every move.

Internet comments:

- Divergent expectations

Citizens' idea of a food truck: $6 for one skewer of fish balls
Former senior government official's idea of a food truck: $50 for a pineapple bun: "I was the one who successfully fought for it!"

- The food trucks were initially planned to cost $600,000 each. In practice, they cost more than $1 million each. How are the operators going to recoup their investment at $6 for one skewer of five fish balls?

- I have a solution: Let's convert the food trucks into hourly rental fuck trucks as Yau Wai-ching wants.

- John Tsang: "It's none of my business"
Gregory So (Secretary for Commerce) holding the time bomb known as the Food Truck

- The standard script: "My idea was brilliant. Unfortunately there were execution errors by other persons. So don't blame me."

#004. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was expected to handle finances. Here are the summary statistics (HK01):
(yellow: estimated budget surplus/deficit;
blue: actual surplus/deficit;
red: discrepancy)

(SCMP) February 24, 2015.

Under the watch of former architecture student John Tsang Chun-wah, the gap between the government’s forecasts and reality concerning the budget deficit or surplus, has widened to HK$390 billion. Since he became financial secretary in 2007, he has managed an unbroken record of never getting a single budget projection right.

As Tsang unveiled his new budget this morning, he updated his surplus projection for 2014-15 to be HK$63.8 billion, HK$54.7 billion higher than the original projection of HK$9.1 billion. In the 2010-2011 budget, Tsang managed to turn an estimated HK$25 billion deficit into a buoyant HK$75 billion surplus, chalking up a sizable HK$100 billion black hole in the budget books.

The odds of guessing all six numbers for the Mark Six lottery might be higher than the likelihood of Tsang hitting his budget jackpot.

(EJ Insight) March 22, 2017.

John Tsang, one of the three candidates in Hong Kong’s chief executive election, has vowed to be a fence-mender as he sought support from both ends of the political spectrum.

Many Hongkongers have a favorable view of the former financial secretary, as evidenced in several opinion polls which have put Tsang at the top of the popularity charts in comparison to the other CE contenders — former chief secretary Carrie Lam and retired High Court judge Woo Kwok-hing.

The broad popular appeal of Tsang, who bears the nickname “Mr. Pringles” thanks to his resemblance to the potato chips mascot, is largely the result of deft image management by a team of social media-savvy aides, as well as the backing of a section of the media.

Led by Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily, supporters of the pan-democrat camp have lost no time whipping up sentiments in favor of Tsang, despite the fact that the former finance chief was very much a part of the establishment until recently.

The supporters have gone to great lengths to portray a grim future for Hong Kong in the event that Tsang’s chief rival in the CE race — Lam — gets anointed to the top post in the March 26 election.

As we have seen, a key element of the strategy has been to run down Lam, highlighting her record of arbitrariness in governance and obsequiousness to Beijing during her time as the No. 2 official of the city.

The pan-democrats are supporting Tsang even though not many people have a clear picture as to how he will govern if he manages to knock out Lam and Woo.

It is an uncomfortable reality, given that Tsang’s own track record in the government has been less than stellar.

Now, one can ask this question: what did Tsang really achieve during his time as the city’s financial secretary for more than nine years?

No one can say exactly what Tsang had done, but almost all will remember the fact that throughout his nine years as Hong Kong’s CFO he constantly miscalculated the government books, in particular the fiscal surplus.

Six times he cried wolf that the government’s balance sheet would sink into the red, yet that never happened. For instance, in his budget for financial year 2010/11, Tsang warned of a deficit of HK$25.2 billion but as it turned out, the government actually recorded a whopping surplus of HK$75.1 billion during the year.

Overall, Tsang’s total misestimates during his tenure amounted to no less than HK$460 billion.

While he can be forgiven sometimes for poor arithmetic as he was no expert in finance when he took over the post – Tsang majored in architecture while in college — there is still the question of how he got his numbers way off consistently.

The finance chief also didn’t know how to put to use a huge fiscal reserve, which reached almost HK$860 billion (US$110.89 billion) at the end of last March, excluding HK$74 billion set aside for public housing development, a revenue windfall equivalent to 24 months of government expenditure.

Hong Kong has never been on such a strong fiscal standing, but Tsang was a scrooge who wasn’t too enamored of investing for the underprivileged and for the future of the society.

Rather, even as Hong Kong is far from any rainy day given the sheer size of its reserves, Tsang had in 2014 proposed austerity measures that mandated all government departments to trim recurrent costs by no less than 2 percent within a short span of three financial years.

The moneyed class may have hardly felt it, but the city’s ordinary folk have borne the brunt of Tsang’s moves to scale back government spending.

Due to reined-in expenditure, the city has seen some public services taking a hit. For instance, the average waiting time for specialist out-patient services at public hospitals is now over 50 weeks, and it’s a similar case for those applying for subsidized long-term elderly care services.

Schools get fewer funding, public libraries have had to shorten opening hours and even the frequency of routine street cleaning operations had to be slashed, thanks to Tsang’s whimsical spending cuts.

Tsang may have been an example of the laissez-faire philosophy, but for all the wrong reasons. A finance chief who is dismissive of the demands of the less-privileged and refused to give more other than some minor, one-off handouts may not be what Hong Kong needs, giving the growing wealth disparities and rising elderly population.

Tsang could have done a better job to ensure fairer use of the revenue pie. It is all the more so, as unlike counterparts in other economies, he didn’t have to bother about setting aside a large chunk of funds for national defense or diplomacy.

He had all the resources to do a lot of good to ensure the well-being of the average Hongkongers, but sadly he chose to be a miser.

#005. (Hong Kong Free Press) March 8, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang has said during a youth event on Tuesday that he is committed to serving Hongkongers.

The former finance chief said last September that “you always agree with your boss, no questions about that.” An attendee on Tuesday cited the quote and asked Tsang how he would balance the interests of Beijing and Hong Kong – the two parties the chief executive is answerable to.

Tsang replied that while chief executives have a duty to answer to the central government, their job is to serve the people of Hong Kong, Citizen News reported. “Hongkongers are my boss. They are the subject of my service,” Tsang said. He promised to fully convey the views of Hongkongers to Beijing if he was elected.

- (Small Business.chron.com)

In an organizational structure, “chain of command” refers to a company's hierarchy of reporting relationships -- from the bottom to the top of an organization, who must answer to whom. The chain of command not only establishes accountability, it lays out a company's lines of authority and decision-making power.

John Tsang has defined the chain of command as the Chief Executive reporting to 7.3 million bosses (=Hongkongers). 7.3 million people will have 7.3 million sets of ideas of how to run Hong Kong. How is conflict resolution going to occur? It is as easy as pie.

At the weekly management meeting, the Chief Executive goes to meet with the bosses (or those who can fit inside the Hong Kong Sports Stadium on a first-come-first-serve basis). The bosses start talking about the various things that they want to see done, and they get into heated arguments with each other. The Chief Executive takes out his mobile phone and starts scanning Facebook, not commenting or objecting to anything that the bosses have to say. When the bosses run out of steam, he calls for an adjournment. He will use S.F. Express to send a meeting video to Beijing, fulfilling his promise to fully convey the views of Hongkongers to Beijing.  The Chief Executive will have plenty of time left to watch soccer, drink coffee, eat pineapple buns, take hikes, enjoy French movies, teach fencing, etc.

-P.S. And when Beijing responds, the Chief Executive will post the response on his Facebook and invite comments. I completely get how easy life can be.

#006. (Ta Kung Pao) March 9, 2017. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSqYRiOc5yc&t=2791s

At the forum organized by IT Vision yesterday, John Tsang was asked what measures he would take to mend the social rifts. He said that the highly politicized environment in recent years has lessened the confidence of the young generation. It is necessary to have a government that the citizens accept with representatives from different parts of the political spectrum in order to rebuild confidence. But immediately someone in the audience shouted out that Tsang is lying: "John Tsang just came in through the back door! He did not want to come across the protestors! How is he going to bring Hong Kong back together?" This person also criticized John Tsang for only willing to meet with Election Committee members who have the right to vote but not with regular citizens who have no votes. This person was ordered by the organizers to leave.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017. When John Tsang arrived at the site for the forum, Tam Tak-chi (People Power) and company were ready for him by the side door. They shouted various political demands at Tsang. Tsang said that he'll look into them and accepted a placard that sarcastically called Tsang the "Joint Master of the Pan-democrats." Then he hurried through the side door. Leung Kwok-hung and others waited at the front door and therefore missed him. Someone suggested to Leung to enter because he is an Election Committee member. Leung said no: "Do you think that I really want to see him?" Leung criticized Tsang for running away like a turtle hiding his head inside his shell. "He said that he is a Hong Kong lad, but he is actually a gutless lad." Then the group chanted "John Tsang, no lower chin" and "If you don't dare to meet with citizens, how can you be the Chief Executive?"

- The star of the IT Vision forum was actually Woo Kwok Hing, as he amazed the IT folks with his knowledge and vision. (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

At the outset, Woo Kwok-hing declared that he is not an IT expert. When asked what a tech startup really needs at this time and the kinds of possible improvements, Woo Kwok Hing asked the host to explain to him the meaning of a "tech startup". He said: "You have me stumped here" and "I really don't know." Then he explained: "I came here to listen to your opinions."

Normally, the forum host would move to another question. But the organizers really like Woo, so the IT sector legislator Charles Mok began to break the questions into a number of details, such as the complexity of the application process to seek financial aid for start-ups, the shortage of manpower, the difficulty of gaining business, etc.

Even though Mok had provided him with the lead, Woo still didn't know how to take advantage of the situation. He merely said: "The newly created Innovation and Technology Bureau should be dealing with these problems." And then he added: "The industry should write a letter to tell the authorities about these problems."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

Woo Kwok-hing was asked how confident he was about being elected Chief Executive. Woo said: "80%." Where did this confidence from?" Woo said: "I have it to myself. I used my eyes to assess the situation and I don't think that I have 100% confidence." He said the IT Election Committee members should not abandon him just because they think that he has no chance of winning. He said that he is the best choice to restore harmony in Hong Kong.

How much does public opinion matter in the election? What standards should Democracy 300+ follow to vote? Woo said that public opinion is important, but he could not comment on what Democracy 300+ should do due to Woo having a 'conflict of interest.' He said: "They know what they are doing. They will vote based upon their own considerations. If they think that there are other factors, they will consider them."

- (TVB) March 9, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing thinks that the 326 Democracy 300+ should split their votes equally between himself and another candidate. He said that he has 80% confidence to win.

- The magic number is 600 votes to win. Half of 326 is 163. This means that Woo will have to get another 437 votes from the pro-establishment camp. Previously Woo managed to get zero nominations from the pro-establishment camp. What does Woo know that we don't? Is he really the mythical stealth candidate anointed by the Xi Jinping core?

- Round one:
John Tsang, 306 votes
Woo Kwok-hing, 308 votes
Carrie Lam, 580 votes
John Tsang is eliminated.

Round two:
Woo Kwok-hing, 614 votes
Carrie Lam, 580 votes
Woo Kwok-hing wins.

80% chance that this will happen (Final Fantasy 19)

Assumptions: Carrie Lam maxed out with her 580 nominations, as those who did not openly nominate anyone were in fact secret pan-democrats waiting for the secret ballot to vote. All the pan-democrats have to do is to eliminate one of their two candidates and the remaining one will win.

- Why does Woo Kwok-hing want Democracy 300+ to split their votes?
Because everybody knows that Carrie Lam has a lock on 800 votes (with only 600 needed to win). If Woo is going to lose, he would rather lose by Lam 800, Tsang 250 and Woo 150. He does not want to lose by Lam 800, Tsang 400, Woo 0, because that will really hurt his self-esteem. So please take pity on a 70-year-old grandpa and spare him some loose change, okay?

- (Ta Kung Pao) March 10, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing said that Democracy 300+ should split their votes between John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing. There are three possible outcomes in the first round:

(1) Carrie Lam gets more than 600 votes and becomes Chief Executive. Everything else is moot by that point.

(2) Carrie Lam does not get the 600 votes, whereas Woo Kwok-hing gets more votes than John Tsang. John Tsang will be eliminated from the second round and Woo Kwok-hing will pick up Tsang's votes to win.

(3) Carrie Lam does not get the 600 votes, whereas John Tsang gets more votes than Woo Kwok-hing. Woo Kwok-hing will be eliminated from the second round and John Tsang will pick up his votes to win.

Specifically Woo Kwok-hing wants to avoid a situation in which John Tsang gets 400 votes (which is 326 Demcracy 300+ votes plus 74 pro-establishment votes) whereas Woo Kwok-hing gets 280 pro-establishment votes (and Woo says that he is very confident that he will get that many), then John Tsang eliminates Woo Kwok-hing but those 280 pro-establishment votes will go to Carrie Lam instead of John Tsang.

With respect to this scenario, Dennis Kwok said: "He should take a look at where he stands" because many pan-democratic electors don't agree.

- Everybody knows that the reason why John Tsang hates forum participation is that he is inarticulate -- he stutters as he grapples to find the words. By contrast, Carrie Lam is quick on her feet. This IT Vision forum was perfect for John Tsang, because each candidate faced the questions separately without confronting each other. So this was not a debate, as the pro-democracy organizers floated up soft balls for them to hit out of the ballpark. IT Vision had given 8 nominations to Woo Kwok-hing and 21 nominations to John Tsang. IT legislator Charles Mok nominated John Tsang.

(Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017. John Tsang was asked whether he looked forward for all three candidates to be present to fight each other out, he said: "I don't particularly look forward to that. What is there to talk about?" He said that he has read the policy platform of his opponents, "and I don't see anything special." After the forum, he was asked again why he is not looking forward to a three-candidate forum, he changed his mind and said: "I was just kidding before."

(Oriental Daily) March 13, 2017. At the Professional Teachers Union forum, the candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions once more. Why? According to the organizers, they wanted it but one candidate did not want cross-questioning. Who was that candidate?

The organizers won't say who that candidate is. But it is easy to deduce by process of elimination. First of all, Woo Kwok Hing is trailing badly and has nothing to lose. He has been showing up at all the forums, large and small. So he would have loved to have cross-questioning in order to achieve a breakthrough. Secondly, whether you like her or not, Carrie Lam is famous for her tough battles at the Legislative Council sessions. So she would have loved to have cross-questioning too. This means the unnamed candidate must be the stuttering/muttering John Tsang. Previously, he had refused to attend the Path to Democracy forum because it was in enemy territory. But the Education sector is friendly territory. What was he afraid of? Frankly, John Tsang is over-worrying. On Facebook, the ANGRY's were piling up against Carrie Lam before she even uttered a single word. Meanwhile the opposite case was true for John Tsang. We live in a world in which people will support whoever they support and the debates be damned. If Richard Nixon debated JFK today, he would not have lost the presidential election.

- (HKG Pao) March 9, 2017. John Tsang was asked about the existing ordinance on "accessing a computer with dishonest intent." John Tsang said that the ordinance has many flaws. What is to be done? The law should be amended after consultation with various sectors of society. That is as good as having said nothing.

#007. (Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

John Tsang posted of a photo himself at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou last September with Liu He, Minister of the Office of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs. Since Liu is close to Chinese president Xi Jinping, the implication is that John Tsang is favored by Xi Jinping.

Recently, Liu He was asked about this photo and whether he supports John Tsang as Chief Executive. Liu He said that he did not even know that John Tsang wants to run for Chief Executive at the time. He said that he was unhappy about how the photo is being used.

Perhaps you need to understand how things work in China. Only the Communist Party Secretary-general can call for a meeting of the Politburo. Once the Politburo decides to support Carrie Lam, nobody can pretend that they weren't aware and proceed to do something else. So there is no way that Liu He, being close to the Xi Jinping core, would go against Xi. Even if Xi Jinping has not made a choice, would Liu He dare to rush out and make his own choice subject to the possible misunderstanding that this was Xi's choice?

- One way or the other, John Tsang should not have posted this photo and used the ambiguity to advance his own candidacy.

- (Bastille Post) On RTHK, John Tsang was asked whether he was willing to take a post such as the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference if he does not become Chief Executive. Tsang said that he did not think that he would lose, so he has never given a thought to those other things. That's bravado and quite alright.

But John Tsang also added that his interests are in Hong Kong and he does not know much about mainland China. Politicos were aghast because how is someone going to be the HKSAR Chief Executive without being knowledgeable about mainland China?

#008. (Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.

Tsang was asked why he did not mention the legislation of archives laws in his platform.The candidate replied that he is also committed to promoting the law, but he could not include it in his platform because “there was too much to write about.” “My platform was originally 200-pages long. At first, I thought 20 to 30 pages would be enough, but the final version is now 75-pages long. It is very difficult to write down everything I want to do,” he said.

- Here is a different version of what happened: (Bastille Post) John Tsang's performance made many attendees shake their heads in disappointment. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang wrote plenty of blog posts.

So he was asked why while he was willing to share information on important issues such as structural deficits, political instability causing economic instability, etc on his blog, he does not say so to reporters? John Tsang's response failed to explain why.

John Tsang was pressed further as to why he rarely gives press interviews. He said that he has met with reporters. The truth is that in his nine years as Financial Secretary, he has been interviewed by foreign reporters but local interviews conducted in Chinese (including one about his book reading habits) were fewer than the fingers on one hand can count.

As for the archive law and freedom of information law that the media workers are concerned about, John Tsang said that his policy platform states his positions. When told that his policy platform did not contain any such, he said that his platform was originally more than 200 pages in length, meaning that he had plenty more that he wants to do but could not put it into the platform. The whole episode showed that he was not sufficiently familiar with his own policy platform. Will he enact these laws? John Tsang kept repeating that the government will have to study the issues before deciding.

All in all, John Tsang underestimated the sharpness of the questions from the reporters and he was also ill-prepared about policy issues. That is why his answers today were very 'clumsy.'

- (Wen Wei Po) John Tsang was asked why he seldom met the press prior to announcing his candidacy for Chief Executive. Most often he used his blog. John Tsang answered rather incoherently that he met every week with reporters during the election campaign period. Eventually he amended his answer to say that "If elected, it should be OK to have a press conference once a month."

- Here is yet another version: (SCMP) March 10, 2017. John Tsang Chun-wah, was asked why he seldom held sit-down interviews with the media before quitting to start his campaign. Tsang said he was often out of town for business and so chose instead to give stand-up briefings to reporters on the sidelines of public functions.

- Hey, people need to remember that we are living in 2017 now. Good communication means getting LIKE's on Facebook, as opposed to being grilled by reporters to give lucid answers to substantive questions.

- (Wen Wei Po) Woo Kwok-hing was first up, and he was asked about Wharf stopping its investment in i-Cable. Woo said that "it is hard to tell about business." He hopes that someone would take over i-Cable. "I can only say this much. I am not a white knight. I don't have the money." When asked how to improve the licensing system, he said: "I hope that I can do something. I will have to study it." He added: "Such as improving the licensing system." So the answer is also the question.

John Tsang was up next and he was not asked about broadcasting policies during his 30 minutes.

Carrie Lam was last up. The first question was about the awarding a license for Fantastic TV to Wharf (Holdings) but not to Ricky Wong's HKTV. Lam said that she cannot divulge government secrets. Generally speaking, the licensing policy should be loose and the government should encourage any investor who is not violating any regulations.

Lam said that broadcasting policies is handled by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, which reports to the Financial Secretary (John Tsang) and not to the Chief Secretary (Carrie Lam). She said: "I don't know if you have the chance to ask during the preceding session (with John Tsang) ... as long as no government secrets are divulged, you could have found out about the views of the principal official in charge of a certain policy?" The host asked Lam if she could provide a hint, because they did not have time to pose that question to Tsang. Lam said: "There doesn't seem to be any hint." Lam re-emphasized that she cannot disclose the details of the Executive Council discussions about broadcasting licenses. "I don't want to repeat what happened during the previous election, which all of you can remember."

A participant asked whether the government will respect public opinion when it comes to issuing broadcasting licenses. Lam said that the environment should be loose in principle. But she was never in charge of broadcasting policies, so she has nothing further to add.

#009. (Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017. How the candidates handled petitions.

At the Journalists Association forum, the demonstrators from People Power, League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, Social Welfare for Low Income Persons Concern Alliance, Special Learning Rights Association, etc, gathered at 9am outside the site.

At 10:20am, John Tsang arrived to accept the petition letter. The demonstrators chanted: "Mr. Pringle is a miser, how are you going to help the grassroots!?" "I want standard working hours, I want universal retirement protection." They asked Tsang if he would rescind the judicial review against the four legislators. Tsang said that he will act in accordance with the law.

With respect to poverty relief, John Tsang told the demonstrators to read his policy platform. The demonstrators were not satisfied because he did not answer at all. They shouted: "It is shameful to avoid answering!" John Tsang turned around the leave, and the din got louder. Eventually John Tsang's campaign office sent someone out to receive the petition letter.

At 10:40am, Carrie Lam's campaign deputy manager Chan Yung arrived to get ready. People Power members cursed Chan out with obscenities. Chan laughed as if he was merely hearing dogs barking. Upon learning that Carrie Lam will accept the petition letter, Tsang Kin-sing told the young woman next to him to grab Carrie Lam's hand when she arrived so that Lam can't run away.

At 11:10am, Carrie Lam came to receive the petition letter. She shook hands with the young female demonstrator who grabbed her hands. Lam knew that she was trapped, but she kept her smile. A demonstrator asked: "If elected, will you have bottom-up youth policies?" Lam answered: "Of course I support that! My policy platform wants young people to participate in politics. I welcome young people with the suitable qualifications to join the government." Another person asked how she would help the grassroots. She said: "Social welfare expenditure rose by 70% while I was the chairperson of the Poverty Relief Committee." The person followed up: "So why is wealth inequality getting worse then?" Lam said: "That is why we need to continue to work." Because Lam had to receive the petition, the female demonstrator had to let go of her hands.

#010. (Oriental Daily) March 11, 2017.

When the Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance invited John Tsang to visit residents of subdivided and rooftop units, Tsang decided that he would only visit the subdivided units but not the rooftop units. Why? The Alliance cited the John Tsang election campaign team that "Mr. John Tsang has bad cardiac and knee conditions" and therefore the decision was not to visit the rooftop units.

The John Tsang Election Campaign Office clarified that they discussed with the Alliance. They said that the rooftop units require walking up eight floors. So to avoid aggravating an old knee injury, they decided not to do it. The Office said that they did not mention any cardiac problems. They insisted that John Tsang's heart was healthy and normal!

- Well, it is good manners that if someone takes the day off work in order to meet you and you cancel, you should be telling them as early as possible. They shouldn't have to find out from Facebook at 10pm that you are not coming.

- (SCMP) October 4, 2009.

Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, recovering from heart surgery last weekend, said yesterday his work would not be affected by his illness, but it had reminded him of the importance of having 'a splendid life'.

Six days after emergency surgery at Queen Mary Hospital, Tsang was discharged yesterday morning to join his family for Mid-Autumn Festival celebrations.

Tsang, 58, hopes to return to work as soon as possible. His press secretary said Tsang would rest at home and could resume work as early as this week.

Leaving the hospital in good spirits but still looking a little pale, the financial secretary read a short statement, beginning with special thanks to the public, and to hospital and ambulance staff for their care over the past few days.

Tsang also showed his confidence in being able to return to work in a short period of time.
'I would like to resume work as soon as possible,' he said. 'I believe this [operation] will definitely, definitely not affect my work in the future. I will pay more attention to my health and continue my service to the public.'

Asked if the operation had given him cause to reflect on life, a smiling Tsang replied: 'I think what is important for us is to have a splendid life for every minute and every second; also to get our jobs done.' Tsang, who practised kung fu in his younger days, offered special thanks to those who had brought him kung fu tips during his recovery in hospital.

While saying that Tsang had fully recovered, Dr Stephen Lee Wai-luen, the head of the hospital's cardiology division, also noted that the financial secretary had been an urgent case when admitted.
'His blood pressure readings could hardly be measured at the time,' Lee said, referring to the critical moment when Tsang was admitted to hospital last Sunday.

Tsang underwent balloon angioplasty - a procedure in which narrowed arteries are widened by inserting balloons - just hours after returning from the G20 leaders' summit in the United States. Lee said Tsang had suffered from a heart attack caused by a restriction of blood flow to the heart muscle. About 10 per cent of patients would suffer a recurrence. He said Tsang could continue practising kung fu but would need to be promptly admitted to hospital in case of another heart attack.

- Well, this should have been a routine campaign stop, so it is hard to see how this should become a disastrous public relations coup.

(Oriental Daily) March 12, 2017.

The Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance quoted John Tsang's campaign office to say that "Mr. John Tsang has bad cardiac and knee conditions" so they decided not to go up to the roof top.

Previously in 2009, John Tsang underwent balloon angioplasty. When he announced that he will run for Chief Executive, reporters asked him about his health. John Tsang replied that with so many people asking him about whether his heart could take it, the best thing is to have a fight with him so that everybody will know the condition of his heart. But now it turns out that he is not even able to walk up a few flights of stairs, so does he have a relapse in his cardiac problem?

In the evening, the John Tsang campaign office said that they told that the rooftop was eight stories up with no stairs, so they decided that Tsang should not go up there because of the fear of a recurrence of a knee problem. The office emphasized that they did not say anything about any cardiac problems. They emphasized that John Tsang's heart is normal and healthy!

(Wen Wei Po) March 12, 2017.

The Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance disclosed that John Tsang refused to visit rooftop apartments because his "heart and knee are in poor condition." Tsang also held a discussion of his housing policies inside an air-conditioned room. When visiting a sub-divided apartment, an Alliance member brought out some mouse/cockroach traps to show how bad conditions were, but John Tsang refused to look at them. At the discussion forum, John Tsang did not promise any substantive housing policies.

Another organization ("The Hong Kong Sub-divided Apartments Concern Platform") said that John Tsang climbed up to the eighth floor in spite of a knee problem in order to visit an old lady with heart condition living by herself.

John Tsang's campaign office told Apple Daily that John Tsang did not want to aggravate an old knee injury, therefore he only visited a sub-divided apartment on the eighth floor in a building without elevators. The campaign office said that they did not refuse to visit a rooftop unit on another eight-story building without elevators.

#011. (Wen Wei Po) March 12, 2017.

Yesterday actor Chow Yun Fat was dining at the Kung Wo Dou Bun Chong in Kowloon City when he came across Chief Executive candidate John Tsang by chance. He praised Tsang who had previously underwent balloon angioplasty: "You have a tough fate" ... "You survived balloon angioplasty" ... "you are tough" ... "I support you getting this 'dead job', as you said before that the Chief Executive job is a lousy one."

But was this encounter so accidental? John Tsang said that he has known Chow Yun Fat for years. Chow Yun Fat told Citizen News that he supports John Tsang as Chief Executive: "I support him. If I don't support him, what am I doing here for!"

What do you think happened? Did Chow Yun Fat come because he was told that John Tsang would be down at Kung Wo Dou Bun Chong? Or was Chow Yun Fat misquoted?

Facebook's Hong Kong/Taiwan Regional Public Policy director George Chen posted a photo of Chow Yun Fat with John Tsang. In response to the comment: "There is no way he can lose given that they even run into each other." Chen replied: "Is Brother Fat so easy to run into by chance! Ha ha! You understand."

#012. (SCMP) March 11, 2017.

No one sitting at the government’s top decision-making body would support former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah as the next chief executive after witnessing his “laid back” governing style, according to Executive Council member professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

In an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post on Saturday, Li said while the public might view Tsang as a “gentle and nice guy”, the city’s next leader had to be more than that. Former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was a better choice, he said.

“Executive Council (Exco) members have worked with [Lam and Tsang] for a number of years and have seen how they performed. I do not think a single Exco member is supporting Tsang,” Li, a local delegate to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said in Beijing.

“Carrie is extremely hands on, very dedicated and will tackle problems. She will not shy away from difficulties. John is a very nice person, he will sit back, relax and let you get on with it.” Li labelled the laid-back management style as “the worst thing” for Hong Kong – a city that is already facing severe competition with Singapore, Shenzhen and Shanghai.

He added that Tsang’s hands-off approach had already affected the performance of officials under his purview.

“I do not want to name names, but you look at Greg So [Kam-leung],” he said, referring to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. “HKTV was out, Cable TV is now closing down and even the food trucks is a disaster ... [Tsang] is laid back and he let this guy get on with it. It’s disaster after disaster after disaster.”

The city’s infant food truck scheme, first floated by Tsang and spearheaded by So, was dealt a heavy blow recently when an operator quit before it had even hit the road. Other operators complained that excessive registration requirements and red tape had driven up the cost.

Li dismissed suggestions that Tsang’s wide-ranging support made him a better candidate to mend divisions in the city, and went on to accuse the former financial secretary of “being manipulated” by pan-democrats.

He said Tsang’s flip-flopping over his election manifesto, especially his decision not to pursue the completion of a national security law by 2020, proved he had “no integrity” and could be easily swayed.

#013. (YouTube) March 13, 2017 Professional Teachers Union forum for the Chief Executive Election

Debate statements:

Carrie Lam: I worked on the constitutional reform for 20 months. I feel deeply about the controversies in society over the Chief Executive election, or the so-called social rifts today.

John Tsang: I know why Carrie won't restart constitutional reform. She screwed up once before, so why screw up again?

[Wait a minute! During the period for constitutional reform, weren't you on the same government team?]

Post-debate statements to the press:

John Tsang: The constitutional reform went on for two years. I participated in the bus parade. But I really did not participate in many of the other things.

John Tsang: Actually the government is an organization with collective decision-making.

John Tsang: Internally, we discussed many things. Policies and other specific measures.  Everybody participated and discussed. This should be our collective responsibility. If the government made any mistakes in the past, then I must admit that I bear some responsibility.

Carrie Lam: On a big issue such as constitutional reform, the lead was taken by the three-person group headed by me. The whole team. The whole team with political accountability, including the bureau secretaries and their deputies and assistants all took part. If it is said that one person "screwed up", then this is not consistent with the team spirit at the time.

#014. (Wen Wei Po) March 18, 2017.

On the day before yesterday, John Tsang went down to the West Kowloon Centre to meet with citizens. Kwai Ching District Councilor Ray Chow Wai-hung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre) posted a video of his encounter. Chow had assumed that Tsang would be as nice as his campaign promotion says. But reality was obviously fairly cruel.

Chow went up to Tsang and explained that he is the Kwai Ching District Councilor (Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre). Tsang wanted to turn around and leave. Chow quickly added: "I support you." This drew Tsang to stay and listen to some more. Chow asked Tsang to say something about grassroots and labor rights. "So that more grassroots can under his ideas of governance and have more reasons to support him." John Tsang said, "Thanks" and turned around to shake hands with his other fans. Chow wrote on his Facebook: "It seems that he is always wonderful in the imagination of the people of Hong Kong, and his true self is something else."

Once the video came out, John Tsang fans jumped in. "After watching this video, I came to one conclusion: Ray Chow asked an unsuitable question in an unsuitable environment." "What is the difference between this and a provocation from the Love Hong Kong people?" "Chow has always supported Tsang but now he is belittling him. The reason was that Chow did not get to exploit the situation. Chow is petty-minded and inteigrity-free. He is a shame for Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre."

Chow tried to explain: "His policies for grassroots and workers are very faraway from our beliefs. So I asked him to say something ... I posted the video because I wanted Mr. Tsang to address the policy issues for grassroots and labor rights. Why would I attack him if he can explain how his ideas can solve problems? This video can either help or hurt him -- it all depends on how his team deals with it. Even if he could not respond in detail right there, he can write about it or make a video about it later. Why can't he look at the problem squarely? Why does he want to deal with the person who asked the question?"

But John Tsang fans responded with: "Ray Chow, you are just a small potato. Why should John Tsang respond to you?" "Maybe you need to be elected Legislative Councilor first before you get to speak to John Tsang. Unfortunately, your party leader Leung Yiu-chung won't even exercise his right to speak at the Legislative Council." "John Tsang has no idea who you are." Chow wondered: "When John Tsang refused to consider the issues about the welfare and rights of grassroots/labor because he doesn't know the person who raised the question, now that is a big problem!"

#015. (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 21, 2017.

... After several election forums, the commentaries were consistent: Carrie Lam knows her stuff, John Tsang delivers quotable remarks, Woo Kwok Hing is good for jokes.

Quotable remarks are never made up at the spur of the moment, unless you are a genius like Charles Ho. Clearly, HEA Tsang is no Charles Ho. Tsang has said that he has a "great team that money can't buy" who gives him ideas. So those quotable remarks seemed to be part of the team effort.

... The main purpose is to use these sound bites to cover his lack of substance and accomplishments. After serving in the government for 35 years, he is unable to present any noteworthy accomplishment. He only makes clever remarks at the election forums. He also attributed all the problems with land supply, constitutional problems, housing crisis as the faults of other persons. Although he was the third ranking Hong Kong SAR government official, he does not appear to be responsible for anything in Hong Kong.

Last week on radio, John Tsang gladly described that he was almost fired by Chief Executive CY Leung in 2015. Why is an almost fired Financial Secretary our greatest hope for Chief Executive? I am befuddled. If "almost being fired" is a political accomplishment, then why did he spend so much time writing a policy platform?

- If Ronald Reagan got away with telling stand-up comedy jokes about everything, then why can't John Tsang? Well, the difference was that Ronald Reagan was telling his jokes off the cuff, whereas John Tsang was reciting the package that his team prepared for him.

#016. (Epoch Times) March 21, 2017.

It is a mere five days before the Chief Executive election, and the situation has changed drastically. We received revelations from sources close to Zhongnanhai that certain members of the Chinese intelligence agency in Hong Kong has given a secret brief to Xi Jinping -- the votes in their hands have swung towards John Tsang. One reason was that Carrie Lam who is supported by the China Liaison Office has too low popularity, and chaos will continue in Hong Kong if she is elected. Xi Jinping does not want chaos in Hong Kong because that will affect China's international image. According to our information, many pro-China groups have switched over to support John Tsang. According to the confidential assessment of one Chinese intelligence service, Tsang has a 65% chance of winning.

In this election, the Politubro member Zhang Dejiang and the China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming are part of the Jiang Zemin clique. They have been canvassing votes for Carrie Lam, saying that "Carrie Lam is the only candidate supported by the Central Government" and "John Tsang will not be appointed by the Central Government." But after the Two Meetings, the two Zhang have lowered their profiles and not longer showing their preferences. Only a few Electors such as Chan Wing-kei, Tam Wai-chu, Rita Fan, Charles Ho etc are still supporting Carrie Lam.

We received information from sources close to Zhongnanhai that Xi Jinping has said that "there will be no position on the Chief Executive which will be elected by the Hong Kong electors." Premier Li Kiqiang said at the closing of the Two Meetings that One Country Two Systems will be unshaken. In other words, Li meant to say that One Country Two Systems had been shaken up. Thus the China Liaison Office no longer dared to be so blatant as in compelling the Electors to take photos of their ballots previously.

Earlier our exclusive report said that Zhang Xiaoming was criticized for his overt support of Carrie Lam during the Two Meetings. Zhang will be transferred three months later, perhaps even earlier. In other words, Xi Jinping has set up "limitations" to prevent the Jiang Zemin clique from directly manipulating the Chief Executive election in order to defend One Country Two Systems. Thus, many of the Electors will no longer heed the orders of the China Liaison Office.

According to the assessment of the Chinese government, John Tsang has a 65% or better chance of winning. Previously, the pro-Communist, pro-Jiang Zemin media estimated that Carrie Lam has a 95% chance of winning. According to our source, some of the DAB electors have already swung towards John Tsang. A number of DAB senior members were summoned by pro-Communist groups to Shenzhen and asked to vote for John Tsang. At present, Carrie Lam's mainstay is in the Commerce sector, but some of these votes are affected by external circumstances. Therefore the next few days will be critical.

- When Epoch Times endorses John Tsang, it is the kiss of death. What is the snowball's chance in hell for the DAB to support the Epoch Times' favorite son?

#017. (Wen Wei Po) March 21, 2017.

On March 11, more than ten members of the John Tsang campaign team went to the Lok Fu MTR station with three life-size cardboard dolls of John Tsang. At first, citizens thought that John Tsang was coming in person. But they were told that Tsang would not be there. However, the campaign team told citizens to get their pictures taken with the cardboard dolls. A housewife said: "Of course I am leaving. It is stupid to have a photo taken with a cardboard figure. Does he think that he is a movie star? I am better off hurrying to do my food shopping."

Some citizens went over to get their pictures taken. But it was awkward to shake hands with the figure, because the cardboard hand was held up at the level of the chest. Even adults have to life their hands in order to shake hands. Young children could not even reach the hand.

On this day there was a period of 20 minutes in which nobody wanted to have their pictures with the paper doll. The photographer was twiddling his thumb out of boredom.

That afternoon, the real-life John Tsang made a flash appearance. He spoke to the large group of reporters surrounding him. Citizens could not get anywhere close. "Is he here to come into contact with citizens, or is he looking for media exposure?" said one citizen.

A citizen on a wheelchair came by. John Tsang's team and the reporters had taken up the entire sidewalk, so there was no way for this citizen to get through. A campaign worker looked at the citizen but did nothing until John Tsang was done. No wonder John Tsang said that "money can't buy this team" because they really look after his interests. Once John Tsang, the team packed up. The telecommunication service sales people returned to the scene, grumbling that the John Tsang had chased away the potential customers.

On March 12, the candidates attended the Professional Teachers Union forum. Various groups were demonstrating outside. Woo Kwok Hing came out first to accept a petition. Then Carrie Lam and her entire team came out to listen to their petitions. The demonstrators expected John Tsang to do the same. Unfortunately only two of John Tsang's aides came out. One of them had both hands in his pockets and the other stretched open his hands as if he couldn't care less. They rejected the request for John Tsang to personally accept the petition letters. So there was nothing doing.

On the afternoon of March 12, the three cardboard John Tsang's traveled to Causeway Bay. Our observation was that very few people in bustling Causeway Bay stopped to have their pictures taken. The campaign team wanted citizens to write their signatures in support. One senior citizen wanted to offer his ideas to the campaign team. After listening to a few minutes, the campaign team member told the old man to just sign. The old man was angry: "Since you didn't listen to me, I am not going to write a single word with that pen!"

#018. (HKG Pao)

In the final stage of the Chief Executive election, the Yellow Ribbons are telling everyone that John Tsang is "attempting to rally public opinion to coerce the Central Government." All along John Tsang has said that he is the only candidate who can united all the forces in Hong Kong, including the pan-democrats, the pro-establishment camp, the business community and the Central Government. But before he is Chief Executive, he is already leading the pan-democrats against the Central Government? This is going to lose the support of the votes of the business community that he desperately needs to eke out a win. So this has John Tsang worried and he sent out a statement to the media to say that this is untrue.

In the statement, it is said that "We believe that all who citizens who support John Tsang absolutely do not oppose the Central Government." So what does that means? Does John Tsang believe that Jimmy Lai, Benny Tai, the Civic Party, etc who have publicly stated their support for him are on the same side as the Central Government?

Alan Leong (Civic Party) stated clearly that the Civic Party will vote for John Tsang to fight the Central Government. On one hand, John Tsang happily picks up the votes of the Civic Party. On the other hand, John Tsang pledges fealty to the Central Government. Which is the real John Tsang? If the trust of the Central Government is very important for the job of Chief Executive, then can this two-faced person be trusted? Conversely, if it turns out that he is completely loyal to the Central Government, then he breaks whatever promises he made to Jimmy Lai and company. All hell will break loose as everything that he does will be opposed, filibustered and protested against. How is that suppose to bring Hong Kong together?

Meanwhile informed sources say that there are two versions of John Tsang's clarification. The sanitized Version A was publicly released to the media. A Version B was send to the Central Government leaders and other officials in charge of Hong Kong-Macau affairs. This Version B fawned upon the Central Government with plenty of words such as "guarantee", "promise", "trust me", etc. However, the contrast between the two versions makes one wonder whether the "clarification" was just public relations again. According to the sources, the Central Government does not buy into this.

#019. (Hong Kong Economic Journal) March 24, 2017.

Here are five mistakes that John Tsang made.

#1. The non-establishment media and politicians wanted to be kingmakers, and so they chose John Tsang as their man. Such a "kiss of death" should not be accepted lightly. John Tsang failed to maintain a distance from them, which makes the Central Government wary of him. The more actions the non-establishment camp takes on Tsang's behalf, the wariness increases. Conversely, attempts to smear Carrie Lam only makes the Central Government trust her even more so. Once this situtation arises, the Central Government cannot help but begin to indicate who their choice is. There are many ways to given signals. The China Liaison Office and the Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office under Zhang Dejiang have made their positions very clear. Even the Politburo has made a decision. Some non-establishment people still insist that Xi Jinping has not made any decisions. But that should be squashed by the 40-second handshake with CY Leung upon his elevation to Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference vice-chairman. Some non-establishment people also say that John Tsang has the support of the real estate moguls. But the Li family has come out firmly for Carrie Lam. Is this important? John Tsang thinks so, because he said that the 3-second handshake with Xi Jinping at the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou encouraged his candidacy. Clearly he was looking for an anointment from the highest state authority. You can't blame him, because the constitutional system is such that the elected Chief Executive must still be appointed by the Central Government.

#2. John Tsang is easy-going. Even though his image of being HEA is hard to remove, people generally think of him as an easy-going guy. People would like to see the Chief Executive election being conducted in a nice way. Yet, his supporters have pushed him towards extremism. In the two televised debates, John Tsang was grumpy and grouchy. He spend very little time on explaining his policy platform. Instead, he launched personal attacks against Carrie Lam calling her "Social Rift 2.0" and he was utterly dismissive of Woo Kwok Hing.

Meanwhile Carrie Lam did the opposite. In the media-organized forum, she smiled all the time. In the Elector forum, most of the questions were hostile and directed at her but she handled the situation with great composure. Why did they behave so different? Both John Tsang and Carrie Lam came from the government and they have their own civil servant fans. If the two engaged in outright war, the civil service will be torn apart afterwards. Whoever wins will inherit a divided civil servant force. Carrie Lam thinks that she will win and she does not want a divided civil servant force. Therefore she was willing to take the barbs. By comparison, who do you think is the one who wants to create social rifts?

#3. There have been many smears in newspapers and social media. Normally, one attacks the target's strongest suit. For example, Carrie Lam is known to be hard-working, serious and demanding. So out comes an anonymous administrative officer who complains that Carrie Lam does not care about people feelings and therefore she is extremely unpopular. If Carrie Lam is elected, there will be a mass exodus of civil servants. There is also the use of ANGRY emoticons to flood the Facebook of Carrie Lam on everything posted there. This makes the Angry Young People feel very good, but it is counterproductive for the Central Government and the pro-establishment camp.

The smear campaign is not only directed at Carrie Lam, but Woo Kwok Hing has also copped more than his share. He has been accused of being a Chinese Communist mole. The pro-establishment camp is delighted to see this sort of internecine fighting. How can using conspiracy theories to smear people be good for social harmony? I don't think John Tsang likes to do this sort of thing, but certain media and public relations people are leading him down this way, and he is not courageous to denounce those actions.

#4. John Tsang insists that he can unite Hong Kong. If elected, he will cause rifts within the pro-democracy camp as well as the pro-establishment camp. Many pro-establishment people support Carrie Lam. If John Tsang wins, they will be looking for people to blame. After all, the pan-democrats number only 326 out of 1194 electors, so there are traitors everywhere to be rooted out. So far only some members of the Liberal Party have declared for John Tsang. So the number of traitors must number 300 or so.

The pro-democracy camp have always hated Financial Secretary John Tsang's budgets. They always curse him out and filibuster as long as possible. They are willing to overlook these past histories in order to get him elected. Once elected, the Central Government will make John Tsang state his positions on the important controversial issues such as constitutional reform, Article 23 legislation, etc. How can he please the Central Government and the pro-establishment camp at the same time? If Tsang won't side with the pro-establishment camp, they will bite him.

In truth, John Tsang is not a centrist. He has built a coalition of a small number of pro-establishment people and a large number of pro-democracy people. A centrist needs to be supported by large numbers of pro-establishment and pro-democracy people. I don't see him having done this.

#5. John Tsang is counting on the secret ballot. He believes that some people who have openly nominated Carrie Lam will vote for John Tsang during the voting by secret ballots. Carrie Lam has a lot of iron-clad votes in the pro-establishment camp. During the nomination phase, she obtained 580 signatures. But it was clear that the Hong Kong Island-District Council, the publishing industry, the entertainment industry, the Federation of Trade Unions, the DAB members were being held in reserve. To win during the secret balloting, John Tsang needs to mobilize 300 or so pro-establishment voters to switch to him as a group. 

In recent days, the Central Government is no longer sending signals about who they are supporting. The Central Government must know that the case is closed and nothing more needs to be done. The non-establishment people must know this too. So why are they still smearing Carrie Lam in support of John Tsang? Because the non-establishment media and politicians need an environment of social rifts in order to thrive. They don't want Carrie Lam winning the election as well as public support. They want her crippled with low public support.

#020. (SCMP) March 22, 2017.

Hong Kong’s anti-graft agency has launched an investigation into chief executive candidate Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s role in a deal to build a version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in the city, according to lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching.

During a Legislative Council debate on Hong Kong’s tourism policy on Wednesday, some lawmakers said the Palace Museum would become a major tourist attraction once completed in 2022.

When it was Mo’s turn to speak, she revealed that the Independent Commission Against Corruption had told her recently it has “opened a file” on her complaint involving Lam in January.

“Several colleagues mentioned that West Kowloon’s Palace Museum could become Hong Kong’s new tourist attraction, but I doubt it because questions were raised regarding the decision to build it,” she said.

“In early January, I reported to the ICAC over Carrie Lam’s handling of the Palace Museum deal, as I thought there could be an inappropriate transfer of benefits involved. It could constitute misconduct in public office. The ICAC replied and said it would open a file and [investigate] it,” she said.

But the ICAC responded by saying that “according to its policy, it, in general, will not comment on individual incidents”.

(SCMP) Leave the ICAC out of petty political games. By Alex Lo. March 24, 2017.

The political exploitation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption continues apace by shameless politicians. The latest is initiated by Claudia Mo Man-ching, formerly of the Civic Party.

Funny how just days before the chief executive election, the pan-democratic lawmaker suddenly insinuates in the legislature that the ICAC has launched a probe into front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

Apparently, Mo complained in early January and the graft buster “opened a file” over Lam’s role in launching a plan to build a version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in the West Kowloon arts hub when she was still chief secretary. Mo alleged there had been “an inappropriate transfer of benefits” that could amount to “misconduct in public office”.

As mud-slinging goes, this is just amateurish. Even political mud-slinging has standards, and Mo clearly has no ideas, as she doesn’t with anything else. But this kind of abuse of the ICAC has been committed by pan-democratic politicians in the past, most infamously in the case of former Executive Council member Franklin Lam Fan-keung, who had to resign but was later fully exonerated.

Actually, if I go through the trouble of reporting to the ICAC that there might have been “an inappropriate transfer of benefits” in Mo’s involvement in the Palace Museum case, the ICAC would be obliged to open a file on Mo, too.

I don’t need to offer any evidence, just tell a story of suspicion, and I can write a column that Mo is now being investigated. “Opening a file” with the ICAC can mean anything, like taking down names and addresses.

The real thing is to launch a formal or active investigation, and investigators don’t tell you that.

As head of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, Lam may or may not have bypassed established bidding procedures over the museum. But a corrupt transfer of benefits – to whom?

What is most disturbing about dirty tactics like Mo’s is that they are undermining the credibility of the ICAC. If the ICAC opens a file, people claim an investigation is under way. But if, as is usually the case, nothing comes out of it, they question its integrity and whether it has been under government pressure. They do all this – just to score a few political points or make a soundbite for TV news.

Internet comments:

- ICAC Reporting Corruption FAQ

Q : Can the complainant mention to other people any details of the complaint he has lodged with the ICAC?

A : No. Any person, including the complainant, who discloses details of investigation or the identity of the subject person to other people without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, shall be guilty of an offence under Section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance - Section 30 Offence to disclose identity, etc. of persons being investigated

(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to—

(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person) the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or

(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 77

Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

If Claudia Mo got on radio and told this story, she would be facing a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment for 1 year. But she did it during a Legislative Council meeting on tourism policy. Therefore she has immunity.

#021. (SCMP) March 24, 2017.

A veteran leftist has hit out at chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah, saying Beijing doesn’t trust him because he ignored its warning against joining the race, and lacked commitment in opposing 2014’s Occupy protests.

Lo Man-tuen, who sits on the board of the campaign of Tsang’s rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, also accused the former financial secretary of being “an agent of pan-democrats” and backed by the United States.

Two days before the election Lo, vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference’s (CPPCC) subcommittee on foreign affairs, wrote a 6,800-word article in the Chinese-language newspaper Sing Tao Daily, titled: “Authoritative source reveals why Tsang is not supported by the central government”.

Citing his source, the veteran leftist wrote that Tsang’s first problem was his “lack of principle on major issues” – the pro-democracy Occupy protests and last year’s Mong Kok riot – along with his “laid-back” working style, remaining silent in cabinet meetings and focusing on drawing pictures in his notebook.

He said Tsang failed to join the chief executive and other officials in a signature campaign against the mass pro-democracy sit-ins, that “challenged Beijing’s authority”. He noted Tsang even expressed appreciation for the local film Ten Years,which was considered a smear on “one country, two systems”.

The second problem, Lo said, was that “Tsang has become a political figure that runs counter to the central government”, as he had chosen to ignore signals from Beijing against his running for the top job.

Lo claimed the third problem was Tsang’s relationship with the pan-democrats and the United States. “Tsang got most of his nominations from the democratic camp; for sure he was the agent of the interest of pan-democrats,” he wrote.

Lo also claimed it was “an open secret” that Tsang got US backing. As evidence he cited Tsang’s support from former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming, both of whom Beijing loyalists see as US-friendly.

Internet comments:

- (Silent Majority for HK) March 23, 2017.

In an interview with Citizen News, John Tsang said that he did not participate in any discussion about the use of tear gas on September 28, 2014. "I had no idea how the decision was made. There were no group discussions." He did not know whether Carrie Lam participated either. John Tsang said that Occupy Central could have been avoided -- the best way to deal with it is not to let it happen, instead of dealing with it after it happened.

- The Central Government is looking for a person who accepts the responsibility of dealing with complex situations. A person who is shifty and evasive does not qualify.

- As the third ranking government official, Financial Secretary John Tsang saw nothing and heard nothing. He had no curiosity to find out either. He was too busy doodling with his pen.


#022. John Tsang's Facebook

John Tsang said that he attended a dinner. Sitting next to him is Liberal Party ex-chairman James Tien, who is an elector. The dinner offering included white wine.

CAP 554 Elections (Corruption and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance: Section 12 Corrupt conduct to provide others with refreshment and entertainment at election

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person provides, or meets all or part of the cost of providing, food, drink or entertainment for another person for the purpose of inducing the other person or a third person—

(a) to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or

(b) not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

(3) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person solicits, accepts or takes food, drink or entertainment—

(a) as an inducement to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or

(b) as an inducement not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

- Post facto, the John Tsang election campaign team said that each guest paid $500 out of their pockets to attend this dinner.

#023. Wan Chin's Facebook

Is John Tsang's public relations so great? He merely treated the people of Hong Kong as dogs. They receive it very well, and they responded to John Tsang just as dogs would.

Dogs don't understand human language. Therefore you can't use words to communicate with dogs. You can't attempt to use subtle points of debate to persuade dogs. Instead, you have to smile, shake hands, slap shoulders, stroke backs, comb hair and otherwise communicate in an affectionate manner as opposed to informative.

As for dogs, they don't mind when John Tsang use human language to say that he supports Basic Law Article 23 legislation or he accepts the August 31st framework. They don't understand human language anyway. They merely felt that this person watched the Hong Kong team soccer games on his ipad, took any number of selfies at the starting line of the Hong Kong marathon, ran into Chow Yun-fat "by accident" at the tofu store ... that is more than enough already. Pan-democratic supporters really like John Tsang, because they think that they are dogs and they want the dog owner to shower tender loving care on them.

- So that explains why John Tsang's policy platform has an item for setting up an Animal Police to crack down on unlicensed for-profit pet breeding farms. At the time, Internet users were moved because no previous Chief Executive in the history of Hong Kong had ever shown any interest in animal rights.

(SCMP) March 5, 2017.

Pan-democrats vowed on Saturday to give all 326 votes to John Tsang Chun-wah, the “most popular” candidate, in Hong Kong’s leadership race, on March 26. Dennis Kwok, a pan-democratic lawmaker who co-ordinated the electors from his camp, said: “ We decided to unanimously vote for the most popular candidate in order to avoid someone continuing the style of Leung Chun-ying.” But even if all 326 pan-dem members of the 1,194-strong Election Committee opt for the former financial secretary, he still faces an uphill battle to secure the minimum 601 votes needed to become the next chief executive.

Internet comments:

- (HKG Pao)  March 5, 2017. Information Technology sub-sector elector Chan Chak-to posted on Facebook:

Democracy 300+: We will vote en bloc
Democracy 300+: Voting will be by secret ballots, the pro-establishment electors will switch their votes
#Insanity

Chan added: "If we had said that we will vote en bloc right from the beginning, there would not be a Democracy 300+ to speak of. If we had said that we would be following public opinion polls, we would be cursed out so much that our mothers can't even recognize us. Actually, we are intelligent beings who are not being offered too many choices here. So we are going to vote more or less the same way. So why must we insist on a false 'unity', thus disrespecting our own free will?"

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- Psst. Don't believe a word that they say. Here is the banner for The Professionals Guild (whose members include legislators Ip Kin-yuen, Lee Kwok-lun, Leung Kai-cheung, Dennis Kwok, Charles Mok, Siu Ka-chun and Yiu Chung-yim): "Oppose the manipulation of the Chief Executive election."

- There would be truth in advertising if they changed the slogan to "Oppose the manipulation of the Chief Executive election by persons other than ourselves."

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- Let us be clear on something: Dennis Kwok was not referring to any public opinion poll results, such as any coming from the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, Lingnan University Public Governance Programme or the Chinese University of Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. He is referring to the "CE Election Civil Referendum 2017" organized by Citizens United in Action.

- At the Civil Nomination phase, the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 results were distinctly different from public opinion poll results. Whereas the public opinion polls reached out to the general population, the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 were loaded with supporters. Thus, John Tsang received a super-majority of the votes.

- (The Stand News) The CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 will be held March 10-19. Voters will have to use Telegram to vote. Each voter will have to provide a Hong Kong ID number and a mobile telephone number to receive text messages. Benny Tai said that they will explain to the Privacy Commissioner on Personal Data about the usage/security.

Well, Benny, why do you need to know my Telegram logon, my Hong Kong ID, my mobile telephone number and how I voted? Are you sure that you don't need my credit card numbers and bank accounts as well?

- (The Stand News) Benny Tai said that he hopes that one million citizens will vote.

During the nomination phase, the Privacy Commissioner on Personal Data raised certain concerns and the system was offline for a while. In the end, there were only 19,075 nominations, of which John Tsang got 48%, Woo Kwok-hing got 13% and Carrie Lam got 0.8%. Yes, that's right, Carrie Lam got 0.8% of the nominations.

How likely are they to reach one million in the voting stage? Whatever the number is, are they suppose to represent the entire population (either the 3.8 million registered voters or the 6 million total adults)?

- Do you think that Carrie Lam is supported by only 0.8% of the population in Hong Kong? If there are 3.8 million registered voters in Hong Kong, 0.8% is 30,400. There were 40,000 policemen at the police union meeting. Are they likely to vote for John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing?

- (The Stand News) The poll question is not: "Which of these candidates do you vote for?" Instead, the respondent is asked whether they support/oppose each candidate. The results will be a net approval rate for each candidate.

Example:

Candidate A: 50% support, 30% oppose, 20% no opinion, net approval +20%
Candidate B: 40% support, 10% oppose, 50% no opinion, net approval +30%
Candidate C: 20% support, 70% oppose, 10% no opinion, net approval -50%

If the criterion is the candidate with the highest support level, then it is Candidate A.
If the criterion is the candidate with the highest net approval rate, then it is Candidate B.
That is to say, there are still ways of moving the goalposts around to end up with Dennis Kwok's choice (namely, John Tsang).

- Hey, if Carrie Lam comes first in the public opinion polls, are Democracy 300+ going to be 'all-in' for her? When that time comes, will they shift the goal posts again?

- (HKG Pao) Dennis Kwok was asked this question directly by a radio host. He did not provide a direct answer. Instead, he said that the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 website can be attacked by hackers who alter the outcome. So the only way that Carrie Lam can lead is by hacking, in which case the outcome should be ignored. Kwok said that he trusts in the wisdom of the people of Hong Kong. So if you are smart, you vote for John Tsang; if you are stupid, you vote for Carrie Lam/Woo Kwok Hing.

Dennis Kwok said that Democracy 300+ will pay attention to policy platforms and trustworthiness in addition to popular support. This means that if Carrie Lam is most popular, they will say that she cannot be trusted and/or her policy platform is execrable.


Dennis Kwok is player/coach/referee/groundskeeper. He can move the goal posts anywhere he wants. You job is to sit and applaud the result that he rigged.

- Five years ago, the public opinion polls ranked CY Leung as most popular, ahead of Henry Tang. Both Leung and Tang were far ahead of Albert Ho. The pan-democrats showed no respect for public opinion and cast their votes for their man Albert Ho.

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- John Tsang told Sing Tao: "I am definitely in the pro-establishment camp."

Good! Democracy 300+ votes for a pro-establishment candidate. Hong Kong has gone RED completely.

- In 2014, the pan-democrats said "I want genuine universal suffrage."
In 2017, the pan-democrats say "I want John Tsang."

- (Bastille Post) Four of the Democracy 300+ groups -- Defend Hong Kong Freedom Alliance, Maintain Hong Kong, Voters Rise Up and 617 Civic Accord have decided that they will not participate in the PopVote phase. According to 617 Civic Accord spokesperson Hon Lin-shan, the Civil Referendum project contained two phases -- nomination and civil referendum. The nomination phase had been clumsy to the point where nobody received the 37,800 votes for nomination. The Civil Referendum will now take place with three candidates. The most likely beneficiary of PopVote is John Tsang. Given that John Tsang wants to enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation and he will not abandon the August 31st framework for constitutional reform, his election would be a huge step backwards for democracy. This outcome is not acceptable to progressive democrats. Therefore these groups are breaking up with John Tsang as well as PopVote.

(EJ Insight) A lose-lose for HK whoever wins the chief executive election. By Michael Chugani. March 3, 2017.

When Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor declared her intention to run as chief executive, it became clear the election race would be between her and John Tsang Chun-wah. Lam and Tsang quit as the government’s second and third-highest officials – chief secretary and financial secretary – to compete for Hong Kong’s top job, making it the most competitive and sensitive chief executive election in post-handover Hong Kong. Legislative councilor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and former judge Woo Kwok-Hing were never serious threats to the top two candidates even though Woo has received enough nominations to compete.

The million-dollar question now is not who will win but who Beijing wants to win. If persistent reports are to be believed, Lam is the chosen one because Beijing doesn’t trust Tsang. But Tsang has chosen not to believe such reports, at least outwardly. He told me in a TV interview it was pure speculation senior mainland leader Zhang Dejiang had told Hong Kong business leaders in Shenzhen that Beijing preferred Lam.

The Shenzhen meeting was so widely reported and privately confirmed by so many of those who attended that it is puzzling why Tsang dismisses it as speculation. Either he knows something we all don’t about Beijing’s preference or he believes the reports but concluded it would be election suicide if he openly acknowledges Beijing opposes his candidacy.

Has Tsang been privately told that Lam is not necessarily the only chosen one and that Beijing would accept him if he wins the small-circle election of 1,194 voters who will vote in a secret ballot on March 26?

Anything is possible, given the closed-door nature of politics within the top echelons of power in Beijing. Indeed, there are those who believe Lam is the chosen one only within one faction and not necessarily the only choice of top leader Xi Jinping. I don’t understand China politics well enough to hazard a guess one way or another. But Tsang has certainly adopted a campaign mode that gives the clear impression he is running to win, not to lose.

All public opinion polls so far show he is the most popular, with Lam slowly narrowing the gap. The trouble is there have been too many signals, direct and indirect, Beijing doesn’t trust him to be chief executive even though it had trusted him as financial secretary for nine years. Reasons for this mistrust range from Tsang having spent much of his early life in the US to having been former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten’s right-hand man leading up to the handover.

No senior mainland official has spoken openly of this supposed mistrust. They have only done so in nuanced ways. But the speculation is so widespread that it has become fact in the public mind. Tsang himself has refused to give a straight answer every time he is asked if he has privately received a red light from Beijing. This reluctance to come clean suggests there must be some truth to the speculation that Beijing had strongly discouraged him from running as chief executive ...

(SCMP) March 5, 2017.

With three weeks to go before the chief executive election, the state leader who oversees Hong Kong affairs has emphasised Beijing enjoys a “substantive and constitutional” power to appoint the city’s leader.

During a meeting with delegates from Hong Kong and Macau to the nation’s top advisory body in Beijing on Saturday, National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang listed Beijing’s four criteria for the next chief executive: he or she must “love the country and love Hong Kong”, be trusted by Beijing, be capable of governing, and be supported by the Hong Kong people.

Zhang, the Communist Party’s third-ranking leader, was quoted by Hong Kong delegates as saying that he hoped to see an “honourable fight” in the run-up to the race. He stopped short of naming candidates or confirming whether front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was the central government’s preferred choice.

But according to a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference standing committee, Chan Wing-kee, the state leader said: “Beijing’s standards for the chief executive are much higher. It is not like the requirements for a head of policy bureau. Zhang said the chief executive has an important status.”

Chan said that during the meeting, Zhang gave a 20-minute speech on his latest take on Hong Kong issues. “Zhang said the central government’s power to appoint the chief executive is not a ‘rubber stamp’, but substantive,” Chan said. “He is confident that a chief executive, who fits Beijing’s standards, would be elected … and the standards are ‘love the country and love Hong Kong’, trusted by Beijing, capable of governing and supported by Hong Kong people.”

(Bastille Post) March 4, 2017.

Zhang Dejiang said that the Central Government's power to appoint the Chief Executive is substantive, because it affects the implementation of One Country Two Systems. The Central Government demands on the Chief Executive are based upon constitutional requirements, which makes it different for other principal officials. The next Chief Executive must be able and willing to take on the responsibility of the post and handle complex situations.

When Zhang Dejiang said that the Central Government has substantive powers of appointment, it is a clear statement that the Central Government may refuse to appoint an elected person who they consider unsuitable. As for the ability and willingness to take on the responsibility, this is a subtle hint of support to Carrie Lam.

- What is the ability and willingness to take on the responsibility an issue?

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 3, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang has said he resigned as financial secretary two months ago not because of the leadership race, but because he was unhappy in his job. He told Sing Tao Daily in an interview published on Friday that he had yet to make up his mind on running when he quit, but one of the reasons for the departure was an accumulation of discontent. He did not go into the details about what incident pushed him over the edge.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 3, 2017.

After entering the Chief Executive election, there have been rumors that the Central Government does not support him, to the point of not appointing him even if he is elected. Tsang said that he has heard these rumors, "but I do not see any reason why the Central Government does not trust me." He said: "I have been a principal government official since 1999. I may just be the longest serving principal government official." "The Central Government should know me well."

On February 23, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming hosted the retiring members of the Hong Kong delegation to the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He clarified that there is no "theory of two Centrals." He said that there is only one Central, which is united together under chairman Xi Jinping. All talks about two Centrals are false rumors.

Zhang Xiaoming said that that the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central Government. The requirements are normal. Since the Chief Executive is responsible to the Central Government, it is necessary to have a capable person. The Central Government has the responsibility to state this requirement. "The Central Government is not a rubber stamp. It has a substantive duty. Let us discuss the issues."

Zhang Xiaoming discussed the Chief Executive candidates. He praised Carrie Lam as being capable and responsible to lead Hong Kong and she is also trusted by the Central Government. Without naming names, he said that a certain candidate proposed to "recover/recuperate/rehabilitate" and also wanting to deal with the constitutional reform and Basic Law Article 23 legislation at the same time. This candidate has also amended his policy platform afterwards in order to appease certain persons or groups. Clearly, Zhang Xiaoming was referring to John Tsang.

Zhang Dejiang is saying exactly the same thing as Zhang Xiaoming. When Zhang Dejiang said, "The Chief Executive must be able and willing to take on the responsibility," he is supporting Carrie Lam.

(EJ Insight) Why Woo Kwok-hing is the real deal in the CE election. By Wong On-yin. March 8, 2017.

I wasn’t surprised at all that retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was able to get enough endorsement votes from the Election Committee to become an official CE election candidate.

However, what really surprised me though was the fact that Woo was able to officially join the race almost effortlessly by securing the backing of 179 pro-democracy members on the Election Committee, without any assistance from Beijing.

At a recent meeting with the Hong Kong delegation to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the NPC Standing Committee (NPCSC), said all three of the CE contenders are able to meet the four major requirements for becoming Hong Kong’s next leader.

However, Zhang just ended right there, and didn’t go on to publicly root for Carrie Lam as many among both the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps had expected, an almost unmistakable indication that Lam remains far from being able to seal her victory.

As a matter of fact, like I have repeated over and over again, retired judge Woo is the real deal and is likely to emerge as the dark horse in the upcoming CE election. The fact that Zhang had refrained from publicly endorsing Lam only proves my point.

Woo might not be able to seal his victory in the first round of voting on March 26, but I am pretty sure he is likely to win at the second round, as long as he doesn’t make any silly mistake or get carried away and put his foot in his mouth between now and the election day.

I am perhaps the only political commentator in Hong Kong that has repeatedly suggested since last December that Woo is the real deal, and stood by my conviction all along. However, the campaign team of John Tsang and the pan-democrats both seem to only believe in what they want to believe, and refuse to take Woo seriously.

In my opinion, Tsang’s under-estimation of, or even disdain for, Woo would prove his undoing on March 26.

My confidence in Woo is by no means unfounded. Let me explain that in detail.

There is a prevailing notion among the pan-democrats that Lam secured at least 700 endorsement votes from the pro-Beijing camp, and the reason why she only presented 579 votes when officially registering as candidate last week was because she wanted to keep a low profile and hide her strength so as not to alert Tsang and Woo too much.

The truth, I believe, is that the pan-democrats have got it all wrong. Lam had indeed been desperate to seek the endorsement of an extra 200 pro-establishment members even until the last minute during the nomination period in order to make her election prospects more reassuring.

However, Beijing had denied her those extra votes, and only gave her 579 endorsement votes, still 22 short of the threshold of getting elected. And the reason why Beijing refused to give her that reassurance she badly needed is a hint that the central leadership is yet to make a final decision. And that Beijing needs to reserve some votes to back up Woo, just in case.

Yet it turns out Woo didn’t even need Beijing’s behind-the-scene maneuver to secure his candidacy.

In fact Beijing is adjusting its policy on Hong Kong, under which it is going to ease off politically and the carrot would replace the stick, at least for quite a while.

Just look at how Premier Li Keqiang softened his tone over the growing separatism in Hong Kong when he addressed the NPC delegates, and you can tell that Beijing doesn’t want to further provoke the people of Hong Kong.

It is because Beijing is well aware that the continued polarization and escalating confrontation in our city would only cause irreversible damage to our social stability and the rule of law, and above all, undermine the confidence of international investors in “One Country Two Systems”.

If global investors lose their confidence in “One Country Two Systems”, Hong Kong will no longer be able to fulfill its role as China’s window to the world and serve Beijing’s strategic and economic purposes.

That is why Beijing may put Woo in charge of Hong Kong, for what is a better way to restore international confidence in our rule of law than appointing a former judge as the next CE?

Once elected, I am confident that Woo will deliver his “3 visions” for our city. First, he is going to put an end to the confrontational style of governance adopted by the incumbent Leung administration, and allow disqualified lawmakers to run in by-elections as long as they stop advocating Hong Kong independence.

Second, he will deliver on his election promises by enacting article 22 of the Basic Law to uphold “One Country Two Systems” and relaunch political reform consultation. And lastly, he will seek to improve social welfare and address the issue of housing shortages for young people.

Internet comments:


#Irresponsible
John Tsang resigned because he was unhappy with his work.
If he becomes Chief Executive and he is unhappy with his work, will he quit again!?

- If John Tsang was unhappy being the Financial Secretary, he will be even unhappier being the Chief Executive. How can anyone want to show up at the office knowing that Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Chu Hoi Dick, and others will criticize everything that you do because they are your structurally implacable foes?

- John Tsang said during a Commercial Radio interview that the Chief Executive is a lousy job.

- Well, it is a lousy job if you are serious about it. But if you intend to muddle through it (='hea' in Cantonese), then it is easy. For example, here is John Tsang answering a question about the Lancôme/Denise Ho affair in June 2014 -- "Let me find out more. I don't know much about it." As the saying goes, you cannot wake someone up if they are bent on pretending to be asleep.

- John Tsang served as Financial Secretary when CY Leung began his five-year term as Chief Executive. Four years and nine months later, John Tsang decided that he was unhappy with his job. So he quit right before the government budget was due. What do you suppose CY Leung and the Central Government think of him? Should they give him a job promotion? Why would the Central Government wait for 30 days before approving his resignation except to show their displeasure?

- John Tsang looked out for number one. He did not give a flying fuck about his boss CY Leung, or the other members of the team, or Hong Kong, or China.

- Ayn Rand: The Virtue of Selfishness. It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that rejects sacrifice in all its forms. Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s nature as a rational being, who must think and act successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself. These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue, rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and self-esteem.

In other words, John Tsang may seem to be selfish but he has rationalized to himself that his actions were for the sake of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, rule of law and universal core values. Therefore he is virtuously selfish.

- If John Tsang was unhappy about what was happening on the job, he should say what it was and incorporate it into his policy platform. For example, perhaps he wanted to be less conservative on spending the budget surplus but he was overruled by CY Leung. He can promise to dole out helicopter money (like $100,000 per Hong Kong resident) if elected, and that should send his public opinion support through the roof. As another example, he may have considered that it was wrong for the Hong Kong Police to fire tear gas on September 28, 2014. He can promise to ban the use of tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon. But all he does is mumble his way through with platitudes.

(Ming Pao) March 2, 2017.

Columns: Candidates from left to right: Carrie Lam, John Tsang, Regina Ip, Leung Kwok-hung, Woo Kwok-hing, Total
Rows: Newspapers from to to bottom: Apple Daily, Ming Pao, Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po; Sing Pao, Sing Tao, Hong Kong Economic Journal, am730, Hong Kong Commercial Daily, Headline Daily, Metro Daily, Economic Times, Oriental Daily, Sky Post, Total
Cells: Total number of news articles/commentaries; in the brackets, classified into (positive, neutral and negative)

For example, there were 61 articles/commentaries in Apple Daily on Carrie Lam, of which 1 was positive, 49 were neutral and 11 were negative.

As another example, there were 30 articles/commentaries in Apple Daily on John Tsang, of which 5 were positive, 21 were neutral and 4 were negative.

The data were gathered from consulting the WiseNews database of articles/commentaries in Hong Kong newspapers with the names of the likely candidates for Chief Executive. Based upon the article title, it was classified as positive, neutral or negative.

(Next Weekly) By Tsang Sing-ming.

Recently I went with some volunteer workers to visit the Datong Junior High School in northern Thailand. We were there to implement five projects, such as providing clean water, etc. We happened to encounter the Hong Kong University Science Outreach team of volunteer teachers. It was a nice thing to meet compatriots in a faraway place, but they seemed pretty cool and hardly responded to us.

As elite students, they obviously won't stay at the school dormitory. They take their three meals outside of the school, which meant that they had no chance to interact with the students. When the school tried to arrange some additional events with them, the declined. The principal offered to arrange them to visit the famous Chinese village of Mae Salong in northern Thailand, they refused because they preferred to visit other scenic sites in Chiang Rai. Well, until you have visited Mae Salong, you have not been to northern Thailand!

On the night before their return, the school arranged a farewell party in the evening. The teachers and students arranged a program of dances and songs. The school children waited in the cool, damp evening from 6pm. The Hong Kong university students showed up at 920pm, without a word of apology. The historical reputation of the Hong Kong university students from past visits was destroyed in a single evening.

On the airplane to Chiang Rai, these students talked loudly in the cabin, they tossed their garbage and ignored the instruction to put on their seatbelts during turbulence. Compared to the friendly visiting teams of the past, they were vastly different. It was unclear whether they really came here to be volunteer teachers, or they came to have fund and joy. In any case, they have lost face for all the people in Hong Kong.

(iMOney) February 18, 2017.

Tsang Sing-ming recently retired as the TVB corporate communications vice-president. For more than two decades, he has spent his spare time working as a volunteer in northern Thailand to build and mainland schools for the children of the Chinese soldiers who were left behind there.

Tsang said that students from various universities (such as Chinese University of Hong Kong, Polytechnic University, Shue Yan University) have visited northern Thailand before. Generally, they are better prepared and more enthusiastic than other students from Singapore, Taiwan and mainland China. However, the recent HKU Science Outreach Team has astonished him.

"I wrote about what happened not to condemn this group of HKU students. I wanted to give the facts so that future university students will have better attitudes. This team was the worst among Hong Kong university students. I would not believe it if I did not personally witness what they did."

(Hong Kong University Science Outreach Team Facebook)

Hong Kong University Science Outreach Team

With respect to the recent report about our volunteer teaching mission to northern Thailand in January, we have seriously reviewed what happened and we accept that there were a number of things that we did not handle properly. This has caused the school and the students to feel bad. We thank Mr. Tsang for reminding us, and we want to apologize to the school and other volunteers for all the inappropriate things that happened.

On the evening farewell party, we were late because we mis-estimated our sightseeing time schedule, and caused the school, the students and Mr. Tsang's group to wait for us. We did not apologize them to them immediately. In addition, we were loud and noisy on the airplane due to our excitement and thus annoyed other passengers. That was wrong too. We apologize to all those who were affected.

...

(Ming Pao) March 1, 2017.

Tsang Sing-ming's essay was broadly circulated on the Internet and received social attention. This has led the HKU Science Outreach Team to reflect on their shortcomings. Students Leung and Ho were interviewed by us. They said that after reading Tsang's essay, they suddenly realized "that this was a big deal in the world of adults." They reflected and realized that they were not sloppy and created many misunderstandings.

Leung said that they were 1-1/2 hours late for the evening party. They apologized to the school principal, but they did not apologize to all those present. That was a failure. After they returned to Hong Kong, they called the school principal by telephone and apologized again.

Leung explained that on that last day, their activities were arranged by local Thai friends. Before they set off, they did not confirm the time of the evening party with the school principal. They miscalculated the travel time and created the huge mistake.

After reading Tsang Sing-ming's essay, they immediately got together with some of the members and they also consulted their family members. "Right now, we must first consider how to remedy the situation. Adults will have come across such situations in their work. Perhaps they will know how to deal with this."

After Tsang Sing-ming's essay appeared, Internet users went to the team's Facebook to demand an explanation. Leung said: "That was an unforgettable suddenly breaking event."

The students wrote an apology of more than 1,000 words to Tsang Sing-ming and the school principal. "After it sank in, we know that our approach to dealing with things is different from the adults. We are using this opportunity to take in the experience." They did not regard this as a "bitter and painful experience." Instead, they regard this valuable lesson as something that they will help them to act more maturely when they step into society. Leung said: "Many young people are wrong or inattentive ni how they deal with things. The important thing is to recognize one's mistakes and make remedies afterwards." They said that they hope that society will give them a chance to correct themselves.

Tsang Ming-sing said that he was comforted to receive the letter of apology. Although he said that young people in Hong Kong are relatively egotistical and "rarely concerned with what other people feel," it was helpful that these HKU students were ready to admit their mistakes and accept responsibility.

Internet comments:

- These Hong Kong University students must be suffering from leftist retardism. Of all places, why do they want to visit northern Thailand? When those school children grow up, they are not going to be scientists. They are going to grow opium just like their parents and grandparents did.

- The Hong Kong University students paid for their own airfares, meals and accommodations. They are not receiving academic credits for their work. They haven't complained about the negative publicity that they are receiving as a result of their unpaid volunteer work to teach science to a bunch of opium farmers. So please stop all the criticisms of them.

- It took many more hours for the HKU students to fly from Hong Kong to Bangkok to Chiang Rai to wherever the school is. So why are those junior high school students complaining waiting for three hours? They are just so selfish, egotistical and self-centered. They are completely oblivious to what other people think and feel. That is why there is no future to Thailand.

- This is unreal, because how can HKU students not know the importance of being on time. You don't see them late for 90 minutes for their DSE exam, do you? As soon as the time arrives, they bar the gates into the exam halls!

- Waiting in the cool evening for three hours? It isn't as if they were standing naked out in the cold. They can wear coats, can't they? Or are they really that stupid?

- Tsang Ming-sing is lying like a dog. He said that (1) the school children waited in the cold wind for 3 hours and (2) the HKU Science Outreach team was 90 minutes late. I read back and found out that the students began to prepare at 6pm for the event that was due to start at 8pm, but the HKU team showed up at 920pm. So the correct fact is that the HKU team was only 80 minutes late.

- Tsang Ming-sing was a TVB corporate communications vice-president. That makes him a pro-establishment Blue Ribbon traitor to the Hong Kong Nation. The sole purpose of his essay was to discredit the students of Hong Kong University as unfit for leadership in Hong Kong, being inexperienced and hapless in "adult society." But we know that is false, because HKU student leaders such as Alex Chow, Yvonne Leung, Edward Leung, Billy Fung and Althea Suen have led us closer to Hong Kong independence. They should been leading the Hong Kong Nation, not the old farts such as Arthur Li or westerner quislings such as Peter Mathieson.

What kind of legal defense can $5,000,000 buy? Here are the lawyers who are getting paid the big bucks to defend the "DQ4" legislators:-


Martin Lee SC for Leung Kwok-hung
Audrey Eu SC Yuk-mei for Edward Yao Chung-yim
Johannes Chan SC for Lau Siu-lai
Philip Dykes SC for Nathan Law Kwun-chung

(SCMP) March 1, 2017.

The government on Wednesday asked a court to disqualify four lawmakers for embedding political messages into oaths that were read in a theatrical manner, thus undermining the solemnity of the occasion when they should have been pledging allegiance to Hong Kong.

The four are veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy Central student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai and university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim. At issue is the oath they took at the Legislative Council meeting on October 12, 2016, when all the lawmakers were sworn in.

The government is asking the court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legco seats vacant in a legal challenge that combines judicial review with miscellaneous proceedings.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, said all four lawmakers’ oaths fell short of three legal requirements: solemnity, sincerity and non-departure from the form and substance of the prescribed oath.

For instance, he noted, Lau’s oath “became 90-odd linguistic units devoid of any coherence” when she read each word at six-second intervals. “Therefore the meaning of what she was doing became a matter of speculation or guesswork to the audience,” he said. And because Lau’s oath was “so abnormal and obviously deliberate”, Mok said, she was using her manner to “send a message over and above her oath”.

In another example, the lawyer said, Leung Kwok-hung turned his oath into a “theatrical performance” and undermined the solemnity of oath taking by holding a yellow umbrella in one hand and a paper board reading “831” with a red cross in the other, which he later tore up.

Mok stressed that while the lawmakers might argue that they were exercising their freedom of speech and expression, the oath-taking ceremony was not the time to do so. “This is the occasion for one and only one purpose, to swear allegiance to the HKSAR,” he told the High Court. The lawmakers had other opportunities to make their views known, he said, asking: “Why did they choose this particular time?” The only answer, Mok said, was to make use of the additions and conduct of delivery to undermine the words in the prescribed oath and its solemnity.

He stressed that the oath was not “mere formality or empty form of words”, but a “genuine, solemn and sincere declaration” to pledge allegiance. “If the oath taker adds words, he offends Article 104 [of the Basic Law], and his oath is unlawful and of no effect,” he continued. “It matters not what the message was ... The point is none of this message is permitted by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.”

Mok also noted that all lawmakers were aware of the “clear and unambiguous” requirements prescribed by law. “If the judge is not permitted to do this, if the chief executive is not permitted to do this, if the principal officials are not permitted to do this, why are only Legislative Council members entitled to do this?” Mok asked. “It’s absurd to suggest this entitlement.” Yet the lawmakers “deliberately took risks in order to express certain views” he said, performing actions “which at the end of the day could be found to have crossed the line and invalidated their seats”.

But Mok clarified there were also permissible things to say during the ceremony, such as statements that did not carry any objective effect of sending a message. “It’s not our case that they cannot say anything before or after reading the prescribed oath,” Mok said. One example he gave was: “Can I go back to my seat now?”

The three-day hearing before Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung followed the successful disqualification of pro-independence Youngspiration lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching over their oaths.

About 30 people came in support of the lawmakers, including Demosisto founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung and lawmakers Tanya Chan, Leung Yiu-chung, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Ted Hui Chi-fung. “Safeguard the Legislative Council, object to the disqualification of lawmakers,” they chanted outside court.

(SCMP) March 1, 2017.

Government lawyers asked a court on Wednesday to disqualify four pro-democracy legislators for “embedding messages” into oaths that were read in a “theatrical performance” when they were supposed to pledge allegiance to Hong Kong at their swearing-in.

But defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC countered that the government could only unseat a lawmaker if it proved he or she had refused or neglected to take the oath. “They failed to take the oath as required by law but they didn’t refuse to take the oath,” he told High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung. Lee was referring to university professor ­Edward Yiu Chung-yim, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai, and his client, veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

At issue is whether the court should declare their oaths, taken on October 12 last year, invalid and vacate their seats.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, said Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law not only targeted messages of independence and self-determination, but also “overall conduct” during the oath-taking. He said all four lawmakers’ oaths fell short of three legal requirements – solemnity, sincerity and non-departure from the form and substance of the prescribed oath.

Yiu and Law were both accused of adding words to their oaths. What Law said in particular could be objectively understood as claiming his oath-taking was “an involuntary act on his part which does not reflect his true beliefs or state of mind”.

Mok also argued that Lau had embedded a message through her delivery, deliberately reading each word at six-second intervals as her oath “became 90-odd linguistic units devoid of any coherence”. “It matters not what the message was,” Mok continued. “The point is none of these messages are permitted by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.”

He accused Leung Kwok-hung of undermining the solemnity of the occasion by chanting slogans, wearing a T-shirt that read “civil disobedience” and turning his oath into a “theatrical performance” – brandishing a yellow umbrella, a symbol of the Occupy movement, and tearing up a copy of the controversial political reform framework decreed by Beijing in 2014.

Mok stressed the swearing-in ceremony was not the time to exercise freedoms of speech and expression, as claimed by the four. “This is the occasion for one and only one purpose, to swear allegiance to the HKSAR,” he said. All lawmakers were aware of the “clear and unambiguous” requirements prescribed by law, he continued, but the four “deliberately took risks in order to express certain views”. “If the judge is not permitted to do this, if the chief executive is not permitted to do this, if the principal officials are not permitted to do this, why are only Legislative Council members entitled to do this? It’s absurd to suggest this entitlement.”

But Lee, who admitted that he personally did not approve of such conduct in the legislature, argued that the only standard guiding legislative conduct – the Rules of Procedure – did not stipulate how the oaths should be taken.

Lawmakers were also not forewarned of the consequences of improper oath-taking when his client alone had pulled similar stunts in the past four councils. “Nobody could have imagined what was thought to be permissible would turn out wrong and cause them to lose their seats,” Lee said.

(SCMP) March 2, 2017.

Hong Kong courts have no power to disqualify lawmakers for making improper oaths unless the relevant laws are amended to accommodate Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law, a court heard on Thursday.

The argument emerged in the government’s challenge to unseat four pro-democracy lawmakers as defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC said the requirement for a solemn and sincere swearing-in emerged only after the interpretation of the city’s mini-constitution last November.

But lawmakers could only be disqualified on such grounds if they were stipulated in the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, he said.

Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun SC further warned it would be dangerous to take the interpretation as a context in considering the present case as that would create a “back door” to admit statements made by a foreign body into the Hong Kong system.

“The fundamental principle of ‘one country, two systems’ is the laws of two systems are clearly separated,” he told High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung.

The case centres on oaths taken in the Legislative Council by university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai, and veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung on October 12 last year.

The High Court earlier disqualified pro-independence pair Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, of the group Youngspiration, as they had “declined” to take their oaths by pledging allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and insulting China at their swearing-in ceremony.

The government now accused the four of refusing to take their oaths by intentionally failing to swear solemnly and sincerely, and of altering the form and substance of the prescribed oaths by adding political messages and staging “theatrical performances”.

But Chan, representing Lau, said their conduct could not be considered as a refusal when there were no formal requirements on the manner of oath-taking in the first place.

“At the end of the day we are dealing with questions of whether the conduct has departed from acceptable norms of behaviour,” he said.

Factors to be considered include Legco’s practice and background as the most political institution in Hong Kong, and due weight should be given to rulings made by the Legco president and clerk, who are most familiar with the institution’s traditions and values, to accept their oaths as valid.

Chan argued that oaths had historically carried a political role and its solemnity should not preclude the conveying of other messages when they did not contaminate the oath that followed.

He also noted that elections could lose their meaning if candidates returned by the people could be removed in the absence of “clear and unambiguous criteria” on what constituted a refusal to be sworn in, which he said was an “extremely serious penalty”.

Philip Dykes SC, defending Law, further pointed out that other lawmakers, such as Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Helena Wong Pik-wan had similarly added words at the time without having to face the court.

He questioned if there was an “abuse of process” on the government’s part to instigate the challenge for political causes when there was “no good reason” why the four had acted so significantly different from others that it amounted to a refusal to take the oath.

With “the government attacking” individual lawmakers while the president was absent from court to defend Legco procedures, Lee said the judiciary played an important role.

“You are the only arbiter. You can do justice to both sides,” he told the judge on Leung’s behalf. “The proper way to interpretation is to amend the law.”

Until then, Lee said: “Your lordship simply has no power to disqualify these legislators.”

The hearing continues.

(SCMP) March 3, 2017.

Four pro-democracy lawmakers threatened with disqualification for improper oath-taking urged the High Court on Friday to dismiss the case, claiming an abuse of process arising from selective prosecution.

The unexpected twist came just as the three-day hearing was about to close when lawyers for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung failed to explain why they had broadened their case.

Philip Dykes SC, defending former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, noted that the four were accused of refusing to take their oaths in part because they had added to the prescribed wording, while seven other lawmakers had similarly added words on that same day, October 12, but had not been challenged by the government.

He questioned if there was an abuse of process through selective prosecution, motivated by political reasons.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Leung and Yuen, replied that he was not asked to advise on the other cases. But he added: “These four cases are the clearest ones.”

Mok was referring to Nathan Law, university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim, lecturer Lau Siu-lai and veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

At issue was whether their actions amounted to a refusal to take their oaths, which would result in their disqualification. Two other lawmakers – Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching – have already been disqualified on such grounds.

Asked outside court if they were worried that their application to halt proceedings might affect other lawmakers, Law replied they only meant to challenge a possible procedural injustice.

Occupy movement founder Chan Kin-man, who raised HK$3.5 million for the four through the Justice Defend Fund campaign, said they would try to help other lawmakers if they ended up in court.

The seven lawmakers named are Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, Helena Wong Pik-wan, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Lam Cheuk-ting, Shiu Ka-chun, Roy Kwong Chun-yu and Cheng Chung-tai.

The defence has 14 days to submit written applications.

Earlier in the day, Audrey Eu Yuet-mee SC argued that her client, Yiu, thought he was making a valid oath when he added remarks as he had still read all of the original words in his affirmation.

“Why should he deliberately flout the law in order to let down his voters?” she asked.

Eu stressed there was nothing in the regulations that stopped lawmakers from adding words or pledges as long as they did not contradict the prescribed oath.

“The purpose of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance is to make sure the legislators make those pledges,” she said.

But Mok replied that it was “self-serving” for the defence to argue that oath-taking was a mere formality, and even worse to suggest lawmakers were entitled to distort the oath so long as all the words were recited.

“If the defence position is accepted, the oath-taking members can basically do anything ... with impunity,” he said.

Mok further argued there would be “no limit to the ingenuity” of lawmakers in coming up with novel means to circumvent the straightforward reading of the oath to advocate other things. And he said they would “go to extreme lengths” to do so, like Lau timing herself in preparation before she read her words at six-second intervals. Mok argued that the law must be kept vague and flexible to be moulded into different situations.

But Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun SC, defending Lau, replied: “If one is expected to obey the law, one has to know what the law is.”

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung reserved judgment.

Internet comments:

- (AFP) March 1, 2017. Defence lawyer Martin Lee — himself a respected democracy campaigner — said there had been unorthodox readings of oaths in the past without disqualifications, and that lawmakers “could not have imagined” that they could lose their seats. “This who case is very political,” he told the court. “You have the government attacking some of the legislators.” Lee argued that the only justification for forcing them out of their seats would be if they had outright refused to take the pledge.

- (Commercial Radio) March 1, 2017. Martin Lee SC pointed out although the NPCSC interpretation gave a clearer explanation of oaths, it came after the four legislators took their oaths. Since 2004, Leung Kwok-hung has taken four oaths of office, and he did so differently each time without getting into trouble. So even if the oaths this time was invalid, it was a failure to complete the oath and not a refusal to take the oath.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017. Martin Lee SC representing Leung Kwok-hung said that the NPCSC interpretation stipulates sincerity and solemnity as requirements of an oath. However, the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance has not been amended to include these requirements. Since the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance presently requires neither sincerity nor solemnity, these cannot be reasons to strip Legislators of their seats. Until as such time when the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance has been amended, the court should not take action. At the same time,

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that while they don't question the principles laid down in the case of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, they wonder how those principles can be applied to this case. The issue is election rights, because the people have elected a Legislative Councilor with the expectation of serving them for four years. Therefore the rights of the voters will be violated if the Legislative Councilor is disqualified. Any action taken must be in accordance with the law, including clear, objective and assessable criteria. There must also be a clear and unambiguous need.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that different Legislative Councilors will have different volumes, different intonations, different speeds, when they take their oaths. Discrepancies do not necessarily mean refusal or negligence. In the absence of specifications, subjective judgments are being made. The Secretary-general of the Legislative Council looked at it in a lenient manner and accepted Lau's oath; the Legislative Council president was more rigorous under pressure from certain Legislative Councilor and gave Lau a chance to re-take her oath; the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice want the court to take a very rigorous stand.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that the court must not deduce that the Legislative Council was not sincere or solemn in the absence of concrete evidence. Lau Siu-lai had said certain things before and after her oath on October 12, but this does not prove that she was not sincere or solemn.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017. In the case of Lau Siu-lai had read out every word in the Legislative Council oath of office according to her own solemn manner. The counsel for Lau Siu-lai urged the court to ignore the Apple Daily report about what she said about her oath or what she wrote on her Facebook.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that she had inquired the Legislative Council secretariat about the requirements of the oath and she had viewed the four previous times Leung Kwok-hung took the oath. Based upon these precedents, she determined that pauses are allowed during the oaths. She had also rehearsed different ways of taking her oath. On October 12, Lau took her oath in a serious manner. If she did wrong, then it is because the standards were unclear. The court should not strip her of her seat just because the standards were unclear.

The counsel for Nathan Law said that Legislative Councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Cheng Chung-tai, Lam Cheuk-ting, Kwong Chun-yu and Wong Pik-wan also expressed their political positions during their oaths, but the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice did not take them to court to disqualify them. The judge asked, "When I consider whether Nathan Law refused to take his oath of not, do I have to consider the fact that the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice did not prosecute the other Legislative Councilors?" The counsel said that this shows that the Chief Executive/Secretary for Justice are abusing the legal process.

The Counsel said that precedents at the Legislative Council are not necessarily the reason that the oaths of Legislative Council must be accepted. But the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice still have to prove that the Legislative Councilors refused to take their oaths. Since the oath is merely a ceremony to mind the Legislative Councilors of their duties, the oath begins and ends with the oath itself. The expression of political views either before or after the oath is not part of the oath-taking process.

- (TVB) Senior Counsel (Honorary) Johannes Chan for Lau Siu-lai said that refusal/negligence to take the oath would be when someone makes joking, rude or ridiculous actions and words during the oath. By contrast, Lau Siu-wai looked serious and solemn during her oath. As a newly elected Legislative Councilor, she may have tried to attract media attention. As for her Facebook post afterwards in which she said that read out more than 90 unconnected meaningless words slowly, Chan said that Lau really wanted the public to ponder themselves what those words are supposed to mean. As for her declaration of "democratic self-determination" and "decide our own fates" before her oath began, Chan said that different people have different interpretations and therefore it does not mean that she was unwilling to abide by the Basic Law or her oath of office.

- Eh, at this point, we begin to see why Johannes Chan should not have been appointed pro vice-chancellor at Hong Kong University.

- Johannes Chan's skin must be as thick as that of a dinosaur in order for him to say that Lau Siu-lai's 10-minute oath of office was 'serious and solemn.' He must be kidding!

- If Johannes Chan thinks that Lau's manner of speech was solemn and sincere, do you think that he would speak to the judges today in that manner?

- (Sing Tao) February 2, 2017. Outside the courthouse, Leung Kwok-hung said that even though he is receiving legal aid, he will still have to pay $1.2 million in legal fees. At present, his bank account only has $900,000+, so he may be bankrupt and automatically lose his Legislative Council seat.

- Fuck! The last time he took that $500,000 in unreported donations, he said that he was keeping it for future legal fees. So where is that $500,000 now that he needs it? Did he spend it all on booze?

- Eh, he has $900,000+ in his bank account and he earns $95,180 per month. So how did he manage to get public housing? (Hong Kong Housing Authority) Maximum income limit per month for 1 person family: $10,970. Total net asset limit for 1 person: $242,000.

- And how did he get legal aid? (Legal Aid Department) Monthly disposable income for one-person family: $6,150 (=total monthly income after deducting rents, rates and a statutory allowance for you own living expenses). Disposable capital: $290,380 including cash, bank savings, jewelery, antiques, stock shares and property.

- Leung Kwok-hung needs to pay $1.2 million and he only has $900,000+ right now. Well, he makes $95,180 in salary per month. He is also entitled to claim office operation expenses and entertainment and traveling expenses. So he will have another $200,000 by the end of this month.

- Leung Kwok-hung should have taken the $100 million offered to him to vote for the 2015 constitutional reform bill.

- What is Leung Kwok-hung arguing? Because he will be bankrupt if he loses his job, the court must allow him to keep his job and keep raking in his salary in order to pay off his legal bills.

- Leung Kwok-hung has been Legislative Councilors since 2004 at a monthly salary of about $90,000. Over the 12 year period, he earned more than $12 million. Today he has less than $1 million left. Well, does he have a serious drinking problem or what?

- Eh, no, he spent the $1 million on his judicial review against the Correctional Services Department for sexual discrimination after he was forced to have his hair cut during his incarceration in 2014 (see EJ Insight). That was a huge victory for equal gender rights in the history of Hong Kong. From here on now, all prisoners (men and women) will have their hair cut short.

- A typical response to the claim of an abuse of process arising from selective prosecution is this illustrative example:

CAP 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations s 33 Light Signal Crossing

(1) Light signals may be used for the purpose of indicating to pedestrians the period during which they may or may not cross a carriageway.

(4) The significance of a light signal prescribed by this regulation shall be as follows-

(a) the red signal when illuminated by a steady light shall indicate to a pedestrian that he shall not cross or start to cross the carriageway at the crossing;
(b) the green signal when illuminated by a steady light shall indicate to a pedestrian that he may cross the carriageway at the crossing; and
(c) the green signal when illuminated by an intermittent light shall indicate-

(i) to a pedestrian who is already on the crossing that he shall proceed to pass over the crossing with reasonable speed; and
(ii) to a pedestrian who is not already on the crossing that he shall not start to cross the carriageway at the crossing.

(6) Subject to a direction given by a police officer in uniform or traffic warden in uniform every pedestrian at a light signal crossing shall comply with any indication referred to in subregulation (4)(a) and (c).

CAP 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations s 61 Offenses and Penalties

(2) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes any of the provision of, or any requirement under regulation 33(6) commits an offense and is liable to a fine of $2000.

At the pedestrian crossing, there is a red signal. Several dozen persons are waiting to cross. They see that there are no cars coming as far as their eyes can see. So they start walking. On the other side of the street, there is a policeman. He beckons one of the violators over and issues a summons. At court, the defendant makes the claim that this was selective prosecution -- why was he singled out from seven dozen violators?

This case has been cited in many discussions about selective prosecution. The reaction of the magistrate is typically this: "Do not tell me about your long sad story. Here is what I want to know: Did you walk across when the pedestrian light was red? Just answer YES or NO. You say YES? Thank you. Please pay the fine."

The point here is that there are only one policeman and dozens of violators. He can only stop one violator while the rest were allowed to go free. If there were one hundred policemen on the other side, they could stop every violator and fine them all. In the Mong Kok riot trials, a defendant cannot use the fact that he was selected out of hundreds of brick-throwing rioters for prosecution to ask for a permanent discontinuation of his trial.

In the case of the DQ4 legislators, the government has the information (in the form of videos of the oaths of office) on the oaths taken by all seventy Legislative Councilors in 2016, in addition to the historical records of Leung Kwok-hung, Raymond Wong and others in past years. However, the government chose to pursue the cases of these four Legislative Councilors only and not the others who allegedly did similar things. Therein lies the claim of selective prosecution.

The historical cases are not too useful. Here is the frequently cited illustrative example. I have always parked illegally downstairs. Since I live in a relatively remote area with little traffic, the police have never come around to issue parking tickets. But this morning I received a ticket for illegal parking. Is this selective prosecution? Of course not. There were many reasons why I was not ticketed before (e.g. lack of police resources, local priorities, absence of complaints from the public, etc). Just because I hadn't been prosecuted before for my repeated offenses doesn't mean that I can never be prosecuted again.

There are four legislative councilors here. Their cases have different degrees of severity. Ranked from high to low severity among the DQ4, Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Yiu Chung-yim. You can check the videos yourself. Yiu Chung-yim may be able to say that his case was similar to what Leung Kwok-hung tried in the past and make a success argument for selective prosecution. But Lau Siu-lai's case is unprecedented in the history of mankind/womankind in the world. One has to admire her counsel Johannes Chan for being able to say without any apparent embarrassment that her oath was both solemn and sincere.

If the government is not allowed to prosecute now, they won't ever be able to prosecute in the future. You know, Common Law, case precedents, blah blah blah. And since this pertains to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, it will be applicable not just to Legislative Councilors but only to the Chief Executive, principal government officers, judges, court witnesses, etc. Hey, if Lau Siu-lai and Nathan Law can get away with perjury during an oath, so can everybody else. No court/judge would ever want to go down in history as normalizing/regularizing the behavior of Lau Siu-lai. The next witness may speak the same way in court and claim the general privilege derived from Lau Siu-lai's case.

- Lau Siu-lai said that she had consulted the Legislative Council secretariat, obtained and reviewed the videos of the past oaths of office by Leung Kwok-hung and Raymond Wong, developed and rehearsed various alternate scenarios before deciding on her specific performance that day. Then she claims that the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance did not explicitly delineate what is admissible versus inadmissible, so she cannot be held accountable.

Hey, Lau Siu-lai is 40-years-old, has a doctorate and teaches as a university lecturer in sociology. How is it that she does not know the oath protocol that hundreds of millions of people around the world followed without ever being taught or told?

- Like the other Yellow Ribbon rioters, she can always plead mental incompetence.

She looks like the part too ...

- A piece of incriminating evidence against Lau Siu-lai was her subsequent Facebook post in which she explained her action during the oath of office. Johannes Chan SC argued that Facebook posts cannot be used as evidence in court. Ahem ... if true, then why was there ever a crime known as "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent"? According to Johannes Chan, you can post death threats, instructions to build car bombs, kiddie porn, etc on your Facebook and fear no legal consequences because Facebook posts cannot be use as evidence in court. Thanks for clarifying this.

- Lau Siu-lai's case is a qualitative leap from what Leung Kwok-hung did in the past. If Lau gets away with a permanent discontinuation this time, the door will be open for others to outdo her. Here are some proposals:

(1) Turn around, pull down your pants and let off a loud fart.

(2) You begin with "I swear ..." and then you read out the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? Because you were elected to increase the cost of governance (through filibustering, etc) and you might as well as start with the oath of office on day one before any bill is brought up.

- In the case of DQ2 (Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching), US State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau was trapped between the desire to help two 'pro-democracy' legislators-elect and to defend rule-of-law/independent judiciary. There will be more fun and games when the court reaches a decision on DQ4.

- (US State Department Press Briefing, November 15, 2016)

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Legislators-elect who altered the wording of their oaths of office. The United States strongly supports and values Hong Kong’s legislative council and independent judiciary, two institutions that play a critically important role in promoting and protecting the special administrative region’s high degree of autonomy under Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” framework that has been in place since 1997. We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s continued stability and prosperity as a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

QUESTION: Okay, maybe I missed it. So you think that – you don’t like this action by the court?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that the Chinese and the Hong Kong SAR government and all elected politicians in Hong Kong should refrain from any actions that fuel concern or undermine confidence in the “one country, two systems” principle.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you – that altering the oath, you’re opposed to, or that the court stripping them of their office is of concern? Which or both?

MS TRUDEAU: Both. We --

QUESTION: So you don’t like the fact that they changed the oath and you don’t like the fact that the court ruled the way it did.

MS TRUDEAU: We believed that – actually, both. So one, it was an independent – the independent legislative council, the independent judiciary, we believe played that important role. But we also call on both the Hong Kong politicians as well as the Chinese Government.

(Ming Pao) February 28, 2017.

Ming Pao commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 1,007 adult Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents between February 20-24, 2017.

Q1. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, how much do you support or oppose this person as Chief Executive (without considering any other candidate as yet)?

John Tsang: 60.0% for, 16.5% against
Carrie Lam: 44.3% for, 36.5% against
Woo Kwok-hing: 33.2% for, 37.9% against
Regina Ip: 22.5% for, 55.7% against

Q2. If you can vote for the Chief Executive tomorrow and these are the four candidates, whom would you vote for?

John Tsang: 39.2%
Carrie Lam: 32.3%
Woo Kwok-hing: 11.9%
Regina Ip: 7.1%

CAP 230A Public Services Regulations: Conduct of conductor and of driver when no conductor is carried.

Section 10(2) A conductor of a bus, when acting as such, and in the case of a bus in which no conductor is carried, a driver-

(a) shall not neglect or refuse to admit and to carry at the lawful fare any passenger or intending passenger who can be accommodated without exceeding the authorized capacity of the bus and to whose admission no reasonable objection is made;
(b) shall permit any passenger to bring with him such goods as may lawfully, safely and conveniently be carried on the bus;
(c) shall not permit any animal, other than a guide dog accompanying a blind person, to be carried on the bus;
(d) may refuse to permit any person who is in a dirty condition to enter in or travel in the bus;
(e) may refuse to permit any person, whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be intoxicated, mentally unbalanced or suffering from an infectious or contagious disease, to enter in or travel in the bus;
(f) may refuse to permit any person, whom he has reasonable cause to believe is carrying goods of a dangerous or offensive nature, to enter in or travel in the bus.

Section 25. Offences and penalties.

(1) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes any requirement made under regulation 3(4) or any of the provisions of regulation 3(3)(b), 3(5), 4(2), 5, 6, 7(1), 8, 9, 10(1), 10(2)(a), (b) or (c), 11(a), (b), (c), (e) or (f), 12(a), (b) or (c), 13A(2), 13B, 15, 16, 17 or 18 commits an offence.

(2) Any person who commits an offence under regulation 4(3) or subregulation (1) is liable to a fine of $2,000.

(HK01) February 27, 2017.

A citizen uploaded a video in which a female passenger brought a carriage onto a bus. The carriage is covered up, so that it is impossible to tell what is inside. The video began with the bus conductor telling the woman that pets (apart from guide dogs for visually impaired persons) are not permitted on the bus.

When told, the woman asked: "How do you know that this is not a guide dog?" A passenger asked her to show the dog. The woman said: "No, because it is a Living Buddha."

The woman said that she was not told that dogs are not permitted. A passenger said that she must know because this cannot be her first time. She said: "This is my first time today." She said that she was not told when she got on and she had already paid her fare. The passengers collectively said that they will pay her fare if only she would get off. Even the bus conductor volunteered to pay her fare. But she said that she doesn't need the money.

When asked whether she was being an unreasonable rascal, she said that she is indeed an unreasonable rascal. She told the others to call the police. They asked her why she doesn't call the police herself.

In response to media inquiries, the KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) Company said that at about 10:05 on February 26, a Route 8A bus arrived at the Tsim Sha Tsui ferry pier when a female passenger brought a baby carriage with a dog onto the bus. The driver tried to stop the female passenger but to no avail. The police were summoned. The police had reason to believe that the woman had mental problems, so an ambulance was summoned to take the woman to the hospital.

Internet comments:

- The big question on the Internet is whether this woman is Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon.

On one hand, the woman is talking about her individual rights while being totally oblivious of the relevant regulations and/or the rights of all other persons. Therefore she has all the essential characteristics of a Yellow Ribbon.

On the other hand, the woman spoke Cantonese with an Ap Lei Chau accent. Therefore she is a Blue Yellow Ribbon.

- This video ended before the police arrived. The whole world wants to know how the police dealt with her.

- But there is a serious issue here. By what right and qualification do the IVE-educated police have to send this woman to the hospital by ambulance for an examination of her mental state? Saying that her dog is a Living Buddha is not enough, nor is giving her name as Karmapa Khyenno.

- And if the woman is taken to the hospital, who is taking care of her dog? Was the SPCA called?

- Please! The dog is a Living Buddha, who does not need humans to look after Him.

- Born In A Time of Chaos Facebook has a video of another raving maniac at the IFC Mall.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45

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

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

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

Hong Kong Basic Law Annex I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment to Annex I to the Basic Law

The Election Committee to elect the fourth term Chief Executive in 2012 shall be composed of 1200 members from the following sectors:

Industrial, commercial and financial sectors 300
The professions 300
Labour, social services, religious and other sectors 300
Members of the Legislative Council, representatives of members of the District Councils, representatives of the Heung Yee Kuk, Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, and representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference 300

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

2. Candidates for the office of Chief Executive may be nominated jointly by not less than 150 members of the Election Committee. Each member may nominate only one candidate.

(Wikipedia) Hong Kong Chief Executive Election 2017

The pro-democracy group Citizens United in Action launched the "CE Civil Referendum 2017" to engage the Hong Kong people who had no vote in the election. It conducted a "civil nomination" from 7 to 22 February with the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP) and the Centre for Social Policy Studies (CSPS) of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University online. Any candidate that secures 37,790, one per cent of Hong Kong's registered voters, form the general public would be a "civil candidate" in which a "civil referendum" would be held from 10 to 19 March.

On 13 February, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement concerning the "existing privacy risks" of the organisers collecting personal data. In response to that, the organisers updated their system afterward and extended the nomination period until 28 February.


February 27, 2017 21:00 (PopVote)
  John Tsang: 9,175
  Leung  Kwok-hung: 6,939
  Woo Kwok Hing: 2,519
  Carrie Lam: 157
  Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee: 105

- Compare this against a public opinion poll:

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,532 persons age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone February 15-25, 2017.

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

So far the civil nomination phase is arguably different from the voting stage. But if the self-selection mechanism continues to show itself in the civil voting phase, then PopVote is a useless small-circle game with no reference value. The $1.5 million is down the toilet.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 25, 2017.

Chief executive contender John Tsang has secured 160 nominations and has become the first to submit them out of the major four contenders. He said on Friday that he may submit early next week but his office made a surprise announcement on Saturday morning that he would make a visit to the Electoral Affairs Commission office in Wan Chai. Tsang said he asked his team worked over time on Friday night to complete the clerical work. With 160 nominations mostly from the pro-democracy camp, Tsang only passed the requirement of 150 nominations by a small margin.

But he refused to give a breakdown of nominations from the pro-democracy and the pro-Beijing camps. “I have always said we should not draw a boundary in any matter, if you draw a line, then Hong Kong is in confrontation, this is not ideal,” Tsang said. “It is also not appropriate for me to give a breakdown because the confirmation process [by the electoral office] is underway.” He said he submitted ten more nominations in case some are invalidated.

Internet comments:

- The list of nominations for John Tsang.

It has been reported that John Tsang had 35 pro-establishment electors nominating him. However, it would seemed that the classification was based upon the organizational affiliation rather than individual position. Elector Yip Hing-cheung is a member of the Catholic sub-sector in the religious sector, but he was randomly chosen from among Catholic candidates. In truth, he is a member of the post-Umbrella Movement Shopping Revolution. Also Kwan Ka-lun and Li Yu-ming of the Chinese Medicine sub-sector have declared that they support double universal suffrage. So the number should be adjusted downwards to 32 instead of 35.

- John Tsang got zero nominations from the 543 electors in 18 sub-sectors: Heung Yee Kuk; Agriculture and Fisheries; Insurance; Transport; Labour; Real Estate and Construction; Commercial (Second); Industrial (First); Industrial (Second); Finance; Import and Export; Catering; the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference; Employers' Federation of Hong Kong; Hong Kong and Kowloon District Councils; New Territories District Councils; Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association; National People's Congress.

For a candidate who claims to unite all of Hong Kong together, there is a lot of work still to be done.

- The ex-Financial Secretary for nine years got zero nominations from the Finance sub-sector?

- If John Tsang wants to do anything with Basic Law Article 23 and/or constitutional reform, then it has to go through Basic Law Article 159:

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.

Right down John Tsang has drawn zero support from the Hong Kong delegates to the National People's Congress. All 31 out them nominated Carrie Lam instead. How is he going to get to two-thirds?

- John Tsang will say that he had done his part of the work by forwarding the proposal of the pan-democrats but unfortunately the process was stalled by the other parties. As such, he cannot be blamed.

- At my company, the president always tell his underlings: "I hired you to solve problems. I did not hire you to tell me how difficult and intractable the problems are."

- Unauthorized campaign posters don't help:


John Tsang:
The spokesperson for a new generation of Opposition

- (Oriental Daily) February 25, 2017. Why was John Tsang so anxious to submit the nomination forms that he almost tripped and fell down? Because he learned that pressure were being applied to those pro-establishment electors who have nominated him. Under the rules, if an elector submits multiple nominations, the first one takes priority over all others. Therefore he wants his nominations to be entered first.

Out of the 160 nominations for John Tsang, 80% are from the pro-democracy camp and 20% from the pro-establishment camp. Of the latter, he had no nominations from the major political parties (such as DAB and FTU) or political blocs (National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference). He was supposed to be friendly with the Real Estate and Construction, Industrial and Commercial electors, but he got zero nominations from them.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 28, 2017. James Tien, honorary president of the Liberal Party, said that John Tsang wanted to get 100 pro-establishment nominations and 50 non-establishment nominations. As it turned out, many pro-establishment electors did not come through. In order to reach 150 total nominations, he had to modify his positions on Basic Law Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform to satisfy the Democracy 300+ electors.

John Tsang started off with wanting to restart constitutional reform on the basis of the August 31st resolution and he wants it done by 2020. He has now adopted the new position in which the August 31st resolution is not even mentioned. John Tsang also started off with saying that it was necessary to introduce Basic Law Article 23 legislation. He has now said that he will hold a white paper consultation (note: a white paper is a draft proposal which the government neither supports nor opposes and which may or may not lead to anything). This is the reason why so many pro-establishment electors cannot nominate him.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 27, 2017.

With support from 180 electors, Woo Kwok-hing has become the second candidate to hand in the requisite number of nominations to officially run in Hong Kong’s chief executive election. The 71-year-old former High Court judge handed in his nominations at 4:30pm on Monday, at the Electoral Affairs Commission in Wanchai. For a candidate to officially run as chief executive, 150 nominations from the 1,200-member small-circle Election Committee are required. Woo received 47 new nominations on Saturday, which took his total to 156. All of Woo’s nominations came from pro-democracy electors, including those in the medical, health services and social welfare sectors. He told reporters over the weekend that he initially had the support of one pro-establishment elector, but that elector decided not to nominate him in the end.

Internet comments:

- Woo Kwok-hing said that all his 180 nominations came from non-establishment electors. Why won't any pro-establishment electors vote for him? Because (Hong Kong Free Press) Woo said that he would have participated in the Occupy movement if he were young, because young people – including his teenage self – tend to be “radical.” He added that young people would “lose face” if they did not join the protests when their friends did. The retired judge also said that the Occupy protests were “fun” for young people, as they could camp out, receive free meals, get tutorial help, and have late night conversations with friends.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Woo Kwok-hing told reporters that he was "200 per cent determined" to stop rival contender Carrie Lam from being elected, criticising her as being more authoritarian and less sensitive to public opinion than incumbent leader Leung Chun-ying.

- What kind of candidacy is this? The mission is to stop a rival candidate. The good news is that nobody has be bothered with reading Woo's 99-page policy platform.

- Woo Kwok-hing actually supported 181 nomination forms, but there was a duplicate (two nominations from the same Chinese Medicine sub-sector elector). How can a ex-judge be so negligent about paperwork? One of the nominations from a Social Welfare sub-sector elector was ruled invalid. Did anyone bother to check the paperwork there?

(SCMP) February 28, 2017.

The front runner in Hong Kong’s leadership race, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, has displayed her dominant advantage over her rivals by securing nearly four times the minimum number of nominations needed to qualify as an official chief executive candidate.

The former No 2 official on Tuesday submitted a total of 579 nominations from the Election Committee that will pick the city’s next leader on March 26, just 22 votes short of the final number needed to win the race.

The result dwarfs the number of nominations submitted to the Electoral Affairs Office by her election rivals, John Tsang Chun-wah and Woo Kwok-hing.

Speaking to the press after handing in her nominations on Tuesday, the former chief secretary said: “I have just submitted a total of 579 nominations to the Electoral Affairs Office. I hope that once they have been validated, I will become a candidate in the chief executive election.”

Chaotic scenes surrounded Lam’s appearance at the Electoral Affairs Office, with dozens protesters from the League of Social Democrats and People Power chanting and demanding to “connect” with her – a reference to the chief executive contender’s campaign slogan “We Connect”. They said Lam’s slogan should instead have been “We collude”, given her total reliance on Beijing loyalists and zero support from pan-democrats. Scuffles ensued as Lam struggled to leave the building. One security guard was even pushed to the ground.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Earlier this morning, Carrie Lam submitted 579 nominations. This is less than the 600 that would be required to win. Naturally, some people will say that she doesn't have enough to win. But if you scrutinize the list of those electors who have not voted yet, then it should be clear that she has not gone all out.

Out of the 276 that have not yet declared, the following should be in the bag for Carrie Lam:

57 votes, Hong Kong Island/Kowloon District Councils
55 votes, Labour sector (Federation of Trade Unions)
 13 votes, Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association

There is no suspense as to whether Carrie Lam will win or not. The only question is the margin of victory.

- There are other ways to stop the Carrie Lam Mean Machine. When she went down to the Electoral Affairs Commission to hand in her nominations, the League of Social Democrats and People Power showed up as well. Here is a video of a pro-democracy People Power uncle punching a woman. If only dozens more Valiant Warriors showed up, Carrie Lam would not be able to hand in her nominations. There will be plenty more such opportunities between now and voting day on March 26th. Long live Freedom! Long live Democracy! Death to Carrie Lam!

- The demographic analysis of polling data shows that Carrie Lam has greater support among women and senior citizens. All the more better because they are easier to beat up.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 1, 2017.

The League of Social Democrats/People Power contingent included demonstration regulars such as Avery Ng, Raphael Wong, Tsang Kin-sing, etc. They arrived early at Admiralty Centre and raised banners. Although the area was segregated into entrance/exit lanes, demonstration zone and press zone, they simply went back and forth at will.

Carrie Lam arrived by car and went from the parking lot to the Electoral Affairs Commission. The demonstrators complained that she was "using the backdoor." They wanted to charge into building through the side door but did not succeed. Carrie Lam was inside for more than one hour. So the demonstrators tried various other means to charge into the building. Some of the reporters told them not to press forward.

Several demonstrators led by Tsang Kin-sing carried their banners among the reporters and used their megaphones to chant "We don't want small-circle election!" But Tsang was rather unprofessional because he held a phone to converse while demonstrating at the same time. They also displayed various demonstration tools to the press, such as calling Carrie Lam an African monk (note: in Cantonese, this phrase sounds exactly like the phrase for "asking for hatred.").

The demonstrators had previously reached an agreement with the Carrie Lam Campaign Office that all they wanted was to hand a petition letter to Lam and then they would leave. But when Lam showed up, some of them left while the rest continued to cause chaos. They screamed that if Lam could not even control a demonstration, then she is unqualified to become Chief Executive. Finally other members dragged them away.

- Someone should complain to the Equal Opportunities Commission about the use of the prejudicial and discriminatory use of the term "African monk."

- (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2017. Yet another security guard down for the count after the clash.

- According to the Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong security guards make an average of $12,000 per month. They are well-paid compared to lavatory cleaners who only make $9,000 per month. So they should just shut the fuck up and put up with the job requirements! If they don't like it, they can clean latrines!

Leung Kwok-hung

(SCMP) February 8, 2017.

Radical opposition lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung has become an unlikely new contender in Hong Kong’s leadership race, announcing his intention to run while urging his political allies not to vote for any pro-establishment candidates even if they are seen as “lesser evils”. His entry could throw a spanner in the works for the pan-democratic camp as it attempts to tip the scales with the best use of its 326 votes in the 1,194-member Election Committee that will pick the next chief executive in March.

The man nicknamed “Long Hair” because of his trademark locks said on Wednesday he would officially throw his hat in the ring only if he managed to secure 37,790 votes from the public – 1 per cent of the city’s registered voters – in an unofficial civil referendum held by post-Occupy protest group Citizens United in Action.

“I used to hold a stance of not voting, not nominating and not running in any small-circle election, so [my decision to run] is indeed a very huge change in my position,” he said. “But I think the pan-democratic camp should never vote for any of the four pro-establishment contenders who cannot represent our camp at all.” “I am not here to mess up the party but to truly reflect the spirit enshrined in the 2014 Umbrella Movement, the calls of Hongkongers and the voice of those low-income people who have always been oppressed,” Leung said.

Leung also said his participation in the civil referendum was an implementation of the public nomination mechanism, which was a demand shared by Occupy protesters in 2014 when they called for all eligible voters to be allowed to name chief executive hopefuls.

While the pan-democrats were lukewarm to Leung’s announcement, the Beijing-friendly bloc immediately dismissed his suitability as a candidate.

John Tsang, who was expected to seek the help of the pan-democrats to secure the 150 nominations required to qualify for the race, welcomed Leung’s participation. When asked if that meant fewer pan-democrats would nominate him, he replied: “I hope to garner support from the entire political spectrum.”

Another candidate eyeing pan-democratic votes, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, said he was not worried that Leung would split his support as they had very different election platforms. “Leung’s participation in the race is a political gesture, and such a gesture would further divide society,” Woo said.

Election rival Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee also said Leung would have no impact on her bid because of their very different characters and background. “I think [the pan-democrats] are not stubborn and rigid – a lot of them are discontented about society and governance, and if I am elected, it is more likely for me to improve governance,” Ip said.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, the former chief secretary widely regarded as Beijing’s preferred choice, did not comment.

(Liberty Times) February 9, 2017.

At his launch press conference, Leung Kwok-hung was accompanied by his own League of Social Democrats members, Demosisto (with Nathan Law and Joshua Wong), People Power members, Land Justice League executive committee member Chu Hoi Dick and legislator Lau Siu-lai. Leung said that he will enter officially after he obtains 38,000 civil nominations. The civil nominations will come from online voting at PopVote.hk or signatures at street booths (manned by volunteers from League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, People Power and others).

(HK 01) February 24, 2017.

On February 25, Leung Kwok-hung announced the end of his effort to gather civil nominations. As of 7pm on February 24, Leung has 6,562 online nominations and about 14,000 in-person signatures. He is at least 10,000 short of the 38,000 goal. Since the online system is down and they have only a limited number of street booths, the goal will be unattainable.

Based upon the HK01 calculations, more than 200 members of the 327 votes in the hands of Democracy 300+ have already committed to either John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. Of the 145 nominations for John Tsang, at least 128 are Democracy 300+ members. Of the 92 nominations for Woo Kwok-hing, only one is pro-establishment. About 100 Democracy 300+ are undeclared as yet. Even if all of them voted for Leung Kwok-hung, he won't make the cut. So even if Leung Kwok-hung gets enough civil nominations, he won't get become an official candidate.

Internet comments:

- In the 2016 Legislative Council elections, here are the number of votes for this gang:

Nathan Law (Demosisto, Hong Kong Island): 50,818
Christopher Lau (People Power, Hong Kong Island): 7,276
Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats, Kowloon West): 6,811
Lau Siu-lai (Teacher Siu-lai's Classroom, Kowloon West): 38,183
Tam Tak Chi (People Power, Kowloon East): 31,815
Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats, New Territories East): 35,595
Raymond Chan Chi-chuen (People Power, New Territories East): 45,993
Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats, New Territories West): 28,529
Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League, New Territories West): 84,121.

The grand total is 329,131 votes.

These people keep reminding us that they represent the will of 329,131 voters. Therefore we must obey them.

And now the moment of truth is here and the fate of Hong Kong is in the balance. So what happened to the 329,131 voters? Are they suffering from voter regret?


Thanks to 20,234 citizens for their support!!

- The Chief Executive election is a way for Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Nathan Law to stay in the media limelight in order to raise more money for their DQ4 lawsuit. By dropping out, they will lose this media vantage point.

(YouTube) Here is the first of restructured Chief Executive campaign (without candidate Leung Kwok-hung). On this day, Carrie Lam was going to present her policy platform. Along comes Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats), Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow (Demosisto), Lau Siu-lai and others to disrupt the press conference. Without doubt, this is just the first of many more to come. It will not stop the inexorable march of the Carrie Lam machine, but it will raise more money for the DQ4 before they get disqualified.

- Leung Kwok-hung was never going to be a serious candidate to lead Hong Kong. If elected, he would simply be proof that democracy is not working. Here are some scenarios under WHAT IF?

What if Chief Executive Leung Kwok-hung goes to the APEC meeting? Will he scratch his itching foot in front of the other leaders?

What if Chief Executive Leung Kwok-hung holds a press conference? Will social activist Leung Kwok-hung disrupt the event in his Che Guevara t-shirt? Will the police come in and cart him away?

- Leung Kwok-hung knew that he is not suitable as a Chief Executive candidate. He asked Audrey Eu to step in, but she refused. Chu Hoi-dick, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong are not old enough (40 years or older is the requirement). The low support for him says more about his personal suitability than about the idea behind this project.

Q1. Who do you think is most suitable to become the next Chief Executive?
42%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
8%: Woo Kwok Hing
4%: Regina Ip

Q2. Who do you think is has the best capability as the next Chief Executive?
48%: Carrie Lam
38%: John Tsang
5.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
5.8%: Regina Ip

(The Standard) February 27, 2017.

A survey shows John Tsang Chun-wah with a very slight edge over Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as the favored candidate to become chief Executive. But the same survey then shows Lam thumping Tsang when it comes to perceptions of who has the abilities to be chief executive.

The findings are from a poll commissioned by Sing Tao News Corp, The Standard's parent company, from the Consumer Search Group, which interviewed 802 citizens by phone from February 17 to 23.

Asked who is the most suitable person to be chief executive, former financial secretary Tsang had 42 percent to ex-chief secretary Lam's 41 percent. Of other candidates, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing had 8 percent and Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee 4 percent.

Tsang had solid support from people aged from 18 to 29, with 65 percent saying he was most suitable compared to 21 percent for Lam. But Lam received more support among people aged 40 or above, with a 12 percentage points lead over Tsang from respondents aged 50 to 59 and 18 points from those aged 60 or more.

On who was the most able person to be the next leader, Lam had 48 percent to Tsang's 38 percent. Tsang again enjoyed an edge over Lam in the 18-29 age group with 55 percent to 35. But Lam beat Tsang in the older brackets, enjoying the biggest margin in the 40-49 age group at 54.5 percent to Tsang's 32.2. Woo had 5.9 percent and Ip 5.77 percent in terms of ability.

Although Tsang enjoyed a slight lead on the question of who is more suitable to be chief executive, CSG noted the difference of 1 percentage point falls within the margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Research director Raymond Sun Chung-ping, responsible for the research, said the difference is statistically insignificant, but Lam's lead in the question about ability was obvious. "The problem about suitability could mean communication skills and relationship with the business sector," Sun said, "but for ability Lam is considered a good fighter while some consider Tsang lazy."

He said Lam's handling of the controversy on the Palace Museum operation in the West Kowloon Cultural District could have made the difference, as Lam solved the problem quickly. But many considered her as not following the rules, making people question whether she was suitable to be chief executive.

On the generation gap, Sun said it was best explained by general political affiliations between age groups rather than the person citizens support. "Most pro-democracy supporters are young so they support Tsang," he said. "People presuppose that Tsang represents the pro-democracy camp. As Tsang said, most of his nominations came from that camp." The older generation was more inclined to the establishment and leaned toward Lam.

Although the research had no analysis on respondents' educational background, Sun believed more of the older generation had lower academic qualifications.

Forty-six percent of respondents also said land and housing should be the priority for the next administration government. This was followed by health care (12 percent), economic development (11 percent) and education (9 percent). Fifty-eight of respondents from 18 to 29 showed particular concern on land and housing.

Sun said housing costs is the biggest concern of citizens, especially for the younger generation. "This is a demand- supply problem, and more land supply means lower housing prices."

On whether the national security law legislation linked to Basic Law Article 23 should be the first job of the new term administration, 55 percent "disagree" or "strongly disagree."

Consumer Search Group, established in 1982, serves clients in many sectors and provides regional and global marketing research. It is ranked ninth largest globally and is a marketing research pioneer in the mainland, being established there in 1994. It has eight teams with over 60 expert researchers.

(SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Hong Kong witnessed one of the most significant mass demonstrations in its history last night when 33,000 serving and former police officers held a show of support for colleagues who were jailed for assaulting an activist during the 2014 Occupy protests.

The mass rally, held on a soccer pitch at the Police Sports and Recreation Club in Kowloon Tong, was described by one officer in attendance as “the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen”.

The last time the city’s police were involved in a such a large-scale display of discontent was almost half a century ago, in the bad old days of the 1970s. That was when thousands of officers took to the streets to protest against the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

However, last night’s show of discontent – which was closed to the media – stood in stark contrast to the often ill-tempered nature of the 1970s protests. The massed ranks of mostly former police officers were out to register – with a disciplined dignity – their condemnation of what they believe to be the harsh and unjust treatment of seven colleagues by the city’s judicial system.

The remarkable scenes, with many turning up in white as a mark of solidarity, followed the jailing for two years of seven officers for assaulting Occupy activist Ken Tsang, 41. The sentencing sparked an outpouring of condemnation by police officers and sections of the public, who complained that the courts were being far more lenient by comparison with Occupy protesters who broke the law.

Another officer at the rally, which included a significant number of family members of serving and ex-police officers, said: “This is not a protest against the courts or Hong Kong’s judicial system, nor an attempt to undermine the rule of law. It is a deep and heartfelt expression of genuine support for our colleagues and their families, who we feel have been unfairly treated and whose actions came out of a time of highly charged political emotion and stress.”

Prominent among those who made an appearance was former security minister Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, now a candidate for the city’ top job, along with National People’s Congress deputy Maria Tam, who took to the stage and addressed the crowd, calling for assistance for the families of the seven jailed officers. Other personalities attending included lawmakers Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Elizabeth Quat and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu.

Despite Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung’s sympathy for the jailed officers and earlier plea for public understanding of their predicament, none of the force’ s top brass turned up. It is believed that only serving officers up to the rank of chief superintendent took part. Asked if the top brass were also in attendance, an officer at the meeting said: “No, only up to Chief Superintendent level.”

The huge turnout threatens to escalate an already significant chorus of criticism aimed at District Court Judge David Dufton and the judiciary as a whole.

Photos:

Videos:

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692757550929523/ An unprecedented crowd walking from the intersection of Nathan Road and Boundary Street towards the Police Sports and Recreation Club

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692764564262155/ Lining up outside to get into the Police Sports and Recreation Club

Good News Hong Kong https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1425423544198244/ Lining up to enter the Police Sports and Recreation Club building

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692748297597115/ Panoramic shot of crowd on field.

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692789934259618/ Taken from the middle of the crowd on the field.

HK Current Affairs Summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfbDO_QIcZU View from the podium

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) February 22, 2017.

The organizers said that there were 33,000 persons at the peak, with 22,000 in the grass field and another 11,000 persons indoors.

- The organizers (the Junior Police Officers Association (JPOA), the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association (HKPIA), the Hong Kong Police Superintendents' Association (HKPSA), Overseas Police Inspectors Association) had anticipated a turnout of 5,000. They got a lot more.

- Here are the Yellow Ribbon predictions for the rally that will take place later in the day. (Apple Daily) February 22, 2017.

Yesterday police officers issued calls via Whatsapp groups to attend the rally organized by the four police associations. A police sergeant cited the case of the bus drivers sticking to the traffic rules to avoid traffic violations: "Are we police officers even less united than bus drivers?" He said that there are 24,000 junior police officers. "It is impossible that 10,000 of them are working the middle shift!" He emphasized that if fewer than 10,000 people show up today, people will look down on them. He said that everybody must show their unity, "We need more than 20,000 to show our force! We cannot have even one fewer. Let us get everybody to go!"

- The biggest previous police demonstration (5,000 strong) in Hong Kong history until tonight ...

(Ming Pao Canada) October 27, 2014.

On 28 October 1977, thousands of police officers and their relatives held an angry demonstration against the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Some of them even stomped into the ICAC building, injuring several ICAC officers.

1. Background

Corruption was rampant in Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s. For instance, people who needed medical treatment might not get it if they would not tip the ambulance crew, and citizens had no choice but to offer bribes when they applied for public housing or school places.

But it was police officers that were most unscrupulous. Lowly-paid police officers on the beat demanded bribes from shops and stores, while their superiors amassed great fortunes by putting up police positions for sale.

2. The establishment of the ICAC

The establishment of the ICAC was triggered by the furore over Peter Godber, who was a Chief Superintendent of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. Discovered to have amassed no less than HK$4.3 million, he fled to Britain to the outrage of Hong Kong citizens. To address their anger, Murray MacLehose, who was then governor of Hong Kong, set up the ICAC to handle complaints about corruption.

That led to discontent among police officers, as corruption had been so widespread among them that basically policemen of all ranks could be convicted. The two sides increasingly came into conflict, as ICAC officers repeatedly made high-profile arrests in police stations, much to police officers' anxiety. This culminated in the 1977 clash.

3. The clash

Around 5,000 people who were police officers or their relatives descended on the Hong Kong Police Headquarters on 28 October 1977, demanding that Brian Slevin, who was then Commissioner of Police, address the "low morale" among them resulting from the ICAC's actions. About two hundreds of them made their way to the provisional headquarters of the ICAC in Admiralty. They clashed with ICAC officers, injuring five of them.

4. The decision of pardon

The colonial government was faced with a tough decision. Should the ICAC press on with (繼續) its investigation of corrupt police?

Immediately after the clash, Governor MacLehose convened an emergency meeting with Jack Cater, who was then ICAC Commissioner, and some senior officers of the police and the British Forces in Hong Kong. MacLehose reportedly thought of having the forces to deal with the situation. But the military disagreed, arguing that it would do Hong Kong no good to pit the military against the police.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned. The police were appeased, at the expense of the morale of ICAC officers.

- Because the police did not say "Death to Judge David" or "Death to Ken Tsang" tonight nor did they say that it was alright for the police to beat up citizens, there was nothing much to criticize about. Therefore the incident 40 years ago was brought out, with the comparison that the police were rotten and corrupt back then just as they are today.

Well, of course, things are not always equivalent. For example, 1997, the senior police officers were mostly British, such as Peter Godber.

- You can't reason with Yellow Ribbons:

When you talk to them about the Law, they want to talk to you about Democracy;
So you talk to them about Democracy, but they want to talk to you about Civil Rights;
So you talk to them about Civil Rights, but they talk to curse your mother out;
So you curse their mothers out, but they use physical force to attack you;
So you use physical force to fight back, but they summon the police;
So you summon the police, but they assault the police;
So the police fight back, but they want to talk to you about the Law.

- Only 33,000 people showed up. Hong Kong has a population of 7,300,000. So that means 7,300,000 - 33,000 = 7,267,000 approved of the 2-year-sentences against the seven Evil Cops. Since Hong Kong is a democracy, the majority wins.

- Buddy, this is a closed-door meeting. Attendance is restricted to current and retired police officers and their families. The Hong Kong Police Force has an establishment (as at 2017-01-31) of 29,377 disciplined officers supported by 4,579 civilian officers.  At any time of day, about 1/3 of the police force is on duty. So this is a huge turnout of off-duty and retired police officers.

- The demonstration will have a huge impact on the theory/practice of Hong Kong independence. Everybody knows that a newly independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need an army. So many people make the assumption that the paramilitary Hong Kong Police can be quickly upgraded into an army of 35,000 soldiers. The demonstration today showed that the Hong Kong Police cannot be trusted! If war breaks out with the neighboring county (=Cheena), the Hong Kong Police will probably stand with the People's Liberation Army. So now it is back to the drawing boards to figure out how to raise a completely new Hong Kong Nation army.

- Civic Passion has the right idea! All Hongkongers must begin to build themselves up physically. We must all begin to do weightlifting, jogging, swimming, pushups, basketball, volleyball, soccer, marathons, iron man, war games, etc.

- Sports? We got bad news today. (SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Chan Yuen-ting said she was hoping to learn a lot as she became the first woman to manage a team in the AFC Champions League – quite what she and her Eastern team took away from a brutal 7-0 humbling across the Pearl River Delta in Guangzhou only they will know.

If “don’t concede a penalty and have a man sent off in the first three minutes when you’re playing a team worth at least 10 times yours” was lesson one, lesson two might have been “furthermore, don’t have another man sent off with almost an hour still to play”.

Chan and Eastern – and likely the majority of Hong Kong football fans given that the opposition was from the mainland – had been hoping for a similar brave, backs-to-the-wall performance as that delivered by the Hong Kong national team in their two World Cup qualifiers against China in 2015.

On those nights, almost everything went right for Hong Kong. In Tianhe Stadium, in front of 38,000 and against Brazilian World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolari’s expensively-assembled six-times-in-succession Chinese champions, everything went wrong, immediately.

“We have learned a very valuable lesson today,” insisted Chan, just 28 and the first woman ever to coach a team to a title in a men’s professional league.

“Of course losing the game is a very big disappointment, but we learned we need to adjust our mentality as soon as possible [to compete in the Champions League].

“After the red card everything changed, all our tactics and plans had to be changed. And in a competition like this the pace is quite different from that we encounter in Hong Kong … it’s our debut and naturally we’ll make mistakes.”

Ricardo Goulart got Guangzhou off the mark after Wong Tsz-ho was sent off from one of Guangzhou’s first attacks, Australian referee Christopher Beath judging he had used his hand rather than his head in clearing a goal-bound shot off the line.

Chan’s plan to frustrate Guangzhou and their €40 million-worth of Brazlian talent was thus torn up and out the window with her players barely warmed up. To their credit, they held out for nearly another 20 minutes despite incessant pressure.

Wang Shangyuan added the second from close-range after Eastern goalkeeper Yapp Hung-fai failed to divert a corner to safety, and moments later, Guangzhou won another penalty; Goulart surprisingly let compatriot Alan take this one, and Yapp saved.

Liao Lisheng did make it 3-0 just after the half-hour, tapping in after Goulart waltzed through Eastern’s defence and squared the ball across the six-yard box for him, and with Eastern praying for half-time it got even worse.

Wong Chi-chung brought down Alan on the edge of the box and if that looked harsh, the referee’s decision to show him a second yellow was even tougher – but Eastern were down to nine.

With Guangzhou on a 3 million yuan bonus for every goal scored there was no danger of them letting up.

The second half was little more than a nice extension to Guangzhou’s pre-season in this their first competitive match, an interesting training exercise with Scolari’s side essentially playing 2-4-4 and Eastern desperately trying to keep them at bay.

Liao added another immediately after the restart, Alan made it five with a stunning long-range strike, Wang too got a second, and former Tottenham midfielder Paulinho ensured all the Brazilians got on the scoresheet with another fine strike for the seventh.

"Hero" Yapp Hung-fai's game statistics: 29 shots at goal, 7 goals allowed.


Payback

- Because there were 38,000 persons at a single location with historically low usage, the Internet was overloaded and people could not send out their Whatsapp messages and Facebook posts.

- Maria Tam Wai-chu and Leung Che-hung have promised to use their foundation (APO Relief Fund Limited) to raise money to help the seven policemen. Given the level of response today, they can easily raise several tens of millions. If each of the 38,000 persons gives $1,000 on the average, it would be $38 million already. And then there is the general public as well.

- It will be one to three weeks before APO Relief Fund is ready to accept donations. However, HKG Pao has announced that they will donate $100,000. Not to be outdone, tycoon Lam Kin-ngok said that he has pledges of $5 million already from his friends. Legislator Peter Shiu Ka-fai (Liberal Party) donated month of his salary ($95,180) too.

- (Headline Daily) February 28, 2017. As of 10am yesterday, the APO Relief Fund has received total donations of $11.78 million from 55 members of the Hong Kong delegation to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

- (SCMP) March 2, 2017.

Over HK$10 million has been donated to a fund set up by political heavyweight Maria Tam Wai-chu to support the families of the seven police officers jailed for two years for beating activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu at the height of the Occupy protests in 2014. The Hong Kong deputy to the National People’s Congress, who is also the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association, made the announcement in Beijing on Thursday, saying the money came from public donations, including two cheques for HK$1 million each.

It is understood the two big cheques were from the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong Federation of Women. At least 92 people donated nearly HK$80,000 through the website set up by the fund on Wednesday.

WhatsApp messages are circulating among some police officers that The Friends of Hong Kong Association, mainly formed by delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, donated nearly HK$12 million on Monday. The messages said that of this total, property developer Sino Group chairman Robert Ng Chee-siong donated HK$7 million, while former police chief Tang King-shing contributed HK$20,000.

The vice-chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council, Christopher Cheung Wah-fung, reportedly gave HK$50,000. The move prompted concern from the pan-democrat group, Civil Human Rights Front, that the donation would undermine the image of the police watchdog.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 7, 2017.

Sixteen members of the entertainment industry have donated HK$7,777,777 to the APO Relief Fund, set up by Beijing loyalist Maria Tam Wai-chu for the families of seven police officers convicted last month of assault against pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang in 2014.

The donors included TVB boss Charles Chan Kwok-keung, TVB non-executive director Mona Fong Yat-wah, TVB CEO Mark Lee Po-on, China Star Entertainment Group chairman Charles Heung Wah- keung, and Sun Entertainment Culture founder Alvin Chau Cheok-wa, who all gave HK$1 million each.

Movie director Wong Jing and actor Eric Tsang Chi-wai were also among the donors. Heung’s wife, Tiffany Chen Ming-yin, presented a cheque to the fund on Sunday. She said it was a “coincidence” that all of the digits of the amount were seven. In Cantonese, the word “seven” has the same pronunciation as a swear word, but with a different tone.

The Taxi Drivers and Operators Association also donated around HK$456,000 to the fund on Sunday. A spokesperson said it raised the amount from more than 28,000 members within a week.

The relief fund said it has raised around HK$20 million so far.

 - (SCMP) March 6, 2017.

Senior police officers and a lawmaker have urged the families of the seven policemen jailed for beating Occupy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu not to accept donations from businessmen with a dubious background as it might hurt the force’s image.

The remarks came after celebrities and personalities from the show business world on Sunday donated HK$7,777,777 to the fund set up by the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association (JPOA), Maria Tam Wai-chu, bringing the total collected to more than HK$20 million.

Pan-democratic lawmaker and former corruption investigator Lam Cheuk-ting said the families and the force should not accept such donations as it could prompt questions about whether the force could carry out its duties impartially and independently.

“Some donors might have a past criminal record or their businesses may be relatively sensitive,” Lam said on Monday.

“I do believe that if the police force receive those donations without screening their backgrounds, that might jeopardise the image and credibility of the force.”

Lam also added acceptance of the money might be bound by bribery regulations as the families did not take the donations as “normal citizens”, but rather because of their links to the force.

- That's right, the APO Relief Fund needs to follow the procedures used by the Justice Defence Fund  (#631), where each and every donor was checked for Hong Kong ID's, mobile telephone numbers, fingerprints, DNA, Facebook posts, credit history, police records, etc.

- NOT! They just put a donation box out in the open and anybody can stuff money in it. No checking is done, because they respect the privacy of the donors.

- John Tsang announced that over the course of his 30-day crowdfunding campaign, a total of 25,991 donated a total of $5.14 million at an average of $198 per person. He does not say whether he had screened these donors for criminal records, involvement in sensitive businesses, etc.

-  What was legislator Lam Cheuk-ting talking about? What is the meaning behind "Some donors might have a past criminal record or their businesses may be relative sensitive"? Lam does not have to courage to spell out what he meant. Let me spell it out for him: the whole world knows that he is referring to China Star Entertainment Group chairman Charles Heung Wah-keung, his wife Tiffany Chen, Sun Entertainment Culture founder Alvin Chau Cheok-wa and Emperor Group chairman Albert Yeung Sau-shing. If Lam spells it out, he will face 'consequences' (whatever they may be). And Lam does not want to face 'consequences.'

- What 'consequences'? The simplest one is friendly fire, in which a friend (or even Lam Cheuk-ting's own Democratic Party) received donations from 'a person with a past criminal record' or 'owns a relatively sensitive businesses.' There will have to be many contortions to rationalize the double standards.

- Of course, Charles Heung and Alvin Chau do not have criminal records. Lam Cheuk-ting is saying that it is his subjective opinion that Heung's father was the founder of the Sun Yee On triad and that Chau once worked in the casino industry are troubling to him. Well, let me tell you this: It is my subjective opinion that the fact that Lam's Democratic Party has received millions in dark money from Jimmy Lai is troubling to me.

P.S. Of course, Lam Cheuk-ting is a Honorable Legislative Councilor, whereas I am a Little People. So our subjective beliefs carry very different weights.

- (SCMP) March 7, 2017.

The head of a charity fund set up to aid seven Hong Kong policemen jailed for beating Occupy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu has rejected donations from three unnamed parties after public doubts about the donors’ background.

The move by Maria Tam Wai-chu, who is also a senior delegate to China’s national legislative body, came as some senior police officers and a lawmaker urged the fund not to accept donations from businessmen of dubious repute as doing so might tarnish the force’s image.

Tam is attending the annual “two sessions”, the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association told an RTHK programme that three donations from the entertainment sector were returned Monday. She did not disclose the donors’ names or the amounts.

- National People's Congress's Hong Kong delegate Maria Tam Wai-chu is a founder of the Junior Police Officers Association. She said that her banker friends said that they will hire the seven policemen as soon as they get out of jail. She said that although people are upset, they must respect the judicial system in Hong Kong and refrain from criticizing the court verdict.

- This event is a closed-door affair with ID checks for current and retired police officers and their families at the gates. No ID, no admission. The organizers know exactly how many people came through the gates. This is unlike the Civil Human Rights Front which counts everyone on the street as being part of their demonstration march.

- According to Hong Kong Free Press, "an HKFP journalist was earlier ejected from the rally."  We need the Hong Kong Journalists Association to come out immediately with a forceful denouncement against this restriction of freedom of press as well as the right of the people to know.

- When your daughter gets married, I insist on crashing the party because the people have the right to know if any of your guests have past criminal records or own relatively sensitive businesses.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Pan-democrats react:

In a Facebook post, pro-democracy ex-lawmaker Cyd Ho cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders: "A police officer shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his/her duties, or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere."

"How many people are here because of comradeship, but have forgotten justice, the rule of law, social responsibility and humility as a public servant?" asked pro-democracy lawmaker and Occupy activist Nathan Law on Facebook. "If moral education lags behind identity politics, there will only be left with hatred."

Fellow pro-democracy lawmaker Lau Siu-lai wrote: "As law enforcement, [they are] unwilling to accept sanctions from the law... this is the true danger to peace in society!"

- (Ming Pao) Legislators Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders as well as Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance. They demanded to hold a special Legislative Council session.

- Duh, why are they citing the law? They have told us many times before that when it comes to matters of great right and wrong, people should and must engage in civil disobedience of the written law.

- Afterwards, they can surrender themselves to the police and face the legal consequences. So who will 40,000 police officers surrender themselves to?

- As with all Blue Ribbon demonstrations, there are the obligatory photos showing the mounds of trash that they create, plus the obligatory interview with the street sweeper who has to clean up the mess.

(Oriental Daily)

Here we go ... oops ... sorry ... my bad ... these photos were the mess that Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and friends left outside the China Liaison Office in early November 2016 to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.

Ah, here is the photo of the field at the Police Sports and Recreation Club after the rally. True to being a Disciplinary Service, the Hong Kong Police took their own litter away. Nothing can be seen. So this photo will not be published tomorrow in the newspapers, because it failed to denigrate the Police.

- The TVB reporter thought that the most important question of the day was to ask the the organizer whether they were holding an unlawful assembly.

- CAP 245: Public Order Ordinance. Section 18. Unlawful assembly

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

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

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

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

So, do you "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur? I mean, if they clean up all the trash after them, who knows what else they might do!

- (Wen Wei Po) Senior Counsel legislator Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) responded to a media question and said that assemblies in private locations do not violate the Crimes Ordinance. For example, nobody ever applies for a permit to hold a wedding banquet with 50 tables for 600 persons.

- Centaline Property Agency holds its annual company dinner at the Wanchai Convention Centre with 300 tables for more than 3,000 persons. We must remember to check whether they received permission from the Police Commissioner to do so.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 4, 2012. The Lion Clubs International District 303 (Hong Kong & Macao, China) held a banquet for 600 tables for 6,000 persons. More than $2 million in charity donations was raised for needy persons.

Sorry, according to Cyd Ho, Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law, all those in attendance were participating in an unlawful assembly and must be taken downtown for ID checks, photos, fingerprinting and statements. The Secretary of Justice will then seek legal advice from retired British and Australian judges to decide whether to prosecute or not.

- Going for two Guinness World Record at the same time? First, the largest number of persons attending a Chinese Poon Choi dinner. Second, the largest number of persons arrested for participation in an unlawful gathering.

- The Civil Human Rights Front spoke of the police explanation that it was a private meeting of association members. If the police don't need an application, neither should any other organization. Therefore the Civil Human Rights Front is considering changing the July 1st demonstration march into a general membership meeting without needing to application.

- Duh, the two police organizations held their members-only meeting inside the not-open-to-the-public Police Sport and Recreation Centre in Sham Shui Po District whereas the Civil Human Rights Front assemble in the very public Victoria Park and march in the very public streets.

- Whatsapp message:

A call went to the Sham Shui Po Police Station that the police unions did not apply for a letter of no-objection for their assembly tonight. Here is what the police officer on duty said: "Sir, this meeting is for members only. This is not your unlawful assembly. This is a meeting of our members. Only members are admitted. Not everyone is allowed in. You cannot enter. If you hold a party inside your home, you don't have to apply for permission."

- Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Cheung Tat-ming said that this assembly was clearly an assembly under the definition of the Public Order Ordinance. The police responded yesterday that the meeting was professional/business in nature, being a meeting of the members of certain professional associations.

- Every day, elementary/secondary schools in Hong Kong begin with general assemblies. If there are more than 500 students in the school, the police commissioner must be notified. Also when the Hong Kong University Convocation held their Extraordinary General meetings to vote (#314 and #388), did they remember to notify the police commissioner first?

- Alan Leong (Civic Party) said that the Hong Kong Police is in charge of law enforcement and must therefore know the Public Order Ordinance sections on unlawful gatherings. Therefore, this was a case that the Police knew the law and violated the law in reckless disregard. I completely agree with Alan Leong -- the Civic Party (including Alan Leong and many others) include many senior barristers who know the the Public Order Ordinance sections on unlawful gatherings because they have worked to defend many clients in the past. During Occupy Central, these barristers participated in and supported the unlawful gatherings in the streets and the breach of peace. Therefore, this was a case in which lawyers know the law and violated the law in reckless disregard. Therefore all participating barristers should be immediately disbarred.

- (Wen Wei Po) According to the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association, the event was announced as a general membership meeting. Based upon past experience, they expected at most a few hundred people to show up. In the end, tens of thousands of members showed up unexpectedly. "Current and retired police officers and their families can participate. We have no reason not to allow them to come in."

- The point about Unlawful Assembly is that not every assembly (such as a wedding banquet) is unlawful just because the organizers did not apply for police permission. It is about what happens during that assembly. The newspapers will be filled with commentary about how the police are trying to justify beating a handcuffed suspect, that they are attacking the verdict, etc. Those who say that have not actually listened carefully to what was actually said.

The slogan of the day is: "爭公義、還法治" (fight for justice, restore rule of law). It was not: "Kill Judge David."

Here is a summary of the key points from the rally.

  • Half the Hong Kong Police force showed up today on three days' notice
  • Express deep sadness at seven colleagues being sentenced to jail
  • Two directions for future actions: How to support the seven colleagues and the future direction of the Hong Kong Police
  • Applied for and obtained permission to raise funds from within the police force to support the seven colleagues to appeal the court verdict
  • Tam Wai-chu has promised to arrange support
  • The seven colleagues are concerned that various extraneous actions may affect the appeal process
  • Will try to get dignity for the police
  • Various colleagues have been treated unfairly (such as being insulted) in the line of duty, but they cannot talk back
  • It is unfair to be sent to jail for trying to maintain law and order
  • Will try to seek legislation to protect the dignity of the police
  • Will write to the Chief Executive to ask for such legislation
  • Thanks to the many Legislative Councilors who came today to show their support for the Hong Kong Police
  • All official actions will be announced by the Junior Police Officers' Association

- Here is the Apple Daily A1 front page headline:

Half of the Police support seven criminals; 33,000 persons in a show of force; "We want our colleagues come back out not guilty."

When did they say that?

- (Bastille Post) Former Independent Police Complaints Council member Edwin Cheng said that the police senior brass should do a better job at reassuring the ranks that the case of the seven policemen was an isolated but unacceptable incident. "Matters of right and wrong must be made clear" and "It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam."

Cheng said that police officers must not criticize judges. He said: "If you don't like other people to call you Evil Police, then why are you saying Dog Judge?" He said that everybody should respect the appeal system and that it was a bad thing for persons within the same system to attack each other.

- There are so many gems here.

The case of the seven policemen is unacceptable -- At which point during the assembly did anyone say that the seven policemen were innocent? Or should be set free for doing the right thing? Or that physical torture is justifiable?

It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam -- What, if anything, did Edwin Cheng have to say about Occupy Central then?

Police officers must not criticize judges -- At which point during the assembly did anyone criticize Judge David Dufton or any other judge? Or say "Dog Judge"?

Those things and many more things were said by someone or the other on Facebook. But why is that being attributed to the police rally?

- Look at this video: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/1236355193116765/ A man on the podium shouted "Fuck your mother!" A citizen can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur when someone screams "Fuck your mother!" at you.

- The man was only illustrating what the police had to put up with during Occupy Central. Those Occupy yahoos unlawfully blockaded the streets and stopped traffic. When the police showed up, the yahoos screamed "Fuck your mother!" into their faces. Even though the police can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace will occur", they had to put up with it because their orders were to do nothing. So the screaming continued day after day after day.

- Already people have distorted this scene as the attendees saying "Fuck your mother" to Judge David Dufton. Are these people lazy and naïve? Or was it intentional distortion?

- Here is another gem from Alan Leong: Message to the police: "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?" Eh, the police speaker was merely showing what they had to put up with during Occupy Central. Message to Occupy Central people (including Alan Leong): "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?"

Video of foul insults from Occupy Central people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFmYq77oq08. Well, what's it going to be? If you think that people who chant Fuck Your Mother in unison in public, then how can I trust you? If you think that these are isolated incidents which do not represent the movement as a whole, then why are you going after the police?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJZb0FLyMQw November 26, 2014. Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok district.

- (HKG Pao) Among the guests/observers at the event were legislators Junius Ho, Leung Mei Fun and Eunice Yung. Because they work in the legal field, Yellow Ribbons are writing to the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong against them for creating undue pressure on judges and perverting the course of justice. They said that the "Fuck your mother" chant by tens of thousands of attendees was directed against Judge David Dufton. Even if the three did not make that chant, their acquiescence showed that they were supportive of the criminal threat against the judge. Therefore the three should be permanently disbarred.

- If what these three did was creating undue pressure on judges, then what about the pan-democrats' demands on the status of the DQ4 legislators Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Yiu Chung-yim? Was that also undue pressure on the judges? Perverting the course of justice for a case scheduled to be heard?

- The assembly by the off-duty and retired police officers pertains to certain Hong Kong core values. Firstly, the organizers are Junior Police Officers Association and the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association. These are trade unions just like the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, Motor Transport Workers Union, etc. Under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27:

Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

What do trade unions do?

(Your Article Library) Trade Union Functions: Top 6 Main Functions Performed by Trade Unions

(1) Increasing co-operation and well-being among workers
(2) Securing facilities for workers
(3) Establishing contacts between workers and employers
(4) Trade unions working for the progress of the employees
(5) Safeguarding the interests of the workers
(6) Provision of labor welfare

At this assembly, the union members were discussing (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6). They wanted protection in a hostile work environment, and they wanted to help seven fellow union members and their families. What is wrong with that?

Article 27 also guarantees freedom of speech. At this membership meeting, members were allowed to speak if they choose. Their speeches were not pre-censored. A couple parts of those speeches were controversial. The two organizing police groups and the Hong Kong Police said that those speeches do not represent their institutional positions. That is all. This happens every day in Hong Kong -- just take a look at the standard disclaimer on the editorial pages of all the newspapers.

Secondly, under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 35,

Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choice of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the courts, and to judicial remedies.

The seven policemen have the right to appeal their sentences to the relevant courts of appeal. About 20% of all cases are reversed on appeal. Just look at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who keep appealing and appealing, and they won't accept their fates even after all appeals are exhausted.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement. By Yonden Lhatoo. February 23, 2017.

Hong Kong, we have a problem. And it’s a serious one that threatens the very foundations of our city.

On Wednesday night, some 33,000 serving and former police officers and their supporters held a rally that one attendee described as “the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen”. The last time our city saw its finest in such distress and open defiance against the establishment was back in the 1970s when the Independent Commission Against Corruption was set up to tackle rampant bribery among the force. A mass purge of corrupt officers caused such resentment among the ranks that angry policemen even tried to storm the ICAC headquarters in protest.

This time, the catalyst is the jailing of seven officers who punched, kicked and stomped on a hog-tied activist in a dark corner of Tamar Park at the height of the Occupy protests of 2014. The assault, captured by television cameras, sparked outrage in a city where men in blue are usually expected to be perennial pacifists.

Look up videos depicting police brutality in far more advanced democracies and this particular incident could be a walk in the park by comparison, but we hold our police force to higher standards, and those seven officers deserve to go to jail for what they did.

But understand where their supporters are coming from. More than two years after thousands of protesters blocked roads and broke multiple laws for 79 straight days in the name of democracy, this is the net result of justice so far: seven police officers behind bars and slaps on the wrist for everyone else. Not one of the leaders of the movement has been punished.

Throughout the Occupy protests, frontline police officers were not only forced to stand by and watch people break the law with impunity, but also expected to protect the lawbreakers from irate members of the public whose livelihoods were affected by the road closures. Nobody was sure what was right or wrong any more.

Another ugly fallout from the jailing of the “magnificent seven” – as some have dubbed them – is the backlash against the judiciary.

The British judge who put them behind bars has been vilified and subjected to threats and racist abuse online, contempt of court be damned. One lawmaker, protected by parliamentary privilege, even branded the judge a “white skin with yellow heart”, a play on the colour symbolising the Occupy movement and the racist insult “yellow skin with white heart” for Asian people with Western values.

It’s not only our police force that’s at the crossroads. The ICAC itself is causing consternation after a stunning revelation during the trial of former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who has been jailed for 20 months for misconduct in office.

A High Court jury could not reach a verdict on a bribery charge against him, but it emerged that a key figure named by the prosecution, Bank of East Asia boss David Li Kwok-po, was not even approached by the ICAC during its 44-month investigation.

The graft-buster’s director of investigation explained in court that it was because they did not expect him to cooperate. Seriously? This is the ICAC we’re talking about, with its supposedly sweeping mandate to go after “tigers” and “flies” alike, in keeping with President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) national anti-corruption drive.

“Never in my judicial career have I seen a man fallen from so high,” the presiding judge said when he sent poor Donald to jail.

And never in my journalistic career have I seen this city facing such a crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement, the pillars that prevent us from sliding into certain ruin.

- Here are some of the digressions and deflections:

(Oriental Daily) February 23, 2017.

Legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) asked why half of the Hong Kong Police did not show up for work and went instead to a "private party." Cheng wants to know, "Is there redundancy?"

- The Hong Kong Police work in three shifts (early, middle and late). What those who work the early and late shifts do during their off-duty time is their personal business.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 23, 2017.

Lawyer Kevin Yam of the Progressive Lawyers Group told HKFP that the discussion of criminalising contempt of police is worrying. “Police already have a range of powers at their disposal to deal with anyone who is obstructing with the exercise of their functions,” he said, adding that existing laws such as common assault could be used against people who make threats against officers.

Yam said the proposed law could violate constitutional rights such as freedom of speech. He said that while the offence of contempt of court aims at protecting judicial independence – a pillar of the rule of law – “it is unclear how the [proposed] legislation has any deeper purpose beyond making police officers happy.”

“This is not a legal issue but a political issue – the only way you can deal with the issue of the dignity of police is by restoring public confidence in the way police exercise their powers,” he said. “[The legislation] is unnecessary and provocative. It is going to make things worse, and possibly unconstitutional.”

Andrew Shum Wai-nam of the watchdog Civil Rights Observer also said that pushing for the criminalisation of insulting police would heighten public distrust in the force. He urged the government to consider the unions’ suggestion with great caution.

“Right now the police-community relationship has sunk to a new low and is facing gridlock,” he said. “The public image of the police is also at a new low. Yesterday, many officers turned up for the rally to support the seven convicted officers – you can see they stood very firm.”

He said the pressing issue for the force management is to resolve the gridlock and restore public confidence in the police. “There is no justification for the management to continue shielding the convicted officers and to refuse to be answerable to the public,” Shum said. “This will hurt their professional image. It will be no good to them.”

- Kevin Yam and Andrew Shum want to normalize Eat Shit Sister.

(SCMP) February 23, 2017.

In a latest twist to the row over the jailing of seven policemen for assaulting an Occupy activist, the Israeli consulate has weighed in to rebuke a comparison of the tribulations of officers with the persecution of Jews.

The analogy was made by a speaker at the force’s mass gathering on Wednesday, where 33,000 serving and retired officers and their relatives came together to show support for the seven. Officers took turns taking the stage to address the crowd. One speaker was filmed comparing insults officers had received with the Nazi persecution of Jews during the second world war.

A video recorded by Chinese-language news outlet Apple Daily captured the speaker addressing the crowd, saying: “It’s like we’re now in the second world war. We are Jews facing the persecution of the Nazis, aren’t we?” The crowd then shouted “yes” in response.

A statement by the Israeli consulate said: “Without relating to the trial of the seven police officers, the alleged statement at the rally that made a reference to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is inappropriate and regretful. We wish no further comparison will be made to the Jewish Holocaust.

In response, Joe Chan Cho-kwong, chairman of the Junior Police Officers’ Association – which was the organiser of the event – said: “The association expresses regret if any participant in Wednesday’s gathering expressed views that offended anyone, any community, or any country.”

A police spokesman said the speech did not represent the force’s position and that the force did not agree with the remarks.

- (German Consulate General Hong Kong)

Concerning the widely reported remarks of a Hong Kong police officer comparing the Hong Kong police to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, we would like to comment as follows:

The reported reference to the Holocaust shows a regrettably insufficient knowledge of historical facts.

The Jewish population in Germany was persecuted by the State and all its organs during the Nazi dictatorship and millions lost their lives.

Therefore the comparison between the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and police officers convicted for an abuse of power is utterly inappropriate.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Apparently the crowd agreeing to the one on stage for the Jews analogy has no idea what happened in WWII, has no respect to countless valuable lives lost before suffering horrible deaths in holocaust, but only to blindly boost their self-serving "morale" (instead of Virtue) which they argue is necessary for them to function effectively (and getting paid for "the job done"). This is outright humiliation, not only to the Jewish people, but also to all Hongkongers for we have a police force with a leadership unwilling to admit and apologize for the wrongdoing of their subordinates, and say and did nothing to correct their twisted and dead wrong values among the force.

- Yes, the Hong Kong Police speaker was wrong in using the Jews analogy. The Hong Kong Police are more like Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories.

- In Hong Kong, we have freedom of speech. But that does not mean that we can exploit or distort the Holocaust. However, we are entitled to exploit, distort and even deny the Nanking massacre, Comfort women, etc. And, above all, we must not forget the 2,000+ students who were killed by People Liberation Army tanks on Tiananmen Square. So please continue to give your money to the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China so that the June 4th incident can be vindicated.

- (HKG Pao) Of course, Yellow Ribbons don't know when to stop. When the anti-Semitism campaign failed to gain momentum, four Yellow Ribbon media outlets (The Stand, HK01, 852 and InMedia) simultaneously published an essay by the blogger "Kursk" (who teaches Liberal Studies and Economics at the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan) which included this paragraph:

Following the surrender of Nazi Germany, many (German) soldiers that participated in the holocaust massacre in the concentration camps never reflected much on their crimes. They felt that they were merely following orders and therefore experience no moral remorse or sense of having done anything wrong.

On Feb 22, over one thousand (actual number was over 38,000) police officers turned up to support the seven policemen, what were they thinking? Did they not also feel that the seven policemen commit no wrong?

An inquiry to the Germany Consulate General Hong Kong drew this response:

We are not yet aware of such web media articles, but any comparison between the HKPF and Nazi perpetrators of the holocaust is, of course, equally inappropriate. From all sides, resorting to Holocaust comparisons in this incident is completely out of proportion and we recommend to anyone involved in these discussions to study first what happened in the Holocaust and then carefully consider their remarks.

- As expected, the Yellow Ribbon media will only report on the first statement from the German Consulate General but not the second one. The four Yellow Ribbon media outlets which carried the article originally had no response; Apple Daily and Ming Pao were stone silent; TVB, NOW TV and Cable TV were sent the relevant materials. But all of them are silent.

- You don't get it, do you? The difference must be that the essay by Kursk is an isolated incident whereas the statement at the police rally is an institutional position.

- Kursk is a piece of turd. During the Anti-Parallel Trade demonstrations, Kursk dared to jump in to defend the rights of the mainland locust girl who was scared into crying. He deserves to lose his job for making these anti-Semitic statements.

- (HKG Pao) I wonder how many Liberal Studies teachers and students detected what was really wrong with Kursk's presentation of the 1977 police riot. The fiction was that corruption was rampant among the Hong Kong Royal Police such that Governor Sir Murray MacLehose had to establish the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The truth was that the corruption was a top-down phenomenon. At the top was Governor David Trench, who paid no attention to the alarming rise of corruption in all walks of life. The senior police officials were British, and they were the ones who made the Chinese rank-and-file police officers collect the payoffs from gambling dens, brothels, shops, hawkers, etc. When the stability of Hong Kong was at risk, Trench was sent home and MacLehose was brought in to clean up. If you want to discuss the corruption problem in 1977, the British colonial administration was a greater contributor/enabler than the Hong Kong Royal Police.

- But Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) had no problem standing alongside Kursk. He observed that Kursk has shut down all his social media accounts due to the adverse public reaction to his comments. Therefore, Wong suggests that social activists should band together and march down to CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan. The specific actions there will be (1) chant slogans and show banners to support "a fellow valiant warrior in the Hong Kong War of Independence"; (2) praise Kursk as the number one theoretician/practitioner of Hong Kong Independence; (3) ask the students to donate their lunch money in order to support Freedom and Democracy.

- Wong Yeung-tat was joking. Of course. Even though Kursk has been critical of Civic Passion, Wong can't be bothered to be so petty and mean-spirited. Besides Wong is vacationing overseas right now. However, someone else has actually gone down to the school!

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 3, 2017.

Pro-Beijing group Silent Majority has been criticised after sending “reporters” into a secondary school, after one of its teachers – also a popular blogger – criticised a rally of over 30,000 police union members last month.

Several pro-democracy lawmakers have condemned Silent Majority’s “harassment” and “threats” towards the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan. Principal Cheng Tak-foo told local paper Ming Pao he wished students could have a peaceful studying environment.

Teacher Edward Yau – who uses the pen name Kursk – wrote an article last Wednesday criticising the rally held in support of seven officers convicted of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang. The condemned the force for not reflecting on its actions, and compared their actions to those of Nazi soldiers. “After Nazi Germany surrendered, many SS officers who participated in the slaughter inside concentration camps… thought that they were only obeying orders… and did not think they were wrong. The several thousand police officers who turned out in support of the ‘seven police’ – what were they thinking in the bottom of their hearts? Do they also think that the seven did no wrong?”

Ming Pao reported that, following the publication of the article, Silent Majority had sent “reporters” into Yau’s school, demanding talks with principal Cheng over the Nazi analogy. They also visited the clinic at which the school chancellor worked.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Silent Majority accused Yau of being scared of facing the “media,” and made a number of allegations against his school. “In his school, even the principal is ashamed of himself, and will not respond to the incident,” wrote the group. “The chancellor is too lazy to care, Lau Wing Sang secondary school might have serious governance problems.”

Principal Cheng responded to Ming Pao’s enquiries, saying that Yau spoke in a personal capacity, enjoyed freedom of speech, and that the school would not interfere. Cheng added that more than one online media outlet had approached him, but he was politically neutral, and wishes only that students would have a peaceful studying environment. Yau has since closed his Facebook and website, saying that he will not write comment pieces in the short-term.

Several pro-democracy lawmakers have since condemned Silent Majority for visiting the secondary school. Localist legislator Cheng Chung-tai criticised the group on social media on Thursday for “showing its teeth and claws” outside the school. “The group is using the incident to harass teachers and students at the school, and at the same time threatening Hong Kong’s education sector,” he wrote.

Democratic Party legislator Ted Hui added in a press release that it was extremely inappropriate to bring political battles into the classroom.

However, when approached by Ming Pao, the Education Bureau did not condemn Silent Majority. Instead, it said that society had set very high expectations for the behaviour of teachers. “Teachers need to pay attention to their words and actions,” said the bureau, “so as to give a good example to the next generation.”

The Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union called the bureau’s response “disappointing.” “The Education Bureau should take responsibility for protecting those in the classroom from being harassed by external organisations,” said the union in a statement on Thursday. Its reckless questioning of a teacher’s speech and actions shows that it is incapable of protecting the rights of frontline teachers.”

- (Hong Kong Free Press) End of a Hong Kong blogger: Time to say goodbye to freedom of speech? By Tim Hamlett. April 9, 2017.

Consider two contrasting cases.

In August 1997 a Legislative Councillor of the pro-government persuasion took issue with two columnists who had disagreed with him. Both of them had day jobs at local universities so he wrote to the two universities urging that the two men concerned should be fired. When this became widely known it was made clear to him, even by fellow pillars of the establishment, that this sort of thing was not acceptable. He apologised.

One of the academics, who happened to be a distinguished visitor from America, returned home. The other, who happened to be me, continued to write columns unmolested.

Compare this with the case of Mr Edward Yau. Mr Yau used to write a blog on his own Facebook page, and also occasionally contributed pieces to the media under the pen-name Kursk. Many of these contributions were to Apple Daily or the HK01 website, so we may take it that Mr Yau is of a progressive disposition.

On the day after the Great Police Rally Mr Yau wrote a commentary on the matter, suggesting that the orator at the rally who had mentioned Nazi Germany had made a poor choice of analogy, and one might wonder whether policemen who gassed or beat demonstrators believed that they were “only following orders,” a defence once popular with retired SS men.

This was perhaps controversial, but hardly off the piste for acceptable public discussion. Supporters of the police could not really complain of rhetorical overkill after their own hero had compared peaceful demonstrators to Nazi death squads. I seem to remember writing something rather similar myself.

However Mr Yau was unlucky enough to be selected as a target by the Silent Majority, a downmarket pro-Beijing group, proprietor Mr Robert (“They could kill this city”) Chow Yung. The SM criticised Mr Yau on their website, as they were perfectly entitled to do.

However as the Silent Majority are widely regarded as a bunch of dimwitted paid puppets this no doubt did not have the desired effect on public opinion. So they decided to go after Mr Yau personally.

It happens that Mr Yau in his day job is a teacher at a secondary school in Chaiwan. So the SM people tried to contact the principal, clearly in the hope that he would give Mr Yau a hard time. The principal did not return their calls, so a troop of SM people then turned up at the school, claiming to be reporters, and demanded an interview. Drawing a blank with the principal, they then turned up at the clinic of the school’s supervisor, and tried to interrogate him. Other members of the school’s board of governors have reportedly also been harassed.

Mr Yau has now decided to give up blogging “to protect the people he loves.” He will in future concentrate on writing for Catholic publications. He said he had not had any pressure from the school. The principal reportedly said that what his staff said in their personal capacity as bloggers was their business alone, and the school would not interfere. He also said he would like some peace and quiet.

This, actually, is what gives actions of this kind their chilling effect. Somebody who has a day job and writes part-time will wonder, even if his employer says the right thing, as Mr Yau’s did and mine did, whether he ought to continue to expose his colleagues and students to harassment and possible violence.

This is a shameful episode. The Education Bureau, however, did not think so. Its reported comment was that society set high expectations for the behaviour of teachers, and “teachers need to be responsible for their words and actions.”

This was eerily similar to an unrepentant comment from the Silent Majority on Sunday, which said that “events prove that a person cannot escape responsibility for his words and actions.” Which leaves you wondering who was inspiring who here.

The SM also said that “their visits to Yau’s school were not threatening in nature, and they can be described as just the actions of concerned citizens.” No they can’t. Ordinary concerned citizens do not turn up at the workplace of a blogger and demand to interview his employer, masquerading as reporters. Clearly the people who turned up at the school were not reporters. So they were liars.

The SM went on to criticise sections of the media for publishing “slanderous” accounts of its activities. A little legal knowledge required here. If it’s in the media it’s libel, not slander.

While we are on the law let us also visit the Basic Law, which says that Hong Kong people enjoy freedom of speech, and the Bill of Rights Ordinance Article 16, which goes into some detail about the permitted limits of such freedom. Exceptions may only be “such as provided by law.”

There is no law which says that perpetrators of opinions deemed “malicious thoughts” by “concerned citizens” may be subjected to having a band of goons visit their employer masquerading as reporters. I infer that the actions of the SM were a clear breach of the rights accorded by law to Hong Kong citizens. This thought has apparently not occurred to relevant parts of our government, which is ominous.

It was nice having freedom of speech. Is it now time to say goodbye?

- (HKG Pao)

This sounds as if a gang of thugs went down and smashed up the school. But let us go over exactly what happened. Our reporter called the school and asked for an interview. We never got to see Teacher Yau. The closest person we were ever able to approach was the school's security guard. Did we 'kill' anyone as the Apple Daily/Ming Pao headlines suggest? We might have swatted a mosquito while we waited in vain outside.

The Ming Pao editor came up with the story headline of "Teacher wrote essay to criticize police assembly; Silentmajority.hk went down to to the school to raise questions." This is thoroughly misleading, because the issue is not whether the teacher criticized the police assembly; the issue was that the teacher said that the police and their families were unremorseful Nazi soldiers who slaughtered the Jews.

The Apple Daily editor came up with the story headline of "Cultural Revolution here? Silentmajority.hk comes in for the kill; Kursk quits writing." How does the Cultural Revolution come in? Where the hell was Apple Daily when the Yellow Ribbon Media went down to Alpais Lam's school and harassed the staff? Wasn't that when the Cultural Revolution was started?

P.S. Apple Daily/Ming Pao have still not reported on the German Consulate General's reactions on Kursk's remarks about unremorseful Nazi soldiers = the Hong Kong Police.

- (EJ Insight) April 3, 2017.

Edward Yau, a local school teacher who blogs under the pen name Kursk, has decided to stop writing political commentaries following attacks and harassment by pro-establishment groups.

The popular blogger said over the weekend that he will no longer publish articles on sensitive topics as he wants to “protect the people he loves”.

Although the announcement was made on Saturday, which led to some people speculating that it might be an April Fool’s Day prank, it now seems that the decision is for real.

On April 1, Yau uploaded a “black picture” on to the Kursk Facebook page along with the caption “good night and good luck”.

In an accompanying post, he informed his fans that he will henceforth write articles only for Catholic publications and that he will no longer use the online platform to express political views.

Yau, who has a day job as a liberal studies teacher at a secondary school, said in the message that he had tried everything in the past decade and that he would like to thank all who supported him.

The blogger didn’t go into detail as to what exactly made him opt out of political commentaries, but the decision came after he drew a lot of flak over a critical article on the police, news website HK01.com noted. 

In a recent article, Yau slammed police officers for organizing a rally in support of seven cops who were jailed by a local court for beating up a democracy activist during the 2014 Occupy campaign.

After the commentary was published, pro-establishment circles began attacking Yau, and one pro-Beijing group in particular — Silent Majority — even sent some people to the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan where Yau teaches.

At the school, the Silent Majority representatives demanded a meeting with the principal and also contacted other members of the school board to voice their strong objections to Yau’s views. 

Following the harassment and abuse, Yau has now decided to stop writing political pieces, saying he wants to take a break.

He told Ming Pao Daily that he was not under any pressure from his school, but that he felt obliged to do something as the school’s name was being dragged into media glare and students were facing some nuisance.

Asked whether the events can be described as “white terror”, Yau said he would not want to pin such label. In other comments, Yau said his decision to stop writing should not prompt others from doing the same.

Silent Majority recently published on its website more than six articles that were critical of Kursk, warning that his school and colleagues must not harbor a person who spreads malicious thoughts. The pro-Beijing group said on Sunday that events prove that a person cannot escape responsibility for his words or actions.

They stressed that their visits to Yau’s school were not threatening in nature, and that they can be described as just the action of concerned citizens. They also lashed out at sections of the media for publishing “slanderous” accounts of the group’s actions.

Following the latest news on Yau, Ip Kin-yuen, a lawmaker who represents the education functional constituency, said he is worried that teachers who express views critical of authorities are coming under increasing pressure. 

- (HKG Pao) April 3, 2017.

In the first Ming Pao interview, Edward Yau said that Silentmajority.hk politically harassed the students. In the second Ming Pao interview, he did not say directly that this was a case of White Terror, but he said that he would let everybody decide for themselves. "I won't choose to use the term White Terror. I have no comment on whether this is White Terror."

Over the past several days, Silentmajority.hk have been calling the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School to get a telephone interview with Edward Yau. He refused many times to take the telephone. What else can we do but to show up in person?

When the Silentmajority.hk reporter went to the school, they did not interview any parents and students for their views. They only wanted to interview Edward Yau and principal Cheng Tak-fu. Both persons sent out workers to say that an appointment is needed, or that there is no available time. The Silentmajority.hk had to seek out school supervisor Dr. To Yan-hin for comments. To declined the request, saying that he knows nothing about the matter.

Actually, all Silentmajority.hk wants is some kind of response. Why won't they hold a direct conversation? Is it really so difficult? Oddly enough, after Kursk refused our request for an interview, he went ahead to be interviewed by Ming Pao. So it is not the case that he doesn't have the time -- it is that he wants to control the message to his liking.

So if Silentmajority.hk did not disturb the school students, parents and staff, why is Kursk saying that he is going to stop writing "in order to protect those he loves"? Is this supposed to be White Terror?

- (SCMP) Pundits can’t always get it right. By Alex Lo. April 6, 2017.

If you can’t stand the heat, don’t go into the kitchen. In this day and age, if you write about controversial political topics, you can expect to draw some serious flak. Yours truly speaks from long experience in that regard.

So I am somewhat sympathetic when blogger and liberal studies teacher Edward Yau declares he has thrown in the towel after being hounded by “blue ribbon” groups like the Silent Majority, for comparing the Hong Kong police to Nazis.

He told his disappointed fans that he would, from now on, only write for Catholic publications and that he would no longer express political views online.

In a sense, he brought all this on himself. You want the proverbial faeces to hit the fan, just compare someone or some group to Hitler and the Nazis. And he made the ill-advised comment after a policeman had already offended many by comparing his colleagues to persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany at a police rally in February.

The chastised officer was likely to be insufficiently educated. You can’t say the same of Yau, who of all things, actually teaches liberal studies. When you compare thousands of police officers to the “many SS officers who participated in the slaughter inside concentration camps”, you deserve some harsh criticism. Whatever you think of our police, it’s a terrible comparison. It raises questions about your suitability as a teacher.

However, I do think it was a bit much that the Silent Majority people approached the principal of Yau’s school to raise the issue. Given the widespread reporting of the controversy, his bosses must have been well aware. If they had wanted to take action – or not – it should be entirely up to the school, rather than because of outside pressure from a political group.

But Yau was quite fair, and declined to describe the pressure and criticism against him as “white terror”, though he was invited by some reporters from the “liberal” press to apply the label. It appears Yau has learned a lesson and should be the wiser for it.

Obviously, Yau and I are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as a fellow commentator with a following, I don’t think he should only write for religious publications. We all make mistakes. He should press on and not shy from controversies. Just be more careful next time.

- (HKG Pao) Legislator Nathan Law (Demosisto) accused HKG Pao of "misleading the public to change the Germany Consulate General's statement about the comparison with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust with the Hong Kong Police into a condemnation of 'Yellow Media.' This is exactly what we have come to expect of Global Thinker Nathan Law, who did not bother to read carefully and mixed two incidents into one. And when he is caught in the act again, he is going to delete the post and pretend as if nothing ever happened.

- Alpais Lam wrote that "I hope that someone would start an action to lay siege to the Department of Education to demand that they severely deal with Loving Hong Kong harassing the school (CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School) and attacking the freedom of speech of teachers outside school. If nobody does that within the next two days, I will lead the way. Please tag all the Legislative Councilors, citizens and teachers." Two days later, she wrote: "Due to the lack of teacher representatives, this is over. Forget it."

- Who is going out there to defend the inalienable freedom of school teachers to say that the Hong Kong Police are Nazi Sturmtruppen?

- (SCMP) Apples and oranges: how historical analogies can backfire. By Alex Lo. February 28, 2017.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about most things, try to avoid making comparisons, or drawing analogies, with the Nazis, Adolf Hitler or the Holocaust. To do so will immediately kill the conversation; all hell is guaranteed to break loose.

There is even something called Godwin’s law – or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies – to describe this destructive phenomenon.

Unfortunately, that was exactly what happened when a hapless police officer compared the plight of his colleagues to the Nazi persecution of the Jews during a mass gathering by current and retired officers and their families. Understandably, both the Israeli and German consulates felt duty-bound to respond.

The officer in question had displayed profound cultural insensitivity and historical ignorance. But there is absolutely no reason to think it was done out of malice or prejudice.

The same cannot be said of a liberal studies teacher. In a commentary run by several news outlets, the teacher indirectly compared participants of the mass gathering in support of seven jailed policemen to Nazi soldiers. This prompted a second response from the German consulate.

Comparing Hong Kong police to the Nazis is arguably even more outlandish, and the teacher could hardly claim ignorance. One wonders whether the same teacher is morally or intellectually fit to teach liberal studies.

But of course, none of these – the malicious teacher, the ignorant police officer – would have mattered, except for the news outlets that published the commentary or reported his speech. While they stayed in the background, their pan-democratic links made their motive pretty transparent: to discredit the police force and its mass gathering last week.

Localists, secessionists and many radical pan-democrats have come to view the police as the enemy, and last week’s mass rally practically as a declaration of war. That’s why they and their media allies are trying to drag out this sorry row for as long as possible.

Let’s leave our German and Israeli friends alone, and drop this sorry saga once and for all.

Hong Kong has many problems. The police force has problems. But none of them will be resolved or elucidated by citing Nazi history.

By all means study it as being essential to the education of every person. But being educated also means not drawing false analogies or unwarranted lessons from history.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s ‘hypocrisy camp’ has had its way for too long. By Michael Chugani. February 28, 2017.

You’re wrong if you think only the so-called opposition and loyalist camps influence our politics. A third camp lurks. Its job is to fool some of the people all of the time. It does this through fake news, alternative facts, and double standards. An offshoot of the opposition, it is best described as the hypocrisy camp.

It moved swiftly last week after 38,000 police officers and their families massed to support seven colleagues jailed for beating a protestor who had splashed foul-smelling liquid on them. The hypocrisy camp dubbed the rally an illegal assembly. An illegal assembly? These same hypocrites were part of the Occupy protest. What’s more illegal – tens of thousands occupying the streets for 79 days or 38,000 in a private stadium who inconvenienced no one?

Ah yes, but Occupy was civil disobedience, a noble cause. If it was civil disobedience why contest prosecution as the few charged so far have done? Doesn’t civil disobedience require participants to acknowledge guilt and accept the consequences, as Gandhi did? But let’s not mention the phonies and Gandhi in the same breath.

Hypocrisy camp leaders milked the gaffe of one policeman who emotionally likened Hong Kong’s cops to persecuted Jews during the Nazi era but stayed mute when one of their own, a liberal studies teacher, likened the 38,000 at the rally to Nazi soldiers. What’s worse – one out of 38,000 making a gaffe or someone who condemns all 38,000 as Nazis?

If dragging the Holocaust into our politics is wrong, why did these hypocrites not only fail to condemn but actually defend the free speech of the Youngspiration pair who used “Cheena” – a wartime slur against China by the Japanese who had massacred tens of thousands of Chinese? If free speech is so sacred, why did these phonies condemn former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa for simply saying at a private function Beijing had the constitutional right not to appoint a chief executive?

Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po became the latest victim of these hypocrites who spread the fake news that he was lavishing millions of taxpayer dollars to turn his official residence – recently vacated by John Tsang Chun-wah – into a luxurious home. The fact is only HK$830,000 would be spent on basic repairs after a decade of neglect.

The hypocrisy camp has had its way for too long. Not anymore. I intend to call them out each and every time.

- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

I have increasingly come to believe in the saying: "When things go to one extreme, they will swing back in the other direction." Democracy is a good thing and freedom is a good thing. But taken to the extreme, democracy and freedom are surely not so good. Here are some examples.

Example 1: The opposition says that the Central Government is manipulating the Chief Executive election by anointing a candidate. Therefore they vetoed universal suffrage so that the people of Hong Kong cannot have one-person-one-vote. Then they do their best to get into the Election Committee and vote en bloc as kingmakers. They explain that their 326 votes are not enough to win. That is true, but their 326 votes were enough to make sure that some people (such as Leung Kwok-hung) cannot even enter the race. Manipulation does not mean just working to let someone win; it can also mean making someone lose or even win ugly. From ThunderGo to the Chief Executive election, isn't this what they have been doing? And if the Central Government anointed Carrie Lam, then the opposition has anointed John Tsang. Thus, democracy taken to the extreme is just another form of manipulation.

Example 2: The Hong Kong Police held a special membership meeting last Wednesday with almost 40,000 persons in attendance. The opposition said that this was an unlawful gathering and they want the Police Commissioner to investigate. If a private members-only meeting is unlawful, then what about the anti-National Education protests, Occupy Central, the siege of Government Headquarters, the siege of the China Liaison Office ... those public events must surely be unlawful? So before they wag their fingers at others, can they please stand out themselves and proclaim: "We have been holding unlawful gatherings all these years."

Example 3: The one obscene shout from one policeman became the target of criticism. I am reminded of another scene: Several years ago, teacher Alpais Lam used an obscene phrase against a police officer. At the time, many people jumped out in her defense. They cited classical books to trace the etymology of obscene phrases to antiquity and explain how obscene phrases are such a precious part of local culture. I wonder where have all these people gone now? Why don't they cite the same literature to praise this policeman?

Example 4: A Liberal Studies teacher Yau Siu-lun (Kursk) wrote an essay in which he compared the Hong Kong Police to Nazi soldiers. So a reporter went to the secondary school where he teaches to see how his students are being taught. This is just routine news gathering, but this has been decried as "Cultural Revolution," "persecution" and "suppression of freedom of speech." I am curious that if interviewing a teacher is Cultural Revolution-style persecution, then what about the reporters who hounded the principal who introduced National Education in his school? Or the relentless tailing of Mrs. Donald Tsang, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing? Or the paparazzi who were sent to follow CY Leung's daughter around on the Stanford University campus?

- Legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) wrote an open letter to the German Consul General in Hong Kong. Internet users wondered how Cheung ever got a doctorate given his very poor command of English, which is a required second language in most PhD programs. All this reflects poorly on Peking University (Beijing University) where Cheng got his PhD.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 28, 2017.

In a new statement on Tuesday, the German Consulate General thanked the Association for its words. “We are very well aware that those comments were made by an individual and in no way reflect the opinion of the [Hong Kong Police Force] in general. We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the good relations between our two offices,” it said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) After staging a ludicrous rally in support of criminals, the police now think they should be above the law. By Richard Scotford. February 23, 2017.

We certainly live in crazy times. One would have thought that the recent jailing of seven police officers for beating up a hog-tied detainee for all the world to see would be something everyone would want to put behind them. But no. Not the Hong Kong Police Force. In a show of force, not seen since 1977, when they objected to the ICAC investigating corruption within their ranks, they filled a football pitch full of supporters.

Dressed in white, as though someone had died, they chanted that they would fight for justice. They compared themselves to Jews in World War II and declared they would lobby for a new ‘contempt of cop’ law, to stop people insulting them. They claimed it was time to claw back their dignity, but conversely, it left many in Hong Kong shocked at what they were witnessing. Could it be true that so many people, charged with maintaining the law misunderstand our legal system and their responsibilities so profoundly? Or as one netizen remarked: “These people have just staged a farce for the civilized world!”

The Police General Orders prohibit the police from engaging in political rallies. And in a shameless attempt to pretend the event was not, the media were not allowed into the venue, even though there were politicians on stage, speeches, dress codes and chanting. The meeting was a political rally by anyone’s measure, other than the police’s own proclamation.

Some officers who spoke to the press rambled about supporting the families of the officers in prison. Or they said that the deed was wrong, but the sentence was too high. Both of these ideas make no sense and fly in the face of what one should expect from a supposedly, professional, disciplined Police Force, untainted by corrupt thinking.

Judges don’t just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police – and the reality is, this is what the thousands of police found so unpalatable, just like in 1977. Deep down they think that the law shouldn’t apply to them. And, if it does, it should be lenient because of the sacrifices they think they’re making. The law is not, as many of the protesting police seem to believe, a comparative exercise in values and beliefs that can be applied selectively and politically. It most certainly is in China, but not in Hong Kong, yet.

The fact that the officers received the heaviest sentence out of everyone who was involved in the 2014 Occupy reflects the serious nature of their actions. The sentences cannot be mitigated downwards because others received lighter sentences for smaller infractions. The seven officers who went to prison are criminals; this is not a matter of opinion, it’s a legal fact. And if a Police Force, en masse, supports criminals then the public’s confidence in them will plummet.

A disciplined Police Force does not have the luxury of nuance on such matters if it wants to maintain any semblance of integrity across society. In 1977, the police had little credibility with large swathes of the public because they had lost sight of what their role in society was. Likewise, 40 years later, Hong Kong’s Police Force has become highly politicized, and their rally was the culmination of them struggling to understand why they could have been treated so badly by the courts when they have served one faction of society so diligently.

Wednesday’s police rally will be marked in history as the coming-out of The Force as a self-serving, factional block in Hong Kong politics, with their own demands and expectations. Like a spoilt, petulant child, not content with having an astronomical budget to buy anything they desire: HK$18.5 billion. They will now begin to apply political pressure, through their proxies in the legislature, to push for a contempt of cop law to make them infallible. We should all fear such a law. It’s already been made very clear that our Police Force rejects that it should be confined by its own regulations or the courts. How much more audacious do you think they will become when they are above criticism?

- "Judges don’t just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police."

Here are a few goodies from the judges on just this day that provide amusement for Hong Kong Internet users.

- (Oriental Daily) A male teacher at a Tung Chung elementary school was mad at a 10-year-old male student with reading/writing disability for not handing in homework. He grabbed the boy's neck and squeezed his body until the boy cried out in pain. The parents of the boy called the police. Today, the male teacher was found guilty of two counts of common assault. The magistrate said that there were letters from the former and current school principals, teachers and students testifying that the teacher is a rare education talent. Therefore she sentenced the teacher to 80 hours of community service and wished him a great future in teaching.

- (Oriental Daily) 50-year-old unemployed mentally ill man Lam Siu-yip assaulted an 80-year-old fellow patient at the Kowloon Hospital Psychiatric Ward. Lam was charged with manslaughter. At the time, Lam told the nurse that he had committed assault. The defense argued that the statement was ambiguous and does not amount to a confession. The prosecutor agreed. The judge said that in the absence of further details, Lam may have been hallucinating at the time. The prosecutor said that no further evidence will be offered. As a result, the judge nullified the charge.

- (Oriental Daily) 55-year-old security guard Chan Hon-fu walked into the Hang Seng Bank in Cheung Kwan O, smashed two bottles of paint thinner and held up two knives to stage a robbery. The bank called the police who arrested Chan. Today, Chan was sentenced to 3 years 4 months in jail. In 1999, Chan lost his job and attempted suicide. He was diagnosed to suffer from mental depression. In 2004, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. But since the medication caused insomnia and listlessness, he decided to cut down the intake on his own. Two psychiatrists recommended that Chan be hospitalized. But the judge said that this was out of the question because robbery is a serious crime. The judge said that because Chan threw the paint thinner and wielded two knives at the bank tellers, the starting point would be 7 years in jail. Because Chan was mentally ill, the sentenced was reduced to 5 years. Because Chan pleaded guilty, the sentence was further reduced by 1/3. Therefore the final sentence was 3 years 4 months.

- (Oriental Daily) In 2013, the appellant Lo Sing-lok was caught with 1 kilogram of cocaine. Lo claimed that his friend asked him to hold a bag in which there was a photo album. He did not suspect that the photo album contained drugs. Lo was arrested. He claimed that the police dragged him into the restroom, assaulted him and told him to give a statement according to their instructions. He was taken down to Police Headquarters where he was assaulted again. He was then taken to a room in which a videotaped statement was made.

During the trial, the presiding judge told the jury that Lo's statements were not credible: "How can this be possible?" and "Can everything be coincidental?" Lo was sentenced to 21-1/2 years in jail. Lo filed an appeal. Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had misled the jury, not only in how he discussed the evidence but also for using a derogatory tone which was prejudicial and unfair. Therefore, a retrial has been ordered.

By the way, the presiding judge was Woo Kwok-hing, currently running to become the Chief Executive on the basis of his vast experience as a judge.

- (Oriental Daily) [This trial is ongoing, but people can't wait to read the verdict/sentence.] 50-year-old married taxi driver Lee Kwok-ming got back together with his mistress and began to sexually molest her two daughters. He forcibly kissed the 12-year-old (X). He coerced the 17-year-old (Y) into sexual intercourse many times in order to complete a Taoist religious ritual to save her younger sister. The court was shown a number of mobile phone messages to Y: "You and I are destined to be together," "You and I are lovers in our previous lives," "Y loves me, but she could not break open the shackles of morality", "The Chinese government was behind the Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot; if there is a guided missile that can destroy China, I would press the button", "I don't have any political positions, but I support freedom and democracy and I attend the June 4th assembly." Lee asked if Y would marry him. Y replied "How is that possible?" She told him that she does not want to have sexual intercourse with him again.

In court, Y testified that Lee once showed up with two wooden sticks. Lee said that these were Filipino magic wands. Lee hit himself on the own chest six times and said that this was because Y told her boyfriend that Lee has magical powers. Y said that "Lee did not make any noise as he hit himself; he rolled his eyes and looked as if he was about to throw up." Y said that there was a time when X, Y, her mother and Lee sat naked on the living room floor to say prayers. Y wanted to object, but her mother forced X and Y to obey.

- (Oriental Daily) Open University student Yuan Ka-chun worked as a part-time dance instructor. On this day, he asked six students to play the game Miss Fox. He told five of them to close their eyes, and then he allegedly exposed his penis to the sixth girl who was six years old. He allegedly asked the girl to caress his penis. Afterwards the girl told her parents that the teacher "took out a piece". Today the magistrate found Yuan not guilty of committing an indecent act against a child under the age of 16.

The magistrate ruled the defendant was completely untrustworthy in his testimony. On one hand, the defendant said that he avoided bodily contact with the students at all times. On the other hand, he admitted that he patted the victim's head during the game. Therefore the magistrate said that the testimony of the defendant was a pack of lies. The magistrate believed that the victim was trustworthy. However, in her testimony, she admitted that she was unsure whether the object that she touched was the penis of the defendant. The magistrate gave the benefit of doubt to the defendant and found him not guilty.

- (HKG Pao) Recently a magistrate said during the trial of a male nurse assaulting a patient: "Nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the medical staff at a hospital." He was made fun of because he was stating the obvious.

Along came a series of imitation statements along the lines of "Nobody would ever think that the dog would eat the homework." Sensing a good opportunity, Yau Wai-ching jumped in and said: "At the same time, nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the police." She was trying to take a dig the seven policemen but somehow she found herself the target of a string of scathing statements:

"Nobody would ever think that ex-legislators would be so fucking stupid."

"Nobody would ever think of not paying back the money that they owe."

"Nobody would ever think that there would be consequences with playing word games during the Legislative Council oath of office."

"Nobody would ever think that if they threw a brick at the police, the police would fight back."

"Nobody would ever think that you actually need a brain in order to think." (Corollary: "If you have a brain, you wouldn't have gotten yourself disqualified").

- (Headline Daily) June 6, 2017. Previously 34-year-old dart bar boss  Lee Yun-kin was found guilty in High Court of sexual assault of a 22-year female customer after lacing her drink with drugs. He was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, with the judge noting that he was an entrepreneur whose career should not be destroyed. The Department of Justice appealed. Today, the High Court of Appeal judge sentenced Lee to 2 years instead.

- (info.gov.hk) December 11, 2013.

Following is a question by the Hon Mrs Regina Ip and a written reply by the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr Paul Tang, in the Legislative Council today (December 11):

Question:

Quite a number of public officers have relayed to me that while on duty, they are often provoked by some members of the public using abusive language or obscene gestures. As there is no specific provision under the existing legislation criminalising the act of insulting public officers on duty, they can only put up with such behaviour in silence, which has aroused negative emotions and resulted in very low morale among them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of cases in the past five years in which the authorities invoked section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) to institute prosecutions against persons who had resisted or obstructed a public officer or police officer in the execution of duty; and among such cases, the number of convictions; and among the conviction cases, the number of those involving defendants who insulted public officers or police officers with abusive language or behaviour;

(b) given that there is an offence of "insult" under the Penal Code of Macao, and the penalty will be heavier if a public officer in execution of duty is the subject of an insult (i.e. "aggravated insult"), whether the authorities will make reference to such legal provisions and study the introduction of legislation to prohibit any act of insulting public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that;

(c) given that it is currently stipulated in section 139 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) that "any person who wilfully obstructs, resists, or uses abusive language to, any person acting in the execution of his duties under [this] Ordinance, or under any order or warrant made or issued thereunder, shall, in any case for which no other provision is made by [this] Ordinance, be guilty of an offence", whether the authorities will consider using this provision as a blueprint and enacting legislation to prohibit the use of abusive language to other public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(d) of the training, emotional counselling and support currently provided for frontline public officers in handling situations of being insulted while on duty?

Reply:

President,

(a) The numbers of prosecutions and convictions under section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) from 2008 to 2012 are set out in the Annex.

We do not maintain statistics on the number of cases where public officers were verbally or behaviourally insulted by the accused.

(b)and(c) Under the existing laws of Hong Kong, the mere act of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer does not normally constitute an offence. However, if a person, in the course of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer, goes further to commit certain crimes, such as using threatening, abusive or insulting words against a public officer with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, the authorities may consider invoking section 17B(2) (Disorder in public places) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) to take action against him/her. In addition, if anyone threatens a public officer with any injury to the person, reputation or property of such public officer, with intent to alarm such officer; assaults a public officer; damages any public property; or resists or obstructs a public officer in the performance of his/her public duty, the relevant departments may, depend on the circumstances of the case, consider invoking the following legislation to take action against him/her:

i. section 24 (Certain acts of intimidation prohibited) or section 60 (Destroying or damaging property), Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200); or

ii. section 36 (Assault with intent to commit offence, or on police officer, etc.), section 39 (Assault occasioning actual bodily harm) or section 40 (Common assault), Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212); or

iii. section 63 (Penalty on person assaulting, etc. police officer in execution of duty, or misleading officer by false information), Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232); or

iv. section 23 (Resisting or obstructing a public officer or other person lawfully engaged in a public duty), Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), etc.

As a matter of course, in determining whether prosecution should be initiated, the authorities should consider the actual circumstances of each case, including the behaviour of the offender and the relevant legislative requirements. We consider that public officers are adequately protected under the existing laws and it is not necessary to enact separate legislation. While we have no plan at the moment to legislate separately against the act of insulting public officers, we will keep the situation in view.

(d) Civil servants are to serve the community and are committed to carrying out their duties with professionalism and efficiency. They should not be subject to abusive and insulting language. We appeal to members of the public to appreciate and respect our colleagues as they discharge their duties impartially and lawfully. The Civil Service Bureau (CSB) will continue to take measures to alleviate stress experienced by colleagues, including the provision of a safe workplace, training courses and hotline counselling service. These will help them handle conflicts, manage stress and maintain emotional well-being for coping with the challenges in their work. Currently, more than 3 000 colleagues attend relevant training courses organised by the Civil Service Training and Development Institute each year. As regards the stress management hotline provided by the CSB, the service includes telephone and face-to-face counselling, referral to appropriate bodies for follow-up, and the provision of relevant thematic seminars. Many departments are also providing suitable counselling services having regard to their operational situation. Furthermore, we will continue to promote the civil service commendation schemes, which give recognition to colleagues with outstanding and dedicated performance, with a view to bringing the message across to the public that civil servants are serving the community with professionalism and impartiality and should deserve respect.

- Sample video of insulting the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i75dsuk0bY

- (Oriental Daily with video) February 25, 2017.

On the night of February 20, a western tourist and his Hong Kong girl friend were trying to flag down a taxi outside the Sogo Department Store on Hennessey Road, Causeway Bay district. The location is a restricted zone where taxi pick-ups are not allowed. A traffic officer proceeded to tell the two to go to the taxi stand nearby instead. But the man proceeded to curse out the traffic officer in English with lots of obscene language. The man even lifted the cap off the traffic officer. At this time, a Hongkonger who was using a cane due to a foot injury came over and asked the traffic police whether he needed help to call the police station for assistance. This Hongkonger also told the western tourist and his Hong Kong girlfriend that this is a restricted zone in which taxis cannot pick up passengers. But Hong Kong woman laughed at his cane and even said: "I'll break both your legs first!" She also asked him whether he is permanently disabled.

- The Junior Police Officers' Association wants to enact legislation that criminalizes the insulting of police officers. Alan Leong (Civic Party) responded that if the police want the citizens to respect them, then they need to enforce the law professionally and fairly -- criminalizing insults won't make the citizens respect you otherwise.

- I am completely in agreement with the argument made by Alan Leong. At this time, there seems to be a prevalent disrespect for the judges/magistrates and their verdicts. Following Alan Leong's excellent advice, let us remove the "contempt of court" and "insulting judges" ordinances, so that judges/magistrates can see if public opinion supports their rulings. After all, as Alan Leong has powerfully argued, criminalizing criticisms won't make the citizens respect you anyway.

- (Apple Daily) Legislator James To (Democratic Party) said: "If you criminalize the insulting of the police, it will lead to even greater social rifts. People are going to be upset that the insulting of the police is criminalized but the insulting of regular citizens is not. I don't think that this is good for the police."

- Yes, I completely agree too. Right now, regular citizens are upset that the insulting of judges is criminalized as contempt of court but the insulting of everybody else (including God, Mohammed, Buddha, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, CY Leung, racial/ethnic minorities, physically disabled/handicapped persons, children, senior citizens, dogs, pigs, snakes, rats, etc) is not. I don't think that this is good for the  judges.

- Basic Law Article 25: All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law.

Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. [A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.]

Corollary: The animals who enact the laws can make themselves more equal than others.

- (SCMP) The grievances of our police must be heard if we want an effective force. By Alex Lo. February 25, 2017.

Whatever is your take on the jailing of seven policemen for their part in beating an Occupy protest leader, the unprecedented demonstration this week of 33,000 serving and former officers and their families should be a serious cause for concern.

At a time when social discontent is rising and violent protests are becoming increasingly common, an efficient and disciplined police force is often our last resort.

But widespread frustration and falling morale will only make our officers less productive and more unprofessional. That’s why their sense of grievance against the jailing of their colleagues needs to be properly addressed, not just dismissed or criticised.

More and more young activists and radicals feel they can shout at, and even physically confront, the police with little or no consequence.

Certainly the lenient treatment those Occupy protesters and Mong Kok rioters have received from the courts have given them a sense of impunity.

This feeling of entitlement has been taken to an absurd extreme by people like Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, the seasoned provocateur who was roughed up by the seven officers.

With no evidence, Tsang claimed his case was just the tip of the iceberg and that the police chief should apologise to the public for his beating. But, he himself was hardly the innocent victim, having been jailed for five weeks for assaulting police officers and resisting arrest. He is on bail and has launched an appeal.

The massive show of support in this week’s demonstration by the police should put these arrogant and self-righteous people on notice.

They should know that even a highly trained and professional force like the city’s police have a breaking point.

Increasingly, police officers feel they are being targeted or criticised for whatever they do or don’t do. They think they are in a no-win situation, and can only take the abuses as they come without recourse.

That’s the main reason why some are agitating for criminalising abusive behaviour against police.

Far from being wrong in showing support for his force, police chief Stephen Lo Wai-chung is actually not doing enough. He must show he is 100 per cent behind his officers; likewise, the chief executive and the secretary for security.

If we want a professional and competent police force, they must know they have the full support of law-abiding citizens.

- (Hong Kong Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. February 27, 2017.

... I was there that night. I was told that 39,051 persons attended. Because this was a special membership meeting, there was only an internal notice and no open publicity. As people entered, their membership ID's were checked. Since people were counted one by one, the number is very accurate, unlike those assemblies at Victoria Park or Government Headquarters with huge pre-publicity and hugely inflated attendance figures. Frankly, it was very real and scary to see almost 40,000 people united together.

Even more scary was that the positive reaction of society. It was announced that a foundation was founded. Within days, more than $10 million in donations have poured in. The silent citizens are using their money to show their support. This is a silent demonstration.

Over the past several days, the opposition has tried to find fault. Here is my catalog of vitriolic attacks:

1. Obscene language.

One member said "Fuck your mother" on stage to show what they have to listen to every day. The Yellow Media immediately characterized the event as "10,000 people came to chant obscenities". After being circulated back and forth, everybody thinks that 40,000 chanted obscenities in unison.

2. Jews

One member compared the police with the Jews. The Yellow Media immediately lodged complaints with the Israeli and German Consulate Generals and turn this into an international affair. Then they called the event an international disgrace.

3. Unlawful assembly

Legislators Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick wrote to the Panel on Security at the Legislative Council to say that this membership assembly violated the police rules on unlawful gathering. Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming cited the Public Order Ordinance to say that such an assembly is unlawful without filing an application.

4. Redundancy

Legislator Cheng Chunt-tai said that when more than half of the police can attend such a meeting, it means that the Hong Kong Police contains a lot of redundancy. Therefore the Financial Security needs to review the situation and cut back on resources/allocations to the police.

5. Attacking the attendees.

Legislators Leung Mei-fun, Eunice Yung and Junius Ho were lawyers who were present as observers. The opposition wrote to the Bar Association and the Law Society to complain about professional lapses in ethics in attending an unlawful gathering.

6. Throwing rocks

Led by Anson Chan, any number of well-known and unknown politicians and media workers criticized the police gathering.

7. Diversion

Audrey Eu posted on Facebook: "In 1977, the police marched to decriminalize corruption; in 2017, the police demonstrated to decriminalize assault." The opposition followed this line of attack and completely ignored the police demands for "fair trials" and "public justice."

After watching all these over the past several days, I have to laugh. Only people who are afraid would react this way. Over the years, the silent majority has shown its power just a small number of times. The first time, 1.83 million signatures were gathered against Occupy Central. The second time, 40,000 policemen gathered together.

Q1. Which candidate do you support?
39.2%: John Tsang
29.3%: Carrie Lam
9.7%: Woo Kwok-hing
5.9%: Regina Ip
2.6%: Leung Kwok-hung
5.6%: None of the above
7.5%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

Q2. Between John Tsang and Carrie Lam, who do you support?
53.6%: John Tsang
33.03%: Carrie Lam
6.1%: Neither
2.4%: Both
4.9%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

(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

Speakout HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLMM7p92QeE

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 citizen 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!"

- Yellow Ribbon media Ming Pao's front page headline takes a definite stand:

Cursing police during pro-police demonstration march, Department of Justice follow up

- Actually, the demonstrators want to be charged by the Department of Justice so that they can go before a judge. Conversely, the Department of Justice is huffing and puffing but they won't do a thing.

There is no statute (either in the Basic Law or any other local ordinance) against criticism of judges as such; even if convicted under some interpretation of perversion of the course of justice or some such, an appeal can be made on the basis that it violates freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law Article 27. If the Court of Final Appeal upholds the verdict, the National People's Congress Standing Committee can come out with an Interpretation of the Basic Law Article 27 that freedom of speech includes freedom to criticize court judges and their rulings.

(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 Tsang’s 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 Kong’s 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 Kong’s 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 of 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 occasioning actual bodily harm. The inspector and the sergeant were sentenced to 6 months, and the two police officers to 4 months.

- (HKG Pao)