[800] The Carrier Pigeons (2017/09/06)
By Chris Wat Wing-yin:
Why is so much information coming out of the prisons? It turns out that Legislative Councilors have special privileges. They can make as many prison visits as they like. They can bring two persons with them on each visit, and take as much time as they like. They can exchange letters with the prisoners, and correctional officers are not allowed to read those letters. Nor are correctional officers allowed to monitor the conversations between legislative councilor and prisoner. This means that they can do anything that want.
So if the twenty something pan-democratic legislative councilors exercise their special privileges and take turns to make prison visits, the prisoners will have a direct communication channel to the outside world.
Ordinary prisoners are allowed only two visits per month from friends/families for 30 minutes per visit. Apart from working, ordinary prisoners have to undergo psychological counseling, job training, rehabilitation, etc.
So is it justice when people like Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow can have unlimited number of visits, take breaks from work to meet with visitors and occupy the interview rooms that are normally used by lawyers, social workers, social welfare officers and legal aid workers? Is this fair to the other prisoners?
In the past, prisoners want to meet with legislative councilors in order to lodge complaints about their cases. But today these esteemed prisoners are buddies with legislative councilors who use their special privileges to act as pigeon carriers for the prisoners, bringing out letters that would otherwise be in violation of prison discipline.
(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2017.
Under the Prisons Ordinance, each prisoner may receive two visits a month by friends/relatives. Each visit is limited to 30 minutes by at most three persons. For security reasons, these interviews are conducted through glass partitions to prevent physical contact.
There are 13 different occupation types in prison, including clothing manufacturing, knitting/sewing, leather goods, book binding, envelop manufacturing, etc. Prisoners are assigned to an occupation based upon preferences, health, etc. The occupations are grouped by degree of difficulty from A to F. The easiest jobs are cleaning or applying adhesives to envelops. The hardest jobs are construction or machine control. Depending on the job, the pay ranges from $23 to $192 per week.
(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2017.
District Councilors and Legislative Councilors have the right to visit prisoners by reason of "Official Visit." Our newspaper found that more than 20 pan-democratic legislative councilors have signed up, including Fernando Cheung, Charles Mok, Alvin Yeung, Chan Chi-chuen, Helena Wong, Hui Chi-fung, Andrew Wan, Eddie Chu, etc. Their visit schedules are systematically organized so that they don't show up at the same time. While the prisoners attend these Official Visits in air-conditioned rooms, they are relieved of their regular work duties (e.g. kitchen, laundry room, cleaning etc).
- If they don't go to work because of the Official Visits during the day, will they still get paid? Or will the pay go to whosoever has to be tasked with doing their work?
- The rules say that Legislative Councilors can take two persons along, bring any mat materials and take as much time as necessary. This set of conditions leads to the perfect set up for ... a game of mahjong. The prisoner, the legislative councilor and two friends can bring their own mahjong table and tiles, and play as many rounds as they like in the air-conditioned interview room with correctional officers standing guard outside the door.
- Would that be wrong? Of course not. The rules allow it, and therefore this is rule-of-law which is Hong Kong's core value.
(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2017.
According to information, the most frequently visited out of the 16 imprisoned persons are the three women at the Lo Wu Correctional Institution. Former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum has visited his girlfriend Willis Ho many times already.
Yesterday morning at about 10am, Lester Shum took a taxi from the city to the Lo Wu Correctional Institution. Legislative Councilor Eddie Chu Hoi-dick arrived about 5 minutes. While they waited, they smoked cigarettes. Then they went in together and came back around noon. Lester Shum came out first and smoked a cigarette. Eddie Chu came out five minutes later. The two left together by mini-bus.
According to information, Lester Shum's home is in Sham Shui Po district. If he took a taxi from home, it would cost him over $300. The Imprisoned Activists Support Fund pays for transportation of visitors nominated by the prisoners upon presentation of receipts.
[799] The Imprisoned Activists Support Fund (2017/09/05)
(South China Morning Post) September 4, 2017.
A new independent fund is aiming to raise HK$4 million for the 16 recently jailed Hong Kong activists – including the poster boy for the city’s pro-democracy movement Joshua Wong Chi-fung – and the families they left behind.
The Imprisoned Activists Support Fund, which was set up on Monday, hopes to provide HK$10,000 a month to each jailed activist for them to support their families.
“These activists are fighting for ideals and justice, instead of their personal gain,” Civic Party barrister Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee said. Ng is one of the fund’s four trustees alongside Canto-pop singer, Denise Ho Wan-see, and academics, To Yiu-ming and Hui Po-keung.
“Society has the responsibility [to help] these activists,” Ng said.
The fund will also be used to help settle the activists’ legal fees, cover any expenses accrued as well as help their families with the travelling costs of visiting them in prison.
More than 60 per cent of the goal has already been raised after a rally in support of the protesters last month brought in HK$2.53 million. Attended by more than 22,000 people, it was one of the biggest protests since the Occupy.
Ng said those who made donations during the march were thinking of the activists so the fund currently had no plans to assist other protesters who might be imprisoned in future.
“We do not want to be too ambitious as we have limited experience [in managing such a fund],” Ng said. “This fund is a golden opportunity to unite society and we do not want to trigger unnecessary suspicions because of carelessness.”
When asked if they would offer help to those regarded as localists, she said: “We will cross the bridge when we come to this.”
Former lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, of the League of Social Democrats, also called on citizens not to underestimate the power of making donations. “Every penny given is offering support to politically suppressed people,” Leung said.
(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2017.
Baptist University School of Journalism assistant professor To Yiu-ming, Lingnan University Department of Cultural Studies associate professor Hui Po-keung and others announced the establishment of the Imprisoned Activists Support Fund.
They state that they intend to raise $4 million. The $2.53 million raised from the August 20 demonstration march will go to this Fund. They have asked the Confederation of Trade Unions to open a bank account for them. The money will pay for legal fees and relieve their family hardships. Each family will receive $10,000 per month unconditionally.
Internet comments:
- Let us do the arithmetic.
The Civic Square 3 were sentenced to 6 + 7 + 8 = 21 months, which would mean $210,000.
The North East New Territories 13 were sentenced to 13 x 13 = 169 months, which would mean $1,690,000.
The total outlay is $210,000 + $1,690,000 = $1,900,000.
The remaining sum of $4,000,000 - $1,900,000 = $2,100,000 will be used to cover the "handling/processing fees" of the organizers.
Wow!
When I grow up, I want to be a Fund administrator too ... it is so much fun and rewarding ...
- "Handling/processing"? I see. Someone has to count the money and it is long, hard and tedious work.
- I almost gagged when I saw that the money has to go through the Confederation of Trade Unions. After all, their chairman Lee Cheuk-yan is famous for keeping the $500,000 from Jimmy Lai to the Confederation of Trade Unions in his own personal account for 9 months under the explanation: "I kept it in my pocket temporarily."
- As Tsang Chi-ho said, this is a "gift to the family in bereavement."
- Being in jail is a full-time 7-days-a-week 24-hours-per-day job. There is no such thing as going home after work, because you are at work every hour every day every week every month. There are 24 hours a day and 30 days per month, for a total of 720 hours per month. A monthly salary of $10,000 is equivalent to $10,000 / 720 = $13.88 per hour. According to the law, the minimum wage is $34.50 per hour. So this $10,000 bereavement gift is truly pathetic.
- When you go to jail, all expenses are paid for by the taxpayers. Without having to do anything, this $10,000 is airdropped on you. This is a gift, not a salary and therefore there is no Mandatory Provident Fund withholding. So why not take the money and run?
- When you are in jail, you can only spend your prison salary. So if you go to jail for 30 years for murdering a few police officers, you will have 360 months x $10,000 per month = $3,600,000 waiting for you when you come out. This is how you can afford to buy an apartment.
- For triad gangs, the "family settlement money" for jailed members is usually paid as a lump sum up front. By contrast, this Fund will pay by the month. The difference? Well, there is the small matter of investment interest. More importantly, you do not have to pay the entire jail term. For example, if you are sentenced to 13 months in prison, your actual time spent in prison is only about 2/3 after deducting Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays. So the Foundation only has to pay $90,000 instead of $130,000, leaving more money to cover the "handling/processing fees."
- (Wen Wei Po) September 5, 2017.
Baggio Leung Chung-hang's Facebook: I don't know what to say ...
Lai Chun Rex's Facebook
[Justice Defense Fund] It will only defend the DQ4.
The disqualification of Leung/Yau is not about justice?[Imprisoned Activists Support Fund] It will only support the North East New Territories 13 + Civic Square 3.
All those in jail for the police-civilian clash in Mong Kok are not "imprisoned"? Or are they not "activists"?Might they feel embarrassed about choosing such names for their funds?
Localist comments:
- If that was what you intended all along, then you should not fucking call for Grand Unity for everybody to come out and march with you on August 20th. And when you ask for donations, you should fucking state clearly that not a fucking cent will go to the Mong Kok Fishball Revolutionaries. Fuck your mother!
- When you call for people to participate, you say that party lines don't exist anymore at a time of political persecution. But when it comes to dividing the loot, you only take care of your own kind. You are really fucking awesome.
- These people are such fucking bastards. They have declared that they own the Resistance brand and everybody else is just the hoi polloi.
- You wanted the Localists to put down their ideological disagreements and work with you. But when it comes to handing out support, you isolate them on the outside. What kind of game is this? I can tell you confidently that as long as you won't put down your own ideological disagreements, you can never hope to have us work with you across party lines. I will tell everybody that I know that this Fund is a pan-democratic operation designed to help themselves, and therefore not a single cent should be given to them. In the upcoming by-election, we would rather cast blank ballots than vote for the pan-democrats.
- I don't understand why the Localists should be begging the much detested leftist retards for handouts? Why can't the Localists start their own fund?
- Have you waken up yet? For the pan-democrats, the Mong Kok Fishball Revolution martyrs are Enemies of the People of Democracy who have to destroyed.
- Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow are elite university students with respectable bourgeois family backgrounds. They are adulated by the western media. Giving them money will help the reputation of the Fund and those associated with it.
The Mong Kok Fishball Revolution martyrs are lower-class poorly educated riffraffs who have at most part-time menial jobs. As rioters, they have negative propaganda value. Giving them money implies that the Fund supports assault, arson and vandalism.
The pan-democrats are investing their money in assets with the higher ROI (return-on-investment). It is that simple.
- Before: (Silent Majority for HK) Prior to the August 20th demonstration march, a list of 117 'political prisoners' was circulated around for people to donate to help.
After: (Ming Pao) The Support Group for the 16 Imprisoned Resisters announced that they raised over $2,515,690 during the August 20th demonstration march. They plan to establish a foundation whose bank account will be published later.
- The Fund people said that they would stop as soon as they reach the $4 million mark and that they have no intention of helping anyone else. This means that the China Liaison Office 9 have been cast adrift:
[798] No Choice Except Independence (2017/09/04)
(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2017.
Today (September 4) will be the day for the opening ceremony for undergraduate students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. On this morning, the students were greeted by large number of black-background-white-lettered vertical banners with the words "Hong Kong Independence" around the campus.
In addition, the Goddess of Democracy statue outside the MTR station was drapped with a black-and-white-striped skirt on which were written the names of almost 100 social activists who have either been sent to prison or are standing trial, including Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law. The title was "The List of Hong Kong Political Prisoners."
In addition, there were many small posters with the sentences "Refuse to sink down" and "Only choice is independence" in Chinese and "Fight for our homeland" and "Fight for Hong Kong independence" in English.
CUHK Vice-chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu said that there is freedom of speech at the university, and and the administration won't react as long as the students don't break the law and don't interfere with normal learning. He also urged the students to express their wishes with peace, reason and non-violence. Concerning the student leaders who were sent to prison, Sung said that there is plenty of discussion already. He said that judicial independence is an important bedrock for Hong Kong and he wants the public to have confidence in the judiciary and trust that the judges are ruling in professional manners.
(Ming Pao) September 4, 2017.
Chinese University Student Union president Au Tze-ho admitted that they hang up the skirt on the Goddess of Democracy because they want to remind students about the political prosecutions. However, he said that the Student Union did not hang up the Hong Kong independence banners. However, he thinks that the banners remind incoming students that "they should do those things that they believe are correct."
The Chinese University Student Union said on Facebook that the materials on Hong Kong independence (including the horizontal banner) were removed by school personnel about 30 minutes later. The Chinese University Student Union found the action regrettable. They said that they contacted the school but were told that the subject of Hong Kong independence was sensitive and had to be cleared out. They said that some of the materials were present in Cultural Plaza which was managed by the Student Union. Thus, they deplore the school administration for trampling on the right of the Student Union to manage student space.
(SCMP) September 6, 2017.
The student union of Chinese University has threatened “escalating action” if heads of the institution do not respond by Wednesday 7pm to a row over the mysterious appearances of campus banners and posters advocating Hong Kong independence.
On Tuesday the university appeared to be pinning the blame on the union for not enforcing rules on the act which had been repeated at a different location – a giant banner and a wall of posters with the independence theme had reappeared at the campus a day after similar materials created a stir when they suddenly surfaced on the school grounds.
No one had claimed responsibility for the move and by 8.30am on Wednesday, the banners were still hanging in an area managed by the union. Two students were seen stationed at the site to prevent the materials from being removed.
The university had warned any advocacy of independence would be a breach of the Basic Law, which states that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.
On late Tuesday night, the student union issued the deadline to outgoing vice chancellor Professor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu and his would-be successor Rocky Tuan Sung-chi to respond further and state their positions on the matter, threatening “escalating action” if they failed to do so.
At least three large black banners bearing the words “Hong Kong independence” in Chinese and English were taken down on the first day of the school year on Monday.
But the stunt was repeated on Tuesday morning at a different location, with a black banner hung in the middle of Cultural Plaza, an open space near the canteens and bustling with students and staff.
Posters which read “Fight for Our Homeland. Fight for Hong Kong Independence” also filled a nearby “democracy wall”, which allows students to post their ideas freely without prior permission.
Union president Au Tsz-ho said anyone could put up posters on the democracy wall without prior permission, but applications must be made to the union to display banners.
Asked whether anyone had applied to display the controversial banner on Tuesday, he said the union only spotted it in the morning.
“A student had come to us [on Monday] night to retrieve the banner that was previously taken down, but we do not know whether today’s was also his work,” he said.
The school’s Office of Student Affairs stepped in to urge the union to prevent a recurrence.
“We have noted the posters and banners advocating Hong Kong independence. Such ideas have constituted a breach of relevant provisions of the law, and go against the university’s stance of absolute disagreement to independence,” a letter addressed to the student union said. It also urged the union to strictly enforce the regulations on managing the area – without specifying them – and warned that the office would intervene and take down “inappropriate” materials if necessary.
In a written response, the union reiterated Cultural Plaza’s significance in allowing students to express their ideas and discuss current issues.
“It has always been such a place, and should remain unchanged ... Yet the university management has removed a banner without permission from the student union on the commencement day of the academic year,” the statement read. “We are of the opinion that the action taken by the university is not appropriate, and we would like to express our deep regret at such action. We hereby urge the university to respect the autonomy of the student union, especially in terms of the management of the Cultural Plaza.”
After a meeting with Office of Student Affairs director Raymond Leung Yu-chiu on Tuesday, the union issued the statement demanding a clarification from Sung and Tuan, and reiterated that it would respect the autonomy and freedom of speech of students.
The student body was coy on whether it endorsed the advocacy of independence.
In a speech at the convocation ceremony on Monday, Au said he was glad to see that students were “doing their best to voice their opinions on matters they believe are right” after spotting such materials in campus.
Sung also said on Monday students were free to express their opinions as long as they did not break the law.
On Wednesday the student union said it would hold a forum to discuss freedom of speech and whether Hong Kong independence should be raised on the campus. The forum will be held from 12.30pm to 2pm at Cultural Plaza. Radical localists including Jason Chow Ho-fai, spokesman for the Hong Kong National Party, and Roy Wong Toi-yeung, the leader of Hong Kong Indigenous, will attend the talk.
(SCMP) September 6, 2017.
An open letter jointly issued by the student unions of seven Hong Kong tertiary institutions has labelled the removal of independence-related materials from campuses a serious erosion of academic autonomy.
City University, Hang Seng Management College, Lingnan University, Polytechnic University, Education University, Open University and Chinese University issued the letter on Wednesday after banners and posters advocating Hong Kong’s separation from China were spotted at more universities in the city.
“Freedom of speech and thought is a God-given human right. People may disagree with views on independence, but [anyone] should enjoy the right to talk about it,” the letter said.
“The suppression of such ideas by the school not only deprives political rights from students, but is a humiliation to academic freedom.”
The unions condemned their institutions for what they called a clampdown on free speech by removing the banners.
Materials calling for independence appeared at the University of Hong Kong, City University, Polytechnic University, Education University and Shue Yan University from Tuesday afternoon. Some were put up by student unions, while others were done anonymously.
On Monday at least three large black banners bearing the words “Hong Kong independence” in Chinese and English were found festooned at Chinese University in Sha Tin as the new academic year kicked off.
On Wednesday, Chinese University’s student union warned it might take legal action to stop banners being removed from the campus, saying it was considering seeking a judicial review over the school management’s handling of the matter. The union said it sought a response from the school by 7pm on Wednesday, but none had been received as of 7.30pm.
Students at Education University admitted they had hung a large black banner bearing the phrase “Hong Kong independence” outside the library of their Tai Po campus on Tuesday evening.
Union president Lala Lai Hiu-ching said the group’s primary aim was to support their counterparts at Chinese University.
Asked if the union championed independence, she said it was “an option that could not be ignored”.
“We support the discussion of different ways forward for Hong Kong,” Lai said. “But we have now demonstrated that the school will engage in political screening [of publicity materials], hurting our autonomy and freedom of expression.”
Her views were shared by Apostle Lau Chak-fung, who heads the student union of the privately funded Shue Yan University.
A “democracy wall” at its Braemar Hill campus was filled with independence posters as of Wednesday afternoon. They remained up at 5pm on Wednesday.
“We put them up after a consensus within the union that we should rally behind our peers at Chinese University,” Lau said.
If people disagreed, he added, they should respond by putting up posters of their own, instead of tearing down materials they disliked.
Lau also revealed that a meeting between the student union leaders was being arranged within the next few days to coordinate their actions.
A similar, smaller-scale stunt was carried out at City University by a student whose identity was not yet confirmed.
City University’s student union claimed posters advocating independence had been pasted on the Kowloon Tong campus’ “democracy wall” – a notice board for students to display materials freely – and removed by security personnel.
“From our understanding, the posters met all regulations,” the union said.
It was told by security staff that there was no record of the student responsible. The union rejected that explanation.
“The move not only destroyed the trust between the school and the union, but also the freedoms of City University students,” the union said.
A similar banner remained intact at Chinese University on Wednesday afternoon, more than a day after it had been put up for the second time.
The student union did not claim responsibility for the stunt, but vowed to intervene if school management tried to take it down.
The body also issued a deadline of 7pm on Wednesday for outgoing vice chancellor Professor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu and his would-be successor Rocky Tuan Sung-chi to state their positions on the matter, threatening “escalating action” if they failed to do so.
Internet comments:
- This was the most awesome display of student power ever! If we can paste 1,000 posters every day, the whole campus will eventually become completely covered by these posters and then we shall be liberated!
- Seriously though, why do these young elite students think that hanging a few banners and pasting a few posters is going to overthrow the Chinese Communists and achieve Hong Kong independence? Hong Kong independence is not a problem; but the intelligence level of these young elite students is the real problem.
- Great job! With a few more tricks like these, Article 23 will be on our heads with full public support.
- These university students always say "無懼中共打壓" (unafraid of the suppression by the Chinese Communists). That is why they sneak out in the middle of the night to hang the banners and paste the posters.
- They are so fearless that they won't identify themselves. They continue to hide their faces even as they continue to accept government subsidies and parental allowances. And they think that they are the next Martin Luther King's.
- Next stop, these fearless university students will travel to Tiananmen Square and unfurl banners about "Hong Kong independence." The stop after that will be twenty years of "Re-education through labor reform" at Beidahuang (Great Northern Wilderness).
- If they are truly fearless, they should have taken Facebook videos and dare the police to arrest them.
- Independence? They can start with taking Chinese University of Hong Kong into independence and rejecting all subsidies from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government of the People's Republic of China.
- The Chinese University of Hong Kong must make a decision. If it is to be part of the Hong Kong Nation, then it cannot be a Chinese university because everybody knows that Hong Kong is not China.
- As usual, nobody cares about the janitor aunties/uncles who will be tasked with removing these posters.
- Freedom of speech means that you are allowed to advocate Hong Kong independence, or overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party, or polygamy, or bestiality. But you are not allowed to destroy public property. Those posters were glued onto the walls; when they are pulled out, the paint comes off. The university will have to repaint the walls.
- At least the "King of Kowloon" Tsang Tsou-choi (see New York Times, May 4, 2011)'s graffiti had some artistic merit.
- Why does the CUHK Student Union want to drape a skirt on the Goddess of Democracy? Because they know that they will get television air-time for what would be otherwise ignored as Facebook nonsense.
(TVB) September 4, 2017. CUHK SU president Au Tze-ho said: "I believe that the Court of Appeal ruling might have scared certain students away from taking certain extreme actions. But when I think that something is right, I won't care too much. If you determine that this is worthwhile and if you are willing to possibly pay some heavy price, you should continue to do so. Rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong except by name. When the laws are unjust, I don't think that there is any need to observe them."
- Of course, Au Tze-ho won't be leading the way to break the law. His duty as CUHK SU president is to provide assistance to those students who are arrested for breaking the law.
I may be wrong. And Au Tze-ho can show that I am wrong by leading the charge to break into prison to free the political prisoners of conscience.
- (Ming Pao) September 5, 2017. The CU Discovery Facebook announced that a "Hong Kong independence" horizontal banner was seen in Cultural Plaza the next morning. The CUHK SU Facebook shared that post with the comment: "In the face of the university administration oppressing discussions of Hong Kong independence, our fellow CUHK students are still fearless."
- Whenever your erect a banner, the security guards are going to remove it within minutes. You have to buy the materials and write the words; they only have to throw it away. Who is going to run out of energy?
By the way, is this going to bring Hong Kong independence any closer?
- Fearlessness should mean that (1) you erect the banner and (2) you stay there to protect the banner from being removed, to the extent of willing to give up your life.
Fearfulness means that (1) you erect the banner in the middle of the night and flee and (2) you refuse to identify yourself as the responsible person.
- (Wen Wei Po) September 7, 2017.
Yesterday a poster did the rounds on Facebook.
The posters contained the words:
#CUSU IS NOT CU!
Sorry, we refuse to be represented.A comment was attached: "We refused to be represented, we refuse to have our viewpoints bullied, we refuse to maintain a cowardly silence." There was a call for students to show up at 530pm at the Cultural Plaza. "We will use civilized words to express our voices." People were encouraged to forward this poster, adding their own comments on the bottom half, "respecting others and refraining from personal attacks or unfounded insults."
- (Ming Pao) According to Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah, those banners and posters may be in violation of CAP 200 Crimes Ordinance:
9. Seditious intention
(1) A seditious intention is an intention—
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or Her Heirs or Successors, or against the Government of Hong Kong, or the government of any other part of Her Majesty’s dominions or of any territory under Her Majesty’s protection as by law established;
(b) to excite Her Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established; or
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong; or
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong; or
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong; or
(f) to incite persons to violence; or
(g) to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order.
10. Offences
(1) Any person who—
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention; or
(b) utters any seditious words; or
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes, displays or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication, unless he has no reason to believe that it is seditious,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable for a first offence to a fine of $5,000 and to imprisonment for 2 years, and for a subsequent offence to imprisonment for 3 years; and any seditious publication shall be forfeited to the Crown.
- Ahem, $5,000 and/or imprisonment for 2 years! Now I can see why the CUHK SU from the president down will only admit to posting the list of political prisoners of conscience but declined to claim knowledge of the "Hong Kong independence" banners and posters. Fearless they are not; gutless they are.
- (SCMP) Pan-democrats pay price of not saying no to Hong Kong independence. By Alex Lo. September 6, 2017.
You either support Hong Kong independence or you don’t. The vast majority of locals oppose it. Only a few advocate it, about 17 per cent of people, if a 2016 Chinese University survey is anything to go by.
It’s a simple position to take: either/or. Yet, if you ask the opposition in the legislature and other anti-mainland groups, many would give a non-committal answer, and then dodge the whole question by reframing it as one of freedom of speech. It’s usually along the line of “people should have the right to say whatever they like”.
I have more respect for the secessionists, even though I think they are doing tremendous damage. At least they have the guts to state what they believe in.
Not so our opposition. Among such groups is Chinese University student union. Giant banners and a string of posters advocating independence surfaced on its campus at the start of the new academic year this week. No one has so far claimed responsibility. University management, quite reasonably, took the items down.
Predictably, the student union is not saying whether it supports independence, but instead has accused the university of censorship and suppressing separatism as a legitimate topic of discussion.
But how do you suppress free speech if no one has claimed the right and/or responsibility to put up such things? Even if someone had claimed ownership, it’s still within the university’s right to take them down, regardless of the message.
Suppose those posters promoted the Communist Party or Chinese nationalism, would the student union still defend them as energetically as now?
The latest incident, though, can be a learning moment. People have every right to exercise and defend free speech, but they are also morally obliged to state their position with respect to the content of the speech they are defending, whether it be white supremacy, the national security law or Hong Kong independence. Otherwise, free speech as a right is just vacuous.
Moreover, by refusing to repudiate independence, the pan-democrat opposition has effectively allowed its own campaign for greater democracy to be hijacked.
Its leaders may not want to lose the support of young voters sympathetic to independence. But they now risk losing the whole pro-democracy movement and inviting Beijing to interfere.
- CUHK Secrets Facebook
#CU6282A
Sticking to the facts, when you cover the entire Democracy Wall with copies of the same poster so that other people have no space left, then this is infringing upon other people's freedom of speech. Besides, there were other things on the wall before but you have covered them up. If you can cover other people up, can I find something else to cover all your posters?
#CU6282B
Before you get cocky enough to start a course to educate people, can you please check the facts first.
The anonymous posters are already violating the rules for using the Democracy Wall.
By posting those posters, they have already disrespected the consensus of the entire student body.
If someone pasted anonymously a poster to support the return of Hong Kong to China (as One Country One System),
we'll see the Student Union immediately ripped the poster off for violating the rules for using the Democracy Wall.
Please don't preach about democratic principles. It was always an issue that all is permissible if you hold the correct position.- (Apple Daily) September 6, 2017. The City University Student Union said 「寧鳴而死，不默而生」(we would rather speak and die than kept silent and live). They said that they would never submit to oppression. If students have to go to jail for using the words "Hong Kong independence", then 「我哋慷慨就義，成為香港主權移交以嚟第一批文字獄犯。」(we will go to our deaths like martyrs and be the first group of people jailed for free speech after the transfer of sovereignty).
- Good, please remember what you said here. If you end up being sentenced to jail, then please don't ask for legal aid to go to the Court of Final Appeal.
- (Ming Pao) September 6, 2017.
Fellow student Au Tze-ho said that what Hong Kong is missing are the communities that were present in old movies. "I look at the street today and I see only drug store chains everywhere. There is no human feel." Hong Kong has changed a lot. But what are the stores changing? Did the communities change because the stores change? Are the communities solely responsible for human feel? It is natural for people to be nostalgic about the people in old communities. But what Au Tze-ho really wants to say is that there are too many mainland Chinese tourists, such that the many stores turn into dispensaries to make money. If we want to restore the old Hong Kong, mainland Chinese tourists should not be coming.
Fellow student Au Tze-ho said that two senior Macau citizens were arrested for sharing "content farm" information that was unfavorable to the government. Those two citizens were arrested because they distributed inaccurate information -- "five corpses" were never found at the described location and the government did not cover up the non-existent incident.
Fellow student Au Tze-ho said that students can be arrested for insulting the national anthem because their putonghua is not good. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the law can assure you that nobody will be prosecuted for not speaking good putongua. They can arrest you for breaking the relevant laws.
I refer to Au Tze-ho as "fellow student" because I am a CUHK alumnus. This fellow student is very disappointing. He referred to retired magistrate Chan Pik-kiu as the "newly appointed Convocation chairman." What is this supposed to mean? Irrespective of Chan Pik-kiu's political position (if any), he was elected as Convocation president by a vote among the alumni. Au Tze-ho is disrespecting the election results and the voting alumni. When he lacks even such basic respect, he is an embarrassment to the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
- Wan Chin's Facebook
[Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union event poster)
Hong Kong independence
Firmly resist political censorship at CUHK
Defend the freedom of speech of the students
Date: September 6, 2017
Time: 12:00-14:00
Location: Cultural Plaza
Speakers:
Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow Ho-fai
Former CUHK SU president Ernie Chow Shue-fung
Hong Kong Indigenous convener Ray Wong Toi-yeung
Former CUHK SU president Tommy Cheung Sau-yin
The CUHK SU has no scholastics to speak of. They are an insult to the name 'University Student'! Why did the Student Union advertise "Hong Kong independence"? For money, for legislative seats, for by-elections. CUHK SU is shameless to organize a discussion forum with zero "balance of view" and completely loaded with pro-independence propaganda. They invited no scholars from the media, legal and political fields.
The main theme of the forum was freedom of speech. The most important thing about freedom of speech is the balancing of different views. But this forum only has independence/self-determination advocates. So what freedom of speech is there to speak of?
Balancing of views does not mean that you have to invite everybody on stage. But you must invite one or two persons who hold the opposite view or outsiders who have no personal stakes. This is an open forum inside a university campus; this is not the internal congress of a political party. Such is the minimal morality for scholastics but the CUHK SU is openly defying this. They act exactly like the Chinese Communist Party! Don't talk to me about CUHK students! There are only Chinese Communist bandits over there! ...
- (Stand News) September 6, 2017. https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E8%A6%81%E6%8B%86%E6%B8%AF%E7%8D%A8%E6%A9%AB%E9%A1%8D-%E5%BC%B5%E7%A7%80%E8%B3%A2-%E6%96%99%E6%A0%A1%E6%96%B9%E5%8F%97%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E5%A3%93%E5%8A%9B-%E9%BB%83%E6%AF%93%E6%B0%91-%E8%AD%B4%E8%B2%AC%E6%B9%AF%E5%AE%B6%E9%A9%8A/
At the discussion forum, Legislative Councilor Eddie Chu Hoi-dick said that the actions of the CUHK administration has damaged the freedom of speech and the freedom of academic research. He said that the written explanation from the university administration is not acceptable to normal persons. He demanded the university administrate to identify which Hong Kong ordinance is being violated by the Hong Kong independence banners.
Former CUHK SU president Tommy Cheung Sau-yin said that in 2014, the university administration allowed the presence of "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners on campus, but not "Hong Kong independence" banners now. Therefore, he believes that the university administration must have been forced to do this under tremendous political pressure.
Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow Ho-fai said that recent events show that the government is suppressing political dissidents. He said that "freedom of speech no longer exists in Hong Kong."
Hong Kong Indigenous convener Ray Wong said that the government is using national sovereignty to restrict freedom of speech in Hong Kong. When sovereignty clashes with basic human rights, Hongkongers have no choice but to seek independence.
Former CUHK SU president Ernie Chow Shue-fung said that the Basic Law does not have public acceptance, and local Hong Kong laws are being overridden by the interpretations by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Therefore, there is no point of talking about legal restraints at this time. The primary consideration for university to decide to resist or not lies in their perception of the rights and wrongs of the matter.
- In 2014, the CUHK administration allowed "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners on campus because it did not violate any law. In 2017, the CUHK administration won't accept "Hong Kong independence" banners because Article 1 of the Hong Kong Basic Law states that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. The CUHK administration was, is and will be opposed to Hong Kong independence.
[797] Best Student President Speech Of The Year (2017/09/03)
(HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 2, 2017.
In the past, parents tended to think that the school is a safe place for their children to be educated, to gain knowledge, to evolve and to mature. We never thought that the Parents and Teachers Association could harm our children.
I wrote "in the past" because we can no longer be sure anymore.
Once you shut the door, the classroom is the teacher's world. You can say whatever, teach whatever, use whatever examples, apply whatever interpretations ... nobody else outside knows and nobody can interfere with you. Thus, the classroom is the best place for brainwashing.
I believe that most Hong Kong teachers are dedicated, kind-hearted and normal. But in a polarized society, there will always be a few Yellow Ribbon teachers around, and if you are careless, your children could be trapped. It will take years to rescue them.
In the past few days, the welcoming speech by the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai student union chairperson Tong Kam-ting has been going around social media (see Facebook). The title of the speech is "Learning to become a disrepectful person" is from a typical victim of brainwashing. Here are some highlights from that speech:
- During my time in the student union, I had quite a few arguments with the two teacher advisors on various matters. In traditional thinking, rebutting your seniors is considered disrespectful and ill-mannered. But precisely because I was not respectful enough, they were made aware of my thinking and my insistence. And then we were able to understand each other.
- I remember the incident when the cabinet members turned their backs towards the national flag on sports day. At the time, many teachers said that we were being disrespectful. But in the face of a Communist regime and a Hong Kong whose freedom is being destroyed day after day ... we insisted on using a disrespectful method of expressing our discontent.
- ... It is hard to believe that so far 24 political prisoners are in jail. They might have used 'disrespectful' spirits to fight for Hong Kong democracy, independence, autonomy and self-determination. These young people may have been criticized by the general public as disrespectful ... but our youthful experiences allow us to stumble around and learn to 'persist' ..."
This speech let us see that today's children think that the Mong Kong riot and other physical clashes was merely about people who 'who were not slick and respectful' enough. For the past three years, nobody has told them that not only was it not disrespectful, it was outright incorrect and unlawful. Simply put, it was not right! Even more simply put, it was wrong!
Being "wrong" is completely different from "not being slick and respectful enough." I don't know if the adults were deliberately vague because they did not want to hurt the children's feelings. But it is the greatest tragedy in education when nobody would care to point out these mistaken ideas.
There are no political prisoners in Hong Kong today. Those individuals were sent to jail in a court after due process. The videos of the precipitating acts can be found all over YouTube/Google. How come the teacher won't show the videos in class and hold a discussion about whether this was violence or not?
When a student representative speaks publicly to the school, the text was cleared by the principal and certain teachers. If this speech was allowed to go on, then the school has approved the viewpoints as representing the position of the school and its teachers. So education there is not about pulling students back when they walk towards a cliff, but to kick them down the cliff.
I have nothing left to say about such a kind of education. I can only ask parents to be careful about how they choose schools, especially remembering this name: the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai district.
Relevant Link: #490 Secretary for Education Eddie Ng visits Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School
Relevant Link: (YouTube) Tong Kam-ting, you are even more awesome than Joshua Wong!
- (HKG Pao) September 3, 2017.
In the matter of Tong Kam-ting, the Book of Shameful Acts of Pan-Democrats Facebook has ferreted out three teachers at the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School. In her speech, Tong had thanked three teacher advisors. She said that she had some arguments two of them -- Ko Chu-kin and Lai Kim-fung -- but they were nevertheless able to understand each other.
Ko Chu-kin
Lai Kim-fungBut most of all, she wanted to thank teacher Cheung Siu-chung. She said that whenever she had doubts about herself, Cheung would give her the reassurance and impetus. So Cheung Siu-chung may be the person most responsible for the forming of Tong Kam-ting.
The Black Hand at the Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School: Cheung Siu-chung (Professional Teachers Union executive committee member)When Secretary of Education Eddie Ng said that "there is no need to discuss Hong Kong independence in schools," Cheung Siu-chung wrote an essay for Ming Pao titled: <When the school campus becomes the battlefield for political fights>. Cheung said that teaching Hong Kong independence in school is correct and necessary.
Cheung Siu-chung has a number of interesting Facebook posts. Here are his comments about the 2016 Rio Olympics:
Cheung Siu-chung: Does anyone think the same way as I do in wanting to see the Chinese national team get routed?
Cheung Siu-chung: If you want the Chinese athletes to win all the gold medals, then they should just take part in the Chinese National Games.
Commentator: Sir Cheung, I really want to ask you just why you so badly want the national team to lose? Have they offended your whole family? Pardon me for saying this so clearly, but I feel that your post is going too far.
Cheung Siu-chung: So ... I also really want to ask you why you don't want me to want the Chinese team to lose, or why you want me to want the Chinese team to win? I don't remember having offended your entire family either. Sorry, pardon me for saying so clearly, but I feel that your reply is going too far.
According to one parent, "Actually most of the students at the Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School are pure and innocent and don't get involved in politics. But the brainwashing by the teachers have created a few anti-China students, such that Tong Kam-ting can hijack all the students in the school ... a few years ago on June 4th, the school used a school bus to take the students to the Victoria Park candlelight vigil. I did not permit my child to go. But he said that his fellow students had no idea why they had to go there. They just sat on the grass and played with their mobile phones. At the time, the students were only about 14 years old. They were being brainwashed by the teachers."
[796] The National Anthem Law (2017/09/02)
(SCMP) As China bans national anthem ‘disrespect’, how will Hong Kong football fans react in match just before key Communist Party meeting? By James Porteous. September 2, 2017.
Hong Kong soccer doesn’t loom large in the annals of world history. It barely looms in the annals of Hong Kong soccer history.
But when accounts of the post-handover decades are written, and especially chapters dealing with the increasing anger and discontent among the post-97 generation (and Beijing’s heavy hand towards them), football will feature prominently.
China’s fury at anything approaching dissent has resulted in a new law that will see anyone ‘disrespecting’ the country’s national anthem thrown in jail – and it all started in the compact Mong Kok Stadium where Hong Kong’s national team play.
In the wake of the Occupy Central protests, anger moved to the football stands and the team’s World Cup qualification matches in 2015 became political events, with supporters booing the anthem before each game.
It attracted punishment from world governing body Fifa – and more importantly, it now seems clear, the ire of China’s power brokers.
Mainland residents were supposedly furious after Hong Kong fans booed the anthem before those World Cup thrillers against powerhouses Maldives and Bhutan in 2015.
It didn’t help that China and Hong Kong had been drawn in the same World Cup qualifying group – and Hong Kong’s next game was in China. I have never seen such a security presence at a sporting event as at that game in Shenzhen, though only a handful of Hong Kong fans were allowed across the border.
The return match in Hong Kong in November was laden with political significance. After warnings from Fifa, fans mostly refrained from booing, many holding cards with BOO! printed on them instead. The shouts of “We are Hong Kong!!” – pointedly in English to underline fans’ sense of a separate identity to their mainland China rivals – were unceasing.
Could president Xi – a noted soccer fan – have been watching at home?
In the five years since he has been in charge he has crushed hopes that the country was becoming more liberal, and brooks no dissent.
You could imagine him getting straight on the big red phone after hearing Hongkongers – already in his bad books after Occupy – booing his anthem. “Sort it out,” he might have barked to underlings, with this law the result.
Like most of Beijing’s responses to Hong Kong “misbehaviour”, it seems almost calculated to exacerbate people’s concerns and fuel more anger. (And of course, the Communists had so much respect for the man who wrote the anthem’s lyrics that he died in prison during the Cultural Revolution).
“Some Hong Kong fans do not like to be told what to do by the mainland,” said professor Brian Bridges, with some understatement.
Formerly head of political science at Hong Kong’s Lingnan University, who this year edited an issue of The International Journal of the History of Sport dedicated to sporting identity and politics in Hong Kong and Macau, he expects the law “may backfire and only provoke more resistance and publicity.”
Tobias Zuser, a local academic and football fan whose field is sporting culture in Hong Kong and China, and who co-hosts The Hong Kong Football Podcast, concurred. “The big question will be how authorities would execute [punishment] against 6000 anonymous people. Who booed and who did not? I don’t think the law would be successful in muting political dissent at games – and it might just trigger fans to think of ‘creative’ responses.”
(SCMP) As China bans national anthem ‘disrespect’, how will Hong Kong football fans react in match just before key Communist Party meeting? By James Porteous. September 2, 2017.
Supporters at Hong Kong Stadium for the Asia Cup Qualifier against Malaysia on October 10 will surely express their opinion of the anthem law quite clearly. Another fine, or even a points deduction, seems likely to be heading to the Hong Kong Football Association’s headquarters. Perhaps an inconsequential concern given wider fears over free speech and repression, but still tough on the HKFA.
“It’s not for the HKFA to comment on mainland legislation or how it will be applied and relate to Hong Kong,” said its chief executive, Mark Sutcliffe. “We will continue to play the anthem and it will be up to people to decide whether to respect it or not – we hope they do, otherwise we will potentially be fined by Fifa again.”
- Relevant link: #376 Boo! (2015/11/18) and #731 Guangzhou vs Hong Kong (2017/04/21)
The HKFA pays the fine, so the fans who boo'ed the national anthem don't care. If they keep doing this, the penalties are increased, including heavier fines; loss of match points; closed-stadium home matches; home matches held in away locations; forfeiting matches; suspension of participation; permanent expulsion of membership. Since it does not hurt individual fans, they will keep doing this until Hong Kong is out of FIFA.
- These fans have no genuine fondness for a Hong Kong team most of whose players were born in Africa, South America and United Kingdom. The FIFA matches are an excuse to come out to boo the national anthem.
When Hong Kong is ousted from FIFA, they will move on to the other sports (basketball, volleyball, table tennis, swimming, even cricket). They will not stop until Hong Kong is completely out of all international connections. When that time comes, they will have achieved "Hong Kong is not China" because China has the international connections whereas Hong Kong has none.
Internet comments:
- (Bastille Post) By Lo Wing-hung. August 30, 2017.
In the 1970's, the television stations always played God Save The Queen when their programming is done for the day. At the time, I was still very young but I already wondered why we Chinese people have to watch the Queen of England on television afterwards. At the time, I was still to young to know anything about colonialism.
When I got into secondary school, I learned by studying Chinese history that the Qing empire lost the Opium War and ceded Hong Kong to the British Empire. Then I understood why our television stations played the British national anthem. I was ashamed of the Qing government for losing its honor.
After the handover, there have been many scenes in Hong Kong of booing the national anthem. On the Internet, there are performances of the national anthem with revised lyrics laced with foul language. I found this type of behavior quite unacceptable. If you are dissatisfied with the Central Government, the Chief Executive or the government, you can express yourself by all means. There is no reason to boo your own national anthem, or burn your own flag, or insult your own nation.
Not many people dared to come out to criticize such behavior, because they are afraid of being accused of pro-China and pro-establishment. If mistakes aren't corrected, they can only become more extremely. Eventually wrong becomes right. Among young people, you are abnormal if you don't abuse the national anthem.
Many people adore the United States, where the United States Flag Code stipulates that members of the Armed Forces should give the military salute at the first note and maintain the position until the last note, while citizens should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart. At the 2016 Olympics in Rio, women's gymnastics gold medal winner Gabby Douglas had to apologize to the public for failing to adhere to the protocol during the awards ceremony.
The National Anthem Law draft proposal by the National People's Congress said that those present should stand at attention solemnly and not be disrespectful to the national anthem. But pan-democratic legislators are arguing about just what is respectfulness and solemnity.
We can argue about everything. But we should be debating more on the relationship between freedom and self-discipline. We value freedom. But when we exercise our freedoms without appropriate self-discipline, we will be violating the freedoms of others. Have those who sing the national anthem with obscenity-laced lyrics ever considered that their actions are a huge insult to those who respect their national anthems? When they road in laughter, have they ever considered how others feel?
Every nation has its national spirit, which is often represented by the national anthem and the national flag. A nation in which the citizens can let most of its citizens insult its anthem and flag is doomed to extinction. You can oppose the government, but you can't go too far.
- (Speakout HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 2, 2017.
With the 2012 anti-National Education protests, there emerged a new body of persons in Hong Kong known as The Silent Majority.
As the name suggests, this is a majority group. They are silent for very simple reasons. Firstly, some of them don't know and don't want to know about politics. Secondly, some of them know politics only too well and are disgusted.
These people chose to be silent because they don't want to get into arguments. For example, I am in a whatsapp group with about 30 former fellow students. The most active members are four to five Yellow Ribbons. And then one or two Blue Ribbons occasionally come out to debate them. Meanwhile the more than 20 others chose to read only without responding. They have their own opinions, but they don't want to break up the multi-decade friendships with their authentic opinions.
As one event after another came along -- anti-National Education, Occupy Central, the Mong Kok riot, Leung/Yau, the DQ4 legislators, Mr. Stapler ... most people continue to remain silent with only a few out in the extremes still speaking out. But the silent majority has changed their opinions. Instead of maintaining silence to preserve friendships, they are now silent because they don't want to damage their own intelligence level. Indeed, as I write my articles over the recent years, I have increasingly felt that I am debating with idiots.
A while ago, I got into a debate about how an oath can be said to be "sincere" and "solemn." I already felt silly about this. After all, I can find any primary school student and he can tell me what sincerity and solemnity are about.
More recently, Democratic Party member Lam Tsz-kin claimed to have been kidnapped. When he was freed, he went to eat two filet-o-fish burgers, took a shower and went to bed with 21 staples still on his thighs. Even kindergarten children would laugh at this story. But there are still adults who believe and support Lam Tsz-kin.
Most recently, the debate over the National Anthem Law has been completely unwatchable. We have a Senior Barrister telling us: "If you deliver a lousy rendition of the national anthem, or you sing out of tune, or you use forgot the lyrics, or you had to read the lyrics through your mobile phone as you sing, then are you being solemn?"
And a musician asks: "If I misplayed one note, then is it an insult to the national anthem? If I had toe cramps and cannot stand on my feet during the national anthem, then this is being disrespectful? If I got too involved in the singing anthem ... you know, the lyrics contains phrases such as 'blood and flesh', 'Great Wall', 'hollering', 'cannon barrage' and so, then is that being disrespectful?" It is an insult to your intelligence to have you answer such questions.
Recently I spoke to some friends who are in the "silent majority." I asked them why they choose to remain silent in the face of such gross absurdities. They said: "It is a waste of time to argue with idiots!" ...
- (Oriental Daily) September 3, 2017.
... In truth, the National Anthem law is not going to affect the lives of ordinary citizens. The people who are going to affected are the regular demonstrators, such as Joshua Wong and others who go down to the Golden Bauhinia Square to cross their arms during the flag-raising ceremony on July 1st; or the football fans who boo the national anthem during the China-Hong Kong matches. Unless you know that you are in the business of trouble-making, what do you care about a National Anthem law?
Some people are worried that singing out-of-tune will constitute an insult to the National Anthem. Actually, the existing National Flag law and the National Anthem law do not allow for excessive use. If you drop the flag on the ground by accident, you are not going to be prosecuted; but if you call the press and set fire to the national flag in front of dozens of cameras, you will probably be prosecuted.
In most countries around the world, their citizens maintain a certain solemnity when their national anthems are played. This is basic respect for their nations, their peoples and themselves. If you don't even have that basic respect, then there cannot be any civic society or civic consciousness.
- (YouTube) Former Miss Hong Kong runner-up Cally Kwong was interviewed by Speakout HK:
We are indeed Chinese. If you cannot even sing your national anthem ... what national anthem would you like to sing? You are singing someone else's, right or not? ... Respecting the nation is the same as respecting your own self. If you don't respect your own national anthem, if you don't respect your own nation, then you don't respect your own self.
I think that some people are rebellious by nature, or else they feel that this is so cool. Anyway, they don't want to be like you. But I have to emphasize once more why this is not the same ... You take a look at yourself in the mirror. You are Chinese. You are indeed Chinese. You have to know your roots. You are Chinese. You have to sing the national anthem. Why do you want to do these disrespectful things.
- (Apple Daily) I look in the mirror and I see a Hongkonger.
- Social scientists share the consensus view that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. So it does not matter if you say that I myself and all my ancestors were born in China. It only matters that I regard myself as a member of the Hong Kong race and not of the Chinese race. That is why we must have Hong Kong independence now.
- Conversely, it does not matter if Cally Kwong and others like her say that they are Chinese. They are not. They are members of the Hong Kong race. They say that they are members of the Chinese race only because they have been brainwashed. When Hong Kong becomes an independent nation, these people will be de-programmed in labor camps.
- As Hong Kong University Student Union president Wong Ching-tak brilliantly pointed out several months ago, China is an imaginary construct created by the Chinese and Hong Kong Communist governments to deceive and oppress us. Once you recognize this truth, China will be unmasked just like The Wizard of Oz.
- (The Law Library of Congress) France: Decree on National Anthem Desecration
(September 20, 2010) Article 433-5-1, which was inserted in the Criminal Code by the 2003 Law on Internal Security, provides that the act of publicly desecrating the national anthem or the national flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is punishable with a €7,500 fine (about US$9,500). If committed during a meeting or gathering, the offense carries a punishment of up to six months of imprisonment as well as the €7,500 fine.
The French national anthem La Marseillaise starts with this verse:
Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Let an impure blood
Soak our fields!It's okay in France but not in Hong Kong?
- In Hong Kong, schools have their own school songs. For example, here are the DBS School Hymn, the Maryknoll Convent School Song, La Salle College School Song. The songs are usually sung in large assemblies with the student body, teachers, principals and guests. Does anyone deliberately make obscene gestures or shout slogans in protest? Why? Because they know that they will be subject to school discipline with penalties ranging from admonitions through demerits all the way to expulsion.
What justifies these school policies? Because the preference of a small number of people to create chaos must not be allowed to violate the rights of the majority who want to sing their school songs in a respectful and solemn manner.
- (RTHK) August 29, 2017.
On RTHK, Legislative Councilor Dennis Kwok Wing-hang (Civic Party) has lots of questions. He wanted to know how to enforce the law at a meeting with several tens of thousands of people. He also wanted to know whether you can read the text messages on your mobile phone during the playing of the national anthem.
A listener called in and expressed his concern whether he has to stand up when the national anthem is played on television during his meal.
- What is respectful and solemn? Well, "I know it when I see it."
The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:
The expression became one of the best-known phrases in the history of the Supreme Court. Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as "realistic and gallant" and an example of candor.
- Dennis Kwok is going to encourage people to test the boundaries of the National Anthem Law. Here is how it will unfold.
So someone is going to mispronounce a word. He is not arrested. Someone else else is going to mispronounce two words. He is not arrested. Someone else is going to slip in an obscenity. He is not arrested. As one person after makes their attempts, they need to outdo the preceding person because there is no glory in following what others have already done. Eventually someone goes way overboard such that the whole world can see it. He is arrested, charged and convicted. In his trial, his lawyers won't bother to argue the facts, but concentrate on peripheral issues such as the constitutionality of Annex 3 of the Basic Law.
- Did you think that this script is unlikely? Well, if you transpose this script from the national anthem to the Legislative Council Oath of Office, then this is exactly how it unfolded.
- The important thing to note is that Dennis Kwok will encourage others to test the limits. But he will do nothing of the sort. He is a Senior Counsel and a criminal conviction will bring about his disbarment. It is the job of people like Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow, Billy Fung and Colman Li to be guinea pigs to locate the boundaries of the law.
[795] Boeing 777 Saves Carrie Lam (2017/09/02)
(HKG Pao) September 1, 2017
It is Next Media's standard tactic to make up and demonize the nickname of a target person. For example, when CY Leung was elected with 689 votes from the Election Committee, his nickname was naturally '689.'
Now that Carrie Lam was elected with 777 votes, it is naturally that Next Media gives her the nickname '777'. But how is the demonizing coming along? Well, so far the results have been surprising:
Here is a tally of the number of Next Media articles with '777' mentioned:
Month Apple Daily Next Weekly March 50 3 April 45 8 May 10 2 June 10 2 July 17 1 August 8 1 So it seemed that Next Media has given up its campaign. By comparison, when CY Leung was still Chief Executive in December 2016, Apple Daily had 128 articles and Next Weekly had 12 articles with '689' mentioned. So why is Next Media being so nice to Carrie Lam?
Well, if you look at Google Trends, then the keyword "689" is even more popular than CY Leung. in like manner, "777" is more popular than "Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor."
But that doesn't mean that the nickname "777" is more popular than the proper name "Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor."
Who searches for "689" by country of residence? The top five are Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea and China.
Who searches for "777" by country of residence? The top five are Israel, Kuwait, Bulgaria, Croatia and Czech Republic.
What related terms are searched along with "777"? The top five are Boeing 777, Boeing, Casino 777, Vegeta, Vegetta 777.
By far, when people search for "777", they are looking for information on the Boeing 777 aircraft. The people of Hong Kong are not interested in "777" and they do not think "777" is Carrie Lam.
When a Hongkonger searches for "777", he is going to get a lot of Boeing 777 results because that is what the Israelis want. Conversely, if an Israeli looks for "777", they don't want to see some Apple Daily article written in a language that they cannot read.
Because the Boeing 777 is just a popular keyword, all other usages are overwhelmed. Being so skilled in Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Marketing, Next Media obviously saw the point. So will they continue to promote democracy by pushing "777"? Or will they move on to some other catchphrase that will bring them more hits (and therefore money)? It is clear what their choice is.
It sounds bizarre to say that the Boeing 777 saved Carrie Lam. But if you know enough the new media game, you will know that this did happen. Of course, there are other issues such as political environment, personalities, etc. But those are minor factors compared to operations/propaganda considerations.
Next Media has historically thrived by fanning hatred. If they can't hype up "777", they will move onto the next topic in order to fan up hatred and controversies. What is a likely topic? How about demonizing the judges? That should raise a storm.
[794] Achieve Justice By Violating The Law (2017/09/01)
(SCMP) August 30, 2017.
The departing vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong on Wednesday rejected calls to oust Benny Tai Yiu-ting, the controversial legal scholar and co-founder of the 2014 Occupy protests.
Speaking to the media after officiating at the university’s inauguration ceremony for the last time, Professor Peter Mathieson revealed that he had recently received a handful of requests to remove Tai from the institution’s law faculty. The vice-chancellor did not identify who sent the letters, but said he had read them, and respected the authors’ opinions.
“I read these letters and don’t agree with them all and I don’t expect to agree with everybody,” he said. “We have our procedures for taking actions against students and staff if we think they infringe the regulations of the university. But, we are not a surrogate courtroom. The court has its own opportunity to make decisions about guilt or innocence and we respect those decisions.”
The vice-chancellor’s remarks came as pro-establishment legislator and former Law Society president Junius Ho Kwan-yiu stepped up pressure on the university to sack Tai. Ho had earlier written to the university council chairman Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung to ask for Tai to be removed. Ho also organised an online petition to call for his sacking.
Ho accused Tai, as a law lecturer, of “misleading” students and of “taking the lead” to break the law, referring to Tai’s Occupy protests in 2014, in which the law lecturer asked people to stage sit-ins in Central to block the roads and force Beijing to give Hong Kong universal suffrage.
According to Ho’s office, the online campaign, which was launched at about 11pm on Tuesday, had collected more than 23,000 signatures as of 6pm Wednesday. Ho had aimed to collect about 40,000 signatures.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal sentenced three of the student leaders, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, and Alex Chow Yong-kang, to jail following a successful sentence review by the government.
In his judgment, Court of Appeal vice-president Wally Yeung Chun-kuen highlighted that “certain people, including individuals of learning, advocate ‘achieving justice by violating the law’ and under this slogan, they encourage others to break the law”. He did not name names but it was widely believed he was referring to Tai.
Tai did not reply on Wednesday to requests for comment from the South China Morning Post. He earlier argued if it should be “the victims that should be blamed”, or “the institution that created the evil”.
(Wen Wei Po) September 2, 2017.
As of 11:30pm September 1, 2017, Junius Ho's online signature campaign has gathered 59,653 signatures, including 2,312 persons from the law sector and 5,880 from the education sector.
Internet comments:
- (Judiciary.hk CAAR 4/2016) Here is Court of Appeal vice-president Wally Yeung's contribution to the judgment on the Civic Square 3:
2. I should reiterate that pursuant to the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Hong Kong residents enjoy the freedoms of assembly, speech, procession, demonstration and expression of opinions. The basic freedoms conferred on Hong Kong residents are comprehensive and in no way lesser than the freedoms enjoyed by people of other advanced and free societies.
3. However, the aforementioned freedoms are not absolute or unrestricted; they are subject to the supervision of the law. Hong Kong residents are obliged to observe the laws that are in force in Hong Kong, and the exercise of the rights conferred by law is by no means a reason or excuse for doing illegal acts. Any act of protest or demonstration for which the police have not issued a Notice of No Objection, or in which violence or the threat of violence is used to express one’s opinions, crosses the boundary of the peaceful exercise of the rights and enters the territory of unlawful activities; it becomes an unlawful act which interferes with the rights and freedoms of others.
4. The lawful exercise of rights conferred by law, and the protection of the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by others according to law, co-exist with each other without conflict, and should be a symbol of a civilised society which upholds the rule of law.
5. Acts done in the name of the free exercise of rights, but which are in substance acts which undermine public order and breach the peace, will throw society into chaos, impact seriously and adversely on its progress and development, and prevent others from exercising and enjoying the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. If such acts cannot be effectively stopped, then all discussion about freedom and the rule of law will become empty talk.
6. In recent years, an unhealthy wind has been blowing in Hong Kong. Some people, on the pretext of pursuing their ideals or freely exercising their rights conferred by law, have acted wantonly in an unlawful manner. Certain people, including individuals of learning, advocate “achieving justice by violating the law” and, under this slogan, they encourage others to break the law. These people openly flout the law. Not only do they refuse to admit their lawbreaking activities are wrong, but they even go as far as regarding such activities as a source of honour and pride. It is unfortunate that such arrogant and conceited ways of thinking have influenced some young people and have caused them to engage as they please in activities that are damaging the public order and disruptive of the peace at assemblies, processions or demonstrations.
- (Silent Majority for HK) September 1, 2017.
In 2013, Hong Kong University associate professor Benny Tai wrote in a newspaper article to advocate achieving democracy through "civil disobedience." He told demonstrators to "illegally occupy the main streets of Central district". He said: "Simply put, I am looking to be arrested." He said that all participants must be ready to accept the legal consequences for breaking the law and to surrender themselves to the law enforcement department afterwards.
In order to incite more people to participate, the legal scholar Benny Tai minimized the possible legal consequences. He said that most people who violate the Public Order Ordinance are fined $1500 and the conviction record will be erased in three years.
But when the time came for him to "pay the bill," Benny Tai reneged. He said that he needed to study whether the charges against him were reasonable. This means that he will plead to minor charges but contest more serious charges.
Benny Tai has also denied that he was the original creator of the the phase 違法達義("achieving justice by violating the law"). He said that someone else must have fused his "civil disobedience" with "achieving justice by following the law".
- (Apple Daily) By Benny Tai. August 29, 2017.
Many people say that the "individual of learning" was me. I went over all my previous articles and found only one article with the term "achieving justice by violating the law."
I believe that many people have heard me talk about the four levels of progress of rule of law (ROLE Project)
Professor Benny Tai of University of Hong Kong, in his book 法治心：超越條文與制度的法律價值 The Passion for Rule of Law: Values beyond Legal Text and Legal Institutions, considers rule law in four levels of progress:
(1) Existence of law 有法可依
- Laws of the legal system must satisfy certain qualitative requirements: generality, publicised, stability, clarity, non-retroactivity, non-contradictory, against impossibility, against arbitrariness and general congruence of law with social values.
- Laws must also have covered major areas of human activities
(2) Regulation by law 有法必依
- The sovereign adopts law as the major governing tool.
- Officials are commanded to apply laws in governing though there is still only internal mechanism to ensure officials’ compliance with law.
- Public order is basically maintained.
- Disputes in the society are mainly resolved through peaceful and legal means.
(3) Limitation from law 以法限權
- Law imposes external limits on the exercise of governmental powers through various channels including limitation by separation, constitutional limitation, administrative limitation, judicial limitation, political limitation and social limitation.
- The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
- Corruption must have been substantially contained.
- Competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives provide access to justice.
(4) Justice through law 以法達義
- Law serves justice of different conceptions including procedural justice, civil rights justice, social justice and deliberative justice (the ability for public to meaningfully participate in the law making process).
"Limitation from law" can at most make the government rule in accordance with the law, but the law may not be able achieve justice. When this happens, citizens will use civil disobedience to move the rule of law forward until they can get "justice through law." From hence came the idea of "achieving justice by violating the law."
I am not the original creator of the notion of "achieving justice by violating the law." But I noted that somebody who quoted my theory on rule of law combined "civil disobedience" with "justice through law" to form "achieving justice by violating the law." I believe that the notion of "achieving justice by violating the law" is highly creative, and is destructive and threatening to an unjust system.
- (SCMP) Sacking Benny Tai would not achieve anything, just let him discredit himself. By Alex Ho. August 23, 2017.
Many pro-establishment figures want to see the back of Benny Tai Yiu-ting. At least one lawmaker says he should be sacked from the University of Hong Kong for “poisoning” young minds.
Former Bar Association chairman and senior counsel Paul Shieh Wing-tai said Tai, an associate law professor and Occupy Central co-founder, “had a lot to answer for”.
That’s true, but most likely, Tai will not be held accountable. As an academic, he is politically untouchable at HKU; he knows it and we know it. That’s why he still flouts his views before TV cameras.
To be fair, Tai is not the only one. His Occupy colleague, Chan Kin-man, is an associate sociology professor at Chinese University. Yet, somehow, Tai gets all the bad press.
There are good reasons not to target them for dismissal, both ethical and practical, at least for now. Universities, especially those with a long established tradition, are usually full of people with eccentric ideas who have never worked a day in the real world. Some of these ideas can be wacky and even pernicious. Controversies arise when they try to put those ideas into practice.
Tai and Chan have a peculiar idea of “civil disobedience”. The Occupy protests of 2014 and the Mong Kok riot of 2016have been the results. From the start, the Occupy movement didn’t work out the way they had planned. So to what extent were they responsible?
Both are facing charges of causing a public nuisance for their roles in the 2014 street protests and will appear again in court next month. So their culpability is a matter for the court to decide. Without a court ruling against them, it would be difficult to launch administrative processes legally required at their universities to dismiss them.
But why did their idea catch on? They are a symptom, not the disease. Getting rid of them will solve nothing. That would just turn them into another cause celebre for the opposition and provide more excuses for student radicals to turn their campuses into battlefields. Tai and Chan are ideologues. You can argue with them and let them discredit themselves. Give them enough rope, they will.
Our universities have had enough political struggle and deserve calm to carry on with what they are supposed to do – to teach, to learn and to research.
- (EJ Insight) Who can ensure a fair trial for Benny Tai? By SC Yeung. August 31, 2017.
Three years after the Occupy Central campaign, student leaders Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow are in jail for their roles in the democracy protests.
Now the pro-Beijing camp has shifted its focus to Benny Tai, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and a co-founder of the Occupy Central movement.
Recently, pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho said he might seek an injunction to stop Tai from teaching at HKU. He posted on his social media page a letter to HKU to that effect.
In addition, Ho organized an online petition urging the public to support the sacking of Tai. The petition was peppered with questions such as “do you want Hong Kong to face disturbance?”, “do you want students to be misled into breaking the law?”, “do you agree that law professors are inciting the public to break the law?”
According to local newspapers, the online petition has drawn more than 30,000 signatures out of a target of 40,000, putting pressure on HKU to take action before Tai is proven guilty in court.
On Wednesday, outgoing vice chancellor Peter Mathieson, said that he had received a handful of requests to sack Tai. Mathieson did not say who sent the letters but said he had read them and respected their opinions but added he didn’t agree with all of them.
“We have our procedures for taking action against students and staff if we think they infringe the regulations of the university. But we are not a surrogate courtroom,” Mathieson said. “The court has its own opportunity to make decisions about guilt or innocence and we respect those decisions.”
It seems that the pro-Beijing camp worked behind the scenes by mobilizing their supporters to write letters to press for the sacking of Tai. That’s what they can do to show their loyalty to the authorities before the court even makes a judgment.
In March, Tai and other participants in the Occupy campaign were charged by the police. Tai, together with the Rev. Chu Yiu-ming and Dr. Chan Kin-man, faces three counts including conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting others to incite others to commit public nuisance, starting from March 27, 2013, when they published their Occupy manifesto in local newspapers, until December 2, 2014, when they turned themselves into police custody during the Occupy campaign.
Given Tai and other participants joined the campaign by way of civil disobedience, they did prepare themselves for punishment including a jail term. But the pro-Beijing camp forgot that the court is yet to start hearing the case.
All those charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is quite a dangerous precedent for Ho to ask HKU to remove Tai before he is proven guilty.
In fact, after the Court of Appeal accepted the government’s request to give harsher punishment to the three student activists, the public expected Tai and other leaders to face imprisonment.
In the judgment that sentenced the student leaders to the jail, Justice Wally Yeung said that some people, including academics, promote slogans to encourage others to break the law. Yeung also said these people “publicly express contempt of the law, [and] not only do they refuse to admit that their illegal activity is wrong, but they even view it as honorable or proud acts. These arrogant, self-righteous thoughts, unfortunately have an impact on some young people, causing them to casually commit acts which destroy public order and peace during gatherings or demonstrations. This case is a perfect example of this unhealthy trend.”
Since Yeung’s judgment has become a precedent for the lower courts, Tai and other leaders in the campaign could face a harsher punishment.
From a legal perspective, Yeung’s judgment may not have political considerations but his example of “unhealthy trend” pointed the finger at Tai for his civil disobedience campaign.
There was no question that Tai and other activists would be involved in such social campaign three years ago to show their democratic advocacy. But bear in mind that whether they are guilty is determined by the courts, not by political figures or key opinion leaders on the internet.
Paul Shieh, former chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, said that civil disobedience is important because one day Hong Kong may have laws or systems that are so harsh that people have to resort to civil disobedience to oppose them.
However, Shieh was also critical of Tai and his interpretation of civil disobedience. He said that in 2015, there were a lot of people who took creative liberties with the idea of civil disobedience, and this included Tai. He said Tai has a lot to answer for.
Now that Tai is being labeled guilty before his case is heard, who can promise him and other activists that they will have a fair trial?
- (Silent Majority for HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 31, 2017.
School is starting. My friend's child was just accepted this year by the Hong Kong University School of Law. This was supposed to be a good thing, but the parents are despondent: "We have the sense that we are delivering a lamb into the tiger's mouth."
It is no wonder because the Hong Kong University School of Law has the Super Brainwashing Trio of Professor Johannes Chan, Associate Professor Benny Tai and Senior Lecturer Cheung Tat-ming, plus any number of lesser Yellow Ribbon teachers, alumni and fellow students. It will be hard for a freshman to elude this Big Brainwashing Machine.
Once upon a time, people admired the Hong Kong University School of Law. If you have a child studying there, everyone will say: "Awesome! Bright kid! Unlimited future!" But today, there is nothing left but insults and sighs. So when my friend said that his child is a Hong Kong University School of Law student, everybody offers sympathy for the tragedy.
Undeniably, Benny Tai contributed to the demise of the Hong Kong University School of Law from a Gold Standard into an Evil Cult. From the moment when he called out "Occupy Central has officially begun", he has educated several generations of brainwashed foot soldiers.
Recently Legislative Councilor Junius Ho Kwan-yiu wrote to the Hong Kong University as well as started a civilian signature campaign to ask the university not to let Benny Tai teach people to "achieve justice by violating the law." Ho said: "In January 2013, Benny Tai wrote in the Economic Journal to advocate civil disobedience. This is four years later. There was no way to stop his action for four years already. I think that this is regrettable and should not be allowed to go on."
We have almost forgotten that it has been four years already. During these four years, students have been brainwashed to become cannon fodder for democracy.
If a teacher were charged with rape, the school will suspect this teacher in order to protect the students. If a police officer were charged with criminal activities, the police force will suspend the police officer from law enforcement duties. By the same reasoning, if a law professor were charged with violating the law, do you think that he should continue to teach law?
School is starting. the Super Brainwashing Trio can't wait to get started. The Hong Kong University School of Law is holding an open course for young people, with the title of "Rule of Law and Hong Kong Society." It will be taught by Benny Tai beginning in September, covering: obeying the law; social stability; responsibilities and duties; judicial independence; fair trials; ...
Why is someone being charged with violating the law teaching you law? Why is someone who advocates violating the law teaching you to obey the law? Why is someone who criticizes the judges teaching you on judicial independence and fair trials? Why is someone who instigated the blocking of streets for 79 days teaching you about social stability? ... What kind of course is this? What kind of education is this?
- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 31, 2017.
After the Civic Square 3 were sent off to jail, Benny Tai jumped out to cast doubts on the judges and their judgments. He pronounced that Rule of Law is Dead. Past and current chairpersons of the Hong Kong Bar Association came out to rebut him. Benny Tai fought back. And now former Chief Justice Andrew Li has come out to denounce Benny Tai ...
In the face of the barrage from these heavyweights, Benny Tai has gone quiet. Instead, God's spokesperson retired Archbishop Joseph Zen had popped out to criticize Andrew Li: "There is no evidence whatsoever for what he said ... climbing into Civic Square is actually an extremely moderate and symbolic action ... the judges did not seem to know what civil disobedience is ..."
Judges, barristers and solicitors are supposed to be cool, calm and collected people. But this catfight between the Archbishop and Chief Justice shows that everybody is upset.
Why? Because several so-called legal scholars wanted to interpret the law and direct the judges according to their own political proclivities. Now they can criticize CY Leung, they can criticize Carrie Lam, they can criticize Tung Chee-hwa, they can criticize the Chinese Communist Party and the judges and lawyers won't react. But when they move in to attack the professionalism and positions of the judges and lawyers, there will be a strong reaction.
Yesterday Hong Kong University vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson said that the Univesity has no right to interfere with what their teachers do outside the university. But when someone whom the entire legal field is up in arms against is teaching law at your university, does the University still not care? When the judges and lawyers parade out one after another to denounced your law professor for the preposterousness of his legal arguments, should the university still let him teach law to the future generation of lawyers and judges?
- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 30, 2017.
Hong Kong University Students’ Union President Wong Ching-tak said in his inauguration speech that he was given a definition of democracy by teachers in secondary school to allow him to tackle questions in a public exam. “But when I got into this university, I learn[t] the truth that there is simply no definition [of] democracy, and you can only acquaint yourself with the concept if you start to comprehend the various interpretations.
“Searching for the truth is particularly important when we’re now in a time of delusion and deception… We are told that we are born intrinsically and essentially as Chinese, regardless of our cultural backgrounds and our sense of belonging. We are told that [the] separation of powers never existed in Hong Kong and the Legislative Council and the court should cooperate with the government.”
“And we are told that rule of law simply means abiding by the law, and civil disobedience to unjust laws is an unhealthy trend. We are now facing official narratives from the government that are full of lies and fabrication,” he said.
“So this is very important for us – to search for the truth and learn the truth. Learn what democracy can be. What rule of law truly means. Learn what a nation is… this is the only way that we stay who we are instead of becoming people that are obedient and subservient to the regime.”
Wong also urged the students not to turn a blind eye to “things that are not right,” such as the fact that the University of Hong Kong council consists mostly of pro-government individuals from outside the school.
Wong said that students could choose to turn a blind eye to land policy issues, avoid criticising the government, and ignore that Chinese laws will be implemented in Hong Kong – referring to the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement for the high-speed rail. “Probably you will still be living fine in Hong Kong… but then one day, the things that you take for granted will disappear.”
Wong also told students that although Chief Executive Carrie Lam is an alumna of the university, so are activists Alex Chow, Edward Leung, Billy Fung, and Colman Li. “They’re the people we should be learning from.”
- Students should not turn a blind eye to "things that are not right." I completely agree -- it was not right to occupy Central for 79 days! That is why I demand justice and I want it NOW!
- What can be learned from Alex Chow, Edward Leung, Billy Fung and Colman Li? If you try to "achieve justice by violating the law," you can be sent to jail. Has this lesson sunk in yet?
- What can be learned from Alex Chow, Edward Leung, Billy Fung and Colman Li? There are two types of "students leaders" -- those who lead the charge at the police, and those who tell others to charge at the police.
Alex Chow was Type I when he climbed the wall to get into Civic Square, and later he became Type II during the Siege of Government Headquarters.
Edward Leung was Type I at the Mong Kok riot, and he is Type II nowadays because his priority is not to be remanded to custody.
Billy Fung and Colman Li were Type I at the siege of the Hong Kong University Council and they are awaiting sentencing.
What can be learned from other prominent Hong Kong University student leaders? Former Student Union presidents Yvonne Leung and Althea Suen are Type II all-talk-but-no-action and have no legal troubles. And so is Wong Ching-tak so far.
- (Economic Times) August 31, 2017.
Question: A legislator has written to Hong Kong University as well as started an online signature campaign to demand Hong Kong University dismiss Benny Tai? What is your position?
Results (3,171 voters):
79%: Support dismissal
20%: Oppose dismissal
1%: No opinion
[793] Trapped Hikers (2017/09/01)
(SCMP) August 31, 2017.
One of two mainland Chinese hikers who prompted a major rescue operation after running into trouble on a Hong Kong cliff side in the middle of a raging storm has written an emotional letter to his saviours to apologise for all the trouble they caused.
The letter, in Chinese and addressed to the Fire Services Department and “other relevant departments”, said the pair would never forget the rescuers’ kindness and praised them for their professionalism.
The apology came after the hikers, a 31-year-old man and a 47-year-old woman, sparked public outrage for wasting valuable resources and endangering the lives of emergency personnel after they became stranded on Kowloon Peak while Severe Tropical Storm Pakhar was lashing Hong Kong last weekend.
The rescue operation took more than 24 hours, with 160 firefighters, 10 ambulances and 31 fire engines deployed to pluck them to safety from a steep slope dubbed “suicide cliff”.
Four firefighters had to use their raincoats as a makeshift tent and spend a night on the cliff side to keep the hikers alive.
A source involved in the exercise said the four at one point sent a “Mayday” signal, raising fears at the fire department that their lives were in danger.
The author of the letter, which was also posted on a popular Facebook page for firefighters, identified himself as the male hiker and recalled that his friend was unable to walk after she fell.
“Thanks go to the members of the Fire Services Department who braved the wind and rain, regardless of their own safety, and led us away from that dangerous place,” he wrote.
“It is not an overstatement to say that you gave us our lives back. And it was achieved by you risking your own lives. We will never forget your kindness to us.”
He admitted they should not have ventured out when the No 1 typhoon warning signal was already in force. They had to sit out the storm on the cliff side after it worsened and the signal was upgraded to No 8.
The peak they were climbing is the highest on the Kowloon Peninsula and is classed by hikers as advanced level.
“We should have cancelled the plan. But we chose to go ahead, and, more stupidly, we chose a route we had never taken before.”
The letter expressed their guilt and shame in front of “all Hong Kong people”.
“As tourists, we not only used up valuable resources and gave trouble to the people of Hong Kong, but also, more importantly, we let so many firefighters risk their lives to save us. That made us feel too ashamed to face you.”
The letter gave special thanks to the firemen who reached them on Saturday night and only left the cliff side on Sunday afternoon when the No 8 signal was lowered.
“They accompanied us overnight, in wind and rain. Risking flash floods, they did not give us up ... ‘Thank you’ is too light a phrase to express the profound gratitude we want to express.”
The letter went on to state: “[The rescuers] did not blame us. Instead, they tried all along to comfort us and give us confidence. The first fireman, upon reaching us, told us: ‘There is no need to blame yourselves. The most important thing is that you are safe and OK.’”
The woman had to be stretchered to safety, posing huge difficulties for rescuers who had to battle gale force winds and torrential rain.
The pair were sent to hospital on Sunday evening and discharged the following day.
Firefighters’ unions have refrained from criticising the two, stating instead that their resources and efforts were never wasted when saving lives.
Einstein taught us: It's all relative.
The first point of comparison is with the Tai Mo Shan woman. She famously said to the Hong Kong police: "We will be responsible for ourselves if we run into danger. Our lives belong to ourselves" and "It is your job to rescue people."
The second point of comparison is the case of the two shy ex-pats (The Standard, September 1, 2017).
Firefighters early yesterday rescued two expatriate men who were trapped on Lion Rock.
The two - surnamed Smith, 28, and Thomas, 29 - were trapped on Wednesday evening when their ropes got caught on rocks as they were descending. Police received a call about 10.40pm and officers, firefighters and members of the high-angle rescue team, were dispatched to rescue them. The two climbers also turned on their torches to help the rescue team find them.
Firefighters spent about six hours before plucking the men to safety around 3am. Both were unhurt and refused to be sent to hospital.
To avoid photographers they asked the ambulancemen for blankets and masks and left in a police car.
[792] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/08/31) (Lingnan University Public Governance Programme) 1,040 adult Hong Kong permanent residents were interviewed by telephone August 7-14, 2017. Telephone numbers were randomly selected from telephone books, and the last two digits randomized to generate a random sample. The response rate was 35.3%.
Q1. Some people say: The Basic Law says that national law is not used in Hong Kong. Therefore, setting up a mainland port area inside the West Kowloon Station will be a violation of the Basic Law. Other people say: As long as the Central Government authorizes, Hong Kong can enact law to allow for a mainland port area under mainland law without violating the Basic Law. Which side do you agree with?
37.4%: Agree with the former
42.0%: Agree with the latter
4.8%: Neither
15.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answerQ2. Some people say: The Shenzhen Bay port ahead has operated co-location since 2007, and therefore there is a precedent for co-location in West Kowloon Station. Other people say: Co-location in Shenzhen Bay is completely different from that in West Kowloon Station and not comparable at all. Which side do you agree with?
39.7%: Agree with the former
43.4%: Agree with the latter
4.0%: Neither
12.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answerQ3. Some people say: The benefits of the High Speed Rail cannot be fully realized without co-location in the Hong Kong section. Other people say: The negative impact of not having Hong Kong law in a designated area of the West Kowloon Station far outweighs any High Speed Rail benefit. Which side do you agree with?
48.8%: Agree with the former
33.5%: Agree with the latter
5.2%: Neither
11.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused to answerQ4. There are two co-location proposals: One proposal is to have all the mainland laws applicable in the mainland port area. The other proposal is to have only the relevant mainland laws applicable in the mainland port area. Which do you support more?
12.3%: All mainland laws apply
47.4%: Only some mainland laws are applicable
7.4%: Support both
19.5%: Support neither
12.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused to answerQ5. If the final decision was to implement only some mainland laws, will you still support co-location? (Base: Those who answered "all mainland laws apply" in Q4)
67.1%: Yes
16.3%: No
5.9%: Half-half
6.8%: Don't know/no opinion
3.9%: Refused to answerQ6. If the final decision was to implement all mainland laws, will you still support co-location? (Base: Those who answered "only some mainland laws are applicable" in Q4)
34.8%: Yes
46.4%: No
8.6%: Half-half
9.1%: Don't know/no opinion
1.0%: Refused to answerQ12. If co-location is ultimately adopted, will you ride the High Speed Rail?
54.4%: Yes
22.6%: No
16.9%: Possibly
5.2%: Don't know/no opinion
0.8%: Refused to answerComments:
- With respect to Q4-Q6, the government has stated that this is unworkable. Suppose that you insist that only mainland immigration/customs/quarantine laws are applicable in the port area and all other mainland laws are not applicable.
Consider a Xinjiang mass murderer uses a fake ID to get on the Beijing->Hong Kong High Speed Rail. He arrives in West Kowloon Station and is detected. He can be refused exit by the mainland immigration officer. But can he be arrested? His warrant was based upon the mainland criminal law code, and the mainland immigration/customs officers do not have the power to make arrests in Hong Kong. So they summon the Hong Kong Police. At which point, the suspect calls his lawyer to claim habeas corpus and apply for political asylum based upon religious persecution. There is no extradition arrangement between China and Hong Kong, so this man is either going to be free or else Hong Kong will have to hold him indefinitely until he agrees to return to mainland China.
But if all mainland laws are applicable in the West Kowloon Station, then this man can be arrested in the mainland port area and taken back to mainland China.
In Johannes Chan's hybrid co-location proposal, he solves this problem by placing co-location in Futian so that all mainland laws can apply. But the drawback is that it is inconvenient and time-wasting.
So Q4-Q6 are not matters for the public to state their preferences for. Co-location means having all mainland laws in the West Kowloon port area.
- Whether the citizens are ready or not, the Co-location Concern Group must continue to demonstrate and give the impression of popular opposition.
"Oppose Co-location"
Bicycle demonstration
Date: September 3 (Sunday)
Route: From Tai Wai to Tai Mei Tuk
Assembly Point: Tai Wai MTR Station Exit A
Time: 1:30pm- Which genius picked the date when Tropical Cyclone (soon to be Typhoon) Mawar arrives in Hong Kong with a wind speed of 120 km/hr?
- (Oriental Daily) September 3, 2017. More than 20 people participated in the bicycle demonstration starting from Tai Wai.
[791] The Who's Who List Of The Judiciary/Legal Sector (2017/08/26)
(Hong Kong Free Press) How can Hong Kong’s courts, gov’t, and media be so deaf to the global chorus of criticism? By Kent Ewing. August 28, 2017.
He died nearly 80 years ago and most of his theories have since been consigned to the rubbish bin, but Sigmund Freud, the polymath founder of psychoanalysis, certainly understood the stricken psyche of Hong Kong—a city currently so lost in the throes of denial that we appear to be living in an entirely different reality than the rest of the world.
How else to explain the self-protective fictions and delusions now being heaped upon us by our justice department, our representatives in the Legislative Council, our journalists and—yes—even by our vaunted independent (?) judiciary and the barristers and solicitors who ply their trade in our courts of law.
...
As criticism and condemnation ring out around the globe over the recent court decision to jail the three most prominent student leaders of the 2014 Occupy movement for six to eight months, the reaction at home has been to circle the rhetorical and psychological wagons. This turning inward makes it so much easier to deny the obvious but unsettling truth that much of the rest of humanity now sees Hong Kong as a place where practising the wrong brand of politics can cost you your freedom.
But who cares what leaders in the US congress and European parliaments think? What do they know?
And why worry about an open letter denouncing the ruling signed by 25 distinguished political, legal and religious figures, including former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, South Korea’s Ambassador for International Human Rights, Jung-hoon Lee, and Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Myanmar?
Most importantly, why listen to “uninformed” attacks in “biased” western media outlets such as that well-known tabloid rag, the New York Times? Fake news!
The big, bad world beyond the shores of Little Hong Kong is irredeemably confused and wrong-headed about our affairs. Foreigners with a distorted western mindset just don’t understand: Here, when idealistic young people climb fences that aren’t supposed to be there in order to start embarrassing protests that we don’t want to happen, they must be punished in accordance with our laws—which, of course, can and do change any time the powers that be in Beijing want them to.
Thus, this is how we respond to the chorus of disapproval that followed the jailing of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the 20-year-old international face of Hong Kong’s beleaguered democracy movement, and his two Occupy Central compatriots, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, 24, and Alex Chow Yong-kang, 27:
...
Not to worry, the Freudian voices of denial console us. Everything will be fine. All we need is a little patriotic education.
The rest of the world is trying to tell us something; maybe we should listen.
Current Hong Kong judges are not going to comment in public. Their job is to adjudicate in accordance with the law; they don't need to get many more LIKE's in order to become Key Opinion Leaders.
So far we know what three of them (Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen and Justices of Appeal Derek Pang Wai-cheong and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor) think through their rulings on the cases of the Civic Square 3 and the North East New Territories 13. We also know what another three (Court of Final Appeal Chief Justice Geoggrey Ma Tao-Il, Justice Roberto Robeiro and Justice Joseph Fok think through their rulings on the case of DQ2.
But what about the legal profession? What they think about these judges and their rulings? Here is a summary for the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Law Society of Hong Kong, various past chairpersons of the Hong Kong Bar Association and one former Chief Justice.
1. The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong note with great concern editorial comments and other opinions reported in some international and local media in respect of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s recent decisions in relation to applications for reviews of sentences in cases of unlawful assembly.
2. It is not the practice of the Hong Kong Bar Association or the Law Society of Hong Kong to comment on the merits of individual cases, which may be the subject of appeal, nor is it appropriate to do so.
3. We would, however, point out that the decisions by the Hong Kong Courts are made solely according to law upon applications by one party or the other. We see no indication otherwise in respect of the recent cases which have generated widespread comment. Whatever opinion one may hold about the appropriateness or otherwise of the sentences imposed, the individuals concerned were convicted and sentenced for crimes committed after having been accorded due process through the courts with proper access to legal representation.
4. Open and rational debate on the issues raised in individual cases is to be encouraged in a civil society.
5. However, unfounded comments that judicial decisions were made or influenced by political considerations originating outside Hong Kong are unjustified and damaging to our legal system, and to Hong Kong as a whole.
6. We repeat what the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong said on previous occasions:
“one must be careful and cautious when commenting on a court judgment and has to take into account the impact of such comment on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. The bedrock to the rule of law in Hong Kong is the trust and confidence of the public and the international community towards our judges and the judicial system. Any inappropriate comment could fuel baseless and unnecessary suspicion on judicial independence, and may undermine the confidence of the public and the international community in the rule of law in Hong Kong....
We are fully confident that all judges in Hong Kong are capable of and will continue to abide by their judicial oath to uphold the Basic Law, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity, safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit. We will do our utmost to safeguard judicial independence in Hong Kong.”(extracted from a statement issued by the Hong Kong Bar Association in February 2016 in response to statements that our courts passed unduly lenient sentences in public order cases)
“The Rule of Law, as well as an independence and professional Judiciary, are widely respected by the Hong Kong community. These are also regarded highly by the international community to be the cornerstone for economic success of Hong Kong. This high level of respect and the confidence in the Hong Kong judicial system are instilled through long judicial history, hard earned tradition and constitutional entrenchment, as well as the continual efforts of the distinguished and professional judges. This should not and can never be undermined or compromised or be dragged into the political arena.”(extracted from a statement issued by the Law Society of Hong Kong in September 2015)
(Hong Kong Economic Times) August 22, 2017.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairman Paul W.T. Hsieh said that those civil disobedience practitioners who were sent to jail "got what they asked for." He questioned why this is being called "political prosecution" and why the courts are being accused of collusion. He said that these protestors would get more respect if they stick to their original intentions and "fearlessly" keep their promises.
(Apple Daily) August 20, 2017.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairman and Civic Party current chairman Alan Leong posted on Facebook that Paul Hsieh evaded the fact that the original magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan imposed light sentences on the Civic Square 3 by reason of law. Leong added that he does not agree that this was a "political prosecution" and he agreed that the Court of Appeal should not be accused of political considerations in determining the sentence. But this does not mean that the people of Hong Kong should accept Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen's relentless pursuit of the three idealistic, responsible and selfless young men. And it does not mean that one cannot point out possible errors committed by the Court of Appeal.
(Apple Daily) August 20, 2017.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that he does not see the various defendants as "prisoners of conscience" or "political prisoners." He said that those assertions are completely baseless. He asked why anyone would think that democracy requires the destruction of rule-of-law?
Tong said that any discussion of the court rulings should consider whether rule-of-law has completely disintegrated in Hong Kong such that all the judges are under the control of the Central Government. After all, the international community (especially the Southeast Asian countries) has always considered the Hong Kong judiciary to be independent and the most perfect. So Tong is perplexed as to how the Hong Kong judiciary could suddenly have disintegrated overnight according to these critics.
Tong said that accusing judges of being under political control may constitute contempt of court. But if these critics are jailed, they will say that this is the proof of the suppression of freedom and democracy that they have been talking about. Tong said that we can disagree with the court rulings, or even think that they are wrong, but our discussion must be based upon evidence and reasoning. If you just accuse all the judges as being political stooges, this is not something Hong Kong can bear.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairperson Winnie Tam said on radio today that the ruling by the Court of Final Appeal has clearly and adequately given the reasoning.
As for the Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen going after the Civic Square 3 for political reasons, Winnie Tam said that she understands that some people are sympathetic towards the three young men. But she said that what Yuen did was fair under the law and he cannot be said to have evil intentions. As for Yuen overruling the Director of Public Prosecutions, Tam said the disclosure was unfair and that Yuen is the ultimate decision-maker. "I don't see anything wrong."
As for calling the three defendants "political prisoners," Tam thinks that this is going too far. She said that a political prisoner is a dissident who is being punished by the authorities for some completely different crime. She asked citizens to respect the courts. "You cannot just applaud when you like a verdict, but say that the judges have been turned 'red' when you dislike a verdict." She said that such talk is "unacceptable."
- Suppose that Rimsky Yuen did overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions as the leak says. That is, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that the government has no chance or that the government should avoid this type of case for political reasons, but Yuen held the opposite opinion.
If the government loses its case, then Yuen made a bad political judgment.
But now the government wins its case. This shows that Yuen was right and the Director of Public Prosecutions was wrong. So why is Yuen still being second-guessed?
- (Hong Kong Economic Journal) August 29, 2017.
Legislative Councilor Dennis Kwok Wing-hang wrote that "foreign media reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions recommended not to file a judicial review against the three defendants, but Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen disagreed and insisted upon a judicial revew ...
Please note:
1. All discussions within the six departments of the Justice Department must be kept confidential to avoid obstruction of justice!
2. The foreign media (note: why didn't Dennis Kwok have the courage to name The New York Times?) got it from whom? Who leaked the details of a case to the outside world? Or was the whole thing fabricated for political purposes? As a legal professional and a legislative councilor, Dennis Kwok should be investigating the veracity of the report.
3. The foreign media did not enumerate the reasons for objecting to a judicial review. Well, I believe that this is going to one of the following four reasons:
A. He/she was afraid that the pan-democrats would launch political attacks against the move.
B. He/she thinks that the legal basis is weak and therefore the chances of losing are high. So the Department of Justice should not risk its reputation and authority over this case.
C. He/she offered some weak legal reasons for not proceeding with the judicial reviews, and he/she was voted down by her colleagues who informed the Secretary for Justice to proceed.
D. He/she made certain statements in the group discussion that showed political preferences and lack of neutrality. Therefore the team vetoed his/her recommendation not to proceed.
- (The Stand News https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E8%AD%9A%E5%85%81%E8%8A%9D-%E5%A4%96%E5%9C%8B%E5%AA%92%E9%AB%94%E6%8A%A8%E6%93%8A%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95-%E4%B9%9D%E6%88%90%E4%B9%9D%E4%B9%9D-%E7%84%A1%E7%9C%8B%E6%B3%95%E5%BA%AD%E5%88%A4%E8%A9%9E-%E6%9C%AC%E6%B8%AF%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B%E7%95%8C%E5%BF%85%E9%A0%88%E5%8F%8D%E6%93%8A/ ) September 2, 2017.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairperson Winnie Tam said on Cable TV that 99.9% of those who wrote the reports in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, etc have not studied the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the High Court. They have also not tried to learn about the judicial system in Hong Kong. Therefore the Hong Kong legal sector must "make a huge response in order to counter-attack."
Hong Kong Bar Association current chairman Paul T.K. Lam said that some people are critical the Court of Appeal for its ruling on the Civic Square 3, including whether political influence was present and whether the judiciary has come under Central Government influence and lost its independence.
Lam emphasized that "all criticisms about lack of judicial independence and lack of integrity of the judges are inappropriate and problematic." Lam said that rule-of-law is precious and needs to be protected. "Reputation is of paramount importance" and unfounded criticisms will make people believe it and influence the outside world's perception of rule of law in Hong Kong. Citizens may also lose respect and confidence in the courts. Lam is worried that this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lam said that the Joint Statement of the Bar Association and the Law Society emphasized that they saw the court rulings as being based upon applications of the law and "not on factors outside the law or legal reasoning." Lam said that the two organizations had to be concerned professionally about outside criticisms of the Court of Appeal's rulings.
(SCMP) August 27, 2017.
Former Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang told This Week In Asia: “The allegation that the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the sentences for the demonstrators was politically motivated was totally without any foundation. Such an allegation can have the effect of undermining public confidence in the independence of the judiciary. It was an irresponsible allegation which should never have been made.”
He speaks for many in the legal profession who, whether they agree with the jail terms or not, see no evidence of political interference and regard such suggestions as absurd.
Not a single one of them thought that the rulings were not in accordance with the law. So everybody in the entire legal sector is in self-denial.
- Worse yet, none of these people concurred with the New York Times that Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
- If you insist that that rule of law is dead in Hong Kong because the courts are now controlled by the Chinese Communists, then there are some logical consequences:
The first question is: How extensive is the rot? So far, we know that six judges are Communist stooges: Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen and Justices of Appeal Derek Pang Wai-cheong and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor because of their rulings on the cases of the Civic Square 3 and the North East New Territories 13, plus Court of Final Appeal Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-Il, Justice Roberto Ribeiro and Justice Joseph Fok because of their rulings on the case of the DQ2.
Here is the roster of the Court of Final Appeal:
We now know that Geoffrey Ma is a Chinese Communist stooge.
We now know that Roberto Ribeiro and Joseph Fok are Chinese Communist stooges.
There are 4 Australians and 8 Brits among the 12 Non-Permanent Judges of the Court of Final Appeal. How many of these are Chinese Communist stooges? All of them? Or just some of them? If just some of them, then which ones?
So the second question is: How do you identify the Chinese Communist stooges and purge them from the judiciary?
Previously, Hong Kong did not have anyone like the courageous US Senator Joseph McCarthy to warn us about Chinese Communist infiltration into the Hong Kong judiciary. Those Chinese Communist infiltrators from Australia and United Kingdom were meticulously covering their tracks so that no one was aware of the scope of the infiltration before August 15, 2017. Therefore reviewing their past rulings will not give clear indication about who is a Chinese Communist stooge.
So the best approach is to apply a litmus test: Judges at all levels from the Court of Final Appeal down will be given the Joshua Wong-Nathan Law-Alex Chow case file and ask: "How would you rule?"
If you rule to overturn the ruling of magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan in the manner of Justices Wally Yeung Chun-kuen, Derek Pang Wai-cheong and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor, you are a Chinese Communist stooge and you will be removed from office. All your previous rulings will be reviewed for similar biases.
If you rule to uphold the ruling of magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan, it does not mean that you are clean because you can be lying for this litmus test. You will be given a temporary respite to stay at your post, conditional upon your future rulings giving maximum weight to the noble ideals of pro-democracy/pro-freedom activists and minimum weight to the actual crimes. Failure in any case would mean instant removal from office.
In this manner, we will demonstrate to the western world and the western media that rule-of-law is alive and well in Hong Kong, and therefore international investors can continue to pour their investments here.
At this point, I will stop. I am only joking here. If such a litmus test were applied, the judiciary would resign en masse because this is the worst attack on rule of law ever.
- The Wall Street Journal article on August 17, 2017 was titled "Hong Kong’s Political Prisoners: China forces local judges to send democratic activists to jail." You read through the article to find out how China forces the local judges to do their bidding and you find ... nothing. The closest evidence that was offered was that Zhang Dejiang showed upon in May and "said that the judiciary is subordinate to the executive branch and judges should 'learn the Basic Law.' Other officials criticized Hong Kong's use of foreign judges, who are supposedly too sympathetic to separatist elements." How do you leapfrog from the statements of Zhang and other officials to them "forcing the local judges to send democratic activists to jail"?
- What is the nature of the force used? Tickling their feet? Stapling their thighs? Threatening to break their fingers? Threatening to kill their families? What?
- In the newspaper industry, the stories are written by reporters and the headlines are written by editors. Very often, the headlines go far beyond what is supportable by the contents in the stories. This is one case. The headline will gain a lot of clicks but there is nothing in the story.
- With due respect, I cannot imagine Lord Hoffmann and the other 17 non-permanent Australian/British judges of the Court of Final Appeal will pay any attention to what Chinese Communist apparatchik Zhang Dejiang have to say and give up their lifetime accomplishments, reputations and legacies?
- (Wen Wei Po) September 4, 2017.
Wong On-yin's Facebook
Judges were always only just one part of rule-of-law. Only Hongkongers think that judges are sacrosanct and the Chief Justice is like a God to be much adored. Therein lies the root of the troubles. Suddenly now Hongkongers have discovered tht the God-almighty Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li is an accessory to the tyrants and not the Guardian of Hong Kong. What is to be done? What else except to rise up and bring him down. There is no monarchy in politics, so there shouldn't be a monarchy in the judiciary either.
Where do Hong Kong judges come from? This is a self-breeding system in which respect is not automatically granted. In the past, the judges are respected because they act fairly and reflect the social values of the majority in an undemocratic system. But this is not automatic. There is no guarantee, not even a monitoring impeachment system, that this will always be the case. If we do not rise up and bring down Geoffrey Ma, then nobody can save Hong Kong.
I am not calling on everybody to use force. That would be uncivilized. But showing the facts, talking reason and demonstrating in the streets are non-violent resistance. So why not? Today, Hong Kong lacks most of all those who have studied law to come out and denounce Geoffrey Ma and the Court of Appeal judges. There are plenty of people in the legal sector who want citizens not to consider right versus wrong but only to adore rule-of-law. If we don't wake up today, there will be more cruel and excessive abuse of judicial power tomorrow.
Photo of Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and Hong Kong Bar Association chairperson Winnie Tam, with their faces crossed out and one big "Fuck You!!!" underneath.- Contempt of court is an offense under common law. In the past, insulting a judge or otherwise acting to interfere with the judicial process is punishable by a maximum of 2 years in jail or $5,000 fine.
- (EJ Insight) How to preserve confidence in our courts. By Benny Tai. September 5, 2017.
The fact that the Court of Appeal has overruled the magistrates’ court over a trespassing case involving three student leaders and sentenced them to jail has sparked a heated controversy.
A lot of people have raised doubts about the new verdict, and there is a widespread suspicion that the judges of the Court of Appeal could have been influenced by political factors.
Amid grave public concern, several heavyweights in the legal sector, including former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang, quickly rallied to the defense of the court, asserting that public suspicions about the motives of the judges are completely unfounded and unjustified.
I don’t intend to argue whether the judges of the Court of Appeal could have been subject to political pressure in this particular case. While I agree with these heavyweights that upholding the authority of the judiciary is instrumental in maintaining the rule of law, I do feel compelled to take issue with their notion that the public should never ever doubt the independence and impartiality of our judges.
In fact, the so-called “authority” of our courts of law stems entirely from the righteousness of the decisions it made; whether or not there is public criticism of our judges is irrelevant.
As long as our courts can convince the public that the rulings are fair and just, and that judges only take into account nothing but legal factors when making their decisions, the public will have trust in our judiciary.
If the public senses that our judges aren’t making their decisions fairly and impartially, they will inevitably have doubts about their motives. And even though the courts could reduce members of the public to silence temporarily by threatening them with contempt of court charges, silence does not mean the public trusts the courts.
It often takes years, if not decades, to build the authority of and public trust in our courts, but at the same time, it only takes a very short amount of time to ruin everything.
That said, I believe members of the legal profession who are truly committed to defending the authority of our judiciary and our rule of law should speak out against the courts over mistakes and call for immediate corrective actions rather than pointing the finger at the average individuals who blow the whistle on the questionable decisions by our judges.
At the end of the day, the authority of our courts rests upon public confidence in our judicial system, not public silence over its wrong and unjust rulings.
Turning a blind eye to an unjust decision made by the court might not have instant repercussions on society, but if we let things continue this way, judges may think they can disregard the oversight by fellow legal professionals. There could be more unjust decisions. Eventually, that will take an irreversible toll on public confidence in our judiciary.
Meanwhile, I notice that there has been a prevailing notion among the legal profession that our judges are always incorruptible and able to resist any form of external interference so much so that public oversight of our judiciary is unnecessary, and that nobody should ever have even the slightest shred of doubt about our judges’ impartiality and judgment.
However, I find their excessive and unquestioning confidence in our judges incomprehensible and even irrational.
Like everyone else, judges are humans, and as long as you are human, you can’t be completely immune to things like political pressure, or the temptation of using your power to serve your own agenda. And that is why judges need oversight.
And as rule of law is among the most treasured core values of Hong Kong, I believe it is the responsibility of all citizens, not just the legal professionals, to uphold and defend the rule of law by staying vigilant and not hesitating to call out unjust or questionable decisions.
Perhaps members of our legal sector should focus more on how to restore public confidence in our judicial system rather than criticizing those who have the courage to cast doubts on the questionable decisions by our courts.
- At this time, there is no evidence whatsoever that any judge is a Chinese Communist stooge. Not even Civic Party chairman Alan Leong would say so. Senator Joseph McCarthy was at least waving a piece of paper which he said had the names of 205 (or 57, or 81, or 10 at various other times) State Department employees who were members of the Communist Party USA.
- Alan Leong knows that if he names any judge as a Chinese Communist stooge without evidence, it will be cause for a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal for professional misconduct leading to suspension from practice. The New York Times/The Wall Street Journal have no such fears.
- Alan Leong is in a quandary. If he accepts the thesis that rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong, then the next step is armed revolution to sweep aside all branches of the government (executive, legislative and judicial). His own law practice would be wiped out because there won't be any courts left.
The farthest Alan Leong has gone is to say that Wally Yeung's language in the ruling was emotional and that makes him unfit for the office. "The dead branch on a tree should be lobbed off." That is a subjective opinion based upon a piece of evidence. But he will not come out and call Yeung a Chinese Communist running dog, because there is no evidence.
- The most concrete evidence presented so far is that Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen attended the 2015 Christmas cocktail party held by The Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong (see Lam, Lee and Lai Solicitors and Notaries) with food, drinks and music for several hundred people including Chief Executive CY Leung and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, and the Association's founding president Maggie Chan Man-ki was the legal counsel for the plaintiff Chiu Luen Public Light Bus to clear the protestors off the streets of Mong Kok (see SCMP). This is not even tenuous.
- An open letter denouncing the ruling signed by 25 distinguished political, legal and religious figures, including former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, South Korea’s Ambassador for International Human Rights, Jung-hoon Lee, and Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Myanmar?
- The 64-page ruling has been published only in Chinese (see Judiciary.hk). Do these 25 distinguished political, legal and religious figures read Chinese legalese? Or did they denounce a ruling that they never read? Or did they get a summary from Voice of America?
- Here is Court of Appeal vice-president Wally Yeung's contribution to the judgment:
1. I have considered the judgment drawn up by Poon JA and the multitude of cases cited by him. I concur with his judgment as well as his reasons for judgment.
2. I should reiterate that pursuant to the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Hong Kong residents enjoy the freedoms of assembly, speech, procession, demonstration and expression of opinions. The basic freedoms conferred on Hong Kong residents are comprehensive and in no way lesser than the freedoms enjoyed by people of other advanced and free societies.
3. However, the aforementioned freedoms are not absolute or unrestricted; they are subject to the supervision of the law. Hong Kong residents are obliged to observe the laws that are in force in Hong Kong, and the exercise of the rights conferred by law is by no means a reason or excuse for doing illegal acts. Any act of protest or demonstration for which the police have not issued a Notice of No Objection, or in which violence or the threat of violence is used to express one’s opinions, crosses the boundary of the peaceful exercise of the rights and enters the territory of unlawful activities; it becomes an unlawful act which interferes with the rights and freedoms of others.
4. The lawful exercise of rights conferred by law, and the protection of the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by others according to law, co-exist with each other without conflict, and should be a symbol of a civilised society which upholds the rule of law.
5. Acts done in the name of the free exercise of rights, but which are in substance acts which undermine public order and breach the peace, will throw society into chaos, impact seriously and adversely on its progress and development, and prevent others from exercising and enjoying the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled. If such acts cannot be effectively stopped, then all discussion about freedom and the rule of law will become empty talk.
6. In recent years, an unhealthy wind has been blowing in Hong Kong. Some people, on the pretext of pursuing their ideals or freely exercising their rights conferred by law, have acted wantonly in an unlawful manner. Certain people, including individuals of learning, advocate “achieving justice by violating the law” and, under this slogan, they encourage others to break the law. These people openly flout the law. Not only do they refuse to admit their lawbreaking activities are wrong, but they even go as far as regarding such activities as a source of honour and pride. It is unfortunate that such arrogant and conceited ways of thinking have influenced some young people and have caused them to engage as they please in activities that are damaging the public order and disruptive of the peace at assemblies, processions or demonstrations.
7. This case is an excellent example of the influence of the trend that is mentioned. All three respondents are backbone members of young people organisations. In the name of their organisations, having obtained a Notice of No Objection from the police, they organised an assembly at the section off Tim Mei Road outside the Forecourt of the Central Government Offices (Forecourt) on the night of 26 September 2014, and successfully attracted the participation of hundreds of citizens, especially young people and students. With full knowledge that the assembly had to end at 10 pm, they conferred and reached a consensus in advance that they would force their way into the Forecourt at the conclusion of the assembly, claiming that they were going to “recapture the Civic Square”.
8. Before 26 September 2014, the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) had made two applications to the Administration Wing, requesting the opening-up of the Civic Square for public activities from 23 September to early October 2014. However, these applications were rejected. Therefore, at the time the three respondents reached the above consensus, they had full knowledge that the Civic Square would be closed and guarded by security guards.
9. The three respondents should also have been aware that many, especially young people, would participate in the assembly on 26 September 2014. Obviously, it was their wish to rely on the participation of these people to achieve their purpose of “recapturing the Civic Square” by sheer force in numbers.
10. The three respondents must have been aware that when crowds of people forced their way into the Civic Square, clashes between them and the security guards guarding the Civic Square would be inevitable, and that casualties as well as damage to property were highly likely.
11. The three respondents had at the pre-action meeting discussed the criminal liability of the participants, and subsequently distributed copies of “Points to Note When Under Arrest” to them. This made clear their awareness that their planned action was unlawful, but they still participated in and/or incited others, especially young students, to take part in the unlawful action. It was extremely irresponsible of the three respondents to call upon or incite young students to violate the law, the consequences of which may become lifelong regrets of these young students.
12. The claim by the three respondents that they were going to “recapture the Civic Square” by way of the zero-violence principle of “peace, rationality and non-violence” was nothing but empty talk, something to which they paid lip service and a slogan by which they deluded themselves and others.
13. In the face of clear and undeniable evidence from the prosecution, the three respondents had refused to plead guilty. In fact, to date, they still refuse to admit that they had done anything wrong. They argue that they had acted out of their concerns for social issues, as well as their passion for politics and ideals. The assertion that they are remorseful is strained and totally unconvincing. There is no conflict between their concerns for social issues and passion for politics and ideals on the one hand, and the need for them to abide by the law on the other.
14. I concur with the judgment of Poon JA. The offences committed by the three respondents are serious for which deterrence is justified.
15. I am of the view that given the nature of these offences, the mode in which they were committed and the attitude of the three respondents, sentencing them by way of a community service order or suspended sentence is in contravention of sentencing principles; it is acutely inadequate and cannot possibly reflect the gravity of the offences.
16. In my judgment, the only appropriate sentence is a short term of immediate imprisonment. I have to emphasize that if the sentences imposed by this court do not suffice to deter similar offences, the court may need to resort to sentences of even greater deterrent effect to uphold the dignity of the rule of law.
17. It gives me absolutely no pleasure in coming to a sentence that would send young people with aspirations and ideals to prison. However, this court is duty-bound to send a clear message to the public that when taking part in assemblies, processions, demonstrations or like activities, in the free exercise of their rights, participants must abide by the law and must not cause any damage to public order and public peace. All acts of violence, especially acts of violence which involve the charging at or assaulting law-enforcement officers and personnel responsible for maintaining order, will be met by a substantial sentence; otherwise there will be no social accord or social progress, and citizens’ rights and freedoms as safeguarded by law may altogether vanish.
- (The New York Times) Like Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Auug San Suu Kyi and so many dissidents before them, the men were hit with a bogus charge ("unlawful assembly") ...
This shows the lack of familiarity with the details of the trials. Before the incident even began, the defendants said that this was civil disobedience which involves breaking the law in order to achieve justice. That is, they knew that they were going to break the law. The facts around the case were never in dispute, as all parties accept that the law had been broken as recorded on videos from surveillance cameras and media coverage. "Unlawful assembly" comes from British law, not Chinese Communist law. You can go tell the Brits that they have a bogus law. The central debate was about the relative importance of the motives in determining the sentence. The magistrate in the original trial gave high weight to the nobility of motives, and therefore imposed only community service/suspended jail sentences. The defendants did not even appeal the sentences. The government appealed to the Court of Appeal which ruled that violent acts should be penalized more severely for deterrence.
- (SCMP) Democracy and human rights are vital for the rule of law – and so is legality. By Ken Macdonald. September 4, 2017.
The rule of law is not a moveable feast. You can’t invoke it when it suits you and then spurn it when it doesn’t. It combines democracy, human rights and legality. The first two are easy: everyone believes in democracy and human rights, don’t they? But what of legality? This is much harder and poses a greater challenge, a greater test of loyalty to principle.
In a rule-of-law system, it is obviously not just the law that counts. After all, a tyranny can easily create oppressive laws to build dictatorship. So the law must be borne out of democratic accountability and loyalty to human rights. That’s how it earns respect.
But the corollary is that laws legitimised in this way must be carefully respected. This is because in a rule-of-law system, the organised abuse of law is a form of tyranny in itself, an attack upon the rules that exist to grant ultimate protection for rights. This is what legality means and, however hard it may sometimes be, loyalty to legality is fundamental to showing fealty to the rule of law.
In the UK, as in Hong Kong, a prosecutor may appeal against a sentence he believes to be unduly lenient. The UK attorney general sometimes invokes this power and the English Court of Appeal from time to time increases sentences at his urging. The proceedings will always take place in public, with a represented defendant, before the senior, independent judiciary. It is a process of open justice, respectful of rights and according to law.
In Hong Kong, the situation is no different. Here, the secretary for justice may appeal against a sentence he believes to have been manifestly inadequate. If he does so, the case will be considered in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal, before senior, independent judges, sitting in public. The defendant will be fully represented. Again, this process unfolds strictly according to law.
Judges, both in the UK and in Hong Kong, sometimes make decisions that are unpopular with some sections of the public. Usually, if the court had made the opposite decision, a different section of the public would be outraged.
This is why it is fortunate that judges pay no attention to public opinion when they adjudicate. It is easy to see that if courts judged according to public feeling, a frightening new form of tyranny would be born: mob rule. There would be no rule of law at all.
Of course, it is perfectly fine for people to take issue with the rulings of judges and to express their disagreement forcefully. That is what free speech means: the right to express yourself freely. And judges have thick skins. But when disagreement strays into attacking a legitimate and universally recognised process of law, such as a prosecutor’s right of appeal, or the personal integrity of the judges deciding the case, it is not really that legal process or those judges being attacked, it is the rule of law itself. People engaged in these rhetorical assaults risk undermining the very values they claim to defend.
An invasion of a secure area adjacent to the UK Parliament, accompanied by damage and assaults against security staff, could easily result in the English courts imposing prison terms upon the perpetrators. If the accused somehow escaped with non-custodial sentences, and the UK attorney general appealed on the grounds of undue leniency, it is perfectly possible that the English Court of Appeal would revoke the original sentences and send the defendants to prison.
Hong Kong faces many challenges, including challenges of democratic process and human rights, as this unpredictable century unfolds. So to traduce that institution most attached to the rule of law in Hong Kong, its senior judiciary, is a tragic error. To suggest, as some have done, including international NGOs who should know better, that the recent ruling of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal is an attack upon democracy, is no more than self-professed supporters of the rule of law trimming their attachment to legality simply because, in the political exigencies of a particular case, it suits them to do so.
But those who believe that support for the rule of law can be contingent may find out that others feel the same way. It is a slippery path best avoided.
[Ken Macdonald, QC, is a former director of public prosecutions for England and Wales]
- (EJ Insight) Jailing of activists: Foreign critics undermine HK rule of law. By Frank Ching. September 4, 2017.
More than 20 years ago, in the run-up to Hong Kong’s handover to China, rumors were rife that the city was finished. Fortune magazine published the infamous The Death of Hong Kong article. Books appeared with such titles as The Fall of Hong Kong, The End of Hong Kong and The Last Days of Hong Kong.
Fortunately, that prediction turned out to be dismally wrong. In the last 20 years, Hong Kong has done quite well and its residents’ rights and freedoms have been largely protected.
To a large extent this was due to the rule of law, underpinned by an independent judiciary, a legacy of British rule. This differentiates Hong Kong from mainland China, where the Communist Party controls the courts.
But this system is now being undermined, ironically by people in the West who mean Hong Kong well.
Many of them, suspicious of China and its attempts to control Hong Kong, jumped to the conclusion that Beijing had successfully brought the Hong Kong government and the judiciary to heel after the Court of Appeal imposed custodial sentences on three activists, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow.
After the imposition of prison sentences ranging from six to eight months for illegal assembly, there were immediate charges of political persecution by human rights groups and others. A group of 20 international figures, including former British Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, signed a joint statement calling the decision “an outrageous miscarriage of justice” and “a death knell for Hong Kong’s rule of law and basic human rights, and a severe blow to the principles of ‘one country, two systems’ on which Hong Kong was returned to China 20 years ago”.
The final charge – that the judgment violated the “one country, two systems” formula – made it clear that the signatories saw China’s hand behind the court’s decision. That is to say, in their minds the judges, instead of applying legal principles, had bowed to Chinese political pressure.
It is worth noting that the judgment of which so many have been so critical wasn’t available in English until two weeks later. That is to say, the critics did not bother to read the legal reasoning provided by the judges for their conclusion that the trial magistrate had erred.
Fortunately, and significantly, the Hong Kong legal community, which was been at the forefront in the struggle for maintaining the rule of law and against Chinese political interference, has come out strongly in support of the court’s decision against foreign critics.
The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong issued a rare joint statement. In it, they said that “decisions by the Hong Kong Courts are made solely according to law upon applications by one party or the other”.
“We see no indication otherwise in respect of the recent cases which have generated widespread comment,” they declared, adding: “Unfounded comments that judicial decisions were made or influenced by political considerations originating outside Hong Kong are unjustified and damaging to our legal system, and to Hong Kong as a whole.”
Grenville Cross, former director of public prosecutions, also supported the custodial sentences. Commenting on the case, he wrote: “Although this was a serious public order offence, the trial magistrate failed to reflect this in her sentences. She imposed community service orders on two of the men and a short suspended prison sentence on the third.”
He added: “For as long as it remains the case that everyone is equal before the law, there cannot be one type of sentence for political activists and another for other lawbreakers.”
The three men are appealing to Hong Kong’s top court. However, the Court of Final Appeal is in an invidious position. Legal reasoning, it appears, is irrelevant for even eminent world figures will view the court’s decision through a political lens.
Hong Kong is struggling to maintain the high degree of autonomy that it was promised. In that struggle, the independent judiciary plays a role that cannot be overstated. Telling the world that the game is over, that “one country, two systems” is no longer in existence, that Hong Kong is just another Chinese city and that the rule of law is gone and the judiciary is no longer independent cannot by any stretch of the imagination be deemed as helpful to Hong Kong’s struggle.
Overseas support is important for the former British colony, but Hong Kong’s friends overseas should realize that undermining the one institution that is its biggest asset is not the way to go about it.
- Here is somebody from the Religious sector: Retired cardinal Joseph Zen.
"Rule of law is being destroyed in Hong Kong!"The cruelest totalitarian regimes in history all began this way on the road to success.
The term "unjust judges" is frequently touted by Jesus Christ (Luke 18:1-8)
They beat the human rights warriors with their left hand, but the candy given out by the right hand is poisoned. Do not be tricked by them, because using so-called livelihoods to oppress civil rights is the "pig breeding policy."
- Luke 18:1-8 The Parable of the Persistent Widow
1. Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.
2. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought.
3. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’
4. “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think,
5. yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”
6. And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says.
7. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?
8. I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
What is the moral of this parable? It says that if you want the judge to rule your way, you should make him fear that you will attack him otherwise. He will rule your way just to get you out of his way.
This is called Rule by Force. It is not Rule of Law, because we have no idea what the legal issues are in the widow's case. But we are sure that she must be right because of her widowhood and her persistence.
If Jesus Christ says that this works, we should give it a try. Let us begin by mailing razorblades to Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and all the other judges. Their hearts will be stricken with fear. They will overturn their own rulings and then justice will be achieved.
As to why God has not brought about justice for his chosen ones, that's because everybody knows that they have no means to attacking Him. In like manner, we have to find a way of directly hurting Xi Jinping.
[790] Yet Another White House Petition (2017/08/26)
Internet comments:
- This is a useless petition because it does not specify what you want the White House to do and why it would be good for them (and the American people) to do so. When you say: "We demand the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience, and an end to the political persecution in Hong Kong" you are articulating your demands. What has this got to do with the White House? Why should the White House adopt this as their own demand?
You should be pressuring the White House by positioning the United States as having the manifest destiny as the beacon of Freedom and Democracy for the whole white world. Therefore, they have the White Man's Burden to do everything possible to press for the immediate unconditional release of these prisoners of conscience. You do not have to spell out the specific actions that you want them to do (e.g. cut off all ties with the People's Republic of China; ban all imports from Hong Kong; send the Seventh Fleet to occupy Victoria Harbor; issue an arrest warrant for CY Leung; send in Specials Ops to extract Joshua Wong from the Pik Uk Correctional Institution; etc). You only have to give them the end goals and they can decide the means.
- The freedom warrior who was given the longest sentence should be the first to be released. Here is Yeung Ka-lun who was sentenced to 4 years 9 months for exercising his freedoms of speech and assembly on the basis of the photos taken by an amateur photographer. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of prisoner of conscience Yeung Ka-lun! Long live democracy! Long live freedom!
- (YouTube) And here are the 13 heroes from North East New Territories exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly in accordance with universal standards.
- How to sign the whitehouse.gov petition an unlimited number of times, as provided by Wan Chin's Facebook:
Step 1: Use guerillamail.com to register an anonymous email address
Step 2: Sign the petition at whitehouse.gov with name and email address.
Step 3: 10 seconds later, guerillamail.com will receive an email from admin@whitehouse.gov to confirm.
Step 4: Confirm your signature by clicking.- Well, I'll be fucking damned if I sign this petition addressed to The Donald. He is a Mad Man. Who knows what he'll do? Launch nuclear missiles at Hong Kong? Build a twenty-foot-tall wall around Hong Kong? Turn Hong Kong into an exclusive Ivanka Trump product-line?
- The second half of the fourth point "calls for international solidarity to address the territory's continuous decline of civil and political rights." This part about international solidarity should not be addressed to Donald Trump, because he gets little or no confidence from around the world (see Pew Research Centre June 2016). If you list Donald Trump as supporting the cause, almost everybody else will run away.
- This White House petition will be as effective as this previous one: Alex and Stephy forever together!
[789] DQ2: End of the Road (2017/08/25)
(SCMP) August 25, 2017.
Hong Kong’s top court on Friday rejected a final bid by two disqualified pro-independence lawmakers to be reinstated, putting paid to their political ambitions and affecting the opposition camp’s chances of recapturing their seats in later by-elections.
The Court of Final Appeal’s refusal to allow Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to appeal their case left them with no chance of being reinstated in the Legislative Council.
Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li and permanent Court of Final Appeal judges Roberto Ribeiro and Joseph Fok said the localist pair did not have a reasonably arguable case, and they would explain their ruling later.
A disappointed Baggio Leung said outside court: “We sincerely apologise [to the public that] we cannot protect the results of the Legco elections in September last year.” He urged judges to safeguard the rule of law, saying the system had been abused by the local government and Beijing. “They are the only ones who can save the people now,” he said. The pair revealed they had been left with a HK$12 million legal bill, and said they were “mentally prepared to declare bankruptcy”.
Baggio Leung’s counsel, British barrister David Pannick QC, argued on Friday that the case was not a matter of constitutional law, and only the city’s law should be applied, which meant the court should not interfere with the legislature.
Pannick also pressed judges to “further interpret” Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law denying the lawmakers a second chance to take their oaths. He also argued that the interpretation, which came after they took their oaths, should not have a retroactive effect.
But Mr Justice Ribeiro said Beijing’s ruling was binding on the court. “What should we do?” he said.
(Wen Wei Po) Selected highlights of the legal arguments. August 26, 2017.
Appellant: One should focus only on the intent and action of the oath, or else this becomes a political ruling.
Judge: That is to say, as long as you read out the text, it becomes a successful oath? What about altering the text of the oath? And do sincerity and solemnity have nothing to do with oaths?
Judge: Did Yau Wai-ching pronounce "The People's Republic of China" properly?
Appellant: No.
Judge: Which country was Yau Wai-ching pledging allegiance to in her oath?
Appellant: Hong Kong. Because she thinks that Hong Kong is her nation.
Judge: Did Yau Wai-ching pledge allegiance to the People's Republic of China?
Appellant: No.
Judge: So why was this not a declination to take the oath?
Appellant: Because the Legislative Council secretary-general only said that her "oath was invalid."
Appellant: There is no objective standards for sincerity and solemnity in oath-taking.Judge: When Leung Chung-hang took his oath, he held the Bible with his fingers crossed. Does this not objectively show that he does not intend to abide by his oath?
Appellant: The demonstration objects with the words "Hong Kong is not China" should be ignored.
Judge: The meaning of these objects is contrary to the oath. Article 1 of the Hong Kong Basic Law says that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China.
Appellant: "Hong Kong is not China" should be interpreted according to the situation. For example, during the FIFA World Cup qualifying rounds when Hong Kong plays the national team, Hong Kong is not China.
Judge: But this is not a football field. This is a court.Appellant: The Legislative Council permitted the two to re-take their oaths. Therefore the court should not intercede.
Judge: If a popularly elected legislator took his oath properly but the Legislative Council ruled that the oath was invalid, should the court intercede?
Appellant: It should.Appellant: Article 26 of the Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees that citizens have the right to run for election and to be elected. When the court issues its ruling, it must consider whether it is violating the citizens' constitutional right to run for election. Once elected, their case involves their political rights.
Judge: Counsel should re-read the relevant ordinance. They have exercised their right to run for election and their right to be elected. But they chose to disqualify themselves as legislators. The relevant ordinance states clearly that Hong Kong Special Administrative Region permanent residents have the right to run for election and to be elected "in accordance with the law." Does "in accordance with the law" include the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance? The case precedents have explained that we must obey the constitutional requirements.Appellant: The National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of the Basic Law is "amending the Hong Kong Basic Law." Such an amendment should not have an retroactive effect. There is no argument that the court must accept the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation. But the problem is about how we should understand the Interpretation? Do we follow the words literally, or do we have to consider standards of human rights?
Judge: This court cannot be interpreting the Interpretation of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The authority of the Interpretation of the National People's Congress Standing Committee stems from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In the case of Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration, the Court of Final Appeal has stated that this authority is broad and unrestricted. The Interpretation has clearly stated that Legislative Councilors must take their oaths sincerely and solemnly. What is there to interpret? The Interpretation also states that once the Legislative Councilor declines or refuses to take the oath, there won't be another chance.(Wen Wei Po) August 26, 2017.
During the original and appeal court cases, Leung/Yau hired Senior Counsel Victor Dawes and Senior Counsel Hectar Pun. It is estimated that these two will charge $4 million in legal fees.
In the application to the Court of Final Appeal, Leung hired Queen's Counsel David Pannick and Yau hired Senior Counsel Gladys Li. It is estimated that these two will charge $4 million in total.
Leung/Yau have been ordered by the Court of Final Appeal to pay for the government's legal fees. The government had hired Senior Counsel Benjamin Yu and Senior Counsel Johnny Mok. It is estimated that that these two will charge $5 million in total.
So the total legal fees amounts to $4 million + $4 million + $5 million = $13 million.
Meanwhile back at the Legislative Council, chairman Andrew Leung indicated that the secretariat will commence action to demand Leung/Yau pay back $930,000 for salaries and expenses.
Yesterday, Leung Chung-hang told the press that he may have to declare bankruptcy.
- (Official Receiver's Office) FAQ about Bankruptcy
11. Q: Is a bankrupt required to pay his debts? What will happen to a bankrupt's assets and income?
A: In principle, a bankrupt's debts will be met from his/her assets and income. For this purpose, a bankrupt must hand over all his/her assets, both overseas and local, to the Trustee immediately upon the granting of the Bankruptcy Order. He/She must also inform the Trustee of his/her income. The Trustee will, after taking a view of the reasonable domestic needs of the bankrupt and his/her family, distribute the balance of his/her assets and income to his/her creditors to repay his/her debts.
12. Q: Can a bankrupt travel by taxi?
A: He/She should not unless there are reasonable grounds for doing so.
- Fleeing from the Police Special Tactical Unit is reasonable grounds (see video).
- According to CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance:
Section 39. When person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate and from being elected as a Member
(1) A person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as a Member, if the person—
(i) is an undischarged bankrupt or, within the previous 5 years, has either obtained a discharge in bankruptcy or has entered into a voluntary arrangement within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) with the person’s creditors, in either case without paying the creditors in full.
So Leung Chung-hang won't be eligible to run in any Legislative Council by-election/election after filing for bankruptcy.
(EJ Insight) August 29, 2017.
Ousted legislators Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching said they would not take part in the by-elections after their appeal against their disqualification was rejected by the Court of Final of Appeal last week. However, the duo said they would support any candidates from their Youngspiration party.
Leung admitted that his disqualification was to a certain extent a result of his decision-making. He said he made many mistakes including overestimating the protections of the rule of law.
“I would not have gone down this route had I known the result. I misjudged the situation,” Leung said. “The judges had accepted the fact that the interpretation [of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress] was done, and they accepted the results completely.” He added that by joining the by-elections, it would be agreeing with the disqualification in the first place, Apple Daily reports.
Yau said losing the Legco seat does not mean she cannot be an active politician. “I would really lose it when I forget even my own principles,” Yau said. “If I gave in just like that, I would truly be sorry to the people who voted for me.” After the judgment, Yau took to Facebook to express her regrets over her “rashness and arrogance”. She said she is sorry for the workers who campaigned for her.
The pair now face a claim from Legco for wages and expenses totaling HK$1.86 million but said there is no legal basis for the Legislative Council Office to chase them. Leung said he anticipated Legco’s attempts to recover the money but said there is no need for a judicial review. Also, he said he will not raise funds to cover his legal bills.
When asked about their future, both Yau and Leung said they are working but Leung added he has yet to think of a long-term plan. Yau said her plans could change depending on the circumstances such as attending Legco meetings and other consultations to voice out her opinions.
Leung said Youngspiration has decided to move on from outside the establishment and hopes to support political prisoners.
(Court of First Instance, High Court) Doris Leung Kit-hing vs. Electoral Affairs Commission. February 9, 2018.
1. On 6 December 2017, the Applicant made an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision (“the Decision”) of the Electoral Affairs Commission (“the EAC”) to arrange for a Legislative Council by-election (“the By-Election”) to be held on 11 March 2018 to fill, inter alia, the vacant seats arising from the disqualification of Mr Leung Chung Hang (“Leung”) and Ms Yau Wai Ching (“Yau”) from assuming office as members of the Legislative Council.
8. Her ground of the application is that, under Section 36(1)(e)(ii) of the Legislative Council Ordinance, Cap 542 (“the LCO”), the EAC should not arrange for the holding of the By-Election prior to the termination of the following proceedings:
(1) an application made by the Applicant to the Court of Final Appeal on 28 August 2017 to, inter alia, set aside the CFA Determination on the ground of alleged irregularity in the hearing on 25 August 2017; and
(2) her application to the European Court of Human Rights complaining about the disqualification of Leung and Yau from assuming office as Legislative Council members and/or the aforesaid legal proceedings in Hong Kong.
13. The Applicant argues, however, that under Section 36(1)(e)(ii), the EAC should not arrange for the holding of the By-Election until “the termination of the appeal proceedings in other circumstances” which, according to the Applicant, includes the outstanding proceedings mentioned in paragraph 8 above.
14. In my view, the Applicant’s argument is based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Section 36(1)(e)(ii). The “appeal proceedings” referred to there is a reference to appeal proceedings in the Court of Final Appeal against determinations made by the Court of First Instance in election petitions under Section 67. The proceedings commenced by the Applicant mentioned in paragraph 8 above plainly do not come within the words “appeal proceedings” in Section 36(1)(e)(ii). It follows that the EAC is correct in law to arrange for the holding of the By-Election.
15. At the hearing on 2 February 2018, the Applicant sought to argue that Leung and Yau should not have been disqualified, and that their counsel failed to properly present their respective cases to the Court of Final Appeal on 25 August 2017. Quite apart from the lack of substance in those arguments, it must be said that, as far as this court is concerned, the CFA Determination is final and conclusive.
16. In short, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable.
17. I also consider it to be plain that the Applicant lacks standing in this matter. Leung and Yau, being the persons directly affected, were represented by highly experienced counsel and they fully participated in the relevant legal proceedings relating to their disqualification at all levels. That being the position, I am unable to see how the Applicant can be said to have standing to mount another legal challenge on the same cause or matter.
Internet comments:
Pay Back!
Top row: drink alcohol, bankrupt, jail, bankrupt, hourly rate hotel
Bottom row: pay back, bankrupt, jail, bankrupt, go to Japan- Here are the three 'judges' who sold out our two Localist heroes for 30 pieces of gold.
Geoffrey Ma, Roberto Ribeiro and Joseph FokDeath to these traitors and their families!
- More threats from the keyboard warrior! Did you remember to hide your IP-address from the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force? Did you remember to use an anonymous prepaid phone card on a $800 Xiaomi phone to post the message and then throw everything into Victoria Harbour afterwards?
- Previously
#645 They Need More Money
#626 They've Got New Legal TheoriesSo what are these best new legal theories that money can buy? In the end, the Court of Final Appeal did not even listen to the government's rebuttal. They met briefly and came back to say that the appeal was "not reasonably arguable." That was it. Furthermore, this case will serve as a precedent to the case of the DQ4, which will also be declared to be "not reasonably arguable."
- (Legal Advice) In 1984, Morton L. Janklow wrote in Parade magazine:
I call it “The Last Resort Rule.” It was taught to me by a great teacher at Columbia Law School named Jerome Michael, who taught a course in appellate advocacy. At the last moment in the last class of the course, when he had taught us everything he knew, he said: “These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”
The facts about what happened around the oaths are not in dispute. The law is also crystal clear after the NPCSC interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. And Pannick/Li did not pound the table. Therefore the case was lost.
- (Post852) August 30, 2017. Lord Pannick said that he felt helpless about the outcome. He said: "This is Hong Kong." He said that he offered his help in the case because he thought that it was "nonsense" for the government to disqualify the two popularly elected legislative councilors and therefore he reached out to contact Leung/Yau's legal team.
- If Lord Pannick thought that the government's case was nonsense, then why did he present his own case such that the Court of Final Appeal declared that it was "not reasonably arguable"? Maybe Lord Pannick should reflect on that.
- The fatal flaw in the Leung/Yau case is that the facts of the case cannot be argued. There are videos of the oaths taken by Leung/Yau. So the case was always presented as "We are not going to dispute the facts ..." and "we will not contest that the oaths were sincere and solemn." How do you get out of that hole?
You start by arguing that there are no objective standards for sincerity and solemnity, and therefore different people will have different opinions about those oaths. This leads to a direct question: "Do you personally believe that Leung Chung-hang holding a Bible in his hand with this fingers crossed was being sincere and solemn?" ... Or another direct question: "Did Yau Wai-ching pronounce the People's Republic of China in her oath?" ... Lord Pannick is not going to lie for those two (or anyone else for that matter). He will have to honestly say NO and then move on to some other peripheral aspect.
- This is a hypothetical scenario which won't happen in real life, because lawyers cannot be personally questioned.
[788] Typhoon Hato Fallout (2017/08/25)
(SCMP) August 26, 2017.
Although Macau residents readily welcomed the help of the People’s Liberation Army in cleaning and relief operations after Wednesday’s devastating typhoon, the move is a cautionary warning to Hong Kong on being well-prepared for natural disasters, commentators said on Friday.
After Typhoon Hato, the worst storm in more than half a century to hit the former Portuguese enclave, left 10 dead, more than 200 people hurt and streets carpeted with rubbish, Macau people were happy to let the soldiers march in.
The help of the PLA is allowed for disaster relief, under the Basic Law of both Macau and Hong Kong, if the government of the Special Administrative Region in question requests it.
But Dr Chung Kim-wah, a political scientist at Polytechnic University, said: “If the same happened in Hong Kong, it would be unbelievable. A public outcry could be expected. Hong Kong people’s mentality was that “under ‘one country two systems’, we should avoid the scene as much as we can for fear of encouraging Beijing’s interference.”
Chung said Hong Kong and Macau might have a similar “one country, two systems” model in theory, but they were very different in their political culture. Macau residents, since colonial times accepted living under Beijing’s large shadow, he said.
A statement from the Macau government information bureau emphasised that the request was made by Fernando Chui Sai-on in accordance with the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, but commentators like Chung wondered if this could set a precedent for Hong Kong.
Chinese University political scientist Dr Ma Ngok also questioned the urgency for Macau to call for help from the PLA. “It is not about paving roads and mending fallen bridges. The crucial point is no water and electricity, but that is not something the PLA can help with,” he said. But he believed it was too early to say whether it would set a precedent for Hong Kong, as the city had never suffered such severe damage in a natural disaster. “I just find it quite embarrassing. It means the Macau government is incapable of handling the governance, while some PLA soldiers look weak as they fell after a few hours of cleaning up,” Ma added.
- Chief Executive Carrie Lam was asked whether she would ask for PLA soldiers to help in the event of a disaster in Hong Kong. She said that she does not comment on hypothetical situations.
- When asked whether the Democratic Party would apologize if Lam Tsz-kin turned out to be lying, the answer was that they do not comment on hypothetical situations.
- If a typhoon hits Hong Kong in the scale of Hato hitting Macau, we can probably handle the clean up ourselves. But if the disaster is a tsunami hitting the entire Hong Kong Island southern coastline from Stanley through Repulse Bay to Ap Lei Chau and Aberdeen with 40-ft storm surges and hundreds of thousands are citizens are dead, injured or missing, then the more help from any source (PLA, US Seventh Fleet, Taiwan, Japan, whatever) the better. Instead of worrying about the PLA and One Country Two Systems, you should be helping the victims any way that you can.
- If the Chief Executive should ask the PLA for help, the People of Hong Kong will have a two-pronged response.
Firstly, at the street level, the valiant localists will throw themselves in front of the PLA trucks to prevent them from bringing food, water and blankets to the victims. They will even blow up the tunnels, bridges and railway tracks.
Secondly, at the legal level, the localists will apply for legal aid to hire a Queen's Counsel to seek a judicial review of the Chief Executive's decision all the way to the Court of Final Appeal. Until the case is resolved, a temporary court injunction will stop any action. By the time the case is settled, it will be many years after the "72 golden hours" for rescue operations. The net result is that Hong Kong's reputation as a rule-of-law international financial center will be preserved.
- Professor Chung Kim-wah said that the people of Hong Kong do not want the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. Hey, I thought that they arrived 20 years ago and are still here with no intention of leaving (see People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison).
- On8 Channel Facebook
I don't know what to say. The disaster victims naturally want help. But the British Army only used to help New Territories residents build roads. I have never heard that they were into disaster relief. In mainland China, this is routine but usually after a major disaster (and not a typhoon).
- On8 Channel Facebook
Au Kam San's Facebook
I have been through the 1989 democracy movement. Frankly, I don't have good feelings about the PLA, and I don't trust them. But this time, after Typhoon Hato, the SAR government unexpectedly asked the Central Government to send the Macau PLA to take part in disaster relief. But this so-called disaster relief only require them to remove garbage and debris from the streets. This is not using them right. When the PLA relieve disasters, we see them on television jumping into the flood waters to save people. That is disaster relief. But in Macau, they are required to remove debris. I noticed that one officer said that this effort was an act of labor. So even the soldiers and their commanders probably have misgivings about this mission, but they have to follow the orders.It is true that there are mounds of debris everywhere after the storm. The various Macau government departments are trying their best, but they cannot do everything quickly enough. Over the past several days, we have seen a number of civic organizations organizing large numbers of volunteers to help clear the debris. This is a manifestation of the spirit of Macau people to help themselves. We all see that. When the Macau PLA joins in, the process is speeded up because there are more people and trucks. But is this any way to use the PLA? Frankly, the PLA may have experience in disaster relief. But they may not be professional enough to pick up garbage or cut down trees. At the least, they won't be as good as the frontline workers of the Macau Home Affairs Bureau. The Macau SAR has been in existence for 18 years. It should no longer act like a baby expecting other people to help. If they have to call on the PLA to clear their garbage, they can't be talking about Macau People Ruling Macau? Therefore, I find the action of the Macau SAR government to be incomprehensible.
Wong On-yin's Facebook
This is an clear and objective analysis. Disaster relief is not picking up garbage.
If Hong Kong is in a similar situation, such as Yau Ma Ti or Sheung Shui Shek Wu Hui coming under water and the government is not there, an open call will get people from other districts to come and help. I am extremely confident about this. We are still savoring the orderliness amidst the chaos of Admiralty and Mong Kok in 2014. I don't know when we can do this again.
Therefore when Au Kam San thanks the Central Government for sending the PLA to pick up the garbage, it has a certain German-style humor. I laughed for a fucking long time.- Born In A Time Of Chaos Facebook
August 26: A group of PLA swagger and eat in the middle of a Macau street. The implication is that One Country Two Systems is dead already except in name. All it took was one word from the Chief Executive and the PLA is upon the people of Macau. Have the people of Hong Kong seen this clearly? The PLA was mobilized just for a so-called typhoon disaster. Someday if there should be another Umbrella Revolution, the result will be the same.
- Another Umbrella Revolution? If it is just another 50 people throwing bricks, then the Hong Kong Police Special Tactical Unit will send you scattering in the winds. This would not be an Umbrella Revolution; it would be playing schoolyard games (eagle-and-chickens, cops-and-robbers, etc). Why would they need the PLA?
- On September 28, 2014 the demonstration took place close to the PLA barracks in Central. The PLA took no action on that day nor any other time. The PLA will not be summoned to participate in a game of cops-and-robbers.
- (Texas Tribune) August 28, 2017. Gov. Greg Abbott announced Monday he has activated the entire Texas National Guard in response to Hurricane Harvey, bringing the total number of deployed personnel for rescue efforts to 12,000. "It is imperative that we do everything possible to protect the lives and safety of people across the state of Texas as we continue to face the aftermath of this storm," the governor said in a released statement.
- Hey, Harvey was merely a hurricane, just as Hato was merely a typhoon. Why make such a fuss? If they people buried under the mud can crawl out by themselves, they deserve to die anyway.
- Photographic evidence of the PLA's non-professionalism
- Oy! How many flaws can be seen as obvious in this lazy unprofessional PhotoShop job!? The woman is under a strong light (see reflective forehead, shoulder and forearm), but she casts no shadow on the ground and the edges of her person do not blend into the environment. The eyes of the PLA are not all in her direction, and the PLA do not blend into the environment. The two piles of garbage have sharp edges and strong lighting which does not mesh with the background street.
(Oriental Daily) August 26, 2017.
Early this morning an Internet user LoveUKLoveHK38 posted to a discussion forum: "The People's Liberation Army took the guise of disaster relief in Macau to use their military vehicles to rob goods from stores. They assaulted citizens. The People's Liberation Army dragged two Macau men into an underground garage and beat them to death. There were multiple bruise marks on their bodies."
This Internet user wrote: "I personally witnessed the Macau People's Liberation Army robbing stores. They came with their military trucks and they robbed one store after another. Some of the People's Liberation Army ringleaders even said that the loot would be less glaring if they take it back to mainland China to sell."
Another Internet user rejoined: "If what you 'witnessed personally' is untrue, you are in trouble." But the first Internet user insisted: "Everything that I said is factual, not fake news. I am not scared if you call the police."
- The Internet user was asked to provide: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW. Each question should have a factual answer — facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete. Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". That Internet user did not resurface. Of course.
- If you are the PLA and you have tanks and guns, why would you go and rob a convenience store for their potato chips and sodas? You would be marching into Casino Lisboa, Sands, Galaxy, MGM or The Venetian to break into their vaults and grab the billions in cash.
(SCMP) August 29, 2017.
Macau police have arrested a brother and sister for spreading false information online claiming that bodies were found in a car park flooded during a recent storm, and authorities had tried to cover up the deaths. The 73-year-old businessman and his jobless sister, 68, were arrested in a flat in Areia Preta on Monday after they allegedly disseminated false information through a mobile messaging application. The messages claimed that five bodies, including a family of four killed inside a car, were recovered in a flooded car park in Fai Chi Kei, according to a spokeswoman for Macau Judiciary Police. The pair were also said to have claimed that the authorities were covering up the news and barring the media from accessing it, according to the spokeswoman. The pair also urged recipients to spread their claims. The woman told police she had received the message from an online chat room on Saturday and spread it the next day. Police were tracing the source of the rumour and urged the public not to distribute the message further.
Antonio Ng Kuok-cheong, a pro-democracy legislator in Macau, said the authorities had come down harder on false messages relating to public affairs over the past year, and had earned approval from the community. He said the news of the arrests did not create a stir with the public, while some were more interested in the ages of the two suspects.
Tsang Chi-ho's Facebook
My essay <Revelations of Hato> has drawn criticisms. Let me clarify here.
The essay was written on Wednesday when Hato hit Hong Kong and Macau. At the time, we only knew that there was electricity/water services were out in Macau. We did not know about the deaths.
The essay was published on Friday. By that time, we learned that there were many deaths and injuries. We never expected that.
Therefore when I used the term <Funeral money>, I did not imply anything about dead human beings. When I wrote those words down, I did not know that there were casualties.
My essay was critical of the Macau's government's inability to handle a disaster. They paid no attention to infrastructure maintenance. They only knew how to dole out money. When disaster strikes, the people finally realized that the handouts were useless. I was criticizing the futility of the Macau government. I was completely not targeting disaster victims in Macau.
My essay used words poorly and created misunderstanding, causing more wounds to the people of Macau. I feel very bad about this, so I want to clarify.
Hong Kong and Macau are united in solidarity in the face of disaster.
- What is this rubbish!? On the morning of August 23 (Wednesday), we already knew that at least three people have died. This punk's characterization of the government distributions as 帛金 (a gift of money to the bereaved given at a funeral) appeared in Apple Daily on August 25 (Friday). He had plenty of time to tell the editor to pull back. He didn't because he really believed in it. He is retreating now in the face of an online tidal wave.
... the misery and backwardness after the electricity/water stoppage make us realize that the several thousand dollars doled out by Macau is actually intended to make you not to be sorrowful. The gift of money to the bereaved given at a funeral.
- I fucking hope that you will drop dead. RTHK gives you a fucking paycheck every month. May that be the gift of money to the bereaved at your fucking funeral!
- Lok Lei Facebook
I don't blame you Hongkongers for being ignorant, but don't you get bored with being divisive all the time? When Macau gives out money, you call it a gift for bereavement. You want the grapes but you also want to curse. I want to say that welfare benefits are even better in Canada and Switzerland, so why are you not cursing them out? In what way have the people of Macau offended you? We are separated only by a body of water. Whether they (the PLA) came in for show, at least they came here to help. What about you people? You only know how to create internal divisions? A whole bunch of keyboard warriors who are laughing about how Macau deserves all this. Shame on you. And you call this the Spirit of Lion Rock. The following screen capture is intended to show what your Hong Kong spirit is:
- They receive almost $10,000 per person as gag fee. Of course they won't rebel.
- When Article 23 was enacted, you didn't say anything.
- You deserve this, people of Macau.
- Macau doles out money. You can die willingly.- This Macau guy is an asshole. The fact is that the people of Hong Kong is a completely different race of people from the Chinamen in mainland China, and also a completely different race of people from the Chinamen in Macau. We owe nothing to the Chinamen in Macau. Not sympathy. Not help in disaster relief. We the people of Hong Kong are a superior race. We are strong, we are brave and we don't need anyone else.
- The goal of the pro-Hong Kong independence faction is to make sure that Hongkongers develop a sense of identity as citizens of the Hong Kong Nation which is a separate race from the Chee-na peasants north of the border. Therefore they will oppose anything that brings Hong Kong closer to mainland China, including High Speed Rail, Forbidden Palace Museum in the West Kowloon Cultural District, etc, and now the PLA in disaster relief in Macau.
It would be cold-blooded for the Hong Kong keyboard warriors to oppose the PLA helping out on disaster relief. The head-on battle of words is a sure loser. However, an even greater victory can be achieved on a different battlefield. By speaking in the name of the People of Hong Kong, these keyboard warriors are offending the people of Macau (for willing to be paid off with $9,000 per year in bereavement gifts) as well as the people of mainland China (because their People's Liberation Army don't know how to pick up garbage and some of them even fainted in the heat). If they keep doing this, the rest of China will hate Hong Kong so much that they will let it become independent.
- (HKG Pao) Letter from a Macau netizen to the People of Hong Kong and the RTHK host:
I am a native Macau person. There has been a natural disaster in Macau with many casualties. Regardless of the deficiencies of the weather forecast and emergency response, how should people react to such a disaster? During the 311 Japan earthquake, the people of Hong Kong felt sorrowful and helped out. But when neighboring Macau is hit, many Hongkongers such as you only want to pick out some minor issues and magnify them as humor. Macau is smaller than Hong Kong and it has fewer people. But we are proud that we live harmoniously with each other. If a major incident happens in Hong Kong (such as the fire in the industrial building), we give our support to the people of Hong Kong and express our condolences to the victims. We do not drop rocks on someone at the bottom of the well. So how come the people of Hong Kong are only gleeful about the sufferings in Macau? Apart from caring about the pork chop buns, Portuguese chicken and egg tarts of Macau, you don't know anything about the preciousness of life?
This disaster has let me see a lot about you. I listen to your radio host who only knows how to tell jokes. Whatever your political position may be, if someday disaster strikes and your life is endangered, will you accept help? And if you are worried about you and your family, do you want to listen to jokes about your situation?
I don't expect you or any Hongkonger to help. But I wish you wouldn't pour salt in our wounds. It is unfortunate for this disaster to happen to Macau. I would not wish it upon Hong Kong. Finally I ask you:
The people of Macau have not hurt you people
Please do not pour salt on our wounds!- (HKG Pao) August 29, 2017.
Tsang Chi-ho continues his personal campaign to provoke the people of Macau. He wrote: "If Macau can maintain a little bit more autonomy, have a bit more dissident voices, give away a bit less money and perform a bit more infrastructure maintenance, then the disaster would not have been so devastating?"
- Hey, Macau is doing fine right now. Meanwhile there are 70,000 Hurricane Harvey victims still waiting to be rescued in Houston (Texas) several days afterwards. Perhaps Tsang Chi-ho should jump out of the bottom-of-his-well and lecture the Americans on how "harmony can't relieve disaster" or "democracy cannot mitigate the Wrath of God" or "doing a bit of infrastructure maintenance would help a lot."
- Tsang Chi-ho is an RTHK host, but he lacks even the most minimal respect and sympathy for the misfortune of others.
- Suppose you have a few more democratically elected legislative councilors who filibuster everything that the government tries to do (e.g. spend money to do infrastructure maintenance), do you really think that this typhoon Hato disaster would be any less devastating in Hong Kong?
Chip Tso's Channel
If you want to learn English, you can do some naughty writing. A person should not have too serious a character. For example:
Macao is getting really Macao Fan once fanned up by a typhoon
Perhaps the name of the street can be changed to:
Avenida Del Alma Dailunwoga[Explanation: "Macao Fan" is a Cantonese homonym for "fucking troublesome". "Del Alma" is a Cantonese homonym for "Fuck your mother". "Dailunwo" is a Cantonese homonym for "Big fucking trouble."]
This post was subsequently deleted by Chip Tso. No apologies. Never say sorry.
- Time for some Hurricane Katrina jokes? One cannot be too serious all the time, right?
- Katrina 1 and Katrina 2 tagline: Having democracy won't save your life. President George W. Bush had this to say about Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
(SCMP) August 26, 2017.
At least four Hong Kong journalists, including a South China Morning Post photographer, were denied entry to Macau on Saturday on the grounds that they posed a security threat to the former Portuguese colony.
The journalists had hoped to cover the clean-up in Macau after it was severely hit by Typhoon Hato last week. The storm claimed 10 lives and left more than 200 injured.
The Post’s photographer Felix Wong was stopped and detained by Macau authorities as he arrived in the casino hub at around 2pm on Saturday. He received a written statement from Macau immigration saying he “posed a risk to the stability of internal security”.
Two reporters from Apple Daily and another from online portal HK01 were also denied entry for the same reason.
Tammy Tam, editor-in-chief of South China Morning Post, expressed deep concern that the publication’s photographer was detained by the Macau authorities. “We strongly object to the detention of our journalists carrying out their duty to inform the public. They pose no security threat to anyone or anything. “We will be pursuing this matter with the relevant authorities.”
Apple Daily’s editor-in-chief Ryan Law Wai-kwong said he deeply regretted the ban and said the reason used by the Macau authorities was “absolutely ridiculous”. He said he did not see how media reporting could constitute a threat to the city’s internal security.
Law said the move had not only hampered press freedom but also affected Macau residents’ right to access the latest information regarding the disaster relief effort and the coming storm. “If Macau locals could not get hold of this information, they might face another disaster very soon,” he said.
HK01 also expressed deep concerns over the ban and pledged to follow up the incident with the Macau authorities.
Ma Io Kun, the commissioner of the Public Security Police in Macau, said the ban was issued in accordance with the law and had nothing to do with the visitors’ occupations.
- Does Ryan Law even read Apple Daily himself? Does he know about the online storms created by Tsang Chi-ho and Chip Tso?
- (Wen Wei Po) August 26, 2017.
A once-in-a-century typhoon hit Macau and some low-lying areas were flooded. The Central Government approved a request to send the Macau PLA to help clean up debris on the Rua de Cinco de Outubro. Macau citizens came out to applaud the PLA along the way. In the United States, the National Guard is frequently sent out to help in post-hurricane clean-ups. So this is the standard international norm.
Apple Daily is using the typhoon disaster to create fear because the PLA is coming into Macau and the government is useless. They wanted to use this incident to undermine Hongkongers' trust in the Central Government and One Country Two Systems. If the PLA can enter Macau, they can enter Hong Kong too. Therefore Hongkongers have plenty to fear.
Apple Daily's reportage ignored the severity of the typhoon and the needs of the people. Their reporter even laughed while reporting on the post-typhoon situation. Apple Daily also said that electricity/water stoppage occurred in Macau because they depended on mainland China for supply. Since Hong Kong gets electricity and water from mainland China as well, Hongkongers should have plenty to fear as well.
- (Apple Daily) August 27, 2017.
The female taxi driver asked: "Where are you heading to? "We want to go to Areia Preta" replied our reporter. The taxi driver took a look atus and asked: "Are you volunteers?" "No, we are reporters from Hong Kong. We want to go there to gather news." "You Hongkongers treat us in this manner. We are not going to serve you!" The taxi driver said no and took off.
Our reporter and our photographer were stunned. We had been impressed by the kindness of the people of Macau since the typhoon, but here we were suddenly turned away. We got on another taxi driven by a young man. I asked the driver whether there is conflict between Hong Kong and Macau recently. He said the Macau typhoon disaster has been a hot Internet topic. Some Hongkonger scorned the yearly distribution of money by the Macau SAR government as bereavement gifts, and that Macau drivers were stupid to be drowned with their cars. He said that these remarks drew the Macau people to ask: "If the Hong Kong government doles out money, will the people of Hong Kong refuse?"
- Hey, how did this come about? Wasn't the Apple Daily reporter refused entry? Or is this another piece of fiction?
- The joke was that reporters are allowed into Macau, but Apple Daily reporters are not because they are fiction writers and not reporters.
- Macau taxi: "Hong Kong bumpkins and dogs, do not enter this car."
- (Apple Daily ) August 29, 2017.
A Macau media worker who wishes to remain anonymous told Apple Daily that the local media have received orders to report only good news and suppress bad news. This media worker said that the boss called in person to demand the main theme of the news be "harmony": "If you don't like it, you don't have a job." This media worker said that other Macau media workers have all encountered similar situations.
- Why does the Apple Daily reporter need to travel to Macau to file such a story? How hard is it to sit in Hong Kong and make up a story based upon "a source who wishes to remain anonymous" with no specific details on anything.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 31, 2017.
An Apple Daily journalist was turned away from the border on Thursday for being “a threat to internal security and stability.”
On Tuesday, the head of Macau’s Government Information Bureau Victor Chan said that Unitary Police Service Commissioner-General Ma Io Kun had already explained that decisions to deny entry were made in accordance with the law, which states that individuals who may have an impact on social order will not be admitted to the territory. “We don’t know the professions of the individuals seeking entry,” said Chan, according to Ming Pao. “So the claim that Hong Kong reporters have been denied entry is not true.” Chan said that many non-local journalists had visited Macau since the typhoon, and that they had been able to complete their work smoothly.
Editorial staff from at least five media outlets in Macau have received instructions from upper management to publish more positive stories in the aftermath of the storm and minimise critical reporting, according to the Macau Journalists’ Association. When asked about the alleged instructions, Chan said: “I have no knowledge of this situation, I do not know of this news.” He said that the Macanese government respected the media.
- Why is Victor Chan responding that way? When a Hong Kong resident arrives at the Macau immigration control desk, he hands over his Hong Kong ID to the officer. The officer swipes the ID and information appears on the monitor. There is no centralized database that gives the occupation associated with a Hong Kong ID. Even the Hong Kong government does not have such a database for its own citizens, so how can Macau compile one for Hong Kong citizens? And this task is also enormous and complicated, given the ambiguity of "occupation" -- for example, is Ko Chi Sum a movie director, a theater maestro, a teacher or a media commentator? Even he is not sure. So it is not the case that the monitor popped up with "Occupation: Journalist. Action: Reject." If the system says REJECT, it will be for some other reason that won't be discussed in public.
Roy Tam (Neo Democrats)'s Facebook
Maybe we really have to thank England. This typhoon did not cause many casualties in Hong Kong because the infrastructure was well-designed, together with the public service system and the Independent Commission Against Corruptoin.
Sovereignty was transferred to mainland China for 20 years, with various degrees of Red-ification in many areas. Fortunately, even a broken ship has three intact nails.
I have often said that the large-scale infrastructure projects are not really basic infrastructure. But they are additional and unnecessary construction. In other words, White Elephants. These include the Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai bridge, the High Speed Rail and the Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport. If the money was spent on flood prevention and tree conservation, the damage in this typhoon would be even less.
This time, Macau got hit. I hope the people of Macau are safe, and the Macau government can think about why they can't count on the gambling industry alone. They must know that they can't count on electricity from mainland China. Instead of doling out money, they should build up their infrastructure.
Climate change threatens the coastal areas most of all. The high temperatures in the South China sea turned the tropical storm into a strong typhoon. Environmental protection is not for the next generation; it is for our own generation.
- (The Guardian) August 30, 2017. Heavy monsoon rains have brought Mumbai to a halt for a second day as the worst floods to strike south Asia in years continued to exact a deadly toll. More than 1,200 people have died across India, Bangladesh and Nepal as a result of flooding.
- The people of India should think about why they can't count on electricity/water supply from mainland China. Instead of doling out money to the people, they should build up their own infrastructure. Thus spake Roy Tam to the people of India.
- (Silent Majority for HK) According to the former Hong Kong Weather Observatory director Lam Chiu-ying, Hong Kong was lucky in that the eye of typhoon passed by south of Hong Kong without the wall hitting Hong Kong. Had Hato shifted 20 miles north, Hong Kong would be in a different world. But the eye passed right over Macau, with the strong gales hitting first on the front end of the wall and then again on the back end of the wall. So you can put aside all the rubbish about the superiority of British infrastructure planning. It had everything to do with LUCK.
- Gary Fan (Neo-Democrats) Facebook
Top pane: The beginning of Macau becoming RED (1967) Mainland China cut off the water supply in conjunction with the leftist riot in Macau to force the Portuguese colonial administration to kneel down on its knees.
Bottom pane: The result of Macau becoming RED (2017) Mainland China cut off the water/electricity and turned Macau into hell.It is clear to everyone whether the situation in Macau was a natural or manmade disaster.
Over the past several years, pro-establishment people wanted Hong Kong to buy electricity from mainland China and large numbers of patriots oppose the construction of desalination plants. They want the essential needs of a city -- water and electricity -- to be controlled by mainland China. Everybody knows what their real aims are to make Hong Kong's lifeline dependent upon mainland China.
- Cheng Chung-tai's Facebook
If you have to compare a Typhoon Signal #10 with the People's Liberation Army, I think the latter is more dangerous.
- Who cares about whether you are a government frontline worker, or a civilian volunteer, or a People's Liberation Army soldier? The immediate task is to help Macau recover.
- The discussion of whether the Macau PLA should have been called can wait for later. At this time, if the Honorable Legislative Councilor Cheng Chung-tai has any brilliant ideas for disaster relief, can he please recommend them to us?
- You fucking dickhead! You must have tripped and damaged your brain. You are able to say this because the typhoon did not affect you personally. If your house and everything you own are under water, you wouldn't be saying this. You should ask the storm victims: Would you rather let the typhoon blow everything away instead of letting the PLA come in and clean up? I think they are going to pick up bricks and smash your skull, you fucking bastard!
(Daily Mail with video) July 19, 2017. Horrifying moment a girl, 14, falls into an open drain while crossing flooded street in Nepal… and emerges ALIVE from underwater sewer thirty yards along the road.
- This video was promptly changed to Macau after typhoon Hato. The revised video was cut right after the girl fell into the hole without showing how she re-emerged later, so that you get the impression that she never got out. This was used to point out how bad the infrastructure in Communist-ruled Macau was.
[787] Labour Party Woes (2017/08/25)
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 24, 2017.
Labour Party chairperson Suzanne Wu has resigned from her position and left the party in an act of protest, following disagreements over the way the group handled matters internally.
The Labour Party secretariat said on Wednesday that it earlier received a written notice from Wu, stating she has decided to leave after “careful consideration.” The party’s executive committee made repeated attempts to convince Wu to stay, but respected her ultimate decision, Ming Pao reported. They thanked her for her devotion and contribution.
Wu told In-Media that her resignation was an act of protest, criticising the party’s internal structure as being “unjust” in how it handles matters. She said that she hoped quitting the party would allow it to recognise the problems. Wu also said that she and the party did not have disagreements over their political direction and stressed that she was only leaving the party, not retiring from politics altogether.
Wu took up the position in 2015, replacing former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan. The post will be temporarily filled by Vice-chairman Chiu Shi-shun until the party’s elections at the end of the year. During the Legislative Council elections last September, Wu suspended her campaign in order to boost the chances of other pan-democratic candidates in the constituency. Fernando Cheung is currently the party’s only lawmaker, following losses by former lawmakers Cyd Ho and Lee Cheuk-yan in the elections.
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 25, 2017.
Labour Party vice-chairperson Cyd Ho has resigned from her position on the executive committee, a day after chairperson Suzanne Wu quit the party citing internal disagreements.
In a statement on Friday, Ho said that the party was in crisis after the resignation of its chairperson, during a time when democrats were facing political persecution and the city’s rule of law was in a precarious situation.
“It is regrettable that the chairperson expressed her criticisms of the party’s meetings publicly, however, I must follow political ethics and take on my political responsibility – as of yesterday evening, I have resigned from my position on the executive committee,” she said.
“When I helped establish the Labour Party in 2011, the aim was to hand over the baton to a new generation of the left. I hope that the continuing young members of the party will be able to thrive, whilst developing the party in a democratically-minded way.”
In a statement by the Labour Party issued on the same day, the secretariat said that a meeting had taken place on Wednesday to discuss Wu’s resignation and departure from the party. “Upon reflection, the party acknowledges that there have been flaws in the handling of complaints by the disciplinary committee. The executive committee will write a report of our findings and make suggestions as to what can be improved, and subsequently pass it on to the party’s members.” “Furthermore, the party believes that the standing committee and the executive committee did not handle the issue in a timely and appropriate manner, for which we take responsibility,” the statement said.
The party thanked Ho for her longstanding contributions to the executive body.
(Ta Kung Pao) August 26, 2017.
When Suzanne Wu resigned, the word was that she had previously complained about the actions and words of Cyd Ho. The Labour Party Disciplinary Committee held a hearing and found on Wu's behalf. However, when Ho objected, the Disciplinary Committee retreated and said that they will not make any judgment. This was what precipitated Wu's resignation. Yesterday, the Labour Party said that they help a special meeting and found that the Disciplinary Committee had failed to handle Wu's complaint in an appropriate manner. As a result, the Executive Committee will write a report. Executive Committee member Cyd Ho was the principal involved, and therefore bears the political responsibility. At the meeting, Ho resigned as Executive Committee member and deputy secretary-general. But she did not resign from the Labour Party.
In her statement, Ho was petulant: "I am one of the principals. The chairwoman complained about my critical opinions expressed during meetings. That is regrettable."
What kind of party is the Labour Party? Just Suzanne Wu and Cyd Ho could turn the entire party into total chaos? Their positions can switch so rapidly back and forth? Who can tell who is right or wrong here?
- Suzanne Wu resigned from the Labour Party because she felt that the Disciplinary Committee had let her down. Cyd Ho accepted responsibility but she did not resign. Why? Because there is a Legislative Council by-election coming up in Hong Kong Island for Nathan Law's vacated seat. And Cyd Ho wants the Labour Party to help her win. If she is to resign, it will be after that by-election.
(Wen Wei Po) August 24, 2017.
In the 2016 Legislative Council elections, Labour Party incumbents Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho lost their posts. Lee Cheuk-yan accepted responsibility and Suzanne Wu became the new chairperson to show that the party was ready to promote the next generation. However the true power in the Executive Committee still remained in the hands of Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho. The reason is very simple: Lee Cheuk-yan controls the party finances, and the cadres are his loyalists. So he did not worry that Suzanne Wu would take over from him.
But Suzanne Wu was no slouch. She wanted to take over not just in name, but in actual power. The key is that she cannot let the gerontocrats come back. On radio, she said that Cyd Ho will not run for re-election as long as Suzanne Wu is Labour Party chairman. But with the jailing of Nathan Law and Joshua Wong, there is now a vacant Legco seat in Hong Kong Island. Based upon the 2016 Legco election results, Cyd Ho would have a good chance to win. So Cy Ho is also excited and she has the support of Lee Cheuk Yan in this.
But Suzanne Wu had already said that she will never let Cyd Ho run again. If the decision was put to a vote by the Labour Party Executive Committee, the outcome is predicable. In that case, how can Suzanne Wu continue to function as chairperson? And if Cyd Ho runs again, Lee Cheuk-yan will want to do so again. Since the Labour Party does not have the resources to run candidates in many districts, this means that Suzanne Wu will have no chance to run in the by-election/election herself. So it was a good idea for her to quit now.
This incident showed the hypocrisy of the opposition politicians. They say that they want to hand over the reins to the next generation. In truth, this was all of show because they cling on to the real power as long as possible. If they lose their legislative seats as well as their power, they would be nobodies. Ultimately, this is about power and money.
[786] Prison Notebooks (2017/08/24)
The Prison Notebooks were a series of essays by the Italian neo-marxist Antonio Gramsci who was imprisoned by the Fascist. Gramsci wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3,000 pages of history and analysis. These Prison Notebooks are considered a highly original contribution to 20th century political theory.
In Hong Kong, we are now getting Joshua Wong's Prison Notebooks.
Joshua Wong's Facebook:
Floor diagram of prison cell, as drawn personally by Joshua Wong.
- (SpeakOut HK) August 24, 2017.
There are ten named items in this diagram. Joshua Wong managed to spell six of them wrong.
平面圖 (2D diagram) ->平面團 (2D group)
廁所 (toilet) -> 次所 (secondary room)
洗手盆 (handwashing basin) -> 洗手盤 (handwashing plate)
儲物箱 (storage box) ->儲物廂 (storage side-room)
鐵欄 (iron gate) -> 鐵闌 (iron railing)
硬板床 (hard board bed) -> 硬版床 (hard version bed)
- Dear Joshua, you are going to have plenty of time on hand in the big house. You should really try to spend more time to learn to read and write.
- No amount of learning can correct a reading/writing impediment. It is well-known that Joshua Wong is dyslexic.
- Why bother? When he comes out, he can always find the usual people to ghostwrite everything for him. On this occasion, the Demosisto folks were too elated about a personally drawn diagram and did not notice the spelling mistakes.
- Actually, since this was in his personal handwriting, the Demosisto folks can't change it. Their other option was to suppress it.
- What is wrong with a Legislative Councilor not knowing how to read or write? His job does not involve reading or writing. His job will be to show up in the Legislative Council and raise his hand every five minutes to demand for quorum to be counted. The rest of time he just have to show up at the RTHK City Forum and exchange insults with the Victoria Park grandpas.
- (HKG Pao) August 25, 2017.
We asked a tutor to give a test to seven primary school students. The tutor read the above six terms to the students who had been given a piece of paper with missing words to be filled out. For example, the teacher read "洗手盆" and the paper had "洗手_" on it already. The student was supposed to write in the missing word "盆".
The seven children are between 8 to 10 years old studying in Primary 2 to 4. These children should have come across these terms in their daily lives.
For the students, one in Primary 4 (age 10), one in Primary 3 (age 9) and two in Primary 2 (age 8) got all six words right. Two Primary 2 (age 8) students got two words wrong. One Primary 2 (age 8) got four words wrong. Every student got "handwashing basin" and "toilet" right.
By comparison, our university student Joshua Wong had gotten those six words wrong. What does that tell us?
The New York Times think Joshua Wong is a student who should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Joshua Wong thinks that he would be elected into the Legislative Council. Is Joshua Wong the pride of Hong Kong, or the shame of Hong Kong?
- (HKG Pao) August 25, 2017.
According to a source, the Correctional Services Department does not allow inmates to draw diagrams of their facilities to be circulated outside (CAP 234, Section 25 Prison Rules). The Department high brass are concerned and are looking into the matter. Our reporter inquired and we were told that no comments will be made about ongoing investigations.
- Article 27 of the Hong Kong Basic Law states that "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."
Joshua Wong is exercising his freedom of speech with the diagram and his freedom of publication to have it published in Apple Daily. Next, he is going to lead the inmates to exercise their freedom of assembly in a procession to strike against the repressive prison regime.
- If a prisoner violates discipline during his term, the usual penalty is an increase in jail time.
(SCMP) Nord Anglia international school row shows up Hong Kong’s bigoted politicians. By Albert Cheng. June 15, 2017.
Rivals from across the political spectrum have united in an effort to block an international school from having a new campus at a shopping mall in Tin Wan, west of Aberdeen in Southern district.
In the past, politicians have objected to community facilities on various grounds; others have blocked projects seen to undermine the value of their properties. The long list of necessary but unwelcome amenities includes a clinic for AIDS patients, a halfway house for the mentally ill, columbariums, landfills, an incinerator, and a mosque in the New Territories. The not-in-my-backyard mentality is widespread. However, the level of political bigotry among local councillors has recently been taken to new heights.
A case in point is Nord Anglia Education’s plan to open an international school at the Tin Wan Shopping Centre, which is now being refurbished. The proposed campus would occupy 3½ storeys of the five-storey complex, which was taken over by a private developer from Link Reit in 2015.
Two weeks ago, at a meeting of the Southern District Council’s committee for district development and housing, councillors of various political stripes sought to derail the plan.
The Democratic Party’s Chai Man-hon tabled a motion to object to the scheme. Not to be outshone, Chan Fu-ming of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong sponsored a proposal calling on the Education Bureau to reject the application. They are worried the school would worsen congestion and squeeze out shops more relevant to the daily lives of the public housing tenants.
But the politicians should have targeted the Link instead. It was the Link that took over shopping malls in public housing estates from the government in the first place, and its policy to maximise revenue has resulted in complaints from the tenants that their needs are being neglected.
The new owner’s strategy is to have a school as an anchor tenant. The remaining 12 shops would include a bank, barber, bakery, fast-food restaurant and supermarket, in a new mix aimed to generate a viable flow of people from within and outside the locality.
Meanwhile, Nord Anglia has pledged to impose strict measures to prevent jams. The school is also prepared to actively integrate itself into the local community. As a sweetener, it has offered to open up its campus facilities after classes for residents’ groups from Tin Wan Estate. Perhaps it can also reserve some free places for children from local public housing.
There is such great demand from both local and expatriate families for quality kindergarten and elementary international schooling that the Tin Wan places have been quickly oversubscribed.
Nevertheless, because of the political hiccup, Nord Anglia is unlikely to open on schedule in September, and has already refunded frustrated parents.
One would expect our young breed of activists, baptised by Occupy Central, to be liberal minded and tolerant of different sectors’ sometimes conflicting social needs. That seems to be wishful thinking.
Demosisto, a one-year-old political party of mostly student activists, has jumped on the bandwagon. Its chairman, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who represents the Hong Kong Island constituency in the legislature, was the first to put up banners opposing the school. He insists tenants in the public housing estate would not benefit from the “luxury international school”.
Ironically, Law tweeted on Tuesday to highlight a Forbes commentary headlined, “Singapore is beating Hong Kong as Asia’s best place to do business.” Apparently, it hasn’t dawned on him that adequate international school places is a critical factor for expatriates to consider moving to Hong Kong for commerce and business.
Demosisto secretary general Joshua Wong Chi-fung crashed a district council meeting to press councillors to sign a placard on the spot to object to the international school. He is eyeing the Island constituency at the next Legislative Council election. Tin Wan is supposed to be his launch pad. The good of the wider community is simply not on his radar.
(Bastille Post) August 24, 2017.
Demosisto's Nathan Law was disqualified as legislative councilor and also sent to jail for the taking of Civic Square. But his previous community work has borne results.
The Tin Wan Shopping Mall used to be a ghost city. Tin Wan only has a population of 20,000, so the business volume at the shopping mall is limited. There is no way to operate a student tutoring service or a dry-cleaning laundry store because there won't be enough clients. The busiest business used to be a restaurant that caters to mainland tourist groups. But when the mainland tourist groups stopped coming, they are having a hard time.
So the Link sold the shopping mall to Ace Precision Investments Limited for $486 million. That private company signed a deal with Nord Anglia School (Hong Kong) Limited) to operate an international school that was scheduled to open next month.
Ace Precision's plan was to use the Nord Anglia School as the anchor tenant to bring in traffic. They planned to rent the other 12 vacant locations to a supermarket, a convenience store, a household items store, a bakery, Chinese/western healthcare clinics and light meal restaurants in order to serve the community again. The Nord Anglia School also agreed to open its meeting halls and facilities for residents and organizations to use after hours. The shopping mall had already been completely renovated, with brand new restrooms, etc.
But Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Demosisto saw the opportunity to launch an attack. They said that the international school did not serve residents in the Tin Wan community. They said that the streets will be congested when parents bring their children to school and pick them up after schools.
In May, the Southern District Council voted to oppose the project. At the same time, the bank which provided the mortgage to Ace Precision Investments issued a letter of disagreement with the rental contract between Ace Precision Investments and Nord Anglia School.
At this point, the school is dead. When the school was first announced, enrolment was oversubscribed. But now the school will have to refund the tuition fees to the parents, who will have to find schools for their children at short notice. The landlord will have an empty shopping mall, which will remain a ghost city. The community residents will not have a shopping mall. This is an outcome in which everybody loses.
- It is not true that everybody loses. Demosisto was able to flex its muscles to show that they can force everybody to accept a losing proposal. Therefore they are the biggest (and only) winner in this.
- Also, the community residents can stand tall and proud to say that they fought off globalization and preserved their own way of life and collective memories.
- Nathan Law had his personal reasons for sabotaging the international school. He was asking residents to donate money to him so he can rent a store front for $10,000 per month at the underused shopping mall for an office to continue to serve the community even though he is not a legislator anymore. This is a way of making sure that Joshua Wong will be elected District Councilor and then Legislative Councilor later. But of course all of this is up in smoke because the convicts Joshua Wong and Nathan Law are not eligible to run for elections for the next five years.
(Wen Wei Po) August 26, 2017. {SPOOF}
This is the darkest day in Hong Kong. I was sentenced to jail under the SAR government's suppression and the cooperation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
When I am handcuffed and taken onto the bus to go to the prison, I will raise my noble head up high. I will not let any insult fall on what I have done. I believe that many people will continue to demonstrate on my behalf. Unfortunately most people have to work for a living, and only 20,000 out of 7 million showed up. But if each of the 20,000 donates $100 to me, I will have $2,000,000; if each donates $1,000, I will have $20,000,000. Unfortunately, I only received $600,000 or so in donations, not enough even to pay for the legal fees. This shows that the level of awakening of the people of Hong Kong is still not high enough. But as soon as my sugar daddy (United States) wires the money over, all my money problems will be solved.
Frankly, I am somewhat disappointed with the response of society this time. I sacrificed myself for the interests of the people of Hong Kong. But some people do not think that I represent the people of Hong Kong. They smeared me for breaking the law by using violence. They said that I deserve to go to jail. Such people are too ignorant. You should know that even patronizing prostitutes can be thought of either as cool or dirty. When you patronize a prostitute out of lust, you are dirty; when you patronize a prostitute because you want to protect her right to work, you are cool. Rule-of-law means that you have to sentence us leniently on account of our noble ideals. But if you throw the book at us, it means that the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are collaborating on political suppression.
We are fighting for democracy, with some of us fighting for Hong Kong independence. The government will not accede to our demands. So we are forced to use violence to express our will. This is not called violent opposition; this is just "civil disobedience"! We merely charged the police lines, threw some bricks and hurt a dozen or so security guards. Nobody got killed. So what is the big deal?
Although Occupy Central affected the normal lives of certain people and caused economic losses, these are nothing compared to Democracy and Freedom. Hong Kong was losing $1.6 billion every day, but this is trivial compared to the pricelessness of Democracy and Freedom. You couldn't buy Democracy and Freedom for a few trillion dollars. And once you have Democracy and Freedom, you have everything. Just look at the Color Revolutions in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere. The people in those places can immigrate at will -- they can immigrate to Germany or France if they want. It doesn't sound nice when they call themselves refugees, but this is how they can get sympathy.
Today we are doing everything possible to cause chaos in Hong Kong because we want to fight for the right of Hongkongers to become refugees. Our slogan is "We would rather be British dogs than Chinese persons." Our goals are noble. The unreasonable SAR judiciary may think that we broke the law. Yes, we broke the law, but we broke the law in order to defend justice. This is the modernistic spirit of "breaking the law in order to attain justice."
This is fucking outrageous. "Breaking the law in order to attain justice" is going to send me to jail. Is there any justice under heaven? Heavens, heavens, is this One Country Two Systems? This is more like One Country 1.5 Systems. But it is nothing to suffer a little for the sake of the people of Hong Kong. As Alvin Yeung taught us, "Having a criminal record will make our lives more colorful." This is the truth. I don't have to study, I don't have to work, I only have to resist and curse this undemocratic world and I will gain the respect and love of the developed nations. They will give me scholarships, they will let me further my studies at world-class top-flight universities, and they can even get me the Nobel Peace Prize. I am very grateful to the democratic pioneers -- they will not let their own children to "break the law in order to attain justice" and thus they gave me the opportunity to earn a criminal record.
Oh, sorry, it is my turn for the "cavity search." Don't worry, because they are using advanced x-ray technology nowadays. But I miss the traditional 'single-finger poke' which was painful but sensual, just like "breaking the law in order to attain justice." I thank Professor Benny Tai, Senior Counsel Martin Lee, money fat man Jimmy Lai, legislator Alvin Yeung -- you are the ones who make my life so colorful.
(Oriental Daily) August 25, 2017. Joshua Wong was sent to prison immediately on August 17. One week later, Joshua Wong said that he has not received a single letter yet.
- As a prison old hand points out, you can't send a letter to Joshua Wong c/o Pik Up Correctional Institution. Names don't mean anything to the prisons. You have to send the letter to P123456 (whatever Joshua Wong's permanent prison ID number is). He must not be very popular with the prison guards or inmates as none of them will tell him this simple fact of life. Or else they told him but, as usual, he never listens.
- Don't wish for letters from the outside!!!
(Oriental Daily) September 3, 2017.
Raphael Wong Ho-ming said that he received a large number of letters over the past two days from his supporters. But he gently reminds everybody that people should pay the correct postage on their letters, because any shortage is paid for out of his prison wages. He is worried that he will have nothing left.
If Joshua Wong wants letters, then I am sure that the Blue Ribbon Facebooks can organize a campaign to get him tens of thousands of letters with insufficient postage.
(SCMP) Letter from a Hong Kong prison misses the point on freedom. By Alex Lo. September 5, 2017.
One of the most talked-about events of the past week has been the online publication of “Letter from Prison” from jailed Occupy protest leader Alex Chow Yong-kang.
It has been circulated thousands of times and collected many more likes. Maybe we are witnessing the birth of a new contribution to the venerable prison literature of the past century.
“Without democracy,” Chow wrote, “any talk about the rule of law is a luxury.”
So I guess the appeal court that has jailed him for seven months is a kangaroo court, no?
He then cited author George Orwell: “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Hong Kong, he implies, has become such a place.
“At a time of proliferation of lies,” he wrote, “we must be courageous to tell the truth to society. Do not be afraid of the powerful and rich and keep silent. We ought to know silence, cynicism, apathy and resignation are the biggest accomplice to all sins and injustice.”
Quite, but I would add that some people keep silent because they are afraid of going against public opinion, or some fiery segments of it. Also Orwell never said or wrote the words Chow quoted; you just can’t trust what you read on the internet.
I suspect the (mis)quote probably morphed from something a 20th century Marxist, the Italian Antonio Gramsci, once wrote: “To tell the truth, to arrive together at the truth, is a communist and revolutionary act.”
You can find it in his collected works.
The whole point of Orwell’s famous novel, 1984, is that in a world of universal deceit and political oppression, not only can you not say a true word, you can’t even think it.
Here in Hong Kong, though, a young protest leader serving a minor sentence can write and publish whatever he likes from prison and be treated like a hero. His message is freely broadcast to all four corners of the world.
He tells us we are being deceived and lied to, but that he and his comrades know the truth and are not afraid to tell us.
Isn’t that the whole point of a free society, that you can believe in and fight for Jesus, Mohammed, or the Goddess of Democracy and what not, and think anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either a doofus or a knave?
[785] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 12 (2017/08/24)
(Oriental Daily) August 24, 2017.
On the morning of February 8-9 2016, there was a riot in Mong Kok. The police reviewed the surveillance videos and found 28-year-old kitchen worker So Tak-shing in the crowd. At one point, So had pulled down his surgical mask to shout. The videos also showed So in mask and gloves digging out bricks from the sidewalk. In June 2016, the police found So and arrested him for participation in a riot. Under police caution, So said: "I was only digging out bricks. I did not throw any bricks at the police."
Under police caution, So admitted on video that he dug out the bricks and placed them into a garbage bin. Another individual used a handcart to take the garbage bin away. After So left the scene, he learned from the news reports that someone was throwing bricks that night. So told the police that he had intended to use those bricks to block obstruct traffic on Portland Street.
The police confirmed that the two sections of the roadway covered areas of 2.25m x 7.8m and 4.6m x 3.1m respectively. The cost of repairs was HK$23,000.
The defense pleaded that the defendant committed the crime "in the heat of the moment" and is now repentant. Confederation of Trade Union's former legislative councilor Lee Cheuk-yan wrote a letter to say that the defendant joined the union in 2007 and praised him as an "idealistic and righteous young man."
The magistrate Clement Lee Hing-nin said that the case was serious. Even though the defendant did not riot himself, he dug out the bricks and assisted the rioters. His actions helped the others to use bricks to attack persons at the scene including the police. "If you did not take part, the other people wouldn't have it so easy." Therefore the magistrate sentenced So Tak-shing to 4 months in jail for each charge to be served concurrently.
(Oriental Daily) August 29, 2017.
25-year-old waiter Tang Ho-yin was charged with one count of rioting during the Mong Kok riot. He was arrested in April when the police identified him as having thrown bricks at the police. The prosecution said that they intend to show a number of surveillance videos. Tang said that he intends to plead guilty. The next hearing on December 15 for the guilty plea/sentencing.
(Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017.
The defendant Tang Yo-yin was arrested on November 10, 2016. Under caution, he said: "For fun's sake I rattled a few street signs and threw some bricks. I held no malicious intent."
The defense pleaded that the defendant suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which may explain what he did at the time. He may have been influenced by the atmosphere at the scene rather than just hating the police.
The defense pointed out that the level of violence used by those present was only "moderate." Besides it had been a "terrifying night." The judge disagreed with the characterization of the level of violence and said that it had indeed been a "terrifying night" for the police. There were 60 police officers at the scene of the crime (intersection of Shan Tung Street and Nathan Road southbound lanes). About half of them sustained injuries even though they were equipped with helmets and shields. The defendant stood in the front and threw bricks. This was a high degree of participation.
The defendant was allowed to remain on bail while he meets with his own psychiatrist to come up with a report. The judge stated that a jail sentence is assured.
(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2018.
Chef Chan Cheuk-hin was previously convicted of one count of disturbing the public order (specifically, by throwing a trash bin onto the roadway) and sentenced to 21 days in jail. Chan filed an appeal. Today in court, Chan said that he has decided to withdraw his appeal. As a result, Chan will have to serve the 7 remaining days on his term.
Part-time tutor Chan Yu-kei was previously convicted of one count of assaulting a police officer and sentenced to three months in jail. Today in court, the judge heard the argument and rejected the appeal. Chan was sent back to jail immediately.
(Hong Kong Free Press) February 10, 2018.
The appeal application of a protester convicted of assaulting the police during the 2016 Mong Kok unrest was denied by a judge on Friday. Another demonstrator guilty of disorderly conduct withdrew his appeal.
The pair were arrested after heated clashes broke out between protesters and police over the government’s clearance of street hawkers during Lunar New Year.
In 2016, protester Chan Cheuk-hin – who was accused of throwing a rubbish bin out into the road during the protest – was found guilty of one count of behaving in a disorderly manner. Chan Yu-kei was convicted of one count of assaulting a police officer. They were jailed for 21 days and three months respectively.
The pair appealed their convictions. Chan Cheuk-hin, who was unrepresented, told the High Court on Friday that he will not continue with his appeal and Judge Judianna Barnes withdrew his application. He must complete the remaining seven days of imprisonment, Ming Pao reported.
At the appeal hearing, Chan Yu-kei’s counsel argued that the police sergeant could not see who had assaulted him, and that Chan may not have been the attacker. However, the judge said Chan did not leave the sight of one police officer who said he witnessed Chan’s attack on the sergeant.
Chan also argued that the first instance judge did not deal with his claim that a police officer had hit him on the head. But Judge Barnes said that, at the trial, Chan did not testify about the matter, nor did the defence cross-examine the officer on this point.
The judge said that although it was Chan’s right to not testify on the stand, it was difficult for the court to determine whether he had acted out of self-defence. She added that Chan had not been the officer’s target during the protests, and determined it was not a case of self-defence.
Judge Barnes denied Chan’s appeal application. He must continue serving his jail sentence immediately.
[784] Parental Love (2017/08/22)
(HK01) August 21, 2017. Carrie Lam said yesterday that as a mother herself, she can understand how the mothers of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow feel. That evening, Alex Chow's father called up a radio station. He said that if Carrie Law wants to show that she cares for the mothers, she should have done so on the day when the court ruling was issued. So it was unfair for her to wait until today. What does he want to tell Carrie Lam? He said that while he respects her for having done a lot of Hong Kong, "every mother has motherly love, so she should not be using motherly love to increase her own political capital."
Internet Comments:
- There is total agreement on this demand, beginning with the following parents who were in the news recently:
- (Apple Daily) August 17, 2017. On the eve of the court ruling, Nathan Law and his mother were interviewed by TV Most. She cried in front of the camera: "Young people are being suppressed for speaking out. Which mother would not be heartbroken?" She denounced senior government officials as looking to make a living as opposed to working for Hong Kong. "These people want to oppress young people!" She said that she brought her three sons from Shanwei to immigrate to Hong Kong so that they can grown up in a society of rule-of-law and democracy. She said that mainland China has rule-by-man so that you cannot criticize the authorities. After the handover of Hong Kong back to China, she knew that Hong Kong would change but not so quickly. "In mainland China, Mao Zedong said that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In Hong Kong, the government is willing people silently with the wave of a pen. This is even terrifying than China." She said that Nathan Law used to introverted and only interested in playing games at home. "I never expected that he would go to the front. That scared me at first. But he said that he is doing this for our society. If he were selfish, he wouldn't have stepped up and then society won't be changed. I had nothing to say. She said that she felt uneasy as a mother: "Young people speak up not for personal gains and then get suppressed. What mother wouldn't be heartbroken?"
- (RTHK) August 17, 2017.
After the court session was over, Nathan Law's father was asked how he felt. Was the ruling unexpected? He only said: "I don't want to say anything."
- (Oriental Daily) August 18, 2017. Alex Chow's mother began to cry even before the court session began. After the ruling was issued, she cried out aloud. Alex Chow's father was calmer. He declined to comment on the court ruling, but said that he was proud of the actions of his son, Joshua Wong and Nathan Law. He said that he completely supports what his son did, because it was done for a better future Hong Kong and not for personal gains. It was a selfless decision. He said that the purpose of the government's judicial review was to make sure that they don't break the law again. But he thinks that there will be an opposite effect to cause more people to awaken politically.
- (Ming Pao) August 18, 2017. Our reporter interviewed Alex Chow's father. He said that he was heartbroken by the jail term. He said that his son did not do it for personal gain. "As parents, we are proud of what the three young men did. We support them completely. We have never regretted supporting them."
- (DotDotNews) August 24, 2017. On radio, Alex Chow's father said: "She did not have to bring this up on the day before yesterday. But why did she tell us that she is the mother of two twenty-something-year-olds?" The radio host said: "The reporter asked her." Alex Chow's mother then said: "Every mother has motherly love, but please do not use motherly love to increase one's political capital."
In truth, the reporter asked Carrie Lam: "Joshua Wong's mother and Nathan Law's mother have some questions for you ... can you answer them as a mother yourself?" Carrie Lam answered that she is the mother of two twenty-something-year-olds and that she had mentioned to the various individuals in October 2014 that their actions must be lawful no matter how noble their intentions are.
- "When your son errs, you as a parent can forgive him. But an error is an error, and you can't erase it just because this is your son."
- "True fatherly love is to warn him up front, instead of blaming other people after the fact."
- "He can tolerate his son's errors, but the law cannot allow criminal activities to go unpunished."
- (Ming Pao) August 18, 2017. Three hours before the court ruling was issued, Joshua Wong's mother made a post at her son's Facebook. She quoted from the Bible to encourage her son to keep the faith. She criticized the Secretary for Justice for strangling the enthusiasm and idealism of young people. "Why has Hong Kong fallen to this point, so as to treat this generation of children this way?"
- Joshua Wong's father and mother did not show up in court. Previously Father vs. Son in Hong Kong LGBT Online Campaign Battle, December 7, 2016.
- (Ming Pao) August 22, 2017. On Facebook, Joshua Wong's father Roger Wong posted on "cold words in a hot summer": "Your two sons studied at Cambridge University. One of them has graduated and is a corporate manager in mainland China. How can you say that you understand how the mothers of the prisoners feel?"
- Internet users quoted a classical Chinese saying: 養不教、父之過 "When someone is raised up without being taught anything, the fault lies with the father."
Roger Wong's Facebook responds:
August 23 18:18: I just changed a setting to allow only Friends to comment (everybody used to be able to comment)
August 23 15:54: Various Fifty-cent gangers, if your bosses have a budget, please someone with better quality. Thanks!
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 2, 2017.
On Facebook, Roger Wong wrote: "When he goes out, he never turns the lights and air conditioner off. The maid has to do this for him. But I find it somewhat intolerable that he always takes his shoes off in the middle of the living room when the shoe shelf is right on the side. He never closes drawers even though it only requires a gentle push. Today he is in jail and he has finally learned how to make his own bed. I never imagined that he would be able to make his own bed ..."
What Roger Wong was unable to teach Joshua Wong to do in 21 years was finally realized by the Pik Uk correctional officers. The Wong family should be celebrating.
Joshua Wong is a typical Kong child. The so-called Kong child appears to be quite knowledgeable with respect to things such as the Math Olympiad, Cambridge English, piano grades, etc, but he has not even the most basic survival skills (such as washing dishes, cleaning up, making beds, cooking, ...).
While Joshua Wong talks about how he will lead us to create a brand new world, his bold visions do not mesh with the image of him not knowing how to fold a blanket. Can I trust a person who opens a drawer but never closes it to destroy the old world and rebuild from scratch?
From Occupy Central to now, Joshua Wong and friends wanted to bring down the establishment, bring down the system, bring down morality, bring down old values ... they say that everything is flawed and they have bring down everything and start anew. Yet, you can't even close a drawer. When you bring Hong Kong down, can you rebuild it?
Internet comments:
- Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow are not in jail for exercising their freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want before, during and after the Civic Square incident. They are not in jail for exercising their freedom of assembly. They were able to hold an assembly with police approval until 10pm that night. But at 1020pm, the three called on the attendees to join them to forcibly break into Government Headquarters. The result was:
(SCMP) During the incident, a total of 10 security guards at the Central Government Offices got injured while they were preventing the rally participants from entering the area. Most of them suffered from slight injuries, such as tenderness, bruises and swelling. Security officer Chan Kei-lun was more seriously injured. He suffered from bruises and swelling on his left foot toe and a slight fracture near his first phalanx. He took sick leave for a total of 39 days.
The three were charged with and convicted on unlawful assembly and/or incitement of others to join an unlawful assembly.
- Have Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow and their parents showed any concern for the 10 injured security guards? No. Why? Because these security guards are little people. During the Resistance, sacrifices must sometimes be made. It is better that little people make sacrifices because we need the celebrity politicians to continue to lead us until victory is achieved. Long Live the Resistance! Long Live Freedom! Long Live Democracy! Death to Carrie Lam! Death to Xi Jinping! Death to the Chinese Communist Party!
- The security guards get paid the royal wage of $34.50 per hour and, when they took the jobs, they knew about the inherent risks. Chan Kei-lun got to take 39 paid days off to stay home and watch television. How can he possibly complain?
- The defence argued that Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow had christened the area in front of the Government Headquarters as Civic Square. Once so designated, it means that all citizens can enter Civic Square. However, the area was gated by the government at the time. Therefore Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow called on those at the assembly to join them to enter Civic Square. They did not call for violence and they did not anticipate violence. They did not expect the security guards would actually line up to hold the demonstrators back. Clashes occurred. There is no evidence that Wong, Law and Chow personally hurt any of the 10 security guards, and they cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.
- What is this nonsense? Can I designate your living room as My Toilet and defecate there? Or your apartment as My New Home and move in?
- Wong, Law and Chow knew that they messed up on September 26, 2014. You can see their behavior since then.
On September 26, 2014, they expected no violence but 10 security guards were injured.
On December 1, 2014, the last great battle of Occupy Central was fought outside Government Headquarters (see #075). A violent battle was predicted, as demonstrators showed up with shields, bamboo poles, rocks and bottles. Wong, Law and Chow did not take part. Joshua Wong was spotted bringing instant noodle cups to watch the action on live television inside the Legislative Council building. Alex Chow told the press that there is a division of labor with him being assigned responsibilities other than charging the police line.
This past Sunday, Joshua Wong called on people to march to support the 16 prisoners of conscience. However, he re-emphasized that this demonstration march shall follow the principles of "Peace, Reason and Non-Violence." He said this repeatedly to make sure that he cannot be charged if Hong Kong Indigenous crashes the party with "valiant resistance."
- If Wong, Law and Chow got 6 to 8 months for what they did, then Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hand must be looking at 12 months of jail time for what they did (#601). This is a no-brainer.
- (Ta Kung Pao) August 23, 2017. Roger Wong said that Carrie Lam got the timeline wrong. The taking of Civic Square took place on September 26, 2014. Several weeks later Carrie Lam met with the student leaders in a televised debate when she told them not to break the law while pursuing their ideals of democracy.
The fact is that while Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow are young, they are not three-year-old babies. Could they be pieces of blank white paper who know absolutely nothing about these basic facts of life before Carrie Lam told them? Why is Roger Wong blaming Carrie Lam for not telling them earlier before September 26th? Where were the parents? Why did the parents never bother to tell their children that it is wrong to break the law? They had more than 20 years to do so but apparently never bothered.
In this matter, Carrie Lam spoke straightforwardly in defense of the spirit of rule-of-law. She does not need to use "motherly love" as her political capital. In like manner, "fatherly love" should not be used as capital to gain sympathy and self-justification.
- (Oriental Daily) August 22, 2017.
A banner appeared outside Hong Kong University MTR station exit C2 on Belcher's Street, Kennedy Town. The words are for the "Occupy Trio" and the message was "Their children stayed home to watch; other people's children end up with criminal records."
- It was a magnificent display of fatherly love for Benny Tai to forbid his son from participating in the unlawful activities of Occupy Central, because a criminal record will mean that his son can never become a lawyer.
- That is your speculation. The truth is that Benny Tai must have a more important mission for his son, such as becoming a judge on the Court of Appeal and freeing all political prisoners of conscience.
[783] Contra Lau Siu-lai (2017/08/21)
August 7, 13:09: Righteous friends, please forward -- I just walked down Great George Street and saw the bitches Lau Siu-lai and Tanya Chan shouting for people to donate money to them. I immediately called the police and tell them someone is unlawfully soliciting. In less than 3 minutes, uniformed police officers arrived on the scene. Those bitches skedaddled immediately. I will call the police every time that I see them.
Good! Citizens should denounce suspected unlawful activities.(Wen Wei Po) August 21, 2017.
On August 6, Lau Siu-lai and legislator Tanya Chan got together to solicit money. That afternoon, Lau, Chan and some aides set up near Patterson Street in the Causeway Bay district. While Chan was screaming her head off on her megaphone, Lau stood as still as a tree next to her. Our reporter observed them for more than half an hour and saw very few donors. After more than one hour, there was less than $300 in the box. Suddenly Lau nervously took off and left the scene. Very soon, some uniformed police officers came and spoke to Tanya Chan. The assistant put the donation box underneath the table. Some passersby speculate that a citizen had filed a police report against persons soliciting donations without official authorization. Our reporter checked the government notices at the Home Offices Department, and this "donation campaign" was not listed either as application or approval. Thus, Lau and Chan were most likely engaged in unlawful solicitation.
(Wen Wei Po) August 21, 2017
Lau Siu-lai was disqualified on July 14 as legislative council on account that her oath of office was not solemn and sincere. Since then she has been complaining about being financially stressed and therefore she is soliciting donations to keep her Legislative Councilor's office running and pay for the legal fees.
On the afternoon of August 13, we received a tip that Lau Siu-lai and others were soliciting donations unlawfully outside a certain elementary school in Prince Edward, Mong Kok district. We got there and found Lau Siu-lai and a dozen or so people taking over half the sidewalk. There were about 10 "Teacher Siu-lai's Democracy Classroom" flags. Pedestrians had to step into the hot sun in order to get around them.
There were three transparent donation boxes, but there does not appear to be a lot of money in them. Some of the volunteers mentioned "Legislative Councilor" when they solicit for donations. But when the target person ask, "Is the Legislative Councilor soliciting money to pay for legal fees?" the volunteers did not clarify.
At about 530pm, Lau Siu-lai appeared to have enough of the heat. So she left with a male aide. Because she is used to taking taxis, she walked to Pioneer Centre and looked around. The male aide pointed the direction, and they spent about 10 minutes before they found the Prince Edward MTR station entrance 100 meters away. So it seems that Lau Siu-lai who lives in Kowloon West and claims to be down-to-earth really does not know the MTR system there.
The highlight of Lau Siu-lai's schedule on August 13th was attendance at the HK Community Cinema showing of the film <Ten Years> at the Lai Chi Kok Community Center. The official event poster says that Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai and two of the film directors will interact with the audience. The court ruling had included an injunction against Lau Siu-lai from acting as a member of the Legislative Council and claiming to act as a member of the Legislative Council. Neither Lau Siu-lai nor her Teacher Siu-lai's Classroom website has corrected this mistake. Lau Siu-lai may be charged with contempt of court.
HK Community Center showing of <Ten Years> ... Lau Siu-lai, legislative councilorThe showing of the movie was plagued with problems with the sub-titles and sound system. Several dozen spectators were annoyed and left before the movie ended. Afterwards, Lau Siu-lai and the two directors were invited to interact with the audience. An audience member denounced the stories as narrow-minded and sensationalistic such that young people can be misled into activities that hurt themselves and society. This person also did not think that learning putonghua is in conflict with using dialect, and said that he was sorry that his children never got the chance to learn putonghua. Lau Siu-lai and the directors found it awkward to answer such questions.
So the host quickly ended the session, and informed the audience that the organizers cannot have any financial transactions within a facility rented from the government. Therefore they will wait outside the door. She said: "You know what I mean, so you should know what to do."
About 10 people including Lau Siu-lai stood outside the door with small donation boxes. They urged the departing spectators to donate money. Some young people said among themselves: "Didn't the poster say that it was completely free?" "Forget it, if they stand at the door with their hands out, we are forced to give." Another spectator told our reporter: "If they said beforehand that this movie will cost some money, I will definitely give; but I hate people who use a sleight of hand to force people to fork money over."
(Wen Wei Po) August 21, 2017.
According to Land Registry, Lau Siu-lai owns at least two properties, one in New Territories and another for herself to live in Kowloon. The two properties are worth more than $10 million in value.
In 2011, Lau Siu-lai bought a 500+ sq ft property in Hung Hom for herself to live in at $4.3 million. Our reporter checked with the bank and found out that the property is estimated to be worth $7.6 million now. Along with her property in New Territories, she is easily worth $10 million plus. Even though she has been disqualified as legislative councilor, her university teaching post pays several tens of thousands per month. No wonder she has previously told the media that she can afford to ride in taxis the rest of her life.
After many days of observations late last month, Lau Siu-lai always flags taxis when she goes out. Even though her apartment is just 5 minutes away from the MTR station and she can walk 10 minutes to reach Hung Hom East Rail Station and the bus terminal, she still takes taxis. Lau Siu-lai may claim that she does everything for the grassroots, her own lifestyle is definitely uncommon.
(Wen Wei Po) August 21, 2017.
In disqualifying Lai Siu-lai, the court issued an injunction against her acting as or claiming to be a Legislative Councilor. So when she showed up at the <Ten Years> showing as a Legislative Councilor, she is guilty of contempt of court.
When the HK Community Cinema presented "Legislative Councilor" Lau Siu-lai as their guest at the showing of <Ten Years> as the attraction in order to rake in donations, they may be guilty of fraud. And even if the donations took place outside of the Community Centre, this may still be in violation of the Summary Offences Ordinance.
Lau Siu-lai had also published her personal bank account information to collect unlawful donations. As such, Lau Siu-lai may be charged under CAP 615 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance and CAP 155 Banking Ordinance for using her bank account for unlawful purposes. The bank should freeze her account and contact the police immediately for a thorough investigation or else they may be culpable themselves.
(Wen Wei Po) August 21, 2017.
Synopsis of unlawful solicitation activities:
Source of information: Facebook pages of the respective organizationsTeacher Siu-lai's classroom
August 13, Prince Edward/Lai Chi Kok: Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, Yiu Chung-yim
August 12, 17 locations: Lau Siu-lai, Joseph Zen
August 11, Central: Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law
August 6, Causeway Bay: Lau Siu-lai, Tanya Chan
August 5, Hung Hom: Lau Siu-lai, Claudia Mo
August 4, Causeway Bay: Lau Siu-lai
August 3, Shatin: Lau Siu-lai, Eddie Chu Hoi DickLeague of Social Democrats
August 20, Wanchai: Leung Kwok-hung
August 19, Wanchai, Sham Shui Po: Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Ka-hung
August 18, Tseung Kwan O: Leung Kwok-hung
August 12, Mong Kok: Raphael Wong Ho-ming
August 11, Sha Tin, Tai Wai, Central: Leung Kwok-hung
August 6, Mong Kok, Tai Po: Leung Kwok-hung
August 5, Tuen Mun, Fan Ling: Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuenHong Kong Demosisto
August 12, Causeway Bay: Derek Lam
August 11, Central: Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Leung Kwok-hung
August 6, Quarry Bay: Nathan Law
August 1, Heng Fa Chuen: Nathan LawInternet comments:
- CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance Section 26A Punishment of person begging alms:
Article 4. Nuisances committed in public places, etc.
Any person who without lawful authority or excuse ---
(17) organizes, provides equipment for, or participates in any collection of money or sale or exchange for donations of badges, tokens or similar articles in a public place except under and in accordance with a permit issued—
(i) for a collection, sale or exchange for charitable purposes, by the Director of Social Welfare; or
(ii) for a collection, sale or exchange for any other purpose, by the Secretary for Home Affairs;
shall be liable to a fine of $500 or to imprisonment for 3 months.
- Don't you understand the rules of the game? When Lau Siu-lai does it, it is for freedom and democracy and therefore it is all for the good. If you crack down on her activities, then you hate freedom and democracy, and Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch/United Nations Human Rights Council/Chris Patten/New York Times/The Wall Street Journal will come down on you. So why don't you take this story and just deep-six it? That would be better for your health (wink wink nudge nudge).
- Time for yet another New York Times editorial to nominate Lau Siu-lai for the Nobel Peace Prize?
- (HKG Pao) August 23, 2017. Previously, Lau Siu-lai promised to donate half her salary (which is more than $45,000 per month) to the poor and needy. Now that she no longer has the legislative council salary, she is asking people to donate $80,000 per month to her.
[782] Hong Kong Online Political Etiquette (2017/08/20)
First, former Information Coordinator for the Office of the Chief Executive Fung Wai-kwong posted on his Facebook:
Three questions that Chan Kin-man does not dare to answer:
(1) Did your children or relatives take part in Occupy Central? Did anyone of them go to jail?
(2) Why isn't the Occupy Central financial report released even now? Did money come from foreign forces?
(3) Did you private used Occupy Central money?This drew the following comment from Au Nok-hin, the Civil Human Rights Front convener and Democratic Party district councilor (Lei Tung constituency in Hong Kong Southern District):
Hey, Fung Wai Kwong, I am telling you: I fuck you.
(HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 19, 2017.
I woke up early on Saturday. With nothing else to do, I picked up my mobile phone and looked at Facebook: I saw former Information Coordinator for the Office of the Chief Executive Fung Wai-kwong posted three questions that he says Occupy Central trio member Chan Kin-man won't answer.
These are not just Mr. Fung's questions. Hong Kong citizens have been wondering the same for some years already. Just as I was going to hit the PRAISE button, I saw Democratic Party Hong Kong Southern District Lei Tung constituency district councilor Au Nok-hin commented: "Fung Wai Kwong, I am telling you: I XXXX you." That XXXX is an obscenity.
I was astonished. A Democratic Party district councilor who is a public servant receiving taxpayers money was publicly cursing out a citizen with foul language.
So I left a comment to tell everyone to publicize the sayings to the residents of Lei Tung district, so that they can see the quality of their elected representative. Immediately, Au Nok-hin linked up with Democratic Party Hong Kong Island Southern District Wah Fu North constituency district councilor Henry Chai Man-hon to curse us out and dig our old information in order to discredit Mr. Fung Wai-kwong and me.
Facebook fights are not worth mentioning, so why do I want to describe this episode in detail? That is because I want everybody to see what the opposition camp does. These are the tactics that they have been using all along. Over the years, people ask: Why do reasonable people not speak out? Why do normal voices have no channels for expression? The behavior of these two district councilors explain why.
When you pose a damaging question, the opposition will immediately pounce out like a tiger on a prey. They will not engage in a head-to-head debate. Their first step is to launch a tirade of invectives. Their second step is to enumerate your mistakes. Normal people won't fight with them, so you choose to shut up and retreat. This creates the impression that you were somehow at fault.
If even district councilors behave like this, you can imagine how the online henchmen can be.
Therefore, if you want to take back your speech rights, you must never back off. You must immediately point out the facts. When they counterattack, you do to them as they tried to do to you. Currently, the latest curse to be used is the term: The Stapler! Once you invoke The Stapler, they will look for holes in the ground to hide in.
As for the two district councilors who have time to provoke fights on Facebook but no time to inspect their communities, I will give you a good piece of advice: when citizens express their views on Facebook, they are exercising their freedom of speech. As district councilors, you are getting paid to serve the people. If you want to be enemies of the people, you should give up the job and its salary. We are your bosses.
Internet comments:
- More from Fung Wai Kwong's Facebook
Au Nok-hin: The most important thing about a person is to persevere. Wing-yin and Wai-kwong used to be pro-democracy. Today they have become supporters of the authorities. I can only say that it is heartbreakingly tragic.
Wat Wing-yin: I hope that you take a good look at the stapler on top of your desk. Who do you think lost their way now?
Wat Wing-yin: I did not change. Mr. Fung did not change. What has changed is China. The Chinese Communist Party has changed, but you are still clinging to the image from twenty years ago. This is not called perseverance. It is called being pig-headed (=stupidly obstinate).
Wat Wing-yin: I am just a regular citizen. I write a column to tell what people are thinking. This is called freedom of expression. But you people are district councilors with political power. So how can you be taking in taxpayer money while causing chaos?
Why don't you answer the question? Don't change the subject! The question was about the financial books.(Screen capture of announcement from Occupy Central (Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming): The first Occupy Central financial report shall cover the period from March last year to June 30 this year. It will be audited by an auditor. Date: March 9, 2014). As of today (August 19, 2017), no such financial report has been released.
[781] A Hyrbid Co-location Proposal (2017/08/18)
Previous: Co-location: The Next Big Battle For Freedom/Democracy (2017/07/22)
(The Stand News) Co-location: A Substitute Proposal. By Johannes Chan. August 18, 2017.
This proposal deals separately with northbound (Hong Kong->Mainland China) and southbound (Mainland China-> Hong Kong passengers.
Northbound
Co-location will take place in the West Kowloon Station
(1) At the West Kowloon Station, the passengers will go through Hong Kong immigration control to exit and proceed to a leased Mainland Port Area where they go through mainland Chinese immigration/customs/quarantine control.
(2) In all of the West Kowloon Station (including the Mainland Port Area), Hong Kong law holds.
Comment: Under the government's co-location proposal, Chinese laws hold in the Mainland Port Area. That is the main difference. The government argues that their approach would "would ensure clarity in implementation, avoid overlapping jurisdiction, and also the avoid of legal lacunas to perpetrate acts that are prejudicial to the interests of Hong Kong or the state."
(3) Mainland China personnel are allowed to conduct only immigration/customs/quarantine in the Mainland Port Area. They are not allowed to exercise any other power.
Comment: This means if a rowdy traveler complains about something or the other or even assaults mainland customs agents, the mainland Chinese personnel can only summon the Hong Kong Police and give them special permission to enter the mainland Chinese area for the specific purpose of dealing with this passenger.
Comment: The government says: "The greatest problem with this suggestion is that it is impossible to draw a clear distinction between those laws which are relevant to clearance procedures and those laws which would not be applied in the course of clearance procedures."
Comment: For example, the mainland Chinese customs agents want to confiscate a rhinoceros horn but the passenger contests the decision. What will the Hong Kong policemen do? If the rhinoceros horn is not banned under Hong Kong law, then the passenger has done nothing wrong.
(4) Those passengers who are refused entry into mainland China are handed back to Hong Kong law enforcement agents to follow up.
Comment: For example, mainland China prohibits people from bringing more than 20,000 RMB in cash into China. So if a person is found by mainland Chinese customs personnel to be carrying 500,000 RMB without explanation, that person and the cash can only be handed back to Hong Kong law enforcement agents. Since Hong Kong has no comparable currency restrictions, that person cannot be charged under Hong Kong law and will be released in Hong Kong. Since only a small fraction of travelers are randomly selected for inspection, a smuggling ring can send hundreds of mules knowing that most of them will get through and the few who are detected will be sent back to Hong Kong and freed along with their money.
Comment: For example, if fugitive Guo Wengui comes back with a fake passport and is detected by the mainland Chinese immigration officers, he can only be handed back to Hong Kong law enforcement agents. There is no extradition arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China, so Guo will be released in Hong Kong.
Comment: The mainland Chinese law enforcement departments will simply adapt to the situation by not giving any immediate indication of awareness of any problem. They will radio ahead and public security bureau officers will be waiting at the first mainland Chinese stop.
(5) After passing through mainland China immigration/customs/quarantine, the passengers will still be in Hong Kong. The waiting hall is under Hong Kong law. The shops in the waiting hall are under Hong Kong law.
Comment: This means that the Falun Gong can buy a train ticket, go through Hong Kong exit control, enter the mainland Chinese area, stand in front of the mainland China checkpoint, set up a stall, hand out pamphlets to urge travelers to join the 60 million who have resigned from the Chinese Communist Party and denounce the evil Jiang Zemin. At the end of the day, they can just go back to Hong Kong side. This activity is legal and protected under Hong Kong law (see Mong Kok and Causeway Bay).
(6) If a passenger wants to change his travel plans after passing through mainland Chinese immigration/customs/quarantine control, he can go back to the Hong Kong side without having to go through any mainland China exit procedure.
Comment: This extra step is needed because there is no provision for mainland China exit procedure in West Kowloon under this hybrid proposal.
Southbound
Co-location will be based in Futian Station, city of Shenzhen.
(1) Futian will be the last stop before leaving mainland territory. Mainland Chinese law enforcements agents can enforce mainland law without violating the Hong Kong Basic Law.
Comment: It is not possible to have Hong Kong law holding under co-location in West Kowloon Station for southbound trains. For example, a mainland Chinese fugitive arrives at West Kowloon Station. The mainland Chinese immigration officer immediately identifies him as a suspect in the Xinjiang knife attack. However, he cannot be arrested because this is an issue with the mainland Chinese criminal law code. When the Hong Kong Police are summoned, the fugitive immediately pleads for habeas corpus and political asylum on grounds of religious persecution. This would be a security hole to make Hong Kong a safe haven for fugitives, and that is why the last check has to take place inside mainland China.
(2) At Futian Station, all passengers disembark for exit clearance. After they do so here, they won't be required to do anything more in West Kowloon. The time taken will not be a lot.
Comment: See the next item for the time required.
(3) At Futian Station, the passengers go through mainland Chinese exit control first. Then they proceed to a leased Hong Kong Port Area to go through Hong Kong immigration/customs/quarantine entry control.
Comment: How much time will it take? Let us say that the Beijing->Hong Kong High Speed Rail train pulls into Futian. The long-haul train has 16 cars with 85 seats per car for a maximum of 1,360 passengers. The passengers file out with their luggage and march to the mainland Chinese exit checkpoint.
There are three types of passengers: mainland Chinese residents who use e-passages with facial recognition technology; Hong Kong residents who use e-passages with facial recognition technology; foreign passport holders who hand over their passports to be cleared by mainland immigration officers.
Those passengers will walk to the Hong Kong Port Area for immigration clearance. There are two types of passengers: Hong Kong residents will use their ID cards to go through e-passages with fingerprint recognition technology; other persons have to be cleared by Hong Kong immigration officers.
Those passengers will walk through the Hong Kong customs/quarantine area. A few of the passengers have something to declare and that will take time to sort out. Most passengers have nothing to declare but a few will be randomly selected for inspection, with some taking more time to sort out problems.
How long will it take? 5 minutes to clear everybody? That's impossible. 20 minutes? That's also a stretch. So let us say 60 minutes to make sure that every single passenger makes it.
Now the question is what happens to the train that you took from Beijing to Hong Kong. If the train has to sit at the Futian track and wait 60 minutes to pick up all passengers, it would be disastrous for operations because that track cannot be used by other trains. High Speed Rail trains arrive at 3 minutes intervals, so Futian Station will be clogged with waiting trains. That original train is going to clear out as soon as all the passengers are off, and the train service is properly called the Beijing->Futian train.
Sixty minutes later, another empty long-haul train comes into the station to take the passengers of this train (and only this train) for a 14-minute ride to West Kowloon Station. This train will have the same number of seats as the original train, so that passengers can take the same reserved seats. This train service is properly called the Futian->West Kowloon shuttle.
Comment: This proposal means (1) passengers have to waste more time; (2) passengers have the inconvenience of taking their luggage off and on the train. Johannes Chan tells people to ignore the small inconveniences and look at the big picture.
What is that big picture? Something about not ceding Hong Kong land to mainland China to erode a High Degree of Autonomy/One Country Two Systems/Basic Law. And something about mainland personnel may brutally put down insurrections inside the Mainland Port Area, or torture passengers in inhumane ways, thus destroying the image of Hong Kong as an international financial centre and a rule-of-law society.
(4) When Futian Station becomes the Co-location point, there will be significant economic benefits to Futian.
Comment: Futian would only be a way station. How many travelers will want to stay overnight in Futian and dine/shop there instead of spending another 15 minutes to arrive in the heart of Kowloon? If there are many passengers who prefer this, then it is time for the Hong Kong Tourism Bureau to reflect on what has gone wrong.
At present, Futian Station does not have the facility to host co-location. Even if they start construction immediately, they won't be ready by 3Q 2018 when the Express Rail Link becomes operational in Hong Kong. So Johannes Chan has a stop-gap solution with On-board Clearance.
(1) When the High Speed Rail train arrives in Futian, mainland Chinese and Hong Kong immigration control personnel will board the train. The passengers will remain in their seats as the train continues to Hong Kong. The mainland Chinese personnel will conduct exit control and the Hong Kong personnel will conduct entry control.
(2) With sufficient manpower, on-board clearance will take only about 20 minutes.
Comment: The government said: "the journey time between the WKS and the first station in the Mainland (Futian Station) is only around 14 minutes, and that between the HKSAR/Shenzhen boundary and Futian Station would be even shorter, at about three minutes." Under the 20 minutes assumption, clearance won't be completed until after the train arrives at West Kowloon Station.
Comment: If not all passengers have been cleared when the train arrives at West Kowloon Station, then what? If you hold the train at the platform until all passengers are cleared, it will clog up operations at West Kowloon Station. If you move the passengers off into a restricted area to continue clearance, then this becomes Co-location. Why not just do Co-location then?
Comment: Once the train crosses the border, the security hole will appear. Fugitives detected by mainland Chinese immigration officers on the train can claim habeas corpus and ask for political asylum under Hong Kong law. So are they going to declare the train itself is mainland Chinese territory until the passengers disembark at West Kowloon Station?
Comment: The government says that "the current XRL trains acquired by the HKSARG through the MTRCL for short-haul service provide 579 seats each." How long will it take to process 579 passengers?
First we let the mainland immigration officers equipped with handheld devices walk though the train. There are three types of passengers:
(1) a mainland resident will hand over the Chinese ID; the ID will be scanned to check for validity and/or warrants; verification of the bearer by facial recognition technology;
(2) a Hong Kong resident hands over the Home Visit Permit; the permit will be scanned to check for validity and/or warrants; verification of the bearer by facial recognition technology;
(3) all others hand over their passports/travel documents; the passports will be scanned to check for validity and/or warrants; verification by photo comparison.
Next comes the Hong Kong immigration officers equipped with their own handheld devices. There are two types of passengers:
(1) a Hong Kong resident hands over the Hong Kong ID card; the card will be scanned to check for validity and/or warrants; verification by fingerprint technology;
(2) a mainland resident hand over the Chinese ID card and visa; the ID card and visa will be checked for validity and/or warrants;
(3) all others hand over their passports/travel documents; the passports will be scanned to check for validity and/or warrants; a photo will be taken.
[By the way, they don't have such handheld devices yet. This is assuming that they will build them within the time-frame. This is not so easy as these handheld devices must access centralized databases reliably and securely on the train.]
If an immigration officer takes 3 minutes to process one passenger, then it takes 579 x 3 = 1,737 minutes to process all passengers. In order to complete everything in 20 minutes, you need 1,737 / 20 = 87 immigration officers.
In summary, "sufficient manpower" means about 87 mainland Chinese immigration officers and 87 Hong Kong immigration officers on board the train. This is going to set a Guinness World Record.
[Note: The above calculation is based upon a short-haul train with 579 seats. The Beijing->Hong Kong train will be a long-haul train with 1,360 seats. In this case, the number of immigration officers will be at least doubled.]
(3) When the passengers arrive in West Kowloon Station, they will go through Hong Kong customs/quarantine clearance.
Comment: The government pointed out that customs clearance "may also involve checking of passengers' belongings when necessary. The limited space in train compartments would be be able to meet those operational needs, and there would also be constraints in terms of the manpower and facilities involved." So customs/quarantine clearance cannot be conducted on board the train.
[780] We Must March (2017/08/18)
Democratic Party Facebook
"Voicing support for the incarcerated resisters" assembly
Date: August 18, 2017
Time: 7:00pm - 10:00pm
Location: Outside Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, 5 Butterfly Valley Road, Kowloon"Political oppression is shameful; voicing support for the incarcerated resisters" demonstration march
Date: August 20, 2017
Time: 3:00pm
Assembly point: Southorn Playground, Luard Road, Wan Chai district, Hong Kong Island
Finish: Court of Final Appeal, Central district, Hong Kong Island- What!? No mention of collecting donations to help those in prison to file appeals?
- What!? Diverting public attention away from the case of Lam Tsz-kin?
- If and when Lam Tsz-kin gets sent to prison for filing a false police report, will the Democratic Party regard him as an "incarcerated resister"?
- Voicing support? How much support? How about the Democratic Party legislators leading the masses to crash into the prison and rescue the prisoners?
- (Oriental Daily) August 18, 2017. A massive turnout of about 100 persons (including reporters) showed up outside the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre to chant "Politically motivated judicial review is shameful." They called out the names of the North East New Territories 13 and the Civic Square 3 and demanded that they be released immediately. Then they sang Chinese/English versions of the Happy Birthday song for Alex Chow.
Chow Ting (Demosisto) said that the jailing of Joshua Wong and Nathan Law will not destroy Demosisto. Instead Demosisto will become stronger when the two get out of jail.
League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng said that his party will not vanish because "jailing one person means that ten more will join from the outside."
Federation of Students former deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that he will take the three out for eat-all-you-can buffet when they get out. He said that those who are in jail will not abandon "civil disobedience: "If one gets arrested, more people will stand up and be counted."
- Eh, none of the Democratic Party bigwigs showed up -- Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Wu Chi-wai, Emily Lau, Helena Wong, Lam Cheuk-ting, Hui Chi-fung, Kwong Chun-yu. Maybe they were worried that if they appear in public, they will be asked about the Lam Tsz-kin affair.
- The Happy Birthday song in Chinese wishes you to have the same as today for every future birthday to come. That sounds very mean given the situation of the birthday boy. Are these Blue Ribbons?
- (Facebook video) At this rally, the League of Social Democrats declared that they have contacted social activists in 20 countries to surround Hong Kong businesses (HSBC, Cathay Pacific, etc) and Chinese embassies/consulates around the world for the next two weeks in order to force China to release the 16 political prisoners of conscience immediately. They also called to escalate tor a general labor/school strike on the third anniversary of the September 28 Occupy Central and thus re-boot the Umbrella Revolution.
- Why depend on international friends? Why not DIY? Let's march down to the China Liaison Office, surround it and not let anyone enter or leave until as such time when the 13 + 3 = 16 political prisoners are released! League of Social Democrats leaders Leung Kwok-hung and Avery Ng should lead the way!
- (TVB) August 20, 2017. Hong Kong Federation of Students former deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said: "After the Umbrella Movement and the Mong Kok incident last year, the entire Hong Kong democracy movement reached ebb tide. Many people shared a sense of helplessness. The ruling this time and the courage of our fellow warrior companions may not have been expected by Carrie Lam and Rimsky Yuen. It has been a shot in the arm for the many people who are feeling down about the Hong Kong democracy movement."
Gene Bond's Facebook
I visited Joshua Wong. Everything is fine with him so you won't have to worry (except for his crew cut which is very hard to get used to). He expects to get out of jail on December 17, 2017. He will also appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Joshua Wong asked me to forward these calls:
1. He hopes that no matter whether you are a pan-democrat, a self-determination faction member or a localist, you must attend the Sunday Peace/Reason/Non-Violence demonstration march (especially hoping that the localists would not stay away just because it is Peace/Reason/Non-Violence). He hopes that when he watches the news from prison on Monday, he will see that the demonstration march number reaches a post-Umbrella Revolution high.
2. He thanks the Department of Justice lawyer who exposed how shameless Rimsky Yuen is.
3. He hopes that the Hong Kong public will learn to understand the judges and rule-of-law again as a result of this ruling.
4. Hang on, Hong Kong Demosisto comrades!
5. Scholarism friends should not have to worry.
He will a reading the major newspapers and watching TVB news. He hopes to see in the daily news that people are working hard to develop democracy in Hong Kong. Go, everybody!
Hong Kong Demosisto Facebook: Demonstration start in support of the political prisoners
(SCMP) August 20, 2017.
A march held in the blazing afternoon heat on Sunday to oppose the recent jailing of Hong Kong political activists was “the biggest protest since the 2014 Occupy movement”, according to organisers. They said the turnout was higher than expected, but they were unable to come up with an estimate. Police put the figure at 22,000. They said the turnout was higher than expected, but they were unable to come up with an estimate. Police put the figure at 22,000.
Led by pro-democracy groups including the Civil Human Rights Front, League of Social Democrats and Demosisto, crowds marched from Southorn Playground in Wan Chai to the Court of Final Appeal in Central, where a rally was held.
Many brandished yellow umbrellas – a symbol of the Occupy pro-democracy movement – while others donned mock prisoners’ outfits and makeshift cages over their heads. They held placards branding the imprisonment of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang last week as acts of “political persecution”.
- (HKG Pao) August 20, 2017. No official estimate? Well, Apple Daily found Lai Chak Fun of D100 to tell them that the number was "in the tens of thousands." Not precise/big enough? Lai Chak Fun said that an anonymous source told him that the number was 140,000.
- (Oriental Daily) August 20, 2017. Volunteers for the organizers used a platform for media-politician communication to announce that about 50,000 persons marched. Later, they retracted that number and apologized.
- (Oriental Daily) August 20, 2017. Lester Shum said that the number of marchers far exceeded expectations, such that the organizers did not have enough people out there to do the counting. After the demonstrators arrived, Statue Square, Edinburgh Place Queens Road Central and Chater Road were filled with people. He said that the demonstrators took two hours before the end of the procession arrived. No matter what the number is, Shum said that this was undoubtedly the largest march since Occupy Central in 2014.
- (Oriental Daily) August 20, 2017. Going through the news reports, the biggest demonstration march after Occupy Central in 2014 was last year's July 1st demonstration march. The police said that more than 19,000 marched, while the Civil Human Rights Front claimed that more than 110,000 marched. Thus, Lester Shum is claiming a lower bound of 110,000.
- Just because Shum had no basis for making any claims won't stop him from making claims. The Big Wigs from the various organizer groups met and voted on a consensus number of 50,000 based upon political expediency. Unfortunately, this would not make it the highest number since the Umbrella Movement because they had previously cooked up too high a number in 110,000 for last year. They can't really claim 110,000 today, because the distance from Southorn Playground (Wan Chai MTR station) to the Court of Final Appeal (Admiralty MTR station) is just one subway stop.
- A defense for the Civic Square 3/North East New Territories 13 is that other venues of effecting change (such as petition letters, petition signature campaigns, demonstrations, etc) have proven to be ineffective and therefore the defendants were forced to use Occupy tactics to force the government to meet with them.
The Umbrella Revolution has failed and these 16 people are sent off to prison after court trials. So what will they do? Will they escalate Occupy Central to two years instead of only 79 days? Will they call for a general labor/school strike so that nobody goes to work/school for 3 months? No, they haven't done so. Instead they have gone back to the good old demonstration march (note: on a shortened route from Southorn Playground to Central instead of Victoria Park to Central) which they said has proven to be ineffective. What gives?
- It is noted that Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous who started the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2015 were also marching quietly today. There would be no rioting by them today. Have they abandoned "valiant resistance" for the good old "leftist retard" demonstration march?
- The point is not how many people marched, but how much money they forked over. This is a video of business at the League of Social Democrats post with Avery Ng telling people to open their wallets.
- (Ming Pao) August 21, 2017. The Support Group for the 16 Imprisoned Resisters announced that they raised over $2,515,690 during yesterday's demonstration march. They plan to establish a foundation whose bank account will be published later.
- (Oriental Daily) August 24, 2017. Today in court, 28-year-old kitchen worker So Tak-shing was sentenced to 4 months in jail on two counts of criminal destruction of property. He was caught on surveillance camera digging out pavement bricks from the sidewalk at the intersection of Sai Yeung Choi Street and Soy Street to be used to throw at the police during the Mong Kok Fishball Revolution.
- Not a cent from the $2,515,690 will go to assist that nobody So Tak-shing because he has negative propaganda value.
- (Silent Majority for HK) August 24, 2017. Prior to the demonstration march, a list of 117 'political prisoners' was circulated around for people to donate to help. After the demonstration march, the League of Social Democrats declared that only 16 persons will receive money. The other 101 have been cut loose.
- $2,515,609 / 117 = $21,502 per person.
$2,515,609 / 16 = $157,231 per person.The demonstration march/donation campaign was organized by League of Social Democrats and Demosisto. The list of 16 contains three League of Social Democrats members and 2 Demosisto members. The 101 contains many people from rivals such as Civic Passion, Valiant Frontier and Hong Kong Indigenous. Of course, LSD/Demosisto would keep the money for themselves.
- (Bastille Post) August 21, 2017. According to Hong Kong Demosisto's Derek Lam, this demonstration was organized by Demosisto, League of Social Democrats and other organizations, and they expected the crowd size will be smaller than the July 1st march organized by the Civil Human Rights Front. Someone with the organizer group told the media relations group that the number of marchers was 50,000. However, Lam said that they did not have enough people to count so they have retracted the 50,000 figure.
I must say that I can only admire how the organizers can manipulate the crowd size. In the past, the organizers often cite estimates that are 5 times or even 10 times that of the police estimates. When academic groups counted the crowds independently, their estimates are usually closer to the police estimates. So when I first read that the police estimated 22,000 and the organizers estimated 50,000, I thought that these organizers have not inflated their number by too much. But now they have retracted the 50,000 figure.
According to a person in the pro-establishment camp, the organizers retracted the 50,000 figure because it was too close to the police estimate. By retracting the number, it means that individuals can say whatever that want in future, be it 100,000 or 200,000.
If such is the quality of the Hong Kong opposition in disregarding reality, I cannot hold out any hopes for them on anything.
- Two weeks after the march, Stand News has revised history:
... Carrie Lam knows that she is in big trouble. Last Sunday, 100,000 people marched for those who were sent to prison for North East New Territories and Civic Square ...
- (Wen Wei Po) August 22, 2017.
Economic Times/Sky Post hosted an online poll. As of 10pm last night, 1,038 persons voted on: "Paul Hsieh said that the Civic Square 3 did what they did and should expect to pay for it. Therefore, they got what they deserved. Do you agree?" 89% agreed and 11% disagreed.
A previous poll was started on August 16. So far 2,238 have voted on "The Department of Justice won their judicial review on the case of the North East New Territories demonstration. The 13 defendants were re-sentenced to 8 to 13 months in prison. Are you satisfied with the ruling?" 83% agreed and 16% disagreed.
Internet comments:
- (ET Net) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 21, 2017.
Yesterday 22,000 persons came out to demonstrate on behalf of the 16 young people who were jailed for violent resistance. They said that the people of Hong Kong have come out and roared in rage ...
I want to clarify that there are 7,300,000 people in Hong Kong, and 22,000 is only 0.3%. Does 0.3% represent all of Hong Kong? Besides even your God has abandoned you ...
This God is named Joseph Zen. On this day, he wrote on Facebook: "I really want to be by your side." This means that he is not here, and that is because he has to travel.
"In May/June, I went to Europe for 40 days ... I want to visit Chinese catholic organizations in Canada and the United States while I am still able to ... But a series of heartbreaking events have unfolded in my beloved Hong Kong. I wondered if I should cancel the trip and return to the side of the brothers and sisters who are being persecuted by the evil regime. Putting aside my chagrin and sorrow, I nevertheless boarded the airplane ...
"When I got to San Francisco, I learned that the Civic Square 3 were re-sentenced to begin prison immediately ... this heavy sentence showed that the judiciary has become the tool for political oppression. The judge even became a Chinese-language teacher by saying that 'taking' Civic Square implies violence ... Our Bible has disciple Paul saying 'Christ has taken me!' Somebody should send Jesus Christ to the court!"
"I heard that the decision to seek a judicial review was personally made by the Secretary for Justice. If he has an order from 'above', then he is a slave who has enslaved the judges; if he does not have an order from 'above', then he is psychologically perverted ..."
"I am an old man ... I am not only not in legal trouble, but I am overseas. I am ashamed. I am a believer. During this vacation, I will say more prayers ..."
You go to jail and he prays for you. Dear resisters, this is your Big Brother. When the going is good, he comes out and shares the glory; when the going is bad, he dodges.
People like Martin Lee and Jimmy Lai come out to take the front seats when the police came for clearance. But once the judges start to mete out prison sentences, they are quieter than mice. Do you remember what Civic Party's Alvin Yeung said a few days ago: "Their criminal records make their lives more colorful! These young people are searching something in a very pure way. They did certain things that I don't dare to do." The emphasis is on "things that I don't dare to do."
Alvin Yeung is a barrister. What is he most afraid to do? Break the law! If he is convicted, he will be disbarred. So he doesn't dare to break the law, and he has to count on you to do it? Even in triad society, the Big Brothers usually the way with plenty of body scars and criminal convictions to show. But these Pro-Democracy Big Brothers have fancy dresses and happy families. They grab the glory and leave the prison time to their faithful followers. They are not triads; they are worse than triads.
After the Big Brothers have fled, the blind followers continue to follow blind. On this day, a parent brought a teenager to march. He said that they are marching in order to guard the future of the child. The odd fact is that when do you see politicians bring their own children to demonstrations? They only do to others what they won't do to themselves. Why are you still following such Big Brothers?
- Where is the Chief Executive Carrie Lam throughout all this? This photo was posted on her Facebook.
A commentator asked whether she is going to be as unresponsive as her predecessor CY Leung. The standard answer is that she had confidence in the judiciary to act independent in accordance with the law.
If now you demand that the Civic Square 3 and the North East New Territories 13 be released immediately, then her compliance will be the biggest possible blow to rule-of-law, on the same scale as a pardon for the Seven Evil Policemen. Be careful about what you wish for.
- (HKG Pao) August 22, 2017.
22,000 persons marched to support the imprisoned social activists. The opposition is happily announcing that they are back after the preceding assembly drew only 100 participants.
But please note that his was a group of peaceful demonstrators who did not yell insulting slogans aloud. Even a policeman at the scene said that he was not used to not being called "Evil Police." After the demonstration, they did not march to the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan, nor did they stay behind in Central to cause trouble. The court cases carried the important lesson that violence and rioting can result in jail sentences of six months and up. The people have woke up. Nobody is willing to lead the way and incite others, and nobody is going to follow.
- (2014 Hong Kong Wake Up) Facebook
Have you fucking lost your memories? Read this again carefully.
On November 12, 2014, Joshua Wong clearly states that the process of civil disobedience must be completed by the arrest in order to fulfill the moral and legal responsibilities. If you fuckheads have so much sympathy for him, you should have stayed after the demonstration march yesterday. You can charge onto the roadway to conduct your "civil disobedience." And then the police can arrest you so that you can be in prison together ... You fuckheads are hypocrites.
When you wore the halo on your head, you preach "civil disobedience" and "fearlessness." When you get sentenced to more than community service time, you scream "political oppression." The pan-democratic leftist retards who marched yesterday are fucking worse than the Blue Ribbon commies.
- (Line Post) September 3, 2017.
Many organizations including the League of Social Democrats, Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre, Demosisto, Socialist Action and some legislative councilors totaling more than 80 persons marched from the Court of Final Appeal to the office of the Secretary for Justice in support of the 16 imprisoned social activist and former student leaders. These people questioned whether Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen had political motives in selectively prosecuting these people. They demand the government to withdraw all charges against all protestors. They demand the resignations of Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and Chief Executive Carrie Lam Yuet-ngor.
- From 22,000 down to 80? It can't be because of typhoon Mawar which had reached land far away in eastern Guangdong province already.
- (RTHK) September 3, 2017. According to Socialist Action chairperson Tang Mei-ching, 200 marched today. This was more than what they expected. She said that court verdicts will be rendered against more Umbrella Movement participants this month and therefore resistance must continue. She plans another demonstration on September 28.
- Why is the RTHK reporter taking dictation of the organizer's claim of 200? How hard was it to count up to 80?
[779] 678 (2017/08/17)
Previous: #476: The Taking Of Civic Square 123 (2016/03/03)
(SCMP) August 9, 2017.
Prosecutors have asked an appeal court to jail student activists convicted of storming government headquarters two days before the start of the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014, saying the original lenient sentencing sent the wrong message.
It is the second time prosecutors have asked courts to jail Joshua Wong Chi-fung, secretary general of political party Demosisto, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a disqualifed legislator of the same party, and former student union chief Alex Chow Yong-kang, who were convicted last year.
Wong and Chow were found guilty of one count of illegal assembly. Wong was sentenced to community service and Chow received a suspended three-week jail term. Law, who was recently stripped of his seat on the Legislative Council for insincerely taking his oath last year, was convicted of inciting others to assemble illegally and also given community service.
The appeal could have implications for future cases as prosecutors called for a deterrent sentence for cases of illegal assembly involving violence.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions David Leung Cheuk-yin attacked the decision by then Eastern Court magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan to adopt a more understanding approach to sentencing young protesters. “This is rather dangerous,” Leung said, arguing that it sent the wrong message to young people.
Leung said there was no way the trio did not foresee that their storming would lead to clashes with police and security guards when they and other protesters entered the east wing forecourt of the government headquarters. He added that 10 security guards were injured. Urging the Court of Appeal to jail the three, he said the offence was serious because it was well planned.
But barrister Edwin Choy Wai-bond, for Chow, described the students as “20-odd-year-old kiddos yelling slogans”. Choy urged the judges not to impose a deterrent sentence, saying the same effect could be achieved if they specifically warned people not to flout laws. He said the seriousness of the illegal assembly offence had already been reflected in the legislation, which stipulates a jail term of up to five years.
Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen and Justices of Appeal Derek Pang Wai-cheong and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor will hand down their judgment on August 17.
(Oriental Daily) August 9, 2017.
According to Senior Counsel Randy Shek, the ingredients in an unlawful gathering is "disruption of order; threatening, insulting or provocative action." As such this covers a wide spectrum of behaviors, including jumping a queue, standing in the middle of the road, cursing with foul language, etc. In this particular instance, the defendants did not resort to violence.
Judge Poon said that while the defendants did not use violence, should they be held responsible if they misjudged whether others will use violence? Shek said that it is possible that the defendants made honest misjudgments.
Judge Poon said that the defendants knew that the police have rejected their application to enter Civic Square and that there were security guards and police stationed there. So can they really think that there would be no violence if they enter by force?
Shek said that Joshua Wong did not object to the description of his actions at the trial. Wong has also apologized to the security guards who were injured, and expressed his willingness to accept the court's judgment and sentence. This proves that he is remorseful.
But Judge Yeung and Judge Pang wondered if Wong is remorseful when he says that he did not think that his actions were wrong. Judge Poon said that the three defendants are student leaders, and their actions will lead other young people to form wrong ideas about the risks involved in being involved in physical clashes, getting arrested and being punished. So should the court increase their sentences?
Shek said that this case was a lot milder than the political clashes that took place later. Although the three defendants are student leaders, most of the other arrestees are adult university students or adult non-students, so the court can treat them as persons capable of having independent thinking and making their own decisions. Nathan Law had told the demonstrators about the legal risks that night too.
(Sing Tao) August 9, 2017.
With respect to pre-meditated violence, Counsel Randy Shek for Joshua Wong said that there could be some physical contact, but the defendants did not anticipate any violence. Judge Poon said that when the three met to discuss the re-taking of Civic Square, they said that they would not assault people, but that doesn't mean that when they wouldn't use force to push ahead. Poon wondered why Shek wanted to assess the possibility of violence from the viewpoint of the three defendants rather than that of ordinary people. Shek said that the worst case scenario would be for the demonstrators to charge ahead and encounter resistance. However, they did not plan any violent assault and they did not anticipate that anyone would get injured. Jude Poon asked: "How so?" Shek said that it is possible that they misjudged.
Shek said that even though the community service order did not say that the defendant was sorry for what he did, but his behavior during the trial (including his apology to the injured persons) showed that he is sorry. But Judge Yeung said that they were not sorry about their crimes. "If they don't think that they did anything wrong, then how can they be sorry?" This was like not being sorry about robbing a bank, but apologizing for taking the money. Yeung said that he has never seen such kinds of 'sincere' apologies.
Barrister Edwin Choy Wai-bond on behalf of Alex Chow agreed that disturbing social peace is a serious crime. However, there are different degrees of severity. Although more than 100 persons charged into Civic Square, it only went on for ten minutes or so. The degree of violence or force was much less than the precedent cases presented by the prosecutor.
Choy said that the demonstrators were mostly people in their 20's wanting to hold a dialogue with the government but they failed. Judge Poon asked: "Charging into Civic Square will get you a dialogue?" Choy said: "It is possible that they thought so." He said that they may have made the decision without understanding the plan, but they have received punishment already. In particular, Alex Chow's suspended sentence will reach its end next week.
Choy said that Alex Chow is 20-something-years old and has a lot of ideals about the student movement. If Chow is spared and allowed to obtain a doctorate, his legal viewpoints may be very different. However, Chow had not graduated at the time of the incident. Judge Poon said that everybody has to obey the law, "and even non-university graduates know that." Choy said that as the prosecutor said, the most likely people to be injured in their action are themselves. Judge Poon asked if just because they acted dangerously for themselves means that they should be treated leniently?
(Oriental Daily) August 17, 2017.
At some time after 1030pm last night, Joshua Wong's lawyer Randy Shek faxed a letter to the court to for consideration. Shek asked the court for a postponement to receive instruction. Judge Yeung said that the letter should be handled in open court. The court went into recess for 10 minutes.
When the court resumed, Shek said that he no longer wishes the court to consider the letter so as to delay the ruling. Judge Yeung was disappointed and called the defense irresponsible for asking the court to consider the letter last night and now saying otherwise. He said that postponement or not should not be the decisive factor. If the issue was important, it should be brought out in open court in order to give the Department of Justice a chance to respond. The court should not have been informed in a private letter.
The court went into recess again for Shek to take instructions from his client. Wong said that he wants to withdraw the letter. Yeung said that this was improper and also vexing to the court. But now that Wong has withdrawn the letter, the court will not disclose the contents of that letter. The court then decided to issued its ruling at 4pm.
(SCMP) August 17, 2017.
The first three student leaders convicted over the storming of government buildings which triggered the pro-democracy Occupy protests in Hong Kong three years ago were jailed for up to eight months on Thursday, as the government won its bid for stronger punishments.
Those prison terms replaced the community service orders initially meted out to Demosisto leaders Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung, as well as the suspended three-week jail sentence for former student union chief Alex Chow Yong-kang.
Wong was sentenced to six months, Law to eight and Chow to seven.
Speaking at court before he heard the ruling, and clearly expecting to go to jail, Wong said he wanted to see a “hopeful Hong Kong when I am out [of prison] next year”, while Law declared he had no regrets about his activism.
Internet comments:
- Hours before the Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued its ruling, Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan posted on his Facebook:
The Chinese Council of the United States of America issued a statement that it would be a political force to stifle freedom of speech, and that the United States should examine the special relationship of Hong Kong under United States law. .
References: Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act; The US Congressional Hearing on Hong Kong
- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 17, 2017.
Representative Smith said the sentences were “another severe blow to Hong Kong’s reputation as a city governed by the rule of law. Beijing is actively trying to decimate the pro-democracy movement using Hong Kong’s courts and prosecutors to further its political agenda. How can one fully trust a legal system that nullifies legitimate Legislative Council elections and resentences Umbrella Movement leaders who have already served their terms? The Hong Kong government may say these are ‘deterrent sentences,’ but to the rest of the world it looks like political prosecutions intended to curtail freedom of expression. The United States must show unwavering support for freedom and the rule of law, but if the Chinese government will no longer abide by the promises made in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, U.S. policy must adapt and reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status under U.S. law.”
- The statement was written before the Hong Kong judges announced their ruling. The court document contains 64 pages of legal reasoning. But Senator Rubio and Representative Smith don't feel that they need to read the ruling, because they already know the truth.
- The "resentencing of these young people" was made by a Court of Appeal panel of three judges. Is "Beijing's heavy hand on display for all to see"? What is that you can see but nobody else can?
But let us supposed that the Hong Kong judiciary has been infiltrated by Chinese Communist stooges? Should these three judges be impeached immediately and replaced by pro-democracy ones selected by the United States Consulate General? And what about all the other judges?
- Here are the relevant provisions of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act:
--- "Require the President to identify persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong, and other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry into the U.S."
So who is going to be identified, have their US-based assets freezed and denied entry into the U.S.? Ex-chief executive CY Leung when the invasion of Civic Square took place? Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen who asked for a tougher sentence? Current Chief Executive Carrie Lam who is not responsible for either the appeal or the outcome? The three Justices of the Court of Appeal?
--- "Make clear that visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest, detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."
The invasion of Civic Square ended with 10 security guards sustaining injuries. Was it violent then? Yes. And did it have anything to do with the electoral process? No.
- Just because 10 security guards were injured does not imply any violence. The perpetrators never intended violence. The security guards would not have been injured if they had not stood in the way of the non-violent freedom fighters. By their actions in the line of duty, they begged for physical violence and got what they deserved. Long live freedom! Long live democracy!
- (Hong Kong Free Press) US politicians warn Hong Kong’s special status may be axed amid ‘political prosecution’ of democracy figures.
- So in order to save Hong Kong's economy, HKSAR Chief Executive Carrie Lam must immediately order Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow be released immediately? I can't even count the number of principles cherished by the pan-democrats would be broken --
A high degree of autonomy? Check.
One Country Two Systems? Check.
Separation of powers? Check.
Rule of law? Check.
The Joint Sino-British Declaration? Check ...
Self-determination? Check ...
Hong Kong independence? Check ...- Marco Rubio was elected to the US Senate in 2016 by 4,835,191 registered voters in the state of Florida. That is why Hong Kong must obey his wishes.
- Dear Senator Rubio, if you have too much time on hand, I would suggest that you work with your President to deal with Cville first.
- The comparable thing is for three Occupy Wall Street leaders to lead a group of protestors to scale the White House wall and take over the front lawn. They are arrested. Do you think that they should receive a presidential pardon?
- (New York Times) A Nobel Prize for Hong Kong’s Democrats. August 17, 2017.
Here’s a suggestion for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which opens its nominating season next month: Look to the three young men who earlier today became Hong Kong’s first prisoners of conscience.
In 2014, the courageous trio helped lead what become known as the Umbrella Movement — an enormous political protest defending Hong Kong’s freedoms from an increasingly aggressive Beijing. Like Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi and so many dissidents that came before them, the men were hit with a bogus charge (“unlawful assembly”), were found guilty and served out their punishments last year.
But today, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice decided that those penalties were too lenient.
Joshua Wong, who burst onto the city’s political scene at 14 years old and is the public face of its democracy movement, was sentenced to six months. Nathan Law and Alex Chow were sentenced to seven and eight months, respectively. All three had budding political careers, but these new sentences bar them from running for public office for the next five years.
As Mr. Wong put it to a reporter from The New York Times before his sentencing: “The government wanted to stop us from running in elections and directly suppress our movement.” He added: “There’s no longer rule of law in Hong Kong. It’s rule by law.” Just so.
The implications of their imprisonment are monumental. Since Britain handed over jurisdiction of its former colony to China 20 years ago, the city has operated under the notion of “one country, two systems.” That increasingly appears to be an empty slogan. “The outcome isn’t just a travesty for these three peaceful pro-democracy activists or free speech — it’s also a painfully clear sign that Beijing’s political dictates are eating away at Hong Kong’s judiciary, an institution essential to the territory’s autonomy,” Sophie Richardson, the China director of Human Rights Watch, told me.
Derek Lam, Mr. Wong’s best friend and a key activist in the movement, put it even more bluntly in a call from Hong Kong: “The court of Hong Kong is a slave of the Chinese government.” He added: “The judge doesn’t acknowledge that democracy, freedom and human rights are the reasons Joshua is doing this. He just kept insisting that they were inciting violence.”
Mr. Lam, who aspires to become a pastor, could soon be accused of the same: Next month he faces sentencing for his role in a 2016 protest.
“I am heartbroken. All my friends went to jail today. I might join them next month,” he told me. “But we will never regret what we have done. What we are doing is correct. It is the truth. And we will persist.” That relentless spirit was echoed by Mr. Law, Mr. Chow and Mr. Wong today. As Mr. Wong, just 20 years old, put it on Twitter before he was jailed: “You can lock up our bodies, but not our minds! We want democracy in Hong Kong. And we will not give up.”
The battle these young people are waging is far bigger than their futures — or even than Hong Kong itself. They are among some of the most prominent leaders pushing an authoritarian China to honor its international and political commitments. Can a handful of Davids hold a Goliath to account? The imprimatur of a Nobel Prize would help.
- At first, I thought that I must be reading some kind of parody. I had to verify the link before accepting that this is the New York Times.
- Let me make an alternate nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee -- I nominate Lam Tsz-kin who represents all the millions of victims of tyrannical regimes around the world. Awarding the Prize to Lam would be just as bizarre as to Wong/Law/Chow.
- Awarding the Prize to Wong/Law/Chow would make the 10 injured security guards very happy, because they will know that their pains and sufferings were not in vain. Peace, brothers! You have gained glory for Hong Kong!
- (SCMP) From the NYT: All the jokes that are fit to print. By Alex Lo. August 21, 2017.
It’s official. Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung are bona fide prisoners of conscience. If The New York Times says so, it must be true: not once, but twice, in three days.
The first time, it was more tentative: “Will Hong Kong jail its first political prisoners?”, asked its editorial board (August 15). Now, it’s confirmed. Opinion section staff editor Bari Weiss has declared “the courageous trio” to be “Hong Kong’s first prisoners of conscience” (August 17). For having to serve six to eight months in jail, Weiss has compared the three to Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel and Aung San Suu Kyi. Boy, those giants of 20th century politics fought Soviet totalitarianism and the Myanmar junta. Joshua, Alex and Nathan stared down … the Hong Kong government. It’s like, yeah!
I would like to point out to Weiss that the sentences were imposed by the Court of Appeal, not the Department of Justice. Maybe she is being prophetic of things to come, but at the moment, we still have an independent court.
As the Bar Association and the Law Society have pointed out, the three student leaders were given due process and proper legal representation under British common law. But who cares about such details?
Weiss goes even further, arguing the three young men should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I am all for it. There is no such thing as bad publicity. The city has never had a peace prize winner before, though Charles Kao Kuen and Daniel Tsui Chee did win two prizes in physics. But the peace prize is better because everyone can have an opinion about it, as it has had some dodgy choices in recent years. Those physics prizes – who understands them anyway?
But why stop there? Those three didn’t do it by themselves. The whole “Yellow Umbrella” movement deserves the big prize. And now that we are into hyperbole, I think Leung Chun-ying, our former chief executive, and Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, our current one and chief secretary before that, should be put on trial for crimes against humanity at The Hague – for suppressing the movement that lasted 79 days and then petered out.
I used to read The New York Times for news and analysis. Now I can read it for satire, too. It’s even better than The Onion website: All the jokes that are fit to print.
- (Reuters) August 17, 2017.
Britain said it was vital Hong Kong's young people had a voice in politics and it hoped the sentencing would not discourage legitimate protest in future.
"The UK remains a staunch supporter of the right to peaceful protest and we believe it is vital that Hong Kong's young people have a voice in politics. Hong Kong's way of life is underpinned by its rule of law," a spokeswoman for Britain's Foreign Office said in a statement.
- It is useless for the UK to say anything. It is even more useless when the UK is saying useless things.
- On one hand, the person is your mother; on the other hand, the other person is your father. So whose side are you on? You refuse to say. You only mouth: "On one hand, blah blah blah; on the other hand, la-di-da."
- I like Annie Hall, so I'm always for la-di-da.
- Here is the perfect example of an unequivocal statement: (Hong Kong Free Press) Taiwan’s top policymaking body on China, the Mainland Affairs Council, expressed its “deep regret” over their imprisonment. “The council reiterates the government’s long-standing stance to support Hong Kong people to pursue democracy, freedom, the rule of law and human rights,” it said in a statement. It added the verdict had prompted concerns in Hong Kong and the international community over what some see as a politicised judiciary that would damage the city’s judicial independence and affect its investment environment.
- What the hell is "deep regret"? Does it mean that the Taiwan government will cut off all political and economic ties with Hong Kong and fire cruise missiles at the IFC/ICC? No. If you can't put your money where your mouth is, then it's just bullshit.
- (Reuters) August 18, 2017.
Chris Patten, the last governor of former British colony Hong Kong, has criticized the jailing of three leaders of the Chinese-ruled city's pro-democracy movement saying the men should be a source of pride.
Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow and other Umbrella Movement protesters were sentenced to six to eight months in prison on Thursday for unlawful assembly, a blow to the youth-led push for universal suffrage.
"I think they will be remembered, and their names will be remembered, long after nobody can remember who I was, and perhaps nobody can remember who President Xi Jinping was," Patten told an audience at the Edinburgh Book Festival, according to its official bulletin.
"We should be proud of what those kids are doing."
- (Department of Justice) August 17, 2017.
The above-named three defendants in this case were convicted not because they exercised their civil liberties, but because their conduct during the protest contravened the law. The HKSAR courts have all along handled cases (including public order event cases) independently, justly and professionally. The court found the three defendants guilty on the basis of evidence presented during a fair trial as well as the applicable law.
...
DoJ notices that certain people in the community allege that the prosecution in this case was politically motived, or that this case is a case of political persecution. Such kind of allegations are utterly groundless, and choose to ignore the existence of objective evidence. In all criminal cases (including this one), DoJ deals with them in accordance with the Prosecution Code, the applicable law and relevant evidence. Further, the state of judicial independence in the HKSAR cannot be doubted. It can be seen from the reasoning contained in the Judgment that the Court of Appeal dealt with this case solely from the legal perspective, and that there cannot be any suggestion of political motivation whatsoever.
- (SCMP) Translated excerpts from the Hong Kong Court of Appeal's ruling. August 19, 2017.
What happened?
On September 26, 2014, respondents from different groups attended a rally in the area in front of the government headquarters, next to Tim Mei Avenue. They were given a notice of no objection from police before the rally, and the notice was valid until 10 o’clock that night.
On the same day, the two gates of the fence of the area in front of the Central Government Offices were closed for security reasons. When the incident happened, security guards were on duty in front of and behind the gates. There were also [metal] barriers in front of the gates.
The rally finished at about 10.20pm. When the participants began to leave, Wong ran onto the podium and used the radio system to call on them to stay and get into the area in front of the Central Government Office. Then Wong passed his role as the host of the rally to Law, while he himself ran to the area in front of the Central Government Offices.
Law took over the position of Wong and stood on the podium while calling on the people to enter the area. Hundreds of rally participants climbed over the fence and forced open the closed gates, against the efforts of security guards and police officers.
Finally, dozens of rally participants managed to enter the area. Some of them pushed down the barriers placed under the flagpoles there, where subsequently the people, including Chow, joined hands and shouted slogans. It lasted about 12 minutes from when the first respondents called on the people to enter the area to when they surrounded the flagpoles.
During the incident, a total of 10 security guards at the Central Government Offices got injured while they were preventing the rally participants from entering the area. Most of them suffered from slight injuries, such as tenderness, bruises and swelling. Security officer Chan Kei-lun was more seriously injured. He suffered from bruises and swelling on his left foot toe and a slight fracture near his first phalanx. He took sick leave for a total of 39 days.
Trial magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan’s reasoning for her sentence in August 2016
● The respondents are all leaders of student democracy movements in Hong Kong, who come from both grass-roots and well-off families. They have had good academic performance, and do not have any criminal records. They are enthusiastic about social issues, and committed to politics. Their families understood and supported what they were doing.
● The trial magistrate thought the case was different from ordinary criminal cases, and that the purpose behind their committing the offence should be taken into account apart from the seriousness of the case. She was satisfied that the respondents took their actions because of their political beliefs and in light of the social conditions, and not for their own interests, nor for their attempts to hurt others. She pointed out that young people were pure and innocent, did not take into account actual interests, or might be impulsive. Therefore, when sentencing, the magistrate took a more tolerant and understanding attitude to the respondents’ motives.
● The trial magistrate also said the case occurred earlier than the more radical political events such as the Occupy protests. She also considered that if the subsequent political environment was taken into account, deterrent penalties would become unfair to the respondents. On top of that, she considered their behaviour in the case much more moderate than in subsequent political events.
● The trial magistrate was of the opinion that the respondents’ actions were not very violent. She said they had merely entered “Civic Square”, which they believed was a meaningful and representative place and where they formed a circle and shouted slogans.
● Although the respondents were convicted after trial, they showed cooperation during the arrest, investigation and trial. They expressed respect for the court: they did not deny their participation in the incident or the acts they had done. They only questioned whether their acts had constituted offences. They also told the probation officer that they were willing to take legal consequences and to accept the penalties in the form of community service orders.
What is a community service order and when is it applicable?
●A community service order is a common form of sentence passed by lower courts upon conviction for unlawful assembly.
● The court may issue an order to a person aged 14 or above who is found guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment, to carry out unpaid work in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance during the validity period of the order. The number of hours of work is specified in the order, but can not exceed 240 hours.
● A community service order has the elements of penalty and rehabilitation. A community service order is also a remedy for the perpetrator to contribute to society through unpaid work, so that members of the public can benefit from them for damage they have caused.
● Some believe that a person receiving a community service order should meet the following conditions: it is the first offence by him or her; the crime was minor; he or she comes from a family with a stable background; he or she has a good occupational record; and he or she shows sincere remorse. At last, he or she has a low possibility of committing the crime again.
Errors made in the initial sentencing, according to the Court of Appeal
● The trial magistrate did not consider that the sentence should have a deterrent element, while giving disproportionate weight to factors such as personal circumstances and the respondents’ motives.
● The trial magistrate did not think the case involved serious acts of violence. However, she ignored the fact that the rally was a large-scale unlawful assembly, where the risk of violent conflicts was high.
● Given the prevailing and objective circumstance, the respondents should have reasonably expected the people involved in the incident would clash with security guards and police officers, and that injuries would then be inevitable. However, the trial magistrate completely ignored this point.
● The trial magistrate overlooked that, before the incident happened that night, the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism had finished the rally on the road next to the government offices, and the area in front of the government offices was closed. They had no absolute right to enter the area to hold the rally, but they insisted on illegally entering it by force. They also encouraged or incited others to illegally enter it by force. They thought they were correct in doing so and their acts were in breach of the law.
● The trial magistrate gave disproportionate weight to remorse as a factor in sentencing. In fact, the respondents ... still insisted that they were correct in entering the area by force. It was because they always thought they were simply exercising their freedoms of speech and of assembly. The first respondent even said in his community service order report that he had no remorse at all for what he did. The third respondent also made a similar statement in his community service order report.
Even if the respondents did not deny the acts they had done, and expressed respect for the court and were willing to bear the legal consequences of the conviction after the trial, their “remorse” was superficial. The proportion of weighting given by the court to the factors should not be too high.
In summary, the magistrate made a principle error by granting a community service order for the respondents, which was clearly too light. Therefore the Court of Appeal needs to intervene.
New sentencing guidelines for cases involving violent unlawful assemblies
● In accordance with the general principle for sentencing, the court shall take a full account of the actual situations about the case and the seriousness of the circumstances of the crime, and then give a proportion of weighting to each applicable sentencing element, before the perpetrators are given a sentence commensurate with the crime. The same principle applies to cases involving violent unlawful assemblies.
●Under the premise of maintaining public order, and in light of the seriousness of the unlawful assembly, the court, while sentencing, needs to consider the deterrent element. The proportion of the element shall depend on the circumstances of the case.
● If the case is relatively minor, for example, if an unlawful assembly is unpremeditated and small in scale, involves slight violence, and did not cause any personal injury or property damage, then the court shall update sentencing elements and increase the proportion of weighting to the individual circumstances of the perpetrators and the motives or reasons for committing the crime, while the deterrent element would proportionately be reduced in sentencing.
● If the case is serious, for example, it is a large unlawful assembly involving violence or serious violence, the court shall give a large proportion of weighting in sentencing to the two elements of punishment and deterrence, while the proportion of weighting for factors such as the personal circumstances, the perpetrators’ motives or reasons of committing the crime would be given a small proportion of weighting or would not be given any weighting under extreme circumstances.
- (CAAR 4/2016 Complete English version of Court of Appeal judgment) https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E9%87%8D%E5%A5%AA%E5%85%AC%E6%B0%91%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4%E6%A1%88%E5%88%91%E6%9C%9F%E8%A6%86%E6%A0%B8%E5%88%A4%E6%B1%BA%E6%9B%B8%E5%85%A8%E6%96%87-%E8%8B%B1%E6%96%87%E7%89%88/
- Hong Kong Demosisto, Statement regarding imprisonment of umbrella students leaders.
After the judgment on the North East New Territories New Development Area protest, today (17th August), the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment to put democratic movement leaders Nathan Law, Joshua Wong and Alex Chow behind the bars after reviewing the civic square case. They are sentenced 6-8months' imprisonment.
Demosisto is of the opinion that the students had exhausted every possible means within the establishment before resorting to civil disobedience as an attempt to engage in a dialogue with the government. It is a shame that the government responded to the demands for democracy with indifference and arrogance. Today, the Department of Justice’s comparison of the Umbrella Movement with a riot is an immense humiliation to all the participants in the Movement.
Nathan Law and Joshua Wong had completed their community service order duly, and have been serving Hong Kong citizens along with their political ideals genuinely in the Council and community. The Department of Justice had made an application for sentencing review in the first place, yet they conducted the hearing in a "re-trial" manner, raising disagreement on questions of facts. All these showed that the government is determined to put peaceful protestors behind bars to mute all dissidents by abusing judicial procedures.
Since Xi Jinping’s rise to power, the Hong Kong government’s ever-growing restrictions on civil and political rights put many young dissidents behind the bars. Demosisto, fighting at the frontier of social movements, already had three members being imprisoned. For the sake of Hong Kong’s democracy, they can chain us but they can never imprison our determination.
Demosisto humbly invites Hong Kong citizens, especially those who wish to escape from politics, to rally their courage in face of the challenges ahead. We will keep calm and carry on with our principle of non-violence, standing hand in hand with Hong Kong people in the fight for democracy and freedom.
Demosistō
17 August 2017- Joshua Wong got 6 months, Alex Chow got 7 months and Nathan Law got 8 months. 678. It would have been sweeter revenge for CY Leung if Wong got 6, Chow got 8 and Law got 9. 689.
- If all three got 7 months apiece, Carrie Lam would be snickering aside. 777.
- 678. 6 + 7 + 8 = 21. Black Jack!
- According to the rules of Three Card Baccarat, this is the second smallest possible hand.
- (SCMP) August 18, 2017.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal which sent three young Occupy leaders to jail warned against what one judge called the “unhealthy trend” of advocating civil disobedience, while observers feared the ruling would intimidate people into staying away from future pro-democracy drives.
While the city’s democracy activists pledged to maintain their campaigns even if allies were jailed, a criminal lawyer said the lower courts, which used to value young defendants’ ideals, would have to follow the Court of Appeal’s “deterrence” principle in handing down future sentences.
The ruling – which sees Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung sent to jail for six to eight months – was the government’s second successful attempt in a week to seek tougher sentences for protesting activists.
Court of Appeal vice-president Wally Yeung Chun-kuen slammed the “unhealthy trend” in which intellectuals advocated the idea of civil disobedience.
“These people openly despise the rule of law. Not only do they refuse to admit their law-breaking behaviour is wrong, they even see their acts as something to be proud of,” Yeung wrote.
“This arrogant and self-righteous thinking will unfortunately affect some of our young people and result in attempts to disrupt public order ... during rallies, marches and protests.”
Criminal lawyer Stephen Hung Wan-shun said the ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal would have far-reaching implications for similar cases in future.
“In the past, the principle was that jail terms should be the final resort for young defendants, especially those under 21 years of age ... but now the Court of Appeal’s guideline is that they should be jailed,” he said.
Hung dismissed concerns that people’s freedoms had been narrowed by the ruling, but he believed “there would be no room for any use of violence” at future rallies.
Chinese University political scientist Dr Ma Ngok said the two rulings would inevitably exert pressure on Hongkongers and prompt them to think twice before joining protests.
“Behaviour which they thought would only lead to community service might now end them up behind bars,” he said.
- (SCMP) August 18, 2017. Lester Shum, one of the Occupy student leaders, said they had decided to participate in civil disobedience after exhausting various means to achieve universal suffrage in Hong Kong, and it was neither a rash decision nor a result of brainwashing.
- Exhausting the means to achieve universal suffrage in Hong Kong?
- Legislative Council filibustering? Didn't work.
- Demonstration march? Didn't work.
- Petition signature drive? Didn't work.
- Petition China Liaison Office? Didn't work.
- Petition Central Government? Didn't work.
- Hunger strike? Didn't work.
- International pressure? Didn't work.
- General labor/business strike? Didn't work.
- General school strike? Didn't work.
- Taxpayers refusing to pay taxes? Didn't work.What is the record so far on civil disobedience insofar as achieving anything on universal suffrage?
- Occupy? Didn't work.
- Assaulting the Legislative Council? Didn't work.
- Assaulting Government Headquarters? Didn't work.
- Mong Kok riot? Didn't work.If civil disobedience doesn't work either, why keep doing it? Why will the next round yield a different outcome? Why not look for a different means with lower costs for the participants?
- There are plenty of Don't Drop The Soap prison jokes. A yellow banner is obligatory:
- Alex Chow and Nathan Law were sent to the Lai Chi Kok Correctional Institution while Joshua Wong was sent to the Pik Up Correctional Institution for juvenile prisoners. Wong can look forward to an exciting six months ahead.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 13, 2017.
On Tuesday, Ming Pao published interviews with three former prisoners who claimed that they were forced to undergo up to seven hours of physical training every day, including three hours of squatting, which left them with knee injuries months after release.
Prisoners would sometimes be denied the opportunity to relieve themselves in the bathroom. One said he witnessed another being forced to lick his own urine off from the floor after he could not stop urinating.
As a practice, prisoners must place their bowls on top of their heads to prove that they have finished their meals. However, all three interviewees said they were sometimes asked to finish boiling porridge within one minute or even 10 seconds – some suffered burns to their heads as a result of turning filled bowls upside down.
- What happens next? The standard suite of actions consists of (1) a rally of 500 persons (reported as 80,000) in support of the Civic Square Three; (2) a fund-raising campaign to raise even more money to file an appeal at the Court of Final Appeal. Meanwhile the three will not be able to run in any District Council or Legislative Council elections for the next five years.
- Headline Daily, August 18, 2017.
According to Hong Kong University School of Law Senior Lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming, past experience showed that the security guards at Government Headquarters can only advise the demonstrators not to enter Civic Square but they won't physically stop them. Therefore one cannot assume that Wong-Law-Chow could have anticipated that these security guards will actually try to stop them. In addition, Cheung said that while Wong-Law-Chow indeed climbed the wall and entered Civic Square, one cannot prove that the actions of the others are connected to them. Therefore he believes that the Court of Appeal was making new assessments of the facts (which is not the role of the Court of Appeal).
Cheung said that he agrees with the Court of Appeal that civil disobedience requires the participants to bear legal responsibility and that there is nothing wrong with the court issuing a ruling in accordance with the law. In the present case, violence occurred and there should be legal responsibility. But he said that Wong-Law-Chow said not to use violence beforehand and the reason why they climbed the wall was precisely to avoid clashing at the gate. Therefore he does not think that Wong-Law-Chow were involved in any violence.
Hong Kong Federation of Students former deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that the defendants in both the North East New Territories case and the Civic Square case intend to appeal. The lawyers are studying the rulings at this time.
- The Court of Final Appeal will hear any new legal arguments. They will not hear listen to a haggle about the lengths of jail sentences.
- (RTHK) Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor Benny Tai said on radio that the Court of Appeal did not consider the motives of the three defendants. He said that a certain British judge had stated clearly that the motives of the participants in a civil disobedience case must be considered in the ruling. The present ruling did not give any indication of such.
- Leonard Hoffman in R vs Jones (2006) wrote: "Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history." So far so good.
But Benny Tai does not want to tell you what Leonard Hoffman added: "But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law. The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account. The conditional discharges ordered by the magistrates in the cases which came before them exemplifies their sensitivity to these conventions."
Civil disobedience is not unconditionally permissible. The protestors have to behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. Does 10 injured security guards match the common sense of proportion? Was it excessive damage? Did occupying Central for 79 days cause inconvenience?
- The initial ruling by magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan found that the motives of the defendants were noble and therefore community service was imposed. This led to a public outcry which forced the Department of Justice to appeal the sentences.
Why was the public so upset? Because they don't see any consensus on the objective standards on the nobility of motives, and they don't want a system of rule-of-man over rule-of-law wherein the law is applied differently on the basis of the perceived nobility of motives. The most often cited example is the ISIS suicide bomber, who thinks that he is doing it for the most noble of purposes. If the bomb fails to detonate and he is arrested, what will you do about him?
- If you accept this argument, then will you accept an even better argument here?
(SCMP) June 9, 2017.
Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction to try a retired policeman accused of striking a bystander with a baton during the 2014 Occupy protests, according to defence lawyers citing an argument raised for the first time in 131 years.
The defence emerged at former superintendent Frankly Chu’s pretrial review on Friday. His case is set for November, three years after the incident during the pro-democracy sit-in.
Chu’s counsel Peter Pannu said provisions in the Public Order Ordinance stipulated that any person who uses force necessary for any purpose in accordance with the ordinance shall not be liable in criminal proceedings even if such use of force kills a person.
Pannu, a former police officer who went on to become a barrister, argued such wordings suggested the courts had no jurisdiction to try his client.
He cited another clause stating that no person acting in good faith under the ordinance’s provision shall be held liable for any acts in the exercise of his duty, or for public safety, or the defence of Hong Kong.
“This means the defendant is not liable to be found guilty ... as long as the defendant is acting in good faith,” Pannu told magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan at the West Kowloon Court.
Yes, it is the same magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan.
- If magistrate Cheung sentences Franklin Chu to 80 hours of community service and the Secretary for Justice appeals to the Court of Appeals, what would the Yellow Ribbons say?
- Here is the list of the heroes/heroines/martyrs of the Umbrella/Fishball Revolutions so far this year. They have either been sent off to jail or awaiting trial.
1. 葉寶琳（反新界東北，入獄2星期）
2. 張漢賢（反新界東北，入獄1星期）
3. 黃根源（反新界東北，入獄3星期）
4. 梁曉暘（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
5. 黃浩銘（反新界東北，入獄13個月；雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中；928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
6. 劉國樑（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
7. 梁穎禮（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
8. 林朗彥（反新界東北，入獄13個月；反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
9. 朱偉聰（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
10. 何潔泓（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
11. 周豁然（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
12. 嚴敏華（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
13. 招顯聰（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
14. 郭耀昌（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
15. 陳白山（反新界東北，入獄13個月）
16. 黃之鋒（926公民廣場案，入獄6個月；雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
17. 周永康（926公民廣場案，入獄7個月）
18. 羅冠聰（926公民廣場案，入獄8個月）
19. 戴耀廷（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
20. 陳健民（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
21. 朱耀明（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
22. 陳淑莊（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
23. 邵家臻（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
24. 張秀賢（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
25. 鍾耀華（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
26. 李永達（928公眾妨擾案，審訊中）
27. 曾健超（襲警及拒捕，入獄5星期）
28. 鄭錦滿（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，入獄3個月）
29. 歐煜鈞（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，入獄1個月，緩刑1年）
30. 岑敖暉（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
31. 司徒子朗（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
32. 朱緯圇（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
33. 周蘊瑩（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
34. 蔡達誠（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
35. 張啟康（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
36. 馬寶鈞（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
37. 黃麗蘊（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
38. 楊浩華（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
39. 張啟昕（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
40. 陳寶瑩（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
41. 朱佩欣（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
42. 郭陽煜（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
43. 趙志深（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
44. 麥盈湘（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
45. 關兆宏（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
46. 馮啟禧（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
47. 熊卓倫（雨傘旺角清場刑事藐視法庭案，審訊中）
48. 陳耀成（蠔涌炸彈案，審訊中）
49. 鄭偉成（蠔涌炸彈案，審訊中）
50. 彭艾烈（蠔涌炸彈案，審訊中）
51. 胡啟賦（蠔涌炸彈案，審訊中）
52. 文廷洛（蠔涌炸彈案，審訊中）
53. 楊逸朗（立會火燒垃圾桶案，監禁2年）
54. 葉卓賢（立會火燒垃圾桶案，被判入勞教中心）
55. 馮敬恩（圍堵港大校委會案，已被定罪，9月判刑）
56. 李峰琦（圍堵港大校委會案，已被定罪，9月判刑）
57. 許嘉琪（旺角初一衝突，監禁3年）
58. 麥子晞（旺角初一衝突，監禁3年）
59. 薛達榮（旺角初一衝突，監禁3年）
60. 莫嘉濤（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
61. 李倩怡（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
62. 鍾志華（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
63. 何錦森（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
64. 霍廷昊（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
65. 陳和祥（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
66. 鄧敬宗（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
67. 李卓軒（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
68. 林永旺（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
69. 葉梓豐（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
70. 吳挺愷（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
71. 楊子軒（旺角初一衝突，被判入教導所）
72. 羅浩彥（旺角初一衝突，監禁3年）
73. 連潤發（旺角初一衝突，監禁3年）
74. 黃台仰（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
75. 梁天琦（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
76. 容偉業（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
77. 李諾文（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
78. 盧建民（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
79. 袁智駒（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
80. 林傲軒（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
81. 黃家駒（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
82. 李東昇（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
83. 林倫慶（旺角初一衝突，審訊中）
84. 吳文遠（披露受廉署調查人士身分案，審訊中；三文治擲梁振英案，審訊中；反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
85. 梁國雄（公職人員失當案，無罪釋放；藐視立法會案，審訊中；星島日報辯論比賽案，監禁7日）
86. 鄭松泰（倒轉國旗案，審訊中）
87. 林淳軒（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
88. 周嘉發（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
89. 葉志衍（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
90. 陳文威（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
91. 盧德昌（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
92. 鄭沛倫（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
93. 周樹榮（反釋法遊行案，審訊中）
94. 梁頌恆（立會非法集結案，審訊中）
95. 游蕙禎（立會非法集結案，審訊中）
96. 鍾雪瑩（立會非法集結案，審訊中）
97. 楊禮康（立會非法集結案，審訊中）
98. 張子龍（立會非法集結案，審訊中）With so many pro-democracy Occupy activists in jail and many more soon to join them, Benny Tai has now announced:
"Occupy Prison has officially commenced!"- There will be a mini-Hong Kong inside the prisons:
Chief Executive (Donald Tsang),
Chief Secretary (Rafael Hui),
legislative councilors (Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law),
lawyers (Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Alvin Yeung, Tanya Chan),
law professor (Benny Tai),
university students (Alex Chow, Joshua Wong),
feng shui master (Chan Chi-chung),
real estate tycoons (the Kwok brothers of SHK),
media tycoon (Jimmy Lai),
police officers (the Seven Evil Cops),
ex-pat neurotic unfaithful murderer wife (Nancy Kissel),
rioters (Yeung Ka-lun),
beach lifesaver (Kwok Siu-kit),
social worker (Ken Tsang),
Catholic archbishop (Joseph Zen),
pastor (Chu Yiu-ming),
singer (Denise Ho),
actor (Gregory Wong),
IT network administrator (Chan Pak-shan),
interior decorator (Ray Wong),
waiter (Billy Chiu), etc.Every conceivable service will be available.
- (HKG Pao) Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu has this piece of sage advice for the North East New Territories 13 and the Civic Square 3: "Your criminal records make your lives more colorful." This drew the immediate question: "Will the Honorable Alvin Yeung please make your own life more colorful?"
- (Ming Pao) Editorial: On the rulings handed down to young activists.
13 protesters opposing the develop-ment plan of North East New Territories had originally been sentenced to community service for assaulting the Legco building. The Department of Justice, arguing that the punishment was too lenient, filed for sentences review. The Court of Appeal overturned the original sentence and sent the protesters to eight to thirteen months' immediate imprisonment.
Many activists and politicians, who are unhappy with the ruling, have repeatedly talked about things like "political persecution", "judicial violence" and "white terror". However, it is the behaviour of those who seek political publicity in complete disregard of legal viewpoints and making absurd accusations of "the judiciary being politicised" that is politicising the judiciary. The DOJ argued that at the time when the incident happened, more than one hundred people gathered illegally and they attacked the Legco building. They prised open the gate with bamboo and metallic objects, and destroyed the stone wall of the Legco building. In an instant, the incident escalated to a critical point of riot.
According to a legal precedent set in the UK in 1970, it is not easy to distinguish between unlawful assembly and violent assembly. The threat of using violence is not much better than the actual use of violence. Given the gravity of the case, any punishment other than immediate imprisonment would not be appropriate.
That good people have broken the law and been sent to prison is unfortunate. But that does not mean that they should escape punishment. If they think that the punishment handed down by the Court of Appeal is too harsh, they should appeal the ruling. Other people should not try to politicise it. It is those who politicise everything, employ double standards, take delight in seeing rulings that are compatible with their political stances and rail against the so-called political persecution by the "dependent judiciary" and the "cooperation of the three powers" who are insulting judicial independence.
The protesters and their supporters said that they had stood on the side of the disadvantaged not because they wanted to cause injuries. "Why should we end up this way just because we wanted to stop the violence of the establishment?" they asked. These young people are passionate about ideas and theories. But this could make them become bigoted and think that they understand the truth and justice. They could even be misled by dubious arguments and become trapped by the myth that "I am justice".
Take the so-called "violence of the establishment" as an example. Any place with social organisations, a power structure or a machinery of government has its own suppression and yoke of the establishment. But we do not see "tit for tat" as the only way to counter the violence of the establishment. To challenge the powerful and vested interests does not mean that one has to resort to sabotage. Early this year, when the 13 protesters appealed the ruling, the High Court already pointed out that the appellants' glib assertions that "a tyranny is coming into existence" and that "people have the right to rise against tyranny" could easily become an excuse for violence and as such were unacceptable.
The danger of the "I am justice" myth is that they believe that they are equivalent to justice and that justice will not prevail unless they prevail. This could easily result in they acting recklessly and trying to achieve the "big things" by employing any means. History books tell us that social activism mostly ends in failure. It takes generations and generations of hard work to advance social progress. The "I am justice" ideology, the belief that "no battle can be lost" and the unscrupulous use of violence actually impede the promulgation of their beliefs. Protests need to be conducted in good ways. One can test the boundaries, but they should not overstep the boundaries rashly. Nathan law, who is from Demosistō, says that the protesters in the case were forced to employ means that "the public might find repugnant" in order to fight for justice. This shows exactly what is wrong with the tactics of the protesters.
- Apple Daily
The New York Times editorial said that it will be a watershed in Hong Kong history should the three student leaders be the first group of political prisoners ...- These three guys are the first group of political prisoners? Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced to 4 years 9 months in prison earlier this year. They refuse to mention a single word about him. History is written with certain designated heroes who fit the main theme and all other miscellaneous characters are cast into the trash bin.
- Yeung Ka-lun is definitely disposable because he is a nobody with zero propaganda value. More ambiguous will be the cases of Edward Leung and Ray Wong for participation in and incitement of rioting, because they have received considerable western media coverage already. Where will Senator Rubio, the UK Foreign Office and the New York Times stand?
- (Oriental Daily) August 18, 2017. A few days ago, the North East New Territories 13 had their sentences increased from community service to 13 months in prison. Yesterday, the Civic Square 3 were sentenced to an average of 7 months. Although these are about different subjects (North East New Territories urban development versus public access to Civic Square), their common nature is that they involved violent clashes and disruption of social order, and their common defense is that the principals were acting because they care about Hong Kong.
In terms of social influence, Joshua Wong (as former leader of Scholarism and current secretary-general of Demosisto), Nathan Law (as former Federation of Students vice-president and former Legislative Councilor) and Alex Chow (as former Federation of Students secretary-general) were far more important than the North East New Territories 13. But the 3 were sentenced to 6 to 8 months in prison versus the average 13 months for the 13.
And when the 3 were due to be sentenced, along come American senators and the New York Times to sing praises and issue threats. By contrast, the foreigners don't give a rat's ass about the 13. Could this be what is in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?"
- In Cantonese, the expression for exploiting a situation for personal gain is called "drawing water." For example, a cactus is chopped down and you siphon off the water. It is expected that politicians should exploit the case of Civic Square 3 to advance their own political interests. But, as with the case of Lam Tsz-kin, inappropriate handling can lead to blowbacks. In Cantonese, the expression becomes "drawing firewater (=kerosene)". So you try to siphon water but you drew kerosene instead, setting yourself on fire. Here is Yau Wai-Ching (HKG Pao):
<At a time when darkness hovers over our heads, we must be even firmer>: The existing judicial system is sending every single Hongkonger interested in improving our society to prison. They use every means possible to ruthlessly silence us. We are heartbroken to see the North East New Territories 13 and the Civic Square 3 going to prison, because we know that they have always wanted to give their best to Hong Kong and instead they have been so cruelly treated ... At a time when our companions and martyrs are being sent to prison one after another, we have nowhere to retreat to. I sincerely ask everyone not to abandon the martyrs nor every Hongkonger who is still trying hard to fight on."
- "Why don't you also get into street protests yourself? You can start a riot! You can lead the way to charge into the People's Liberation Army barracks! You can lead the warriors to storm the prison and free the political prisoners of conscience! Do you expect to be an opposition member without shedding a drop of blood?"
- "The only thing that you are good at is telling other people to charge and die!"
- "You better give the money back to the Legislative Council! The money belongs to Us the People!"
- "Wait! You forgot to post your paypal account information so that people can donate more money for you to continue your valiant resistance!"
1. The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong note with great concern editorial comments and other opinions reported in some international and local media in respect of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s recent decisions in relation to applications for reviews of sentences in cases of unlawful assembly.
2. It is not the practice of the Hong Kong Bar Association or the Law Society of Hong Kong to comment on the merits of individual cases, which may be the subject of appeal, nor is it appropriate to do so.
3. We would, however, point out that the decisions by the Hong Kong Courts are made solely according to law upon applications by one party or the other. We see no indication otherwise in respect of the recent cases which have generated widespread comment. Whatever opinion one may hold about the appropriateness or otherwise of the sentences imposed, the individuals concerned were convicted and sentenced for crimes committed after having been accorded due process through the courts with proper access to legal representation.
4. Open and rational debate on the issues raised in individual cases is to be encouraged in a civil society.
5. However, unfounded comments that judicial decisions were made or influenced by political considerations originating outside Hong Kong are unjustified and damaging to our legal system, and to Hong Kong as a whole.
6. We repeat what the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong said on previous occasions:
“one must be careful and cautious when commenting on a court judgment and has to take into account the impact of such comment on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary. The bedrock to the rule of law in Hong Kong is the trust and confidence of the public and the international community towards our judges and the judicial system. Any inappropriate comment could fuel baseless and unnecessary suspicion on judicial independence, and may undermine the confidence of the public and the international community in the rule of law in Hong Kong....
We are fully confident that all judges in Hong Kong are capable of and will continue to abide by their judicial oath to uphold the Basic Law, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity, safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit. We will do our utmost to safeguard judicial independence in Hong Kong.”(extracted from a statement issued by the Hong Kong Bar Association in February 2016 in response to statements that our courts passed unduly lenient sentences in public order cases)
“The Rule of Law, as well as an independence and professional Judiciary, are widely respected by the Hong Kong community. These are also regarded highly by the international community to be the cornerstone for economic success of Hong Kong. This high level of respect and the confidence in the Hong Kong judicial system are instilled through long judicial history, hard earned tradition and constitutional entrenchment, as well as the continual efforts of the distinguished and professional judges. This should not and can never be undermined or compromised or be dragged into the political arena.”(extracted from a statement issued by the Law Society of Hong Kong in September 2015)
The sentiments expressed in the above comments then apply equally now.
- The Hong Kong Bar Association and Law Society of Hong Kong were forced to issue their joint statement because of western editorial such as: (The Wall Street Journal) Hong Kong’s Political Prisoners China forces local judges to send democratic activists to jail. August 17, 2017.
China’s crackdown on Hong Kong’s opposition escalated Thursday as a court jailed student pro-democracy leaders. By imprisoning the three popular figures, the government is blocking them from running in the next legislative by-elections and it marks another step in the slow but relentless strangulation of Hong Kong’s freedoms.
Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow received sentences of six to eight months for leading hundreds of thousands of protesters who occupied the city’s downtown for 75 days in late 2014. Hong Kongers were angry that Beijing reneged on its promise to allow the city to elect its chief executive by universal suffrage. Instead of allowing an open system of nominations, Chinese authorities wanted to pick a lineup of candidates based on their loyalty to the central government.
For their role in the civil disobedience, the student leaders were sentenced last year to community service and a suspended jail term by a lower court. They completed their punishments and the case seemed to be closed. But then this year the government appealed to the High Court for tougher sentences, including jail time.
This is part of a wider effort to marginalize the opposition after September’s legislative election. Beijing was alarmed that opposition candidates, including some who called for greater autonomy for the city, won 58% of the popular vote and secured 30 of the 70 seats. The opposition had the votes and the mandate to filibuster legislation and pressure the government for more democracy.
In May, China’s third-ranking Politburo Member, Zhang Dejiang, said in a speech that Beijing was determined to consolidate its control over Hong Kong. First the National People’s Congress reinterpreted the city’s constitution, the Basic Law, to disqualify six opposition legislators, with eight more at risk of losing their seats.
With the opposition now lacking the votes to filibuster, pro-Beijing lawmakers changed the legislature’s rules to prevent future blocking of new laws. One Chinese official hailed these decisions as “the rainbow after the storm.”
Mr. Zhang also reiterated Beijing’s stand that the judiciary is subordinate to the executive branch and judges should “learn the Basic Law.” Other officials criticized Hong Kong’s use of foreign judges, who are supposedly too sympathetic to separatist elements.
Chinese officials have stepped up pressure for the city to pass antisubversion laws that would make advocating greater autonomy a crime. That would make it easier to suppress opposition politicians and their supporters.
Hong Kong now has its first political prisoners, and if Beijing has its way they will be followed by many more. That will force the city’s residents into a stark choice of whether to continue fighting for the rights China promised when it guaranteed 50 years of Hong Kong autonomy or accept that the former British colony’s special status is fading into history.
- Nothing could have undermine confidence in rule-of-law in Hong Kong more than The Wall Street Journal editorial.
- (Ming Pao) Editorial. August 21, 2017.
Three years ago, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, the trio from Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students, illegally forced their way into the area in front of the East wing of the government headquarters (commonly known as the "Civic Square"). The Court of Appeal ruled that the original sentences handed down by the Court of First Instance were too lenient and sentenced them to six to eight months in prison instead.
26 September 2014 is an important day in Hong Kong history. That night, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow took the lead and climbed over the fence to force an entry into the "Civic Square" and called on citizens to participate. This signaled the beginning of the Occupy movement. They were charged with unlawful assembly and inciting others to participate in unlawful assembly. They were convicted. They were either sentenced to community service or given a suspended sentence, escaping custodial punishment. The Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing that sentences were too lenient, filed for sentences review. The Court of Appeal sentenced the trio to prison. Some commentators argue that the DOJ was perpetrating "political persecution" or "political suppression" in an attempt to stop them from running for the Legislative Council. However, if we study the background of the case and the judgements, we will see that such accusations are not fair.
Several years ago, "civil disobedience" was often talked about and was the synonym of "aspiration" to some people. However, it does not follow that those who engage in "civil disobedience" and pursue their ideals can break the law at will. When handling illegal behaviour associated with "civil disobedience", the courts need a set of reasonable standards.
Shouldering the legal responsibility is at the core of civil obedience. In that sense, a conviction should be exactly what people who engage in civil disobedience want, and as such should not be regarded as political persecution. The crux of the matter is the severity of the sentences. The judge of the Court of First Instance argued that the trio were not motivated by self-interest, and that their actions were not very violent. The judge also argued that we should be "tolerant" towards young people who were not afraid of expressing their views for the sake of their political ideals. But the DOJ argued that such an argument was very dangerous. The DOJ argued that on that day there were nearly a hundred people who forced their way into the government headquarters for an unlawful assembly, and things were so dangerous that it was almost a "riot" and there was a lot of violence. As the trio's actions were premeditated, they should be put behind bars. The DOJ thus filed for sentences review and demanded that the court set a guideline for sentencing for illegal activities that derived from demonstrations and gatherings later on. The DOJ's viewpoint is not unfounded or unnecessary. It is very reasonable and legitimate to demand a sentencing guideline.
The Court of Appeal mentioned that the trio were being irresponsible when they called on young students to join the protests, as they knew perfectly well that the huge group of people who were forcing their way into the square were locked up in a fight with the security guards and that could result in deaths or injuries. The trio were also deluding themselves and others by saying that they would not use violence to occupy the "Civic Square". The trio or their supporters can appeal the rulings if they are unhappy with them. But we do not see that the rulings are groundless.
Alex Chow maintained that "we are on the side of the truth" when he faced imprisonment. This fully displayed his mindset of "I am justice". The rulings are a wake-up call to all people. Young people are eager for justice. But they should not act rashly. They should persist in their fight for democracy and justice. But they should review their radical means and not forget about the rule of law.
Hong Kong Bar Association former chairman Paul W.T. Hsieh was interviewed by Cable TV. Hsieh thought that the Court of Appeal ruling was normal: "The main point in the ruling was that you are entitled to exercise whatever rights you have, but once you step beyond the line known as violence, you are no longer under the protective shield of lenient penalties. This is not unique to Hong Kong, and it did not begin with this particular ruling. This is not called being turned 'red' or changing the rules in the middle of the game."
"When you say that you are fearless, then what don't you fear? You don't fear being prosecuted! So when you did what you did, you expect to pay somehow. You are getting what you asked for. So why do you characterize the prosecution as political motivated and the penalty as political persecution? Why do you want to drag the innocent courts into the water with you? I advise these resisters to face reality squarely and fulfill the promises that they made previously. In this way, they may get respect from a lot of people."
In Wally Yeung's ruling, he mentioned certain knowledgeable persons. Hsieh feels the same way, and he named Benny Tai as having to bear a great deal of responsibility. "In 2015, I said that many people including Benny Tai were making creative interpretations of civil disobedience. Judge Yeung did not name names, but I will name Benny Tai as having a lot to answer for ... the script was that on October 1, everybody will lie down with their hands covering their chests to let the police remove them one by one. Peaceful disobedience will gain an aura. This was just a scholar's unrealistic wishful thinking. As a resister, he has lost the objectivity to be able to analyze civil disobedience. He will be lost at sea."
As for foreign media criticizing rule-or-law in Hong Kong, Hsieh thought that this was laughable. "What business is this to the New York Times? They didn't like the ruling, so they called it political persecution. What is the difference between this and the People's Daily/Global Times condemning the foreign-born judge for imposing heavy jail sentences on the seven police officers?"
- (HK01) August 20, 2017.
... Paul Hsieh said that Benny Tai should bear great responsibility for civil disobedience. Benny Tai said that not all the responsibility should be attributed to the resisters alone. He said that in this episode, all Hong Kong people must bear responsibility. "If Senior Counsel Paul Hsieh were with us back then, I think that our voices would be louder. Should he bear some responsibility too?"
Benny Tai's super-twisted argument ...
He said that all the people of Hong Kong have to bear responsibility for this civil disobedience!
Responsibility for what?
I did not do anything. I never approved of any of their actions or sayings, but I am held responsible?
Does he think that Hong Kong citizens are stupid?
Is he shameless or what?Also, Demosisto's Chow Ting is telling people to debate in detail those around them to explain why young people are going to jail! I don't care what their ideas are -- these people are going to jail because they broke the law. Do not change the focus and blame everything on "politics."
- (HKG Pao) August 23, 2017.
Yesterday Paul Hsieh and Alan Leong (Civic Party) were on television. Paul Hsieh said that while Alan Leong went into politics after his term as Bar Association chairman, he himself did not join any political party and will never enter politics. "Because as soon as you join, you are forced to say things that go in the same direction forever." Leong paused and eventually replied: "Not really."
Leong then cited others to say that the government was biased because they did not ask for judicial reviews of Blue Ribbons who were sentenced leniently. One case was the two transportation workers who livelihood was negatively impacted by Occupy Central. These two went to throw eggs at Joshua Wong, and the magistrate merely fined them. Unfortunately this is a bad example, because the Department of Justice did file a judicial review later and the two were sentenced to two weeks in prison. Of course, the latter part of the story was conveniently not cited by Leong.
Paul Hsieh said that nobody listens to Benny Tai after the 2014 Occupy Central. Then he told Alan Leong directly: "Actually not many people listen to what you say." Alan Leong knew his own situation and admitted that young people consider him to be "an old fart." "I have not been able to achieve anything in more than two decades."
- (Bastille Post) August 24, 2017.
Paul Hsieh is going after Benny Tai more so than the Civic Square 3. In the Ming Pao interview, Hsieh said that Benny Tai has been like an amoeba. On day one, Tai said: "I am an academician, not a politician." But Hsieh looked at what Tai has done over the past few years and concluded: "If you have changed, you should acknowledge it. You are no longer a scholar." And if he is not a scholar, he should not pretend to be a scholar in discussing the academic basis for civil obedience. Hsieh said that Tai has charges around his neck and needs to defend himself, so how people still trust him when he tries to rationalize the proprieties and limitations of civil disobedience?
Hsieh said that if Tai dares to engage in civil disobedience, then he should be prepared to accept the consequences, even if the government is filing different charges. "Tai is still whimpering that the government should not be charging with certain crimes. Can you haggle the price after the fact? When you engage in civil disobedience, can you insist that you can only be charged under Section something-or-the-other and nothing else? Are you joking? Ma Zedong said that the revolution is not inviting guests to dinner, neither is civil disobedience."
Hsieh is complaining so heatedly against Tai. He is actually expressing the feelings of many other Senior Counsels, especially those who are graduates of the Hong Kong University School of Law. These people have seen Benny Tai using his position as Associate Professor of the Hong Kong University School of Law to engage in politicking and destroying rule-of-law and the reputation of HKU in the process.
- (SCMP) Those who are leading our youth into lawbreaking should take a look in the mirror. By Alex Ho. August 19, 2017.
It’s always painful to watch idealistic young people being sent to jail for their beliefs. But this does not mean they don’t deserve their punishment or that they are being persecuted. Opposition groups and some overseas commentators have called the jailing of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a suppression of dissent. The New York Times editorialists have called the trio “prisoners of conscience”.
They are nothing of the sort. Free societies routinely jail protesters whose actions result in violence. The three spearheaded the storming of the government headquarters at Tamar which triggered the 79-day Occupy protests of 2014. If nothing else, their actions caused injuries to 10 security guards.
Though they were asked to impose tougher sentences than the community services the three were originally ordered to complete by a lower court, the High Court judges have been lenient in jailing them for six to eight months. The maximum sentence could have been up to five years.
The opposition has been quick to denounce the rulings as persecution. In a statement of breathtaking irresponsibility, disqualified lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung claimed the court was effectively cooperating with the executive branch to root out dissent. In a similar vein, an editorial in The New York Times claims Hong Kong is in danger of losing its status as a free haven within China. Tellingly, as further evidence to its claim, the Times cites the alleged kidnapping and torture of Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin, completely oblivious to the fact that he has been charged for fabricating his story.
It’s clear that many opposition politicians and activists only respect the rule of law and an independent court when rulings turn their way. Some foreign commentators are only too happy to parrot their claims, however specious.
Long column inches have been devoted to the recent jailing of activists. But perhaps the wisest commentary is from the latest judgment: There can be no excuse for those committing unlawful acts in the name of exercising those very freedoms they claim they are fighting for. Pursuing what activists think are noble ideals is not a free pass for undermining social order and public safety.
Who has led, or rather misled, our young idealists to jail? It’s not the public prosecutors. It’s those “educated people” who, as the judges wrote, recklessly encouraged others to break the law while claiming the moral high ground.
Those people know who they are.
- (SCMP) Hong Kong itself is undermining judicial independence. By Alex Lo. August 22, 2017.
As thousands turned out to protest the latest jailing of young political activists on Sunday, it may be a good time for all of us to recall the prophetic words of Kemal Bokhary.
Five years ago, the retired Court of Final Appeal judge warned that “a storm of unprecedented ferocity” was gathering over the rule of law in Hong Kong. Sadly, his warning has come to pass. In a deeply divided society such as ours, judges and prosecutors find it increasingly difficult to make decisions and deliver rulings without being accused of political biases or hidden motives.
Many of those who marched in Sunday’s rally and others who took part in anti-government internet forums have been quick to paint the latest court judgments as “political persecution” at the behest of the Hong Kong and central governments. Whether they genuinely believe it or not, many are now shouting, “The rule of law is dead”. The claim is that our courts have turned “red” or are being “mainlandised”.
People have personal preferences and different political stances. They may agree or disagree with particular court rulings, especially those of a highly political nature involving anti-government activists. But to conclude from your own disagreements that the impartiality of our courts or the rule of law no longer exists is a dangerous leap.
Of course, all political sides have been guilty of making this unfounded claim. But the more it is repeated, the easier it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, it was the pro-government camp and its allies who first started to accuse judges of being closet “yellow ribbon” sympathisers when they committed protesters to community service rather than jailing them. Now that the Court of Appeal has toughened the sentences of 16 activists in two different cases to jail time, it’s the turn of the anti-government forces to round on the judges.
In February, thousands of police officers rallied in anger when seven of their colleagues were each jailed for two years after being found guilty of beating up Occupy protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu. Practically every group that has a stake in political struggle has been upset at the courts for one decision or another. But that, fortunately, shows that our judicial officers are soldiering on valiantly in the face of unprecedented challenges and so are displeasing all sides.
People have long worried that Beijing will undermine judicial independence and the rule of law. Actually, we ourselves now pose the greatest threat.
- (SCMP) Kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and Joshua Wong for the Nobel peace prize. At least, according to one newspaper. By Michael Chugani. August 22, 2017.
Kangaroo courts have arrived in Hong Kong. Our once fearlessly independent judges now huddle in secret with top government officials to brainstorm trumped-up charges against our young Davids of democracy who battle the Goliath that is communist China.
Judges churn out prisoners of conscience, making them heroes worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Fiction? No. Fact, as told by The New York Times.
Its opinion page editor Bari Weiss dismissed as bogus the unlawful assembly charges against Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, and Alex Chow Yong-kang. Bogus? Well, maybe scaling the security fence at government headquarters and inciting others to follow, which left 10 policemen injured, is not illegal assembly but youngsters practising climbing skills.
Perhaps Weiss didn’t know the trio actually did that, or it could be the venerable paper’s fact-checkers were asleep at the wheel. I suggest they check out the plentiful internet footage of what really happened on September 26, 2014. It may help clear Weiss’ mind.
I am sure The New York Times can afford to send her here to visit the jailed Wong, Law, and Chow to ask why they dutifully served their community service sentence instead of appealing against it as a bogus charge.
But that kind of factual reporting is now too little, too late. Our judges have already been tarred and feathered as lackeys, not only by the Western media but by many in our own legal profession.
What baffles me is if these lawyers and legal academics in the opposition camp believe we now have corrupt judges who jail people solely for their political beliefs, why remain in the profession? Why represent clients in kangaroo courts?
Just quit and fight the good fight in the political arena against tainted judges. Maybe the big bucks our barristers charge trumps any moral conviction against kangaroo courts.
I ask this not to defend the communist regime that rules us or to criticise Wong, Law, and Chow, but why appeal if the three believe our judges are biased anyway? Why not serve out their sentences?
That way they can become Nobel Peace Prize candidates as Weiss suggested. Surely, it’s worth spending six months behind bars to be in the same league as Malala, who took a Taliban bullet in the head, and Liu Xiaobo, who spent much of his life in jail and died while still being incarcerated.
- (EJ Insight) The moral corruption of Hong Kong's opposition. By Michael Chugani. August 31, 2017.
Hong Kong’s opposition has said and done many things in the name of democracy. Some of its actions deserve praise, such as its steadfast fight for democracy. I don’t think its bottom line of so-called true democracy without any role for Beijing is achievable but I respect opposition leaders for sticking to it. But the opposition has at times also used tactics that insult the good name of democracy.
The Mong Kok riot, although instigated by a radical faction of the opposition, was still done in the name of democracy. Instead of condemning the violence outright, mainstream opposition leaders either remained silent or justified the riot with the excuse that root causes drove young people to such acts.
Opposition legislators routinely abuse the core principles of democracy with their insolent behavior towards government officials who appear at Legislative Council meetings. Their treatment of former chief executive Leung Chun-ying was particularly insulting. They even refused to observe Legco decorum by standing up when Leung entered and left the chamber.
But all that pales in comparison to the opposition’s latest tactic to promote its political self-interest. Judicial independence forms the very foundation of freedom-loving Hong Kong’s values. Our judiciary has always been considered sacred by Hongkongers. The independence of our judges is never questioned.
Our internationally-respected legal system is what prevents us from becoming just another mainland city. That’s why I find it so appalling that the opposition, including some of its leaders from the legal profession, is now virtually accusing our judges of colluding with the government to politically persecute young activists.
Any honest person will know student leaders Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, and Alex Chow Yong-kang were represented by top lawyers in an open and fair trial on charges of unlawful assembly arising from their storming of government headquarters which triggered the Occupy protest. They chose not to appeal their community service sentence, implicitly accepting their guilt. Any honest person will also know the three were again represented by top lawyers in a transparent court proceeding when the government appealed against the community service sentence as being too light.
Yet the opposition dragged Hong Kong’s judiciary through the mud in the international arena when the three appeal judges ruled the initial sentences were too lenient and jailed the trio from six to eight months. I can understand the western media saying our judges are now under the thumb of Beijing, the charge against Wong, Law, and Chow was bogus, and they have therefore become prisoners of conscience.
It fits into the agenda of the western media to say that. They like to romanticize Hong Kong’s democracy movement as the oppressed fighting against an authoritarian regime. Their reporters, columnists, and editorial writers can be excused for seeing Hong Kong through such a lens because they either don’t live here or have a limited understanding of Hong Kong.
But the opposition should know better. They should know it’s a sick joke to say Hongkongers are an oppressed people devoid of rights. If people here really are politically persecuted, those who have accused our judges of being puppets would already be in gulags without trial. As former Democratic Party chairperson Emily Lau Wai-hing told me in a TV interview, Hong Kong has all the trappings of democracy except the right to vote for the chief executive.
The western media has proclaimed as proof that our judges are doing Beijing’s bidding in stifling the voices of young democracy activists after they jailed Wong, Law, and Chow, thirteen others for storming Legco, and after the Court of Final Appeal rejected Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching’s appeal against disqualification as Legco members. But why have opposition leaders fed and fanned this smearing of our judges instead of making clear to the world our judiciary is totally independent?
The only reason I can think of is that they don’t even mind attacking Hong Kong’s most treasured core value to serve their political agenda. It is now apparent they consider it fair game to destabilize a pillar of our free society – an independent judiciary – if rulings by judges don’t go their way. Moral corruption is the only way to describe such behavior.
I am well aware that in today’s Hong Kong any criticism of the opposition will be labeled as anti-democracy. Therefore, if you criticize the opposition for claiming without solid proof that our judges are no longer independent, you will be mocked as anti-democracy or a Beijing puppet. But such clownish behavior has never dissuaded me from speaking my mind, which is a cornerstone of democracy. The opposition does not have a monopoly on democracy. I will never let anyone define my democratic credentials.
For the record, I fully support democracy in the shape of one person, one vote. I agree Beijing doesn’t trust Hong Kong people as much as it should. I feel Beijing sometimes stretches the meaning of one country, two systems to suit its policies towards Hong Kong. Anyone with half a brain knows the Liaison Office had meddled in the March chief executive election. I am uncomfortable with Beijing’s tightening grip on us. And I feel the establishment camp should find its own voice instead of always taking a cue from the Liaison Office.
But the opposition is not entirely blameless for the central government’s harder line towards us. Some opposition leaders still find it hard, twenty years after reunification, to come to terms with the fact that we are now a part of China. They believe that only so-called true democracy can act as a shield against Beijing’s communist regime. They ignore the fact that Beijing took a much softer line towards us after reunification but hardened its position only when the opposition challenged its authority over Hong Kong as the sovereign power.
I believe the damage done in the past few weeks to the international reputation of our independent judiciary is irreparable. It has now already sunk into the minds of the western media, western politicians, and many people in the west and here in Hong Kong that our judges are no longer independent. The most revered of our core values – one that makes us different from mainland China – has been undermined. And we have our opposition to thank for it.
- (SCMP) So this is what Trump meant by fake news – just look at reports about Hong Kong’s democracy activists. By Yonden Lhatoo. August 24, 2017.
One of life’s supreme ironies is how US President Donald Trump regularly calls out the giants of the American news media for biased reporting and “fake news”, considering that lying and peddling ludicrous “alternative facts” is second nature to him.
I mean, how can the long-trusted luminaries of international journalism be wrong and someone like Trump be right, right? Wrong. I’m beginning to understand where he’s coming from these days.
Just look at the Western media commentary on the recent jailing of young democracy activists by Hong Kong courts, with particular reference to the six- to eight-month prison terms for Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang.
The government succeeded in securing tougher sentences for the three musketeers after a lower court gave them slaps on the wrist for instigating and taking part in the clashes at government headquarters in 2014. That illegal and violent protest effectively triggered the Occupy sit-ins – 79 days of road blocks and all manner of lawlessness in the name of civil disobedience and democracy.
The New York Times dismissed due process of law in the city as “bogus charges” and called for the trio to be honoured with a Nobel Peace Prize. The Wall Street Journal went a step further to declare: “China forces local judges to send democratic activists to jail.”
Seriously? Our Court of Appeal judges were under orders from the Communist Party in Beijing to throw people in jail? And they complied? Give me a break.
Let me set the record straight for these astonishingly ill-informed bastions of balanced reporting, and anyone who’s lapping up the fake news they’re publishing.
We are all free to protest peacefully on the streets of Hong Kong, whether it’s over the plight of puppy dogs in pet shops or Beijing’s restrictions on electing our leaders by universal suffrage.
But the word “peaceful” is paramount here. In exerting our rights to freedom of assembly and expression, if we choose to climb over fences into restricted areas, smash our way into the Legislative Council building, or sit in the middle of the road and block traffic, there are laws in black and white entailing prosecution and punishment for such offences. It’s that simple, really.
Court of Appeal judge Derek Pang Wai-cheong couldn’t have made it clearer: “To treat long-standing and effective laws as unreasonable restrictions obstructing the freedom of expression, and to feel good about it after breaking the law as one wishes – such conduct does not allow the court for any reason to handle it with excessive leniency. People who hold such views not only break the law in conduct, but despise and transcend the law in spirit.”
How insulting that clueless commentators halfway across the world, with little to zero context about what’s happening here, get to casually dismiss respected judges like Pang as puppets under orders from Beijing.
Groups like Human Rights Watch have glorified the activists as “political prisoners” and suggested their jailing signals the end of peaceful protest in the city.
Again, seriously? On Sunday, more than 20,000 protesters took to the streets to decry the court ruling. They didn’t break any law, so there was no “repression” against them. As long as they remain peaceful like that, they are free to protest every day to their hearts’ content.
Like so many Hongkongers, I’m all for greater democracy, but let’s not kid ourselves. Take the hysterical headlines with dollops of salt: we have no Gandhi or Mandela in jail here.
Muppets, maybe, but martyrs? Sorry, no, not even close.
- (SCMP) Our courts will do more to protect freedoms than the foreign press. By Alex Lo. August 25, 2017.
Among leading newspapers in major Western countries, Hong Kong’s political struggle has been about fighting against mainland China’s encroachment. The jailing of student leaders Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung fits this overall narrative perfectly. It means any facts that depart from this narrative or contradict it are either downplayed or ignored completely.
I have been reading The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal in the United States; the Financial Times and The Guardian in Britain; Le Monde in France; and the Globe and Mail in Canada. For foreign newspapers that have been decrying the jailings as the mainland’s threat to the rule of law, they have reported virtually nothing about how local lawyers and former legal officials think about it. There were, of course, the obligatory quotes from the secretary for justice. But when the newspapers quoted so liberally the trio’s supporters, you would think they should at least find out what the legal profession thinks about the case.
No one bothers with the joint statement of the Bar Association and the Law Society – which together represent all the lawyers in Hong Kong – that the Court of Appeal ruling followed proper legal principles and that the three were given due process. There was coverage of the 25 international figures who came to the trio’s defence and called the activists “political prisoners”. Among them were former British foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind, US Congressman Christopher Smith and Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong.
But no one bothered with Bertrand de Speville, our former solicitor general and head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, who merited publishing just a short letter to the editor in the Financial Times.
“Lord Patten describes as ‘deplorable’ the Hong Kong government’s decision to appeal against the non-custodial sentences,” he wrote. “By suggesting that Beijing directly influenced the decision of the secretary of justice, he undermines at a stroke of his pen the rule of law that is a pillar of the free and pluralist way of life the city continues to enjoy.”
Nor did the foreign press bother to quote Grenville Cross, former director of public prosecutions, who has said the initial community service sentences for the trio by a lower court were “clearly wrong” and that our judiciary remains “fiercely independent”.
Too bad, because in the end, the courts will do more to protect our freedoms than the foreign press.
- (Ming Pao) By Carmen Poon. August 21, 2017.
Before sentence was pronounced for Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, they stood outside the courthouse like heroes. Their parents were there to say that they are proud of their children who are sacrificing themselves for the people of Hong Kong. I am perplexed when I heard this.
Why do you think that you represent the people of Hong Kong? You forced your way into Civic Square, injuring 10 security guards in the process. Have you ever visited them? Have you ever said sorry? Have you ever considered that the people whom you incited may be injured and/or jailed? A person who does not care about other human beings and who is willing to sacrifice the lives and interests of other people in order to elevate himself as hero is just a selfish prick.
How much suffering has the occupation of Central for 79 days caused? Occupy Central caused mental anguish, time losses and economic damages to many people. Can you pay them back? Why do you think that taking over Civic Square and Central district will realize your dreams?
You kidnapped all of Hong Kong, you raped the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, you stole the name "Hong Kong" to destroy law-and-order and created so much pain. You sacrificed the people of Hong Kong; you did not sacrifice for the people of Hong Kong.
You are free to pursue your ideals. But please keep to three things:
(1) Do not say that your ideals are my ideals and drag me into the water with you. In particular, please do not invoke "the people of Hong Kong" all the time.
(2) Since you know that you should go to jail if you break the law, you should face the consequences bravely instead of acting like a victim of political oppression.
(3) You should stick to managing your own future. Do not hurt other people and their properties and destroy public order in the name of "the future of Hong Kong."
It would be better for everybody if you can do this.
Also, can you please make up your mind about whether you are a 'child' or a 'leader'? Please be very sure. No more straddling on the fence, please. You cannot pretend to be a child sometimes in order to gain sympathy and leniency, and then turn around to fantasize that you are the Great Leader on whom the future of Hong Kong depends.
The real prison is not the four walls around you; it is your obstinately misguided mindset.
- What is Joshua Wong going through at the Pik Uk Correctional Institution. Earlier this year, there was a movie <With Prisoners> about youth prisoners at a correctional institution. Here is the English-subtitled trailer. The correctional officers think that the prisoners are there because they broke the law and therefore they must be made to learn of their mistakes.
Direct physical punishment is neither effective nor necessary. Instead the correctional officers apply collective punishment. Prisoners are routinely asked to line up and yell out their prisoner numbers, the crimes for which they were convicted and the dates, locations and lengths of their sentences. For example, "I am prisoner 336212 Team C; I was guilty of theft; on June 13th 2017 I was sentenced at Kowloon City District Court to three months." If one prisoner refuses, then the officer will say: "Someone in the team is refusing to report! Everybody in the team get down and do push-ups until I tell you to stop!"
In a way, this is exactly the philosophy behind Occupy Central. You don't or you can't attack the government directly. So you hold the rest of Hong Kong hostage and make their lives as miserable as possible. In the end, the people of Hong Kong will make the government satisfy your demands. It did not work out in Occupy Central. But it worked for the male lead in the movie.
- (SCMP) Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow are in jail because Hong Kong law demands it. By Rimsky Yuen. August 23, 2017.
On August 17, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the application to review the sentences involving Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung. The court sentenced the defendants to immediate custodial sentences of six to eight months.
The judgment has attracted extensive attention and discussions. Since the defendants have indicated an intention to appeal, it is not appropriate to go into matters which may affect the intended appeal. However, since some of the comments display a lack of understanding of the basic facts of the case or our legal system, it is important that there should be an explanation of the different stages of the legal and judicial process.
The first stage is prosecution. The defendants were prosecuted for offences involving unlawful assembly, which is defined in section 18 (1) of the Public Order Ordinance as follows: “When three 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”.
Unlawful assembly is not concerned with the ideas (whether political or otherwise) that the people who organised or participated in the assembly sought to advocate. Rather, it focuses on whether the conduct of the people during the assembly was unlawful. Accordingly, the defendants were not prosecuted for their political ideas.
The second stage is the trial. There can be no doubt that the defendants were convicted after a fair and open trial. The defendants were legally represented, and they had every opportunity to make such submissions as they saw fit. At one stage, they lodged appeals against their convictions. However, they subsequently abandoned their appeals. Thus, they no longer take issue with their convictions.
The third stage is the review of sentence. The first review took place before the magistrate who convicted the defendants, pursuant to Section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance. The second took place before the Court of Appeal, pursuant to section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. Such a review can only be lodged if the sentence imposed by the trial judge “is not authorised by law, is wrong in principle or is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate”.
All these grounds for review only concern legal issues. Political considerations do not come into play, whether at the stage when the prosecution sought the review or when the Court of Appeal dealt with the application for review.
The hearing of the review was also open and transparent. All the submissions made by the prosecution were legal (as opposed to political). The defendants, again, were legally represented, and had every opportunity to advance such submissions as they saw fit.
If one reads the judgment (in particular, the leading judgment by Justice Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor), they will see that the reasons leading to the conclusion that imprisonment is appropriate are legal reasons, not political ones.
Further, as is made crystal clear in paragraph 171 of the judgment, the defendants were convicted and sentenced not because they exercised their right of assembly, demonstration or freedom of speech; but because they had overstepped the line allowed by the law and that they had committed serious unlawful acts.
Hong Kong has all along upheld judicial independence. The Hong Kong judiciary is well-known for their independence and quality. It is regrettable that some of the comments (including some by overseas media) sought to attack our judiciary. As I have repeatedly said, the public has a right to discuss judicial decisions, but no discussion should seek to undermine the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.
As observed in an Australian decision: “The authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important for the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of courts or judges (Gallagher vs Durack, 1983)”.
Some have queried the timing of the review applications, and alleged that there was an ulterior motive.
The timing of the review applications before the magistrate and the Court of Appeal are regulated by the relevant statutes. In the present case, the prosecution lodged the review applications within the relevant time prescribed by the statutes. The only reason it took almost a year for the Court of Appeal to hear the application was that it could not deal with the review of sentence until after the defendants’ appeals against conviction were disposed of (see section 81C (1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance).
The defendants’ appeals against conviction were scheduled to be heard on May 22. It was only after they abandoned their appeal on April 19 that the prosecution could proceed to fix a date for the hearing of the review of sentence, which eventually took place on August 9. In other words, the timing of these steps is not within the control of the prosecution, and any suggestion of an ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution is simply groundless.
The law in Hong Kong protects people’s fundamental rights, including the right to assembly, demonstration and freedom of speech. However, any exercise of such rights should be in a lawful manner (see paragraphs 110-112 of the judgment). From the start of the prosecution up to the review of sentence by the Court of Appeal, the defendants were dealt with strictly in accordance with the law.
The defendants were convicted and sentenced for their unlawful conduct, not for their political ideas.
With these explanations, I hope the public and the international community will continue to respect our independent judiciary and refrain from baseless attacks.
- (SCMP) Jailed Occupy trio crossed the line on civil disobedience at Civic Square. By Sherif A. Elgebeily. September 3, 2017.
When Nathan Law Kwun-chung, on the night of September 26, 2014, called on peaceful protesters “to go into the Civic Square together ... [to] recapture the public space that belongs to us”, he called for “civil disobedience”. But what precisely does this term mean? Did the occupation of Civic Square qualify?
Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with laws on moral grounds, with the knowledge and acceptance of the repercussions. It is a fundamental expression of individual responsibility – one knows what one is doing and does it anyway. It stems, firstly, from the belief that a law can in some cases be wrong and, second, the use of one’s free will to actively disobey it; it has been used most notably by Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
On the surface, Law, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, and Alex Chow Yong-kang adhered fully to this definition: Law told his followers they may be prosecuted; none of the three denied participation in the incident; Wong expressed no regret to his probation officer; and Chow was prepared to accept the legal consequences of his actions.
Despite defending that their actions should not violate the law, they were aware that these did and would have consequences, and that court sentences would need to be suffered. Hence, they believed that what they were engaged in was legitimate civil disobedience: legally wrong though morally right.
However, one cannot group all forms of political protest under the umbrella of “civil disobedience”. One of the elements that sets it apart from terrorism is its peaceful nature, as it aims to address injustice without harm to citizens or public property. From a state security perspective, too, violence can never be accepted as a viable means to achieve political goals.
Although the trio called for non-violent means throughout the attempt to occupy Civic Square, their actions and those of the protesters undoubtedly ran contrary to this intention. Based on previous experience, they expected no physical attempts to stop them from entering the forecourt. However, as Law testified, “if the security guards tried to stop them with their bodies, the participants would . . . remain standing in their original position, [and] therefore their action would not cause any injuries to the security guards”. This in itself suggests an awareness that their intended actions had, at least in theory, the capacity to cause damage and/or injury.
Civil disobedience would have been to follow this plan, but the decision to push ahead in the face of a physical altercation tipped their actions over the line. Politics aside, Hong Kong’s social order, the rule of law, and our societal norms dictate that their actions must have consequences.
- (HKG Pao) September 6, 2017. At the time of the incident, Nathan Law said that he is fearless and he will accept the legal consequences. Now that the court has sent him to 8 months in jail, he wants to get legal aid to lodge an appeal of the court ruling. So not only is he reneging on his original promise, he wants to waste taxpayer money too.
- (SCMP) February 6, 2018.
Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung and two allies on Tuesday won their ultimate appeal against jail terms handed down for the storming of a government complex in the run-up to 2014’s Occupy protests.
The Court of Final Appeal ruling meant Wong, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang would leave the court as free men.
But the highly anticipated judgment endorsed the lower Court of Appeal’s strict sentencing guidelines on future unlawful assemblies. The judges ruled that civil disobedience should carry “little weight” when the acts committed infringed upon criminal law and involved violence.
“It was right for the Court of Appeal to send the message that unlawful assemblies involving violence, even the relatively low degree of violence that occurred in the present appeals, will not be condoned, and convictions will justifiably attract prison sentences,” Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li said.
However, the judges also decided that it was inappropriate for the lower appeal court to have applied its new guidelines retrospectively to the three men to impose significantly more severe sentences, and therefore they unanimously allowed the appeal.
- (Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal) Final Appeal No. 8 of 2017 (Criminal) on appeal from CAAR No.4 of 2016
134. ... we would allow the appeals of each of the three appellants, quash the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal and reinstate those imposed by the magistrate.
135. ... the Court of Appeal was entitled to provide the guidance it did in relation to the appropriate sentences to be imposed in respect of large scale unlawful assemblies involving violence. Offenders in such future cases will therefore be subject to the new guidelines.
- The fight for pro-democracy activists to receive free passes for crimes against humanity will continue until victory is achieved! Long live FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and UNIVERSAL VALUES!
- If you find the court document too tedious, here is a simple analogy:
Suppose Fuhrer Adolf Hitler was arrested alive after the fall of Berlin. He was brought to trial in Nuremburg for crimes against humanity. He was found guilty based upon overwhelming evidence. In sentencing, the judges declared that there are no sentencing guidelines because there has never been any trials over crimes as grave as these. The judges came up with a set of guidelines under which Mr. Hitler would be sentenced to death by hanging to be carried out immediately. However, these guidelines cannot be applied retrospectively to Mr. Hitler. Therefore Mr. Hitler was released immediately, and he lived a happy and long life under his own name in Austria afterwards.
- (SCMP) There’s just no pleasing some people. By Alex Lo. February 8, 2018.
Some people just demand to have their cake and eat it, too. The city’s highest court has set free three Occupy protest leaders, a decision which presumably vindicates the independence of our judiciary.
But nary a word about that from those brave opposition figures who profess themselves to be our greatest defenders of the rule of law.
Instead, they round on the court judgment, starting with one of the freed activists, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who denounced it as a “sugar-coated harsh punishment” and claimed “more and more activists will be locked up because of this harsh judgment”.
Law Lay Dream, an activist legal group, claimed the ruling breached international legal standards. I don’t know if the group’s English name is intentional, but it sounds a lot like a crude Cantonese phrase that roughly means self-degradation.
Former University of Hong Kong law don Michael Davis warned it could deter people from taking part in street protests.
The Progressive Lawyers Group said the ruling would further restrict people’s rights to peaceful assembly as guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil Rights, to which Hong Kong is a signatory.
So, what’s this evil dictatorial ruling coming from our highest court? It merely upheld the lower court’s stricter sentencing guidelines.
Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li said: “It was right for the Court of Appeal to send the message that unlawful assemblies involving violence, even the relatively low degree of violence that occurred in the present appeals, will not be condoned, and convictions will justifiably attract prison sentences.”
I thought the Occupy protests were all about “peace and love”, as advertised by its leaders, from law lecturer Benny Tai Yiu-ting and his fellow academic rebels to Wong and his two partners-in-crime Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang.
Incidentally, the three young men have been nominated by a couple of American politicians for the Nobel Peace Prize; and I emphasise the word peace here.
Is not being peaceful the crucial element that distinguishes civil disobedience from other forms of protest?
Apparently not! The opposition’s new argument, and also that of their academic supporters, is that it’s enough that my intention is to be peaceful, so it’s not my responsibility if protests I take part in or organise spiral out of control, causing violence and injuring some people. That’s the “international standard”? Give me a break.
No, the opposition just wants to have it both ways.
[778] Lam Tsz-kin Is Arrested (2017/08/15)
Previous: #775: The Case of Lam Tsz-kin
(SCMP) August 15, 2017.
Instead of being pushed into a van and kidnapped by two Putonghua-speaking men, Hong Kong activist Howard Lam Tsz-kin got on a minibus in Mong Kok headed for Sai Kung, according to a police source close to the investigation, casting further doubt on his claims.
The latest revelation came after a police spokeswoman said investigators had found significant discrepancies between Lam’s account of his alleged kidnapping and his actual activities on the day.
At a press briefing early Tuesday morning, superintendent Cheng Lai-ki of the Kowloon West regional crime unit said police believed Lam had given officers false information.
She disclosed that the Democratic Party member had left Mong Kok alone safely by public transport on the day in question.
“Our information did not show that he was pushed into a car as he claimed ... and his whereabouts were not like what he has said. We believe his information was false,” Cheng said.
She said looking into the motives for Lam’s fabrications would be one of the directions taken by the investigation.
The injuries on his thighs, which Lam had shown reporters as evidence of abuse by his captors, would be examined by forensic experts.
Serious doubts about Lam’s story were earlier raised by FactWire news agency, which published a report on Monday night directly contradicting his version of events.
FactWire cited multiple video clips taken by CCTV cameras from Yau Ma Tei to discredit Lam’s claim that he was abducted and drugged by Putonghua-speaking men on Thursday at around 4pm after he bought a soccer shirt from a shop and was on his way to the MTR station on Pitt Street.
Lam claimed he was forced into a van on Portland Street and taken to a building in an unknown location where he was tortured by his abductors who punched staples into his legs, which he later showed the media and had removed surgically in a hospital.
He said he found himself dumped at a beach in Sai Kung between 1 and 2am, from where he took a taxi home. He held a press conference, backed by his party, to tell his story at 11am, before reporting the case to police.
FactWire reported that it had collected and put together nine pieces of footage to reconstruct the incident. They showed the activist leaving Portland Street at around 5pm.
“Alone and unscathed, Lam put on a cap, surgical mask and sunglasses before walking back towards Hamilton Street and then towards Nathan Road. No suspicious persons mentioned by Lam were seen during the three-minute walk,” the agency reported.
“Lam appeared to be alone the whole time. A review of CCTV footage also found no suspicious persons or the alleged kidnappers.”
FactWire also contacted Lam at his Ma On Shan home, where he first refused to comment, but was later persuaded to watch the footage and respond.
The Democrat denied he was the masked man in the footage, saying: “It is horrible. I don’t know whether someone wanted to do something behind my back ... people in my attire that day can be found anywhere. If someone wants to put me into trouble, they could have arranged a body double.”
(YouTube) Closed circuit television videos obtained by FactWire
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 15, 2017.
Multiple CCTV clips obtained by FactWire appear to contradict democracy activist Howard Lam Tsz-kin’s own version of events in his alleged kidnapping by Chinese agents.
Last Friday, the Democratic Party member told reporters that he was snatched and drugged by two Putonghua-speaking men last Thursday at around 4pm, moments after buying a football shirt from a shop in Yau Ma Tei and on his way to the MTR station on Pitt Street.
Lam said he was then tortured and interrogated over his plan to send a signed photo of footballer Lionel Messi to Liu Xia, widow of Chinese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. The incident allegedly occurred over a few hours at an unknown location, before he was released at a beach.
However, FactWire can reveal that multiple CCTV clips appear to show Lam leaving Portland Street, where he was allegedly abducted and forced into a car, at around 5pm. Alone and unscathed, Lam put on a cap, surgical mask and sunglasses before walking back towards Hamilton Street and then towards Nathan Road. No suspicious persons mentioned by Lam were seen during the three-minute walk.
To reconstruct the incident, FactWire collected nine items of CCTV footage from six shops on Portland Street near Hamilton Street and Pitt Street, showing various locations between 3pm to 7pm on the day of the incident. Lam appears in seven of the nine clips.
One clip captured by a shop camera on the corner of Portland Street and Hamilton Street, which points at the store from which Lam bought the shirt, shows him emerging from the shop at 5:41pm.
Lam is wearing a black t-shirt, dark blue shorts, white-rimmed black trainers and a dark-coloured watch on his left hand, and he is carrying a dark-coloured backpack. He then turns right and walks along Portland Street towards Pitt Street. Both of his feet point inwards as he walks.
The second and third clip, each pointing in the direction of Hamilton Street and Pitt Street respectively, were filmed by two cameras in a noodle restaurant located 50 metres from the first CCTV camera.
One camera caught a man emerging at 5:43pm from the direction of Hamilton Street. Already with a cap and sunglasses on, he is then captured putting on a surgical mask and putting his left hand through the left strap of his backpack as he moves from one side of the pavement near the road to the other near the wall.
Although the camera could not capture the face of the man, his outfit, build and walking posture match Lam’s in previous footage. The shop’s second camera pointing the opposite direction also caught him, back against the camera, walking towards the direction of Pitt Street.
Hamilton Street cuts through Portland Street, and the two shops mentioned above are located on each side. From the store at the junction of Hamilton Street, one would pass by Hamilton Street Rest Garden, two vacant shops, then a coffin shop and an electrical appliances store before reaching the noodle restaurant.
No security cameras were installed at the above locations, while the only camera installed at a building next to the garden also points in another direction.
According to a fourth camera set in a shop 20 metres away, near the corner of Portland Street and Pitt Street, the same man then walks across Portland Street to the other side of the road at around 5:43pm.
Two other clips obtained from a restaurant along the same pavement then show that he starts walking back towards Hamilton Street at 5:44pm. With his head down, the man keeps on walking and eventually turns right onto Nathan Road.
The CCTV camera at a shop next to the restaurant also caught him walking back towards the direction of Hamilton Street along Portland Street.
The seven clips are coherent. It took three minutes in total for Lam to leave the football store on Portland Street, cross Hamilton Street towards the junction with Pitt Street, before walking to the opposite pavement and heading back to Hamilton Street. He was out of CCTV coverage as turned right onto Nathan Road.
Lam appeared to be alone the whole time. A review of CCTV footage also found no suspicious persons or the alleged kidnappers.
FactWire reporters have completed the same route on foot in two and a half minutes at a normal pace.
When told by FactWire reporters at his home in Ma On Shan that he was captured leaving Portland Street safely, Lam initially refuse to provide a response or watch the footage.
As he gave in and agreed to watch the clips, Lam said the masked man was not him and stressed that he did not put on a surgical mask or cap on that day.
Lam said that the whole thing was ‘bizarre’. He said: ‘It is horrible. I don’t know whether someone wanted to do something behind my back …people in my attire that day can be found anywhere. If someone wants to get me into trouble, they could have arranged a body double.’
Lam stated that the police requested shop owners not to hand CCTV footage to reporters. He also questioned the source and credibility of the footage due to the time differences as marked on the screens, adding that it should have been the police instead of reporters to confront him on the matter.
(Ming Pao) August 15, 2017.
FactWire said that after they published the videos, the public raised more doubts. Their reporters were accused of being fed information to coordinate with the police. Therefore FactWire is disclosing the process of their investigation.
One hour after the Democratic Party press conference, FactWire sent out reporters to the scene to gather information. Some of the businesses furnished their surveillance videos. So on the first day, they had already procured three of the videos.
At about 4pm that day, a large number of police officers were sent to the scene to gather evidence. The next day, FactWire revisited the businesses and obtained the first video showing Lam Tsz-kin leaving the sports jersey store. By the night of August 13 (Sunday), FactWire had procured 8 videos from 5 businesses. FactWire then decided to contact Lam Tsz-kin for comments.
At first, Lam Tsz-kin declined to be interviewed. Even though the reporter said that they had procured videos, Lam refused to look at them. The reporter interviewed Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting who happened to be visiting there. Lam Cheuk-ting went back and spoke to Lam Tsz-kin. Then Lam Tsz-kin agreed to be interviewed. Afterwards Lam said that it was very "bizarre."
FactWire re-emphasized that they went out with the simple intention of ferreting out the facts and reconstruct the event. They emphasized that their reporters have never contacted any law enforcement agency.
- Shooting the messenger: Sigmund Freud considered shooting the messenger a "marginal case of this kind of defense...of fending off what is distressing or unbearable", citing the example of "the famous lament of the Spanish Moors Ay de mi Alhama, which tells how King Boabdil received the news of the fall of his city of Alhama. He feels that this loss means the end of his rule. But he will not 'let it be true....He threw the letters in the fire and killed the messenger'". Freud added that "a further determinant of this behaviour of the king was his need to combat a feeling of powerlessness. By burning the letters and having the messenger killed he was still trying to show his absolute power."
- (Silent Majority For HK) August 17, 2017. In discussing the case, Civic Party chairman Alan Leong said on radio that he is not a friend of Lam Tsz-kin and is not knowledgeable about Lam's mental state. Therefore Leong finds it inappropriate to comment on why Lam chose to hold a press conference before going to the police.
However, Leong suspects that the Hong Kong Police leaked the progress of their investigation to FactWire. Appearing on the same radio program, legislator Paul Tse said that there was no reason why the police would do so, because this will only interfere with their investigation.
Alan Leong said that his original comments was based upon the situation and information available at the time. But at this stage, everybody should shut up until the police has completed their investigation.
(TVB) August 15, 2017.
TVB has obtained another video which showed that a similarly dressed (black shirt, dark blue pants, black-top white-bottom sneakers, pigeon toe walking style) man appearing alone about 10 minutes later in a back lane between Dundas Street and Hamilton Street.
According to information, the police determined that Lam Tsz-kin went to a fast food restaurant on Nathan Road first. At around 6pm, he used a back lane to get to Dundas Street where he took a minibus to Sai Kung. He later went to the beach at Tai Mong Tsai Road.
(Oriental Daily) August 16, 2017.
According to our canvassing of the stores around the Sai Kung minibus terminal, many of the BBQ restaurants and hotels have provided their surveillance videos to the police. The Shum Tsai Kee noodle shop provided the videos from two cameras to the police. According to employee Mr. Shen, the individual in the video wore a baseball cap, sunglasses and surgical mask, which makes it likely to be Lam Tsz-kin. Shen said that Lam is not a celebrity, so why would anyone bother to find a body double in order to kidnap him? Besides, "where are you going to find someone of the same physique to walk around the same place at the same time?"
The Tung Chun Toy Store next door also provided videos to the police and the media. Owner Ms. Ching said that Lam had been inconsistent with his multiple versions of stories. The surveillance videos show that Lam is unlikely to have been kidnapped. "I tend not to believe him. It is highly improbable."
(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017.
[4:50am] Police detectives took Lam Tsz-kin back to his home at Kam Huan House, Kam Fung Estate, Ma On Shan district and conducted a search. They took a number of items as evidence, including three mobile phones, one computer, one iPad, one pair of sunglasses and one eyeglass case. Lam was taken to the Ma On Shan Police Station and stayed there for about 5 minutes. He was then taken back to the Hung Hom Police Station and held overnight.
According to the police, Lam Tsz-kin was arrested at 12:30am in Tai Kok Tsui on suspicion of making a false report to mislead police officers. The police have checked the surveillance videos taken by nearby shops and interviewed the businesses. Their findings were at odds with what Lam Tsz-kin said. The preliminary findings are that he left Mong Kok by vehicle safely on his own and was not pushed onto a vehicle. Furthermore his trail was not as described, as he had not gone near some of the places as he said.
(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017.
The police have spread their search and found more surveillance videos. Lam Tsz-kin was seen to have boarded a red minibus from Dundas Street to Sai Kung city centre. This minibus departs from the Kwong Wah Hospital Outpatient building, goes through Nathan Road, Waterloo Road, Prince Edward East, Clearwater Bay Road, Sai Kung Road to the minibus terminal at Sai Kung Pier Wai Man Road.
(HK01) August 15, 2017.
Along Fuk Man Road from the Sai Kung Promenade towards the Sai Kung city centre, a number of businesses said that the police have asked them on August 13 (Sunday) evening whether they had seen Lam Tsz-kin. Some of the businesses (Tak Hing Noodles and the Filipino grocery store M2M Store) said that the police took their surveillance videos. The businesses said that they didn't notice Lam Tsz-kin. On Po Tung Road, the Hoi Shing Restaurant and Cava spanish restaurant also said that the police came and took their surveillance videos, but they don't recall seeing Lam Tsz-kin.
(Ming Pao) August 17, 2017.
According to information, the police have a surveillance video which showed the man with the baseball cap, mask and sunglasses walking alone by a BBQ field on Wai Man Road, Sai Kung district at about 7pm. They also have another video showing this man walking alone before sundown on Tai Mong Tsai Road to the rocky beach opposite Luna House. However, there is a gap between 7pm and 2am. Then at 2am, Lam Tsz-kin was recorded in the lobby of his apartment building in Ma On Shan and also by nearby convenience stores. But the police could not detect any signs of sand or mud on his body.
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 17, 2017.
Democratic Party member Howard Lam appeared in court on Thursday on charges of misleading police officers. He was released on HK$5,000 bail and is not allowed to leave Hong Kong until his next court hearing on September 14. The case was heard at the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts. Lam was initially set to be absent from the hearing as he was hospitalised, but the police said his doctors believed he could be discharged and attend.
(SCMP) November 22, 2017.
The charge against a Hong Kong democracy activist who claimed he was kidnapped and tortured by mainland Chinese agents has been changed to one of making a false report of a crime, four months after he was brought to court under the initial charge of misleading the police.
Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin, 42, posted a photo of a document on a social media platform on Tuesday afternoon, saying that he received a notice earlier that day from police about the change.
The document, titled “Amendment of Charge”, stated that Lam knowingly made a false report of crime to police officer Wong Kai-pui in a ward at Queen Mary Hospital on August 11. Lam claimed in his report to Wong that he was abducted on the afternoon of August 10 in Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon.
Police said Lam had violated item 64(a) of the Police Force Ordinance.
Lam was originally charged under item 64(b) of the ordinance – misleading the police – on August 16. Upon conviction, both offences could lead to a fine of HK$1,000 and imprisonment of six months. The ordinance also stipulates that any amended charge shall be read and explained to the defaulter.
CAP 232 Police Force Ordinance
64. Offence of making false report of commission of offence, etc. Any person who knowingly—
(a) makes or causes to be made to any police officer a false report of the commission of any offence; or
(b) misleads any police officer by giving false information or by making false statements or accusations,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.
Comments:
- CAP 232 Police Force Ordinance
Article 64. Offence of making false report of commission of offence, etc.
Any person who knowingly—
(a) makes or causes to be made to any police officer a false report of the commission of any offence; or
(b) misleads any police officer by giving false information or by making false statements or accusations,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.
- Collateral damages:
Democratic Party:
- (TVB) August 15, 2017. Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai showed up after being in deep cover for so long to declare that the Democratic Party will make a solemn accounting after the truth of the Lam Tsz-kin affair comes out. Wu said that the Democratic Party called for a press conference based upon the information that Lam Tsz-kin provided to Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Lam Cheuk-ting as well as the physical wounds. The ensuing publicity would provide protection for Lam Tsz-kin's personal safety. Wu said that since the investigation is still ongoing, it was inappropriate for the Democratic Party to comment.
- (Silent Majority HK) August 15, 2017. HK01 tried to call up Democratic Party members to ask them if "someone was dressed up as Lam Tsz-kin to frame him"? Everybody (Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Lee Wing-tat, Lam Cheuk-ting) avoided this like the plague except for one. Legislator Helena Wong (Democratic Party) had been quiet while this was going. But she came out after Lam Tsz-kin was arrested and told HK01 that she questioned whether the media found the same videos as the police did. Clearly Wong is sticking to her nickname of "Cloud-head" and being deliberately contrarian.
- Of course, the media did not get the same videos as the police. The noodle shop may have been willing to share the video with the FactWire reporter and the police, but the MTR will only give their videos to the police but not the media. So the police will have even more videos.
- (HKG Pao) August 15, 2017. Democratic Party ex-chairman Albert Ho said that he was surprised by how the crime victim Lam Tsz-kin has been turned into a suspected criminal. He said that he will not "easily suspect the victim." He urged the police to conduct a thorough investigation.
- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017. Democratic Party ex-chairman Albert Ho said that there is still uncertainty about whether the man with the baseball cap, surgical mask and sunglasses is Lam Tsz-kin. Besides he thinks that the police must explain how Lam Tsz-kin left Mong Kok that day. Right now, we cannot assume that Lam Tsz-kin is a liar and we cannot assume that the police have sufficient evidence. Will the Democratic Party apologize if Lam Tsz-kin did mislead the police? Albert Ho said that he does not answer hypothetical questions.
- (Ming Pao) August 15, 2017. Democratic Party ex-chairman Albert Ho said on Commercial Radio: "All the facts have been placed in front of everybody. You can all think about them. I am not going to comment."
- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017. Our reporter called up Martin Lee for comment. He said simply "The Democratic Party has issued a statement." He said that he will not comment anymore on this incident. Then he hung up quickly. Other attendees at the press conference such as Ng Wing-fai (Democratic Party Central Committee member), Lee Wing-tat (Democratic Party former legislator) and Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party former legislator) did not pick up their phones.
- (HKG Pao) August 15, 2017. Previously Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting had said on radio that it was wrong for Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu to say that there is no evidence to support Lam Tsz-kin's story. Lam Cheuk-ting said that the staples are the physical evidence and Lam Tsz-kin is the eyewitness.
- (Ming Pao) August 15, 2017. On radio, Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting said that he was having dinner at Lam Tsz-kin's home last night when the FactWire reporter came to ask for comments on the videos. Lam Tsz-kin refused to view the videos, but Lam Cheuk-ting saw them first. Afterwards, Lam Cheuk-ting convinced Lam Tsz-kin to view them too. Lam Cheuk-ting agreed that the man who wore the baseball cap, surgical mask and sunglasses resembled Lam Tsz-kin in physical appearance, but he cannot be totally sure. But Lam Cheuk-ting said that Lam Tsz-kin told him personally that this was not him. Lam Cheuk-ting wants the police to disclose their information as quickly as possible and get to the truth.
- Fuck! Is this the same guy who said that the police must not be allowed to utter a single word about the case? Now he wants them to divulge everything as quickly as possible?
- From "the police are not supposed to discuss the details of an ongoing investigation" to "the police must disclose their information as quickly as possible"? The goal posts have just been moved from one end to the other.
- (Silent Majority HK) August 15, 2017. Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting said that it would be unfair to comment at this time and they need more confirmed evidence. He hoped the public understands that the Democratic Party is not an investigative agency and is not authorized to conduct detailed investigation.
- Fuck! The lack of an investigation never stopped you guys from concluding that Lam Tsz-kin was kidnapped and tortured by a "mainland powerful department".
- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017, According to information, Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Lam Cheuk-ting did not notify the Central Committee before the press conference. Afterwards, one Central Committee member told the group that the party should be prepared for various contingencies. This was a rational analysis that caused certain long-standing party members to remind him sternly that fellow party members must always be trusted. But as more evidence (including the surveillance videos) surfaced, the Central Committee members were stunned. They called a meeting this morning to discuss their strategies. One person expressed skepticism about the credibility of Lam Tsz-kin and called for a rational analysis. But someone else said that they must always trust a party member who seeks their help. Due to the inability to reach consensus, the Central Committee decided not to severe themselves from Lam Tsz-kin. Instead they will wait until Lam is released before re-convening.
- (Oriental Daily) August 19, 2017. Previously Emily Lau declined to comment on the grounds that she did not know Lam Tsz-kin well and that she had not attended the press conference. Today, she admitted that the Lam Tsz-kin affair is a crisis for the Democratic Party. She said that Albert Ho genuinely believed Lam Tsz-kin at the press conference. Since then, certain facts that Albert Ho hadn't known about have emerged. Eventually the Democratic Party will have to give an honest account to the people.
Does Emily Lau believe in Lam Tsz-kin? She said that while the police investigation is still going on, it is meaningless to talk about whether she believes in him or not. She looks for a fair and just police investigation.
Others
- Democratic Party Facebook
Summary: 22 pro-democracy legislators write to Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu to demand a meeting as soon as possible to discuss mainland agents crossing the border to commit crimes. They cited first the case of Poon Wai-hei being kidnapped and imprisoned in 2013 and then the case of Lee Bo and now the case of Lam Tsz-kin. All these cases showed that mainland agents come to Hong Kong to carry out missions, kidnapping Hong Kong citizens and even using torture. "We cannot tolerate this situation. The Lam Tsz-kin affair is not an isolated incident. Therefore we demand that you and representatives of the Hong Kong Police to meet with us as quickly as possible to discuss whether the Hong Kong Police can effectively protect the safety of the citizens of Hong Kong when mainland agents come to Hong Kong to carry out their missions." Signed: Lam Cheuk-ting, Wu Chi-wai, Andrew Wan, Helena Wong, Roy Kwong, Hui Chi-fung, James To, Alvin Yeung, Jeremy Tam, Tanya Chan, Kwok Ka-ki, Chan Chi-chuen, Leung Yiu-chung, Leung Kai-cheung, Charles Mok, Siu Ka-chun, Lee Kwok-lun, Eddie Chu, Fernando Cheung, Claudia Mo, Dennis Kwok, Yip Kin-yuen.
- After the FactWire released their videos, these 22 legislators are not pressing for this meeting anymore.
- (Civic Party legislator Alvin Yeung's Facebook) August 11, 2017. "Democratic Party member Lam Tsz-kin appears to have been kidnapped by four to five mainland law enforcement agents in the middle of bustling Mong Kok, detained, assaulted, tortured and even "given some stapled crosses" on his thighs because Lam is Christian. They also told him: "This is a state affair; it is useless for you to tell the police." At a time when there is turmoil over mainland law in Hong Kong under the co-location arrangement for the High Speed Rail, a mainland department has come out and showed us how to enforce the law across the border. After Hong Kong cedes land to the Express Rail Link to enforce mainland laws, will these cases be more frequently? Will Hong Kong still be Hong Kong?"
- (Joshua Wong's Facebook)
Democratic Party's Lam Tsz-kin appeared to have been kidnapped by mainland powerful department agents and tortured. He was imprisoned and his highs were stapled in cross shapes. I was just interviewed live on BBC and I express my strong condemnation of this type of brutal torture.
Using this global live broadcast, I re-emphasized that nobody should receive violent treatment no matter what his political stance is. The concern of the people of Hong Kong for Mr. Liu Xiaobo will be vanish just because of the violence.
In the past, there have been many instances in which mainland powerful departments have kidnapped dissidents in Hong Kong. I am very worried that as such cross-border crimes become more common, the people of Hong Kong will be worried and One Country Two Systems will be severely damaged.
The people of Hong Kong must unite together to defend our basic rights in the face of the intrusion of the Chinese government against democracy and human rights in Hong Kong.
- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017. Previously Lam Tsz-kin told the media that he listened to his wife to bathe and then soak his clothes and shoes in water, thus destroying any physical evidence. Lam Tsz-kin was arrested early this morning. This morning at 8am and 11am, our reporter went to knock on the door of the Lam home in the company of security guards. Nobody answered. So his wife may be staying elsewhere to avoid the storm.
- Mrs. Lam is an eyewitness to a crime. So she was probably down at the police station assisting in the investigation.
- Co-location Concern Group Facebook
Another cross-border torture!
Lam Wing-kee/Lam Tsz-kin
They are the best reasons for opposing Co-locationLast year Causeway Bay Books owner Lam Wing-kee was taken by a "powerful department" back to mainland China and incarcerated. Today Democratic Party Lam Tsz-kin revealed that suspected national security personnel illegally kidnapped him and even tortured him by stapling his thighs.
Even before Co-location is implemented, the situation is already so grim. Once the Chinese Public Security Bureau comes to West Kowloon to enforce mainland laws, who knows how many more shocking acts of oppression and persecution will take place in Hong Kong ...
Opposing Co-location begins by signing your name: goo.gl/LTcDmP
- (Ming Pao) August 16, 2017. Civic Party chairman Alan Leong said that the Democratic Party had the right attitude. He said that forming a conclusion at this time is to disrespect the police who have more information than the Democratic Party. As an outsider, Leong said that he cannot tell what should the normal or appropriate response be, but he thinks that the Democratic Party can have its own judgment.
- Yes, he wants to drop a rock on top of the Democratic Party which is stuck in the bottom of the well.
- (HKG Pao) August 16, 2017. Western media coverage -- they won't even run a follow-up, much less a correction.
The New York Times Hong Kong Democracy Activist Says He Was ‘Stapled’ by Chinese Agents NY Daily News Hong Kong activist says Chinese tortured him for Messi photo New Jersey Herald Hong Kong activist says Chinese tortured him for Messi photo USA News Hong Kong activist says Chinese agent drove staples into his legs over message to footballer lionel messi Remezcla Hong Kong Dissident Claims He Was Tortured After Requesting a Signed Photo of Lionel Messi
Reuters Hong Kong democracy activist says he was ‘stapled’ by Chinese agents BBC Hong Kong activist ‘abducted by Chinese agents’ Mirror Horrific injuries of activist ‘kidnapped and tortured by Chinese agents with stapler then dumped on beach’ The Guardian Hong Kong activist says he was ‘stapled’ over Lionel Messi photo Business Insider UK A Hong Kong pro-democracy supporter says he was ‘abducted’ by Chinese agents Daily Mail Hong Kong democracy activist is ‘STAPLED 21 times by Chinese agents for giving a signed Lionel Messi photo to dissident’s widow’ Belfast Telegraph Hong Kong activist says Chinese tortured him for Messi photo
Radio Free Asia Hong Kong Democracy Party Member Abducted, Tortured Taipei Times HK politician says ‘stapled by Chinese agents’ Nikkei Asian Review Beijing’s hand suspected in kidnapping of Hong Kong democrat Aljazeera Hong Kong politician ‘stapled’ by Chinese agents Asia Times HK activist kidnapped, warned against Liu Xia contact Borneo Bulletin HK pro-democracy supporter says ‘abducted’ by agents Christians in Pakistan Hong Kong police investigate “Protestant politician” claim he was kidnapped and tortured by mainland China agents UCAnews Hong Kong Protestant tortured for showing concern for Liu Xia Macau Daily Times HONG KONG ACTIVIST SAYS SECURITY AGENTS TORTURED HIM The Star Online Hong Kong activist claims Chinese agents attacked him
Stuff Hong Kong activist says Chinese tortured him for Lionel Messi photo SBS Howard Lam is ‘stapled 21 times by Chinese agents for giving a signed Lionel Messi photo to dissident’s widow’ The Sydney Morning Herald Hong Kong democrat Howard Lam arrested for ‘misleading’ police after abduction claims - (Bastille Post) August 15, 2017.
... Why did so many senior leaders of the Democratic Party join the party with Lam Tsz-kin? At the press conference last Friday, Lam Tsz-kin was accompanied by party founding chairman and Senior Counsel Martin Lee, ex-party chairman and solicitor Albert Ho and current legislative councilor and former ICAC investigator Lam Cheuk-ting?
Even this morning after Lam Tsz-kin has been arrested and the surveillance videos were published, Albert Ho still continued to support Lam Tsz-kin. Ho said that he called Lam who told that he was not the person in the videos. So Ho is still raising questions about identification. He said that if Lam Tsz-kin wanted to elude surveillance, wouldn't he have changed his clothes?
Ever since the story came to light on Friday, Internet users have raised many, many doubts. But the senior leaders of the Democratic Party chose to believe Lam Tsz-kin and they ended up with a disaster on hand. In communication theory, these people are guilty of selective exposure.
People have their own biases. They tend to seek out things that are consistent with those biases for the sake of reinforcement. This is called confirmation bias. Lam Tsz-kin said that members from a mainland powerful department kidnapped and tortured him. Since Martin Lee and Albert Ho have believed that "the Communist Party is evil" and "it is like this on mainland" over all these years, they accepted what Lam said in spite of the numerous inconsistencies and improbabilities.
- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017. Did another person dress up as Lam Tsz-kin in order to frame him? Indeed Albert Ho insisted that the FactWire videos are not conclusive. There is no doubt that the person in the first video is Lam Tsz-kin. The time was 5:41pm. Lam was walking down Portland Street in the direction of Pitt Street. He wore black clothes, dark blue shorts, sneakers with black top and white bottom, dark-colored wristwatch on the left hand, wearing a black backpack with a pocket on the left shoulder strap. He also walked in pigeon toe style. In the second video which was taken 2 minutes later at the intersection of Portland Street and Pitt Street, the man was now seen wearing a cap and sunglasses. As he got near the surveillance camera, he also put on a white surgical mask. This man had the same physique, clothes, shorts, sneakers, wristwatch, backpack and even pigeon toe walking style.
The remaining videos showed this man walking towards Pitt Street, crossing Portland Street, switching back towards Hamilton Street and finally leaving towards Nathan Road. He was on his own, and there was no sign of any suspicious kidnappers.
- Who do you trust? Lam Tsz-kin or your own lyin' eyes?
- (The Stand News) The problem with the FactWire videos is that they assume that the individual who began to show up in and after the second video must be Lam Tsz-kin. This person wore a baseball cap and a surgical mask. He may have looked like Lam in clothing and physique. I cannot see his face, so I cannot be sure if this was a body double.
Lam Tsz-kin said that he was kidnapped in the section between Hamilton Road and Pitt Street. This is somewhere between the first and third videos. The first video confirmed that he was on Hamilton Street. But there are 50 meters of space between the first and second videos. There are no surveillance cameras in that section. What happened there? Is the person who showed up in the second video a body double? We must pay attention to this when we discuss the videos.
- Lam Kay's Facebook
Even if Lam Tsz-kin is eventually proven to have lied, FactWire has still committed a "very bold" supposition.
That is to say, there is no direct evidence between the first and second cameras to prove that the two individuals are the same person. Although this is highly likely, this is still not direct evidence. Yet FactWire wrote: "The closed circuit television saw Lam Tsz-kin leave Portland Street safely." Even if the clothes are the same, this is not proof that he "departed safely"? Where is the evidence. This is especially so when the accusation is directed against the victim of a crime and not some government or organization.
Therefore they must choose more neutral worlds. It is unnecessary to lose public trust over this.
- (HKG Pao) After FactWire posted the surveillance videos, Lingnan University Cultural Studies assistant professor and InMediaHK founder Ip Iam-chung described the FactWire report as "character assassination of Lam Tsz-kin. Ex-legislator Albert Cheng told FactWire to investigate the pro-establishment camp and not the pan-democratic camp.
In the past, FactWire had conducted many negative stories about Hong Kong and Chinese government as well as public companies. But as soon as they turned to investigate the pan-democrats' scandal, the Yellow Ribbon glass hearts are broken, and their previous voices of praise immediately turned into curses.
In the view of the Yellow Ribbons, criticisms of the establishment represent Freedom of the Press. However, the same type of criticisms must never be used for the pan-democrats themselves.
The new Hong Kong Journalists Association chariman Yeung Kin-hing did not come out to support FactWire. He said that FactWire was too quick to identify the man in the later videos as Lam Tsz-kin.
Based upon my understanding of the issue, FactWire had set out believing Lam Tsz-kin's story and they wanted to find the evidence to support that story. They asked the businesses for their surveillance videos hoping to find the scene when Lam was kidnapped by the "mainland powerful department" agents. Instead, they uncovered the lie which drew some vile reader comments.
What is FactWire supposed to think? First, they believed in Lam Tsz-kin and then they found the opposite. Secondly, they went ahead to publish their report thinking that the Yellow Ribbons respect the facts. Instead, they got a taste of Yellow Ribbon-style "freedom of the press."
- (Silent Majority for HK) So much for editorial independence, freedom of press and freedom of expression. FactWire has changed the title of its report to "Closed circuit television saw Lam Tsz-kin on Portland Street; afterwards a man with similar clothes and walking style left while wearing a hat and covering his face." In the report, the text became "When the man walked past the surveillance cameras, his face cannot be seen. However, his physique, clothes, black wristwatch on the left hand, the athletic shoes, the backpack and the pigeon-toed walking style are very similar to that of the Lam Tsz-kin recorded before."
- Various businesses gave their surveillance videos to FactWire. According to Guidance on CCTV Surveillance and Use of Drones,
On the use of personal data, DPP3 stipulates that personal data shall only be used for the purposes for which it was collected or a directly related purpose. Unless the data subject gives prescribed consent (which means express consent given voluntarily) or if any applicable exemptions under the Ordinance apply, personal data should not be used for a new purpose.
When a data user (e.g. building management company) is asked to provide copies of CCTV records to a law enforcement agency (e.g. the police) for criminal investigation purpose, the exemption provided under section 58(2) of the Ordinance7 may apply. The data user, however, is under no general obligation to supply the personal data as requested. Before the exemption is invoked, the data user must be reasonably satisfied that failure to supply the data would likely prejudice the investigation.
So Lam Tsz-kin should sue those businesses for violating his data personal privacy.
- The people's right to know the truth supersedes any stupid law that protects criminals. This comes from the Media Bible according to Jimmy Lai.
- The Hong Kong Police Facebook has a public service announcement: Always keep a safe distance between vehicles and allow for a two-second stop.
- Explanation: On the Hong Kong Internet, there is a saying about "following the vehicle ahead too closely and getting caught in an accident." This is an alert not to jump in with bold comments on an incident when the facts are still not known. For the Hong Kong Police to post this public service announcement at this particular time is, of course, dark humor.
- If you denounce the Hong Kong Police for engaging in politics, then you are following the vehicle ahead too closely.
More from the Hong Kong Police Facebook about what a crime victim should do (1) call the police at 999; (2) go to the hospital if injured; (3) don't wash your clothes; (4) jot down the important details such as locations, suspects, vehicle data, etc.
- Derivative Art for the Hong Kong Correctional Services:
Attention!
All officers on duty should be careful to remove the following objects in case some stupid dick uses them on himself and blame you for it!
--- LAN cable wires
--- Bed sheets
--- Staplers
--- ... and all other objects (because who knows what they can do!)
At most, you can leave them two filet-of-fish burgers.
- (The Stand News) August 15, 2017.
Let us suppose that Lam Tsz-kin made up the whole thing (for whatever reason). Two things won't change:
(1) There is a genuine risk that Chinese law enforcement agents or their surrogates will carry on their business of arresting people here. This is not reduced just because Lam Tsz-kin lied.
(2) Co-location is ceding land to enforce mainland laws, and this will make cross-border law enforcement even easier.
The high efficiency of the Hong Kong Police in solving this case points out several things:
(i) the closed circuit television coverage in Hong Kong is very high
(ii) the Hong Kong Police is very efficient in gathering evidence (if they want to)
(iii) the Hong Kong Police will strike back if you file a false complaint with themIn the case of Lam Wing-kee, he claimed to have been escorted back to Hong Kong by mainland law enforcement agents but he decided to contact Albert Ho for help. He made a police report. Based upon what happened in the Lam Tsz-kin case, there must have been plenty of surveillance videos of Lam Wing-kee in Hong Kong. But that case is unsolved after more than one year. Nobody is saying that Lam Wing-kee was lying, no closed circuit videos have been released and Lam Wing-kee has not been charged with filing a false report. You should know what the differential treatment means.
- McDonald's was the biggest winner in the Lam Tsz-kin. Here is a man who was drugged, tied up, assaulted and stapled 21 times. He was dumped on a rocky beach in the middle of the night. What does he do when he came to? He flagged down a taxi to take him to a McDonald's where he ate two filet-o-fish burgers. I bet you didn't know that filet-o-fish burgers work as pain-killers!
Headline Daily featured the FactWire videos as their front page headline story. On the same page, McDonald's is offering two hamburgers for $10 today for Hongkongers to celebrate. This can't just be a coincidence, right?
Derivative art: Lam Tsz-kin as spokesperson for McDonald's filet-o-fish.
- Derivative Video Art to the tune of Jingle Bells.
- Derivative Art: the stapler is the most powerful of the top ten weapons deployed by the "powerful department"
- Derivative Art: Kim Il Jong has immediately ordered the mass production of the latest breakthrough in weapons of mass destruction:
- Derivative Art: Democratic Party flyer for a day trip
Director/actor: Lam Tsz-kin
Mong Kok -> Sai Kung day trip
A meticulously designed mysterious tour to explore the secrets of the relationship among geography, human nature and patriotism.
Date: August 10, 2017
Time: 4pm
Assemble in Yau Ma Ti -> Pick up by special mystery vehicle -> Sai Kung Beach -> Return home on your home in the early hours -> Must hold press conference
Reward: Two filet-o-fish burgers at the end- The Shum Tsai Kee noodle restaurant provided their surveillance videos to the police and the media. In so doing, they are cooperating with the Chinese Communist regimes in Hong Kong and mainland China. Shum Tsai Kee had better worry about being harassed by pro-democracy activists.
- I firmly believe that videos of the masked man was staged by the police the next day with an actor. Shum Tsai Kee's original surveillance video did not contain any sign of him. Shum Tsai Kee colluded with the police to take the fabricated video the next day and provided the recording to FactWire. Brother Shum will go to jail for fabricating evidence.
- Derivative Art: The mainland powerful department has achieved a scientific breakthrough in replicant technology.
Top panel: "I am innocent. That wasn't me!"
Bottom left panel: Needle marks showing that DNA had been extracted
Bottom right panel: A failed replicant along the way- This was clearly a case of religious persecution: Lam Tsz-kin said that they stapled him in the shape of crosses because he is a Christian. He said that he intends to attend Yale University in September to obtain a doctorate in theology under the Croatian theologian Miroslav Volk. He has even purchased the airplane ticket already. He is also known to speak on behalf of the Falun in support of the 43 million brave people who have resigned from the Chinese Communist Party:
- (SCMP) August 17, 2017. Kowloon City Court rejected Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin’s request to be allowed to travel to the United States later this month to study theology at Yale University. Lam’s lawyer said the activist had been admitted in April to study at Yale under prominent Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf, and had booked a flight to leave Hong Kong on August 27. He argued against the travel ban, promising the court Lam would return to Hong Kong to attend his trial. But Principal Magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen disagreed. Lam was ordered to hand over his travel documents and report to the police station regularly.
- (Oriental Daily) August 24, 2017. Our newspaper has obtained a copy of a letter from Martin Lee to the US Consulate General and the Yale University School of Theology dated June 2, 2017. In the letter, Martin Lee will provide financial support for Lam Tsz-kin while he studies at the Yale University School of Theology from Fall this year to Spring this year. The financial aid included living expenses as well as tuition fees. The letter included Lam's Yale University student ID number.
- (HKG Pao) August 25, 2017. Who is paying for the tuition/transportation/living expenses of these "students"?
(1) Lam Tsz-kin
Background: Democratic Party member; principal player in Stapler Gate.
Economic status: Unemployed
Education achievement: Chinese University of Hong Kong Divinity School of Chung Chi College PhD student
Enrolment institution: Yale Divinity School, Yale University, USA
Tuition: According to Yale University, PhD students at other institutions can apply to study for one year or one semester. The tuition fee is USD 1500 per semester. One year would be HKD 23,400.
Living expenses: According to the Yale University, the expected living expenses (rent, food, personal, books) are USD 17,369 or HKD 133,608 per year.
Transportation: About HKD $40,000.(2) Alex Chow
Background: Hong Kong Federation of Students former secretary-general; sentenced to 7 months in prison for the takeover of the east wing of Government Headquarters.
Economic status: His parents are worth HKD 100 million
Academic achievement: Hong Kong University graduate (after six years)
Enrolment institution: London School of Economics to study for a master degree in urban planning/social sciences.
Tuition: According to the London School of Economics, overseas students pay 26,448 pounds (HKD 266,770) in tuition for 2017-2018.
Living expenses: According to the London School of Economics, students should expect to have 1,100 pounds to 1,300 pounds per month to cover living expenses. 15,600 pounds per year is HKD 157,351
Transportation: Airplane ticket is abut HKD 10,000.
Did his parent pay for him? We don't know.(3) Edward Leung
Background: Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson, disqualified from entering the 2016 Legco elections for advocating Hong Kong independence, charged with rioting with trial to begin in January 2018.
Economic status: Ordinary; unemployed, but his lifestyle is very middle-class
Academic achievement: Hong Kong University bachelor degree in philosophy (after five years)
Enrolment institution: Studied for the GCSE in Canada; spent six months at Harvard University as researcher beginning January 2017
Tuition: Not information on researchers; but a two-year-masters degree will cost USD 40,000 to USD 60,000 (HKD 312,800 to HKD 469,200).
Living expenses: According to Harvard University, Asian students will need to spend about USD 22,000 to cover rent, transportation and personal expenses. Two years would cost USD 44,000 (HKD 344,080).
Transportation: Round trip airplane ticket costs about HKD 7,000.
No job, lousy grades, but he gets to go to Harvard all the same.(4) Ray Wong
Background: Hong Kong Indigenous convener, charged as mastermind of the Mong Kok riot, arrested with HKD 530,000 in cash and 100 Viagra pills.
Economic status: Middle-class family, claim to be a freelance interior decorator
Academic achievement: Drop out of Caritas Bianchi College of Careers
Enrolment institution: Oxford University diploma course (two-year-course in philosophy) beginning October 2016
Tuition: According to news reports, it was 1,680 pounds in 2016-2017 and 1,750 pounds in 2017-2018. The total is 3,500 pounds (HKD 35,303).
Living expenses: 800 pounds per month, or 19,200 pounds per year (HKD 193,662).
Transportation: Round trip airplane ticket HKD 18,000.(5) Billy Fung Jing-en
Background: Hong Kong University former president; found guilty of disrupting public order when he led the siege on the HKU Council members.
Economic status: Impoverished
Academic achievement: Not bad
Enrolment institution: National Taiwan University Political Studies Institute masters degree
Tuition: According to the National Taiwan University, the tuition plus other feeds amount to NT$ 76,360 per semester, or NT$ 305,440 (HKD 78,722) in total
Living expenses: NT$84,000 to NT$113,000 per semester, or NT$452,000 (HKD 116,494) in total
Transportation: Round trip airplane tickets about HKD $4,000.
[Why does he choose Taiwan over UK/USA? Was it because he knows that his English sucks (based upon television interviews)?]- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 15, 2017.
On the night before yesterday, the TVB serial drama <Legal Maverick> included a story of the blind hero being stabbed several times and left on a Sai Kung beach. This was supposed to be a nerve-racking development, but I cannot help but giggle when I remembered the stapled guy also found on this Sai Kung beach.
The last few days have been very exciting on the Internet. We were getting so many derivative art spoofs. But these were only coming from the pro-establishment camp. Meanwhile the Yellow Ribbon media, the umbrella soldiers and the pro-independence camp were quieter than a library. Whereas James To, Alan Leong, Tanya Chan and Claudia Mo used to pounce out at the drop of a hat, they were in total hiding now.
Yellow Ribbon media such as Apple Daily, Ming Pao, RTHK, Stand News, HK01 ... used to hype up on every minor issue day and night, but now they are giving the story of the stapled guy the cold treatment. Even more amazing is the fact that nobody organized a demonstration march and/or fundraising campaign this Sunday in support of the stapled guy. This is definitely not Yellow Ribbon style.
Even more astonishing was the reaction of the stapled guy himself. At the press conference, he was running ahead in the full steam and thinking that he will become the next Lam Wing-kee with his photo appearing in an MTR ad as the new God of Democracy. But things are turning out like what happened at the Park n Shop incident that he led against the real property hegemony. At first, he thought that it would be cool; instead the critical opinion against him was unanimous. So after the many self-contradictions that emerged, our stapled guy hid at home and uploaded a video in which he proclaimed himself to be a "coward."
This "coward" supposedly said that he had a headache and/or stomach ache and refused to go down to the police station to give his statement. Instead, he went on a RTHK radio program to courageously answer questions. Having placed media exposure over rule-of-law, the shaky brand of the Democratic Party has been buried by this courageous coward.
- (EJ Insight) Is Howard Lam lying through his teeth? By SC Yeung. August 15, 2017.
The case of the alleged abduction of Democratic Party member Howard Lam has failed to draw the same public attention as the case of Causeway Bay Bookstore’s Li Bo early last year.
Does it mean that Hong Kong people don’t feel much concerned about the latest incident of supposed mainland law enforcement in our territory, or is it that they simply don’t buy the pro-democracy activist’s tale?
Lam links his alleged abduction and torture to his plan to send an autographed photo of Argentine football star Lionel Messi to Liu Xiaobo’s widow Liu Xia, but his narrative, from the time he said he was abducted in Yau Ma Tei on Thursday to the time he found himself on a beach in Sai Kung on Friday, raises more questions than answers.
Why mainland agents would seize, drug and torture him for a photo of a soccer star, or even for trying to contact the widow of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is hard to fathom.
Such a puzzle has enabled the pro-Beijing camp to cast doubts on Lam’s allegations and accuse him of fabricating the story to throw mud at Beijing’s reputation and raise fears among the public about the dangers of the co-location arrangement for the Express Rail Link.
Lam, the supposed victim, has quickly turned into a villain. With the public opinion going against him, Lam turned his resentment to the Hong Kong police, and accused the force of trying to discredit him by being selective in disclosing information about the case.
Before the Hong Kong public make their own judgement on the case, they should carefully evaluate the facts.
Accoding to Lam, the incident happened at around 4 p.m. on Thursday, shortly after he bought a football shirt from a shop in Yau Ma Tei. He said he was on his way to the MTR station on Pitt Street when he was snatched and drugged by two Putonghua-speaking men, whom he suspected of being Chinese national security officers.
However, CCTV footage seen by FactWire news agency on Monday afternoon appears to belie Lam’s story. The video clips appear to show him wearing a cap, sunglasses and a face mask, alone and apparently unharmed, as he was walking from Portland Street at around 5 p.m. on Thursday, or an hour after he was supposed to have been abducted. No suspicious-looking persons were seen near him during the three-minute walk.
Hours after the FactWire report was published, police arrested Lam on Tuesday morning on suspicion of misleading them about his kidnapping claims.
Police said Lam’s story does not match the findings of their investigation. Thus, they suspect the Democratic Party member was providing false information to mislead the police.
The question, however, is, why did the police immediately conclude that Lam fabricated his story and arrested him right away?
Why did the police immediately conclude that the man on the CCTV footage was actually Lam? Did they review the CCTV footage or just relied on FactWire’s report? Police did not explain exactly how Lam misled the police. And if Lam was lying, did he injure himself by applying a stapler to his legs?
No doubt, the CCTV footage is creating doubts on the credibility of Lam and even his esteemed colleagues at the Democratic Party, including founder Martin Lee and former chairman Albert Ho, who helped him in bringing out the matter to the public via a press conference last Friday.
Ho has been quoted as saying that he still believes Lam’s allegations and that the CCTV footage may not be telling the whole story.
But as far as the public is concerned, the entire party is now under the shadow and may be a willing party to a conspiracy of disinformation and perjury.
This could give the pro-establishment camp an opportunity to accuse the opposition of misleading the public on cross-border law enforcement.
The government of Carrie Lam should remain neutral on the issue until the police finally decide whether to file charges against Lam, or if new evidence surfaces to support his allegations.
- Lam Tsz-kin was reported to have boarded from Mong Kok to Sai Kung that night. This movie poster is a spool on the movie <The Midnight After>, which has a long Chinese title of <Early morning that night, I boarded the red van from Mong Kok to Tai Po>. This latest re-make is titled <That afternoon, Mr. Lam boarded the red van from Mong Kok to Sai Kung>.
- If taking a minibus means being kidnapped by a "mainland powerful department", then I get kidnapped every day by a "mainland powerful department."
- We have photographic proof that Lam Tsz-kin was taken away against his will by two Chinese putonghua-speaking "powerful department" agents.
By the way, the two men are Hong Kong Police officers who took Lam Tsz-kin back to this home at Kam Huan House, Kam Fung Estate, Ma On Shan district to search for evidence. Indeed, the Hong Kong Police is a "powerful department" and their officers speak putonghua to some degree.
- Damn it! I was having so much fun watching the 'pro-democracy camp' digging ever deeper holes for themselves. But suddenly FactWire came around and burst the bubble. Damn it! If they had waited one more week, we would have seen entertaining scenes such as
- Denise Ho leading a 100,000-strong evening assembly to chant "We are all Lam Tsz-kin" while waving their flashlight-enabled iPhones
- The Occupy Central trio of Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming raising $20 million in small donations from several hundred thousand individuals on behalf of the Save Lam Tsz-kin fund
- Secret audio recordings of Jimmy Lai telling Martin Lee that Hong Kong people are stupid pigs
- Joshua Wong, Avery Ng and Edward Leung egging other people to crash into the China Liaison Office
- Donald Trump calling Xi Jinping in person for a personal favor to stop the persecution of the political prisoner Lam Tsz-kin
- Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme ran a poll that showed 97% of the people of Hong Kong believe in Lam Tsz-kin
- More victims of alien abduction come forth with their own testimonies
- Carrie Lam concedes defeat and withdraws the Co-location arrangement at West Kowloon
- ...
- (HKG Pao) August 15, 2017.
According to a person familiar with police procedures, the police would normally gather more evidence if they suspect that Lam Tsz-kin filed a false police report and delay the arrest until later. But once FactWire published their videos, the police had to move immediately because their suspect may begin to destroy the evidence (clothes, shoes, baseball cap, sunglasses, backpack, Octopus card, etc).
- (iCable) August 16, 2017. When the police took Lam Tsz-kin home, they found and took away several mobile phone, a laptop, a computer, a pair of sunglasses and a cap.
- The police planted the evidence there. Of course.
- FactWire has limited resources, so they concentrated on the scene of the alleged kidnapping (MTR exit A1). The police had mobilized 300 person-shifts on this investigation already, so they already knew that Lam Tsz-kin had taken the minibus to Sai Kung. On August 13 (Sunday), the police were already canvassing the Sai Kung businesses and obtaining their surveillance videos. The media were not aware of this development yet.
- (Silent Majority HK) August 15, 2017.
On August 11 (Friday), the day of the Democratic Party press conference, HK01 carried 25 reports. The treatment began to cool down gradually. By yesterday there were only 3 reports. But after Lam Tsz-kin got arrested, HK01 rebooted in earnest. By 530pm this afternoon, they already have 13 reports for the day. Furthermore, they have renamed their series from <The kidnapping of Lam Tsz-kin> to the <The arrest of Lam Tsz-kin>. At a time when Stand News is still fighting the lost battle, HK01 is turning directions and still leading the pack.
Publication August 11 August 12 August 13 August 14 August 15 HK01 25 8 3 3 13 Apple Daily NA 9 8 2 2 Ming Pao NA 9 3 2 3 The Stand News 8 4 3 4 12 HKG Pao 3 7 9 10 8 Silent Majority HK 2 9 6 8 7 Speakout HK 2 1 4 9 14 - (EJ Insight) Worrying questions surround the Howard Lam saga. By Stephen Vines. August 18, 2017.
Democratic Party member Howard Lam’s claims of having been abducted and tortured by mainland officials appear shakier by the day but subsequent police action and his arrest for misleading the police also raise a great number of worrying questions.
First, how come the police have devoted such enormous resources to investigating Lam for a crime that hardly rates as being among the most serious?
Secondly, how come the police, who are usually very tight-lipped about the arrest of suspects, have suddenly sprung leaks in every part of their enquiry?
Indeed, when a staggering total of some 50 officers were mobilized to search a Sai Kung beach for evidence in connection with Mr. Lam’s charge, the media were there in full force to record their every action.
Thirdly, how come the police, who have yet to reveal the findings of their investigation of the five Causeway Bay booksellers two years ago, have moved so rapidly and conclusively in this case?
The same question surrounds police action following the abduction of businessman Xiao Jianhua from the Four Seasons Hotel in Central. This investigation has been shrouded in total secrecy, assuming that is that any serious investigation was ever made.
Mr. Lam has yet to be proven guilty of the charges laid so the possibility remains that his story is true. However, if it is not, why did he produce such a lurid tale when there was a high possibility of the truth being uncovered?
Who benefits from raising allegations of this kind and then having them so publicly demolished?
Given that it is hardly difficult to find real and disturbing evidence of mainland official meddling in Hong Kong, why make up a story, unless the aim of so doing was to discredit genuine accusations of meddling?
Of course, another explanation of all this runs on the lines of the cock-up theory of history – a very useful tool for analyzing why things happen. This theory holds that stupidity, mistakes and unintended actions produce remarkable outcomes. This may well explain what’s happening here.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects are wetting themselves in glee over this affair, rushing to proclaim that it signifies the death of credibility for the democrats. They sagely nod their heads and even pretend to be somewhat saddened that the days of democrat popularity are now over.
Strangely, however, these same people who have reached this conclusion had absolutely nothing to say earlier in the month when a prominent rural leader, government supporter and District Councilor, Tang Lai-tung, was arrested during a widespread anti-Triad operation involving a range of criminal activity.
It seems that when pro-government personalities wander across the line of integrity this does not reflect badly on the pro-government camp as a whole.
Cynics will say, well, that’s politics for you, and indeed it is so. People do stupid things, politicians are often first in line when it comes to stupidity and yes, it is a dirty old business.
However, what is most disturbing here is not the actions of politicians but of the police force who appears to be increasingly used for political ends and whose reputation for integrity is greatly undermined as a result.
- (SCMP) It’s now for the court of public opinion to judge the pan-dems. By Alex Lo. August 16, 2017.
Now that Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin has been arrested for making false statements about his alleged abduction and torture by mainland agents, it’s a case for the legal authorities.
But those grandaddies of the pan-democratic movement who have been directly responsible for creating this media circus must be held accountable in the court of public opinion.
Against all common sense and simple decency, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan and others organised a press conference and put Lam in front of the cameras instead of alerting the police. At the very least, they could have obtained more reliable information from Lam before going public. Lee, SC, who is at the very top of the barristers’ list in terms of seniority, later complained that Lam was “foolish” and “legally ignorant” for not preserving evidence of his “ordeal” because he had washed his clothes and bag.
The irresponsibility and amateurism of such veteran politicians simply defies belief; their motives can only be guessed at. It’s not lost on people that the incident comes at a time when pan-democrats and localist radicals have been agitating for the public to oppose a plan to put mainland customs and immigration officers inside the West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus. Yet, despite wild exaggerations and fearmongering about the end of “one country two systems” and rogue agents detaining travellers in the heart of the city, their campaign has so far failed to gain traction.
Lam’s claims, if true, would have been a godsend and helped to turn public opinion. Localists such as Joshua Wong Chi-fung of the political group Demosisto have been quick to draw such a connection about the dangers of “co-locating” mainland officers in West Kowloon. Before Lam’s arrest, no less than 21 opposition lawmakers wrote to security secretary John Lee Ka-chiu to demand a meeting and complain about the official handing of the case. Clearly, they were hoping to squeeze as much mileage out of the incident as possible and raise public suspicion against the central and Hong Kong governments.
Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, who had warned that people should be afraid of even walking near the future West Kowloon terminus if co-location went ahead, rightly said the fight against it was a fight over public opinion. But thanks to the furore over Lam, opposition politicians now learn that public opinion can be a double-edged sword.
- (SCMP) Hong Kong pan-democrats dig themselves into deep hole over Howard Lam kidnap claim. By Michael Chugani. August 15, 2017.
There I was, minding my own business in Mong Kok, a district teeming with mainland tourists, sex workers and shady bars when Putonghua-speaking goons shoved me into a vehicle in broad daylight and took me to goodness knows where.
When I came to, I had been stripped down to my underpants. My abductors taunted me about not loving the motherland, then punched staples into my thighs. Does that pass as torture? The terrorists holed up at Guantanamo will know.
Hours later, I found myself fully clothed lying on a beach in pitch darkness. Was I even in Hong Kong? My muddied backpack containing my switched-off mobile was next to me. I didn’t think of switching it on to check where I was or to call for help. Instead, I felt hunger pangs. That can be more painful than 21 staples punched into thighs.
Even though it was dark I somehow knew I was in Sai Kung. I stumbled upon a road where a passing taxi took me back to civilisation. I downed two buns. Forget the staples, food comes first. Then I went home. My mother moaned about my clothes and backpack stinking of seawater. Instead of preserving them as evidence I soaked them. Then I had a nice shower, staples still in thighs.
Refreshed, I called my mates who persuaded my family that I should call a press conference to show off my bruised thighs before calling the cops.
When I heard Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin tell his tale on Chinese-language radio stations accompanied by party colleagues, I sensed his story smelt fishier than his clothes.
Evidence collected so far has led police to conclude Lam’s story is full of holes. But the biggest hole is the one the opposition has dug for itself. In its haste to embrace Lam’s story as definitive proof Beijing thinks nothing of trampling on us, the opposition has also exposed its obsession to smear the Communist Party whenever it can.
If it turns out Lam told a tall tale, I can’t see how the opposition can extricate itself from the hole of its own making without a tarnished reputation. It used Lam’s alleged abduction to stoke fear against having mainland officials at the West Kowloon express railway terminus.
That strategy is now in the same hole as the opposition. The loyalists must be smirking with glee.
- (SCMP) Are Hong Kong’s pan-democrats finished? ‘Staplegate’ is a sign of the times. By Yonden Lhatoo. August 17, 2017.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy,” a wise man once wrote.
Is that the story of Hong Kong’s pan-democrats?
There used to be a time when they were seen as a meaningful opposition force to counter some of the shoeshiners, sycophants and rubber stampers in the pro-establishment camp that has always dominated the city’s legislature. Not any more.
Not only are they becoming more irrelevant and ineffectual by the day, they seem to be plumbing new depths of political farce and buffoonery. Just look at the circus that has been dubbed “Staplegate”.
I’m talking about the way they handled the case of Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin, who shocked the city with his sensational story about being kidnapped and tortured by mainland agents operating outside their jurisdiction.
Lam claimed he was snatched by Putonghua-speaking men from a busy street in broad daylight, bundled into a van and taken to an unknown location where they punched staples into his legs before dumping him on a beach last week.
It was, according to him, punishment for planning to send a signed photograph of soccer star Lionel Messi to the wife of the late mainland dissident, Liu Xiaobo.
Lam has been charged with misleading police after his story unravelled during their investigation and the case is now in court, so the less said about it, the better, until a judge determines whether he made it all up.
What is definitely worth talking about is how it has left the pan-democrats with egg on their faces and their credibility in tatters.
They threw common sense and caution to the wind in their eagerness to maximise the political mileage they saw in Lam’s story, starting with the Democratic Party holding a press conference to parade him – staples and all – in front of the media cameras before even reporting the case to police.
The luminaries of the pan-democratic leadership, including heavyweight lawyers, were quick to jump to conclusions about a further erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and a death knell for the “one country, two systems” policy.
Some of them made quantum leaps into ludicrous conspiracy theories, linking Lam’s case to the “co-location” controversy.
That’s the other ongoing political circus over plans to set up a joint immigration and customs checkpoint at the West Kowloon terminus for the high-speed rail link to Guangzhou.
While this sort of arrangement is perfectly normal the world over when it comes to facilitating cross-border travel, the mere thought of their mainland compatriots exercising any sort of jurisdiction on the Hong Kong side, even in a closed zone officially leased to them, unhinges our doughty pan-democrats.
Their ranks in the Legislative Council have been decimated by the disqualification of colleagues who mangled or distorted their lawmaker’s oaths and have only themselves to blame for misguided political grandstanding.
Instead of strategising to regain lost ground and win back the vacant seats through impending by-elections, they’re busy crying wolf and complaining about Communist Party monsters under their beds.
People are tired of the same old narrative and negativity. Just look at the dwindling turnouts at pro-democracy rallies that once used to draw massive crowds.
We need a credible and competent opposition camp in Hong Kong, to keep a check on the government and its cronies. Not this hysterical bunch stapling themselves in the foot.
- (Ming Pao) Editorial : Pro-democracy figures must act responsibly. August 17, 2017.
THE CASE of the alleged abduction of Howard Lam (a Democrat) has taken an abrupt turn. The accuser has become an accused and got arrested on suspicion of misleading police officers. The Democratic Party's credibility is now faced with blows. Democratic-Party and Civic-Party legislators have reacted cautiously, saying that they hope the whole truth will come out soon and that it is inadvisable now to come to any conclusion. Their attitude is totally different from that some pro-democracy figures adopted when the affair first came to light. Those people could not wait to allege people belonging to "forceful agencies" of the mainland had crossed the border to kidnap a man unlawfully. They even dragged checkpoint co-location in. The case, which has to do with whether any person has falsely reported an instance of false imprisonment with a view to panicking society, is of great significance. The police ought to look into it impartially.
The way the case has unfolded shows the Democratic Party may have made a grievous political mistake when it came to its judgement. For that it may have to pay a hefty political price. How some pan-democratic legislators have conduct themselves is not commendable either. Seeing a fellow member's body covered with staples, Democrats may not have been as calm as they should have been. They may therefore have failed to make well-judged moves. That is perhaps understandable. However, some pro-democracy legislators hastened to link the affair to checkpoint co-location, saying, "It isn't democrats that have caused fear, but fear has proved real.... None of the three steps towards checkpoint co-location should ever be taken." Clearly, they have played the matter up politically and seized the opportunity to fan the flames.
In relation to Lam's arrest, Civic-Party legislator Tanya Chan has said her statement that the case corroborated the fact that citizens' worry of checkpoint co-location was not exaggerated was made on the basis of the information she then had, adding it is inadvisable to come to any conclusion at the present stage. However, some legislators have just told the electronic media they will not make any comments for the time being. Legislators ought to act responsibly. Those who vigorously capitalised on the affair then and dodge and hedge now can hardly be called frank and open-hearted. If it is established that Lam has made a false report, those legislators must give the public an explanation — must not just mention it casually as if nothing had happened. The Lam case arose when the co-location public-opinion battle went on. The pan-democrats are unlikely to win the legality battle, and they are at a disadvantage in the public-opinion battle. If Lam is found to have made a false report, the pan-democrats' credibility will inevitably be damaged, and it will be even harder for them to win the public-opinion battle.
Lam has been arrested for making a false report. It rests with the police to find out whether the case has to do with a ruse of self-injury or only with persecutory delusion. It is unfair to hazard any unfounded judgement. However, if any person who is against checkpoint co-location does what may harm "one country, two systems" and cause society to panic, one may call him more than malicious and so unscrupulous as to stop at nothing. Any person may pursue what he thinks just. However, chaos will certainly reign in the world if all believe that, to do so, one may use fair means or foul, resort to violence and tell lies. Linked together, unscrupulousness, double standards and "I embodying justice" form a "trinity of rashness in action". A person troubled with it does not distinguish between good and evil or between right and wrong. As he thinks he is justice itself and justice will not be done unless he prevails, he may go to any lengths to achieve his objective. The horrible "trinity" may cause people to take leave of their senses, glibly use sophistries and push society towards danger. Such people must be closely watched out for.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 16, 2017. While undergoing police questioning on Tuesday night, Lam reportedly told the officer on duty that he was experiencing “acid reflux and headaches” at 11:44pm, according to Ming Pao. He asked to see a doctor, and the authorities immediately arranged for him to be sent to Queen Elizabeth Hospital in an ambulance.
- The police can detain him for 48 hours without charge. He was unresponsive during the questioning. By faking illness, he stalls for more hours. Soon the time will be up and he can walk free and go to study theology at Yale University at the end of the month.
- (am730) By Lee Wah-ming. August 18, 2017.
In this hot summer, the story broke last Thursday about Democratic Party member Lam Tsz-kin claiming to be kidnapped and tortured. For the entire week, the newspapers were filled with reports and commentaries about the case. On Tuesday, the story reached another climax when the police arrested Lam and charged him with filing a false police report. This will surely be one of the top 10 news stories of the year.
Lam Tsz-kin and I are founding members of the Democratic Party. He is with the Kowloon West branch and I am with the Kowloon East branch. So we don't know each other well. My impression was that Lam is a righteous and emotional person. In recent months, Lam has not been involved in party politics as he concentrated on the Christian circle. So I have even less contact with him.
After the elders of the Democratic Party called the press conference with him, I have carefully considered this incident. Until he was arrested I was still unsure, because the case was so incredible with so many question marks.
First of all, Lam said that the two putonghua-speaking kidnappers told him not to send a Messi autograph picture to Liu Xiaobo's wife Liu Xia. I don't understand why a football star's picture should be so sensitive and damaging such that members of the "powerful department" were sent out to cross the border to kidnap/assault someone. The target person was not taken back to mainland China. These people could not possibly think that Lam would not report to the police and make the incident public.
Besides, Lam Tsz-kin is not a well-known Democratic Party member. What kind of damage can he do to the Central Government? I find it hard to believe that the Central Government would injure someone without having a response plan. And if this is true, then what purpose does it serve to the Central Government? The public reaction can only be 100% negative, such that Hongkongers will fear the Communist more, oppose China more and increase support for self-determination/independence. How stupid can this be?
At this time, we can only wait for the results of the police investigation ... I went back to review the August 11 newspaper reports on the Democratic Party press conference. I have my reservations about the backdrop containing the words: "Strongly condemn the powerful department for imprisoning, assaulting and threatening." This showed that they believed 100% in Lam's one-sided story. Even though I am a Democratic Party member, I cannot agree. If Lam turns out to be a liar, the reputation of the Democratic Party will drop to the nadir. I worry about that.
- (The Stand News) August 21, 2017. I see three possibilities:
(I) Lam Tsz-kin is telling the truth. In the first video, the man was Lam Tsz-kin. In the following videos, the masked man was a different man. Lam misstated the time and location but that is just a minor mistake. Just because there was no video of the act of the kidnapping does not mean that it did not take place. It was Lam Tsz-kin's personal choice to wash his clothes and take a bath. The Democratic Party elders were the ones who told him to hold a press conference first before going to the police. The police arrested him on false pretenses.
(II) Lam Tsz-kin suffers from bipolar disorder. Sometimes he is manic and sometimes he is depressed. He scripted the whole incident. We should be sympathetic towards mental patience. He was just driven by his mania to construct a story and make up the details. Lam Tsz-kin denies that he is lying, but no mental patient ever believe that they are ill.
(III) Lam Tsz-kin is a Communist Party mole, and the whole plot was concocted to discredit the Democratic Party and the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement as a whole.
My opinion is that (II) and (III) are more likely than (I). My judgment is based mainly on the FactWire videos, which showed that the maskless man and the masked man have the same walking style. And (III) is more likely than (II), but I cannot come to a definitive conclusion as yet.
- (Speakout HK) August 21, 2017. I see three possibilities:
(I) The whole affair was scripted and played by Lam Tsz-kin who wants to famous overnight. Some pan-democrats say that they believe in him. But I have seen the video from six years ago in which he led a bunch of angry young men to paralyze the property hegemon's supermarket for one hour. If he can glee over that kind of activity, then he is perfectly capable of play-acting this incident.
(II) He was "stapled" by certain individuals but he cannot divulge their true identities (triad gangsters? loan sharks?).
(III) He has a psychological problem. A friend told me about the Munchausen syndrome: a factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.
I don't know which possibility is more likely, but the facts seemed to have exclude the possibility that he was not lying.
- (Oriental Daily with video) August 28, 2017.
Lam Tsz-kin was required to report to the police on schedule. This evening Lam and his wife went to the Ma On Shan Police Station. During the process, the masked Mrs. Lam rammed her right shoulder against our reporter, yelling "Don't film anymore!" before leaving.
- Well, somebody just assaulted a reporter. Where is the Journalists Association? Or are they hiding as usual?
- (Wen Wei Po) November 23, 2017.
Lam Tsz-kin posted on Facebook that those who smear him will be struck down by God. He said that legal fees are expensive and he simply cannot afford it. He said that if he could not get the lawyer on duty to represent him, then he will have to either represent himself or else X himself. When that time comes, we already know why.
Well, at the press party organized by the Democratic Party, there was solicitor Albert Ho and Senior Counsel Martin Lee standing by his side. Why are they in hiding now?
Later Lam re-emerged in a more peaceful demeanor. He said that that his Senior Counsel "is very good, basically working on a volunteer basis." He said that he spoke to two to three law offices and found them to be very expensive. "I don't understand why they say that they provide the service for free, and then they turn around to ask for money."
Meanwhile, the Internet users are trying to fill in the blank for the phrase "X himself." Fuck? Soil? Kill? Hang? Shoot? Castrate? ... But the best answer is obviously "Staple"!
[777] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution Part 14 (2017/08/15)
(InMediaHK @YouTube) June 13, 2014 at the Legislative Council
(InMediaHK @ YouTube) June 13, 2014 at the Legislative CouncilWe hold that:
(1) In committing the offence, the respondents and the other participants of the unlawful assembly charged at the LegCo Complex with violence. Their conduct was a large scale disruption seriously damaging public order and safety. Under the applicable sentencing principles, the court must impose a deterrent sentence. Immediate imprisonment is plainly the only sentencing option. The trial magistrate erred in law and principle when he made community service orders against the respondents.
(2) Charging at the LegCo Complex with violence makes the case more serious and is an aggravating factor. When participants of an assembly at the LegCo Square use or threaten to use violence in the course of promoting their cause or expressing their view, they harm the integrity of the LegCo as the symbol of public opinion. They also impede the rights of others who assemble peacefully in promoting their cause and expressing their view in the same place at the same time. In extreme cases, physical confrontation between different camps may arise, leading to serious consequences. In sentencing those offenders, the court must safeguard the integrity of the LegCo, protect the rights of those assembling peacefully and lawfully at the LegCo Square and prevent the re-occurrence of violent incidents in an assembly at the LegCo Square. Thus, the court has to give more weight to deterrence in sentencing. The court must impose on the respondents a sentence which sufficiently deters them from re-offending and others from imitating their seriously unlawful act of charging at the LegCo with violence.
(3) The respondents cannot say that they were convicted and sentenced for exercising their rights to assembly, demonstration or expression, or expressing their opposition to the North-East Development Project. They were so convicted and sentenced because they trespassed on the boundary laid down by the law for peaceful assembly by charging at the LegCo Complex with seriously unlawful and violent means.
(4) Nor can the respondents say that the sentence of immediate imprisonment imposed on them by the court will suppress the exercise of their rights to the freedom of demonstration, assembly or expression in accordance with law. As long as they conduct themselves within the boundary laid down by the law, the law will fully and sufficiently protect their freedom of demonstration, assembly and expression. However, once they trespass on the legal boundary and commit an offence, they immediately lose the legal protection. When the law sanctions them, the law does not suppress them or deprive them of their rights because the law has never allowed them to exercise such rights by unlawful means in the first place.
(5) The respondents say that they had not used any violence, and what they had used was only force or aggressive means because their purpose was to make their opposition to the funding of the North-East Development Project heard at the meeting of the Finance Committee. The respondents’ assertion is simply not tenable because whether their conduct constituted violence is to be determined objectively by reference to their conduct at the time without reference to their subjective view or the purpose of their conduct.
(6) Some respondents stress that they committed the offence because of “civil disobedience”. In the present case, this assertion is not a mitigating factor because the respondents’ conduct of charging at the LegCo with violence is inconsistent with the spirit of “civil disobedience” as described in the relevant authority. Rather, their conduct is a serious disruption damaging public order and safety with violence in total disregard of the law.
(SCMP) August 15, 2017.
Thirteen Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters convicted of unlawful assembly were jailed for between eight and 13 months on Tuesday after prosecutors launched a successful bid to obtain a harsher punishment from the court.
The 13, part of a wider group who in 2014 stormed the Legislative Council over a controversial government development project, were originally given community service by a lower court in 2015.
In sentencing, Magistrate Jason Wan Siu-man had taken into account that the activists had held a “noble cause” of speaking up for the ignored when they took part in the protest on June 13, 2014 against the development project in Hong Kong’s northeastern New Territories. Critics said the project would leave people homeless.
But the prosecutors returned to the Court of Appeal on Monday in a session to review the sentence, arguing that their crime was serious because the group had teamed up with others to storm the legislature despite being aware of a police presence. They asked the court to jail the 13 as a deterrent.
A panel of three justices – Court of Appeal vice-president Wally Yeung Chun-kuen and Justices of Appeal Derek Pang Wai-cheong and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor – on Tuesday agreed with the prosecutors, saying that community service was “manifestly” inadequate.
“Sentencing young defendants with an aspiration is not something the court is happy to do,” the judges said. But they said there was a need to hand down a deterrent sentence for the sake of social order.
During the proceedings, which lasted a day and half a morning, the protesters were allowed to observe from the public gallery. But they were told to enter the dock just minutes before the judges handed down their ruling.
The 13 are: Leung Hiu-yeung, Lau Kwok-leung, Leung Wing-lai, Ivan Lam Long-yin, Chu Wai-chung, Ho Kit-wang, Wong Kan-yuen, Kole Chow Koot-yin, Yim Man-wa, Billy Chiu Hin-chung, Kwok Yiu-cheong, Chan Pak-shan, and Raphael Wong Ho-ming, vice-chairman of League of Social Democrats.
All were sentenced to 13 months in jail except Wong Kan-yuen, who will serve eight months because he pleaded guilty.
Prosecutors failed to locate Chiu for the hearing. The judges on Thursday issued an arrest warrant for him.
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 15, 2017.
The Court of Appeal has given jail sentences to 13 activists who stormed the Legislative Council in 2014, following a successful legal challenge by the Department of Justice.
The demonstrations were in response to Finance Committee chair Ng Leung-sing forcing a vote on the HK$340 million funding plan for a controversial northeast New Territories development proposal. The vote took place whilst pan-democrats were out of their seats.
The protesters were earlier convicted of unlawful assembly and sentenced to community service over the clashes.
The Department of Justice applied for a review of the sentence on Monday, arguing that the defendants’ actions bordered on rioting, Oriental Daily reported.
On Tuesday, the judges sentenced 12 of the defendants to 13 months in jail. The last defendant, Wong Kan-yuen, had pleaded guilty and was given an eight-month jail term.
The court said it took into account the level of violence involved, the consequences of the incident and attitudes of the defendants. Judge Wally Yeung said that the court did not take pleasure in jailing young people with aspirations, but the sentencing should have a deterrent effect and uphold the public interest, In-media reported.
The court reduced their jail terms from the starting point of 15 months, since the defendants had already finished serving their community service sentences, and three years had passed since the incident.
Demosisto said in a statement following the ruling that “they severely condemn the authoritarian practices of the HKSAR government.” “This is a serious degradation of the citizens’ call to protect their own terrain and their pursuit for more democratic urban planning in the city,” they said.
Among those jailed is League of Social Democrats Vice-chairperson Raphael Wong, who shouted “The land belongs to the people” as he was taken away from the court.
(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2017.
A police patrol in Hung Hom Plaza recognized Billy Chiu Hin-chung and arrested him.
(EJ Insight) HK court takes stiffer approach towards young activists. By SC Yeung. August 16, 2017.
It was a sad day again for Hong Kong’s young activists on Tuesday as the Court of Appeal increased the punishment for 13 activists, who stormed the Legislative Council complex in June 2014, to jail terms of up to 13 months following a successful appeal by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ sought the heavier punishment for unlawful assembly relating to a protest against the government’s plan for the development of Northeast New Territories.
Arguing that the protest nearly turned into a riot, the DOJ sought to put the activists behind bars, and the court agreed that deterrent sentences were needed after hearing how the group had attempted to storm the Legco building using objects to try to force the doors open.
Tuesday’s judgment is no doubt a victory for the government and the pro-Beijing camp. Both sides believe that young activists are destroying social harmony by opposing all proposals from the government. That can explain why the DOJ filed an appeal to send the 13 activists to jail as a form of warning.
In fact, the courts have been tougher on social activists in recent years. They have showed no tolerance for people who challenge the public order. For example, in the case of the February 2016 MongKok riot, five young people were sentenced to three-year jail terms this year, with the court saying deterrent sentences were necessary to send a message to the public. The judge said the court cannot condone such violent behavior.
Outside court, disqualified lawmaker Nathan Law was seen crying after a meeting with supporters. He told a press conference after the court judgment that the legal action would damage the dream of the young generation to achieve change by way of mass action. He said all of them are good people and that they just wanted to show their concern for Hong Kong, and they did not deserve such a serious punishment.
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal will hand down its decision for a sentence review filed by the DOJ for activists Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Law. The trio were earlier found guilty over the Civic Square clash that sparked the 2014 pro-democracy protests. They were sentenced to community service and have completed the order.
It seems that the DOJ is relying on the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which showed leniency and sympathy to the young activists.
The judge initially agreed that the activists were only expressing their concern for Hong Kong and had no intention to disrupt social order. The DOJ argued that the defendants were dangerous and could incite rioting and urged the court to implement a harsher punishment to send a warning to others. The Court of Appeal accepted the DOJ argument
During a 2008 visit to Hong Kong, Chinese President Xi Jinping said there should be mutual understanding and support among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The Court of Appeal judge accepted the DOJ’s plea for a heavier punishment to give the public the impression that Xi’s remarks nine years ago were being proved correct. Still, the public should ask whether the defendants got a fair hearing.
The Hong Kong government once again stands on the opposite side of the next generation. While the initial ruling of community service is sufficient, the Court of Appeal can threaten all young activists not to join any mass action with the prospect of a criminal record and a jail term.
This is something young people cannot afford. Their criminal records will curtail any chance of studying abroad and render them ineligible to take part in elections.
Such a scenario will force future social activists to stay away from protests and turn them into armchair warriors while Hong Kong turns in the direction they fear.
Most Hong Kong people believe that the courts have defended their independence despite increasing pressure from the government, but the fact is that they have taken a more severe approach towards social activists. They are becoming a tool to suppress dissent.
Internet comments:
Benny Tai's Facebook
From the revised heavy sentences given in the North East New Territories case, it can be seen that severe sentencing will be used to suppress the resistance. In the days to come, this will be routinized. We must adjust our psychological state of mind and discard any illusions, in order not to be scared or despondent over the temporary hardships and oppressions. We must become prepared for long-term resistance and wait for the balance of power within the Chinese Communist Party to undergo big changes. Until then, we must enhance the self-awareness of Hongkongers as a people and turn the Hong Kong democracy movement into a Hong Kong people's movement.
- Short summary: The urgent task for the Hong Kong democracy movement is to sit on our hands and wait for the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party. [P.S. Please donate more money.]
- (Wen Wei Po) August 17, 2017.
Civic Passion vice-chairman Cheng Kam-mun uploaded a photo of Vice-president Justice of the Court of Appeal Wally Yeung Chun-kuen together with excerpts from his rulings on the case of the Seven Policemen, the case of the 13 defendants in the 2014 clash at the Legislative Council over North East New Territories development, the case of the taking of Civic Square in 2014 and the case of former Shu Yan University student union president Joe Yeung.
Although Cheng did not comment himself, other Internet users naturally came in to comment on Yeung. Shirley Yeung: "May your whole family be crippled." Orange Tam: "May you live to one hundred years while being plagued with a hundred illnesses." Arthur Kwok: "I will recognize Yeung Chun-kuen."
- (Oriental Daily) August 17, 2017.
A mobilization call was made to demonstrate outside the east wing of Government Headquarters to support the 13 defendants in the North East New Territories case. By eye, more than 700 persons attended.
Legislator Chan Chi-chuen said that the demonstrators did so because the government won't listen to them. He said that the ruling will not stop them from resisting. Instead, they will fight against every single dollar in the budget allocation in the future.
Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick said that the government is trying to finish the democracy movement while it is ebbing. He said that the 13 defendants are going to jail on behalf of land justice, and that Hong Kong cannot have democracy without land justice.
- Seven hundred people including reporters and police? If the pan-democratic legislators send in their aides and consultants, that would be more than 300 already.
- (Silent Majority HK) November 21, 2017.
One of the North East New Territories 13, Edmund Leung, made a Facebook post through a friend that he has been sent to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre because a psychiatrist has diagnosed him as having potential mental problems.
What happened to merit that diagnosis? Leung was initially sent to the Tong Fuk Correctional Institution. Like all incoming prisoners, he was interviewed by a psychiatrist who asked some rather routine questions: "How do you feel?" "Do you know why you were sent here?" etc.
Leung told what he thought. He talked about the injustice in the North East New Territories development plan -- there were 40,000 letters of objection and only 7 letters of approval. He talked about his vegetarian cooperative group. He talked about his ban's tour. He talked about Father Franco Mella and Ching Chin Wai as resisters who deserve respect.
The psychiatrist told Leung: "You need to think about how to take care of yourself first." Then the psychiatrist turned to a colleague and said loudly: "Four Big Word Characters." Later Leung found out that "Four Big Character Words" meant sending him to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.
"I was placed in isolated confinement where I listened to the persons in other rooms scream, bang on doors, beg not to be given injections ... I wrote on the wall in multiple languages about saying something frank at an inappropriate moment and hence being sent here. I admit that I was fragile when I met with the psychiatrist. I should have known that this doctor did not have sufficient life experience to understand the story of a resister. If he understood, he would have no need to ask. Or he could have offered sympathy and support like some other members of the correctional services department. In this case, this particular person may think that theoretically a complainant who attempts to challenge the government may suffer from depression ..."
"The last time, I was sent from Siu Lam to Tong Fuk after four days. Yesterday after appearing at the High Court, I was sent back to Siu Lam again. Their purpose is to let the psychiatrist diagnose my mental state. I need to understand that I must remain very calm the moment that I step inside Siu Lam, even if I hear any scornful remarks. This is no fantasy that there are provocative words in this extreme environment. Very shortly, I was challenged. I had to wonder why they are so cruel. Everybody knows that a check or a cross on a form by the relevant person will make it hard for me to prove that I do not have a mental problem like they say. Their papers and pens are extremely violent and cruel instruments."
"I remember that a leader singer of Atari Teenage Riot digital hardcore band in Berlin was once sent to a psychiatric hospital. A female lead singer of Queen Adreena too. I don't remember which one of them escaped and continued to perform. At the time, I didn't think that they had any problems. It was just that the doctor wrote down their professional judgment (which was not based upon any understanding of social matters) and classified the violence of others in order to score some academic points. I have now gone through the same experience of being unfree ..."
- Four Big Character Words (「四個大字」)? Does Leung really not know that this is a common abbreviation for "Who fucking cares? (關仁隱事/關人隱士)" in Hong Kong?
The psychiatrist asked "Do you know why you were sent here?" Leung answered with an extended discussion of North East New Territories property development. After listening, the psychiatrist told his colleague: "Who fucking cares?"
Indeed. Who fucking cares?
- (Apple Daily) By Billy Chiu Hin-chung. November 19, 2017.
... I have been in prison for more than 2 months already, but it feels like several years of time already. To sentence someone to life in prison in Hong Kong is surely crueler than death by execution ...
... Life is very short. After I get out of jail, I probably won't have much more youth and passion left for political action ...
- (SCMP) November 24, 2017.
Occupy student leaders erupted in cheers after Hong Kong’s top court on Friday gave eight activists a temporary break from prison, a week after a lower court supported their bid to appeal against their jail terms.
The eight are among 13 who were convicted for storming the city’s parliament in June 2014, in one of several protests against the government’s plan to build a new town in the northeast New Territories.
While they were initially given community service sentences, the Department of Justice successfully sought harsher penalties, landing them in jail for between eight and 13 months.
Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Roberto Ribeiro, in granting bail, warned that his decision was not related to the outcome of any possible appeal. If the eight were given leave to appeal but lost the case, they would be “required to return and serve the rest of their sentence,” he said.
- (Oriental Daily) December 29, 2017.
Today the Court of Final Appeal heard the appeals for bail by Leung Hiu-yeung and Billy Chiu Hin-chung. The appeal was granted for $10,000 cash bonds, with the requirements that they hand over their travel documents, promise not to leave Hong Kong, report to the police station every Thursday and stay at their reported addresses.
The prosecution did not oppose bail, but asked more stringent conditions be imposed on Billy Chiu. The judge asked Chiu's lawyer to explain why his client did not appear for the hearing at the Court of Appeal. The lawyer explained that Chiu had completed his community service and did not receive the summon from the prosecutor. Chiu was granted bail this time with the provision that he promises to leave a contact mobile telephone number.
- (The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal) HK SAR and Leung Hiu-yeung. FACC No. 5 of 2017 on appeal from HCMA No.229 of 2016.
1. On 13 June 2014, while the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council was scrutinizing a funding application relating to advanced works at the North East New Territories New Development areas, the Appellant took part in a demonstration outside the LegCo Complex. The protesters attempted to enter the LegCo Complex by removing the Mills barriers outside. The then President of LegCo requested the assistance of the police and invited them to enter into the precincts of LegCo Chamber. He claimed that he made the request in his capacity as the Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission (“LCC”). Conflicts broke out between the police officers and the protesters. The Appellant and others were arrested.
2. After trial, the Appellant was convicted of two charges, namely: (1) taking part in an unlawful assembly, contrary to section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) and (2) obstructing an officer of LegCo in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 19(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) (“LC(PP)O”). On appeal, the Appellant’s convictions were upheld by the Court of First Instance.
3. Subsequently, the Court of Final Appeal granted leave to appeal in respect of his conviction on charge (2). Thus, this appeal is solely concerned with charge (2).
4. The Appellant advanced two grounds to challenge his conviction. First, he contended that without a prior invitation to enter made by the President, the police officer obstructed by the Appellant did not, as a matter of law, qualify as an officer of the Council, and therefore charge (2) was not made out.
5. The Appellant’s second ground was that since there was no written authority in place (such as a LegCo Rule of Procedure, a Council Resolution or an administrative instruction issued by the President) to restrict the public right of access to the LegCo, even if the police officer in question was an officer of the Council, he was not acting in the execution of his duty in denying the protesters entry through the entrances to LegCo.
6. The Court rejected both of the Appellant’s grounds and provided guidance on the circumstances in which the police may lawfully enter and perform policing duties in the precincts of the LegCo Chamber.
7. First, having surveyed the relevant provisions of LC(PP)O and Administrative Instructions for Regulating Admittance and Conduct of Persons, the Court held that a prior invitation by the President of LegCo is not needed for a police officer to be on duty within the precincts of the LegCo Chamber and to qualify as an officer of the Council for the purposes of charge (2).
8. Further, the Court observed that even if a prior invitation to enter is necessary, in the present case such an invitation had been issued by the President of LegCo. It did not matter that he considered himself to be acting as the Chairman of the LCC when requesting police assistance, since objectively and as a matter of law, he was also President of LegCo.
9. Lastly, the Court observed that, pursuant to the Administrative Instructions, the protesters were lawfully refused entry into the precincts of the LegCo Chamber by the security officers. The Court held that the police officers were acting lawfully in the execution of their duty (as police officers and officers of the Council) in helping to enforce such refusal of entry.
10. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
- By this appeal, Leung Hiu-yeung has removed any ambiguity of whether Hong Kong Police can enter the Legislative Council to enforce the law. The answer is an unequivocal YES. Long live FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and RULE OF LAW! Future protestors have Leung Hiu-hung to thank for their arrests.
[776] Preliminary Exploration of Strategies for the Democracy Movement in the Face of Total Suppression (2017/08/13)
(SCMP) August 13, 2017.
Hongkongers should stop pursuing democracy under the framework laid down by the city’s mini-constitution, or the Basic Law, Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting urged, warning also of a long period of struggle and suppression for the democracy movement.
At the same seminar on Saturday, localist leader Edward Leung Tin-kei also highlighted fears that the opposition camp would pay a bigger price now after Beijing took on a hardline stance against the movement.
In a rare show of solidarity, the two and other democracy leaders of varying ideologies came together at the event to brainstorm ways to defend against what they claimed would be a period of all-out suppression in the future.
Other familiar faces included student activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-Kang and Billy Fung Jing-en, as well as recently disqualified lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.
Their joint appearance could be seen as a sign of the pan-democratic camp mending its internal rift, which stemmed from their differences in approach – ranging from moderate to radical – in pursuing democracy.
Edward Leung, the Hong Kong Indigenous leader who once called for the city to break away from Chinese rule to achieve independence, now urged fellow activists to set aside their differences.
“I don’t even know where I will be next year ... Will I end up in Stanley prison?” he said, referring to a pending riot trial over his role in last year’s Mong Kok unrest.
He also admitted that he had not come up with any specific strategy, but said that more dialogue was needed between leaders of the democracy movement.
Wong, meanwhile, warned that those who participate in the movement must be prepared for harsher consequences under an “authoritarian” approach.
Last year, Wong and Chow were ordered to perform community service after a Hong Kong court found the pair guilty of illegal assembly over their roles in the lead-up to the 2014 Occupy movement.
Prosecutors then applied for an appeal, seeking a jail term instead. A decision is expected on Thursday.
“The decision will greatly impact future court rulings on other Occupy activists ... the new situation seems to be one of receiving months-long jail terms, instead of weeks,” Wong said.
(The Stand News) August 13, 2017.
This conference speakers included ex-legislator Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats), Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous), Joshua Wong (Demosisto), commentator Sang Pu, Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor Benny Tai, former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow, former Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung, and Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Ngok-hin. The hostess was Ho Chi-kawn.
Many of the speakers spoke about the recent case of Lam Tsz-kin being kidnapped and assaulted by "mainland powerful department" agents as well as the Co-location controversy. Benny Tai said that the Lam Tsz-kin incident showed that One Country Two Systems and the Basic Law is being less and less able to protect the people of Hong Kong from the freedom not to live in fear or the freedom not to be tortured.
Many of the speakers said that the situation for the opposition is grim. Alex Chow said that many different proposals have been advanced after the Umbrella Revolution, but more often they have encountered retaliations that make them discouraged and powerless. He believes that the authorities want to divide the opposition in to different sects and then smash them one by one. Therefore the opposition must build a communication platform to discuss the strategies of the democracy movement with respect to various issues.
Edward Leung said that Hong Kong is slowly heading towards totalitarianism. In the past, the democracy movement could still believe in the principle of rule-of-law and demand the government to set a roadmap/timeline for democratization. But today the framework is based upon the principle of patriotism instead.
Joshua Wong said that the various court cases against demonstrators show that the judiciary has grown sterner with longer prison sentences. In the past, the anti-Express Rail Link penalties were typically several weeks in jail. Today, it is several months in jail, or even several years. He said that the people of Hong Kong must make a new assessment of the Department of Justice in the face of the increasing costs of protests.
Leung Kwok-hung said that Hong Kong has moved from rule-by-law to a worse rule-by-degree era. He also mentioned the many recent cases against demonstrators. He hopes that the defendants can choose to testify in court and deliver political speeches to provide a moral basis for the democracy movement.
Au Ngok-hin said that the best example of the post-Umbrella democracy movement is found in the November 2016 protests against the interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The protestors were divided into two major strands: Yellow Ribbons and Valiant Resisters. Joshua Wong agreed, and recalled that he saw a group of people surrounding Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) and accusing him of 'exploitation' and 'trouble-making.' Wong said that he could not understand why they want to condemn a fellow traveler. He said that the current divergences are due not to the lack of formal communication or principles, but instead it was a problem of mindset.
Billy Fung said that the heart of the matter is the divergence in how the groups view the China factor. He said that this issue is irresolvable because it is an identity issue. But even so, the various groups should learn to respect each other.
Sang Pu said that the Hong Kong democracy movement cannot afford to be fragmented. He said that a problem in the democracy movement is that the various groups distrust each other and suspect the others of being 'moles'. He called for everybody to expand civic society and cultivate one's own garden.
A question was raised whether the fragmentation of the opposition was caused by the people or the political leaders. Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Leung both said that the people have the power to make their political leaders change. Edwad Leung said that he used to be afraid to attend this kind of discussion forum, because his supporters will take that he had switched sides by associating with 'leftist retards.' But he said that if people still mind under the prevailing circumstances, then they are more concerned about their own selfish political calculations rather for Hong Kong.
Benny Tai said that the August 31st resolution will be a long-term policy for Hong Kong. Furthermore, the suppression of the opposition will persist. So the people of Hong Kong should not think that the Basic Law framework will allow them to get the kind of democracy that they want. He said that the opposition must make the psychological adjustment of not just focusing on the immediate issues, but to be prepared for 15 or 20 years of resistance. Benny Tai said that the democracy movement in Hong Kong must be re-defined as a movement by the people of Hong Kong with an awareness of Hong Kong identity.
Should the non-establishment legislators resign collectively to express their opposition to the disqualification of six legislators? Billy Fung said that this matter should be left to the remaining legislators to think about. He hopes that the democrats will have the moral courage to advance a bill to express their dissatisfaction with the government as well as show that they won't be a compliant opposition.
Edward Leung said that the Legislative Council is an important resource for the democracy movement. Unless the scorched earth approach is genuine effective, they should still run for election and not give up resistance inside the Legislative Council.
Many of the speakers emphasized that the restructuring of the Hong Kong democracy movements requires everybody to do more. Alex Chow said that Hong Kong needs everybody to mediate persons with different views and promote the ideas and awareness of the democracy movement.
(Oriental Daily) August 13, 2017.
Benny Tai, Joshua Wong, Edward Leung, Alex Chow and others gathered yesterday to discuss strategies for the democracy movement in the face of total suppression. After lots of hot air, the conclusion was that "resisting the Communists" used to "relative comfortable with relatively low costs" with jail terms counted in weeks. Today, the jail terms are counted in years and the costs have become larger and larger. They called for citizens to engage in total resistance of the Communists or else rule-of-law will be dead.
In short, as the saying goes: "又要威，又要戴頭盔" (they want to look cool, but they are scared and wear helmets).
Why don't we rewind the tape to view an interview with the late Liu Xiaobo. He said frankly that in the opposition movement, "it is part of the job to face off against the police and to go to jail." He genuinely went to jail until he passed away. What about the Hong Kong opposition? They want to be heroes, but they are afraid of pain and suffering. When they get hit by a police baton, they break into tears. When they are hauled into court, they fight with every excuse possible. Now they want a People's Total Resistance Against The Communists to drag the whole world in? Are they over-estimating their popularity and leadership? Are they under-estimating the wisdom of the people? Maybe Cheng Chung-tai's famous saying 'the public are idiots' reflect their thinking too?
Three years ago, the opposition brought people out to occupy Central. Three years later now, they do everything possible and they couldn't get anyone out there to protest against Co-location. What caused this? The opposition blamed the stalling of the democracy movement on political suppression. They refused to reflect on how many disappointments they have caused. They refused to reflect on their internal schisms against each other. They were as ugly as they can get. The citizens ought to thank the 'political suppressions' that revealed their true selves.
(Oriental Daily) August 13, 2017.
Last year there was a riot in Mong Kok. Many participants were sent to jail after being convicted of rioting. Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong said at a discussion forum yesterday that the jail terms for rioting amount to years, whereas the jail terms for non-violent resistance in the past amounted to months. Thus the various political parties need to adjust to the new situation.
Joshua Wong is speaking boldly because he has been caught up yet. So far the convicted persons during the 2014 Occupy Central or the 2016 Mong Kok riot have been foot soldiers. The organizers have not yet been held to account.
Joshua Wong began by enumerating the cases in which he is personally involved. He said that the prison terms for protesting against the Express Rail Link or the government budget amounted to weeks. But at this time, the Department of Justice has involved riot statutes so that even non-violent protests can incur several months in prison. He said that Hong Kong has moved into an authoritarian regime. As a result, civic society is wary from the battles of the non-violent civil disobedience to the disqualification of legislators and now to the "mainland powerful departments". It is not to survive in the frontlines of the battlefield. Of the eight executive committee members of Demosisto, three of them will likely go to jail for their involvement in the New Territories East development protests and the taking of Civic Square.
Billy Fung said that Hong Kong must enter into total anti-Communist resistance in order to stave off the Chinese Communists. He said that everyone in the resistance movement must expect to be pressured and suppressed. It is impossible to do this in a relaxed and comfortable manner. Inside the Legislative Council, the opposition must have the moral courage instead of just being safe and comfortable.
Edward Leung said that his own Mong Kok riot trial will take place next January, and he does not think that he can enter the Legco by-elections. Leung believed that he will lose the court case. The next Legco election takes place in 2016. If he is sentenced to jail, he may not be freed until 2020. So the next open date will be 2024, when Basic Law Article 23 may be enacted already.
As for Benny Tai, he does not believe that Hong Kong will have self-determination under the Basic Law after the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. He said that we must be psychologically prepared for long-term resistance/suppression. We said that the political resources should be pooled together. We should also think about how to gain more resources from outside China. Does that mean that he want to hook up with foreign forces to cause trouble in Hong Kong? Why do these people seem to have protective umbrellas so that they are never held accountable under the law? This is demonstrated with this discussion forum at which a bunch of lawless people sat around and spout all sorts of nonsense.
(Oriental Daily) August 13, 2017.
Yesterday at a discussion forum, some young people were advocating Hong Kong independence. Martin Lee said that young people blamed his generation for not having fought for revolution in support of independence, but they never considered the costs. "Are you willing to pay with your life? Are you willing to be the first to die?" He added: "Some people advocate independence and revolution, but you don't see them do anything."
Martin Lee said that he does not advocate Hong Kong independence. But he also said that Hong Kong can become independent in thirty years because China may be a democracy by then already. So he is being self-contradictory.
Actually Martin Lee is already 79 years old. Where is he going to be in 30 years time? Will he be that person "who advocate independence and revolution but cannot be found"?
(Ta Kung Pao) August 13, 2017.
Alex Chow spoke first at the discussion forum. He said that the opposition camp is fragmented, and they should seek accommodation with each other. Thus, he is suggesting that the mainstream pan-democrats should reconcile with the pro-independence elements. Benny Tai said that the traditional opposition should ally with Hong Kong independence and and form alliances in various districts in order to coordinate future election campaigns to win seats and acquire resources. He also advocate the opposition to seek political resources from outside Hong Kong.
Joshua Wong acted as the peacemaker to stem the internal struggles with the Hong Kong independence camp. He said that Hong Kong Demosisto had cooperated with Hong Kong Indigenous in the November 2016 protest outside the China Liaison Office against the interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. He apologized for Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) being surrounded and berated by Yellow Ribbons on occasion.
Leung Kwok-hung began his speech by deploring the organizers for admitting the media to the forum, because he said that their strategies should not be reported by the media to the public. Leung also said that he tried to help Hong Kong independence elements who were in legal trouble, but they thought that he wanted to show off and exploit their situations. Leung said that the mainstream opposition and the Hong Kong independence elements should reconcile under the present circumstances.
Edward Leung added: "If my supporters see me on the same stage as 'leftist retards', they are bound to curse me out." Leung said that he won't be able to run in elections in the near future, and therefore he has nothing to worry about by attending this forum. Leung said that there are only two-and-a-half pro-independence individuals on stage: himself, Billy Fung and the half-half Sang Pu.
When Billy Fung spoke, he said clearly: "Hong Kong can only have hope by full out to fight the Communists." He also said that the opposite legislators should have the moral courage to filibuster instead of just being an obliging opposition.
Sang Pu used the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan as the example. He said that the various groups in the opposition can forge an alliance even if they advocate different things. He said that the Hong Kong independence movement should form a new Opposition Alliance with the other opposition groups. Sang Pu said: "Hong Kong independence is not untouchable. If the idea of Hong Kong independence does not receive sufficient support, then we can find a Big Factor that the people of Hong Kong can accept as their common goal, such as 'fighting the Communists'."
There was nobody to represent the Democratic Party or the Civic Party at this discussion forum. Democratic Party member Au Ngok-hin was present in his capacity as the convener of the Civil Human Rights Front. Civic Party member Margaret Ng made a comment from the audience at the end.
(Silent Majority HK) August 13, 2017.
Edward Leung said that the localists and the democrats should have more dialogue under the current oppressiveness. He said that he has no solution to resolve the conflicts within the opposition. He asked if people can put up with those who have different ideas and methods.
So far, the supporters in the various parts of the opposition spectrum have been calling each other "leftist retards", "xenophobic fascists" and so on. His own supporters will be upset that he showed up at the same event as the "leftist retards." He said that this discussion forum is a platform for everybody to explain their views clearly: "Why do I object to you? Why do you object to me? What do we agree upon in common?"
This particular discussion forum was called to achieve The Great Reconciliation. But Edward Leung has actually come out and said that the purpose of the discussion forum is to point out explicitly that certain differences are irreconcilable.
While these armchair revolutionaries discuss their great reconciliation, grand alliance and assorted revolutionary strategies, here is what the soldiers are actually doing:
(Wen Wei Po) August 13, 2017.
Two Passion Times male program hosts, Lee Hok-nin and Hung Man-hei entered a women's restroom inside a shopping centre and aired a live video broadcast. The Hong Kong Crazy Guy Power Facebook began a campaign to condemn this behavior.
Yesterday, the Hong Kong Nuts Power Facebook went after the Passion Times female program host. She was revealed to be a Cathay Pacific stewardess. Question: "Does Cathay Pacific encourage its employees to behave this way? If you have questions about Cathay Pacific policies, they welcome us to inquire."
Many Internet users said that they will lodge complaints with Cathay Pacific. "This female program host used foul language throughout the program. She is very fluent too. If she turns out to be a stewardess, then I think it is bad for Cathay Pacific's image." "We need to ask if the middle-aged female janitor at Cathay Pacific can hold a part-time job elsewhere, because Passion Times program hosts are paid." "Don't forget how the Civic Passion hotdogs went after the D100 program host Keiko Myth Or who supported Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung."
The Passion Times female program host Joey Tse made a public apology later. She said: "We were at the shopping centre. When I went into the restroom, I saw a lot of cockroaches. I was scared and I went out and looked for another restroom. At the time, Lee Hok-nin (Ah Nin) and Hung Man-wei (Ah A) said that they would come with me. We came across a shopping centre workers who told us that this was after hours and only one restroom was open ... They saw how scared I was, so they offered to accompany me to chase away the cockroaches. They thought that it be fun to have a live broadcast of the cockroaches. They did not intend to do anything unbecoming in the women's restroom. At the time, I knew that there was nobody else in the womens' restroom.
Of course, the Hong Kong Nuts Power Facebook will not stop: "The Hot Dogs (nickname Civic Passion) is counting on nobody filing a police report against the unlawful acts of the Passion Times program hosts. They said that even if you file a complaint, the police won't do anything. But if many of us file complaints to the police, and we inform the media, the district councilors, the Discover Park shopping centre management, and we tell all the Tsuen Wan community organizations to tell everybody not to go to Discovery Park because there are perverts hanging around the restrooms, we will see ..."
One Internet user actually went to Mong Kok Police Station to lodge a complaint. He said that the police sergeant told him: "The police are already working on the case of Big Nin entering a women's restroom. I don't know if the police sergeant was truthful or not. But if you want an update, you can go to the Tsuen Wan Police Station.
[775] The Case of Lam Tsz-kin (2017/08/11)
(EJ Insight) July 26, 2017.
Football star Lionel Messi is said to have sent an autographed picture in a bid to cheer up Liu Xiaobo when the Chinese rights activist was ailing in a mainland hospital before his death earlier this month.
The Argentine soccer player sent the picture to Howard Lam Tsz-kin, a pro-democracy politician in Hong Kong, hoping that the latter would arrange for the picture to be delivered to Liu, according to a Facebook post Tuesday from Lam.
Lam wrote on the social media platform that he wrote to Messi’s club, FC Barcelona, in early July and sought an autographed picture of the world famous footballer so that it can be forwarded to Liu, who was lodged in a hospital in late June after years in a Chinese prison.
Chinese authorities had released Liu on parole after the renowned political dissident and democracy campaigner was diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer.
After learning of Liu’s critical condition, Lam thought he could try to lift the spirits of the rights activist by providing him an autographed picture of Messi.
The idea came as it was well-known that Liu was a big football fan and a passionate follower of Messi.
Lam wanted to send Liu the picture when the latter was undergoing treatment in a Shenyang hospital, but unfortunately he received the parcel too late.
Although Lam had received a quick response from FC Barcelona that the request would be honored, the signed picture of Messi only arrived Hong Kong on Tuesday.
The reason for the delayed dispatch, according to the Spanish football club, is that Messi “was not in the club the past few weeks”.
Although disappointed that he couldn’t fulfill his aim of delivering the signed Messi picture to Liu, Lam said he is grateful to the professional football player and his Spanish club for honoring his request.
Lam said he will write an email to express his thanks and to inform them that he will now try his best to have the picture delivered to Liu’s wife, Liu Xia.
He said he hopes the souvenir can offer some comfort for Liu’s family.
Lam praised FC Barcelona and Messi for their gesture, describing it as an exemplary display of humanity.
The soccer star and his club paid a tribute to Liu despite being aware that their action could anger Beijing and lead to potential sanctions, he said.
The touching gesture sends a message to political dissidents that they are not alone, Lam added.
(Hong Kong Free Press) August 11, 2017.
A Democratic Party member has claimed that mainland law enforcement agents put 21 staples into his legs for being “unpatriotic” after they abducted him on Thursday. A lawmaker has called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”
The party told reporters on Friday that Howard Lam was accosted by Mandarin-speaking men at a sports merchandise store on Portland Street in Kowloon on Thursday. Lam said he was then taken away in a van, knocked out with a substance he was made to inhale, beaten and interrogated. He awoke the next day on a beach in Sai Kung.
Prior to the incident, Lam said he received a call warning him not to send a signed photo of footballer Lionel Messi to Liu Xia, widow of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. The late Nobel Laureate was a fan of Messi, according to his friends. Lam added that only his wife and a few friends knew that he was heading to the sports shop on Thursday. “Of course I have no idea how [the men] knew where I was going.”
Lam also said that he believed the incident occurred to warn him not to give anything to Liu Xia, and to send a warning to others that – if they did not love the Chinese government – what happened to him might happen to them as well. He said his tormentors told him the staples inserted into his legs were in the form of crosses, as Lam was a Christian. “I don’t think Hong Kong still has freedom. If the Hong Kong government cannot let us know what happened in this case, I think [many] people will be afraid [of] this government.”
A store manager of SFALO, where Lam was allegedly abducted, told HKFP on Friday that he did not see the incident take place. There were four staff members at the store at 4pm on Thursday, and he said he believed none of them would have seen the incident either. “I heard that the incident happened outside the store, and not inside,” he said.
(SCMP) August 11, 2017.
A Hong Kong political activist has claimed he was abducted in the city on Thursday and then blindfolded, beaten and tortured, with staples punched into his legs, before being released on a beach by people he said were mainland agents.
Howard Lam Tsz-kin, a member of the Democratic Party, the largest opposition party in Hong Kong’s legislature, said he believed the reason for the kidnapping was that he had received a signed postcard from Barcelona football star Lionel Messi last month which he intended to pass on to Liu Xia, the widow of late Chinese dissident and Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo.
Lam said he had received a phone call from a mainland friend on Monday, warning him not to try to give Liu the postcard.
“He told me in Putonghua ... that I’d pay if I ignored the warning,” Lam said.
The activist said that on Thursday, after he had bought a football jersey in Yau Ma Tei at about 4pm, two strangers spoke to him in Putonghua and pushed him into a van.
“I was punched in the vehicle ... and I later woke up when someone hit me with a hard object,” he said. “At that time, I was only wearing my underwear, I was blindfolded and my limbs were tied up.”
He said he believed there were four to five people in the room when he was tortured. They at no point showed him any documents or identified themselves.
“A man asked if I knew Liu Xia, and why I was doing all these things ... He said I didn’t know how to love the country,” Lam said. “The man also said: ‘Are you a Christian? Do you know how to love the country and the religion? ... I’ll give you some crosses,’ he said, and then he stapled my legs.”
Lam showed the media about 20 marks from staples on his legs on Friday.
“I passed out again, and when I woke up I found myself dumped on a beach and it was about 1am ... I later discovered I was in Sai Kung.”
Asked if he would seek police protection after the incident, Lam said he did not trust the Hong Kong police and authorities on the matter. He said he had been too tired to report it to police after returning home early on Friday morning. After receiving advice from the Democratic Party’s former chairmen Martin Lee Chu-ming and Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lam decided he would host a press conference on Friday and go to hospital before making a police report.
Democratic Party lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting said the incident was a serious violation of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, and the “one country, two systems” principle, which guarantees the city a high degree of autonomy under Chinese Communist Party rule. He said colleagues would take the activist to Queen Mary Hospital in Pok Fu Lam before reporting the incident to the local police on Friday.
A source with the Hong Kong police said officers would interview the victim and check security camera footage to gather evidence on the case. Detectives from the Kowloon West regional crime unit would investigate, the source said.
Liu Xia, a 56-year-old poet, painter and photographer, was married to China’s most famous pro-democracy dissident Liu Xiaobo, who died in police custody on July 13. She had been under house arrest since 2010 but her whereabouts arecurrently unknown.
(The Guardian) August 11, 2017.
A Hong Kong pro-democracy activist says he was beaten and had his legs stapled by Chinese agents because he was planning to send a signed photo of Lionel Messi to a dissident’s widow.
Howard Lam, a member of Hong Kong’s Democratic party, said he was snatched on the street on Thursday, forced into a car and made to smell something that caused him to lose consciousness.
When he came to after being hit with a hard object, he was wearing only his underwear and a blindfold, Lam told reporters on Friday.
He said he was interrogated about his intention to send a picture of the Barcelona footballer Messi to Liu Xia, the widow of Nobel peace prize laureate Liu Xiaobo.
“A man asked if I knew Liu Xia, and why I was doing all these things,” Lam said, according to the South China Post.
“The man also said: ‘Are you a Christian? Do you know how to love the country and the religion? … I’ll give you some crosses,’ he said, and then he stapled my legs.”
Lam showed reporters cross marks he said had been made by the staples. He said his abductors spoke Mandarin, China’s national language but rare in Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong.
Before he died of cancer while in custody last month, Liu Xiaobo wrote to Barcelona to ask for a signed photo of Messi because he thought it would cheer him up.
Lam said he had previously received a call from a Chinese person claiming to be part of the mainland intelligence service and warning him not to give the picture to Liu Xiaobo’s widow, the artist and poet Liu Xia.
He said his ordeal lasted nine hours before he eventually found himself dumped on a beach in Hong Kong’s remote Sai Kung district at 1am on Friday.
The Democratic party has railed against what it says is meddling in Hong Kong’s affairs by Communist party rulers in Beijing. The city state became a special administrative region of China in 1997, since when it has been governed under a one country, two systems formula that guarantees a range of freedoms not enjoyed in China.
The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, swore in Hong Kong’s new leader last month with a stark warning that Beijing would not tolerate any challenge to its authority in the city as it marked the 20th anniversary of its return from Britain to China.
Hong Kong’s police commissioner, Lau Wai-chung, told media he was taking Lam’s accusations seriously and officers were attaching great importance to investigating the case.
The Hong Kong and Macau affairs office of China’s state council did not comment.
Liu Xia has lived in the Chinese capital under virtual house arrest since her husband won the Nobel peace prize in December 2010. Her whereabouts since his death are a mystery and the couple’s US lawyer has claimed the Chinese authorities are behind what he says is her enforced disappearance.
(SCMP) Who is the man at centre of Hong Kong’s bizarre allegation of torture, staples and kidnap in broad daylight? August 16, 2017.
Howard Lam Tsz-kin is not on the who’s who list of democracy activists in Hong Kong but over the past week, all everyone can talk about is the man at the centre of a bizarre case of kidnapping, torture, a beach dropoff – and staples.
When he first revealed he had been shoved into a van in Mong Kok by two Mandarin Chinese-speaking men, blindfolded and had staples punched in cross-shaped fashion on his large thighs, people were aghast. As he hitched his shorts at a press conference last week to show his wounds, he and Democratic Party elders claimed the cruel acts were the handiwork of mainland agents.
But on Tuesday as the story came undone, questions surfaced on Lam’s credentials. Who is Lam and how did he succeed in persuading party veterans to back his case “wholeheartedly”, in the words of founder Albert Ho Chun-yan? What was his standing that he could be such a threat to mainland agents if all he wanted to do was to mail a postcard to Liu Xia, the widow of the late dissident Liu Xiaobo? In any event, no one knew how to reach her, so what danger did Lam pose to anyone? What was his real game plan?
There have been few answers thus far. But within the party, Lam remains a controversial figure.
The show of support for Lam has to do with a shared history. He joined the organisers behind the Tiananmen Square vigil in 1989 when he was in his early teens. In 1994, he became a founding member of the Democratic Party at the age of 18. By then, he had marched alongside democracy icon the late Szeto-Wah, the party’s founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming and Albert Ho, all of whom he regarded as mentors.
But sometime in the early 2000s, Lam became a figure of suspicion among the party rank-and-file. Such was his unpopularity that despite strong backing, Lam tried and failed to win a vice-chairman post in last year’s internal elections.
The secret loathing dated back to 2005 during the height of a rift within the party between reformists and traditionalists that led to a split eventually.
In an interview with online website Stand News last year, Lam claimed he was assigned by Szeto and Ho to be a spy in the reformist group, which had been lobbing criticism at the leadership.
Szeto had suspected the reformist faction had been infiltrated by Chinese Communist Party members, Lam said, and had asked him to stick to them.
Leaked internal emails revealed the depth of the factionalism. An internal investigation was ordered. A report issued then concluded the party faced “serious risk of infiltration” and chastised reformist Raymond Luk Yiu-man for frequently contacting mainland middlemen without declaring to the party.
The group of reformists, including former lawmaker Gary Fan Kwok-wai, eventually quit the party in 2010 in the wake of the political reform controversy.
Lam stayed with the party.
“Many party members do not trust Lam since the saga as they believe he was with the reformists, even though Ho has defended him in an internal meeting in 2014,” said a party source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In 2014, Lam made a bid to be on the Democrat’s central committee – the decision-making body of the party – and won Ho’s endorsement.
In that annual meeting, Ho defended Lam’s loyalty to the party and explained his role in the rift.
“What [Lam] did back then was to report what he knew to [Szeto] and me so we could be aware of it,” said Ho. “What he did was for the party’s good... I owe him for not clarifying for him publicly and let the misunderstanding [against] him linger for years.”
In the 2016 interview, Lam said he was caught by the two blocs. In the end, he became the sacrificial lamb.
The party elders took care of him, by giving him an online radio site to run, sponsored by party funds. But in recent years, the 41-year-old who suffered thyroid cancers last year began focusing more on the pro-democracy campaign within Christian circles.
In 2011, he spearheaded a campaign against the Hong Kong Christian Council’s plan to change the way their 300,000 members select delegates to the Election Committee, which picks the city’s chief executive.
Last year, he had been calling for the 10 Christians seats on the Election Committee to be vacated as a way to protest against the lack of a direct election for the chief executive in Hong Kong, and even went on a hunger strike.
Tam Tak-chi, who knew Lam in 2006 when they both studied theology in Chinese University, believed his ally was an honest man.
Lam had suffered from depression in the past and had emotional problems, said Tam.
But he believed Lam was getting better and in the midst of making plans to study for a doctorate in theology at Yale University in the United States.
“I don’t think it was a story of lies and deception. Maybe Lam has hidden something, but I do believe he was tortured by someone,” Tam said. “He was not crazy enough to staple his own legs.”
Democratic Party vice-chairman Lo Kin-hei brushed off speculation Lam was paid to concoct lies and tarnish the party. “I would not believe he would betray Albert Ho and Martin Lee given their years of relationship.”
(SCMP) Let police investigate Democrat Howard Lam’s torture claims. By Alex Ho. August 14, 2017.
Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence. Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin claimed he was abducted in broad daylight and tortured by mainland agents. If true, it’s not only an outright criminal act but also a direct challenge to the “one country two systems” formula that governs Hong Kong.
But it’s difficult for people to know what to make of his very serious allegations because the case has been deliberately politicised. After Lam was let go, he didn’t call police or go to a hospital for help. Instead, he phoned his party elders, Albert Ho Chun-yan and Martin Lee Chu-ming, who then organised a news conference to publicise his ordeal and showcase his wounds with staples still inside that were allegedly inflicted by his tormentors. Lam said his Putonghua-speaking abductors were warning him against sending an autographed postcard from Barcelona soccer star Lionel Messi to Liu Xia, widow of the late Nobel laureate and political activist Liu Xiaobo, who was a soccer fan.
Lee subsequently called Lam “foolish” and “legally ignorant” for washing his clothes and bag, thus failing to preserve physical evidence. Of course, Lee was the one who, instead of sending Lam to the police, put him in front of the cameras so police only learned about the case from television.
If Lam had gone to the police at the first opportunity, the evidence would have been preserved. Or if it were not, we would know the police were either incompetent or in league with their mainland counterparts.
An editorial in the state-run Ta Kung Pao dismissed Lam as a manic-depressive who might have inflicted harm on himself, and advised him to seek psychiatric help. A government-friendly lawmaker said Lam’s performance was “entertaining” and “laughable”. Others have cast doubt on his allegations.
Meanwhile, pan-democrats and their media allies have been quick to seize on the incident as further proof of mainland maleficence. The political party Demosisto has linked it to the dangers of “co-location” – the proposed arrangement of allowing mainland customs and immigration officers to operate inside the future high-speed rail terminus in West Kowloon. Their warnings conjured up images of rogue Chinese agents detaining and threatening travellers with staplers.
What a sad state we are in that we see everything through an ideological lens. The rational thing to do is, of course, neither believe nor disbelieve Lam, but let police do their job and hopefully get to the bottom of it.
Internet comments:
(YouTube) Democratic Party press conference on August 11, 2017.
(YouTube) Democratic Party press conference on August 11, 2017.
- If you were kidnapped by agents from the "mainland powerful department" and physically assaulted, you would probably look more like the Chinese tourist Zhao Yan:
[(SCMP) August 9, 2017. A federal judge has ruled in favour of a Chinese businesswoman who sued the US government after being injured during a 2004 confrontation with American border agents at Niagara Falls. Following a non-jury trial in Rochester, New York, Judge Elizabeth Wolford awarded Zhao Yan US$461,000 for false arrest, medical expenses, pain and suffering and lost earnings. Her 2006 civil rights lawsuit sought US$10 million in damages. Wolford’s ruling Monday found the government liable for US Customs and Border Protection Officer Robert Rhodes “assault and battery and false arrest” of Zhao at the Rainbow Bridge US-Canada border crossing in Niagara Falls. The judge found she was entitled to recover US$385,000 for past and future pain and suffering, US$64,000 in past medical expenses, US$1,800 in lost earnings and US$10,000 for false arrest. She was never charged with anything.]
- This press conference is bound to evoke memories of the other famous press conference by the late Alex Ho (ex-Democratic Party member).
- (SCMP comment):
Wow, the Pan Dems knew they are losing the battle with the government regarding co-location of the West Kowloon Station. Someone has decided to fake his own kidnapping to blame the Chinese Govt to make the general public scare of China.
I just spoke with a former policeman, I ask him what are the tell-tale signs of a fake kidnapping, he said
1. The first major clue is to look at injuries inflicted (if any). Self-inflicted injuries tends to be minor. Someone is unlikely to chop his own arm or leg off to fake injury.
2. The second clue, this guy has suffer hardly any bruised mark on the face or body.. There is no black-eye, no bruised mark, no-nothing! Just put yourself in the position that you want to kidnap someone and teach him a lesson. Would you let him go without seriously beating him up to teach him a lesson? Highly unlikely.
3. The reason for kidnapping. If a friend told you, he just got kidnapped by some gangs who threaten you not to give the autograph of Ironman or Batman or Superman to another person. Would you believe him?
4. The last sign - look at the guy's pair of eye glasses. It was in perfect condition, it wasn't bent, broken or damaged.
I am horrified how low IQ's the Pan Dems have demonstrated to have. Do they think we are two-year old babies?
- (HKG Pao) The Democratic Party press conference was scheduled for 11am. It actually started at 1115am. But at 10:38am, online media outlet HK01 had already posted the story. That is to say, the Democratic Party gave them a head start. Apple Daily and The Stand News must be very jealous. Meanwhile it is also clear that the Hong Kong Police are in fact among the last to know about a major crime! In the future, people should call their favorite media outlet to report a crime, not the Hong Kong Police.
- On the first day, this story was censored on the TVB news broadcasts in mainland China. After the second day, this story is no longer censored. This is a clear indication as to where the Chinese censors think this story is heading.
- How would a rational person handle the situation?
You received a whatapp call 3 days ago, in which a putonghua-speaking national security person whom you hadc ontact with previously warned you not to forward Lionel Messi's autograph picture to Liu Xia, who is Liu Xiaobo's widow. You immediately inform Democratic Party former chairmen Martin Lee and Albert Ho. They told you to do nothing, perhaps because they did not take it seriously.
You are kidnapped in the middle of busy Mong Kok between 4pm and 7pm, taken to an unknown location in a suburb and physically assaulted until you passed out. You wake up at 1am on Sai Kung beach with many staples on your body. You start walking and eventually found a taxi. You should tell the taxi driver to call the police immediately. The police will take you to the hospital and get treatment for the injuries, as well as take down your statement and obtain the physical evidence (fingerprints, DNA, fabric, human tissue, hair, soil, etc) in order to begin an investigation immediately and round up the perpetrators as quickly as possible. At the hospital, photos will be taken as evidence in the presence of the eyewitness doctors. Then you can go and hold your press conference.
But what did Lam Tsz-kin actually do?
He said that he was kidnapped in the middle of busy Mong Kok between 4pm and 7pm, taken to an unknown location in a suburb and physically assaulted until he passed out. He woke up at 1am somewhere with many staples on his body. He still has mobile phone with him but he does not use it. He started walking and eventually flagged down a taxi. As the taxi proceeded, the road signs told him that he had been taken to Sai Kung Beach.
Once he got on the taxi, he told the taxi driver to take him home. Once he arrived home, he went to have dinner at a local restaurant. He said that he was tired and tense. He took a bath and he washed his clothes, so now there are no DNA, fingerprints, drugs, human tissue, fabric or soil samples to analyze. Then he called former Democratic Party chairmen Martin Lee and Albert Ho. Should he go to the hospital to have his injuries treated? No, they decided after conferring. Should he call the police and tell them about the kidnapping by "mainland powerful department" agents in what is likely to go down as the "darkest day in Hong Kong democracy"? No. They decided against that too. So what was the first and foremost task for them? The Democratic Party will hold an emergency press conference at 11am the next day. At the press conference, Lam Tsz-kin told what happened and showed his wounds for the press to take photos.
Then and only then did Lam Tsz-kin proceed to the hospital at 2pm to get treatment for the injuries. The police came to the hospital to take his statement until 6pm. Then he had the staples removed under local anesthesia at 7pm. Since the press reports have gone out already, the perpetrators have read about it and are long gone by now.
Does it make sense? Well, let's grant that this was completely true. You have to question the decision-making of Martin Lee and Albert Ho? What are their priorities? Lam Tsz-kin's welfare is definitely not high on their priority.
- When a case has so many logical flaws, it is most likely to be the truth. When there are no logical flaws whatsoever, then the case was most likely artificially assembled. Alternately, when you have a bunch of fools putting a case together, he will leave behind a trail of logical flaws.
- (ETnet) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 14, 2017.
1. Suppose a person was tortured, passed and then came to. There was sand everywhere, and he cannot tell where he was. Fortunately, his mobile phone and wallet were still with him. He could use the mobile phone to open Google Map and find his exact location via the GPS function. Then he can call the police and tell them where to find him.
2. This was 2am in the middle of nowhere in Sai Kung. You got back to the road. One red taxi when by but didn't stop when you flagged it. Another red taxi came, stopped and picked you up. You could have told him what happened and he would take you directly to the police station. As a victim, if you said that you were hungry, the police would immediately fetch you some food (even though it may not be filet-o-fish burger).
3. Even in a rape case, you must not wash your clothes or body. Forensic science is very advanced today, so that even one hair or one tissue can lead to the perpetrator. TV shows such as <Sherlock> or <CSI> deal with this all the time.
4. Mainlanders are not the only people in the world who speak putonghua. Just because you speak Arabic does not make you Al Qaeda. Nobody is going to leave you a business card to say that he is with the National Security Department. Normally, Hongkongers pretend to be Japanese when caught in embarrassment and the Sun Yee On gangsters claim to be Wo Hop To after they chop someone. Everybody knows how to misdirect.
5. No matter whether you want to become famous or frame someone else, you should always remember that we now live in a world filled with surveillance cameras. In this world, it is a crime to kidnap/imprison someone, but it is also a crime to file false reports to the police.
Therefore I call on the taxi driver who took on a passenger with staples on his body, and the workers and customers at the McDonald's in Chung On Shopping Centre, Ma On Shan who noticed a customer with staples on his body to be good citizens and immediately contact the police with your information. We want this comedy to end as soon as possible.
- (Ming Pao) Lam Tsz-fung was asked why his hands showed no scratches even though he said that they were tied behind his back. Lam said that he was not tied up "powerfully" and that he did not struggle "because I was just meat on the cutting board already."
Lam Tsz-fung was also asked why he didn't have the staples removed from his thighs immediately but instead held a press conference first. "Is this normal behavior?" Lam said that this was the decision of Democratic Party former chairmen Martin Lee and Albert Ho to hold a press conference first. "Do you want the evidence shown to the world first?" Lam said yes.
- Who the hell is Howard Lam Tsz-kin anyway? What has he ever done in his life?
Insofar as the Democratic Party goes, he ran for vice-chairman last time and lost.
Insofar as Hong Kong activism goes, Lam achieved immortal fame in Hong Kong Internet history in 2011 (East Week):
A group of angry young people organized an Anti-Real Estate Hegemony action. At a Park n Shop supermarket in Hung Hom, they used a large number of coins to pay for their purchases to overwhelm the cashiers and paralyze operations. The customer line extended so long that the police were summoned. Afterwards, the group posted a video on YouTube and boasted about their victory. Instead of the expected applause, they were met with ridicule and condemnation. Even the leftard League of Social Democrats denounced them as being brainless.
The organizer of the action was Democratic Party Central Committee Standing Committee member and Kowloon West branch chairman Howard Lam Tsz-kin. Once the storm blew in, the Democratic Party called for a disciplinary hearing over actions that were detrimental to the reputation of the party. Lam Tsz-kin immediately denied any involvement and declined to comment to the media.
- With respect to this episode, Lam Tsz-kin said that people are entitled to have their criticisms and speculations, but he doesn't want to comment anymore.
- (Bastille Post) August 17, 2017.
In 2006, an individual using the nickname "Democratic Party true brother" began to blog about internal emails among the reformist faction of the Democratic Party. These emails attacked the mainstream faction within the party. At the time, people believed that the Chinese Communists had either hacked the email system of the Democratic Party or used underground to join the Democratic Party and steal these emails for publication.
On June 21, 2006, Lam Tsz-kin said in an interview that his computer began to have problems in April and May, and his emails were often read by others before himself and forwarded to others. After being elected into the Democratic Party Central Committee, his telephone was eavesdropped. Lam said that he cannot exclude the possibility that the Chinese Communists are doing this. At the time, the Democratic Party was fragile and the Chinese Communists obviously want to destroy them while they are fragile.
Ten years later in 2016, Lam Tsz-kin said in an interview that the whole 2006 affair was planned by Democratic Party leader Szeto Wah. At the time, the reformists had been critical of Szeto Wah, who suspected that they must have been infiltrated by the Chinese Communists. Szeto Wah trusted Lam Tsz-kin enough to send him over to the reformists to gather information. So Lam took the reformists' emails and sent them back to Szeto Wah at the Professional Teachers Union for the True Brother blog. Eventually the Democratic Party formed an investigative team to investigate the Young Turks faction. The team report said that reformists Chan King-ming and Luk Yiu-man had contacted Central Government departments multiple times without informing the Democratic Party and also said that these people were 'seeding' members in the party. Eventually the named individuals resigned from the party.
The episode was an internal struggle between the mainstream and reformist factions of the Democratic Party. But Lam Tsz-kin acted as a mole and his data became the basis of a sensationalistic story about Chinese Communist infiltration into their email system. The blaming on the Chinese Communists is similar to the current blaming on the mainland powerful department for the kidnapping and torture of Lam Tsz-kin. Did Lam Tsz-kin think that he can pull this off again?
- (Oriental Daily) August 11, 2017. According to information, the police have reviewed all the surveillance videos taken in the vicinity of the SFALO sports store on Portland Street. So far they have seen only Lam Tsz-kin and no other suspicious persons. The police will continue their investigation.
- (Ming Pao) August 12, 2017. Martin Lee said that the incident could have taken place in a blind spot for the surveillance cameras. So unless the police saw that Lam Tsz-kin left on his own via minibus or some other transportation method, the investigation should continue all the way.
- (Apple Daily) August 11, 2017. According to Lam Tsz-kin, he found himself at a beach when he came to at 1pm. He found a small path and walked about 10 minutes to flag down a red taxi to return to his Ma On Shan home. The police are looking for the taxi driver who took him home. There are at least 7 surveillance cameras at Lam's housing estate so the police should be able to locate the taxi driver soon.
In addition, Lam said that it cost him about $100 for the taxi ride. Based upon the elapsed time and the taxi fare, the police estimated that Lam would have been held near the Tai Mong Tsai campsite in Sai Kung. Tonight at 10pm, the Major Crime Unit detectives went out to Tai Mong Tsai to search for evidence, such as the torture instruments (including staplers) and surveillance videos in the neighborhood. Our reporter saw the detectives scour the beach using flashlights, opening garbage bins and examining the contents. They did not appear to find anything. They left at 1130pm.
- A staple in the sand is even harder to find than a needle in a haystack?
- (HK01) August 12, 2017.
Earlier this morning, our reporter tried to find the rocky beach. Previously Lam Tsz-kin had said that he walked for about 10 minutes before he found a taxi. On the way home, he saw a large "Sai (something)" sign on a roundabout. His taxi fare was just under $100.
Our reporter took a taxi from Tai Mong Tsai Road to the Ma On Shan housing estate where Lam Tsz-kin lives. There was a road sign saying Sai Kung at a roundabout. The taxi fare was $125. So this was not right.
Our reporter then took a taxi back from Ma On Shan to Sai Sah Road in Sai Kung leading to Yung Shue O. The taxi fare was $75. So this was not right either. Our reporter spoke to a security guard and he said that Kei Ling Ha Lo Wai further down has a rocky beach during ebb tide. The walk from the rock beach to Sai Sah Road took about 10 minutes. An injured person would have taken more time.
Later on today, Lam Tsz-kin went with our reporter to try to find the beach where he found himself. Based upon a big rock on the roadside, he believed that the location was opposite Luna House, Tai Mong Tsai road, Sai Kung district. Our reporter deduced that the taxi fare from Luna House to Lam Tsz-kin's housing state is about $95.2, which was about what Lam had claimed.
- (Cable News) Former Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho expressed astonishment at the incident. Ho thought that the contents of the warnings that the other party gave to Lam Tsz-kin was disproportional to the assault. Based upon his experience, this does not appear to be connected to Beijing. In any case, the whole incident is unfathomable to him. However, Ho said that this may been carried out by a "mainland powerful department"? Or it may not be ...
- (RTHK) Previously Lam Tsz-kin had said that the decision to hold the press conference before calling the police was made after conferring with Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee and ex-chairman Albert Ho. Today, Martin Lee said that Lam Tsz-kin sent some photos of his injuries via whatsapp at 330am. Martin Lee saw those photos when he woke up at 630am. Afterwards Lee spoke with Albert Ho. They decided that this must be disclosed to the public, and they decided to hold the press conference first. Lee said that he does not know who is behind this, and he cannot say that it was some "powerful department" or not. He said that Lam Tsz-kin did not have the legal knowledge to preserve the evidence. He said that it was stupid to take a bath and wash the clothes.
- Well, it looks like both Martin Lee and Albert Ho are hedging their bets rather than going all-in.
- Please, will someone explain just what the hell a "mainland powerful department" is?
- Hong Kong people believe that when someone speaks to you in putonghua, then that person must be a "mainland powerful department" agent. Are they gullible? Of course they are. Why else are so many of them victims of telephone fraud?
- Clearly, they are talking about the staple gun which is more powerful than the regular office stapler.
- Weapons of deadly assault
- And what are the other red marks (including holes) on his body?
- Spoof poster based on the hit movie Wolf Warrior starring Wu Jing:
The most vicious weapon of the powerful department- Spoof of 007 James Bond holding a stapler
- (YouTube) Widely circulated now is this video that shows how to staple your body.
- If the "mainland powerful department" agents can rampage at will at this time, then why do you care about the customs/immigration/quarantine co-location at West Kowloon in 2018? What's the difference?
- The "mainland powerful department" agents torture Lam Tsz-kin by stapling crosses on his upper torso and thighs. If they wanted to scare him, then there are much more powerful techniques available to them. For example, waterboarding: Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.
Furthermore, using staples leave clear marks for the torture target to go to the police and tell the press. Even when the police beat the arrestees in the Hong Kong movies, they know never to punch or kick directly. Instead they hold a thick phone book against the arrestee's chest and punch the book. This way, there are no bruises on the arrestee's body.
- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook
Kwaidan~
The staples were so neatly arranged. Did he struggle at the time? Did he resist? Why were they left there for half a day? Did he feel pain?- A cloud of doubts:
1. With his vast experience in resistance, why did Lam Tsz-kin turn into a tamed sheep when kidnapped in the bustling city in the afternoon. The police could not find the suspects in the surveillance videos.2. Lam Tsz-kin had no signs of injuries on his hands which had been tied behind his back.
3. After taking off his clothes to apply the staples, the perpetrators put his pants back on. Wasn't the whole action meant to intimidate/humiliate him?
4. Lam Tsz-kin said that he heard the sound of cicadas while he was held prisoner. It is the fall season already. How there still cicada around?
5. When he woke up on a beach in Sai Kung, he said that it was raining but he could see the moon.
6. He did not lose any money or property. He still had his mobile phone with him. His immediate action was not to use the phone to summon help. Instead he took a taxi home and then he took out his mobile to make calls. He did not call the police immediately. Instead he bathed, washed his clothes and slept.
7. When he saw the taxi, why did he not ask the driver to help him immediately. Instead he had zero exchange with the driver. He did not even ask the driver about the location. He could not remember any details of the taxi which could have been used as evidence.
8. The staples were applied to thighs. He walked for more than ten minutes, he got on the taxi, he arrived home, he took a bathe and then he went to the press conference. Throughout all this, he left the staples in place. This is incomprehensible.
9. Lam Tsz-kin's case coincide with the pan-democrats' anti-Co-location campaign. Even Wan China suspects that this was a staged show.
- Whom does Lam Tsz-kin live with? What did his family think when he came back dripping wet at 2am with staples on his thighs? What, if anything, did he tell them? And what did they say to him?
- Lam Tsz-kin said that his wife and his mother were against going public about his experience.
- (Oriental Daily) August 12, 2017. According to information, when the taxi deposited Lam Tsz-kin at his home, the first thing that he did was to go to a restaurant and eat. Then he went home. Because his clothes were soiled, he soaked and washed them. Lam does not remember when he got off the taxi, so the taxi has not been located yet. At noon today, the police expanded their search area from Portland Street to a section of Nathan Road near Pitt Street plus a section of Waterloo Road. They canvassed the local stores and obtained surveillance videos in this area.
- Ricky Chan Ka-wai's Facebook
(Revised) How many "inexplicables" can you come up with?
1. Inexplicably, the "mainland powerful department" knew that Lam Tsz-kin was trying to contact Liu Xia.
2. Inexplicably, someone believes that Hong Kong Democratic Party member Lam Tsz-kin knows where Liu Xia is.
3. Inexplicably, someone took heavy action over a Lionel Messi autograph that was intended for Liu Xia.
4. Inexplicably, unarmed persons took 200-pound Lam Tsz-kin onto a light van without resistance in bustling Mong Kok.
5. Inexplicably, nobody saw the kidnapping and no surveillance cameras caught it either.
6. Inexplicably, there are no marks on Lam Tsz-kin's hands which were tied behind his back while they assaulted him.
7. Inexplicably, ll the staple marks on Lam's thighs were straight crosses with no sign of struggling or recoiling.
8. Inexplicably, after torturing him until he passed out, the perpetrators pulled Lam's long pants back on. Lam's wallet was left in the long pants.
9. Inexplicably, the "mainland powerful department" agents did not remove Lam's mobile phone.
10. Inexplicably, the "mainland powerful department" did not take away the Messi autograph picture.
11. Inexplicably, Lam walked more than 10 minutes to find a taxi. When he got on the taxi, he did not ask the driver just where they were. He just gave a destination.
12. Inexplicably, Lam did not use his mobile phone to call the police.
13. Inexplicably, Lam did not think about going to a hospital to get the staples removed.
14. Inexplicably, with 20 staples still in his body, he went to eat at a restaurant.
15. Inexplicably, Lam called his Democratic Party elders Martin Lee and Albert Ho and he took pain killers to last until the press conference the next day.
16. Inexplicably, Lam Tsz-kin began to fold his legs during the press conference, putting one thigh on top of the staples on the other thigh. This proves that the staples don't hurt even if you stack your other thigh on top of them. Quickly fellow Democratic Party member Lam Cheuk-ting stopped him (see video).
17. Inexplicably, Lam Tsz-kin's staple marks looked very recent because the very mild redness reflects the presence of reddish iron in the blood that was rushed over in reaction against foreign objects. By comparison, an injury that took place 12 to 24 hours should show mild swelling with the color being blue or purple.- How did Lionel Messi end up in this mess? Here is (EJ Insight) on July 26, 2017.
Football star Lionel Messi is said to have sent an autographed picture in a bid to cheer up Liu Xiaobo when the Chinese rights activist was ailing in a mainland hospital before his death earlier this month.
The Argentine soccer player sent the picture to Howard Lam Tsz-kin, a pro-democracy politician in Hong Kong, hoping that the latter would arrange for the picture to be delivered to Liu, according to a Facebook post Tuesday from Lam.
Lam wrote on the social media platform that he wrote to Messi’s club, FC Barcelona, in early July and sought an autographed picture of the world famous footballer so that it can be forwarded to Liu, who was lodged in a hospital in late June after years in a Chinese prison.
So far nobody is saying that Lionel Messi sent an autographed picture to Liu Xiaobo on his own initiative. Messi probably has no idea who Liu Xiaobo is. What happened was that Lam Tsz-kin knew that Liu Xiaobo was a Messi fan, and an autographed picture of Messi would cheer Liu up. Therefore Lam wrote to Messi's club FC Barcelona and sought an autographed photo of Messi to be sent to Liu Xiaobo c/o Tsz Kin Howard Lam in Hong Kong.
Lionel Messi is the greatest footballer on this planet. His job is to play football, not to engage in politics or even sign autographs. Messi is not going to see Lam's request nor tens of thousands of other similar requests from all over the world. The request is handled by a clerk at FC Barcelona, sending back an autographed picture of Lionel Messi to the addressee. Did Messi sign? You would be naive to think that it was anything other than an autopen. If Messi truly regarded this as a personal project, it would have been a personalized autograph such as "Dear Xiabo, long live freedom and democracy!"
About two weeks ago, Lam Tsz-kin went public on his Facebook with news about Messi's autographed picture sent to Mr. Liu Xiaobo c/o Tsz Kin Howard Lam. Then what? Liu Xiaobo has passed away; he was cremated and his ashes scattered into the sea. There is no way for Lam to send the picture to him. Liu Xiaobo's wife Liu Xia has been out of contact to all persons since then. There is no way for Lam to send the picture to her. So there was nothing that Lam could make out of that autographed picture. That is, until now.
- The reason why Lionel Messi got into this mess is that this was a false flag operation from Real Madrid. This is a sure way to make sure that Lionel Messi and FC Barcelona won't get invited to play the high-paying exhibition games in China.
- Will Lionel Messi be so stupid as to actually come out now to say that he did send the autographed picture on own initiative and thus get himself and FC Barcelona barred from China? Real Madrid would be ecstatic.
- Why are these four or five "mainland powerful department" agents so obsessed about Lam's picture reaching Liu Xia? She has been out of contact for almost a month already. Lam has no means to sending anything to her.
- At Taobao, Lionel Messi's autograph pictures are available for less than HK$100.
- FC Barcelona states on its official Weibo:
FC Barcelona
August 11
Statement: FC Barcelona and Lionel Messi have not sent a Messi autograph to any organization or individual in Hong Kong (China) recently. If any organization or individual wants to use a Messi autograph for hyping, FC Barcelona reserves the right to seek legal redress.- This is a big slap in the face of Lam Tsz-kin, because FC Barcelona (representing Lionel Messi as well) is saying that either the autograph picture is fake or else it was obtained under false pretense.
- (HKG Pao) Assorted Internet comments:
- Why the hell did the "mainland powerful department" agents bother with a nobody? If they have to kidnap and assault someone, wouldn't it be Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, Lee Cheuk-yan, Joseph Zen, Alan Leong, Joshua Wong or the Occupy Central Trio?
- The only explanation is Psychotic Disorder! People with psychotic disorders lose contact with reality and experience a range of extreme symptoms that usually includes: (1) Hallucinations -- hearing or seeing things that are not real, such as voices in the head; (2) Delusions -- believing things that are not true.
- If you sick, you should see a doctor.
- But it is useless just to see the doctor. You must remember to take the medicine that the doctor prescribes to you!
- This is so implausible! You should find another scriptwriter.
- This story is not going to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, because nobody can suspend their disbelief that far.
- Please don't drag Mr. Liu Xiaobo and his wife into this.
- This is a tall tale! The Hong Kong Police must pursue this case all the way until the whole truth is found and revealed to the public!
- There are plenty of surveillance cameras in Mong Kong. The police will get down to the truth.
- Even the Democratic Party's office has quite a few staplers.
- Do they think that this stupid gimmick is going to stop Co-location?
- Medical advice: National Health Services United Kingdom: Tetanus shot
Tetanus bacteria can enter the body through a wound, quickly multiply and release a toxin that affects the nerves, causing symptoms such as muscle stiffness and spasms. The bacteria can get into your body through cuts and scrape, or tears or splits in the skin. Left untreated, the symptoms can get worse over the following hours and days. Visit a doctor immediately, particular if you have a deep wound. If you have tetanus, you will need to be admitted to a hospital intensive care unit, where you may be given tetanus immunoglobulin, antibiotics and medication to relieve muscle stiffness and spasms.
- Three days ago, a Mr. Hui with Central Government connections called Lam Tsz-kin to threaten him over the Lionel Messi autograph picture for Liu Xia. Lam has forwarded the telephone number to the Hong Kong Police. That turned out to be a prepaid phone card, which means that there is no way to trace the owner.
- Next Weekly
China affairs commentator Lam Lap-wo said that this incident may be connected to Xi Jinping trying to consolidate his position before the 19th Chinese Communist Party and to showcase his authoritarian methods. Xi Jinping is the Mao Zedong of the 21st century. In order to establish a tough image and supremacy, he can take any conceivable vicious steps.
Veteran media expert Ching Cheong said that the Lam Tsz-kin affair is connected to the "Four No-matter-what-cost" principles that Xi Jinping announced at the Provincial-level Cadre Leaders Study Class held in Beijing at the end of last month. This includes "taking on the external forces before and after the 19th Chinese Communist Party National Congress no matter what the cost." This shows that the political fighting in mainland China is intensifying, and Xi Jinping will do everything possible to eliminate all factors that threaten the stability of his regime. Ching Cheong also knew that Liu Xiaobo is still influential even though he passed away, and external forces may use Liu Xiaobo to influence mainland China. That is why they went out so hard against Lam Tsz-kin.
- The pan-democrats oppose Co-location in West Kowloon because mainland law enforcement agents may pounce out from their area and snatch dissidents back to mainland China through the High Speed Rail. Previously, their best case is Lam Wing-kee. Unfortunately, that case is flawed -- Lam Wing-kee was not snatched in Hong Kong and taken to mainland China. He was arrested after he crossed into mainland China on his own and arrested for violating mainland Chinese law. Lam Wing-kee does not use himself as the illustrative case. Instead Lam cites Lee Bo's case. But Lee Bo does not say that he was kidnapped by any "mainland powerful department" and taken to mainland China.
Along comes Lam Tsz-kin. Does that prove that we should be afraid of cross-border law enforcement after co-location? I think that the opposite is the case. Right now we don't have co-location. Therefore all these cited cases occur without co-location. So what has co-location got to do with any of this?
- (RTHK) August 12, 2017. Lam Tsz-kin stayed at the hospital overnight and checked out this morning. He said that he is weary mentally and physically and he wants the matter over and done with as quickly as possible. He said that he will not ask for police protection. He said that he will be going to the United States to study at the end of this month. He said that this incident is connected to mainland Chinese politics, but there is no proof. He said that everybody wants to know the truth, but he does not hold out too much hope for the truth to come out.
- Lam Tsz-kin wants the matter over and done with as quickly as possible. Hong Kong Internet users only want to know who applied the staples.
- (Reference) Movies, Films and Flix: The Seven Best Usages of Staples/Staplers in Cinema History The stapler is a very important tool. It keeps paper together, works as a weapon and when an alien is surgically removed from your stomach staples are used to close your belly back up. It is an underrated tool that has played a part in some fantastic cinematic scenes.
- (Reference) Alien abduction. The terms alien abduction or abduction phenomenon describe "subjectively real memories of being taken secretly against one's will by apparently nonhuman entities and subjected to complex physical and psychological procedures". Due to a lack of objective physical evidence, most scientists and mental health professionals dismiss the phenomenon as "deception, suggestibility (fantasy-proneness, hypnotizability, false memory syndrome), personality, sleep paralysis, psychopathology, psychodynamics [and] environmental factors".
- (Oriental Daily) August 12, 2017.
On August 11, Lam Tsz-kin told the police that he purchased football jerseys at the SFALO sports merchandise store on Portland Street between Dundas Street and Hamilton Street. Lam then walked down to Exit A1 of the Yau Ma Ti MTR station at the intersection of Pitt Street and Portland Street. There he was kidnapped by two putonghua-speaking men and taken onto a dark-colored light van. He passed out after being drugged. At noon today, the police were out canvassing the stores around Pitt Street, Nathan Road and Waterloo Road and gathering the surveillance videos in this area. So far the surveillance videos only show Lam Tsz-kin but not the suspects.
On August 12, Lam Tsz-kin changed his testimony to the police to say that he was kidnapped on Nathan Road opposite Sino Centre. This is three blocks north in the opposite direction from SFALO. The two locations are five minutes on foot from each other. So the police will have to canvass this latest area.
- Nathan Road opposite Sino Centre? There are thousands of pedestrians on that section between 4pm and 7pm. How are you going to kidnap someone? Also that section of Nathan Road is a no parking/stopping zone for private vehicles. If you stop a van there, you are going to sit in the bus lane and block a bunch of buses whose drivers will be honking madly.
- (HKG Pao) August 12, 2017. Today Lam Tsz-kin amended the statement on his whereabouts as follows: First, I went to a fast food restaurant on Nathan Road across from Sino Centre to use the restroom. Then I walked until I came near a certain sports jersey store on Hamilton Street.
- Is anyone still keeping tabs of his whereabouts?
- Failing to find any evidence of the incident as described by Lam Tsz-kin, the police have asked him to come down to police station to clarify certain things. Lam said that he has a headache and declined to go. Instead, he went on Facebook to do a live broadcast to explain certain misunderstandings by the police and media.
- (Ming Pao) August 13, 2017. Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu said that the police have done a large amount of work, including reviewing surveillance videos, etc. "So far, there is no indication of the episode as described by the principal." Lee urged that crime victims should report to the police as quickly as possible because this will help the police to gather evidence and arrest the suspects. If injured, the crime victims should seek medical treatment as quickly as possible because the wounds may deteriorate.
Lee was asked whether the incident involves cross-border law enforcement and challenging rule-of-law in Hong Kong. Lee said that law enforcement here is solely for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to carry out. But the police will need more time to find out about the nature of the crime and the backgrounds of the alleged criminals.
- (Ming Pao) August 14, 2017. Lam Tsz-kin found Secretary for Security John Lee's comments to be regrettable. Lee had said that the police were unable to find any evidence. Lam said that the 21 staples are physical evidence enough, and there is also eyewitness testimony (namely, from himself). Therefore it was irresponsible for Lee to suggest that there is no evidence. Lam said that the police should not be commenting on an ongoing investigation.
- The police had to disclose certain details (such as time and location) in order to get information from the public (such as the taxi driver who took Lam home, or the spot where Lam was snatched). If there was a relevant surveillance video already, then the police wouldn't need to go public.
- If Lam Tsz-kin and Lam Cheuk-ting said that it was unfair for John Lee to say that there is no evidence when the investigation is still ongoing, then it is equally unfair for Lam Tsz-kin and Lam Cheuk-ting to go around saying that the kidnapping was carried out by a "mainland powerful department." In both cases, we have not come to any definitive conclusions as yet. The proper thing is for Lam Tsz-kin to speak to the police and provide more details so that the truth can come out.
- (Oriental Daily with video) August 13, 2017. On Facebook, Lam Tsz-kin said that he has not changed his testimony. Rather there are some communication problems among himself, the police and the media. He said that he arrived at the Mong Kok Bank Centre some time between 1pm and 2pm. He walked around the area, including going to some upper-floor football jersey shops. He said that he did not go near the scene of the kidnapping. He said that he used the restroom at the Cafe de Coral fast food restaurant across Sino Centre.
As for what happened after got back from the beach, Lam said that he usually takes two meals a day. After being kidnapped, he felt hungry. So he told the taxi driver to drop him off near a fast food restaurant (McDonald's) where he bought two filet-o-fish burgers. Then he went home.
As soon as he got home, he took off his clothes and sat down on the sofa. He said that his clothes smelt of salt water and a stinky odor and also carried sand particles. After sitting on the sofa for a while, he listened to his wife's advice to wash his clothes and take a bath.
He said that he did not call the police immediately. Instead he thought about Democratic Party founder Martin Lee and Democratic Party ex-chairman Albert Ho because he believed that this was a political incident. He said that he planned to visit a private doctor to remove the staples. His family also opposed reporting to the police and holding a press conference. But Lee and Ho persuaded him to hold a press conference. He said that his family also opposed him disclosing the photos that he sent Lee and Ho.
- Why kind of person is Lam Tsz-kin's wife? Her husband comes home, takes off his clothes, slumps down on the sofa with 21 staples on his thighs. How does she react? Does she insist that he gets immediate medical treatment in case of infection? No. Does she call the police? No. She says "Your clothes stink! You better wash them now because I don't want the house to stink! And you stink too! You better take a bath!"
- I don't understand why his wife didn't order him to see a doctor immediately. If they sleep in the same bed, then he may roll over and prick her with the staples.
- Lam Tsz-kin is now saying that he does not want to turn the incident into a major story. However, it was Martin Lee and Albert Ho who insisted that he did. Meanwhile, Martin Lee said that Lam was stupid in destroying the evidence while Albert Ho is saying that the whole incident is unfathomable. Dogs biting dogs?
- Meanwhile Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai is completely missing in action, because he wants no part of this mess.
- Wu is missing because he is upset at the obvious slight -- the first persons to come to Lam Tsz-kin's mind were ex-chairmen Martin Lee and Albert Ho, and not the current chairman Wu Chi-wai! Wu is going to wait for the participants to implode before riding in to save the day.
- Meanwhile Civic Party chairman Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu is going full blast against cross-border enforcement and co-location. He is insulated against damage here, because he can blame any misinformation on the Democratic Party. And if the Democratic Party gets damaged later, it will the Civic Party's gain.
- If his wife is obsessive-compulsive about cleanliness being next to Godliness, then why would she permit him to crawl into bed with 21 staples still on his thighs?
- Lam's wife and mother are now eyewitnesses in a potential case of filing a false report to the police. They should be invited down to the police station to meet with the major crimes unit detectives to assist in the investigation.
- Lam Tsz-kin said that he was overpowered by a certain "powerful department." This is true, and the "powerful department" is his wife plus his mother. He does whatever they order him to do.
- (Ming Pao) August 14, 2017. On radio today, Lam Tsz-kin said that his mother was very worried about him because her own parents were persecuted by the Chinese Communists. Lam has decided that he will "shut up" about the incident out of consideration for his family after today, and he will no longer participate in party politics.
- (The Standard) August 14, 2017.
A Democratic Party member who claims to have been abducted and tortured by mainland agents has slammed the police, alleging that the force is trying to discredit him through the media.
"I’m very unhappy about the police, they always mention my case to the reporters, that is very unprofessional and make me afraid,” said Howard Lam Tsz-kin (pictured). "Because the police must keep the secret and protect me. But they share something with the reporters, I think this is to try to discredit me and to create some stories,” he added.
On Friday, Lam told the media that he was kidnapped from Mong Kok by some Mandarin-speaking men and tortured over his plan to send a picture of footballer Lionel Messi to Liu Xia, the wife of the late Nobel laureate Liu Xiabao who died last month. Liu Xia has not been seen in public since her husband's funeral.
Lam also hit back at suggestions that he may have mental problems. An editorial in the pro-Beijing Ta Kung Pao newspaper had said he was a manic-depressive who needs help. But Lam said there's nothing wrong with his mental health; he doesn't do drugs or even drink; and he doesn't gamble or owe anyone money.
Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting also said comments on the case by Secretary for Security John Lee are both disappointing and unfair. "I think the comment of Mr Lee is unfair, because he only said that there’s no evidence to prove Mr Howard Lam was kidnapped in the area concerned. But Mr Lee failed to disclose another very important information – that there’s no information or evidence to disprove Mr Lam’s allegation,” he said. The lawmaker also called it ridiculous that some people are questioning whether the alleged abduction took place at all, and whether the Democratic Party had made up the whole affair to undermine the proposed co-located border plan for the Express Rail.
Lam told RTHK’s Janice Wong that this is just a case of a Hong Kong resident being kidnapped and the focus should remain on that.
[774] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/08/07)
(Ming Pao) August 8, 2017.
Ming Pao commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to conduct a telephone survey. 517 persons age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone on July 2-3.
The results showed that 52.7% supported the Co-location proposal from the government, including allocating a certain area inside the West Kowloon High Speed Rail station as mainland Chinese port to enforce mainland laws. 33.9% were opposed.
With the Co-location arrangement, 11.4% said that they have more confidence in One Country Two Systems, 48.2% have the same confidence and 34.8% have less confidence.
Chinese University of Hong Kong Government and Public Administration senior lecturer Ivan Choy Chi-keung said that most citizens are looking at the issue in a pragmatic manner. In order to win over citizens, the pan-democrats cannot just use slogans such as "ceding land." "There is no going back on the already built High Speed Rail. Chanting slogans doesn't mean that there is another viable solution to solve the problems."
(Wen Wei Po) August 7, 2017.
On July 25, Hong Kong Economic Times and Sky Post held an online poll with the subject: "The High Speed Rail co-location proposal has just been disclosed. There will be a mainland post inside the West Kowloon terminus for mainland personnel to enforce the law. Do you support this proposal?"
As of 10:30pm last night, 25,193 persons have voted. Of these 91% said that they support the proposal and 9% opposed.
- The Co-location Concern Group's Leung Kwok-hung said that he would like to organize a campaign to collect 300,000 signature to oppose co-location. That instrument will probably be consist of a single statement: "I demand the government withdraw the co-location proposal and initiate public consultations" and you sign accordingly. Unlike the Hong Kong Economic Times/Sky Post poll, there there won't be options to indicate "Support" or "Do not support" because the risk is more people will support co-location than not.
(Wen Wei Po) August 4, 2017.
The Liberal Party interviewed 1,071 persons by telephone. 71% agreed that co-location is important to the efficiency of High Speed Rail, and 61.6% supported a Shenzhen Bay-like arrangement that will allow mainland law enforcement personnel to carry out immigration, customs, quarantine and law enforcement in a mainland border crossing area.
(Oriental Daily) August 8, 2017.
The Liberal Party interviewed 1,071 persons by telephone in late July and then another 1,262 persons in early August. 43% agreed that the Co-location proposal has negative impact on One Country Two Systems and 43% disagreed. But among those who think that there is negative impact, 35% said that the would accept Co-location. In addition, 59% approved Co-location for the High Speed Rail because it will bring new opportunities to Hong Kong for economic development.
(HKG Pao) August 7, 2017.
Hong Kong Discussion Forum hosted a poll on Co-location. Out of 1,650 who voted so far, 97.2% supported Co-location while 2.8% opposed.
(Wen Wei Po) August 11, 2017.
On Ming Pao, Ng Chi-sum wrote that he was the subject of an automated telephone interview from the DAB. But when he said that he disagreed with Co-location at West Kowloon, the recording said that "there was an error in your response" and the call was terminated. He said that this was not an isolated incident.
DAB legislator Chan Hang-pan checked out the YouTube and found that their surveys do not ask this sort of question, nor could their surveys be terminated on the basis of some "error." Chan does not exclude the possibility that someone is running fake surveys to in order to smear the DAB.
(HK01) August 6, 2017.
The pan-democrats have established a Co-location Concern Group, and they have begun to propagandize on social media and local communities. This surely reminds people of the Anti-National Education campaign five years ago. However, it is unlikely that the anti-Co-location campaign will be as successful.
There are three reasons.
(I) Civic Party executive committee member and New Territories West party vice-chairman Sin Ho-fai manned an anti-Co-location street booth in Tsing Yee district. He said frankly that citizens do not feel that co-location affects their vital interests, and therefore their responses have been somewhat cool. He said that the co-location issue is complicated. Most citizens will require long explanations before they understand the appreciate the technical details. So it will take a lot of cultivation before they can digest the reasons why co-location must be opposed. He said that the major stakeholders are people who travel frequently to/from mainland China. These people tend to believe that Co-location is more convenient, and it will be hard to convert them. So the Co-location will need to find a trigger point so that citizens will know that the Co-location proposal is dangerous.
Civic Party district director Mak Tsz-kin participated as a student in the anti-National Education campaign. Today the pan-democrats are pushing "political viewpoints" against Co-location, emphasizing the damage to One Country Two Systems. Back then during the Anti-National Education campaign, they were able to make citizens feel personally threatened: "Brainwashing will affect the maturation of children, so parents were bound to come out."
(II) According to former Scholarism members, the Co-location campaign cannot match what was happening back then. Scholarism began propagandizing against National Education in 2011. 15-year-old Joshua Wong's interview went viral on the Internet. He also clashed with pro-establishment figures on RTHK Forum. By 2012, more than 100,000 citizens were involved in the campaign. By contrast, the Co-location campaign began with elders such as Alan Leong and Margaret Ng. Once the Co-location Concern Group was formed, the leaders were traditional pan-democratic legislators such as Tanya Chan. The scholar Leung Kai-chi may be a somewhat new face, but he is no match for Joshua Wong.
(III) Scholarism members also think that large-scale mass actions such as the Umbrella movement have created fatigue. In recent years, the social activists and pan-democrats would indiscriminately issue calls for mass mobilization on every single issue, large or small. People have become numb. So if the current issue does not seem to affect people's personal interests, it would be hard to mobilize large numbers of people. When Xi Jinping came to Hong Kong in late June, the League of Social Democrats and Demosisto rushed at the Golden Bauhinia, and they called on citizens to stay with them. In the end, more than a dozen key demonstrators stayed and were detained overnight.
The government's internal assessment is that they hold the upper hand in the public opinion battle over Co-location. Critical voices seem muted. The pan-democrats issue criticisms, but they are unable to produce a substitute proposal that is persuasive, or even just feasible. Informed sources think that as long as the government plays it safe and avoid committing mistakes, it will work in their favor.
Compared to five years ago, the government is now responding on Facebook to the viewpoints of the pan-democrats on Co-location. If the pan-democrats continue in the same mode and attempt to reproduce their success in the Anti-National Education campaign, they may well lose this Co-location public opinion battle.
The Democratic Party will oppose Co-location in the District Councils-
On one hand, North District Council member Chan Wai-tat (Neo Democrats) is actively opposing the High Speed Rail. On the other hand, he is offering a special 5-day trip to Zhangjiajie his constituents on December 23-27. The travelers will reach their destination by taking the High Speed Rail from Shenzhen North station to Hengyang East station. This is yet another case of split personality. How does Chan Wai-tat convince his constituents that the Hong Kong Express Rail Link should be dismantled? Or that co-location will be bad for them compared to what they had to go through this trip in order to get on the High Speed Rail?- (Facebook) Is Co-location good or bad? I rarely touch politics on Facebook. This post isn't about politics; it is about my personal experience.
A large group of about 100 of us went to Chaozhou on July 30, 2017. We live in various parts of Hong Kong, so we allowed for three assembly points. We could meet first at 700am at Prince Edward Station. From there, the group proceeded by bus to the Shenzhen Bay border crossing. The second meeting point is therefore Shenzhen Bay at 800am where some more people joined us. From there, the group took the Shenzhen Metro to Shenzhen North station. The third meeting point is therefore Shenzhen North at 845am. The 100 or so people then took the D-1057 train. But we had to spend more than two hours in Shenzhen North station before we got on the train, because we had to queue up with the rest of the mass of passengers. Ultimately we arrived in Chaozhou at 1315pm.
Now, if Hong Kong has Co-location for the High Speed Train, we could assemble at West Kowloon at 1000am and be in Chaozhou at 1315pm.
Right now, our self-appointed people's representatives are opposing Co-location because they want to wear "Vindicate June 4th" t-shirts or read pornography. Have you ever given a thought to us senior citizens who have contributed so much to Hong Kong? We could use the time to sleep a couple more hours!
- (Ta Kung Pao) August 7, 2017.
Between July 28 and August 2, about 22,000 people board the trains each day at the Shenzhen North station. Of these, about 1,300 are Hongkongers who have to pick up their train tickets at the windows.
Mr. Sun frequently travels to mainland on China. In Hong Kong, if he has sufficient notice, he can obtain the tickets from the China Travel Service 24 hours ahead of time. But he receives an emergency assignment, he will have to pick up his ticket in Shenzhen. The Futian station does not have automatic machines that allow Hongkongers to print their tickets, so he has to get on line and wait for the windows. This is extremely inconvenient, and he has missed the train before because there were too many people on line. With co-location, he will be able to print his ticket on automatic machines in West Kowloon, get cleared by both Hong Kong and mainland China on immigration/customs/quarantine and board directly onto the train.
Mr. Woo works in Panyu even though his family stays in Hong Kong. Previously, he has to travel to the Guangzhou East station to take the direct train to Hong Kong. "Once the High Speed Rail works, I can take it directly from Panyu to Hong Kong." Mr. Woo says that he comes back late at night on Fridays now. The High Speed Rail takes only 48 minutes from Guangzhou South to West Kowloon. Even if he comes back on Saturday morning, he will have ample time to have early tea with his family.
How do you convince Mr. Sun and Mr. Woo that co-location will be bad for them?
The High Speed Rail is going to be more convenient for Mr. Sun and Mr. Woo. There can be no doubt. Mr. Sun travels to mainland China regularly and Mr. Woo even works there. They are not afraid of being arrested by the public security bureau. So you have to give other reasons which will trump convenience.
Are you going to ask them to give up the convenience in order that Claudia Mo don't have to be so anxious about being snatched by mainland agents while having high tea at Elements or people eating dog meat inside the West Kowloon terminal?
Or are you going to tell them that they have to make some personal sacrifices so that the Basic Law won't be destroyed? They may just respond that it is time to change the law in order to make people's lives better.
- (Apple Daily) August 8, 2017.
Legislator Jeremy Tam (Civic Party) personally tested the High Speed Rail going to Guangzhou.
First, he stood in line for 30 minutes at Futian station (Shenzhen) to purchase a train ticket. He was only able to get a second class standing room ticket to Shenzhen North. From there, he took a train to Guangzhou South station. That took 49 minutes. But Guangzhou South is far away from the city centre. So Tam took the Guangzhou Metro to get from Guangzhou South to Guangzhou East. The subway train made 19 stops and took 46 minutes. In total, Tam spent 1 hour 50 minutes to get from Futian to Guangzhou East, not counting the 14 minutes it took to cross from Hong Kong to Shenzhen.
Afterwards, Tam took the "Separate Location" Through Train from Guangzhou East to return to Hong Kong. It took only 1 hour 18 minutes, which was more than half an hour faster than the Co-location-based High Speed Rail.
- Stand 30 minutes in line to get a ticket at Futian? Hasn't he heard of online reservations (12306.cn with alipay) with ticket pick-ups from self-service machines at the station?
- Stand 30 minutes in line to get a ticket at Futian? Weren't they saying that the High Speed Rail is a failed project with no customers? Now you tell me that there is mob scene fighting for tickets? If so, then why can't you let Hongkongers take the High Speed Rail comfortably from West Kowloon? Why must you insist that they trek across the border and fight the mainlanders for tickets and seats?
- According to Travel China Guide, there are direct trains from Futian Station to Guangzhou South with duration times as low as 39 minutes. Why did Jeremy Tam break that trip into two parts (Futian-> Shenzhen North) and (Shenzhen North to Guangzhou South)?
- If your intention is to go from Hong Kong to Guangzhou East, you should be taking either the Through Train from Hung Hom (Kowloon), or the bullet train from Luohu (Shenzhen). There was no reason for all the motions of going from Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau to Futian to Shenzhen North to Guangzhou South to Guangzhou East. You are simply making life complicated for yourself.
- The purpose of the High Speed Rail system is not only for people to go from Hong Kong to Guangzhou. It is for people to reach destinations all over China. Do you want to make them go through the living hell of Futian->Shenzhen North->Guangzhou South as you have clearly demonstrated through your own experience? Or will you let them just take the train directly from West Kowloon with pre-clearance?
- By defining the task as reaching Guangzhou East from Hong Kong, you've rigged it so that the Through Train will win because it goes there directly. This would be like comparing bus service to train service from mainland China to Hong Kong. It takes 45 minutes to get from Luohu to Hung Hom on MTR East rail and 60 minutes by bus from Futian to Kowloon Tong. But if I define the task as reaching Wan Chai, then there is a direct bus but the train traveler will have to switch from East Rail to the Kwun Tong line to the Chai Wan line.
- According to the MTR, the Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train takes about 1 hour 55 minutes. However, Jeremy Tam was able to find one that took only 1 hour 18 minutes. He should teach us that trick!
- (China Train Guide) Clearly Jeremy Tam was referring to the train from Guangzhou East to Shenzhen (mainland China side). The C-trains take about 1 hour 18 minutes.
However the newspaper was written as if he took the Through Train from Guangzhou all the way to Hung Hom (Kowloon).
- Jeremy Tam is a pilot and he plans to show that the government has been lying about how the High Speed Rail is faster than flying. So he is going to fly from Hong Kong to Guangzhou with the media in tow.
- (Ctrip) Cathay Dragon KA 782 (7:55am) takes only 60 minutes to go from Hong Kong to Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport for only HK$ 1,339. (Guangzhou Baiyun Airport) Metro Line 3 takes about 30 minutes to arrive at Guangzhou East Railway station. [Footnote: Do not do this if you are traveling with lots of luggage during 7:30am to 9:00am or 5:00pm to 7:00pm] So Jeremy Tam is counting on a sure win for himself.
Alert-list: Will Jeremy Tam count the travel time to the Hong Kong International Airport, being present at the airport two hours before the flight, any unscheduled delays, the time for baggage claim, the time taken for immigration/clearance/quarantine in Guangzhou and the time to walk to the metro station?
P.S. Is Jeremy Tam going to proceed to the airport and queue up to buy a ticket? Or will he buy a ticket online ahead of time?- Former Legislative Councilor Margaret Ng (Civic Party) said that she could get arrested just by going near the West Kowloon station. Current Legislative Councilor Jeremy Tam (Civic Party) gets on the High Speed Rail to make a critical documentary of High Speed Rail unmolested. Has Tam just demonstrated that Ng is worrying too much?
- (Apple Daily) August 9, 2017. 17 hours after Jeremy Tam posted his video, the Transport and Housing Bureau posted on its own Facebook. They constructed a hypothetical example in which the intended destination is the Park Front station at the intersection of the Beijing Pedestrian Mall and Zhongshan Road. This is historically considered the center of the city of Guangzhou.
On one hand, it takes 48 minutes from West Kowloon to Guanghzou South and another 29 minutes by subway to the destination. Total elapsed time is 77 minutes.
On the other hand, the Through Train takes 117 minutes from Hung Hom to Guangzhou East and another 17 minutes by subway to the destination. Total elapsed time is 134 minutes.
- Hey, this is all old news. (Ming Pao) December 31, 2015. Our reporter crossed into China at Lok Ma Chau. From the Futian port, he took the Shenzhen Metro to Futian and then he walked over to the High Speed Rail station to go to Guangzhou South. The trip took 50 minutes. It would be another 50 minutes to take the Guangzhou Metro to go from Guangzhou South to Guangzhou East covering 19 stops. The total elapsed time is 130 minutes. By comparison, it takes only 72 minutes to go from Shenzhen Railway Station to Guangzhou East; the Through Train from Hung Hom takes only 119 minutes to reach Guangzhou East.
- In Hong Kong, we have the MTR and we have minibuses. Which is faster? Let us stipulate that you want to go from Causeway Bay to Repulse Bay. Option 1: Take the minibus from Causeway Bay to Repulse Bay. Option 2: Take the Island Line MTR from Causeway Bay to Admiralty, transfer to the South Island Line to go to Wong Chuk Hang station. This is as close to Repulse Bay as the MTR gets. Now take the minibus. Of course, Option 1 is faster because this test is rigged for the direct approach from origin to destination. If we change the destination from Repulse Bay to Southern Horizons, then the test would be rigged for Option 2 because the MTR goes there directly.
- The Co-location Concern Group needs to find a spokesperson to deal with the operational aspects. This person should be able to say that he/she has taken trains (High Speed Rail and other services) many many times all over China, and is familiar with the layouts in Futian, Shenzhen North, Guangzhou South and other stations.
This person must not be Tanya Chan, who refused to go on a MTR tour of the West Kowloon station because she needs to see a floor plan first, because no government officials took part and because the MTR did not extend the invitation through the Legislative Council secretariat.
This person must not be Roy Tam, who states that he does not go to mainland China and does not intend to ever go there, but he will continue to write his diatribes against the High Speed Rail based upon surfing the Internet.
This person must not be Jeremy Tam who does not even know how to book a mainland train ticket online.
So where is that person?
- Sorry. If such a person exists, then that person is likely to be pro-Co-location.
(YouTube) Legislator Tanya Chan (Civic Party) gets on radio:
0:01 Tanya Chan: Public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... why not hold public consultation?
0:16 Host: You just emphasized the importance of public opinion, and you want to hold public consultations. I would like to ask: What if the situation arises that more people support Co-location than not, will you revise your thinking?
0:25 Tanya Chan: I feel ... then ... why not ... wait until it happens.
0:34 Executive Council member Cheung Kwok-kwun: You said to wait until it happens. So you have not made an answer at all. I want to know you answer. I am not going to interfere with your decision. If the citizens support ...
0:44 Tanya Chan: I can continue to oppose.
- Even if more than 90% of the public support Co-location, the Co-location Concern Group will continue to oppose. They don't have to follow the opinion of a brainwashed majority, because they know right from wrong.
-
Tanya Chan will blindly oppose Co-location no matter what public opinion is
Tanya Chan: "So what if many people support Co-location? We will continue to oppose it."
Panel 1: Public consultations ... public consultations ... we must hold public consultations.
Panel 2: What if public opinion supports co-location?
Panel 3: If the citizens support it, they support it. But I can continue to oppose.- Mirror images: If the Co-Location Concern Group's Leung Kwok-hung announces their intention to collect three hundred thousand signatures to demand the withdrawal of the Co-location proposal, then you can be sure that Robert Chow's group will collect one million signatures to support the Co-location proposal to nullify the impact. But it is even funnier than that -- if the opposition forms a Co-location Concern Group with 94 organizations, then we have just seen the formation of a pro-Co-location group named the Co-location Concern Alliance with 20 industry/commerce, professional and youth organizations. [Reference: Life of Brian - The People's Front of Judea.]
- The Co-location Concern Group's Facebook, August 28, 2017
The Co-location Concern Group takes aim at the MTR television commercial which they say is misleading with the "High Speed Rail takes 48 minutes to reach Guangzhou" statement. Instead, they say that the 48 minutes only refers to the time from Hong Kong to Guangzhou South station whereas everybody in the world knows that "Guangzhou" means Guangzhou East station.
- Indeed, everybody in the world knows that "Hong Kong" means Central district and not West Kowloon Station. Therefore, the "Hong Kong to Guangzhou" must be accurately described as "Hong Kong Island Central District to Guangzhou East Station." Similarly "Hong Kong to Shanghai" means "Hong Kong Island Central District to The Bund (Shanghai)", "Hong Kong to Beijing" means "Hong Kong Island Central District to Beijing Tiananmen Square." Any deviation would be false advertising punishable by 3 years in prison and $500,000 in fines.
[773] Facts and Figures on Co-location (2017/08/05)
The Express Rail Link's design allows for a frequency of one train every three minutes.
It is estimated that during the first year upon the opening of the line for passenger service, there will be 109,200 passengers per day travelling between Hong Kong and the Mainland by the Express Rail Link. The number includes about 23,100 passengers travelling to Humen and Guangzhou, including business travelers visiting their businesses and attending meetings in the two cities, and passengers who will interchange to the Pearl River Delta area or other major cities in the Mainland.
Patronage Forecast of the Express Rail Link:
Shuttle Service: 90,600 passengers
West Kowloon to Shenzhen: 67,500 passengers
West Kowloon to Guangzhou: 23,100 passengersLong Haul Service: 18,600 passengers
Total: 109,200 passengers
There will be 33 daily pairs of long-haul train to 16 major Mainland cities. There will be an average 15-minute headway to Shenzhen North. There will be an average 30-minute headway to Guangzhou South.
(Headline Daily) (SilentMajorityHK) By Francis Lui.
In 2014, about 600,000 persons traveled between Hong Kong and mainland China every day. The government estimated that at first about one-sixth of them (about 100,000) will use the High Speed Rail. By 2031, this number will increase to 150,000.
The High Speed Rail is more expensive than the regular trains, so their passengers are likely to have higher incomes. Let us suppose that they make HK$100 per hour (or about $20,000 per month).
If there is co-location of immigration/customs/quarantine checkpoints, the High Speed Rail train will proceed to the destination directly with scheduled brief stops in a small number of intermediary cities.
If immigration/customs/quarantine have to be conducted separately in Hong Kong and Futian, then all passengers will have to disembark in Futian with luggage and children, clear mainland immigration/customs/quarantine, search for another train that will be going to their destinations. Based upon my personal experience, this could take as much as one hour.
If 100,000 persons wastes 1 hour that day at $100/hour, the total waste per annum will be (100,000 persons per day) x ($100 per day) x (365 days per year) = $3,650,000,000 (= $3.65 billion).
(Wen Wei Po) August 6, 2017.
Prof Terence Chong Tai-leung is associate professor of Economics and Executive Director of Lau Chor Tak Institute of Global Economics and Finance, Dean of Students of New Asia College and Co-Director of Global Economics and Finance Program, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. On RTHK yesterday, Chong first discussed his personal experience on taking the High Speed Rail: "I taught at Nanjing University for two months. I frequently took the High Speed Rail to meet with friends and students in Shanghai. Nanjing is 300 kilometers away from Shanghai. If I were to drive by car, it would take 3 to 4 hours. But it was only about an hour by High Speed Rail. I can take the train from Nanjing to Shanghai in the morning, have lunch and come back to Nanjing in the afternoon. It is about the same amount of time to go from Sha Tin (Chinese University of Hong Kong campus) to Central in Hong Kong. With the High Speed Rail, one's life circle can be expanded by a lot."
What are the economic benefits of the High Speed Rail? "The biggest benefits are convenience and time-saving. The government report said that co-location can save 39 million hours. How did they come up with this number? If 100,000 persons take the High Speed Rail every day and they save one hour on clearing immigration/customs and transferring trains, they they can save 30 something million hours a year."
In money terms, "If a Hong Kong person makes $20,000 a month, his hourly wage will be about $100. If you multiply 39 million hours by $100 per hour discounted to 70%, you can save $2.7 billion per year and $135 billion over 50 years. The social value of co-location far exceeds the $80 billion cost of the High Speed Rail.
Chong said that if it takes only 50 minutes or so to travel between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, then the entire Pearl River Delta is reachable within one hour. "You can get on the High Speed Rail at noon on Friday and reach Hangzhou or Wuhan at night to spend a weekend there. I believe that after the High Speed Rail begins running, all the south China tour groups will travel by High Speed Rail. If you don't mind sitting longer, you can even go to Beijing or northeastern China. We will be able to experience so many things that were previously unimaginable. It will change the lives of the people of Hong Kong."
(Wen Wei Po) August 6, 2017.
Prof Terence Chong Tai-leung is associate professor of Economics and Executive Director of Lau Chor Tak Institute of Global Economics and Finance, Dean of Students of New Asia College and Co-Director of Global Economics and Finance Program, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. On RTHK today, Chogn said: "If young people thinking housing prices are too expensive in Hong Kong, they should consider buying/renting along the High Speed Rail line. It takes only 14 minutes to go from Kowloon West to Futian; this is faster than going to Sha Tin. Mainland housing prices are cheaper than Hong Kong."
(Strait Times) May 14, 2017.
As property prices spiral upwards in Hong Kong, the race is on to build smaller and smaller homes. Dubbed "nano" flats by the Hong Kong media, these homes are less than 200 sq ft, cost about HK$4 million on average, and are popular with young couples. These small flats have made it possible for young couples to own homes in a central area, such as Wan Chai on Hong Kong Island.
Professor Edward Yiu, an urban studies expert and member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, said that while nano flats affect living standards, imposing rules on flat sizes will mean many people will be unable to own a flat. The downsizing of flats comes amid a continued rise in property prices in the city, which has made it increasingly difficult for young people to own a home.
Frustration over home prices was among the reasons thousands of young people joined the 2014 student-led Occupy movement, which pushed for universal suffrage in electing the city's leader.
Single working professionals like bank executive Josephine Law, 29, welcomed the option of nano flats. If not for these tiny homes, Ms Law, who earns a monthly salary of HK$30,000, said she would have to work for more than 20 years to buy a flat, given rising property prices.
(Numbeo) Price per square meter to buy apartment in Dongguan city centre = 17,176 RMB per square meter = HK$ 2,073 per square ft. So if you have HK$ 4 million on hand, you can buy a 2,000 sq ft apartment in Dongguan instead of a 200 sq ft apartment in Hong Kong. Conversely, if you are satisfied with a 200 sqft apartment, you can buy one for HK$ 400,000 in Dongguan.
- Better yet, if you have HK$4 million on hand, you can buy ten 200 sq ft apartments in Dongguan and wait for prices to soar. Remember that the Humen station is only 33 minutes away from West Kowloon whereas Shatin (Hong Kong) is 25 minutes by MTR to West Kowloon with one transfer at Hung Hom.
Roy Tam's Facebook
If you look at the map, you will realize that the trains to Xiamen, Hangzhou and Shanghai all go through Shenzhen North and then head east.
But at Shenzhen North, the trains from Futian and Hong Kong have to turn around there. According to the published timetables, such trains will have to pause at the station for 16 minutes to effect the turnaround.
Wait! Doesn't the government promise that Co-location will help passengers save about that amount of time? It turns out that the passengers will have to sit on the train and wait?!
Therefore, the long-distance trains to Shanghai-Hangzhou-Xiamen can actually be cleared in Shenzhen North and not necessarily in West Kowloon.
In High Speed Rail timetables, it takes 15 to 20 minutes to turn the train around. So why is it that the timetables for the Hong Kong trains can break the custom?
The most disgusting thing about the government is that they keep talking about how convenient it will be to go to Shanghai, but they won't say that passengers have to wait more than 10 minutes at Shenzhen North ...
Conclusion: There is no difference in the time required for co-location in West Kowloon versus separate clearances in West Kowloon and Shenzhen North for trains going to costal cities such as Shanghai, Hangzhou, Fuzhou, Xiamen and Ningbo.
(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2017.
According to Shenzhen Metro deputy commander Zhao Peng-lin, the 'turnaround' involves only the train driver walking from the front of the train to the back, and then completing safety checks. The passengers are not required to get out of their seats. This process takes just over 10 minutes.
However, if immigration/customs/quarantine inspection takes place, all several hundred passengers will have to get off with all their belongings (luggage, baby carriage, etc), march to the inspection posts and then come back to have their tickets checked and then re-board. While the passengers are off, the trains will be checked for hidden contrabands.
Zhao Peng-lin said that the Shenzhen Futian and Shenzhen North stations were designed to have West Kowloon as the terminus. So their tracks and platforms were not designed to function as a terminus. Until West Kowloon starts to operate, Shenzhen North is temporarily serving as the terminus and therefore trains are required to turn around there. If and when West Kowloon become operational, the Shenzhen stations will only see trains passing through in either direction.
- Here is the route for the Shanghai-Guangzhou High Speed Rail
At this time, the HSR terminates at Guangzhou South and turns around. When West Kowloon opens up, this becomes the Hong Kong-Guangzhou-Shanghai line and the trains will terminate/originate in West Kowloon. There will be no turnaround in Guangzhou South.
- Roy Tam is a lazy bum. He got on the Ctrip website and got a schedule of trains from Shenzhen North to Shanghai. But all the listed trains are D-series bullet trains which run along the coast (Shenzhen North -> Chaoshan -> Xiamen -> Fuzhou -> Wenzhou -> Hangzhou -> Shanghai -> Suzhou -> Nanjing. The slower D-trains take 11 hours to make the trip. If he had looked for trains from Guangzhou South to Shanghai, he would have found the faster G-series High Speed Rail trains which take 7 hours to make the trip using a different route (Changsha -> Nanchang -> Hangzhou -> Shanghai). It just shows that Roy Tam has never actually taken the High Speed Rail.
- Southern Metropolis Daily analysis on how to go from Shenzhen to Shanghai:
Option #1: There are four bullet trains (earliest at 7am and latest at 10:45am) that take about 12 hours to reach Shanghai South station. A second class ticket costs 478.5 RMB and a first class ticket costs 593.5 RMB.
Option #2: Take a train from Shenzhen to Guangzhou South. A second class ticket costs 74.5 RMB. At Guangzhou South, you take the High Speed Train to Shanghai. For example, the G-86 departs at 8am and arrives at 2:50pm. The cost of a second class ticket is 793 RMB and the cost of a first class ticket is 1,302.5 RMB. The G-train takes 6 hours 50 minutes. If you add about one hour for the Shenzhen-Guangzhou journey and transfer process, the total travel time is about 8 hours.
Option #3: There are also Z- and T-series sleeper trains from Shenzhen to Shanghai. For example, the Z116 train takes about 18 hours, and the T102 train takes about 18.5 hours. The prices for the soft sleeper, hard sleeper and hard seat are 638 RMB, 407 RMB and 234 RMB respectively.
If you want to save money, you take the Z-/T- series sleeper train. If you want to save time, you go to Guangzhou to take the G-series High Speed Rail. The D-series bullet train is a compromise solution, which is faster than the Z-/T- trains and cheaper than the G- trains.
(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2017.
An alternate proposal is to have Co-location in Futian (Shenzhen). This means that the passengers will to get off with their belongings (luggage, baby carriage, etc), march to the Hong Kong immigration post, get cleared, march to the mainland immigration/customs/quarantine post, get cleared, return to the platform, have their tickets checked and re-embark.
Consider the situation of traveling from Hong Kong to Beijing.
Suppose a passenger purchases a direct ticket from Hong Kong to Beijing. Due to the uncertainty in the time taken to complete co-location in Futian, the service will have to make a choice between (1) waiting for every single passenger to re-embark before departing or (2) departing on time even though some passengers will be left behind.
If (1), then the service will be subject to widespread criticisms for systemic delays. There are many reasons for passengers not to be there, including (i) the passenger lost his way in his first time around in a huge station building; (ii) the passenger decided not to go to Beijing and has left the station already; (iii) the passenger is held up on some immigration/customs/quarantine problem that needs to be cleared up; etc.
If (1), then the train is delayed and will continue to sit on the track and prevent the ensuing train from coming into the station. The congestion in this one station will eventually be propagated as disruptions across the entire High Speed Rail network.
If (2), then the stranded passengers may be trapped. What if there are no more trains that day to the same destination? Or there are no seats available for the same destination for at least three more days?
- The reputation of the High Speed Rail in China so far is that they are almost always on time. So (2) will happen. What happens to the stranded passengers? Martin Lee, Margaret Ng and Tanya Chan don't give a damn, because the future of the Hong Kong Basic Law is more important.
Suppose a passenger purchases a ticket from Hong Kong to Shenzhen and another ticket from Shenzhen to Beijing. Then the passenger will have to weigh his choice of trains. If the trains are spaced too closely (e.g. 15 minutes apart), then he may miss his connection due to unforeseen circumstances. If the trains are spaced further apart (e.g. 120 minutes), then he is wasting some of that time.
- What do people believe that it takes only 16 minutes to clear co-location in Futian (Shenzhen)? Here are some interviews (YouTube) with some travelers at Shenzhen Bay which employs co-location of immigration/customs/quarantine on the mainland Chinese side.
0:17 It is faster to go through the Shenzhen Bay border crossing. It is faster.
0:22 I used to use the Luohu border crossing. But Shenzhen Bay is more convenient. You just walk straight down.
0:27 It is faster. If you count the time needed to walk, it is faster to cross via Shenzhen Bay.
0:31 This is more convenient by a lot. You go straight ahead. Both sides use e-passages. If you walk straight ahead, you will be done in 5 minutes.
0:37 It is more convenient to cross at Shenzhen Bay. You can get through in 5 to 10 minutes.
0:46 It is more convenient here because of the co-location arrangement.
At Shenzhen Bay, people come and go by car or bus. There is no train service. This means that a bus drops off several dozens of passengers at a time, and they walk through the two checkpoints in a relatively uncrowded situation. When they come out on the other side, they will take the next bus that leaves. They were not booked on a specific seat in a specific bus, unlike the High Speed Rail.
- But don't count on Shenzhen Bay being quiet all the time. (The Nanfang) January 23, 2015.
A record-high 157,600 people passed through the Shenzhen Bay exit-entry port on December 20, the fifth time this year the border crossing has set a new record.
Mainlanders are apparently flooding into Hong Kong because of the Christmas sales, with 94,000 crossing into the special administrative region on Saturday alone. The previous record was set just a week before on December 14 when 147,000 people passed through the checkpoint. So if you want to head to Hong Kong, what time should you go to avoid crowds? Statistics say the only time of the day that didn’t experience a surge of travelers was between 1pm and 3pm. Outside of that, expect huge crowds. With Christmas and the New Year holiday coming up, it might make more sense to stay home.
If co-location of immigration/customs/quarantine checkpoints is to be based in Futian (Shenzhen), then every three minutes a train from Hong Kong is going to deposit several hundred passengers onto the platform. The passengers will take their luggage and proceed from the platform to the hall where the Hong Kong checkpoint is.
Let us say that this takes 2 minutes.
[Running clock = 2 minutes]
The train will be checked to make sure that everybody and everything is off. West Kowloon says that they will have a hundred computer-equipped booths, so let us say that the same number will be available in Futian.
The long haul High Speed Rail train has 16 carriages with 85 passengers per carriage, which adds up to 1,360 passengers if the train is full. For this discussion, we assume that there are only 800 passengers.
Passengers are divided into two categories: (1) Hong Kong residents who will be directed to e-passages which verify their identities with fingerprint-matching technology in about 10 seconds; (2) all other persons will be scrutinized by immigration officers on their passports, visit permits, visas, birth certificates, identity cards, etc, usually in less than a minute.
If you assume that there are 500 Category 1 passengers, then they will take a total of 500 x 10 = 5,000 seconds. If there are 10 e-passages, then they will take 5,000 seconds / 10 = 500 seconds = 8.3 minutes in elapsed time to process all 500 of them. [Mind you, there are only about 10 e-passages at the Hong Kong International Airport, but more e-passages can be installed here.]
If you assume that there are 300 Category 2 passengers who average 2 minutes per person, then they will take a total of 300 x 2 = 600 minutes. If there are 100 booths, then it will take 600 / 100 = 6 minutes in elapsed time to process all 300 of them. [Mind you, there are only about 20 booths at the Hong Kong International Airport and always a long line of passengers waiting to be processed.]
[(SCMP) August 5, 2017. Statistics provided by the Immigration Department showed 13,871 people in the region were denied entry in 2016. Some 11,667 were rejected over a “doubtful purpose of visit”, 2,147 did not have the proper documentation, including visas, and 57 held forged travel documents. These 13,871 people represented 30 per cent of the 53,499 turned away last year in total. The Immigration Department did not provide any country-based breakdown of its figures, except for mainland China, which was the largest source of people refused entry, at 37,959.]
[Running clock = 2 + 8 = 10 minutes]
There are no customs or quarantine inspections on the Hong Kong side.
The passengers will march down the corridor to cross a line demarcating the Hong Kong-mainland China boundary. Because the color-coded empty space before and after the line and the large signs, there can be no doubt that this line separates Hong Kong from mainland China. The distance may be shorter than 100 meters and will take a minute to cover.
[Running clock = 10 + 1 = 11 minutes]
Let us assume that there will be another 100 immigration booths on the mainland side.
Passengers are divided into three categories: (1) mainland Chinese residents will be directed to e-passages which validate their identities with facial recognition technology in a matter of seconds; (2) Hong Kong residents will have separate e-passages which read their Home Visit Permits and validate their identities with facial recognition technology in a matter of seconds; (3) holders of foreign passports who will be scrutinized by immigration officers on their passports, visas, birth certificates, identities, etc in a varying amount of time as the case may be. Some people will be refused entry.
If there are 200 Category 1 passengers, then they will take a total of 200 x 5 = 1,000 seconds. If there are 10 e-passages, then they will take 1,000 / 10 = 100 seconds = 1 minute 40 seconds in elapsed time to process all 200 of them.
If there are 500 Category 2 passengers, then they will take a total of 500 x 10 = 5,000 seconds. If there are 10 e-passages, then they will take 5,000 / 10 = 500 seconds = 8.3 minutes in elapsed time to process all 500 of them.
If there are 100 Category 3 passengers, then they will take a total of 100 x 3 = 300 minutes. If there are 100 booths, then it will take 300 / 100 = 3 minutes in elapsed time to process all 100 of them.
[Running clock = 11 + 3 = 14 minutes]
After the passengers pass through immigration, they go through the mainland Chinese customs/quarantine checkpoint. Most passengers will go through the GREEN "Nothing to declare" door. Some law-abiding passengers go through the RED "Declarations" door. A small number of passengers will be pulled aside for inspection. This either occurs at random or because the passenger matches the profile of a smuggler. These passengers will have to open their luggage for the inspectors and that can take a long time.
So let us most people will take only 1 minute to walk through the customs gate.
[Running clock = 14 + 1 = 15 minutes]
Once the passengers are officially admitted into China, they have to look for the platform for the train that will take them to their destinations. If several hundred people walk to a platform inside the station (which is reported to be the largest underground station in Asia and second largest in the world exceeded only in size by New York City's Grand Central Terminal), form a queue, get their tickets checked, find their carriage, board the train and find their seats, can we say 5 minutes?
[Running clock = 15 + 5 = 20 minutes]
Is all this going to happen inside 16 minutes? I don't think so. Perhaps most people will make it, but some won't. What happens to the latter then? On one hand, wait for them and the whole system is disrupted with the following trains not being able to reach the platform. On the other hand, leave them behind and they are stranded.
- If co-location takes place in West Kowloon, then the passengers arrive separately rather than one thousand at the same time. The passengers control their own timing based upon past experiences and risk-tolerance. Some will prefer to be one hour ahead of time, some will play it tight at 30 minutes ahead of time and so on. There is even a mobile app that gives you approximate waiting times at the various border crossings.
- Legislative Council Paper No. CB(2)1966/16-17(01)
(6) Separate-location arrangement
19. The traditional separate-location arrangement, adopted in the existing Intercity Through Train service between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, allows passengers to undergo clearance procedures of Hong Kong and the Mainland at the point of embarkation and disembarkation respectively.
20. The HKSAR Government and the relevant central authorities had considered the option of separate-location arrangement. However, the biggest problem of the separate-location arrangement is that passengers are limited to disembarking at Mainland stations equipped with control points only. As a matter of fact, not all Mainland high-speed rail stations accessible to Hong Kong could or would provide CIQ facilities: the establishment of control points would involve significant costs with considerable spatial requirements and provision of human resources at the stations. It would neither be practicable nor economical to set up control points in multiple Mainland high-speed rail stations specifically for northbound/southbound passengers departing from/travelling to the WKS.
21. Should control point(s) be established only in one or a few Mainland high-speed rail station(s) near Hong Kong with higher patronage, such station(s) will become “hub station(s)” at which passengers must alight midway for conducting Mainland clearance procedures before continuing their journeys. This would cause great inconvenience to passengers. In such circumstances, the Hong Kong Section of the XRL could no longer offer convenient access to different cities across the country, but merely become an intercity rail shuttle between Hong Kong and “hub station(s)” in the Mainland.
22. The separate-location arrangement would also increase the complexity in railway operation. Should the arrangement be implemented, it would be necessary to implement closed-off management measures both on the trains and platforms of Mainland stations by separating northbound or southbound passengers from those who only travel along the Mainland Section. Otherwise, northbound or southbound passengers might incur criminal liabilities for illegal entry into or departure from the Mainland without having undergone Mainland clearance procedures.
23. If outbound trains from Hong Kong could not take passengers to Mainland high-speed rail stations which do not have CIQ facilities, the separate-location arrangement would limit the number of Mainland cities to which Hong Kong could provide direct access. As a consequence, the patronage of relevant railway lines would be lowered given that passengers’ choice has been constrained. This would drastically reduce the benefits of the XRL. The implementation of the separate-location arrangement is clearly undesirable in terms of passenger experience, transport benefits and financial performance of the railway. Therefore, both the HKSAR Government and the relevant central authorities disagree with the separate-location arrangement.
Roy Tam's Facebook
As everybody knows, I oppose the High Speed Rail and I also opposed the Third Runway.
I am mad as well to watch the government go into turbo mode to push for the High Speed Rail.
A few years ago, the Airport Authority pushed for the Third Runway. We wondered if they are competing against themselves on the High Speed Railway. They said that the High Speed Rail is uncompetitive in terms of going to Beijing or Shanghai, so the Third Runway must be built. The government officials thus supported the Third Runway.
So now they want to push for the High Speed Rail. These same people are coming out to say that it is "quick, nice and convenient to take the High Speed Rail to Beijing and Shanghai!"
Everybody can see that these government officials will promote whatever they are supposed to promote and their so-called analyses are just "ramblings."
Is anything more shameless!!!
Slide for the Airport Authority presentation
Cities for which HSR is faster than airplanes: Shantou, Changsha, Nanning, Xiamen, Wuhan, Nanjing
Cities for which airplanes are faster than HSR: Nanchang, Fuzhou, Zhengzhou, Shanghai, Hangzhou
Cities for which the HSR is uncompetitive: Xian, Kunming, Beijing, Chongqing, Chengdu- Since the Express Rail is not yet running in Hong Kong, let's compare airplane versus train from Guangzhou to Beijing:
According to BeijingChina.Net.cn,
Flight time from Guangzhou to Beijing is 3 hours and a one-way China Southern Airlines discounted economy ticket is 1485 RMB.
According to Seat61,
High Speed Rail time from Guangzhou South to Beijing is 8 hours, and a one-way 2nd class ticket is 862 RMB.
So what does it mean to say some service is "better" than another service. You need to define your metric. If your metric is time, then flying is quicker. If your metric is cost, then the train costs less. You have to trade time against cost according to your preferences for these factors. None of this should be new, because examples abound in all walks of life. For example, consider the case of renting an apartment in which you have to consider floor area versus rent value -- you want the larger unit but it is going to cost more.
- Here is piece of pro-train propaganda: (elektor magazine) May 26, 2017.
The European high speed train network is steadily growing and aiming to become serious competition for aviation. I was curious how these two compare so I did a little research. Long range trips are still obviously much faster by plane, while on relative short trips the train is the transport of choice. It is the mid range trips where things get interesting. A very common route travelled in Europe is Amsterdam - Paris, let's take a closer look.
A new track has been put into use not too long ago, reducing the total travel time from four hours and nine minutes to three hours and eighteen minutes. When flying the skies it becomes a bit more difficult to estimate total traveling time. Let's assume a check-in takes about one hour, a flight thirty minutes and checking out no more than thirty minutes. That leaves us with with two hours. However, since airports are mostly located outside the city centre (they are in Amsterdam and Paris) it is fair to add at least another hour for traveling from and to the airport. These times could differ in practice due to various causes, but the estimates are quite close so I call a draw. Flying will take you three hours.
Next thing to check was the cost for a ticket. These prizes vary depending on when you book, but the train was mostly cheaper at around €55,- for a return ticket. A plane ticket would cost you no more than €90,- including taxes.Last but not least, CO2 emissions. Not surprisingly, the train wins big time here. It produces around 26 kg CO2 per passenger compared to 50 kg pp on the plane. Of course these estimates depend on how well the train and plane are filled and so could vary slightly.
Decisive results I think. Other advantages of traveling by train: cell phones allowed, internet available, more room/comfort, more seats available on shorter notice. So next time you're visiting Paris (or Amsterdam), travel by train!
There are many metrics: time of travel; monetary cost; on-time performance; comfort; convenience; services (telecommunications, food & beverage, entertainment, etc); accident rates; effect of climatic conditions; carbon footprints; infrastructure investment; etc. Pick your metrics and make your assessment. Do not formulate your conclusion first and then look for the metrics to support that conclusion.
(Ta Kung Pao) August 7, 2017.
This reporter set off at 10:30am on August 4 from Kowloon Tong station. She took the MTR East Rail to Lok Ma Chau. More trains travel to Lo Wu than Lok Ma Chau, so she waited seven minutes before the train to Lok Ma Chau came. Although this was not peak time, the train was packed with people. She stood all the way to Sheung Shui, after which she got a seat when the majority of the passengers got off.
When she got to the Lok Ma Chau station, she took the e-passage to exit Hong Kong. In total, the elapsed time was 51 minutes already. She then crossed the 240 meter footbridge to the Futian border post to enter mainland China. Because she had not applied for automated passage, she had to wait for an immigration officer at the booths to process her. Only a few booths were operational at the time. The process took 21 minutes.
In order to reach Shenzhen North station, she had to take the Shenzhen Metro. There are nine metro stops between Futian and Shenzhen North. She queued up in front of the vending machines to purchase a metro ticket. It took her three minutes. Due to the absence of clear signs, it took some time before she found the Longhua line station. She arrived at Shenzhen North station in 34 minutes. From there she walked towards the High Speed Rail hub to mainland. She saw a large crowd walking forward, so she followed them. After 7 minutes, she arrived at the High Speed Rail ticket windows. In total, she had taken 113 minute.
Later the same reporter started again from the Kowloon Tong MTR station. This time, she took the subway to Kowloon Station. The trip took 26 minutes. She walked 5 more minutes to arrive at the future West Kowloon High Speed Rail terminus. In total, she had taken 30 minutes.
Previously, the MTR had arranged for legislative councilors to inspect the West Kowloon station. The time taken from the entrance to the Hong Kong border post through the mainland post to the train platform is 9 minutes. According to the official figures, it takes 23 minutes for the train to get from West Kowloon to Shenzhen North. In total, the time taken from Kowloon Tong to Shenzhen North is 63 minutes, which is almost one hour faster than right now. As the saying goes, "time is money."
(TVB) August 8, 2017.
Legislator Andrew Wan (Democratic Party) proposed that co-location can take place in Futian following the Shenzhen Bay model. Why? Because there would not be any restrictions due to the Hong Kong Basic Law.
Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan said: "You are asking them to dismantle their already constructed facility in order to satisfy Hong Kong's needs. This is an unreasonable demand anywhere in the world. I think Legislator Wan should be more practical and tell us about a proposal that is feasible."
- So far, the pan-democrats have characterized the proposed co-location arrangement in Hong Kong as "suicide," "self-mutilation," "self-castration," "rape", etc. They would rather not experience these things, so they are going to make Shenzhen take over these things. You know, it's all about ME! And fuck YOU!
- If you don't like something that you're stuck with, you don't yell to the world "It sucks!" and then expect this sucker to take it over from you. You should say that "It's really wonderful but I have too many commitments to keep at this time, so I am forced to give it up most reluctantly."
- Procedurally, co-location in Futian means the following:
Go to West Kowloon station and take the High Speed Rail to Futian. It takes all of 14 minutes. All passengers (up to as many as 1,300 plus) get off with their luggage, baby carriages, wheelchairs, etc. They go through the Hong Kong check (built on land leased by Hong Kong from Shenzhen) to clear immigration exit. They walk down a short corridor to the mainland side. They clear immigration/customs/quarantine there. They go to the platforms to find their respective trains.
The time taken to clear immigration/customs/quarantine is uncertain. You cannot say that all the passengers will be cleared in 15 minutes, because some of them may take more time (e.g. torn passports, expired visas, animals, etc). The High Speed Rail train is not going to wait for every single passengers to be seated.
Therefore the best arrangement is to turn the West Kowloon-Futian section into a shuttle ferry service. So a shuttle train will leave every three minutes from West Kowloon to Futian. Passengers will take the next train available, with all trains traveling only to Futian. If you anticipate that you will take some time (e.g. quarantine papers for your dog, etc), you can take an earlier train; if you travel light and have no worries, you can take a later train. After clearing Hong Kong and mainland, passengers will look for the respective trains that bring them to their destinations. In effect, Futian becomes the terminus and Hong Kong is a side trip that is not part of the High Speed Rail network in China.
- In theory, it is possible to take the MTR East Rail to Lok Ma Chau, clear the Hong Kong checkpoint, walk across a footbridge and arrive at the Futian checkpoint. Unfortunately, you must not be deceived into thinking that the Futian Checkpoint is the same as the Futian Railway Station.
(Apple Daily) It takes 45 minutes by foot to walk from the Futian checkpoint to reach the Futian railway station platform. Specifically, you come out of the Futian checkpoint and you take the Shenzhen Metro Line 4 to Civic Centre. You transfer to Shenzhen Metro Line 2 to arrive at the Futian Raiway Station. After getting off the subway, you walk about 10 minutes to reach the ticketing lobby. Then it is another 10 minutes to reach the security screening area. Then it is another 5 minutes to reach the platform. Total elapsed time is 45 minutes.
This means that the West Kowloon-Futian shuttle ferry cannot be dismantled. If it were not there, it would be very hard to take the High Speed Rail from Hong Kong. But if you keep the shuttle ferry running, it will lose a lot of money because none of the speed advantages of a high speed rail train are realized during a 14-minute journey (the train would begin decelerating before it reaches top speed), nor will any High Speed Rail revenues flow to Hong Kong.
[772] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/08/01) (Chinese University of Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies) (721 Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or over were interviewed by telephone between July 13 and 18)
Q1. What do think the demonstration/clashes will become over the next 5 years?
10.2%: More serious
36.9%: About the same
40.4%: More moderate
12.6%: Don't know/hard to sayQ2. Is the conflict between citizens and government serious?
49.1%: Serious
33.3%: So-so
13.6%: Not serious
4.3%: Don't know/hard to sayQ3. Is political dispute serious in Hong Kong?
66.7%: Serious
23.7%: So-so
6.4%: Not serious
3.2%: Don't know/hard to sayQ4. Do you agree that you must insist on peace, reason and non-violence in pressing your demands?
73.4%: Agree
17.1%: So-so
5.8%: Disagree
3.7%: Don't know/hard to sayQ5. Only more violent means will make the government respond to your demands?
15.0%: Agree
22.1%: So-so
59.1%: Disagree
3.9%: Don't know/hard to sayQ6. Do you personally agree that only more violent means will make the government respond to your demands?
6.3%: Agree
21.3%: So-so
66.0%: Disagree
6.4%: Don't know/hard to sayQ7. What should the principle be when it comes to fighting for public interest?
20.7%: Stick to your principle and never back off
69.5%: Both side should take a step back and accommodate each other
2.5%: Neither
7.4%: Don't know/hard to say
[771]
The Train To Busan West Kowloon (2017/07/30)
In order to explain the truth about co-location of ICQ (immigration/customs/quarantine) of the High Speed Rail at West Kowloon, the Hong Kong Democratic Party has made a video using scenes from the South Korean zombie action film <Train To Busan>.
The Democratic Party
What will happen after the grand High Speed Rail begins service?
We will help you imagine this ...Internet comments:
- (Bastille Post) Synopsis:
A father and his daughter go to the West Kowloon station to take the High Speed Rail. He tells her: "It costs $100 billion to build this. It has co-location of immigration/customs/quarantine checkpoints. Mainland China is already in Kowloon."
A weird voice announces: "The train to Beijing is about to depart. Please get on board quickly."
The train departs. A female passenger falls down. The train conductor informs her that she must pay first before she can get help because this is mainland China. Call 999 for emergency service? No, it's 110 in mainland China.
The father gets on the phone and tells a friend to buy numbers 89 and 64 on the stock market. He explained that 8964 is easy to remember. The train conductor overhears, hollers that someone wants to vindicate June 4th and calls for the Public Security Bureau and/or Urban Management Bureau to come and make an arrest.
Next, the train passengers say that they cannot access Facebook. Instead, they can only get on Baidu.
Next the train pulls in a station and stops. The passengers get off. A mob of zombies see them and rush over, screaming "We are the People's Liberation Army", "See if you want to vindicate June 4th," "See if you want to access Google," "See if you want genuine universal suffrage," "See if you want the release of pro-democracy activists", etc. They chomp on the passengers while screaming, "Die, Hongkongers!" and "We'll bite you to death!" Several passengers cross back over the border to Hong Kong but the zombies give chase and yell: "Don't think that you are safe once you cross back because the PLA will not let you go!" "You will be sent to labor correction camp when we catch you." The father flees while saying: "If I knew that this was going to happen, I wouldn't be taking the High Speed Rail!"
The film ends with the little girl standing helplessly in front of a horde of zombies.
- (Wen Wei Po) July 30, 2017.
- There were 81 million crossings by Hong Kong citizens between Hong Kong and mainland China last year, or more than 220,000 per day. These people crossed by airplane, train, boat, bus, car or by foot. Have they all been bitten by zombies and turned rabid too?
- In the real world, the Lok Ma Chau crossing is clogged with people coming and going every day of the year. How many of them were 'bitten' (=arrested) by mainland public security agents? Why is High Speed Rail more dangerous?
- If you have been in mainland China and taken the High Speed Rail, the local subways or even buses, you know that your worries are unfounded. Do you actually believe that there are police spies on every train or bus to watch what citizens are doing all the time?
- In the final analysis, co-location is infinitely more convenient for travelers. Only those who don't take the High Speed Rail or who never go to mainland China will oppose, precisely because it doesn't cause them any personal inconvenience.
- Oh my god, I watched the video and I am really scared. If this is what is going on north of the border, it is a matter of time before the zombies breach the border and invade Hong Kong! What kind of response plan does the Democratic Party have to protect us!?
- They want to oppose co-location but they don't have any good reasons. So they make a spoof based upon a popular movie. How is this going to win people over to their side? Sad!
- What is missing from the Democratic Party in this video? Firstly, they haven't told us about the reasons why we should oppose co-location. To say that we will be bitten and become rabid is cartoonish. Secondly, they haven't told us what we can do to stop it -- such as the WHERE/WHEN for the next mass demonstration led by the Democratic Party.
- You need to convert people into believers of your cause. You also need to arm them with the weapons to win more converts. How can you do this with a cartoonish spoof video? Your believers would be laughed at if they tell others that the whole explanation is in this video.
- There is a co-location arrangement on the mainland side of Shenzhen Bay. Here are some interviews (YouTube) with some travelers.
0:17 It is faster to go through the Shenzhen Bay border crossing. It is faster.
0:22 I used to use the Luohu border crossing. But Shenzhen Bay is more convenient. You just walk straight down.
0:27 It is faster. If you count the time needed to walk, it is faster to cross via Shenzhen Bay.
0:31 This is more convenient by a lot. You go straight ahead. Both sides use e-passages. If you walk straight ahead, you will be done in 5 minutes.
0:37 It is more convenient to cross at Shenzhen Bay. You can get through in 5 to 10 minutes.
0:46 It is more convenient here because of the co-location arrangement.
Q: Are you aware of the High Speed Rail section at West Kowloon? It will have a co-location arrangement. Do you support it?
0:58 I support the co-location arrangement. There is no problem. It is happening here. Actually we should be equal.
1:07 Just like Shenzhen Bay here? It's okay. It think that it will be convenient for everybody.
1:10 What is so good about co-location? It is convenient to cross. There is no need to get on a bus and then get off the bus. You walk straight through two checkpoints in one time.
1:22 Surely co-location is very convenient. Some Hong Kong legislators are trouble and they love to cause trouble.
1:29 They filibuster and they don't pass the bills. It is highly problematic. They are not living to their responsibility to the people of Hong Kong.
1:36 At the very least, our High Speed Rail won't become Wasted Iron.
For these people, none of the scary talk of being snatched by mainland secret agents mean anything. After all, they are going back and forth regularly right now. They are not doing anything unlawful, so why should they be scared?
- (SilentMajorityHK) At first, I thought that somebody must be spoofing the pan-democrats with this vide. But I found out that the Democratic Party actually produced it. This is only going to make them a laughing stock among the hundreds of thousands of people who traveled between Hong Kong and mainland China every day. But at the same time, this shows the shallowness of knowledge of certain people about mainland China.
[770] Mass Demonstrations Against Co-Location In West Kowloon (2017/07/30)
The people of Hong Kong are angry and upset at the Central Government stealing their land. A mobilization call was issued today for a massive demonstration at Government Headquarters against co-location. Here are the media reports:
(Oriental Daily) July 28, 2017.
Several dozen people showed up tonight. According to convener Han Linshan, they are worried that co-location will enable the mainland police to arrest people in Hong Kong. According to Kwai Ching district councilor Chow Wai-fung, the protestors will stay for two nights until Sunday. Ex-legislators Leung Kwok-hung and Lau Siu-lai made appearances too.
(Apple Daily) July 28, 2017.
About 80 citizens answered the call to attend the demonstration.
According to convener ex-legislator Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats), the lives of the people of Hong Kong have been falling behind since the handover as the Hong Kong and Central Governments take away their civil rights bit by bit. He said that the Legislative Council began debate on the High Speed Rail in 2009, but the government kept the details secret until now. After more than $100 billion money was spent on this White Elephant project, the government have finally shown their true faces to have co-location of checkpoints and destroy One Country Two Systems plus Basic Law Article 18. "This is ridiculous. It is unacceptable."
According to the other convener Claudia Mo, it is infuriating to see Hong Kong cede land in order to have co-location. Furthermore, the Hong Kong government is authorized by the National People's Congress Standing Committee to do so. Thus, the decision is above the Basic Law. Even if a judicial review finds differently, the court will be over-ruled. But she says that the people of Hong Kong should not become discouraged. "We have to be responsible to history. We have to be responsible to the next generation."
According to housewife Mrs. So, the High Speed Rail is "useless." "If you live in Kowloon East or Hong Kong Island East, why would you go to West Kowloon to take the train? You would go to Hung Hom to take the MTR Intercity Through Train, or the through bus service. That is faster." Furthermore, the High Speed Rail project has exceeded budget many times, so that the citizens have to foot the bill. "They are swindling the people of Hong Kong and taking money away from the grassroots." Although not many people were present today, she was not disappointed. "Everyone has to do his/her share to fight to the end."
According to convener Kwai Ching district councilor Chow Wai-fung, there were about 200 people at the peak. This was better than the 20-30 that they were expecting.
(HKG Pao) July 28, 2017.
My arithmetic is not very good, but my calculation is that 0.001% of the people of Hong Kong are opposed to co-location of ICQ (immigration/customs/quarantine) checkpoints at West Kowloon. Even the 'authoritative statistic' from Apple Daily was only 60 (later amended to 80 by counting the conveners). The meeting was convened by a grand total of 18 persons, including legislators Claudia Mo and Fernando Cheung, ex-legislator Gary Fan, district councilor Chow Wai-fung and pastor Fung Chi-wood. Considering that the two legislators have about 10 or so aides/advisors each, this is truly pathetic.
- 30 or more people without police approval constitutes an unlawful assembly. This one is at no risk to become unlawful.
- Mrs. So is another one of those critics who have no idea what the High Speed Rail is. The issue is not the quickest way to get to Luohu (Shenzhen) or even Guangzhou. The issue is about integrating Hong Kong into the national High Speed Rail network. I'll leave it for you to figure out how complicated this is right now.
(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2017.
More than 10 people of the Genuine Universal Suffrage Grand Alliance to Save Hong Kong marched from Central to Government House to denounce the co-location proposal for High Speed Rail. They said that this was "ceding territory," violating the Basic Law, destroying the integrity of rule-of-law in Hong Kong and depriving citizens of their rights and protection. They demanded the government to withdraw this proposal.
SocREC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DazmmcBLbNI
(Wen Wei Po) July 30, 2017.
Ko Chi-sum's Facebook: A feast of fools (RTHK reports even on a demonstration march with ten or so people, so they are going to very busy from now on)
Lee Lik-chi's Facebook: 80 people ... ?%#¥€&@
My social gathering has more than 80 people every single night! How come nobody writes about it?? Why?On Friday night, there were only 60 people at the rally near Lennon Wall, Government House. So a daytime demonstration march was organized for Saturday afternoon with the expectation of better attendance when people don't have to work. At 3pm, the ten or so people (including Han Linshan and Claudia Mo) set off accompanied by 10 police officers. The group marched to Government House, whereupon Han read off a declaration and handed the paper to a representative of Government House with the promise that it will be delivered to Chief Executive Carrie Lam.
On Saturday night, about 10 or so people gathered again outside Government House with yellow protest banners. They called on passersby to participate in the so-called People's Assembly, but nobody seemed to care.
(EJ Insight) August 1, 2017.
The government appears to be having a hard time winning over the public a week after it announced the co-location arrangement for the Express Rail Link.
Officials obviously underestimated the public’s anger to its proposal to cede part of the West Kowloon terminus to mainland control, which would allow the central government to enforce national laws on the station platforms and trains.
The government, along with the pro-establishment media, accused the opposition of politicizing the co-location plan and focused instead on the cross-border railway system’s economic benefits to lure public support.
Meanwhile, several civic organizations took to the streets and social media to disseminate the “facts” about the arrangement, which they insist would hurt Hong Kong’s autonomy.
Student activist Yuen Kin-yan said he and his friends set up a counter in Wan Chai on Sunday to tell the public about the dangers of the government’s co-location proposal.
They have come up with small hand bills explaining how the government is misleading the public in the co-location debate.
With just eight people manning the counter, Yuen’s team might not be able to reach a lot of people, but they seem enthusiastic in carrying out their mission, which is to educate the public about the insidious implications of the co-location plan.
An old man came to the counter and told the team: “It’s no use. If shouting slogans work, then the Communist Party should have fallen a long time ago.”
The old man’s words ring true as many Hong Kong people are getting tired of fighting government policies that damage the city’s uniqueness; the government pursues those policies despite the widespread opposition.
But it is important for Hong Kong’s youth to voice out their concerns about issues that affect their city and their future. If Scholarism did not stand up and fight against the patriotic education curriculum, our educational system would be producing an army of uncritical and brainwashed citizens.
Hong Kong people, of course, don’t believe that everything is bad about the Express Rail Link project, but they want their government to be sincere and straightforward about everything about the hugely expensive project.
For example, the government, in promoting the benefits of the cross-border rail express on social media, said it would only take 48 minutes to travel from the West Kowloon terminus to the Guangzhou South station.
This is almost magical in speed, when compared to the travel time by means of airplane, through-train or cross-border bus, which would take from 60 to 210 minutes.
But the 48-minute journey, as the government admits in its social media post, will only happen if the train is “non-stop”.
The post drew more than 200 “angry” emoticons from netizens who accused the government of misleading the public about the journey time.
One netizen pointed out that Guanzhou South is not exactly the city center, which is 17 kilometers away.
Others said flights to Guangzhou are mainly for transit passengers and therefore should not be compared to the travel time using the Express Rail Link.
Some even threatened to file a complaint against the government to the customs department for violating the Trade Description Ordinance.
All in all, the government’s “marketing” campaign has failed to win over critics of the high-speed rail system. And if the government insists on the 48-minute journey pitch, it may soon find itself facing a public relations crisis.
But the government and its allies are keen on stopping all negative comments about the Express Rail Link in a bid to facilitate the public’s acceptance of the co-location arrangement.
Unfortunately, MTR Corp. chairman Frederick Ma poured gasoline on fire when he warned over the weekend that the Express Rail Link could burn HK$80 million a day if there was no co-location arrangement in place when the train service starts commercial operation in September next year.
Ma’s warning only gave an opening for the opposition camp to further attack the project. They said the project had been over the budget and the projected return on investment was as low as 4 percent.
They estimated that the government would be wasting over HK$100 billion on a project with such a low return rate. So that’s where Ma’s warning about wastage came from.
The government is obviously playing the numbers game to convince the public to accept the co-location arrangement, calling it the “fastest link” to Guangzhou South and warning about the loss of HK$80 million a day if there is no such arrangement.
After keeping herself scarce to the media recently, our Chief Executive Carrie Lam joined the co-location debate on Sunday and asked the opposition camp not to “demonize” and politicize the Express Rail Link and the co-location arrangement.
She even said people who do not approve of the arrangement can simply avoid using the service by traveling to the mainland by other means.
Or they may decided not to go to the mainland at all, she added.
The opposition camp should work closely with the civic community to educate the public about the Express Rail Link and co-location arrangement.
In the discussions and debates, they should stress the real impact of the project on Hong Kong, which is the loss of its autonomy to protect its own border under the framework of the Basic Law.
While government is trying to shift the debate to the “numbers game”, the opposition should bring it back to the basic issue, which is the need to preserve the rule of law and protect our city’s uniqueness.
After the massive demonstrations over the weekend, representatives of the People of Hong Kong are now dictating their demands on behalf of the People to the Government:
- (RTHK) August 2, 2017.
On RTHK, Co-Location Concern Group member Leung Kai-chi said that the government must withdraw their proposal on the Co-location Arrangement instead of presenting it to the Legislative Council and the Central Government. He said that the government should be holding an open consultation without any prior assumptions. The Concern Group will be writing a position paper which citizens can support through a signature campaign.
Hong Kong University Students Unions president and Co-location Concern Group founder Wong Ching-tak said that key issue is that the government is ignoring public opinion. He wants to bring citizens together to oppose co-location. He says that citizens should not just pay attention to the technical issues in the High Speed Rail. He said that the universities are against co-location and High Speed Rail as a whole. He understands that the West Kowloon station will be completed soon, but he thinks that the People of Hong Kong can explore what alternatives can the place be used for once they understand what the problems with the High Speed Rail are.
[769] Hong Kong Independence Warriors (2017/07/25)
(Wen Wei Po) July 25, 2017.
The Federation For A Democratic China is hosting the "2017 China-Hong Kong-Taiwan political evolution and Japan's China policy symposium" in Japan on July 23-26, 2027. Various anti-China leaders and radicals in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Canada were invited to participate. The meeting is being held in a resort area in Miura city, Kanagawa Prefecture.
Participants from Hong Kong included Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Youngspiration ex-legislators Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming, Occupy Central core member and hedge fund manager Edward Chin, Hong Kong Association for the Advancement of Feminism founder Ho Chi-kwan, Canada-Hong Kong Link persident Gloria Fung, current affairs commentator Ching Cheong, etc. According to information, this anti-China symposium has the largest number of Hong Kong opposition members in history.
On July 23, Benny Tai delivered the keynote speech. On his PowerPoint slide, he deliberately inserted "and" between "One Country" and "Two Systems" such that One Country refers to Hong Kong which has equal standing with other countries such as China and Japan. He said that in order to study Two Systems, one must know the future of this One Country. He said that since China is going to be fragmented with certainty, "then Hong Kong can only head towards independence irregardless."
Benny Tai said that when China collapses, One Country Two Systems won't exist anymore. When China collapses into fragments, national sovereignty becomes problematic. That is when Hong Kong can become independent. Even after Hong Kong becomes an independent nation, it can still join the Federation of China but as an independent nation.
As for "no change in 50 years" in the Hong Kong Basic Law, Benny Tai said that the collapse of China will occur before 2047. "Hong Kong society should continually educate the public about 'self-rule' through continuous resistance at this time." During the meeting, someone asked Benny Tai whether he is saying that China will not develop positively in the future. Tai said that he personally thinks that there is a low probability of China developing positively, and that is why he has not explored that situation in depth. Tai insists that he does not have a fixed position himself, and he is only bringing up various possibilities for discussion purposes. Nevertheless his various so-called viewpoints all seem to lead to the same conclusion: "China will collapse and Hong Kong will become independent."
On July 24, the Youngspiration duo Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching enumerated a list of persecutions as well as bad conditions in Hong Kong. This seems to contradict Benny Tai's description of Hong Kong as still being relatively free. The audience seemed to find this perplexing. Leung Chung-hang spoke putonghua poorly, and this caused the audience to be even more perplexed.
Video:
(Day 1 Benny Tai Yiu-ting) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtaD2436Ozg
(Day 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JgwHKOPNBU(Day 2 morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xA9UERR7AQ
(Day 2 afternoon) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMVQphlYTFI(Day 3 morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrSOUxAndM
(Day 3 afternoon) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtxNydBQejEInternet comments:
- Benny Tai says that China will collapse with certainty. How certain are we about this modern-day oracle? I remember that Benny Tai said that if 10,000 people came out to occupy Central for two days, the government will surrender. That didn't quite work out, did it?
- Given Benny Tai's public statements, what if some student were to yell: "Don't let Benny Tai leave! Kill him! Kill him!"?
- Hong Kong wants to become an independent nation recognized by the United States and then join the Federation of China? My brain is exploding ...
- What does this symposium matter anyhow? This is just a chance to get together to eat some wagyu beef, sashimi and sushi. None of the talks will lead to anything. Afterwards, they will all come back to Hong Kong to begin another round of solicitation for even more donations to pay for the legal fees.
- Look, Benny Tai is merely listing some hypothetical situations and exploring possible consequences. This is protected under freedom of academic research. It is no different from astrophysicists studying the possibility of a comet hitting Earth. If and when it happens, we will be grateful that someone has given thought to the matter already.
- Look, it is possible that I will win the next Mark 6 lottery first prize. That is why I spend so much time and effort on planning how to spend the winnings ...
- (Oriental Daily) July 25, 2017.
With respect to One Country Two Systems, Benny Tai said that you must study China first because Two Systems don't exist without that One Country. He quoted scholars who discussed the future of China. When China collapses, there are many possibilities, including warlords taking over various regions, fragmentation and anarchy. He said that the chances of China heading towards becoming a federation are low.
As for the future of Hong Kong, Benny Tai said that there are five options: (1) One Country Two Systems; (2) One Country over Two Systems; (3) One Country first, Two Systems next; (4) One Country One System; (5) self-termination/independence. If there are no problems with Chinese national sovereignty, Hong Kong is in no position to gain independence. If China heads towards constitutional rule, Hong Kong may accept it and forego independence.
- The Japanese people have a market for the Collapse of China. This has been running for more than 30 years. Each year, they bet on a China collapse that year. Each year they lose. When they first got started, China's GDP was 1/4 that of Japan. Today, China's GDP is 3 times that of Japan. But they will keep betting on a China collapse. This is like betting on odd/even at the roulette table. You keep betting odd and the outcome keeps being even. But you persist, because you believe that sooner or later you will win once and then you can justify yourself.
- If China collapses and becomes fragmentized, Hong Kong will immediately come under martial law imposed by whoever controls the 200,000 PLA soldiers in the Southern Theater Command with headquarters in Guangzhou. That person will have one brigade of the Second Artillery Corps armed with nuclear-tipped ICBM's. Do not imagine for one moment that Hong Kong can slip through to become independent. If Hong Kong wants to become independent under the circumstances, it better build a few nuclear warheads beforehand.
- Benny Tai points out that it will be a time of chaos if and when China collapses in 2030. We are dependent on China for so many things (food, water, electricity, etc). So we must be prepared for all the contingencies. For example, we will need desalination plants when the Dongjiang River water is cut off. We will also need a 90-day fuel supply for our electricity generation plants when the Daya Nuclear Power Station electricity is cut off. We will need a 30-day food supply before the Seventh Fleet arrive. These are large-scale mega-projects that will require money and space to implement, and the current puppet government will never such projects carry out. So each Hong Kong citizen must contribute his/own share. I for one will go into the neighborhood park tonight and start digging out a basement to store dried noodles. What will you do?
- The conference attendees will be taken to tour a Japanese Self-Defense Force military base on the last day. Will they get to visit a Japanese aircraft carrier that will defend Hong Kong against the Liaoning?
- Current members of the Japanese Self-Defense Force are attending this conference. If there is to be a honest and useful exchange, why didn't someone asked them about their coming war with China? What are the prospects? Can Japan stop the nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles coming at them?
[768] The Battle At The Hong Kong Book Fair (2017/07/24)
DotDotNews Facebook
Chau Sze Tat (nickname "Invincible Godly Horse") and Civic Passion (nickname "Hot Dogs") continued to bite each other, but this time the victim was the Ming Pao Publishing House. At the Hong Kong Book Fair, Chau sang a song to denigrate Civic Passion in the Ming Pao Publishing House stall at the Hong Kong Book Fair to promote his new book. One verse of the song allegedly denigrate the Chinese people. So the "Hot Dogs" lodged complaints against Chau for inflaming hatred between Hongkongers and mainlanders. The Ming Pao Publishing House defended its author Chau Sze Tat, saying that he is restrained in "conduct, speech and action" and no slur was involved. As a result, the "Hot Dogs" directed their wrath against Ming Pao Publishing House for espousing Hong Kong independence.
The battle among the pro-Hong Kong independence factions has been getting more and more extreme. In the song <Popularity chart of sons-of-bitches>, Chau Sze Tat included lyrics such as: "Passion Times is lying when they falsely claim an audience of more than 10,000", "Wan Chin lead his evil minions to harm people; "Hot Dogs" will not be tolerated by the heavens" and then "Once you make enough money, you ignore the 'Chee-na' people." The "Hot Dogs" flooded the Ming Pao Publishing House Facebook and demanded to know whether the Ming Pao Publishing House supports Chau's anti-Chinese stance.
This is quite hilarious since Civic Passion gained fame by fanning hatred of mainlanders, but Chau's words were clearly beyond the pale. The Ming Pao Publishing House administrators responded to the complaints: "Each year, our company hosts events at the Hong Kong Book Fair. The purpose is to provide an environment for different authors to promote their books to readers. We firmly believe that each and every author will act in a restrained manner at our stall, and behave in terms of conduct, speech and acts. There are no issue of any insults.
This drew the ire of the "Hot Dogs" who turned their attention to Ming Pao Publishing House instead. Sam Wrong wrote this complaint: "During the course of the 2017 Hong Kong Book Fair, the Ming Pao Publishing House author Chau Sze Tat used cheap and vulgar methods to use singing and live broadcasts to attack, harass and interfere with other exhibitors in the course of their cultural activities, including sayings that insulted the Chinese. This is extremely immoral, repelling and against business ethics.
Here is the video of Chau Sze Tat singing his song (YouTube).
Internet comments:
- Chau Sze Tat's Facebook
That bitch Chan Sau-wai is the one who insulted the Chinese people. I have nothing to do with it. If my saying "Chee-ma" is twisted into "Chee-na", we have to avoid saying "Sesame Street", "sesame oil", "sesame soup", "sesame oil" etc in the future, because Civic Passion and the bitch Chan Sau-wai will say that you said "Chee-na." I clarify here that I did not any song that insulted the Chinese. That song was clearly intended to make fun of Civic Passion and that bitch Chan Sau-wai. Instead, it is clear that the bitch Chan Sau-wai wanted to insult the Chinese by turning "Chee-ma" into "Chee-na". She was also trying to suppress freedom of publication and kill off dissidence. She will not be tolerated by Heaven and Earth.
- Chau Sze Tat's defense is that he did not sing:
"Once you make enough money, you ignore the 'Chee-na' people (支那人)."
Instead he sang:
"Once you make enough money, you ignore the 'Chee-ma' people (芝麻人)."
But what the hell is a 'Chee-ma' person? Literally, it means a "Sesame Person". What is that? It would be a stretch to say that he meant "Sesame Street character" or "sesame farmers.'
- Chau Sze Tat clearly meant to say 'Chee-na' according to the context of the song. However, this would cause problems with the general public. So he changed the tone a little bit by saying 'Chee-ma' in order to have deniability. If the shit hits the fan, he will issue a non-apology: "I am sorry for you if you misheard and thus misunderstood what I sang."
- Chan Ka-ho's Facebook
There is even a YouTube video for the song <Popularity chart of sons-of-bitches>, with the subtitle saying "Chee-na" ...
- (YouTube) (YouTube) Another battle took place when Chau Sze Tat showed up at the Passion Times stall munching a hot dog as Chan Sau-wai (Mrs. Wong Yeung-tat) came up to curse him out.
- Blue Phoenix's Facebook
Partial transcript:
Chan: Chau Sze Tat is going to get what is coming. I am not you, so you shouldn't worry. I am not afraid of you. I am telling you. I am cursing you to your face right now. I am not like you peole..
Chau: I am only curse you to your face. What are you afraid of?
Chan: I won't use obscene language. Must you use obscene language every other sentence. What have you said other than obscene language?
Chau: Take a look at yourself going berserk, Sister Sau.
Chan: Not the case. I am telling you. What you said is inaccurate. You are smearing.
Chau: It is all about comeuppance. Are you talking about comeuppance? Nobody is around.
Chan: I am telling you. You are here. Is that what you want? You are not having fun. Do you know our numbers? Fools who don't understand will never understand. A Chinese major who doesn't know IT wants to talk IT with people.
Chau: So I am completely wrong, Sister Sau.
Chan: I am telling you! Right now I am cursing you to your face. I am not just coming over to wag my finger! I am telling you! I have the guts to curse you out to your face! If you have the courage, you would have walked over right there! You are filming over here! You are wasting your time! Why don't you go back to Ming Pao? What don't you publish your books using 'red' capital?
Chau: What don't you go back to dig up more dirt to target people!
Chan: Everybody is saying bad things about you. It is a waste of time!
Chau: ... Alright, let us eat hot dogs ...
- As expected, both sides claimed total victories over the other side on their respective Facebooks as reinforced by their respective followers.
- Here is a photo of Chau Sze Tat promoting his new books at the Ming Pao Publishing House stall:
On June 28th, Chau Sze Tat wrote about Xi Jinping's visit to Hong Kong to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover: "There are banners saying 'warmly celebrate' in white letters on red background everywhere. This is vulgar and disgusting just like the black letters on yellow background of Civic Passion." The fact is that Chau Sze Tat's own book has black letters on yellow background, and the Ming Pao Publishing House stall has white letters on red background. But is this vulgar and disgusting?
- How to protest against Civic Passion:
Ronald Leung's Facebook
I recommend a standard action for all those who go to the Hong Kong Book Fair: Eat a hot dog outside the Passion Times stall!How Wong Yeung-tat stopped the protest with a counter protest: Show your support for Passion Times by eating a hot dog outside their stall!
- After reading all this, may I quote Yau Wai-ching as my thought?
- Of course, you should care! This is the state of the current Hong Kong independence/self-determination movement. Instead of fighting to destroy the Chinese Communist Party/People's Liberation Army, the Valiant Warriors of the Hong Kong Republic are turning on each other. We need to unify under a charismatic leader (such as Yau Wai-ching) to lead us in the coming battle between Good and Evil.
[767] The Next Big Battle For Freedom/Democracy (2017/07/22)
(SCMP) July 21, 2017.
Hong Kong is expected to lease space inside the future high-speed rail terminus at West Kowloon to mainland Chinese authorities to implement a plan for a joint immigration checkpoint, under a deal to be announced as early as next week. The proposal will likely see mainland laws enforced on Hong Kong soil within the leased area, where mainland border control facilities will be installed, according to two lawmakers familiar with the arrangement.
Mainland officers would man the facilities and Hong Kong law enforcers would only venture into the area in the case of an emergency such as an accident or fire.
The Executive Council, an advisory body to Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, is scheduled to be briefed on the details on Monday, and the arrangement will be announced as early as the following day after the formal approval of the council is given at its regular meeting.
A bill on setting up a mainland port area inside the rail station is expected to be tabled to Hong Kong’s legislature in October, with the aim of having it passed by early next year.
The bill will provide for the application of mainland laws to the designated area, as well as specify the arrangements that will allow mainland customs and immigration facilities to be co-located with those for Hong Kong at the terminal.
It will be administered as a restricted area according to mainland laws, as is the case at other land border control points between Hong Kong and the mainland.
Article 18 of the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – states that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong except for those “outside the limits of the autonomy of [Hong Kong]”. Article 22 states that offices set up by mainland authorities in Hong Kong and the personnel of these offices shall abide by Hong Kong laws.
The West Kowloon station arrangement will be similar to that for the existing Shenzhen Bay port. Hong Kong and Shenzhen struck a deal in 2007 to implement a joint checkpoint arrangement there – the first of its kind.
Internet comments:
- The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
Article 2
The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.
Article 7
The land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for their management, use and development and for their lease or grant to individuals, legal persons or organizations for use or development. The revenues derived therefrom shall be exclusively at the disposal of the government of the Region.
Article 18
The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region. National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region.
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law.
In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the Region, decides that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People's Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region.
Article 22
No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.If there is a need for departments of the Central Government, or for provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government to set up offices in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, they must obtain the consent of the government of the Region and the approval of the Central People's Government.
All offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region.
Article 118
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall provide an economic and legal environment for encouraging investments, technological progress and the development of new industries.
Article 119
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall formulate appropriate policies to promote and co-ordinate the development of various trades such as manufacturing, commerce, tourism, real estate, transport, public utilities, services, agriculture and fisheries, and pay regard to the protection of the environment.- When it suits their purpose, the opposition cite verse and chapter from the Hong Kong Basic Law to support their position.
When it does not suit their purpose, the opposition set fire to the Hong Kong Basic Law.
Please make up your minds, one way or the other.
- Other examples of customs/immigration controls:
Shenzhen Bay Control Point (Chinese: 深圳灣管制站) is a Hong Kong immigration control point on its border with mainland China. It is housed in the same building with its mainland Chinese counterpart, the Shenzhen Bay Port.
Located geographically in Dongjiaotou, Shekou on the southwestern corner of the city of Shenzhen in the Guangdong Province of mainland China, the Shenzhen Bay Control Point is the only border control point where co-location clearance is practised. The Hong Kong portion of the building and its adjacent open area, together with the northern third of the Western Corridor Bridge, are leased to Hong Kong and made within Hong Kong's jurisdiction for an initial period until 30 June 2047. As such, Hong Kong laws apply, instead of PRC laws.
The co-location of immigration and customs facilities with the mainland counterpart, the Shenzhen Bay Port, allows passengers and vehicles for departure and arrival clearance to take place within a short distance.
The control point is surrounded by mainland China and the closed area without being contiguously attached to another part of Hong Kong, except the bridge. Because it is a leased territory, it is legally part of Guangdong Province and thus not an exclave of Hong Kong. However, it is administered as a part of Hong Kong SAR and the Hong Kong Government exercises full jurisdiction within the area.
- How to take the Eurostar train from Paris to London:
Train service: Eurostar
Departure: Gare du Nord station, Paris, France
Arrival: St Pancras station, London, EnglandCheck-in for the Eurostar is through a special level of Gare du Nord separate from the rest of the station. All Eurostar travelers must pass through both French and British passport control before boarding the train. Then you will need to pass a security screening where your bags are scanned and you walk through a metal detector. Finally you'll arrive in the Eurostar waiting lounge.
After arrival, you’ll make your way towards the atrium area with its gigantic clock on the center of the wall. You’ll descend down a moving walkway towards the customs area where you will pass British customs officers randomly screening passengers.
- Toronto Pearson International Airport Departure Guide
For the majority of U.S. flights, passengers leaving Toronto will go through U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Toronto. This means you arrive in the United States as a domestic passenger.
Checking in for a U.S.-bound Flight
Terminal 1 and Terminal 3
- Check in online or use an airport kiosk. [Proceed to the airline check-in counter if you have to check a bag or require additional assistance.]
- Proceed to the automated bag drop for checked and oversized baggage.
- Proceed to the pre-board security screening area.
- Proceed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection hall
- Head to your gate
- The reason why Hong Kong can lease land for its Shenzhen Bay Control Point in mainland China is that there is no equivalent of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22 in the People's Republic of China constitution. Since Hong Kong has a Basic Law Article 22, there cannot be a co-located mainland checkpoint in Hong Kong.
The United States, the United Kingdom and France do not have the equivalent of the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22 in their respective constitutions either. And that is why they can have co-located customs/immigration control points.
Therefore, in order to defend the Hong Kong Basic Law, we must have separate checkpoints in Hong Kong and mainland China. The future of Freedom, Democracy and A High Degree of Autonomy depends on it.
- (United States Customs and Border Protection)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) air Preclearance operations is the strategic stationing of CBP law enforcement personnel overseas to inspect travelers prior to boarding U.S.-bound flights. Through Preclearance, CBP Officers conduct the same immigration, customs, and agriculture inspections of international air travelers typically performed upon arrival in the United States before departure from foreign airports.
Today, CBP has more than 600 law enforcement officers and agriculture specialists stationed at 15 air Preclearance locations in 6 countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Freeport and Nassau in The Bahamas; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg in Canada. CBP also staffs a Pre-inspection facility for passenger/vehicle ferry traffic to the U.S. in Victoria, Canada.
In Fiscal Year 2016, CBP personnel stationed abroad precleared 18 million travelers, representing over 15 percent of all commercial air travelers to the United States.
- If there is a proposal for United States Customs and Border Protection preclearance in Hong Kong, what would the non-establishment camp say? Will they argue that police brutality in the United States is an urban legend? Or that only a few Okinawan women had been murdered and/or raped by American soldiers?
- (Wikipedia) Law enforcement in the United Kingdom
The Police aux Frontières or PAF (French Border Police), a division of the Police Nationale, is permitted to operate in regard to Eurostar rail services through the Channel Tunnel. This includes on Eurostar trains to London, within the international terminal at St Pancras Station, at Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International railway stations, and at the Cheriton Parc Le Shuttle terminal (alongside French Customs officials). The PAF also operate at Dover Ferry terminals.
This arrangement is reciprocated to the British Transport Police, UK Border Agency, and UK Customs Officers on Paris bound trains and within the terminal at Paris Gare du Nord, Coquelles (Le Shuttle), Gare de Lille-Europe, Bruxelles-Midi/Brussel-Zuid and the Calais, Dunkerque, and Boulogne ferry terminals.[
- (Bastille Post) July 21, 2017.
When the government disclosed that the proposal for joint immigration checkpoint in West Kowloon, the non-establishment camp was ecstatic. Recently, they were upset by the case of the DQ4 but they could not vent their ire by filibustering too much on livelihood issues. So here is a good opportunity.
For most citizens, the key question is convenience of travel. For the non-establishment legislators, the focus is on legal concepts. This is especially true for the Civic Party. Civic Party chairman Alan Leong said on radio that the joint immigration checkpoint will imperil the people of Hong Kong. Civic Party head Alvin Yeung said that mainland China is leading Hong Kong land to establish a beachhead in the manner of the 1898 lease of New Territories to the United Kingdom. Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said that the joint immigration checkpiont is not consistent with Basic Law Article 22, and that if the National People's Congress Standing Committee forces the plan through a State Council order, it would be the same as Hong Kong ceding land to the mainland.
- Roy Tam's Facebook
One way or the other, joint immigration checkpoint will be a violation of the Basic Law.
Whether the land is ceded or leased, it is against Basic Law Article 18 to have mainland laws on Hong Kong land.
Over the years, I have said that the High Speed Rail won't work because the joint immigration checkpoint can't work. The people of Hong Kong have put in $100 billion already, to attract more individual travelers from mainland. The main public security will now even be in the city center (West Kowloon). They won't have to smuggle themselves in anymore ...
There will be more problems such as those listed below:
(1) On the Express Rail inside Hong Kong, a baby is born. Is this a Hongkonger or mainlander?
(2) I yell "Vindicate June 4th" and "End one-party rule" inside a train within Hong Kong border, will I be arrested? (I am on Hong Kong soil)
(3) Hongkongers get into fights with mainlanders on the train on Hong Kong soil. Then what?Anyway, there are lots of problems with the Express Rail Link.
- Duh, here are the answers:
(1) Plenty of babies are delivered on airplanes. What is the nationality of the baby?
“There are several different factors to take into account when a child is born on a flight,” says Vaibhav Tanwar, a senior immigration caseworker at Visa and Migration, an immigration and nationality law specialists.
“Firstly, if the flight is from a country signed to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness agreement, then the child will be a national of where the airplane is registered.
“If the country is not part of the agreement, then the location of the airplane within international airspace will be the child’s nationality. For example, if a child is born with USA airspace they would become an American national. However, if that country doesn’t allow the child born in the country to become a citizen, it will then adopt the nationality of either the mother or father.”
“The same rules apply to babies born on cruise ships. Births tend to be more common at sea, due to the duration of journey.”
The issue is broadly split between two principles - jus sanguinis and jus soli, right of blood and right of soil, respectively. The former means citizenship is determined not by place of birth but by the nationality of the parents, while the latter is the reverse.
(2) I yell "Vindicate June 4th" and "End one-party rule" inside a MTR train on the Hong Kong Island line. Will I be arrested? Yes, if the train was crowded and if the other passengers are upset by your primal screams, you can be arrested for disturbing the peace.
In the case of Roy Tam, he can yell "I want genuine universal suffrage" inside his Hong Kong home and nobody will mind. But if he "occupies" Admiralty and stop all vehicular traffic for 79 days so that he can yell "I want genuine universal suffrage", he will be charged with creating a public nuisance with a maximum sentence of 7 years in jail (or something).
(3) Hongkongers get into fights with mainlanders on the train on Hong Kong soil? They already do plenty of fighting on airplanes:
(ChinaSMACK) December 17, 2014.
At 9am, on Air China Flight CA433 from Chongqing to Hong Kong, a dispute occurred between passengers on-board. The cause involved two female passengers in one row being upset with a child behind them being too noisy, with the passenger in the row behind blaming the front passengers’ seat for affecting them. These several passengers got into a physical fight on the plane over this, with the plane nearly turning back as a result. After arriving in Hong Kong, Hong Kong police immediately intervened to handle the dispute.
Fighting in public is handled by the police at the next stop. If the train was heading to China, the crew will radio ahead and the Chinese public security bureau will be waiting at the next stop. Vice versa if the train was heading to Hong Kong. You would be facing a full-scale riot by all passengers if you insist that the train be turned back to the origin.
- (Bastille Post) July 21, 2017.
I read some newspaper headlines this morning that High Speed Rail will be using a "mobile border" so that mainland law applies as soon as you board the train. This seems quite scary.
First of all, what do we do now if we want to go to Shanghai by train? We take the MTR to Luohu, pass through the Hong Kong and mainland Chinese immigration checkpoints located in the Luohu Customs Building and take the High Speed Rail train to our destination.
The proposal for the High Speed Rail is to have the Hong Kong and mainland Chinese immigration checkpoints co-located in West Kowloon, and the High Speed Rail train will head directly to the destination. At the destination as well as intermediate stops, passengers can disembark and enter the city immediately with no further customs/immigration checks.
In either case, we as passengers choose to go to mainland China by leaving through the Hong Kong immigration checkpoint and entering a mainland Chinese immigration checkpoint. If you are scared of going to mainland China, you should not be going at all. Just stay in Hong Kong, and mainland laws cannot take away your freedom and democracy.
A traveler to mainland China is going to have to go through Hong Kong and mainland Chinese immigration checkpoints. The only difference is whether the checkpoints are located in West Kowloon or Shenzhen. As soon as you arrive in mainland China, mainland laws apply.
Conversely, if you don't co-locate the immigration checkpoints, the traveler will clear Hong Kong immigration control in West Kowloon, get on the train and travel to Shenzhen, disembark with all luggage to go through the mainland immigration/customs checkpoint and re-board the train.
For the traveler, the West Kowloon mainland immigration checkpoint won't take away your freedom. If there are restrictions on your freedom, you should know about them before you set off to mainland China.
At this time, many non-establishment legislators are localists and radical pan-democrats. They and even the large traditional pan-democratic parties are saying that co-location is unacceptable and they will filibuster the relevant legislation.
How about letting the people of Hong Kong decide. Do they want ...?
(1) Have co-located Hong Kong/mainland checkpoints in West Kowloon without further inspection after crossing the border
or
(2) Have only a Hong Kong immigration checkpoint at West Kowloon and then all passengers will be forced to disembark with their luggage to be inspected in Shenzhen first before re-embarking on the journey
This is a simple choice, and I believe that most Hongkongers will choose (1) but the pan-democratic legislators will oppose (1).
Politicians like to turn nothing into something, because this is how they derive existential meaning.
- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook
The direct London-Paris train has a joint immigration checkpoint in London. I have taken the train before. So the French were enforcing French laws on British soil. This has been the case for many years without any problems. Now Hong Kong is a part of China. So why can this be so wrong? The non-establishment camp is looking for make something out of nothing. What do they hope to achieve? Another interpretation of the Basic Law from the National People's Congress Standing Committee? Or make a bundle of money from the legal fees for judicial reviews?
- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook
At this time, it is obvious that some people think that having a joint immigration checkpoint is most convenient for their travels, but other people are afraid that they might lose their freedom and democracy.
So let me propose a solution that will please both sides.
At the West Kowloon Station, there will be two entrances.
Entrance A is for those who prefer to have a joint immigration checkpoint. They will go through the Hong Kong and mainland immigration checkpoints, clear customs and board pre-designated cars on the train (say, front of the train).
Entrance B is for those who prefer to have separate immigration checkpoints. They will go through the Hong Kong immigration checkpoints and board other pre-designated cars on the train (say, back of the train).
The train will make a brief 2-minute stop at Futian station in Shenzhen.
All those in the front of the train will stay on and travel to their respective destinations on the same train.
All those in the back of the train will disembark with their luggage. They will walk to the mainland immigration checkpoint, clear customs and then they head to the waiting room to wait for the next trains that goes to their ultimate destinations.
What happens if a person taking Entrance B forgets to disembark at Futian? When the person arrives at the destination (say, Beijing), he/she will be detained by the public security bureau. Since there is no immigration checkpoint there, he/she will be sent back to Futian for immigration clearance. He/she will pay for his/her own one-way train fare, plus the round-trip fare for the two public security officers who escort him/her.
Thus, the people of Hong Kong will be offered total freedom of choice. If they want freedom and democracy, they can take Entrance B. If they want totalitarianism and Communism, they can take Entrance A.
Of course, they can choose not to go to mainland China altogether, and take their vacations in Taiwan/Japan/South Korea/Thailand.
After one year of testing, the numbers will tell us what the people really want. The body is more honest than the mouth.
- (Ta Kung Pao) July 25, 2017.
Yesterday Apple Daily posted a situation in which they say that a person may be arrested in the carriage of a High Speed Rail train while still in Hong Kong for seditious speech such as commemorating somebody or the other.
This is lousy film script. The carriage of a High Speed Rail train is a public area. It is not a funeral parlor hall in which people can raise banners, carry coffins, pay respects, burn joss sticks, etc. If you see someone doing that in a train, you should be upset and you should be calling the police (whether the mainland public security or the Hong Kong Police).
More importantly, why do you have to do this in a High Speed Rail train of all places. There are plenty of places for you to do so. For example, people hold candlelight vigils for the thousands of students who were murdered by the People's Liberation Army on June 4th 1989. Have the Hong Kong Police ever arrested anyone for doing so?
The reason why you want to hold a commemorative service in a High Speed Rail train carriage is that you want to provoke the mainland security bureau. If you provoke them, you deserve what is coming to you.
The fact is that co-location of immigration checkpoints is inevitable. If you obey mainland laws in those areas where mainland laws (immigration, customs, security) are in effect, nobody will bother you. You have nothing to worry about. Each day, two hundred thousand Hongkongers travel back and forth to mainland China, by airplane, train, bus and boat. How many of them are arrested for no reason?
Claudia Mo: This is ceding land. This is practically ceding land.
Ma Yan-kwok: Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation, so it does not have its own land. The sovereignty and ownership of the land of Hong Kong belong to the People's Republic of China. So Hong Kong cannot be ceding West Kowloon station to mainland China. This is completely wrong. Claudia Mo is speaking as if Hong Kong is an independent nation. Perhaps she wants to advance Hong Kong independence.
Kwok Ka-ki: A joint immigration checkpoint will be a blow to One Country Two Systems.
Ma Yan-kwok: If China wants to take back One Country Two Systems and go with One Country One System, a simple decision by the National People's Congress to get rid of the Basic Law will do it. But China hopes to and has promised to carry out One Country Two Systems. For twenty years after the handover, China has not gotten rid of One Country Two Systems. Instead she is even more determined to do so. There is no worry that Kowloon or Mong Kok will become a place under mainland Chinese rule. This has to do with the High Speed Rail.
Dennis Kwok: Letting mainland officials come to enforce mainland law is setting the precedent for destroying One Country Two Systems.
Ma Yan-kwok: The opposition is best at using the name of democracy to fight against the Chinese Communists. They will resist anything coming from mainland China. Whether it is good or bad. Whether a solution exists or not. They will use various reasons, such as legal arguments, or people's fears to fight the Chinese Communists. West Kowloon is an area where resources are expensive. A lot of time and work has been done there. If you end up an ineffective transportation service, you will have wasted a lot of taxpayers money and let the people of Hong Kong down. I wish the non-establishment camp would stop thinking that their goal is to fight the Chinese Communists, and not think that their voter base come from opposing national development. No matter what you think about mainland China, the developments in mainland China are out there for the world to see. Hong Kong is such a small place. If you want to oppose national development, you will imperil the interests of the citizens of Hong Kong.
- (SpeakoutHK) July 24, 2017.
Civic Party head Alvin Yeung said that "Co-location is the same as ceding land ..."
Ming Pao's editorial said that this is a fake issue. According to Hong Kong Basic Law Article 7:
The land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for their management, use and development and for their lease or grant to individuals, legal persons or organizations for use or development. The revenues derived therefrom shall be exclusively at the disposal of the government of the Region.
As to whether having mainland Chinese personnel in Hong Kong will work, please refer to Basic Law Article 14:
The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for the maintenance of public order in the Region.
Military forces stationed by the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defence shall not interfere in the local affairs of the Region. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief.
In addition to abiding by national laws, members of the garrison shall abide by the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
It has been 20 years since the handover. There is enough experience to say that it works.
- (SCMP) July 25, 2017.
The central government intends to let the local government pass a law and finalise the deal, but will act on its own if that does not work out, according to Tian Feilong, a member of the Chinese Association on Hong Kong and Macau Studies, a semi-official think tank.
“This is to respect the ‘high degree of autonomy’ guaranteed for the people of Hong Kong,” Tian, a Basic Law academic at Beijing’s Beihang University, said. “However, if Hong Kong lawmakers fail to legislate within a reasonable time, the central government will have to take the initiative,” he added. “It will no longer be a model for a land lease, but legal redesignation of land use.”
Tian said there were two options for getting such a redesignation: one was for the National People’s Congress Standing Committee to pass a resolution giving mainland law enforcement agencies power to operate in the station; the other was for the State Council to issue a directive upon the city’s chief executive to that effect.
- (Bastille Post) July 25, 2017.
Secretary Rimsky Yuen said that it was the idea of the Hong Kong government to build the High Speed Rail in Hong Kong, as opposed to an order from the Central Government. The High Speed Rail was not going to pass through Hong Kong to reach some other city, so it does not matter whether the High Speed Rail terminates in Shenzhen or Hong Kong.
At the time of the 1997 handover, Hong Kong as well as China were hit by the Asian financial crisis. According to a Shenzhen deputy mayor, his city was in bad shape and wanted to break out. He came to Hong Kong to observe how the Hong Kong Productivity Council was helping small- and medium-sized technology companies to innovate. He went back to Shenzhen and reproduced the program, but scaled up by a lot more. More than a decade later, Shenzhen is hugely successful. It goes to show that at the time of the handover, Hong Kong was actually more advanced than Guangdong province.
When Tung Chee-hwa became Hong Kong Chief Executive, he proposed to Guangdong to issue multi-trip individual visas for their citizens to visit Hong Kong in order to stimulate tourism and spending. The Guangdong government counter-proposed a Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge to improve logistics into mainland China. This showed that Guangdong province was still largely dependent upon Hong Kong logistics.
The discussions went on for several years. In the end, Guangdong province had a 180 degree change in attitude. They were now no longer interested in a Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organisation, and imports/exports soared. Guangdong province was more interested in developing its own airports and logistics industry. They did not want to hand the business over to Hong Kong by building the bridge.
It was the Central Government which stepped in. In 2003, the Hong Kong economy was devastated by SARS. So the Central Government ordered Guangdong province to issue individual visit permits. In 2007, the agreement was reached to build the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge.
At the time of the handover, mainland China wanted to copy Hong Kong or cooperate with it. Ten years later, they want to do it themselves and have nothing to do with Hong Kong. Cooperating with Hong Kong means that people, materials and capital will flow there. The world has changed by then.
In 2015, Ma Xingrui became Shenzhen city Communist Party secretary. In 2016, the Shenzhen MTR asked for bids, and the Hong Kong MTR was one of the bidders. Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung went to see Ma Xingrui to lobby for the Hong Kong MTR. In the end, the Hong Kong MTR did not get the bid.
If I were Ma Xingrui, I would not award the contract to the Hong Kong MTR. Hong Kong is Shenzhen's competitor. Unless the Central Government favors Hong Kong, it would be best to maintain a distance. Today Ma Xingrui is the governor of Guangdong province.
So from the viewpoint of Shenzhen, it is a good thing if the High Speed Rail service stops in Shenzhen for immigration/customs control. Less business for Hong Kong means more business for Shenzhen.
The world has changed. Hong Kong cannot afford to sit around and wait for business to come. It will have to go to get business. We cannot sit around and debate the co-location of immigration checkpoints. We should be thinking about how to use Hong Kong's High Speed Rail to get more business. That would be much more constructive.
- Oh my God! We are going to have gun-toting outside military/para-military forces in Hong Kong! We're all going to die! Or something ...
- Oh, wait, are you talking about the marines stationed inside the US Consulate on Garden Road? Or are you talking about the People's Liberation Army soldiers in Tamar?
- (Hong Kong Economic Journal) July 27, 2017.
On Tuesday the government finally unveiled details of the arrangement for co-location of customs and immigration facilities at the Hong Kong terminal of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link.
Under the plan, the Hong Kong government will rent out a designated area within the West Kowloon terminal to mainland authorities where they will be allowed to exercise their jurisdiction.
In other words, in the future, once a traveler has passed the mainland immigration counter and set foot in the “Mainland Port Area” inside the terminal, he or she will be considered having entered Chinese soil and be subject to mainland laws.
Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen said the administration will adopt a “3-step” approach to implementing the co-location arrangement: 1. The Hong Kong SAR government will conclude an agreement with the central authorities; 2. The National People’s Congress Standing Committee will scrutinize and approve the agreement, and; 3. The SAR administration will table the bill to Legco.
Secretary Yuen reiterated that there is absolutely no question of “ceding land” to the mainland, and that the co-location arrangement is a bilateral agreement between Hong Kong and the mainland that would create a win-win situation, and that it is not a political order forced upon our city by Beijing.
The idea of leasing a part of Hong Kong’s territory to the mainland indefinitely might sound outrageous or even humiliating to some people, and could make a good rallying point for the pan-democrats to mobilize public opinion against the entire proposal.
However, the truth is, Hong Kong has never been given any unfair shake by Beijing when it comes to territory. People whining about “loss of territory” to the mainland are either being fussy or forgetful.
It is because, compared to the 41 hectares of land ceded by Shenzhen to Hong Kong in order to establish our immigration control areas at the Shenzhen Bay Port 10 years ago as well as another 87 hectares ceded by Shenzhen at the Lok Ma Chau Loop, the tiny indoor area within the West Kowloon terminal which Beijing has “annexed” is just peanuts.
As everyone should know, the controversy surrounding the entire co-location arrangement stems not from any concern about territorial integrity, but rather, the fear that Hong Kong citizens might fall victim to potential abuse of the powers of arrest by mainland law enforcement within the terminal in the future.
Therefore, at the end of the day, what is truly standing in the way of the co-location arrangement is the confidence issue rather than legal or economic concerns.
As expected, the co-location arrangement has immediately drawn intense fire from the pan-democrats, who have strongly criticized the government for compromising “one country, two systems”.
Democratic Party lawmaker James To Kun-sun said the proposal “couldn’t be more ridiculous”, suggesting that the pan-democrats would fight against the bill with all their means.
It is because, on one hand, the lawmaker said, Legco has no constitutional power to pass any law that would allow mainland law enforcement to exercise their jurisdiction within Hong Kong since it constitutes a direct violation of Article 18 of the Basic Law.
And on the other, he said, there are widespread concerns among people that under the co-location arrangement, it is likely that in the future, any Hong Kong citizen who travels by the rail link may run the risk of being arrested and detained by mainland law enforcement either within the West Kowloon terminal or inside the train compartment for actions that would otherwise be deemed totally legal in our city such as chanting the “Charter 08″ drafted by Liu Xiaobo.
As we can see, as far as the government’s “3-step” approach is concerned, the last step, i.e. pushing the bill on co-location through Legco, may prove the hardest, as the opposition will certainly go to great lengths to try to block it.
Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam has admitted that she didn’t expect the task to be easy, and said that all she can do is to try her best to allay public concerns by reasoning with them.
True, the key to the successful implementation of the co-location arrangement is definitely enhancing public confidence in the proposal. In order to do that, the government not only has to go head to head with the pan-democrats in the legislature, it also has to win the public opinion war simultaneously.
- (SCMP) Fuss over joint checkpoint is much ado about nothing. By Alex Lo. July 26, 2017.
Call me naive, but I don’t understand why there is all this fuss over a joint checkpoint at the West Kowloon terminus of the high-speed rail link to Guangzhou. Hong Kong has done something similar before, and so has Macau. This is not to mention many other comparable arrangements exist between countries around the world.
There are three main issues: trust, legality and common sense.
I get it. Many Hong Kong people don’t trust mainland authorities, especially when they are given powers to enforce mainland laws on Hong Kong soil. But, this is what I don’t get. You are boarding an express train to the mainland anyway. If you are afraid of being caught by mainland agents, for whatever reason, maybe you shouldn’t get on the train in the first place.
Secondly, is this so-called co-location legal or constitutional? Well, I am no expert on the Basic Law. But I am glad that Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, the Civic Party legislator, wrote that “the core legal concepts involved in the so-called co-location arrangement just can’t be simpler and ... even a layman who hasn’t gone through any legal training can instantly understand”.
Kwok and his party colleagues, many of them barristers, think co-location breaches the Basic Law. Well, maybe, who knows? But then, Albert Chen Hung-yee, a member of the Basic Law Committee and a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, thinks it’s perfectly workable and legal. Senior counsel Alan Hoo, chairman of the Basic Law Institute, thinks likewise.
Suffice it to say that our legal experts don’t agree among themselves and that their positions depend more on their political backgrounds. Therefore, the constitutionality of co-location is by no means obvious one way or another.
Lastly, common sense. Hong Kong immigration and customs officers have been operating at the Shenzhen Bay Control Point for more than a decade, and no one makes a big deal of it. Why? Because it’s convenient and saves time. If we can do it in Shenzhen, why can’t they do it in Hong Kong?
Since 2013, Macau has effectively expanded its jurisdiction into the mainland when University of Macau students were allowed to attend classes, access uncensored internet, use patacas and be liable to Macau law on its campus on Zhuhai’s Hengqin island.
If two jurisdictions mutually agree on such extraterritorial arrangements to make life easier for their people, I don’t see a reasonable objection.
- (SCMP) Opposition to joint checkpoint is about discrediting Carrie Lam. By Alex Lo. July 27, 2017.
As the opposition tells it, the plan for a joint customs and immigration checkpoint at the West Kowloon terminus of the cross-border, high-speed railway line will be the end of Hong Kong. Or, at the very least, it will spell the end of “one country, two systems” under the Basic Law as we know it.
They are setting it up as the biggest battle for the soul of Hong Kong, yet they will be fighting from a weaker position than they have in years. I am not sure whether this is nobility, or just MAD (mutually assured destruction). If nothing else, they can go a long way towards discrediting the new administration of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who is still on a political honeymoon with the public.
Pan-democratic heavyweights have come out in unison to denounce the plan. Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee has called it “a smokescreen” in order to allow mainland security agents to operate in Hong Kong. Martin Lee Chu-ming said the effect of this so-called co-location arrangement on Hong Kong’s autonomy would be worse than an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. It would mean “the disappearance of the Basic Law”, he said.
Other opposition figures have used even stronger language, such as “auto-castration” and “self-partition”. Essentially, they are setting up the proposed co-location arrangement as an existential crisis for Hong Kong.
Reasonable people may agree or disagree with them. But just how do they plan to win a battle they claim to be so important when they are weaker than ever?
Six opposition lawmakers have been disqualified, and more may face the same fate. The government-friendly camp has therefore gained a super-majority in the functional and geographical constituencies in the legislature. And, instead of fighting the highly unpopular former chief executive Leung Chun-ying, they are facing the far more people-friendly Lam.
But there is logic to their all-out opposition. Instead of arguing for better safeguards and improving the cross-border arrangements, they will portray co-location in the worst possible light. The point is not to make it work, but to use it to discredit Lam.
- (EJ Insight) Express railway puts ‘one country, two systems’ at a crossroads. By Michael Chugani. July 27, 2017.
It took over HK$84 billion and 20 years for Hong Kong to find out in the most painful way yet that “one country, two systems” is a formula full of thorns. Simply described, one country, two systems means Hong Kong is a part of China but retains its colonial-era political and economic systems.
Not even the late Deng Xiaoping, who created one country, two systems in the 1980s, could have imagined that three decades down the road it would become a legal time bomb for something as innocent as a high-speed railway that connects Hong Kong to the rest of the country and vice versa.
On paper, the $84 billion express railway linking Hong Kong to Guangzhou and other key mainland cities is a traveler’s dream. It almost halves traveling time and offers a cheaper and convenient alternative to air travel. But officials on both sides of the border are now finding out that in reality it is a nightmare trapped in a legal black hole as a consequence of one country, two systems.
The legal black hole, of course, lies in having joint immigration control at the express railway’s West Kowloon Terminus. This co-location is intended to provide speed and convenience to travelers, enabling them to complete both Hong Kong and mainland immigration clearances at West Kowloon instead of having to do one part at each end. But such an arrangement necessitates stationing mainland immigration and other law-enforcement officials at West Kowloon.
Outsiders unfamiliar with Hong Kong would likely wonder why this is such a time bomb when Hong Kong is, after all, a part of China. International travelers are used to joint immigration control in Europe and North America.
I have flown from Hong Kong to Vancouver where I cleared both Canadian and US immigration before flying on to Seattle where I had no more need to go through immigration and customs. If even different countries allow joint immigration on each other’s soil, why can’t there be joint immigration in Hong Kong, which is, after all, still Chinese soil?
The answer to that question lies deep in trust rather than legal territory. Former transport and housing secretary Anthony Cheung Bing-leung hit the nail on the head last week. Deep in their hearts, many Hongkongers are uncomfortable with joint immigration at West Kowloon not because they believe it violates the Basic Law but that they fear having mainland law enforcement officials on Hong Kong soil.
This fear in itself is a paradox. Many of the same Hongkongers spooked by mainland officials enforcing mainland law at West Kowloon have no qualms about traveling to the mainland for business or leisure where they would be subject to the full force of mainland law. Every day tens of thousands of Hongkongers cross the border at Lowu and other checkpoints.
At Lowu they are subject to Hong Kong law until they use the e-channel to exit. They have then technically left Hong Kong into a gray area of duty-free shops before going through mainland immigration, after which they have legally entered the mainland. This process does not make them uncomfortable.
So why does having mainland officials at West Kowloon make them uncomfortable? Why can’t they simply treat the parts of the West Kowloon terminus controlled by mainland officials after exiting Hong Kong in the same way as they treat the parts of the Lowu checkpoint controlled by mainland officials after exiting Hong Kong?
It’s a psychological issue. When Hongkongers exit Hong Kong through the e-channels at Lowu they know they have physically entered the mainland. But when they clear the e-channels at West Kowloon they know in their minds they are still physically in Hong Kong. As such, they are psychologically unable to subject themselves to mainland law.
People have asked what would happen if, for example, they wore a June 4 T-shirt at the West Kowloon terminus checkpoint. The root of that question is again psychological. Hongkongers know very well that if they wore a June 4 T-shirt when traveling to Shenzhen from Lowu, nothing would happen right up to the e-channels on the Hong Kong side but they could be refused entry at the mainland checkpoint or arrested after being allowed to enter.
Their treatment would be no different at West Kowloon. People who travel to the mainland at existing checkpoints are sensible enough not to wear June 4 T-shirts. But they just can’t seem to psychologically accept that they must have the same common sense at West Kowloon. They feel that even after technically entering the mainland at the West Kowloon checkpoint they are still physically in Hong Kong and should be subject to local laws.
The proposed co-location at West Kowloon doesn’t bother me because I won’t do something silly such as staging protests after clearing immigration nor would I travel to the mainland either at existing checkpoints or the future West Kowloon checkpoint if I feel officials there have reason to arrest me.
What does bother is internet access after I’ve cleared mainland immigration at West Kowloon.
The mainland’s internet firewall stops me from using Google or Gmail once I cross into Shenzhen at Lowu and other border crossings. I’ve come to accept that as a price I must pay for traveling to the mainland. But I would find it not only unacceptable but also ominous for mainland authorities to extend their internet firewall to the parts of the West Kowloon terminus under their control. Also, if they did extend the firewall, how would they ensure it doesn’t spill into the parts under Hong Kong control?
The opposition has said it finds the co-location proposal unacceptable but has not suggested an alternative. It has a duty to propose an equally convenient and speedy border checkpoint plan if it intends to oppose the government’s proposal.
If it tries to derail the government’s plan but doesn’t offer a better one, the $84billion express railway would become half a white elephant.
- You want a better solution from the pan-democrats? Their standard riposte is: "We are the opposition. We are not here to propose solutions. It is the job of the government to make proposals and our job to shoot them down."
- Some alternate solutions from the brilliant minds:
(1) Clearance on board the train between West Kowloon and Futian (Shenzhen) (even though this is still within Hong Kong territory):
(SCMP) July 27, 2017. The government said the journey time between the terminus and the first mainland station in Futian would be only around 14 minutes, meaning that on-board clearance was not feasible.
(Express Rail Link) Expected daily number of passengers (109,200 total, being 67,500 to Shenzhen, 23,100 to Guangzhou and 18,600 on long-haul service).
The Express Rail Link will run one train every three minutes. There will be a train to Shenzhen every 15 minutes, and a train to Guangzhou every 30 minutes.
If the Express Rail Link runs 18 hours a day (6am-12m), there will be 4 x 18 = 72 Shenzhen trains a day with an average 65,700 / 72 = 912 passengers per train. The travel time is 14 minutes. If a Chinese mainland immigration/customs inspector takes 3 minutes to inspect each passenger (entering the mainland ID/Hong Kong home return permit/foreign passport information for checking (e.g. expired ID's, INTERPOL warrants?) and randomly opening baggage for inspection), then each inspector can handle 5 cases during the 14 minutes. If there are 912 passengers in total, then 912 / 5 = 182 inspectors will be needed on the average to complete the process on time.
In any case, this arrangement will set the Guinness World Record for the most number of immigration/customs inspectors on a train.
Since the inspectors are working, they will be standing and clogging in the aisles. Without that 10 feet yellow line, your answers to the inspector's questions (e.g. Is this your wife? What is this pack of rhinoceros horn powder?) will be heard by everyone around you. Some of you will be randomly asked to open your suitcases for inspection, so don't bring your sex toys with you.
- Legislative Council Paper No. CB(2)1966/16-17(01)
(5) “On-board clearance”
17. The HKSARG and the relevant central authorities had also considered the proposal of “on-board clearance” (under which Mainland personnel would conduct clearance procedures for passengers when the trains are travelling in the Mainland). However, this is found not feasible as clearance procedures are not limited to observing and questioning passengers; it might also involve checking of passengers’ belongings when necessary. The limited space in train compartments would not be able to meet these operational needs, and there would also be constraints in terms of the manpower and facilities involved.
18. Further, the journey time between the WKS and the first station in the Mainland (Futian Station) is only around 14 minutes, and that between the HKSAR/Shenzhen boundary and Futian Station would be even shorter, at about three minutes. The current XRL trains acquired by the HKSARG through the MTRCL for short-haul service provide 579 seats each. In the circumstances, it would not be operationally feasible to complete clearance procedures for all passengers on the train within such a short period of time.
(2) Clearance on board the train after crossing the Shenzhen border:
For those who get off at Shenzhen, they will go through the mainland Chinese immigration/customs checkpoints the same way as they do right now at the other border crossings (Luohu, Huanggang, Lok Ma Chau, Shenzhen Bay, etc).
For those who are traveling non-stop to Guangzhou, the travel time to Guangzhou South Railway Station is 48 minutes. There will be 2 x 18 = 36 trains a day with an average of 23,100 / 36 = 641 passengers per train. During the 48 minutes, an immigration/customs inspector can process 16 passengers. So only 641 / 16 = 40 inspectors will be needed on the train on the average. More will be needed during peak hours.
There are local High Speed Rail trains to points (such as Humen) between Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Those trains will require more inspectors accordingly. It is only 9 minutes to Shenzhen North station, so that each inspector can only process 3 passengers. That train will have to carry 641 / 3 = 214 inspectors who will go into action as soon as the train crosses the Shenzhen border (but not one second sooner).
For those who are traveling to points beyond Guangzhou, the travel time will be longer and therefore fewer immigration/customs inspectors will be required.
(3) Clearance after disembarking the train at the final destination:
For example, the train to Beijing makes stops at 16 intermediary cities. Each and every of these cities will have to host its own immigration/customs checkpoints for passengers on the trains from Hong Kong. Every time that the High Speed Rail expands to a new mainland Chinese city, that city must have its own immigration/customs checkpoint. There may be only one train from Hong Kong a day stopping at Shijiazhuang, but they will still have to have an immigration/customs/quarantine checkpoint. The future of the Hong Kong Basic Law depends on it, thus spake Martin Lee and Margaret Ng.
Also, if the train from Hong Kong makes many stops along the way and passengers get off, then can they sell those seats to mainland Chinese who want to get on at those stops?
If the seats can be sold, then the new passengers will have to clear immigration/customs/quarantine when the disembark because there is no way to tell between those who boarded in Hong Kong and those who boarded somewhere along the way. You cannot just look at the passengers' train tickets and let mainland travelers bypass the checkpoint because this would be a security hole for smuggling. For example, you bring in five kilograms of heroin from Hong Kong and you hand it to your confederate who gets on the same train somewhere along the way. You will be checked but you are clean. Your confederate won't be checked even though he is dirty. So everyone on the train from Hong Kong will have to go through immigration/customs/quarantine.
And then it gets complicated: if you go from Hong Kong into China, you are entitled to bring 1,500 ml of alcoholic drinks and 400 individual cigarettes. But if you are a mainland Chinese resident, there are no restrictions on the amount of alcohol and cigarettes. So the customs inspector must be careful. But if no mainland passengers are allowed to board the train along the way, there will be many empty seats and therefore uneconomical. Thus that's okay, because the future of the Hong Kong Basic Law depends on it, thus spake Martin Lee and Margaret Ng.
The alternative is this: All trains from Hong Kong travel non-stop to their ultimate destinations (Beijing, Shanghai, etc). Trains to Hong Kong will stop at intermediary stations. So if you want to go from Hong Kong to Shijiazhuang, you take the train from Hong Kong to Beijing. Once there, you clear immigration/customs and then you take the train to Hong Kong back stopping at Shijiazhuang. It is a waste of your time and money, but the future of the Hong Kong Basic Law depends on it, thus spake Martin Lee and Margaret Ng.
(4) Restricting mainland personnel to enforcing only the regulations related to Customs, Immigration and Quarantine.
So someone robs a bank and shots a police officer and a pregnant woman dead in the process. He is a wanted fugitive all over China. He puts a false beard and boards the High Speed Rail train to Hong Kong using a fake ID. There are no checks until he reaches West Kowloon station. At the mainland immigration checkpoint, he is detected. But he cannot be arrested, for such an arrest is beyond the scope of Customs, Immigration and Quarantine. Instead our fugitive will immediately apply for habeas corpus from a Hong Kong court and seek a judicial review against being handed over to the mainland authorities. Such cases take a long time to wind through the Hong Kong courts, so the person will be allowed to post bail and stay in Hong Kong. Maybe that is rule-of-law but this is not serving justice.
The correct thing to do is to let him go to the Hong Kong checkpoint and extradite him back to mainland China. But there is no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland. In the past, mainland China has sent hundreds of wanted fugitives back to Hong Kong, including robbers, murderers, etc. But Hong Kong has never sent any wanted fugitives back to mainland China. Yes, the number is zero. Hong Kong will become a magnet for criminals, terrorists, economic refugees, etc from mainland China.
So an agreement should be reached on extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China first. Good luck on that! This issue is even more politically sensitive than the co-location arrangement for the High Speed Rail.
- (HKG Pao) At 8:00pm on July 24 2017, Apple Daily published an article about mainland security being allowed to carry guns in the High Speed Rail station for security purposes. At 11:30pm, HKG Pao published an article to call for people to vote on co-location of immigration checkpoints. After 12 hours, Apple Daily has 1,845 votes with 1,394 being ANGRY. After 12 hours, HKG Pao has 3,512 votes with 3,466 LIKE's.
- The King of Judicial Reviews Kwok Cheuk-kin has filed a judicial review for the court to issue an injunction to ban Chief Executive Carrie Lam/Executive Council from allowing mainland Chinese public security agents to enforce mainland Chinese laws inside the West Kowloon High Speed Rail terminal. Kwok said that if the mainland public security agents can make arrests in West Kowloon, then they can do the same in Central district because "Hong Kong is part of China." Therefore Kwok demands a judicial review in order to find that this is against the Hong Kong Basic Law.
- Calling the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital! One of your patients has escaped ...
- (HKG Pao) July 29, 2017.
Here is a summary of the comments by celebrity pan-democrats:
Alvin Yeung: Co-location cannot possibly be acceptable under the Basic Law
Tanya Chan: Co-location is the same as 'self-castration'
Jeremy Tam: The High Speed Rail and Co-location: If the first one is dirty, then adding a second one makes it just as dirty
Dennis Kwok: Co-location sets up a dangerous precedent
Kwok Ka-ki: Co-location is a huge blow against One Country Two Systems and the Basic Law
Alan Leong: Ceding land for co-location puts the people of Hong Kong in danger
Claudia Mo: Co-location is an arrangement to cede land (to China)
Eddie Chu Hoi Dick: I would rather not have co-location
Benny Tai: Co-location can be said to be the end of rule-of-law in Hong Kong
Martin Lee: If there should be another Occupy Central, the mainland authorities can ask to lease the Occupy areas in Hong Kong and enforce mainland laws there to clear the sites.
James To: Co-location costs Hong Kong to lose self-rule, thus contravening One Country Two Systems and the Basic Law ...
Charles Mok: As I reviewed the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people, I am thinking of the Communists ...
- Johannes Chan: The Basic Law does not say that Hong Kong can lease land to mainland China, so this is cannot be allowed
- Another round (HKG Pao)
Claudia Mo: If someone trades, mistreats or abandons animals inside the mainland section of West Kowloon, it would be legal under mainland law but absolutely intolerable in a civilized society such as Hong Kong
Kwok Ka-ki: Co-location is a Trojan horse
Dennis Kwok: Co-location is even scarier than Article 23
Alvin Yeung: Co-location is self-castration
Eddie Chu Hoi Dick: The government is using "convenience" as the excuse to make the idea of a Hong Kong border lose its meaning
Lam Cheuk-ting: Co-location will turn the Basic Law into a useless piece of paper
Tanya Chan: The High Speed Rail arrangement is ceding land
Jeremy Tam: Praise the emperor! The Central Government is doing everything to erode rule-of-law in Hong Kong. We must hail "Long Live the Emperor" three times!
- (HK01) Why is the response thus far from the pan-democrats so lame?
(1) The issue involves some subtle and complicated legal concepts. "Our slogan is that the High Speed Rail is ceding Hong Kong territory for the co-location and destroying the Basic Law.' But how is this supposed to destroy the Basic Law? We call the press conference 10 minutes after the government announced its proposal, and it was hard for us to give a clear explanation." They would like to form a Concern Group, but that will take time to organize. Meanwhile their press conference is leaving the impression that they don't have much ammunition.
(2) Carrie Lam's administration brought the proposal out during the summer recess of the Legislative Council. Many legislators are away for vacation, and it is hard to get enough people to come together to discuss strategies and make decisions.
(3) The public response to this issue has been tepid. "People are tired, and society is quieter than expected." But this is an important matter of principle, so the fight must continue. They will have to keep fighting no matter how hard it is. They will develop their strategy as they go on.
(4) The pan-democrats have not discussed this issue in depth, because far too many things have been going on recently -- Carrie Lam becoming Chief Executive; Xi Jinping visiting Hong Kong; the death of Liu Xiaobo; the case of the DQ4 legislators; the battle at the Legco Finance Committee; etc. So they could not focus on the not-yet-announced High Speed Rail co-location.
- Ceding land? According to Basic Law Article 7, "The land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property." The State is leasing land to itself here.
- Ceding land? If you think about it, this is absurd. In recent Chinese history, foreign nations invaded, gained military victories and extracted concessions. An example was China ceding Hong Kong to Great Britain. In 1997, Great Britain handed Hong Kong back to China. If land is being ceded in Hong Kong, it can only be ceded to a foreign power. China does not cede its own land to itself.
Thus, the implied meaning behind the idea of 'ceding land' is that Hong Kong is an independent nation and not part of China. The current situation becomes one of Hong Kong being forced to cede land to the foreign power known as China. So if you advocate this absurd notion of "ceding land," you are clearly a pro-independence agitator. You are fighting co-location because you want to smuggle in your pro-independence ideas and you don't want Hong Kong to become closer to China through High Speed Rail, One Belt One Way, One Country Two Systems, etc.
- The pan-democrats need to answer some simple questions:
Q1. Why is co-clearance a widely accepted international practice, but not to be allowed in Hong Kong?
Q2. Why can Shenzhen lease a part of Shenzhen Bay to Hong Kong for co-location of immigration/customs checkpoints, but not vice versa?
Q3. Why can foreign consulates run their own national laws within their consulates, but mainland China cannot run mainland laws within their leased area?
Q4. The People's Liberation of Army is posted in 16 locations inside Hong Kong ever since the handover. Has One Country Two Systems/A High Degree of Autonomy been destroyed?
Q5. The High Speed Rail is a conspiracy to destroy One Country Two Systems/A High Degree of Autonomy? Isn't this somewhat expensive? Are there more cost-effective ways than spend 4,000,000,000,000 (trillion) yuan?
These are simple questions that ordinary citizens can grasp. They have been hearing these questions and getting answers from the pan-democrats such as:
A1. Foreign countries do not have a Basic Law. For example, the United States Constitution has nothing to say about co-location of immigration checkpoints. Therefore, co-clearance is acceptable internationally. But Hong Kong has a Basic Law, so co-clearance must not be allowed in Hong Kong.
- Margaret Ng said that Hong Kong law being enforced outside Hong Kong is completely different from mainland Chinese law being enforced in Hong Kong.
A2. Hong Kong has a Basic Law, but mainland China does not. The People's Republic of China Constitution has nothing to say about co-location of immigration checkpoints. Therefore, this can only work one way but not in reverse.
- Margaret Ng has chimed in saying that the Shenzhen Bay arrangement was a previous plot by the Chinese Communist regime to lure the people of Hong Kong into accepting co-location in mainland China. Today that 2006 action is being used to justify co-location in Hong Kong today.
A3. Foreign embassies/consulates are protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. A West Kowloon checkpoint is not a foreign embassy/consulate, so there is no comparison.
A4. The People's Liberation Army follow Hong Kong law in Hong Kong. However mainland law will be enforced in the West Kowloon leased area.
For example, there is no restriction on the amount of currency a visitor can carry in Hong Kong. But a visitor cannot carry more than US$5,000 equivalent of foreign currency and 20,000 yuan of local currency. So a person carrying 50,000 yuan can enter/leave Hong Kong but can be arrested in the West Kowloon leased area. We believe that this person should be arrested only when he crosses the border.
A5. Quote Winston Churchill on fighting all the way: "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
- The government's approach is to focus on convenience for High Speed Rail travelers. This is self-evident, and the direct counter-arguments appear to come from people who have never taken the High Speed Rail or have not even gone to mainland China in years. The indirect counter-arguments are political ones, and some of those are causing mirth (e.g. the Hong Kong government will be leasing Central to the Central government to enforce mainland laws against Occupy Central demonstrators).
- (Ming Pao) July 26, 2017.
On radio, Martin Lee (Democratic Party) said that the intention of Article 20 of the Basic Law is to give Hong Kong the power to improve its 'high degree of autonomy.' In order to attain One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy, the Central Government must restrain itself. He said that the co-location arrangement will damage the rule-of-law even more severely than an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, because it is equivalent to killing off all of Basic Law.
- I am fully agreed with Martin Lee's viewpoint. So let the people of Hong Kong take the slow train to Futian (Shenzhen), get off the train for mainland Chinese immigration/customs inspection, re-board and continue their jounry. This is a sacrifice that the people of Hong Kong will have to make in order to save their cherished Basic Law. Every time every Hong Kong citizen makes this trip this way, he/she will remember that Martin Lee made them do this in order to save the Basic Law.
- (Bastille Post) July 28, 2017.
Martin Lee got on an RTHK program to declare that since most High Speed Rail travelers are retirees, they have plenty of time on hand and therefore do not need to hurry.
Martin Lee has really not been to mainland China for a long time. He has no idea what the border crossing process is. For example, if he were to cross over at Huanggang today, he would be taking a bus. Once arriving there on the Hong Kong side, he will have to move his luggage off the bus and go through the Hong Kong immigration checkpoint. After coming out, he will take the yellow shuttle bus to take him and his luggage down the road to the mainland Chinese checkpoint. Once he goes through, he will have to find his bus and move his luggage back in. Of course, he won't be the only one, because he will be struggling along with thousands of other travelers.
The best thing about co-location in West Kowloon is that once you clear the checkpoints with your luggage, you get on the High Speed Rail and you stay on until you reach your destination.
I am not asking Martin Lee to visit China. I am not asking Martin Lee to take the High Speed Rail. I am just asking Martin Lee to find out what hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers have to put up with when they go to mainland China. Many of them may be senior citizens with time on hand, but there is no reason why they should be unnecessarily forced to spend their time on hauling luggage and standing in queues.
- Let the retirees haul their luggage around in Shenzhen looking for their connecting trains because they have too much time on hand! Is this a Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake" movement for Senior Counsel Martin Lee?
- On RTHK, Martin Lee is expressing his concern is that if there is another Occupy Central, the mainland authorities may ask for a short-term lease for the Occupy area and then apply mainland laws there.
- Yes, I can see the dangers here, so we must immediately scrap the $84 billion High Speed Rail now. Or else we all die. Or something.
- Why bother with something so complicated as leasing Central? Why not just invoke Basic Law Article 18?
In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the Region, decides that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People's Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region.
They can save rent payment this way. Actually, it is with Article 18 hanging over their heads that the Occupy Central participants behaved like patsies. If they had burnt down Government Headquarters or attacked the People's Liberation Army barracks, Article 18 could be invoked.
- The descriptive term for Martin Lee is egghead:
In the American English slang, egghead is an anti-intellectual epithet used to refer to intellectuals or people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and too lacking in realism, common sense, sexual interests, etc. on account of their intellectual interests.
...
Egghead: A person of spurious intellectual pretensions, often a professor or the protégé of a professor. Essentially confused in thought and immersed in mixture of sentimentality and violent evangelism. A doctrinaire supporter of Middle-European socialism as opposed to Greco-French-American ideas of democracy and liberalism. Subject to the old-fashioned philosophical morality of Nietzsche which frequently leads him into jail or disgrace. A self-conscious prig, so given to examining all sides of a question that he becomes thoroughly addled while remaining always in the same spot. An anemic bleeding heart.
- Martin Lee got on radio and inflicted even more damage on himself. He argued that since the United States poked its nose in before the 1997 handover, it should also be asked to intercede now on this important matter of an immigrant/customs/quarantine checkpoint for a train service. Asking a foreign power to intercede is a way to defend One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong Ruled by Hongkongers and A High Degree of Autonomy!?
- The United States entering the fray? This will mean:
One Country Two Systems -> Two Countries Three Systems
Hong Kong Ruled by Hongkongers -> Hong Kong ruled by Americans
A High Degree of Autonomy -> A High Degree of Colonialism- Why is the government doing this? Because they know that the pan-democrats will automatically oppose this proposal and hence expose themselves as eggheads ("out-of-touch with ordinary people and lacking in common sense").
- (Ming Pao) Hong Kong University School of Law senior lecturer Eric Cheung tat-ming said that data showed that 80% of High Speed Rail train's Hong Kong passengers intend to get off at Futian anyway, so there will be little or no impact on them. Long-trip passengers will find it more convenient to have co-located checkpoints, but he does not believe that ten minutes of extra time will affect them.
- Eric Cheung Tat-ming is an egghead. Even before the High Speed Rail service is running in Hong Kong, he already has passenger data. And he thinks that it will only take 10 minutes to clear immigration/customs at Futian. This is typical of people who have never taken a High Speed Rail train, or even visited China in the last thirty years.
- It takes 10 minutes for one person to complete immigration/customs checking. But when the train pulls into the station, there are 960 passengers. They don't have 960 immigration/customs agents to wait on the passengers. They have maybe 10 or 20, so it may be one hour or two to clear the whole train. By the way, the High Speed Rail trains will be running at a frequency of one train every three minutes.
- Let me put this even more clearly -- co-location at Futian will mean that the train schedules are off. You cannot catch the 10:00am direct train from West Kowloon to Beijing. There will be no such train service for you. Instead there will be a 10:00am train from Futian to Beijing leaving on time. If you want to take that train, you will have to buy a ticket for a West Kowloon-to-Futian train. You can take the 9:00am train that will arrive in Futian at 9:14am. You will get off with your luggage, get cleared by Hong Kong immigration, walk down the passageway and get cleared by mainland Chinese immigration/customs/quarantine. The process will take you not more than 15 minutes under normal circumstances, but possibly up to 30 minutes. You will wait 15 minutes for the 10:00am train to Beijing.
There won't be a direct train for you from West Kowloon to Beijing. Such a train can take you to Futian and then head to Beijing after a 5 minute pause. But you won't be on it, because you need more time than that to go through the co-located checkpoints. If you want the convenience of co-location, it should take place at the point of origin and later.
- Amazingly, so far nobody has resurrected the scary objection that the People's Liberation Army will be using the High Speed Rail to transport soldiers quickly to Hong Kong to suppress freedom and democracy (see #479).
- Wait, you speak too soon. Wong On-yin at Hong Kong Economic Journal, August 1, 2017.
... simply put, the Doomsday Train is a train with an nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile (the famous Dongfang 41) with a range of 14,000 kilometers. If carried by vehicle, the traveling speed is merely 40 kmph and can be hunted down by airplanes. But the High Speed Rail runs at 350 kmph, which is faster than helicopters. There are 20,000 kilometers of High Speed Rail and 120,000 kilometers of regular railroad in China. Even all the American satellites cannot keep track of every one of them, so this makes nuclear deterrent that cannot be stopped.
In the 1970's, the former Soviet Union had already put their SS-24 Scalpel missiles on trains. This is a well-known undisclosed secret, but Chinese military fans and publications speak of it enthusiastically. The mainland Chinese people don't sense any danger and instead praise the greatness of the country's military might. Do you think that the High Speed Rail works the same way to conceal your military weapons from the satellites? How can the people of Hong Kong free themselves from the terror of nuclear war? We must become independent! I don't want to call for independence in each and every one of my essays, but I can't help it!
- The most frequently asked question seems to be this: Can I access Facebook on the High Speed Rail train while still in Hong Kong? If you use the train's Wifi to access the Internet, Facebook will be filtered. If you use Mobile Data on your own phone, you can access Facebook or anything else you want. Nobody is going to watch over your shoulder to monitor your activity.
- Freedom fighters are upset at the fact that there should be public WiFi access points in Hong Kong where Facebook is blocked. The solution is exceedingly simple: No public WiFi service will be available once you enter the mainland Chinese lease areas of West Kowloon and on the trains. Public WiFi service will be turned on as soon as the trains pass the border.
- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook
This is utter nonsense!
When I am in mainland China doing films or theater, I use Facebook everyday. At this moment, I am in Longgang (Shenzhen) directing The Golden Cangue, and I am reading/posting on Facebook.
(Your Hong Kong telephone account has a roaming plan with which you can read Apple Daily/RTHK/Ming Pao as much as you like)
Please don't listen to the lies from other people. Trust me! If you believe them, you will have been tricked.- Legislator Claudia Mo says that she is very scared of ever going near the West Kowloon Station, or even the nearby Elements shopping mall, because mainland public security bureau agents may come out of their restricted area, snatch her and send her away to labor camp.
Isn't she a little bit full of herself? Does she think that the mainland authorities are actually concerned about what she says and does to the point of needing to snatch her?
- Chief Executive Carrie Lam said that even a veteran legal professional is peddling conspiracy theories and demonizing the proposal. She did not name that individual. However, ex-legislator Margaret Ng has come out and said, "What is the point of making fun of Margaret Ng?" She said that even persons not in the legal field such as Causeway Bay Books owner Lam Wing-kee have said that they will not go near West Kowloon. Therefore it is not paranoia for Hongkongers to worry.
- How many times have the mainland authorities snatched Hong Kong citizens for political reasons? Lam Wing-kee said that Lee Bo was kidnapped by mainland agents, but Lee Bo has not said so to this day.
There are many cases of Hong Kong citizens approaching the mainland immigration/customs checkpoints and attempt to provoke incidents.
(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2017.
In 2014, legislator Leung Kwok-hung went on a Legco trip to Shanghai. At the Shanghai International Airport, customs agents found a bunch of June 4th materials. They asked him to discard the materials, but he refused. He was sent back to Hong Kong.
Also in 2014, legislator Leung Kwok-hung went on a Legco trip to Shenzhen. He wore a t-shirt with the words "Don't forget June 4th; civil nomination; Occupy Central." At the Huanggang checkpoint, mainland Chinese immigration/customs agents asked him to remove his shirt. He refused and was sent back to Hong Kong.
In November 2014, the Hong Kong Federation of Students sent Alex Chow, Eason Chung and Nathan Law to go to Beijing to speak to the Central Government leaders. The three were told at the airline check-in counter that their home visit cards have been canceled and therefore they cannot travel to mainland China.
In July 19, 2017, social worker Hendrick Lui Chi-hang stood on Luohu Bridge to read out Liu Xiaobo's <I have no enemies> and <Charter 08> aloud. He was taken away by mainland Chinese public security and made to write a letter of contrition four times until they were satisfied.
According to past practice, the mainland authorities are not interested in holding Hongkongers into custody and feeding them for the next 10 or 20 years. They are satisfied with sending you back.
- Why do these people do these things? Do they actually think that it work? Will chanting "End one-party tyranny!" actually bring down the Chinese Communist Party?
Of course, nobody believes that, not the least those who actually do it. They do it not because they think it will work, but because they think that suckers will donate more money more frequently to them.
- The coverage area for potential snatching is expanding by the day.
At first, it is about the mainland Chinese section in West Kowloon itself. For example, will INTERPOL red list fugitive Guo Wengui be arrested upon presenting his ID card to the mainland Chinese immigration officer?
Of course, "snatch" is defined as a sudden effort to seize something. Guo Wengui would have to purchase a train ticket in order to enter the restricted zone and clear Hong Kong exit procedures before he can reach the mainland Chinese section. So Guo cannot be said to have wandered unknowingly into the mainland Chinese section and be surprised.
Next, it is about having high tea at Le Salon de Thé de Joël Robuchon (Elements), getting snatched by a dozen burly mainland Chinese agents and taken into the mainland Chinese section of the West Kowloon station. To get there, those agents would have to buy you a train ticket and take you though Hong Kong departure clearance. Couldn't you ask for help?
Now, if they can do it in West Kowloon, they will be able to do it in Central too! So you shouldn't think that you are safe as long as you don't come within a mile of West Kowloon.
- If a bunch of mainland Chinese spies have you surrounded and want to take you to China on the High Speed Rail, they have to bring you through the Hong Kong immigration/customs checkpoint. When you come to the X-ray scanner, you are standing by yourself. Just tell the security guards that you have been kidnapped.
- Can they drug you unconscious and take you away? Have you ever seen an unconscious man being taken through an X-ray scanner on a stretcher?
- But if they can snatch you anytime anywhere in Hong Kong at this very minute, then what do you care about the West Kowloon High Speed Rail station? What will change?
- If they can snatch you anytime anywhere in Hong Kong at this very minute, it is far easier and unobtrusive to put you on a speed boat that will reach mainland waters in minutes.
- Ronny Tong Ka-wah's Facebook
The Executive Council members went to inspect the West Kowloon Station. We found out that at this so-called enclosed underground site, a Hongkonger must first purchase a train ticket, go through the security inspection area, go downstairs to the departure call, complete all exit procedures and walk though an enclosed corridor before arriving at the mainland Chinese checkpoint. According to information, there are no shops or vending machines in that area. So it is unthinkable that someone should come to West Kowloon and unknowingly wandered into the mainland Chinese checkpoint and be arrested and sent to jail.
- (Oriental Daily) August 1, 2017. The MTR arranged for a tour by legislators of the West Kowloon Station tomorrow so that they understand the operations including the co-location setup. The pan-democratic legislators met today and decided to boycott the tour. They said that it is pointless to learn about operations before all the legal issues have been settled.
- If someone is bent on pretending to be asleep, there is no way that you can 'wake' him.
- (SpeakoutHK) August 2, 2017. On morning radio, Margaret Ng said that the West Kowloon station has so many layers of entrance that an innocent person who wandered inside accidentally and get "arrested voluntarily." By so saying, Margaret Ng is saying that the Hong Kong Police (who are responsible for security screening), the MTR (who are responsible to checking tickets) and the Hong Kong Immigration Department will be negligent in letting innocent people walk through their areas to reach the mainland section. If she bothered to use her brain, she would know that this is impossible. She is bringing up this fictional situation because she wants to scare unthinking people.
- You haven't taken the High Speed Rail in Hong Kong yet, but can you imagine someone accidentally wandering through the Hong Kong International Airport restricted area and getting on an airplane?
- (Apple Daily) July 27, 2017.
Mr and Mrs Yu live in Shanghai, and they normally fly to Shenzhen and then travel over land to Hong Kong. Mr. Yu said that he will consider taking the High Speed Rail in future: "If I set off in the morning, I can be here in Hong Kong in the afternoon. That's very good." Mr. Yu said that he thinks co-location of immigration/customs checkpoints is inconvenient. Instead he preferred to have immigration/customs checkpoints at the points of origin and destination. "That would be better. I am familiar with Shanghai. I don't want to go through immigration/customs checkpoints that I am not familiar with."
- The total population of Shanghai is 20 million. You can surely find one Shanghai citizen to say whatever you want.
- Ahem, Mr and Mrs Yu are our esteemed guests, so we should respect their wishes. This means that if Mr and Mrs Yu wish to defecate/urinate in the streets of Hong Kong, we should respect their wishes too ...
- The Apple Daily reporter cleverly avoided telling the Yu family that the alternative to co-location is not having separate checkpoints in Hong Kong and Shanghai like they do for airplanes. There are several intermediate stops along the route and they may not have immigration/customs posts. So the real alternative is to clear Hong Kong in West Kowloon, disembark with all luggage in Futian (Shenzhen), clear mainland China and board another train with their luggage to Shanghai. Mr and Mrs Yu won't find this convenient at all.
- How is the Shanghai checkpoint more/less convenient than the as-yet-unconstructed Hong Kong-mainland checkpoint? How can such a question even be asked?
- (The Stand News) July 29, 2017. On RTHK, Co-location Concern Group member Leung Kai-chi said that the Hong Kong government insists on the current proposal because it is efficient. "In the eyes of the government, speed is the only value. But we know that the people of Hong Kong want many more other things. The 90-something-year-old grandmother who was displaced from her ancestral farmland to make way for the High Speed Rail wanted sentiments, not speed. Today, Hong Kong is better than mainland China because it does not want speed but it wants rule-of-law, rules and principles. In our society, there are many more precious things other than speed."
- (Apple Daily) July 30, 2017.
On TVB, the female host said that there has not been a lot of reactions to the co-location proposal. Co-location Concern Group member Leung Ka-chi said that this was because the government is exaggerating the situation and misleading people. He said that if this precedent creates an opening with the government giving up its rights, then the government may proceed to give up other rights such as letting the Central Government taking care of Article 23 (National Security). He criticized the government for addressing only efficiency issues and never dealing with the "costs" in the form of challenges to the judicial system.
He said that if the focus is on efficiency, then why not look for maximum efficiency? "Why not eliminate the mainland-Hong Kong border? Why not let mainlanders come down to Hong Kong at will, so that each High Speed Rail train will be packed full? But that would not be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. In other words, there are some bottom lines that must be defended. There are some bottom lines that we will not cross." He said that the people of Hong Kong is "looking at a government proposal that appears to have crossed a bottom line."
He recommended that 5 to 10 immigration/customs/quarantine checkpoints be set up in the mainland High Speed Rail network. He said that the Hong Kong and Central Government ought to be willing to work together on this.
- (Wikipedia) Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail
The major railway stations along this route are Beijing West, Shijiazhuang, Zhengzhou East, Wuhan, Changsha South, Lechang East, Guangzhou South, Shenzhen North and West Kowloon. There are 37 minor stops along the way.
Here is the projected High Speed Rail network by year 2020:
Where are those 5 to 10 major checkpoints along the way? There are almost 30 places in the map already. How do you get to the places that don't have checkpoints?
- Suppose the 5 checkpoints are in Guangzhou, Wuhan, Chongqing, Shanghai and Beijing. If you want to go to Shijiazhuang, you will have to take the train to Beijing, get cleared and take another train back to Shijiazhuang. The extra time and money that you waste are worth it, because the future of the Hong Kong Basic Law depends on it, thus spake Leung Kai-chi.
- (Apple Daily) July 30, 2017.
Leung Kai-chi also said that the Hong Kong government is misrepresenting the examples of co-location elsewhere. For example, the US Customs/Border Patrol agents in Canada are not authorized to arrest anyone in accordance with American laws. Passengers can turn around and leave if they are not satisfied with anything. Such guarantees are not present in the proposed West Kowloon version.
- If the US Customs/Border Patrol finds an electric stun gun and two kilograms of crack cocaine in my luggage at Toronto Pearson, I can just turn around and leave. This is a very useful piece of information to know.
When a foreign national arrives at the US border or a US pre-clearance location with a minor warrant in any state, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will confirm the validity of the warrant with the jurisdiction that issued it, and if it is valid they will co-ordinate with the jurisdiction to ensure the arrival of the individual. In many cases, if the USA warrant is valid, the traveler will be arrested on the spot and transported in handcuffs to the locality where the bench warrant was issued. So if you are flying into the United States from a Canadian Airport such as Toronto Pearson, it is possible to be detained at the US preclearance facility and extradited to the state where the warrant is out of.
- If they randomly pick 1% of passengers for baggage inspection, all I have to do is send 100 mules to carry drugs. 99 will go through uninspected. 1 will be inspected and detected, but can turn around and leave. This is a no-risk business.
- (Ta Kung Pao) August 21, 2017.
Leung Kai-chi contradicts himself:
In 2009, Leung Kai-chi recommended to the government that the High Speed Rail terminus be located at Kam Sheung Road in New Territories
In 2010, he wrote that it is absolutely correct for China to develop the High Speed Rail System. When the Hong Kong section is operational, the train between Hong Kong and Shanghai will take only 9 hours. You can have dinner in The Bund in Shanghai at night, and have dim sum in Kowloon the next morning.
In 2010, he said that "If there is no co-location, then the High Speed Rail will lose its meaning as a long-distance transportation mode. When people have to get off midway for inspection, the train becomes a fast local train. Even if passports can be inspected on the train, luggage inspection will be hard to carry out."
In 2017, Leung Kai-chi now says: "I see no reason why the High Speed Rail must have co-location."
In 2017, he said that more than 60% of the High Speed Rail passengers are going to Shenzhen. So we shouldn't have co-location for the sake of the minority who have to switch trains.
In 2017, he recommends setting up co-locations at certain mainland cities, and also separation-location checkpoints in Beijing and Xiamen.
- The Co-Location Concern Group has issued three major demands:
(1) The government must stop misleading citizens
(2) The government must withdraw the Co-location Arrangement proposal
(3) The government must hold public consultation on various proposals
- While demands #2 and #3 are standard fare, demand #1 is funny: No government/MTR officials will be allowed to make any more public statements on the matter of the High Speed Rail. Anything that comes out of their mouths is misleading citizens. Instead, the only people who can to the talking are Roy Tam, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Leung Kai-chi, etc, because they (and only they) are telling the truth.
Out the window goes any thought that the people are intelligent and are capable of telling right from wrong. No, that's wrong! People need to be brainwashed with the 'right' information.
- (YouTube) Legislator Tanya Chan (Civic Party) gets on radio:
0:01 Tanya Chan: Public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... public consultation ... why not hold public consultation?
0:16 Host: You just emphasized the importance of public opinion, and you want to hold public consultations. I would like to ask: What if the situation arises that more people support Co-location than not, will you revise your thinking?
0:25 Tanya Chan: I feel ... then ... why not ... wait until it happens.
0:34 Executive Council member Cheung Kwok-kwun: You said to wait until it happens. So you have not made an answer at all. I want to know you answer. I am not going to interfere with your decision. If the citizens support ...
0:44 Tanya Chan: I can continue to oppose.
0:58 Citizens: It is a waste to hold public consultation. In Hong Kong's current political environment, if you oppose, you will oppose all the time. If you agree, you will agree all the time. We are polarized. It is useless no matter how much public consultation you hold. Co-location has been discussed for many years already. The pan-democrats are looking for excuses to delay. Co-location will benefit the Hong Kong economy greatly. You should not let your own party politics destroy the future of the people of Hong Kong.
- Sister, you don't have a Home Visit Permit and you don't visit China anyway. What do you know about the High Speed Rail? Why are you making decisions for all those who actually use the service?
- The joint polls by Chinese University of Hong Kong, Polytechnic University and Hong Kong University had shown more people support the Constitutional Reform Bill than not, but the pan-democrats vetoed the bill in 2015. So much for respecting public opinion.
- She can't promise to abide by majority public opinion, because she already knows that it won't be on her side.
- This list of demands refer only to different operational arrangements. They know that they will lose in public opinion because nothing else makes sense operationally. But they have a different line of attack based upon judicial reviews and Legco filibustering.
- With respect to Woosung Road, the British organized a petition requesting the continued operation of the illegally constructed railroad. They thought that they had public opinion on their side. But the regional viceroy Shen Pao-chen organized his own petition requesting cessation of operation.
So if the Co-location Concern Group's Leung Kwok-hung wants to get 300,000 signatures to stop co-location, Speakout HK/HKG Pao etc will get a million signatures in support of Co-location. When that happens, they will change the subject from public opinion to something else (Joint Sino-British Declaration, etc).
This has enough times before that the outcome is completely predictable. So why do it? Because the Co-location Concern Group members will take the opportunity to ask their supporters to donate more money more frequently to stop this grave Communist threat to freedom and democracy in Hong Kong.
- (Metro Radio) On radio, Tanya Chan said that they want to conduct a large and independent public opinion poll. But she said that they will need to have a lot of money ...
Yes, it is indeed happening. Furthermore, they want to declare themselves to be the referee as well. According to prior cases, if they conduct a public poll, Speakout HK/HKG Pao/Hong Kong Research Association etc will produce 10 polls to show the opposite.
Why the difference? Because the Co-location Concern Group poll question will be something like: "Do you agree that Hong Kong should cede land in West Kowloon for mainland public security agents to arrest people under mainland law?"
- What does Tanya Chan really want? It's $$$$$$$$$$$.
August 7, 13:09: Righteous friends, please forward -- I just walked down Great George Street and saw the bitches Lau Siu-lai and Tanya Chan shouting for people to donate money to them. I immediately called the police and tell them someone is unlawfully soliciting. In less than 3 minutes, uniformed police officers arrived on the scene. Those bitches skedaddled immediately. I will call the police every time that I see them.
Good! Citizens should denounce suspected unlawful activities.- (CCTV) August 1, 2017. On the 90th birthday of the People's Liberation Army, Xi Jinping gave a speech. When he came to stating that no person, organization, political party or group will be permitted to take any piece of land away from China, the audience burst into loud applause.
- This statement is directed to those who think that Hong Kong land belongs to the Hong Kong Nation and must never be ceded to the foreign occupation power known as China (Chee-na).
- (SCMP) Fearmongering over mainland officials in West Kowloon terminus kicks off hot, silly summer. By Michael Chugani. August 1, 2017.
It’s going to be a long, hot and emotionally draining summer of taking sides. Which are you on?
The loyalist side which trusts that mainland officials will only perform routine immigration duties in areas they control at the West Kowloon express railway terminus? Or the side that fears Beijing has far more ominous intentions by enforcing mainland law in the heart of our city?
Where you stand depends on whether you are a patriot who believes the motherland wants only good for the city or a cynic convinced our communist masters aim to swallow freedom-loving Hong Kong bit by bit.
I don’t know whether to fear mainland laws enforced on Hong Kong soil. The opposition must convince me it isn’t painting Beijing as a bogeyman ahead of a by-election necessitated by the ousting of six of its legislators.
Former legislator Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee’s warning that mainland officials could nab Hongkongers if they go near the terminus smacks of fearmongering.
But I also find far-fetched the government’s assertion the mainland must enforce all its laws, not just immigration, customs and quarantine, in West Kowloon to stop bad guys from fleeing to seek sanctuary here.
Some efforts to sway public opinion have been downright silly. Martin Lee Chu-ming, a Basic Law drafter, claimed that if Beijing can lease part of West Kowloon it can lease a chunk of Central to enforce mainland laws against future Occupy uprisings.
It takes a huge leap of the imagination to take that seriously. But let’s suppose it happens.
Who would enforce mainland law in Central occupied by thousands of protesters? The PLA garrison here? If protesters refuse to budge, would soldiers open fire like they did during the Tiananmen crackdown?
Even if they arrest protesters, how would they transport them to face trial on the mainland? Force them onto trains or ships while a stunned media records it for a global audience?
It’s going to be a long summer. And also a silly one.
- Hong Kong University School of Law professor Johannes Chan said that when the government disclosed the co-location arrangement, it misled people by using the analogy of owner-renter. When you rent out a place, you do not rent out your management rights. He also said that no place in the world would cut off a section of the city center as boundary.- If a landlord rents out a property to someone, he wouldn't be renting out the management rights? What does that mean?
Does the landlord dictate where the bed and sofas shall be placed?
Does the landlord dictate when the television set must be turned off and which channels can be watched?
Does the landlord dictate when lights go out at night?
Does the landlord dictate what foods can be cooked?
Does the landlord dictate what you are allowed to do in bed?
...- Conversely, when the United Kingdom rented the New Territories from China, they imposed British law. So this particular renter was certainly ignoring the owner's management rights. I don't see Professor Johannes Chan bringing up his objections.
- Question: What place in the world cut off a section of the city center as boundary?
Answer: Hong Kong. And I am not talking about West Kowloon!
Explanation: The section of Hong Kong that was cut out was the Kowloon Walled City, a 2.6 hectare China-owned enclave in the middle of British-leased New Territories.
- The Co-location Concern Group is counting on millions of Hong Kong citizens to demonstrate their opposition to the High Speed Rail and stop the service altogether. Why will happen to the already-built West Kowloon Station and the railroad tracks? The Concern Group say that they will hold public consultations to find the solution that will be best for the economy and people's livelihoods.
- History already has given us the solution in Woosung Road:
The Woosung Road or Railway was a 19th-century, 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) narrow gauge passenger railway in Shanghai, China, between the outskirts of the American Concession in the modern town's Zhabei District and Wusong in Baoshan District. Surreptitiously conceived and constructed, it ran for less than a year before it was purchased and dismantled by the Qing viceroy Shen Pao-chen.
This fate was a commonly invoked symbol of the Qing dynasty's backwardness and insularity, despite the road's admitted illegality and numerous legitimate objections voiced by the Chinese during its construction and operation.
- The immediate step that must be taken is the dismantling of the facilities to make sure that there is no chance that the Express Rail Link can be revived in Hong Kong. The West Kowloon Station will be demolished and filled up with earth again. The railroad tracks will be pulled up and sold for heap. Then the government will hire experts to study various proposals for alternate land use and hold public consultations accordingly. This is how civic society is supposed to operate.
- During those public consultations, the people of mainland China will learn from the people of Hong Kong why the High Speed Rail must not be allowed to exist. Hopefully, the people of mainland China will wake up and immediately dismantle their entire High Speed Rail network.
- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s express rail link opponents risk derailing city’s link to the future. By Stephen Ng. August 2, 2017.
With its express rail link, Hong Kong is finally about to join the expanding club of modern cities served by modern inter-city rail.
However, instead of cheering the social and economic benefits, not to mention the convenience and comfort, that the link will bring, legal and political opposition is trying to derail it on the grounds that the proposed co-location arrangement would violate the Basic Law, and put Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms at risk.
With any constitution, intent is always up to interpretation. The opposition will always try to find endless technical “reasons” why something cannot be done. They should come up with not just “problems” but also, much more importantly, possible solutions. As the vast majority in Hong Kong supports co-location, we need to find a way to make it happen.
Our mini-constitution has served us well for the past 20 years, and I do not expect this to change. What does bother me, however, is that our special status at times seems to be an excuse to reject any effort to enhance relations with the mainland and also to throw common sense out of the window.
The whole point of co-location in West Kowloon is convenience and comfort. Requiring passengers to disembark to clear immigration and customs formalities at the border would be ludicrous. I look forward to being able to hop on the train in Kowloon and arriving in Guangzhou in less than an hour without interruption or hassle, and the same goes for other cities.
Common sense and pragmatism have prevailed in overcoming co-location issues between sovereign states in Europe and North America. Do we want to become the laughing stock of the world for not being able to put such an arrangement in place within the same sovereign country, between Hong Kong and Guangdong?
No doubt the government will need some time to address any public concerns. But to blow up these concerns with the goal of derailing the arrangement will hurt Hong Kong and its people.
I can recall the sensational headlines and challenges that the British government faced before the Eurotunnel opened.
That engineering wonder was also mired in delays, disputes and soaring costs. British Francophobia was fanned by predictions of everything from rabies-infected animals passing through the tunnel, to an armed invasion being imminent.
Those predictions, taken very seriously before the tunnel opened and making headlines around the world, now seem absurd.
I am sure once our express rail link is up and running, passengers will still be complaining, but more likely about why we did not open the line much earlier.
(SCMP) Hong Kong opposition feeds on people’s inborn mistrust of Beijing. By Michael Chugani. August 8, 2017.
Public Eye can reveal that the Hong Kong government is in secret talks with the United States and Canada to have joint immigration clearance at the city’s airport. US and Canadian officials will be stationed in Chek Lap Kok to clear passengers for entry into North America.
OK, so it’s not April Fool's Day. But ask yourself this: would such an arrangement trigger the same resistance we are seeing against joint immigration plans at the West Kowloon rail link terminus?
Stupid question. Imagine being able to skip lengthy immigration procedures in New York or Vancouver after being squeezed into cattle class seats for hours. Hongkongers would whoop with joy.
Foreign jurisdiction in parts of our airport wouldn’t bother them one bit.
So why the fury when joint immigration at West Kowloon would give Hongkongers speedy and comfortable access to numerous mainland cities? Here’s the blunt answer: a communist regime rules mainland China.
Many Hongkongers have an inborn mistrust of the central government. They take for granted that consulates here, like everywhere else, enforce the laws of their countries and local authorities cannot enter uninvited. Visa applicants don’t even fear entering the consulate of North Korea, the world’s harshest regime.
But try giving Beijing’s liaison office the same rights as consulates. It would send a chill across Hong Kong. That same fear extends to mainland jurisdiction in West Kowloon.
Instead of nurturing trust after reunification, Beijing became its worst enemy by setting itself up for accusations over abducting Hong Kong booksellers, meddling in local elections, and failing to understand the city’s psyche.
The opposition successfully tapped into this fear to brand itself as the defender of our values against an encroaching communist master. Beijing should wonder why the opposition’s campaign against joint immigration has gained traction even though it hasn’t offered an alternative plan to prevent the HK$84.4 billion express railway from becoming a white elephant.
Some loyalists believe the tide is turning against the opposition because it has picked the wrong fight in resisting the joint immigration proposal. I’m not so sure. It held its ground in recent elections even after Occupy and the Mong Kok riots.
And it won more than 300 seats in the committee that elects the chief executive despite supporting the Youngspiration pair who used foul language against China during their oath-taking.
Not all those who vote for the opposition wholeheartedly support it. They just need the psychological security of having an opposition that stands up to Beijing.
- (SCMP) Does anyone have a better plan for processing 100,000 daily railway passengers at the border? By David Dodwell. August 13, 2017.
As I watched the interminable arm-wrestling between supporters and opponents of co-location arrangements for immigration and customs checks on the high speed trains to the Mainland, I am reminded of those long university nights spent decades ago wrestling with the “ontological argument”.
For those of you lucky enough to avoid this torture, the ontological argument has over the centuries been waged in efforts to prove the existence of God.
It was apparently first engaged by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 in his book Proslogion. Christian and Islamic philosophers of all colours have since then fought the same fight. Descartes developed many versions of the argument during the 1600s.
Anselm argued that God was “that than which nothing greater can be thought”. He argued that if the idea of God exists in the mind, then God must exist in reality.
In short, he started with an a priori theory based on no evidence or fact, and then used the theory to prove what he wanted to prove.
My experience wrestling through the ontological argument was deeply frustrating and demoralising. For me, the main finding was that people who want to believe something hard enough will one way or another find a rationale for justifying the belief, and that once they have alighted on the “proof”, no evidence in any form would ever shift them.
It all morphs through to the prevailing social media-fuelled power today of anecdotal information and “Ah but…” philosophy: the reality that people read not to be informed, but to gather anecdotes that support their prejudices.
Information that contradicts the prejudice is ignored. When an argument threatening this prejudice is engaged, all you need is your trusty anecdote. In the face of people arguing a different view, you can confidently engage: “Ah, but….. (insert anecdote)”. Your prejudice remains safely intact. All evidence to contradict you can be safely brushed aside.
From this to the interminable dispute over co-location of immigration and customs processes at our new high speed rail station in West Kowloon?
Simple. There is a small, faith-based community in Hong Kong, who believe fervently and without any possibility of contradiction, that China’s communist government and all of its functionaries are viscerally opposed to the freedoms of action and expression prevailing in Hong Kong. If these functionaries are allowed any toehold of physical presence inside Hong Kong, they will use that presence to subvert our freedoms, persecute our freedom-loving citizens, perhaps even covertly whisk overly robust critics across into mainland China to be incarcerated, prosecuted, or worse.
Whatever the weight of evidence that this will not happen – that Mainland immigration officials will instead go about their daily business checking visas and chopping passports – the faith-based conviction of our anti-Mainland sceptics over Beijing’s perfidious intent remains impregnable.
The fact that similar co-location arrangements work fine elsewhere – US immigration officials co-locate in Vancouver processing passengers travelling into the US; British immigration officials work in France processing travellers into the UK from the European continent – counts for nothing.
The fact that we already have co-location arrangements on Hong Kong’s western land crossing into Shenzhen provides no confidence that our border security people can work effectively together.
The fact that thousands of People’s Liberation Army troops have for two decades been based in Tamar, Stanley, and other locations inside Hong Kong without bursting out onto the Hong Kong streets and harassing us similarly counts for nothing. The fact that they have done nothing for two decades does not mean we can sleep safe in our beds tomorrow.
I remember similar faith-based opposition to the construction of the Daya Bay nuclear power plant more than three decades ago. Those opposed to the plant then remain as fervently opposed today. The fact of safe operation for so many years provides no comfort, nor any confidence that a catastrophe awaits. As economist Tim Harford noted recently: “Passionate advocates simply don’t recognise objectivity when they see it. They will see what they want to see.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor argued while in Beijing last week that “we are confident that in the next two to three months, Hong Kong citizens will welcome the joint immigration and customs facilities at the high-speed railway after thorough explanation.”
She is right to press forward. But she is wrong to believe that the sceptics and disbelievers will have their minds changed by “thorough explanation”.
The uncomfortable political reality is that our ontologically inspired minority will hold firm to their disbelief no matter what weight of evidence is thoroughly explained. As the Nobel Prize-winning psychological economist Daniel Kahneman noted: “We can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness.”
What to do then ? Instead of wasting time trying to convert the unconvertible, Carrie Lam and those responsible for completing the project must check and double check the net benefits that arise for Hong Kong and the majority of its people from co-location, in contrast to alternative arrangements. We need the benefits measured and well advocated.
With over 100,000 people expected to want to use the high-speed train every day once it begins operation in the third quarter of next year, we need a clear explanation of the hassle avoided and time saved by co-location. The simple practical disadvantages of the alternatives need to be explained, repeated, and repeated again.
Of course, I come to this ontological argument with biases of my own. The sooner we build smoother linkages across the Pearl River Delta – or the Big Bay Area as we are now supposed to call it – the better.
- In the last three years, the "foreign powers" have actually been relatively quiet in terms of voicing support for the pan-democrats. For most of the things that were happening, they face dilemmas.
For example, will they voice support for Occupy Central? The paramount goal of Occupy Central is "genuine universal suffrage," which means one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. One-person-one-vote without civil nomination is "fake universal suffrage." Do the United States/United Kingdom support this position? If so, then why is "fake universal suffrage" or worse the prevailing systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Australia, Germany, etc? Hem, hem, hem ...
As another example, will they voice support for the DQ2 legislators (Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching)? If so, then does that mean that the United States/United Kingdom think that it is okay to pronounce "The People's Republic of China" as "The People's Re-fucking of Chee-na"? Hem, hem, hem ...
As yet another example, will they voice support for the DQ4 legislators (Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law and Edward Yiu)? If so, then does that mean that the United States/United Kingdom think that Lau Siu-lai's six-seconds-per-word oath is okay? Hem, hem, hem ...
The current case is the Co-location arrangement. Does the United States/United Kingdom oppose co-location? If so, then why do they have pre-clearance going on in their respective countries? Hem, hem, hem ...
[766] The Son-of-a-Bitch! (2017/07/20)
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 17, 2017.
The owner of the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper has sold off his pioneering tabloid publication Next Magazine to an investor amid financial difficulties.
Businessman Kenny Wee acquired the first ever magazine founded by media tycoon Jimmy Lai for HK$500 million on Monday, through a wholly-owned company named W Bros. Investments Ltd. Next Magazine‘s four sister publications Sudden Weekly, Face, ME! and Next+One have also been sold.
Holding company Next Digital announced on the stock exchange on Monday that Wee will pay HK$320 million of the HK$500 million purchase price to Lai, while the remainder of the sum will be injected into the five magazines.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 18, 2017.
On Monday, Next Magazine reported that an employee questioned Next Media CEO Cassian Cheung during a morning staff meeting regarding comments made by owner Lai, who claimed back in 2013 that he would not sell any of his publications.
“If I sell, then I would be a son of a bitch for the rest of my life,” he said in an interview at the time. “Hong Kong is my home. I have a responsibility to fight for democracy and universal suffrage, and I can’t shirk from it.” Cheung replied that Lai meant he would be a “son of a bitch” if he sold his entire Next Media group, and not only Next Magazine.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 24, 2017.
On Monday, Hong Kong pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai announced the sale of his pioneering investigative tabloid Next Magazine to businessman Kenny Wee for HK$500 million amid financial difficulties. The move sparked fears from the Next Media group’s labour union that the outspoken magazine would lose its editorial independence, while Wee has threatened to dismiss employees who are “biased” against him.
Next Magazine staff questioned whether Lai had reneged on his promise not to sell off his publications; he told reporters in 2013 that he would be a “son of a bitch for the rest of his life” if he did so. Thursday’s edition of the magazine hit out at Lai, accusing him of “selling out” the publication in its cover story.
But American executive Mark Simon, Lai’s right-hand man, told HKFP he is confident that Next Magazine would retain its editorial independence – even though Wee would be a different type of owner. “There is not another Jimmy Lai coming for Next,” he said. “But why is that the expectation?”
Simon said that Wee’s free newspaper Metro Daily – which he owned from 2013 until last month – has never shunned business with the Next Media group, even as pressure from Beijing caused many local companies to withdraw advertisements from Lai’s pro-democracy publications.
“The newspaper world is small in Hong Kong, and we have a favourable impression of Metro,” he said. “We printed them for a while, handled some distribution, and they even bought content from us.”
Though Wee promised editorial independence for Next Magazine, he also previously claimed that he is more of a “moderate,” and that it is not necessary to always oppose the government as a journalist.
“Is it required that Mr. Wee take a seat at the next Occupy Central?” Simon said. “All owners are different.”
“What will keep Next honest is the market,” he added. “If Next starts taking dives, folks notice, and in a social media world that means a downfall. I don’t think Kenny bought Next to lose.”
Meanwhile, Thursday’s Next Magazine cover story not only criticised Lai for selling the publication, but also spelled out a list of controversies involving new owner Wee. These included a conviction for spitting at a reporter, creditor lawsuits regarding his ownership of Metro Daily and E Weekly, and a friendship with former leader Leung Chun-ying’s daughter that got his family invited to Government House last year.
The 44-year-old businessman hardened his line after he found out about the story, telling Sing Tao Daily on Tuesday that 5 per cent of the magazine’s staff were a “tumour” to the rest of the team.
“[They] slam everything they don’t like, they don’t investigate or find proof, and write biased reports,” he said. “I have zero tolerance for this type of tumour.”
Simon told HKFP that he, too, had little sympathy for the editors who published the Thursday story. “If it was any other publication I would worry about the 5 per cent tumour remark, but this is Nextand you saw that cover of the July 20 issue. It was a hard crack at Wee and our major shareholder, Jimmy Lai.”
“Now I make no bones I was not a fan of [Wee’s comments], which is our right at Next, but it was the editors at Next Magazine that fired first at the guy who was buying their magazine.”
“So, while others would replace some in management more diplomatically, Next kind [of] earned that response,” he said.
Simon added that he was more concerned about the futures of the journalists whom Wee says he would like to retain at Next Magazine: “I would like those more junior people, people who need the pay cheque, to have a chance at making their own decision.” Simon said that the Next Media group was happy with Wee’s promise to retain the vast majority of the staff in Next Magazine.
Although Wee is often followed by Hong Kong paparazzi due to his marriage to actress Suki Choi, media columnists have described his background as “mysterious.” He made a fortune in the food and beverage business, but his business has been suspected of being a front for mainland Chinese “red capital” – a charge he denied in his Sing Tao Daily interview.
Simon said he only met Wee once, but said he conducted inquiries on his background in the lead-up to several earlier business deals. “[Wee’s] restaurants have good cash flow. Also I know a few of his business associates,” he said. “I put his net worth at about US$70-80 million after the Metro sale. So he has the money.”
In Thursday’s cover story, Next Magazine took questions regarding Wee’s source of wealth a step further. The magazine wrote that it could not find any property transaction records involving luxury residences that Wee previously claimed he bought – including at Sorrento, The Harbourside and The Arch.
“There are calls nearly every month from potential buyers for all [of Next Media’s] assets,” said Simon. “Most are clowns.”
Internet comments:
- (Hong Kong Free Press) July 18, 2017. On Monday, new owner Kenny Wee told reporters from Next Magazine and sister newspaper Apple Daily that he would not interfere with editorial independence. “Take a look at Metro Daily over the past four years,” he said. “It’s always been green [the colour of the newspaper’s theme], and has not turned red [succumbed to Communist influence].”
However, Wee added that the magazine’s employees must not view him through “coloured lenses” and compare him with Jimmy Lai, the pro-democracy owner of Next Media. “If you choose someone, they’ll also choose you,” said Wee. “Some people might not want to go over to the new owner. Some people might not listen to me after discussions – then I would have no choice, I have to ask them to leave. If you are a successful person, if you are a tolerant person with a vision, or if you’re an experienced journalist, then you should not look at anyone through coloured lenses, including your new boss or your new colleagues. If you’re like that, then you have no business staying at Next Magazine.”
- (Sing Tao) July 20, 2017.
New owner Kenny Wee said that just as Next Weekly employees have the freedom to express their wishes, he also has the freedom to decide which employees can stay. He said that if they don't want to work at Next Weekly, they can quit. "I will keep those who have confidence. There is no reason to call a restaurant bad if you have never ever dined there. This is a frog in a well mentality. I want talented people."
Kenny Wee said that keeping the "malignant tumors" around will contaminate everybody. Based upon what he knows, 5% of the company are "malignant tumors." He said that certain senior staff members use colored lenses to make decisions. Within the editorial staff, "they will make biased criticisms without investigation or confirmation. I have zero tolerance for such malignant tumors." Previously on television, Kenny Wee hAD wondered if the media has to oppose the government all the time? Do you oppose the government even if it has done nothing wrong? He said then that he will not let such employees stay.
As for Next Weekly report yesterday about his personal history, Kenny Wee said that the report contained many mistakes. After reading it, he had a good laugh. He said that he is not acquainted with the two Chief Executives named in the report. He once accompanied his wife Suki Chui to dinner with friends twice at Government House, but the report said that he is well-acquainted with CY Leung. "Is it a crime to accompany my wife to Government House? This is taking things out of context."
He said that the workers have devoted more than twenty years to make this magazine. But "someone has decided to carve out a personal kingdom." He said that he cannot let one person's decision affect the livelihoods of more than 400 families. He said that it would hurt a lot to shut down Next Weekly. The person who make that proposal (namely, editor-in-chief Wong Lai-tong) was mean and should not kill off a successful magazine.
Kenny Wee said that he has no layoff plans, but he cannot guarantee that nobody will be dismissed. It would be unfair otherwise if some workers decide not to do their work. He said that there are fewer than 400 persons at Next Weekly now. He hopes to hire more people for the Breaking News division in Section A and the Entertainment Paparazzi in Section B of the magazine. Kenny Wee said that the magazine will continue to be bold, it will have freedom of press, and it can criticize the government, senior government officials and the Chief Executive.
Kenny Wee said that people speculate that he is a "red" capitalist. "Frankly, nobody is going to invest money in Next Weekly except me." He emphasized that no "red" capital is involved in this deal.
Kenny Wee said that he does not know Jimmy Lai. The deal was made through company representatives. Kenny Wee said that Jimmy Lai sold Next Weekly to him probably because he has no political background, he is neutral and he previously owned Metro Daily.
- The Hong Kong Journalists Association is concerned that Next Weekly may be turned "pro-communist" by its new mainlander owner. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what made Next Weekly tick.
Here is the truth about the rise of Next Digital in a table: (Oriental Daily) July 18, 2017. The number of convictions by Next Digital publications under the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (period: December 1993 to July 17, 2017)
Apple Daily, 62 convictions, fined between $4,000 to $50,000 each time
Next Weekly, 22 convictions, fined between $2,000 to $40,000 each time
EasyFinder/Face, 18 convictions, fined between $1,000 to $50,000
Eat & Travel Weekly, 2 convictions, fined between $5,000 to $10,000
Sudden Weekly, 4 convictions, fined between $2,000 to $5,000
Next Weekly (Taiwan), 12 convictions, fined between $5,000 to $20,000
Sharp Weekly, 11 convictions, fined $10,000 each timeThe rise of Next Digital has plenty to do with smut. The fall of Next Digital has more to do with the creeping creepy political bias. Advertisers and readers began to flee because they can no longer trust what is printed.
- Let us examine the Book A of the July 20th edition of Next Weekly. The book has 84 printed pages, including the front and back covers. Who are the advertisers?
Inside front cover: The Hong Kong Mahjong Company, which runs a 'recreational' mahjong facility in Wanchai
Page 5: MTR's Express Rail Link
Pages 6-7: Next Plus (self-advertisement)
Page 9: Next Health Channel (self-advertisement)
Page 63 Next Car Channel (self-advertisement)
Inside back cover: Sammy Beauty Centre)
Outside back cover Wakmann swiss-watchBook B of the July 20th edition of Next Weekly has 60 printed pages, including the front and back covers. Who are the advertisers?
Inside front cover + page 1: Designer Bridal Room
Page 3: MTR's Fare Saver
Page 17: Cosmo Boxx (beauty store app)
Page 23: Next Media Marketing (self-advertisement)
Inside back cover: Nine classified ads (for domestic helpers, wigs, personal injury lawsuits, evening school, private investigator, fortune telling)
Outside back cover: the Top (leather care)How are they going to support 300 or so employees? And we don't know how many of these advertisers are actually paying the full amount on the rate card.
Meanwhile the Book A of the July 19th edition of competitor Eastweek. The book has 116 printed pages. Who are the advertisers?
Inside front cover: Panasonic (electronics)
Page 5: Broadway (consumer electronics retail)
Page 7: Ngong Ping 360 (travel)
Page 9: Samsung (electronics)
Page 21: CMK (consumer electronics retail)
Page 23: Sing Tao news group (self-advertisement)
Page 26: ThiEYE (electronics)
Page 32: HSBC bank (bank; half-page)
Page 39: Eastweek (self-advertisement)
Page 40-42: MassMutual (insurance)
Page 45: Public Bank (bank)
Page 49: Headline Daily (self-advertisement)
Page 53: East Week Express (self-advertisement)
Page 57: Headline Daily( self-advertisement)
Page 61: AIA (insurance)
Page 65: AIA (insurance)
Page 69: AIA (insurance)
Page 87: Sammy Beauty Centre
Inside back cover: TP-Link modems (electronics)
Outside back cover: China Mobile (telecommunications)Meanwhile the Book B of the July 19th edition of competitor Eastweek has 172 pages. Who are their advertisers?
Inside front cover: PHYSICAL (fitness center)
Pages 6-7: Hong Kong Disneyland
Pages 10-13: Wisderma (beauty cream)
Page 37: Philips Lumea Prestige (personal care)
Page 41: Trendy Zone (consumer electronics)
Page 49-50: Hair Regen (hair regeneration)
Page 63: Kaeru (personal care)
Page 71: Medosan (personal care)
Page 76: Dr Morita (personal care)
Page 89: Balmain (watches)
Page 107: Hong Tai (travel agency
Page 121: Euroasia International Medical Group (cosmetic surgery)
Page 123: Chicco (children)
Page 125: Chicco (children)
Page 126: Jakewell (children)
Page 127: Touch (self-advertisement)
Page 128: ESF (education)
Page 133: HKT education (education)
Page 134-135: Eastweek (self-advertisement)
Page 149: Euroasia International Medical Group (cosmetic surgery)
Page 151: Angel Face (weight reduction)
Page 165: Sing Tao Magazine Group (self-advertisement)
Page 167: Euroasia International Medical Group (cosmetic surgery)
Inside back cover: Regal Palace (Macau restaurant)
Outside back cover: Kee Wah (pastry)- (Oriental Daily) July 21, 2017. Previously, legislators who took money from Jimmy Lai have asked business why they are not advertising in Next Media publications. Former Chief Secretary Anson Fong, who has also taken money from Jimmy Lai, wrote to ask HSBC, Standard Chartered and East Asia Bank why they are not advertising in Next Media publications.
It goes without say that these are not fact-seeking questions as such. Instead they are intended to apply pressure on those advertisers. But advertisers are not obliged to explain to legislators what their advertising strategies are. So this proved not to be useful.
- (Bastille Post)
Why did Next Magazine die?
(1) Boycotts. This is the common explanation for the drop in advertising revenue. It is a fact that pro-China companies do not advertise in Next Weekly, but you are being lazy here. I spoke to a Next Digital senior manager recently and he offered the same explanation. I asked him, "Even if Apple Daily and Next Weekly are boycotted by pro-China advertisers in Hong Kong, this cannot be happening in Taiwan. But why was advertising revenue also dropping in Taiwan?"
When we conduct a scientific experiment, we have a test group and a control group. The Taiwan Next Weekly is our control group which is unaffected by Hong Kong factors. Year-to-date March 2017, Hong Kong Next Weekly had advertising revenues of $57.8 million which is a year-to-year drop of 46%. Meanwhile Taiwan Next Weekly had advertising revenues of $42.8 million which is a year-to-year drop of 53%! Taiwan saw an even greater drop than Hong Kong. The boycott effect has been exaggerated.
(2) Digital revolution. The digital revolution has an impact. How much? I was interviewed by Next Weekly more than three years ago by Bastille Post. Their team consists of one reporter, one photographer and one video camera man. They said that they were going to post the interview on their website. I asked the reporter: "If you post the interview on the website, who is still going to pay $20 for the print magazine?" The reporter could not give an answer. I thought at the time that they sent three people to conduct this interview to be posted on the website, which is going to cost too much for too little impact. So the impact of the digital revolution on Next Digital is actually a problem that they created for themselves.
(3) Strategic mistake. According to Next Weekly editor-in-chief Wong Lai-tong, "In retrospect, we were ignoring our core business. Do our competitors suffer as much? We made sure that we got the hit rates, but this may not be appropriate for a magazine." At Next Digital, a lot of print media contents were posted online for free. This only caused the print media circulation to drop more precipitously than the competition. Three years ago, the print media had $1.5 billion in advertising revenues. Now it is $560 million, or about one-third left. Meanwhile the online media had $640 million in advertising revenues three years ago. Now, it is $650 million. That is to day, print media ad revenues have fallen greatly but online media ad revenues have flattened out three years ago already. How do you make up for the missing $940 million ad revenues? Next Digital sacrificed print media in order to go digital, but the results were disastrous.
Year 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Print ads $3.474 billion $3.269 billion $2..57 billion $2.328 billion $1.784 billion Online ads $157 million $364 million $640 million $660 million $650 million Total costs $2.176 billion $1.92 billion $1.817 billion $1.442 billion $1.236 billion Labor costs $819 million $838 million $823 million $655 million $631 million P/L ($946 million) $248 million $169 million ($324 million) ($394 million) - Next Weekly is losing more than $100 million a year. Why is Kenny Wee willing to pay $500 million for it? Well, that depends on whether he genuine wants the sale to go through.
Once up a time, Next Weekly was the flagship of anti-Communist media in Hong Kong. Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee asked rhetorically whether the proof of the success of One Country Two Systems must depend on Jimmy Lai going down on his knees. He implied that Next Weekly is a rock-steady fortress of democracy that will not be surrendered to the enemy. But before too long, Jimmy Lai is down on his knees begging for $500 million of 'red' capital.
Today the myth of the Fortress of Democracy has been totally dismantled. If I were Kenny Wee, I would start making anonymous revelations about the pro-China background of my potential financiers. This will immediately caused the Taiwan government to veto the sale of Next Weekly (Taiwan). This will immediately allowed me to renege on the whole deal and I walk away with no harm to my reputation.
But the net result will be to make the Taiwan government look authoritarian, deprive Next Digital/Jimmy Lai of the desperately needed cash infusion and destroy the Next Weekly brand. What more can I ask for?
- (Oriental Daily) July 23, 2017. How can the money-losing Next Weekly be worth $500 million? Did Jimmy Lai really find a sucker? But all business people are crooks, so what makes you think that this buyer is a sucker? The buyer is putting down a deposit of $10 million, which is less than the standard rate of 10% (=$50 million). This means that the buyer is hesitant. Once he finds out the state of Next Weekly, he will surely quit. Besides the offer was for Taiwan and Hong Kong magazine titles, and the Taiwan government has clearly said that they won't approve of any deal involving mainland money. So it is no wonder that many people are pessimistic about whether this deal will be completed. Wasn't it the same when Jimmy Lai tried to sell his Next TV in Taiwan?
- (SilentMajorityHK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 19, 2017.
Two weeks ago, the Hong Kong Journalists Association issued its annual report on Freedom of Expression. They pointed out that "of the 26 mainstream media outlets in Hong Kong, nine of them are controlled by mainland China or have Chinese investors." They specifically named TVB being controlled by a Chinese Communist Party member through a confidentiality agreement ...
The next day, Apple published several reports under the title "35% of Hong Kong media are red, freedom of press in danger," "media managers in collusion with authorities" and so on.
Previously, the investment of Alibaba into the South China Morning Post, the investment by the Chinese "Rupert Murdoch" Li Ruigang in TVB, Henry Cheng Kar-shun and red capitalists investing to save Cable TV ... these incidents were criticized by Jimmy Lai's media outlets and the HKJA as the death of Freedom of Press.
A few days ago, Jimmy Lai announced that he is selling Next Weekly for $500 million. The deputy publisher and editor-in-chief Wong Lai-tong said that this deal is "selling the workers into brothels." Even Emily Lau and Kwok Ka-ki are worried that Next Magazine would turn 'red' because the buyer Kenny Wee may be backed by 'red' capital.
When any person or organization had anything China connection, Jimmy Lai and his pals would call them prostitutes. Today Boss Lai is selling his own child into a brothel.
The normally belligerent Hong Kong Journalists Association has only a moderate statement about Jimmy Lai selling his son. That statement did not even mention the name "Jimmy Lai."
This is an astonishing display of the highest level of "double standards."
When does a person sell his child? Of course when he is in dire financial straits. At this time, Next Digital is financially troubled, but its boss Jimmy Lai still has investments in other businesses all over the world. So why does he have to sell his child?
Could it be for justice? Since he believes that the enemy is 'red' capital, he should be staying until the very end. If the bridgehead is lost, he should blow up the bridge and die with the enemy. On no account must he hand the fortress over to the enemy for $500 million and leave his soldiers behind to be raped and killed.
For those who believe that Hong Kong media is being taken over by 'red' capital, why aren't they saying anything about Jimmy Lai handling over a major pro-democracy stronghold over to the 'red' capital. If Ma Yu investing in the South China Morning Post is 'red' infiltration, if Li Ruigang investing in TVB is 'red' infiltration, then Jimmy Lai's sale of Next Weekly to a 'red' capitalist is killing freedom of press. So why is no one condemning Jimmy Lai.
The editor-in-chief's tearful complaint has allowed us to peek at the truth. The money guy has taken the money and sold you out. Will the Yellow Ribbons wake up?
(Bastille Post) July 19, 2017.
People are interested in the financial backing for Kenny Wee, with some speculating that he is backed up by "red" capital. Yesterday I spoke to a mainland tycoon and even he thought that the Central Government was behind Kenny Wee.
But an informed Beijing source said that the Central Government would not be so stupid as to buy Next Weekly. His information is that no only will the Central Government not step in, but they will not encourage anyone else to do so.
The reason is very simple. For the longest time, Jimmy Lai's Next Media Group has been hostile towards Beijing. Now that business is bad, it is clear that Next Weekly will have to fold if no buyer takes over. From Beijing's point of view, it is better to let it die naturally. If a group of Hong Kong/Taiwanese tycoons came up with the money to take over the magazine, it would be giving $320 million to Jimmy Lai to continue his fight with Beijing. Why would the Central Government let this happen?
In 2012, Next Media tried to sell its Taiwan business (including Next Weekly, Apple Daily and Sharp Daily) to a consortium of financial groups for HK$4.64 billion. These Taiwan financial groups sought a reaction from Beijing and got the response "No support." The reason is the same. If Jimmy Lai rakes in several billion dollars from Taiwan, he will have more ammunition to use against the Central Government. Of course, the Central Government did not support such a move. So the Taiwan group backed off, because they didn't want to cause trouble for themselves.
The Beijing source said that there are many uninformed rich people in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They think that there must be a "red" background in this deal. But if they went to ask the Central Government, they would be told solemnly that there is no connection and that they should not get involved.
No matter whether this deal will go through or not, it is for certain that "red" capital is not involved. Furthermore, the Central Government will not regard those investors positively.
(HKG Pao) July 19, 2017.
It was in mid-May that Kenny Wee was negotiating to buy Next Weekly. Many people were anxious at Next Digital. In early June, Jimmy Lai hosted the senior management at dinner and declared: "How can I sell to Kenny Wee!"
As the saying goes, if you believe so much as 10%, you will lose eyesight in both eyes.
One of those present suddenly remember the history of Giordano. In October 1995, Jimmy Lai sold 10% of the Giordano shares and said that he won't be selling out for at least six month. In less than that night, Jimmy Lai played the role of son-of-a-bitch by selling all his shares. Jimmy Lai was a son-of-a-bitch all along.
- (HKG Pao) July 21, 2017.
Is Next Weekly worth $500 million? A prospective buyer must surely evaluate the deal from a business perspective (e.g. is it worth the price?).
But it is also possible to book at it from a non-business perspective. This is interesting because there are actually no completely opposite perspective.
The first perspective is that this deal is done to help China. But does China want your help? The news that Next Weekly is looking for a buyer has been around for a while, and more than one person have asked the Central Government about it. Everybody got a negative response, sometimes adding "Please don't touch this!"
Now that someone is paying $500 million to buy Next Weekly plus the long-defunct Sudden Weekly, this must be very confusing. Since China does feel that buying Next Weekly is helping them, who is this supposed to help?
The opposite perspective is that this is supposed to help. Kenny Wee had just sold Metro Daily for $400 million. He may have to pay off existing debts. Where is he going to find $500 million to complete the deal? He will have to raise more debts. Where is his money coming from? What is more sure is that it is not going to be 'red' capital, irrespective what the concerns of certain people are. We can guess, but we won't know for sure.
Finally, the question is: Is Next Weekly worth $500 million? Business-wise, the magazine is losing more than $100 million a year. If Next Digital keeps it around for a couple more years, it will probably destroy Apple Daily and the online business with it as well. But the appearance of an idiot to take over Next Weekly for $500 million must be a godsend.
Even more ridiculous is that fact that Next Weekly magazine is being bundled at $20 as a combination of Next Weekly and Eat and Travel Weekly. The sale to Kenny Wee includes only the money-losing Next Weekly but not the money-earning Eat and Travel Weekly! Ha ha! How can this be a deal worth $500 million? And pigs will fly too.
And what will happen to a Next Weekly that is not anti-communist? All its loyal readers will run away! Are the advertisements going to rush back in with a huge drop in readership? Ha ha! Can you believe this?
It does not matter whether you believe this or not. It only matters that the buyer believes it. I for one fail to see how Next Weekly can be worth $500 million. But that doesn't mean much, because the person who is putting down $500 million may derive other benefits that are not know to you or me.
- (Oriental Daily) July 27, 2017. When Jimmy Lai announced the sale of Next Weekly, Eat and Travel Weekly was not included in the deal. Today, on the 20th anniversary of the founding of Eat and Travel Weekly, the announcement was made that the magazine will see its final issue published on August 3rd. There will still be a digital version of the magazine.
- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 25, 2017.
A former colleague told me about a true story. During a brainstorming session at Next Weekly, the Finance section editor said that she just went to the CHK Hutchinson Holdings press conference: "There are several noteworthy things, namely ..." But before she even began, Jimmy Lai stopped her: "Who goes to these things anyway? The magazine cover story shall be: The Li Ka-shing empire is finished!" Then he got up and left. My friend thought: "Huh! The end of the empire? There is no sign whatsoever. How is the cover story going to be written?" My friend was so glad not to be in the Finance section. But the editor who agreed with the boss and came out with this cover story is the same editor-in-chief who is crying today about the sale of Next Weekly.
I have been through many such experiences. The worst part about being deputy editor-in-chief is attendance of the weekly brainstorming sessions. Today we speak of editorial independence. Actually, there is none over at Next Weekly. Most of the time, it is on Jimmy Lai's say-so.
For example, someone spoke brought up the subject of modern love stories. Jimmy Lai had this unique idea: "Do you think that there are still parents sleeping in the lower bunk and the son and girlfriend sleeping in the upper bunk? And the young people are making love above while the parents are in the lower bunk ..."
I said: "Mr. Lai, you must have watched too much television?" He said: "How do you know there aren't any if you haven't searched?"
"Do it first. Don't say no before you even start" is Jimmy Lai's rule. So many people help him to "finish" the story. I don't think such topics has any social significance beyond peddling pornography. I did not pay any attention, but a female reporter looking to advance her career spent a full week and "found" a modern love story exactly according to the demand of Boss Lai. Of course, the story was duly embellished.
The kind of boss will lead to the same of employees. You cannot ignore certain things just because the boss says so. In retrospect, it is a crime to aid and abet this sort of thing.
- (Oriental Daily) November 13, 2017.
Next Media announced its results for the six months ending September 30, 2017. Total revenues were $775 million (or 17% less than the same period last year). Losses were $171 million (compared to $147 million in the same period last year).
All the major sources of revenues declined. Digital revenue was $294 million (decrease of 11%); newspaper sales revenue was $160 million (decrease of 10%); news advertising revenue was $185 million (decrease of 23%); book/magazine sales revenue was $19 million (decrease of 33%); book/magazine advertising revenue was $3 million (decrease of 50%); printing service revenue was $8.48 million (decrease of 6%).
In terms of profit/loss, Digital lose $22.87 million, newspaper/publishing lost $75.85 million, book/magazine publishing and print services lost $67.64 million.
Revenue at Apple Daily was $141 million, a decrease of 21%; advertising revenue was $46.50 million, a decrease of 40%; distribution sales revenue was $94.90 million, a decrease of 5.9%.
Revenue at Apple Daily (Taiwan) was $195 million, a decrease of 15%; advertising revenue was $129 million, a decrease of 15%; distribution sales revenue was $657 million, a decrease of 16%.
The company said that the losses were attributed to slow economic growth in Hong Kong and Taiwan such that advertisers are cautious about their spending. Furthermore, there is vigorous global competition in automated advertisement purchasing.
- (Oriental Daily) November 18, 2017.
In the latest earnings report from Next Media, there is this surprising sentence: "One Belt One Road advocates the reorganization of the service and retail industries and thus opens up new opportunities for the media industry. " This sudden reversal from anti-China to pro-China has drawn many comments.
On one hand, Next Media founder Jimmy Lai holds the anti-Communist flag high. On the other hand, he sought out Red capitalists to bail out his failing businesses. He ends up displeasing both sides. But while Next Media can praise One Belt One Road in its earnings report, the Next Media outlets are still pouring out its anti-Chinese Communist/anti-Hong Kong government tirades every day.
Most people think that Jimmy Lai can easily signal goodwill to the Chinese Communists by ordering his media outlets to reverse positions (or, at least, go back to a neutral mode). But the truth is not so simple. After all, Next Media has gathered a bunch of media workers who think that their mission in life is to oppose the Chinese Communists. In order to showcase Chinese Communist censorship/control of their media, Jimmy Lai let his own workers have editorial independence. This means that Next Media will not switch positions just because the boss orders it.
This means that the Next Media earnings report is an indirect way of hinting to the Next Media workers (especially the Apple Daily writers) that the boss wants to switch positions. The writer of that Next Media earnings report does not have editorial independence; he is writing whatever he was ordered to.
This particular technique was probably learned from Mao Zedong. Before he initiated actions in Beijing, he always began in Shanghai. Some Apple Daily media workers will be smart enough to know that the wind is changing direction, and will strive to become the trailblazers.
[765] The DQ4 Are Out ! (2017/07/15)
(SCMP) July 15, 2017.
An intense political drama gripped Hong Kong on Friday as the High Court stripped four opposition lawmakers of their seats in the legislature for improper oath-taking, in a tough ruling that further alienates the pan-democratic camp and sets the stage for months of legal appeals, protests and acrimony ahead.
“Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim were disqualified by the Court of First Instance while in the middle of a Legislative Council meeting which was postponed for a day as they refused to leave the chamber immediately.
The court, ruling on legal action initiated by former chief executive Leung Chun-ying, was unambiguous in clarifying that oath-taking must be done strictly by the book with no additions or deviations – before, during or after an oath – no matter how well intended.
Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung based his ruling on both common law principles and a controversial interpretation of the city’s mini-constitution by China’s top legislature that earlier saw two newly elected pro-independence lawmakers kicked out of Legco for insulting the nation during their swearing-in.
“It is also not only to provide a legal basis to check and punish future breaches by the oath taker … It is also a constitutional legal requirement that the oath taker, in taking the oath, must also sincerely and truly believe in the pledges under the oath that he or she is taking,” he said.
All four vowed to appeal, presenting a picture of defiance at a press conference first and a protest at night joined by hundreds of supporters outside government headquarters.
Related Links:
Court of First Instance Document HCAL 223/2016.
[#687] The $5,000,000 Lawyers (2017/03/01)
[#621] Two Down (DQ2), Four More Next Up (DQ4) (2016/12/06)
Internet Comments:
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. The judgment dashed any hope of reconciliation between opposition lawmakers – who called it a “declaration of war” – and the new administration of Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. Responding to the ruling, she made it clear she would not intervene for the sake of better relations. “Building bridges still has to be done in a lawful way,” she said. “I don’t think a chief executive or any government official should sort of compromise on the rule of law just because we want to be friendly.”
- Would you like Carrie Lam to intercede and order the Department of Justice to withdraw the judicial review after the ruling has been made? What justification can she offer? This can only be political horse trade over the dead body of the rule of law.
- The opposition asserts that the executive branch is attacking the legislative branch. In their view, Nathan Law was elected by 50,818 voters; Lau Siu-lai by 38,183 voters; Leung Kwok-hung by 35,595 voters; Yiu Chung-yim by 2,491 voters in the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape constituency. The disqualification of these four legislators meant that the wishes of 127,087 voters have been subverted.
- (Oriental Daily) July 19, 2017.
The DQ4 said that when the government went through the court to disqualify them, the wises of the voters have been violated. They said that their seats were given to them by the voters, and therefore only the voters can take the seats back. When the DQ4 and their supporters articulate this view, they actually look as if they genuine believe this.
Dear friends, have you ever heard a death row inmate tell the executioner: "You have no right to take my life. My life came from the parents, and only they can take it away"? Death inmates may be desperate to cling to their lives, but even they can't spout this kind of nonsense.
I don't understand how the DQ4 and their supporters could say this? Are they even worse than death row inmates? They say that everything and anything goes during the oath, and the voters can decide four years later whether to re-elect that person or not. Well, does that apply to the legislator who takes off all his clothes during the oath? Or the legislator who punches another legislator in the course of a Legco meeting? Do all these transgressions have to wait four years for the voters to decide in the next election? And if I don't want to run for office again, I will have the license to do anything I want (murder, robbery, rape, etc) because nobody (not the government, not the police and not the court) can touch me!? How can anyone say such nonsense?
- Here is Eddie Chu Hoi Dick response at the RTHK City Forum when asked whether they had reflected on what they did during their oaths: "What should I reflect about? What should I reflect about, sir? I was elected by 80,000 people! What should I reflect about?"
So Eddie Chu Hoi Dick assumes that anyone elected by the people can never do wrong because everything that they do is in accordance with the wishes of those voters, and the voters are never ever wrong.
- Internet reaction: Adolf Hitler got 17,277,180 votes in 1933. So he should not have to reflect on anything.
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 16, 2017.
... Even an idiot can see that this has nothing to do with justice, democracy or whatever. This was a perfect demonstration of banging heads against a solid wall. More than one hundred thousand voters cast their votes to send you to the Legislative Council. You were going to get a big salary plus special privileges and benefits. Instead, you engage in some childish antic. It is as if you defaced your admission ticket for fun, which caused it to become invalid. As a result, you are kept outside the gate. And now you have the nerve to come out and tell the people to pay for your legal bills? You should count yourself lucky if those voters did not come at you.
... I am increasingly sympathetic with the supporters of the opposition. Do they have the word "Sucker" etched on their faces?
New Year's Day? Donations please.
June 4th? Donations please.
July 1st? Donations please.
Pre-election time? Donations please.
Post-election time? Donations please.
Legal troubles? Donations please.
DQ'd? Donations please.
You are asked to open your wallet for them all the time, as if you owe them. No wonder participation and donations have tumbled recently.Joshua Wong is now saying that Nathan Law's office was paying more than 10 aides whose full-time jobs are to oppose the government. Are you still naive enough to drop $100 into their donation box? Compared to their $200,000 monthly budget or Jimmy Lai's multi-million "black gold", your donation is trifling.
You voted them in. But they chose to bang their heads against the wall. Now they want you to pick up their medical bills. Is this reasonable? Nobody pointed a gun at Lau Siu-lai and forced her to read the oath ever so slowly. Nobody waved a knife to force Nathan Law to alter his intonation. They brought it upon themselves. Why should the voters foot the bill for them?
"Political suppression" is the slogan for confidence men to make money. The true purpose is this: "Please donate money."
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. The ruling has effectively curtailed the bargaining power of the pro-democracy bloc. With Leung, Law and Lau – all directly elected lawmakers – out of the picture, the pan-democrats, already a minority in the legislature, have lost their limited veto power to block motions and amendments to bills tabled by their pro-establishment rivals. They will also be unable to stop Beijing loyalists and government allies from changing Legco rules to prevent the pan-democrats from filibustering contentious bills.
- Here is a 2011 article on the Indian parliament: How to restore decorum & gravitas in our parliament?
The erosion of decorum and gravitas in parliamentary proceedings is a phenomenon often seen in Parliaments of democracies with a multi-party parliamentary system, with no party strong enough to enforce its political will on the conduct of the parliamentary proceedings.
One saw it in the pre-de Gaulle French Parliament and one continues to see it often in the parliaments of democracies such as Italy, Japan, South Korea and some South American countries.
de Gaulle did manage to improve the functioning of the French Parliament by having a new Constitution introduced. Despite this, the experience on the whole has been that the erosion cannot be prevented or reversed through rules and regulations alone or through flippant measures such as denying salary to Members of Parliament disrupting parliamentary proceedings. The only way of dealing with this erosion is through the practice of a robust system of parliamentary ethics, the initiative for which has to come from the ruling party.
This phenomenon is generally not seen in democracies with a two-party system or with a restricted number of political parties where parliamentary strengths are evenly matched. Two examples are the UK and India before 1970. The predominant presence of the Congress in the Indian Parliament and the parliamentary etiquette of the post-Independence leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru ensured the prevalence of decorum and gravitas even in the most contentious of situations. The self-confidence arising from predominance in numbers ensured a certain dignity and self-restraint in the conduct of the MPs of the ruling party, which was reciprocated by the members of the opposition.
The erosion in the decorum and gravitas consequent on the emergence of a multiplicity of political parties initially started in the State legislatures in the 1960s and has subsequently spread to the Parliament, causing frequent spells of paralysis in the functioning of the Parliament, to which the ruling and opposition parties have contributed in varying measures.
The initiative for reversing the erosion through better parliamentary etiquette and conduct has to come from the ruling party ...
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. The Department of Justice said it had no plan to go after any other lawmaker.
- (CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance) Section 73 Proceedings against persons on grounds of disqualification.
73(2) Proceedings under this section may not be brought after 6 months from the date on which the person concerned acted, or claimed to be entitled to act, as a Member.
So the fact is that the Department of Justice actually cannot go after any other lawmaker.
- Actually, there are a number of judicial reviews filed by citizens against these and other legislators. Four more "pro-democracy" legislators made obvious changes to their oaths: Chan Chi-chuen (People Power), Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion), Shiu Ka-chun and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick. Those cases are moving inexorably ahead, albeit slower. But the government has set the precedents, and prior cases count for everything under Common Law. Those judicial reviews were filed around November 2016, which are within the 6-month window of opportunity.
- CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance Section 73.
(1) An elector, or the Secretary for Justice, may bring proceedings in the Court against any person who is acting, claims to be entitled to act, as a Member on the ground that the person is disqualified from acting as such.
Tsuen Wan resident Law King-yeung applied for a judicial review of the status of Eddie Chu Hoi Dick and Cheng Chung-tai. The case will be heard on July 26, 2017. There isn't anything that Carrie Lam or anyone else can do to stop this case from moving forward.
- Here is the full list:
Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party): Addition after the oath: "Down with corruption! Down with Wolf Ying"
Roy Kwong Chun-yu (Democratic Party): Addition after the oath: "Hong Kong is the homefield for the people of Hong Kong. Do not forget our initial goals. Go, Hongkongers!"
Helena Wong (Democratic Party): After the oath: "Restart constitution reform! Down with CY Leung! The Water Works Department must test the water immediately."
Wan Siu-kin (Democratic Party): During the oath: Pause between "Republic" and "Chinese People".
Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party): After the oath, he ripped up a prop copy of the August 31st resolution
Chan Chi-chuen (People Power): During the oath, he split pause between "Republic" and "Chinese People." After he oath, he said: "I am a Hongkonger. I want to have universal suffrage. I will filibuster to stop evil laws."
Siu Ka-chun (Professional Alliance): After the oath, he banged a drum and yelled: "Umbrella Revolution may have been defeated but it has not vanished. We will resist the authoritarian regime. We are back."
Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion): After the oath: "Constitution by the people to re-establish a new charter. Hongkongers for themselves. Long live Hong Kong!"
Eddie Chu Hoi Dick: After the oath: "Democratic self-determination. Tyranny will be defeated. Oppose Andrew Leung for chairman."
- (Oriental Daily) November 14, 2016.
27-year-old waiter Ricky Chan Ka-wai filed a judicial review at the High Court against legislators Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Cheung Chiu-hung, Siu Ka-chun, Wan Siu-kin, Lam Cheuk-ting, Helena Wong Pik-wan, Roy Kwong Chun-yu, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick, Chan Chi-chuen and Cheng Chung-tai over their oaths of office. The applicant said that the oaths are invalid under the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. Chan emphasized that he filed the application as an individual citizen.
Previously a taxi driver had already filed a judicial review against legislators Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Cheng Chung-tai, Siu Ka-chun, Chan Chi-chuen and Eddie Chu Hoi Dick over their oaths of office. The applicant contends that the oaths were invalid according to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. The disqualification is retroactive to October 12, 2016 – the date the four were sworn in, raising the prospect of further clashes with the government over the salaries and allowances they will be asked to return. All four will have to pay legal costs as well – a total of HK$3 million to the government and HK$1 million each to their own lawyers. The court ruling includes an injunction barring them from acting as or claiming to be lawmakers.
- (Wen Wei Po) July 17, 2017. According to the published Legco data, Nathan Law claimed $2.25 million, Lau Siu-lai $2.18 million, Yiu Chung-yim $2.05 million and Leung Kwok-hung $1.7 million in operating expenses over the past 9 months. Their salaries were about $850,000 each over the past 9 months. Leung Kwok-hung admitted that he may have to file for bankruptcy if he loses the appeal.
Under Cap 542 Legislative Council Ordinance Section 39,
39. When a person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate or from being elected as a Member
(1) A person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as a Member, if the person --
(i) is an undischarged bankrupt or, within the previous 5 years, has either obtained a discharge in bankruptcy or has entered into a voluntary arrangement within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) with the person’s creditors, in either case without paying the creditors in full. (Amended 25 of 2003 s. 22)
Leung Kwok-hung was asked a hypothetical question: "If you can taken the oath again, would you have done something like what you did?" He said that if he knew that the HKSAR government would be taking such "unreasonable" measures, he would not have given the authorities the chance to "abuse the judicial process."
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. Rights group Amnesty International Hong Kong was fiercely critical: “Today’s decision confirms the Hong Kong government’s agenda to silence and effectively punish any speech critical of the present political system, wherever it may occur, even within the legislature.”
- Amnesty International Hong Kong is making a completely one-sided statement. The 'pro-democracy' side will talk only about ideas such as freedom of speech. Abstractly, that sounds good. They will never broach the subject of what the DQ4 actually did ...
(Wen Wei Po) December 2, 2016.
Lau Siu-lai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4peDyPJixk
On October 12, 2016, Lau Siu-lai preceded her oath with these words: "I, Lau Siu-lai, promise that when I go from the streets into the Legislative Council, I will continue with the spirit of self-determination in the Umbrella Movement to walk with the people of Hong Kong. I will unite with those inside and outside the Legislative Council to oppose the authoritarian regime. We will live in honesty and openness; we will break through coldness and indifference and create the road to democratic self-determination. We will topple the tall wall, determine our own fates and make ourselves strong."
Then she proceeded to read out the oath of office at the slow speed of six seconds per word. Her oath lasted 10 minutes. Afterwards, she said: "Fight for universal pension; implement the policies for marketplaces; defend the dignity in the lives of the people of Hong Kong." She took up a total of 13 minutes for the entire process. At the time, the Legislative Council secretary-general Chan Wai-On who administered the oath did not react.
Afterwards, Lau Siu-lai posted on Facebook under the title: <Slow reading was used to show the absurdity of the oath>: "I read the official oath word by word. The oath became more than 90 unconnected words without any coherence, relationship or meaning. The audience cannot grasp any sentence or tone. In this way, the audience can determine their own meaning based upon their subjective speculations. This is done in order to show the hypocrisy of business-as-usual ... the fluent articulated oath is hypocritical, the harmonious legislature is also hypocritical." She added: ""What I said before the oath is the more honest version."
After receiving complaints and reviewing the video recording, Legco president Andrew Leung declared the oath to be invalid and administered the oath again on November 2. On that occasion, Lau Siu-lai read the oath at a normal pace.
Yiu Chung-yim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea8UsHmnVho
On October 12, Yiu Chung-yim read the oath until he completed the part of pledging allegiance to the People's Republic of China. At that point, he inserted "I will supoport the Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve towards sustainable development in Hong Kong." Afterwards the Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and demanded Yiu to retake his oath.
Yiu then proceeded to read the oath. Upon completing the oath, he added: "I will supoport the Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve towards sustainable development in Hong Kong." At the time, Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and told him to return to his seat. Later Legco president Andrew Leung rules that Yiu's oath was invalid. At Yiu's request, the oath was administered again on October 19.
Leung Kwok-hung https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLn6JIUEfbs
At the oath ceremony, Leung Kwok-hung wore a shirt for "civil disobedience." He held an umbrella with slogans such as "End one-party tyranny" and a prop that represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress. As he proceeded, he shouted slogans such as "Umbrella Movement, no yielding, no concessions," "I want double universal suffrage" and "Down with CY Leung" etc.
His oath was broken up with 29 pauses that averaged 2 seconds each, including a pause between "the Chinese People's" and "Republic" as well as racing through another "People's Republic of China." After the oath, he shouted: "Rescind the National People's Congress August 31st resolution, I want double universal suffrage, the people will determine their own futures without needing the permission of the Chinese Communists." He tore up his paper prop that represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress and littered the pieces onto the ground.
At the time, the Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on did not react. Later Legco president Andrew Leung did not address the matter.
Nathan Law Kwun-chung https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4OnNgspWjs
Before reading out the oath on October 12, Nathan Law aid that the English term for the oath was "affirmation" whose Latin meaning was being more firm and resolute. He said that the oath is a solemn rite, but the rite has "degenerated into a tool for the authorities" "that compels the popularly elected representatives to bend under the system and its authoritarianism." He said that he had to complete this required procedure, "but it does not mean that I submit myself to authoritarianism." He said that he "will not pledge allegiance to a regime that murders its own people" and that "change begins with resistance."
During his reading of the oath, he read "pledge allegiance to the People's Republic of China(?)" in the tone of a question as opposed to a statement. After reading the oath, he shouted: "Power to the people, tyranny will persih!" At the time, the Legislative Council Chan Wai-On did not react. Afterwards, Legco president Andrew Leung ruled that Nathan Law's oath was valid.
The case is an open-and-shut no-brainer. Once this is brought to court, any judge is going to disallow the oaths. The evidence consists of video recordings of the oaths. Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung does not intend to go down in history as the judge who found that Lau Siu-lai's one-word-every-six-second oath to be solemn, sincere and proper. He will be a laughing stock all over the world. It will also open the floodgates for copycat behavior in all walks of life.
- If a witness takes the oath in Lau Siu-lai's manner, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung would throw him into jail for contempt of court.
- Leung Kwok-hung said: "This can't happen in any place with true democracy." I loved to see a list of "places with true democracy" that will accept Lau Siu-lai's oath of office.
- Actually, the only places that will accept these oaths are authoritarian countries. If Kim Jong-un wants to take his oath in that manner, who is going to object?
- Here is a trip down memory lane with US State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau. So is there going to be a more coherent response now?
(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.
- (SCMP) July 15, 2017. The four lawmakers disqualified on Friday over their oath antics could face claims by the Legislative Council for the return of up to HK$11 million in salary and allowances, plus up to HK$7 million in legal fees.
- Time to open your wallets and hand over your money for the DQ4 to give to the lawyers.
- (HKG Pao) July 15, 2017. After failing to get a huge turnout that evening, Joshua Wong went on with the more important business of soliciting donations. He wrote: "We are very tired of thinking about the legislators dealing with the very complex appeal process. We are also very concerned about the huge legal fees, the more than one dozen aides who will become unemployed and the party losing the financial support from the Legislative Council.
After losing the monthly $200,000 office budget, Demosisto may not be able to sustain basic operations after August. So Joshua Wong is asking the young people who support them to make monthly donations through this cold winter.
Wan Chin jumped in to point out that Demosisto had no concrete plans after the demonstration that evening beyond asking for money. He told Joshua Wong not to worry, because "there are enough middle-class hypocrites who would vote for you in a by-election."
- (HKG Pao) Here are the number of LIKE's for the various posts at the four major pro-establishment websites (SilentMajorityHK, SpeakoutHK, Good News HK and HKG Pao) by 530pm:
- (HKG Pao) After the court ruling was published, the DQ4 immediately called for a general rally outside Government Headquarters at 8pm. How many hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy citizens came out to show their support? Even Apple Daily said that there were 300 people, including reporters and the aides of the DQ4.
- Where do Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching fit into all of this?
When Leung and Yau vacated their Legco offices, they left behind a note: "If you keep the mountain green, you will have be able to collect firewood some day. War is tricky. You must never let people anticipate what you will be doing. Save yourself to fight with the 'old guys' in the future."
Who are the 'old guys'? Are these the 'traditional pan-democrats' who egged the young radicals to dig graves to bury themselves?
On Sunday at the RTHK City Forum, legislator James To (Democratic Party) said that if the National People's Congress Standing Committee had not issued its interpretation of Basic Law Article 104, then the legislators could follow the local ordinances as well as the High Court's previous ruling to alter their oaths. The legislators can seek legal advice beforehand to make sure that they don't step over the line.
However, the equilibrium was upset when Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching went way over the line to insult all Chinese people. Several tens of thousands of protestors gathered around the Legislative Council to express the global outrage. The National People's Congress Standing Committee issued an interpretation to clarify what the requirements for an oath was. So Leung and Yau were disqualified, and then the DQ4 followed because they also stepped over the line.
When Leung and Yau lost their case, they were facing legal fees as much as $6 million. At the time, the pan-democrats called the two "Communist moles" who "deceived stupid voters into voting for them," "brought infamy to the Legislative Council" and "gave the weapons to CY Leung to use suppress democracy." On that night, Yau went to Mong Kok to rally support but everybody ignored her. Given what happened to the DQ4, Leung and Yau must be feeling some satisfaction.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) July 19, 2017.
Disqualified localist lawmaker Yau Wai-ching has invited the other disqualified lawmakers to come together and discuss legal arguments for their potential appeals.
The six were all disqualified after Beijing issued a rare interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, which said that lawmakers must take their oaths sincerely and accurately.
The press conference on Tuesday was the first time they have appeared together after four lawmakers were ousted last week. They entered the Legislative Council as private citizens.
“The nature of the cases against the six of us are the same – they should not be handled separately. Thus after we speak to our lawyers, we will try to talk to [the others] to come up with legal arguments,” Yau said.
Baggio Leung said the public should not let themselves be deceived and divided anymore. “This incident clearly showed… it does not matter to the Chinese Communist Party whether you think you are a democrat, someone supporting the rule of law, someone fighting for freedom, or someone fighting for independence or self-determination… you all want to take power away from the authoritarian regime,” he said.
Leung said if the Court of Final Appeal does not accept their application, it means they have lost the case and will likely have to pay the government’s legal fees, which the lawyers estimate to be between HK$8 and 10 million. “We are quite certain we don’t have the ability to pay – declaring bankruptcy would seem to be the only way out,” he said.
Yau said it was too early to talk about by-elections. Anyone who has not obtained a bankruptcy discharge or paid creditors in full in the past five years cannot run for office.
- (Citizen News) July 18, 2017. At the press conference, Leung Chung-hang said: "Whether you think that you are a democrat, or someone who supports rule-of-law, or someone who is fighting for freedom, or someone who is fighting for independence/self-determination, the Chinese Communists would not think that you people are different from each other" because "everybody basically wants to take away some power from the authoritarian regime." He asked citizens not to divided.
- Wan Chin: "Oh, so Hong Kong independence/determination is the same as Democratic China. Now you tell us?"
- Internet derivative art:
Left to right: "Promiscuous," "Inferior," "Stupid," "Trash," "Garbage," "Useless"
"Collective resignation by all pan-democrats"- You want to ask Leung-Yau for legal advice? Bwaaahhh! #626 They've Got New Legal Theories (2016/12/15). More recently, the Legal Aid Department rejected Leung-Yau's application for legal aid on the grounds that the likelihood of them winning is close to nil.
- What Leung-Yau can tell you is the list of legal arguments that have failed so far. If something works, wouldn't they have used it already with good results?
- The court ruling included injunctions against the DQ4 from acting as members of the Legislative Council and claiming to act as members of the Legislative Council. When the court ruling was published, the DQ4 were attending a Finance Committee meeting at the Legislative Council. They refused to leave, and the meeting was terminated as a result. The next morning, the DQ4 attempted to barge into a Legislative Council meeting (see YouTube). As you might expect, none of the Rule-of-Law pan-democrats are talking about contempt of court.
- When the law is on your side, you uphold the rule of law. When the law is not on your side, you uphold the rule of might.
- When the court rules for you, you say that we must respect the independence of the judiciary. When the court rules against you, you say that the judiciary must be subservient to politics.
- (SCMP) Disqualification of lawmakers shows up the hypocrisy of the pan-dems. By Alex Lo. July 17, 2017.
The need to protect the rule of law and an independent judiciary has been a major pan-democratic cause. But now that a High Court case has turned against four pan-democratic legislators, it’s odd that they and their allies feel not the slightest shame in denouncing and disobeying the judgment.
Do they only respect court rulings that turn their way?
“Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim have been disqualified as lawmakers for breaching oath-taking laws during their swearing-in ceremony at the Legislative Council last October. The Court of First Instance ruling also bars them from identifying themselves as lawmakers and from attending Legco meetings. They and their allies have denounced the court case – launched by the previous administration of Leung Chun-ying – as “a declaration of war”. They have also warned the ruling will set a precedent on how public oaths need to be taken.
I don’t get it. If people don’t want to swear by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, by China and/or by the Basic Law, they shouldn’t run for public office.
Aided and abetted by their colleagues from People Power, the Civic Party, the Democratic Party, the Labour Party and other localists, the four tried to force their way into a Legco finance committee meeting at the weekend. Their colleagues then crashed the meeting, which would have approved HK$3.6 billion in new annual funding for education, covering kindergarten to university. This kind of mindless temper tantrum has become routine among pan-dems in Legco. Perhaps they should play by the rules which they claim to uphold.
The four are set to appeal the court decision; they may get lucky. More importantly, they should look on the by-elections for their vacated seats as a de facto referendum.
“Long Hair” knows all about this. In 2010, he was among five pan-democrats who resigned from Legco and then won back their seats in by-elections. While he won’t be able to run again, pan-democrats will try to win back six seats – four from the latest court case and those of two others, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, who were disqualified in an earlier judgment.
If they win most or all the seats back, the pan-dems can legitimately claim an unassailable mandate. But if they lose, well, no doubt they will cause more chaos, in Legco and out.
- What is to be done? According to an armchair social activist:
On September 28, there will be a collective resignation.
The people will surround the Legislative Council and occupy Central district
To demand the dissolution of the entire Legislative Council for brand new elections.
The people (and not Chinese Communists) should decide who shall be legislators!
Collective resignation!
The time has come for a revolution in the streets!- (HKG Pao) July 15, 2017. On Facebook, legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) wrote:
"The court has disqualified all four legislators. Let us have a collective resignation. This legislature has no reason to continue." He gave three reasons: (1) to defend the residual honor of the people of Hong Kong; (2) to return the power of monitoring the government to the people; (3) to avoid Hong Kong becoming an authoritarian society.
Immediately, netizens asked: "Why don't you lead the way and resign now?" and "Why don't you tell us what is your value in the legislature?"
- Wan Chin's Facebook
I cannot blame the pan-democrats for not willing to participate in a collective resignation. If you were disqualified, you can still run in the by-election. But if you resign on your own, you are not eligible to run in the by-election.
- Democratic Party legislator Andrew Wan's Facebook (now deleted)
Han Lin-shan, Raymond Wong, you bastards are calling for a collective resignation. You are moles.
What is biggest impact of the disqualification of those legislators? Veto power by Legco constituency groups? Or 1/3 veto power? Right now, the loss of six legislators is such a big problem already. If we resign collectively, the pro-establishment camp will be able to do whatever they want. Article 23, Legco procedural rules, mainland border control in Hong Kong ... they will pass everything. What kind of logic is this? Collective resignation is a form of political naïveté, or sabotage. Han and Wong are moles.- What else is to be done? This comes from armchair revolutionary Benny Tai Yiu Ting:
If the current administration hopes to salvage some minimal trust after the disqualification of the four legislators, then they must break with the previous administration. If they can do the following, they will get a little bit of trust back from everybody:
1. They must promise not to initiate legal proceeding to disqualify more legislators.
2. They must promise not to seek legal fees from the four disqualified legislators.
3. They must promise to hold by-elections not later than four months when all appeals have been exhausted, including the cases of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching; they will not delay the by-elections in order to hold all of them at the same time.
4. They must state that they will not support any revision to Legco procedural rules before the by-elections have been completed.
5. They must promise that they will not submit any controversial bills (such as Article 23 legislation or constitutional reform) before the by-elections have been completed.
It is not too difficult for the Carrie Lam administration to make these promises. Everything is within the powers of the government, and it will bring desirable political effects. The important thing is whether she is genuinely sincere about mending relationships.- What the fuck is he thinking? For example, look at #2 about not seeking legal fees from the four disqualified legislators. Look, the lawyers are going to be paid one way or the other. If the government excuses the DQ4, then the government picks up the tab. In other words, the taxpayers will be paying the lawyers. Why the fuck should I pay for Lau Siu-lai's legal bills over her silly oath. She is a teacher with a PhD degree, a responsible adult and the owner of two home properties. Why should I pay for her stupidity?
- The court ruling stipulates that the DQ4 must pay for the legal fees. Citizens can open their wallets and pay for them. But if the government does so, I will be the first one to file a judicial review. I am indigent and my likelihood of winning is 100%, so I will appeal with legal aid all the way to the Court of Final Appeal.
- (Headline Daily) September 2, 2017. Leung Kwok-hung said that he has received approval for legal aid to appeal his own verdict. As a result, his seat will be in limbo until the appeal process is over. Most likely, the by-election for Leung Chung-hang's vacated seat will be held soon. Since there is only one opening, the winner will be a pan-democrat. In Kowloon West, if Lau Siu-lai does not appeal, there will be two vacated seats, which will be split between the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps. Therefore, Leung Kwok-hung is asking each incumbent pan-democratic legislator to donate $100,000 to Lau Siu-lai to file an appeal which should costs at most $1.5 million.
- You give Lau Siu-lai $100,000 and you find that she is vacationing in Kaohsiung with some guy (Oriental Daily August 31, 2017). Your heart must be very warm.
- (HKG Pao) September 3, 2017.
Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung said that it is not a personal decision for Civic Party legislators whether to donate $100,000 to Lau Siu-lai or not. This issue must be "explored in depth" within the party before a response is available.
Democratic Party member Andrew Wan said donations take money away from the Democratic Party itself. So it will be hard for them to make a donation.
Social Welfare sector legislator Siu Ka-chun said that donations should come from the heart and therefore it is wrong to coerce people into parting with their money.
Ever since the DQ4 were disqualified, they have been asking people to donate money to them. But they have never announced how much they have received, nor where the money is going. Who is going to give more money to them?
- And look at #1 about not disqualifying other legislators. As a professor in law, Benny Tai is apparently not aware that the other judicial reviews are being filed by private citizens against other legislators. The government's work is already done by setting the Common Law precedents in the case of the DQ4. On July 26, a courting hearing is scheduled for the cases of Cheng Chung-tai and Eddie Chu Hoi Dick. If Carrie Lam, the Justice Department and/or the courts combine to quash these judicial reviews by fiat, it would be a breach of 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.
In fact, Benny Tai recently said that without the judicial review, the people will have no choice but to go to fight in the streets.
- (Oriental Daily) July 18, 2017. Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick said that those individual citizens who have filed judicial reviews against legislators may be secretly backed by Beijing. He asked Carrie Lam to not to get involved with the judicial reviews brought forth by individual citizens.
- In a rule-of-law society, it does not matter who brought forth the case. It only matters whether the case has merits. The cases of Eddie Chu Hoi Dick and Cheng Chung-tai are identical to the case of the DQ4.
- And look at #4 on revisions to Legco procedural rules. Such proposals come from legislators themselves, not from the government. To ask Carrie Lam (and/or the China Liaison Office) to force the pro-establishment legislators not to make such proposals is a clear violation of the so-called separation of powers that is supposed to be a core value of the pan-democrats.
- Strategically, the pro-establishment camp should do nothing about revisions to the procedural rules. They should let the pan-democrats continue to filibuster until majority opinion is firmly on their side. And then they can pounce. Everybody knows that we can count on the pan-democrats to over-reach.
- (Headline Daily) July 18, 2017. By Chris Wat Wing-yin.
... Simply put, Benny Tai wants Rule-of-man, with Chief Executive Carrie Lam using her authority to release convicted criminals.
I recalled that Luggage Gate (#505), during which Chief Executive CY Leung's daughter lost her laptop computer and asked airline employees to bring it to her. At the time, CY Leung made a call on behalf of her daughter. More than a thousand people showed up at the airport later to protest CY Leung's abuse of power for personal purposes.
If asking someone to bring a laptop computer is such a serious misdeed, then leniency on the DQ4 must surely be an earth-shattering political deal!?
It is normal to have divergent opinions in society. But it is not a good thing when double standards are used for everything. If the DQ4 were from the pro-establishment camp, then Benny Tai's conditions will obviously be a case of government officials shielding their friends, swapping power for support, a devil's bargain ... all of which lead inevitably to "Carrie Lam must resign!"
... In a rule-of-law society, the correct response from Carrie Lam or anyone else should be: "Don't talk to me! Go talk to the judge!" Getting Carrie Lam to overturn a judge's ruling is giving up on rule-of-law.
- What is to be done? Part 3 of many parts.
Emergency appeal!
All non-establishment legislators will donate all their salaries and subsidies beginning August 2017 to pay for the legal fees for the DQ4 legislators all the way through the Court of Appeal of the High Court, the Court of Final Appeal and the National People's Congress Standing Committee.- Fat fucking chance!
- (Oriental Daily with video) July 14, 2017.
More than 20 citizens showed up at 930pm outside League of Social Democrats headquarters in Cheung Sha Wan district in order to celebrate the disqualification of Leung Kwok-hung. They held up photos of Leung and chanted: "Long Hair deserves to be disqualified!" They scattered ghost money around and drank beer to celebrate. They even performed a Taoist rite for the dead. Although the lights were still on inside, nobody came out.- Leung Kwok-hung said that he can only continue to appeal, even though it will cost a lot of money. Including the initial case, the legal bill will be at least $3 million per person. If he can't afford to pay, he will have to file for bankruptcy and thus barred from running in the Legislative Council election again. Leung said that the best solution would be for the government not to contest their appeal and let them resume their posts.
Bwaaahhhh!
- (Wen Wei Po) July 17, 2017.
The DQ4 must appeal the ruling of the Court of First Instance. Right? If they don't, they will sink into oblivion. Filing an appeal will keep them in the limelight, with the chance of raising more money.
But there seems to be a subtle change in tone now. The keyword is still "$MONEY$".
On radio today, Lau Siu-lai said that there are many considerations for an appeal, including financial pressure. She will discuss with the other three, and it is possible that they may reach different decisions. She said that people (including the lawyers) are pessimistic about the outcome of an appeal, because the Court of First Instance accepted the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation in full.
Meanwhile Nathan Law said that he is leaning towards an appeal. But the legal fees will be in the millions, so it depends on the financial pressure and the support of the non-establishment camp. He is pessimistic about getting legal aid. He estimated that the Legislative Council will ask him to give 3 to 4 million dollars back. Nathan Law said that the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation was a "political decision." Even if he is not confident about the deal, the Court of Final Appeal needs to clarify the legal issues.
Leung Kwok-hung said that it is entirely possible that he won't file an appeal because of the legal fees. He does not know whether legal aid is available. If they do, the amount will be less than $1 million; if not, the amount will be about $3 million each. He said that there is "no reason" for the HKSAR government to ask them for legal fees, because it is only "fair" that the money should come out of the treasury.
- (Oriental Daily) July 17, 2017. There are six unfilled Legco seats: Two in Kowloon West; two in New Territories East; one in Hong Kong Island; one in a functional constituency. Basically Hong Kong voters go for about 55% "non-establishment" and 45% "pro-establishment." If elections are held for all six seats simultaneously, it is likely that one seat in Kowloon West and one seat in New Territories East will go to the pro-establishment camp.
Therefore, Nathan Law has suggested that, for the sake of mending social rifts, the government should hold two sets of elections: first for two seats in Kowloon West and New Territories East; then for the other four seats.
Politically, this means that the "non-establishment" camp will probably win five of the six seats (but not the functional constituency which was won by Yiu Chung-yim only because two pro-establishment rivals split the majority vote).
Economically, this means that the government will pay $140 million more to hold the elections.
Well, I can think of better ways to spend $140 million. Can you?
- Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said that the additional $140 million expenditure is worthwhile because it is "in the public interest." He did not explain the meaning, but he may be implying that pan-democratic non-cooperation at the Legislative Council will eventually cost much more than $140 million.
- This may help to mend "social rifts" between Carrie Lam and Nathan Law, but it will permanently damage Carrie Lam with the "pro-establishment" camp.
- Carrie Lam said that she will not compromise on rule-of-law for the sake of the pan-democrats.
- Carrie Lam said that she will not be making the decision. Instead the Election Affairs Office will schedule the elections according to existing rules and resource availability.
- People like Benny Tai, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law and others are listing demands that the government must meet before social peace and harmony can be restored. If not, they promise a permanent non-cooperation campaign.
The lesson from the Occupy Central debacle is that none of these people are authorized to represent anyone or any group, and therefore meeting their demands will accomplish nothing. If you meet one set of demands, another person will pop up and list another set of demands. It will never end.
So it was during Occupy Central that their demands included: (1) rescind the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee; (2) implement universal suffrage with civil nomination; (3) CY Leung must go; (4) Carrie Lam and Raymond Tam must resign; (5) one-party rule must end in China; (6) implement universal pension; (7) establish standard working hours; (8) increase minimum wage; (9) build more public housing; (10) protect all green parkland; (11) stop construction of the Express Rail Link; (12) stop construction of the Zhuhai-Macau-Hong Kong bridge; (13) the Chief Executive must not automatically become university chancellor; etc.
- (Bastille Post) Here is a game-theoretic analysis of the Grand Reconciliation. There are four players: the non-establishment camp; the pro-establishment camp; the Chief Executive/HKSAR government; the Central Government.
In a Prisoners' Dilemma, how do you get all sides to arrive at the optimal solution? In this case, how do you get everybody to make concessions, reduce the heat and arrive at a permanent ceasefire?
The non-establishment camp: The situation is complicated by internal divisions. The camp is divided into traditional and localist factions, with the traditional faction being further subdivided into conservative and radical factions. If the non-establishment camp had a unified will, they can negotiate with the Central Government. For example, "If you forego legal fees for the DQ2/DQ4, if you stop further judicial reviews to disqualify more legislators, if you hold the by-elections separately and if you promise not to revise the procedural rules, I will promise to stop filibustering in the future and allow the government to pass most of the normal budgets." But nobody can represent the leaderless pan-democrats to make those promises. You can be sure that the radical/localist factions will agree with the demands, but refuse to adhere to the promises. They got into the Legislative Council because of their ability to create chaos, so they will not accept peace and harmony.
The government: Chief Executive Carrie Lam does not want to the destroy the initial peace between her and the pan-democrats. She is the one who is most motivated to achieve a Grand Reconciliation so that she can get about the business of governance.
The pro-establishment camp: How compliant to Carrie Lam will they be? In the matter of the by-elections, if the government accedes to the pan-democrats' demand and hold the by-elections one by one, all those seats will go to the the pan-democrats. Conversely, if the by-elections are combined, the pro-establishment camp stand a chance to win seats in Kowloon West and New Territories East. Will they accept the arrangement? Unless the Central Government forces them, there is no reason for them to sacrifice their self-interests.
The Central Government: This is the same problem here. If the Central Government settles for the Grand Reconciliation, are they sure that the non-establishment camp will actually keep their promises?
After assessing the situation for all four sides, the conclusion is that while a Grand Reconciliation is in the best rational interest of society as a whole, it won't be easy for the sides to actually do it. So the situation today is very fragile and unsustainable. Instead we expect to see the game to continue.
- During the Umbrella Revolution, the Yellow Ribbons occupied Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay and held the people of Hong Kong hostage in order to extract ransom from the government. (SpeakoutHK) In this latest iteration, the Yellow Ribbons are holding 690,000 Hong Kong students and several tens of thousands of teachers hostage. Unless Carrie Lam agrees to let the taxpayers pay for the legal fees of DQ4 as well as arrange the by-elections to the satisfaction of the Yellow Ribbons, the bill for additional education expenditure will not be passed this year. The students will not receive their subsidies and the teachers will not get contracts. So if Carrie Lam loves school children, she better do what the Yellow Ribbons tell her. If the bill fails to pass, it will all be Carrie Lam's fault and she must resign.
- (SCMP) Attention pan-dems: don’t cut off your noses to spite your faces. By Alex Lo. July 19, 2017.
Blind opposition and mindless theatrics have brought pan-democrats and localist radicals to a sorry state at the Legislative Council. They have lost the plot following the High Court’s shock judgment last week, which disqualified four of their own who had failed to swear their oaths of office properly.
In retaliation, they are threatening to scuttle an education funding bill worth HK$3.6 billion a year that practically everyone supports, including their own constituencies. Several clichés come to mind, such as biting the hand that feeds you, and cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Having forced the cancellation of two Finance Committee meetings at Legco already, the pan-dems have one more chance to approve the bill today before the summer recess. Yet, at the last minute, they are attaching new conditions and demands.
These include expanding the scope of coverage of a new subsidy worth HK$30,000 a year, currently budgeted for secondary school graduates who enrol in private tertiary schools that run expensive self-financing degree programmes.
I am all for extending the new subsidy to students who take self-financed courses at public universities. But this can be done in the next round of legislation.
Opposition lawmakers also want to link their support for the bill to by-elections. They want two rounds – rather than a single round – for the four who were disqualified last week and for the two Youngspiration members who were booted out last year.
This linkage, completely unrelated to education, gives the game away: lay the blame on the new administration of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor if the education subsidy bill fails to pass. But it’s clear their anger stems from the court judgment over the four lawmakers’ disqualification, so they are taking it out on the education bill.
Their attempt is so transparent even a child can see through it. My advice is, don’t do it, please. You will just make it worse for yourselves. The funding will help schools to hire full-time primary and secondary teachers, and professionals in special needs education and information technology.
If you want to go after the government, by all means. But let’s not shoot innocent bystanders and cause more collateral damage. Doing that will lose you more public sympathy, and that’s something you will need when you field by-election candidates, hopefully to regain those lost seats.
- (Oriental Daily) July 18, 2017. On morning radio, legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick said that the pan-democrats should react to the political suppression by refusing to let the Legislative Council Finance Committee meet because it would be a political surrender otherwise. Chu said that the pan-democrats are at war with the government. However, there is still opportunity to evacuate the wounded from the battlefield, as is the case with the $3.6 billion designated for education resource development.
- Derivative art collection
"This is a stick up!
Thou shalt not mention Article 23 or constitutional reform!
Thou shalt not DQ other legislators!
Thou shalt not consolidate by-elections!
Thou shalt not seek legal fees!
Thou shalt not revise Legco procedural rules!"
Professor of Law (it seems) Benny Tai
Poster for the Movie "The Money Is Not Enough" (The Gang of Four series)
No more Legco seats
No more popular support
No more money
No more justification
What will the Fat Guy do?
In their minds, every person is a human flesh ATM
When the money is not enough,
the only option is to go "bust"
King of Farce: DQ4
July 14: Die in peace
Lead actors: Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim- Voted the best "This is the darkest day in the history of Hong Kong" speech: Claudia Mo video
- The DQ4 saga sung to the tune of Oh My Darling- (Ming Pao) July 21, 2017.
Question: Do you think that you lack political sensitivity which led to the consequences today?
Lau Siu-lai: At the time of the oath, the old rules were in place. But the rules were changed afterwards, and then retroactively applied to before. I never realized that the regime could be so shameless. I will need to be extra careful in the future."- Who is the pan-democratic legislator with seniority? It's James To Kun-shun (Democratic Party). He took his oath flawlessly. Why? Because he knew that playing antics with the oath achieves nothing whatsoever. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.
- (Oriental Daily) July 24, 2017.
On morning radio, Yiu Chung-yim said that this was a case in which "tomorrow's law" decided "yesterday's oath." The DQ4 are in similar situations, so that only one of them need to file an appeal in order to cover all these cases.
Yiu said that he has not decided on whether to (1) file an appeal; (2) participate in the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape constituency by-election; or (3) participate in a geographical constituency by-election. He emphasized that his paramount goal is to win more seats for the pro-democracy camp. But he also said that his one vote would not matter in a Legislative Council with a pro-establishment majority, so his function will be to reveal the evils and secrets of the government.
- The 2016 election results for the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape constituency:
2,009 votes for Tony Tse Wai-chuen
2,491 votes for Yiu Chung-yim
1,235 votes for Bernard Vincent Lim Wan-fungThe two pro-establishment candidates split the votes to allow Yiu Chung-yim to squeak through. In a by-election, Yiu would be most likely be facing a single pro-establishment candidate and lose. That is why he wants to go for a geographical constituency seat. But he has no assets (such as precinct captains) and plenty of negative baggage to speak of.
- In an Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape constituency by-election, he would be hounded repeatedly about the oath that got him disqualified. Mr. Yiu, why were you thinking? What do you think an oath is? What did you hope to accomplish? Can you promise that you won't do this if elected again? How can we trust you given your poor judgment before?
- (The Stand) July 24, 2017.
We sincerely urge the DQ4 (except for Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung who is receiving legal aid) to consider giving up any appeal in court and enter directly into the by-elections. There are five reasons:
1. The appeal process will take too long, and this will take away the people's monitoring of the government through their elected legislators;
2. When the British Senior Counsels have become the tools for mainland China to enforce mainland Chinese governance, the risk of losing the appeals is simply too big. This is like putting their heads under guillotines awaiting for the beheadings.
3. The legal fees and the risks of being excluded from the by-elections are too big. Nobody should go all the way for the sake of the "greater good."
4. How much money is in the Justice Defence Fund? Civic resources should not be wasted on unnecessary legal processes because this is unsustainable.
5. Similarly, too much of the efforts of the pro-democracy lawyers are being spent on the DQ2/DQ4 cases.
- Quiz: Which special interest groups do the writers of this scree represent? The Civic Party? The Democratic Party? What is for sure is that they want the DQ2/DQ4 to make way for 'better' candidates.
- Leung Kwok-hung's Facebook
Please help us: If you see a Long Hair banner, please take it down.The Lands Department has asked us to remove all banners by July 24, or else they will charge me with removal fees one by one. The New Territories East election district is huge, with many banners located in rural areas. We don't have enough time to remove them. We have asked the Lands Department for an extension but they insisted that no extension was possible.
So I am sincerely appealing people to help remove the banners.
The locations and numbers of the banners can be found at: Goo.gl/w48miY
After removing a banner, please leave a comment here on the location/serial number. Thanks.
If possible, please take the removed banner to League of Social Democrats headquarters in Cheung Sha Wan. We will take it back to re-use.
- Call for general mobilization: Please help Long Hair take down his banners now ... and put them back up after July 24th. The Lands Department will bill him $300 for each banner, so this is how we can contribute our share to help him financially.
- (Oriental Daily) July 22, 2017.
Along comes retired Catholic cardinal Joseph Zen with his grand saying: "It is unthinkably evil to annul the votes of 127,000 voters." Then he asked rhetorically: "Why haven't the citizens come out en masse to make a stronger protest?"
When I read this, I was shocked. Does the retired cardinal want a new round of riots in Hong Kong? On further reading, this was exactly what he wants. He said that this type of evil act "will surely cause an Occupy Movement in any other country." Joseph Zen is blaming the people of Hong Kong for not coming out for another Occupy Movement, even starting another Mong Kok riot. Dear Cardinal Zen, don't you normally preach that God is peace-loving?
Joseph Zen lacks political wisdom. After the court rules on the DQ4 case, he waited patiently day after day for the citizens to come out and make noise. Instead he found Hong Kong to be peaceful and tranquil. He could not understand why, so he has come out to openly complain. If Joseph Zen has any wisdom, he should know that this case is not going to irk the citizens into rioting.
The antics during the oath ceremonies were both childish and unlawful. No western democratic society will tolerate it. The Hong Kong government is acting in accordance with the law. What is there for the people to be angry about?
The cases of the DQ2 and DQ4 legislators were judged in the courts, not by the Hong Kong government or the National People's Congress Standing Committee. In the case of the DQ2, the judge stated that it had nothing to do with the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.
The court is sacrosanct. How can you protest against a court? Are you going to call for the people to rise up and burn the courthouse down? The opposition camp is not able to find an opening, so how can you start a riot?
- (Hong Kong Free Press) On swearing, accurately, solemnly and sincerely: How does one know if they really meant it? By Tim Hamlett. July 23, 2017.
Call me a glutton for punishment but, when it appeared on the Judiciary website, I read the judgement of Mr Justice Au in the legislators’ oaths cases. This was not fun. Towards the end, I felt as if I had been beaten repeatedly over the head with a volume of the old hardback Laws of Hong Kong.
Mr Au is apparently not inspired by the observation of the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, that judgements should be written in a way which allows them to be understood by the lay clients involved in the case. Nor, alas, does he have that lucidity which makes some quite technical judgements a pleasure to read.
These are not complaints. Writing legal documents is a difficult and highly specialised art. The results are not meant to be entertaining, even to legal groupies like me. Sometimes we are lucky. And sometimes we’re not. I understand that on non-legal matters Mr Au is regarded as a bit of a humorist. A well-concealed trait, in working hours.
This is not a preliminary warm-up for a complaint about the result. Clearly the “interpretation” of the relevant Basic Law was intended to provide a legal reason for the exclusion of some members from the Legislative Council. As that was its purpose it would have been surprising if it had not worked.
Once the Court of Appeal had given the nod to the idea that the interpretation was automatically backdated to 1997 Mr Au really had no choice but to proceed with the flagrantly unfair notion that what had been acceptable for 20 years was now grounds for instant defenestration from Legco, and had been such grounds even before it was thought of by our imperial masters.
Students of legal thought will find some interesting by-products of this process. The interpretation says that the taking of the Legco Oath must be done “accurately, solemnly and sincerely”.
Now “accurately”, if I understand the situation correctly, has been expanded a bit to include the notion that the swearer must utter the oath, the whole oath, and nothing but the oath. Say anything before or after and you are no longer accurate. It is not enough to read the words on the card. You must not say anything else. A careless “so help me God” could be very expensive.
Solemnly, you would think, presents few problems. Did the swearer giggle, wear a red nose, insert a joke? Well this also has expanded a bit. Its most interesting feat has been to take over the space formerly occupied by sincerely.
Here I smell a small rat. Because the law, apparently, is that the court will decide on an objective basis whether the oath was solemn. Which is easy enough. These days there will be video. But owing to the conflation of the two concepts the court is also, it seems, deciding whether the vote was sincere.
Indeed Mr Au at one point explicitly states that the standard of solemnity is that a reasonable man would suppose the oath taker to mean what he or she is saying.
The problem with this is that I can believe a judge – who is presumably used to making difficult decisions – may be able to decide objectively whether an oath-taking is solemn or not. And most reasonable people would agree with his decision in most cases. The objective judgement of sincerity is quite another matter.
Sincerity is an entirely internal matter which happens inside the person’s brain. This is not a problem in the mainland legal system, where the contents of the suspect’s brain can be extracted by pushing toothpicks under his fingernails or threatening to shoot his wife. I do wonder whether it can be reliably detected by a Hong Kong judge watching a video.
After all most of us accept civic obligations to the SAR and China as arising out of the current constitutional situation. Looking at the sort of time-servers and sycophants who occupy the pro-government side of Legco we must suspect that if by some awful international error Hong Kong had been returned in 1997 to Russia instead of China, they would now be willing to swear undying loyalty to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Hong Kong. Like, whatever.
Mr Au avoided this potential problem by treating solemnity and sincerity as the same thing. I do not think that produced any injustice in the instant cases. Clearly if a swearer has tripped over the accuracy and solemnity requirement it does not matter too much whether we also diagnose insincerity or not.
Will there, though, be future cases in which the newly minted legislator has taken the oath with all the accuracy and solemnity that a reasonably law can require, but is still not the sort of person the Liaison Office wishes to see in Legco? I do not look forward happily to the spectacle of a government lawyer arguing that a legislator should be disqualified because “he took the oath but he can’t have meant it because look what he said last year”.
Curiously absent from the proceedings is the one group of people who are the losers in all this, and who happen to include me. The purpose of electing legislators is not to provide high quality advice to the government or to provide a stimulating and fulfilling career to aspiring young politicians. It is to ensure that the population of Legco reflects in its views the preferences of the electorate.
My constituency is supposed to have seven representatives. We now have only five. The one I voted for last time is out. The one I voted for the time before is out. The one I voted for in the by-election in between was not even allowed to run.
As an elector I am I think entitled to feel that I have been stiffed by the system. Of course I can if I feel strongly take legal action to compel the government to get on with a by-election or two. Why should I be deterred by the thought that the Department of Justice will claim several million bucks in costs if it wins? And if I win all I get is an election. Sorry. I have an invalid dog to support.
- How do you decide whether an oath is “accurately, solemnly and sincerely”? Per US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on describing his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964): "I know it when I see it."
- "Curiously absent from the proceedings is the one group of people who are the losers in all this, and who happen to include me. My constituency is supposed to have seven representatives. We now have only five. The one I voted for last time is out. The one I voted for the time before is out. The one I voted for in the by-election in between was not even allowed to run. As an elector I am I think entitled to feel that I have been stiffed by the system."
Yes, some people in South Korea feel the same way about the ex-president Park Geun-hye -- she was elected by popular vote, and therefore her impeachment meant that the preferences of the electorate were disrespected. They should have waited until her term has ended before impeaching her to stop her from being re-elected.
- Ahem, if her term has ended, what is the point of impeachment? And by your logic, if you stop her from running again, you are disrespecting the preferences of the electorate, because the voters may just decide that they still want her.
- (SCMP) When it comes to rule of law, Hong Kong can’t have its cake and eat it too. By Michael Chugani. July 25, 2017.
So, you don’t want Hong Kong to become like just another mainland city. Fine. Then never forget it’s the rule of law that lets us stand tall against rivals Shenzhen and Shanghai. Bend it even a little and we’ll be no better than they are.
It’s a staple of the opposition to mock the mainland’s rule of law and to lecture it against meddling in ours. But it now turns out the opposition’s moral principles are tradeable.
It’ll go easy on Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor if she instructs the justice department to drop court costs for four opposition lawmakers who were recently disqualified. It ominously implied that if she refused, it would give her hell as it did her predecessor, Leung Chun-ying.
Lam tasted that hell last week when opposition lawmakers dragged out debate on her multibillion dollar education plan.
Disqualified lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung told me in a TV interview that forgoing court costs is no big deal since the disqualification case is civil, not criminal.
I cannot buy that. The rule of law is exactly that, whether civil or criminal. Lam giving directions to her justice minister on an ongoing court case makes us no different from the mainland, where the law is often used as a political tool.
If Lam kowtows in exchange for political harmony, it’ll not only soil our rule of law but create a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop the opposition from demanding that Lam orders the justice department against charging any more Occupy leaders?
Aside from court costs, it has already warned Lam of political confrontation if she tries to disqualify any more lawmakers or pursue national security legislation.
The opposition likes to brand itself as being on the right side of public opinion on everything from so-called true democracy to the rule of law. But how can it take the high road if it readily uses the rule of law as a political bargaining tool yet insists stationing mainland officials at the express railway terminus breaches the rule of law?
Maybe using the law to horse-trade isn’t so bad. Lam can order charges be dropped against Occupy offenders in exchange for the opposition agreeing to joint immigration controls at West Kowloon. Imagine the possibilities if we say to hell with the rule of law. It’ll at least guarantee harmony. Let’s go for being just another mainland city.
- (Oriental Daily) August 10, 2017.
The former legislative aides of the DQ4 and current legislative aides of other pan-democratic legislators demonstrated outside the Legislative Council today. They chanted: "The dignity of the Legislative Council must not be trampled upon." They were protesting against the Legislative Council for considering to seek repayment of back wages from the DQ4.
- "The dignity of the Legislative Council must not be trampled upon"? Have they no shame? The oaths taken by the DQ4 trampled the dignity of the Legislative Council. That is the truth of the matter.
(SCMP) July 4, 2017.
Radio Television Hong Kong has filed a complaint to the Communications Authority over broadcaster TVB’s abrupt pulling of a controversial programme that poked fun at Xi Jinping on Friday, when the president was in town to mark the 20th anniversary of the city’s handover to China.
The episode of the current affairs programme Headliner, which was replaced by a re-run of a broadcast on Xi and a programme on feng shui, also made repeated references to the imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, who was released from jail on medical parole last month after he was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer.
Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHK’s corporate communications unit, told the Post that RTHK was only notified eight minutes before the programme was supposed to be aired on TVB Jade at 6pm last Friday.
Ng said TVB told RTHK the switch was needed for the broadcast of some breaking news, a reason which she questioned.
Instead of running the RTHK show, TVB Jade broadcast a recording of Xi meeting with various sectors in Hong Kong earlier in the day and then a programme on feng shui.
The 12-minute recording of Xi was not a live broadcast. It had already been aired on the TVB news channel at about 5pm.
TVB ran the pulled episode of Headliner on the less popular J5 channel early on Saturday morning.
Ng said RTHK had not agreed to the change and filed a complaint to TVB and the Communications Authority on Monday.
Democratic Party lawmaker Ted Hui Chi-fung said he also filed a complaint with the authority to question if TVB’s decision was a case of political censorship. Hui also asked the Legislative Council to discuss the incident.
The authority said it had received 133 complaints by 5pm on Tuesday.
TVB did not respond to Post inquiries.
(SCMP) July 5, 2017.
The row in Hong Kong over TVB’s abrupt pulling of a controversial RTHK current affairs programme escalated with the television station hitting back and accusing the public service broadcaster of being “unprofessional” in saying its replacement programme on Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit was unimportant.
Facing about 190 complaints lodged with the watchdog Communications Authority and accusations of political censorship by some pan-democrats, TVB broke its silence with a defiant statement on Wednesday.
“It would be ignorant of the facts if Ng [Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHK’s corporate communications unit] did not consider the president’s speech news or thought it was of less importance than Headliner,” TVB said in a statement. “It was an inappropriate statement by a professional news practitioner or broadcaster.”
TVB said it had broadcast Xi’s speeches at the earliest possible time to “cater for the needs of hundreds of thousands of analogue TV viewers who could not watch the digital iNews channel”.
In response to TVB’s latest statement, Ng said RTHK would let the public judge who was being unprofessional. “Important news does not equal breaking news,” she said. “The recording of Xi was not unpredictable, not something you must broadcast at once.”
TVB went further in its statement to say the requirement to broadcast RTHK programmes was “historical” and “out-of-date” as RTHK had started digital terrestrial television broadcasting service in January 2014. The Communication Authority said it had no plans to change the rule.
(RTHK) July 5, 2017.
Local broadcaster TVB hit back at RTHK on Wednesday in a row about the bumping of a show that poked fun at Xi Jinping during the president's visit to Hong Kong, saying it's not sure why it has to show RTHK programmes at all anymore.
RTHK expressed its displeasure over TVB pulling an episode of the satirical programme “Headliner” at the last minute on Friday evening and filed a complaint to the Communications Authority.
TVB instead showed edited clips of Xi Jinping's visit on its Jade channel and then a fung shui programme, while “Headliner” was broadcast on a different channel in the early hours of Saturday morning.
The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Edward Yau, said the Communications Authority had received more than 130 complaints. But he wouldn't say whether he thinks TVB's action amounted to self-censorship.
“I’ll leave it to the authority to conduct the investigation instead of commenting on my own opinion. I’ll leave it to the agency to handle this,” Yau said.
TVB wasn’t taking criticism over its schedule change lying down. In a strongly-worded statement, it insisted President Xi Jinping's visit to Hong Kong was "massive news" and said it was very important to air clips of his speech for people who hadn't caught their live broadcasts.
It said there was no time afterwards for “Headliner” and that's why the fung shui programme was broadcast.
The statement also hit back at RTHK's head of corporate communications, Amen Ng, who accused TVB of being unprofessional. It said if Ng thinks Xi Jinping's speech "wasn't news", or it wasn't as important as "Headliner", she is ignoring reality and isn't being professional herself.
TVB added that it is no longer a timely and reasonable arrangement for it to be airing RTHK programmes in any case. It said now that the public broadcaster has its own free-to-air television channels, there is no need for commercial TV stations to carry its programmes.
TVB called for an end to this "outdated" arrangement as soon as possible.
In response to TVB's comments, Ng said she agreed that Xi's visit was important, but pointed out that the footage shown on the Jade channel instead of "Headliner" was not breaking news.Internet comments:
- Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong
4. As the public service broadcaster in Hong Kong, RTHK is to fulfill the following purposes --
(a) Sustain citizenship and civil society. This involves --
(i) promoting understanding of our community, our nation and the wrold through accurate and impartial news, information, perspectives and analyses;
(ii) promoting understanding of the concept of "One Country, Two Systems" and its implementation in Hong Kong; and
(iii) engendering a sense of citizenship and national identity through programmes that contribute to the understanding of our community and nation;
...
5. RTHK will provide to Hong Kong people editorially independent, professional and high-quality radio, television and new media services. Specifically, the mission of RTHK is to --
...
(d) provide a platform for the Government and the community to discuss public policies and express views thereon without fear or favour;
(HKG Pao) When the people of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region want to celebrate its 20th birthday, they were told by RTHK City Forum that this was a "20-year sham." The people of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region fund RTHK with their taxes to the tune of HK$ 1 billion per year. Why do they have to be offended in this manner? Whatever happened to the purposes and missions as written down in the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong?
According to the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards of the Communications Authority,
General Principles
7. In the presentation of radio programmes, the basic principles of ordinary good taste and common sense must always be observed. A licensee should not include in its programmes
...
(b) any material which is likely to encourage hatred against or fear of, and/or considered to be denigrating or insulting to any person(s) or group(s) on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, social status, or physical or mental disability;
If RTHK thinks that One Country Two Systems has been a sham for 20 years, we can see why they can hang the national flag upside down:
(Apple Daily) August 1, 2011.
And since RTHK seems incapable of fulfilling their mission, they should perhaps go into Chapter 11 and re-organize.
- (HKG Pao) TVB and ATV were required to re-transmit RTHK programs as part of their licensing requirements. But that requirement was imposed in a different operating environment. The new developments are:
1) The television industry is heading towards hard times due to the challenge from online media. ATV went out of business last year. But Viu TV and Fantastic TV have entered the market to compete for a shrinking pie. The government should not be taking away TVB's precious prime time programs by edict, while giving the competitors Viu TV and Fantastic TV a free pass.
2) TVB is seeing a huge drop in revenue, while Viu TV and Fantastic TV are far from being profitable. RTHK is the second largest broadcaster in terms of operating budget. There is no reason for the government to create an unfair market.
3) The government cannot attract more investors in the television industry as long as they favor on a government channel that is under no economic pressure. If this continues, Viu TV and Fantastic TV will exit with no newcomers.
- (HKG Pao) July 12, 2017. Here are the Nielsen Television Audience Measurement ratings data for RTHK 31 and RTHK 33. The flagship RTHK 31 has an average rating of 0.14375 during Prime Time (19:00-22:45) compared to 0.275 for RTHK 33. What is being shown on RTHK 33 that outperforms the flagship RTHK 31? Can you believe that RTHK 33 is just re-transmitting CCTV (China Central Television)? So well the hell has that $1 billion per year gone?
- (SilentMajorityHK) July 11, 2017.
Comparison of channels:
RTHK: Annual investment $1 billion; employees 722; audience rating (0 to 1.2)
TVB Jade: Annual investment $1.06 billion; employees 4249; audience rating (20 or more)
Viu TV: Annual investment $270 million; employees 300; audience rating (0.4 to 3.85)
Fantastic TV: Annual investment $170 million; employees 500; audience rating (not available yet
Comparison of RTHK programme ratings on different channels:
Hong Kong Connection: 4.5 on TVB Jade, 0.6 on RTHK 31
English Made Easy: 2.7 on TVB Jade, 0.3 on RTHK 31
Once Upon A Dime: 2.9 on TVB Jade, 0.6 on RTHK 31
Legco Review: 2.6 on TVB Jade, 0.4 on RTHK 31
Headliner: 3.6 on TVB Jade, 0.9 on RTHK 31
- The TVB viewers are there by habit. If those RTHK programmes are removed from TVB, they are not going to follow on RTHK 31. They will watch whatever is on TVB Jade, also nicknamed the "Big Station."
- (SilentMajorityHK) Here is the rating performance of RTHK 31 during June 19-23, 2017. Don't forget that ATV went out of business with ratings about the 1% level. Each rating point equals 64,980 viewers.
- (SilentMajorityHK) Of the $1 billion budget for RTHK during fiscal year 2017/2018, $400 million goes to pay for the salaries of the 713 employees. But according to a CAT II employee, they are given self-employment contract with no fringe benefits and even forced to take unpaid time off. There are about 30 CAT II employees, who are responsible for filming, interviewing, writing and editing. The scope of their work is similar to regular employees, but they are classified as self-employed persons with no labor insurance, mandatory provident fund, paid vacations and other rights. Last year, Headliner host Tsang Chi-ho attended an RTHK workers' meeting and was told by RTHK Director of Broadcasting Leung Ka-wing: "You are not an employee" and "This meeting is for employees only." However, RTHK head of corporate communications Amen Ng Man-yee said that popular hosts such Candy Chea Shuk-mui and Timothy Cheng Tse-sing are CAT II employees too, but most people will think that they are RTHK employees. Ng does not think that there is any conflict with CAT II employees reporting news under the role of RTHK reporters.
- What this means is that the government must allocate an extra $100 million to RTHK so that the CAT II employees can be treated like human beings ...
- (HKG Pao) July 4, 2017. With respect to the public outcry against the RTHK City Forum topical theme of "One Country Two Systems is great wisdom or a sham for 20 full years? The Chairman says 'trust the nation', black clothed Bauhinia flower to celebrate the handover?", an RTHK spokesperson Ms. Hui responded that there was not much viewer response or complaints. Besides the statements were inconclusive, so RTHK does not see any problems here. When asked why RTHK only chose negative images and ignore the positive celebrations, Ms. Hui declined to respond.
The contact information for the RTHK which says that it does not get complaints are: ccu@rthk.hk and (852) 3691-2388.
- (HKG Pao) July 10, 2017. The Communications Authority said that it has received 196 complaints against the RTHK City Forum. How many complaints were lodged at RTHK itself? The RTHK spokesperson said that they will only make an assessment at the end of the year. They said that there should not be too many complaints against an individual program, and that is why they won't disclose the information. So this is what transparency means to this government department.
By comparison, the Communications Authority said that it has received 190 complaints against TVB pulling the RTHK program Headliner to make way Xi Jinping's speech. If 196 complaints is "nothing", then 190 must also be "nothing" too. Right?
Please note that the previous episode of Headliner got 18 complaints lodged at the Communications Authority. So 196 is a significant jump.
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 8, 2017.
When it comes to RTHK, people often wondered: "Why can a group of employees keep attacking the boss? Is there any way to stop, punish or supervise them?"
As a public organization, RTHK is supervised just like any other government department by the Ombudsman, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission. In addition, RTHK is supervised by the Communications Authority. But unlike the privately owned television and radio channels, the Communications Authority cannot suspend their license or even impose fines for transgressions. Instead, the Communications Authority can only deplore or warn against any unprofessional/unethical behavior.
So even if RTHK makes trouble, they will continue to be paid and promoted. If you question them, they will invoke freedom of press, freedom of speech and freedom of artistic creation. There are no employees like these anywhere in the world.
"Can't the boss fire them?"
The answer is once again NO. Public service jobs are "iron rice bowls" that can never be broken. RTHK claims to be doing public broadcasting. They are not a state-owned enterprise which must serve the state. A public broadcasting corporation serves the citizens, not the state. Therefore their boss is not the Hong Kong Special Administrative Government. Their bosses are the 7 million Hong Kong citizens and the RTHK budget is supported by taxes paid by these citizens.
Here we have an organization which is completely financed by the government. Most of their employees are public service workers. The top management team is appointed by the government. Their Director of Broadcasting reports to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. In terms of financing, organization and accountability, they look like a government media outlet. But they are not.
In 2006, a commission to review public service broadcasting recommended that RTHK leave the government and come under an independent board of directors. At the time, the RTHK staff said that this was a government conspiracy to "kill" the station. Eventually, the proposal was shelved. The director in charge of the Commerce Industry and Technology Bureau at the time was Wong Wing-ping.
"Alright, let us suppose that RTHK is a public broadcasting service whose bosses are the people. How do they listen to what their bosses are telling them?"
I checked the files. The last public consultation held by RTHK was in 2012. They haven't faced the public since. The opposition camp loves to talk about public consultation, but RTHK has done nothing in five years. Even phone-in audience members get screened. If you are anti-Yellow Ribbon, they won't take your calls; even if they do, they will hang up on you after a couple of sentences. So how do the citizen bosses express their opinions?
If citizens cannot supervise RTHK, they should break up the relationship. The citizens don't want to pay $1 billion a year to support a service that won't listen to them, and RTHK does not have to listen to their nominal bosses either. Once RTHK become their own bosses, they can do whatever they want. RTHK independence is the only way out, and the only redemption for citizens too.
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 7, 2017.
This time, I am all for Hong Kong independence. To be more specific, the "Hong Kong" here refers to Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK).
Citizens don't always understand why their regular TVB programming sometimes contain RTHK segments with different feels and qualities. The reason was that when the government first issued the licenses to the commercial channels, Radio Hong Kong did not have any television channels. So the commercial channels were required to show programs such as <Police Report> during prime time.
In April 2016, ATV lost its broadcasting license. The freed channels were handed over to RTHK, which now has three channels: 31, 32 and 33. Shouldn't they relinquish their slots on TVB? Or are they worried about their own drawing power and want to continue to live off the "Big Channel"?
Rules are fixed but people are flexible. The world has changed, and the rules should be changed to allow RTHK to become independent. If their programmes are as significant and meaningful as they claim, they don't have to rely on a commercial channel which is contaminated by the filthy lucre? If they are independent, they would never have to be worried about censorship by TVB.
Once RTHK becomes independent, they won't have to depend on the treasury for funding. They say that public broadcasting services are different from state-owned enterprises because they serve the people and not the state. Fine, I recommend that RTHK becomes independent and solicit public donations for funding. If they win the hearts and minds of the people, the world will be theirs.
- (SCMP) The TVB, RTHK censorship row is a joke. By Alex Lo. July 8, 2017.
It’s been embarrassing to watch TVB and RTHK trading blows all week. News organisations should report news, not become news themselves.
RTHK has complained to the Communications Authority about TVB’s abrupt pulling of its political satire show Headliner from its scheduled 6pm time slot on the Jade channel last Friday. Instead, the TV station broadcast news footage of President Xi Jinping during his visit to Hong Kong filmed earlier that day. Some media critics have accused TVB of censorship, because the 20-minute Headliner episode carried sarcastic comments made by its hosts about Xi and there were numerous references made to Nobel Peace Prize winner and dissident Liu Xiaobo, who is suffering from terminal liver cancer.
TVB has countered that Xi’s visit to Hong Kong and various meetings he had with local people had far more news value than the RTHK show. It has accused senior management at RTHK of lacking professional news sense. But it seems to have shot itself in the foot when it told RTHK that it was going to run “breaking news” on Xi when the footage was shot earlier that day. Still, Xi’s speech, in which he called for unity, was arguably important news.
TVB did run the Headliner show the next day, on its less popular J5 channel after midnight, a time slot that pretty much guaranteed few people would watch it. Pan-democrats have been quick to side with TVB critics, who have sometimes equated RTHK to being Hong Kong’s BBC. Now that would be a satirical statement worthy of Headliner, considering the wide gulf in quality that separates the two publicly funded broadcasters.
There is a very good reason to pull Headliner altogether, though not for this particular episode. Its mission statement is: “We make you laugh. If you don’t laugh, we have failed in our job.” It is, sadly, rarely funny. In fact, half of the show consists of running current news footage with a Canto-pop song as background music. The rest of the show has one host dressed in drag and the other as a eunuch. They could be funny and biting if they had been comedians, but unfortunately not.
A neutral observer might conclude that RTHK and TVB are both right about each other. There probably was an element of self-censorship. But then, the show allegedly being censored lost its relevance a long time ago.
- (EJ Insight) The fact and fiction of TVB's self-censorship. By Michael Chugani. July 13, 2017.
Hong Kong’s media is regularly accused of self-censorship, with opposition politicians, journalists, and media groups such as the Hong Kong Journalists Association often voicing concern. Broadly defined, media censorship means not publishing or broadcasting news, or downplaying anything that a media organization considers sensitive or which conflicts with that organization’s political agenda.
In the Hong Kong context, self-censorship is more tightly defined as a media organization ignoring or downplaying news that it feels embarrasses or offends mainland China. This definition is clearly one-sided because it assumes that only media considered as Beijing-friendly self-censor. But it is this definition that the Hong Kong public believes. The fact, of course, is all media organizations, both here and abroad, self-censor in varying degrees.
Fox News in the US, for example, plays up everything that is positive for President Donald Trump and downplays anything that is negative news for him. Huffington Post does the exact opposite. Here in Hong Kong, leftist newspapers such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Pao avoid anything that is deemed embarrassing for mainland China but play up everything that puts China in a good light. Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s Next Media does the opposite. Self-censorship is, therefore, a two-way street.
TVB, whose shareholder make-up includes people with mainland connections, is regularly accused of self-censorship to please Beijing. Before I continue, I must declare an interest. I am a freelancer for TVB where I host an English-language show and co-host a Chinese-language show. But the motive of this column is not to support TVB or to mock the critics of TVB. It is to use facts to put the record straight on an issue involving TVB that dominated the headlines last week.
Government licensing rules require TVB – but not other free-to-air TV stations such as ViuTV – to broadcast certain programs produced by the government-owned RTHK. One of these programs is the Chinese-language Headliner, which brands itself as satire. It is broadcast on TVB’s Jade channel.
On June 30, during President Xi Jinping’s visit, TVB decided to preempt Headliner with footage of one of Xi’s speeches. The footage was broadcast on TVB’s 24-hour digital news channel iNews about an hour or so earlier once it became available. But TVB considered footage of Xi’s speech important enough to also broadcast it on the more-widely watched Jade channel, particularly because tens of thousands of homes with only analog TV have no access to iNews.
TVB had to find a natural break on Jade, which is not a 24-hour news channel and therefore cannot suddenly break into a news item, to air the Xi footage. That natural break came just before 6 pm. By the time the Xi footage ended, it was after 6pm, not enough time to air Headliner before Jade’s highly popular 6.30 evening news. TVB informed RTHK about eight minutes beforehand that it could not air Headliner and said it would do so later in the evening on another channel.
TVB was immediately accused of self-censorship because that episode of Headliner poked fun at Xi and made repeated references of imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo. Here is a fact that needs to be made clear. TVB did not even know beforehand the contents of the Headliner in question. The head of RTHK, Leung Ka-wing, confirmed this to me in black and white, adding TVB is never told in advance the contents of Headliner.
Is it fair to accuse TVB of self-censorship when it did not even know the content of what it is accused of censoring? I think fair-minded people know the answer to that. Democratic Party legislator Ted Hui Chi-fung and the Hong Kong Journalists Association, among others, accused TVB of political censorship. I can understand Hui making unsubstantiated accusations because it serves his political interests to attack TVB, which the opposition camp maligns as under Beijing’s influence.
But the Journalists Association is supposed to represent journalists and accuracy is the profession’s cardinal rule. Was it that difficult to make a simple phone call to Leung to confirm if TVB knew the contents of Headliner before rushing to issue a damning statement suggesting TVB did not want to embarrass Xi? If the Journalists Association cannot even get its facts straight on such a simple matter, how can we trust it when it accuses the Hong Kong media of self-censorship?
RTHK spokesperson Amen Ng Man-yee questioned TVB’s news judgment in preempting Headliner with news footage of Xi’s speech. With all due respect, what right has she got to decide for a commercial TV station that a government-produced satire is more important than news about the president of China visiting Hong Kong? Surely, such editorial judgments should be made totally by TVB, which is accountable to its shareholders and viewers, and not by RTHK’s Ng, who is a civil servant.
I have never watched Headliner but watched that June 30 episode so I could write this column fairly. I couldn’t watch past ten minutes because it was so childishly juvenile. If RTHK’s producers think Headliner is satire, it needs to learn the real meaning of the word or perhaps watch Saturday Night Live to understand how comedic satire is done.
The fact is this nonsense, which borders on propaganda for the opposition camp, is produced with taxpayers’ money. Charles Mok, who represents the IT sector in the Legislative Council, slammed TVB for saying it is time RTHK airs Headliner on its own channels. RTHK now has five free-to-air channels that reach most of Hong Kong homes – three digital and two analog.
As a legislator, Mok has a duty to care about how public money is spent. Shouldn’t he be demanding to know why RTHK is still sticking to an outdated rule that TVB must air its shows when RTHK now has five channels, all paid for by the public? Mok, an opposition legislator, insists RTHK relying on TVB to air its shows and TVB preempting Headliner are two separate issues.
No, they are not. The facts already show TVB did not know beforehand the contents of Headliner, so self-censorship was not involved. If RTHK does not want its shows to be preempted by important news events, then it should rely on its own channels. So the two issues are not separate, as Mok claims.
If Amen Ng believes the Headliner shows are such riveting TV satire that they should never be preempted, why piggyback on TVB’s highly-popular Jade channel. Surely, the best way to test if Headliner is great TV or trash is to show it on RTHK’s own channel and see what ratings it attracts instead of relying on Jade’s popularity to win audience share.
[763] Liaoning in Hong Kong (2017//07/07)
(The Guardian) July 7, 2017.
China’s first aircraft carrier emerged from the mist in the waters south of Hong Kong on Friday morning as a four-warship flotilla gave a potent demonstration of Beijing’s might. The carrier, christened the Liaoning after the north-eastern Chinese province, sailed past half a dozen hulking container ships as it entered Hong Kong waters at about 7.30am.
The ship’s maiden visit to Hong Kong came less than a week after the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, toured the city, warning the former British colony must not become a launchpad for challenges to Beijing’s authority. Amid calls for greater autonomy and even outright independence from some Hong Kongers, many saw the naval convoy as underlining Xi’s hardline message.
“The Liaoning’s visit is an escalation of Beijing’s efforts to squeeze Hong Kong and is meant to show that the military has a role in safeguarding the Chinese government’s interests,” said Willy Lam, a politics professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “The unsubtle message is that if there is any mass protests or things get out of hand, Beijing will not hesitate to call upon soldiers to quell any perceived rebellion against the Communist party.” UK and US officials have expressed concern over receding freedoms in the city and the creeping influence of the Chinese officials in the local government. The show of military might served to “remind the west that Beijing is in control and will use whatever means to crush efforts to undermine China’s sovereignty”, Lam said.
Xi also put on a display of martial might during his visit, presiding over the largest military parade since the UK handed the city back to China in 1997. The parade and aircraft carrier visit is highly significant and the Chinese garrison in the city typically keeps a low profile, rarely seen on the streets in uniform.
The Liaoning was escorted by two guided-missile destroyers, a guided-missile frigate and two corvettes from Hong Kong’s naval garrison, along with 20 police launches and dozens of government marine vessels clearing a path. Fishermen paused their work to snap pictures using their mobile phones as the flotilla passed. Enthusiasts gathered on Hong Kong’s southern hills, highways and apartment balconies to capture the dramatic entrance. About a dozen enthusiastic ship captains prominently displayed Chinese flags as they approached for a closer look.
But China’s first aircraft carrier is not entirely its own. The hull was built nearly 30 years ago for the Soviet navy, but the ship was never completed. The ship’s journey from a Ukrainian shipyard to the Chinese navy was hardly routine. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, construction was halted in 1992 and the carrier was put up for sale. It then took six years before a Chinese businessman purchased it for $20m, saying he planned to tow it to Macau and open a floating hotel and casino. But the purchase and story were a cover, with the ship eventually delivered to the Chinese navy in 2002. The military spent the next decade refitting and upgrading the ship, and it was declared combat ready in November. China launched its first domestically built carrier in April, but it will not be operational until 2020.
The defence ministry contradicted itself over the purpose of the flotilla’s visit, first saying it was part of a “routine training mission”, and later announcing it was organised to mark 20 years since the People’s Liberation Army entered the city at the end of British rule.
Hundreds of eager Hong Kongers camped out overnight, braving sporadic rain and temperatures hovering around 30C (86F) to snag one of only 2,000 tickets to visit the carrier. But tours will be tightly controlled, with no cameras allowed on board and only permanent residents of the city given tickets.
(HKG Pao) July 7, 2017.
Apple Daily reported on the red color on the waterline of the Liaoning: "China's first aircraft carrier is visiting Hong Kong today. But many details showed that the People's Liberation Army has not taken care of the detailed. According to a Macau military expert, the photos of the aircraft carrier entering Hong Kong showed that some of the anti-rust paint under the waterline has peeled off and rusted. This is fairly obvious. International Military Studies Association president Wong Tung said that this detail showed that the maintenance on this aircraft carrier is 'somewhat shoddy'." Wong said: "The details determine success/failure."
According to Taiwan Taiwan Keel Boat Association member George Shy, the red line is smooth and even, which is clearly design to get rid of barnacles. "It would be a disaster if the paint does not peel off, because the barnacles will stick to the bottom of the ship, causing it to lose speed as well as blocking pipes which pump water in and out."
As one netizen noted, prejudiced people see negativity in everything but they will only become laughing stock in the end.
- Eh, Apple Daily quietly did what they always do -- the page about the rust on the Liaoning is inaccessible (Error 404) without explanation.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 8, 2017.
The Hong Kong government says it cannot regulate the emission of black smoke from China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier, despite public concerns over air pollution.
The 305 metre-long Liaoning arrived in Hong Kong early Friday in a display of military might only days after a high-profile visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Concerns were raised after news outlets captured images of the carrier emitting black smoke.
The secondhand Soviet ship was built nearly 30 years ago and commissioned in 2012. Local media reported that the Liaoning uses heavy fuel oil, rather than nuclear power like carriers in other countries.
Albert Lai, engineer and convener of think tank The Professional Commons, said early-model carriers such as the Liaoning typically use heavy fuel oil, which causes high soot emissions. He said heavy fuel oil is a popular fuel among oceangoing vessels owing to its low price. He said the Liaoning’s five-day visit to Hong Kong will emit the same level of pollutants as 500,000 cars. The number is based on his estimation that a ship of a similar size typically produces the same level of pollutants in a year as 50 million cars.
Currently, the Air Pollution Control (Ocean Going Vessels) (Fuel at Berth) Regulation requires all marine vessels use fuel with low sulphur at berth. However, the regulation does not cover military vessels.
The Environmental Protection Department told HKFP: “When we formulated the Regulation, we referenced the international practice that exempts warships or other vessels on military service. The fuel used by the Liaoning at berth in Hong Kong is exempted from the Regulation.”
Internet comments:
- (HKG Pao) You can always count on the Youngspiration pair of ex-legislators elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to chime in. Leung posted on Facebook: "Never mind about what ordinary citizens have to say about imperialism blah blah blah ... how can you expect this third-hand, diesel-oil-guzzling and retired cruise ship to bully other people?"
- The pro-Hong Kong independence warriors like to talk about clashes, resistance and even violent force. But there is every reason to believe that this retired cruise ship will be able to manhandle these Hong Kong warriors.
- Yes, it takes a retired legislator-elect to make fun of a retired cruise ship.
- So far China has one and only one third-hand aircraft carrier Liaoning. Obviously they are far behind the United States. Looking at Aircraft Carriers by Country, the United Kingdom has:
HMS Glorious
HMS Courageous
HMS Eagle
HMS Hermes
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Argus
HMS Furious
HMS Vindictive
HMS Unicorn
HMS Illustrious
HMS Formidable
HMS Victorious
HMS Indomitable
HMS Implacable
HMS Indefatgable
HMS Colossus
HMS Glory
HMS Ocean
HMS Theseus
HMS Trimpuh
HMS Venerable
HMS Vengeance
HMS Warrior
HMS Perseus
HMS Pioneer
HMS Majestic
HMS Hercules
HMS Magnificent
HMS Powerful
HMS Terrible
HMS Centaur
HMS Albion
HMS BUlwark
HMS Invincible
HMS IllustriousIsn't this astonishing? China has no chance against the United Kingdom, just as the Qing Dynasty navy had no chance against the British gunboats.
- Ahem, you have posted a list of sunk, retired, scrapped or sold United Kingdom aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy has no aircraft carrier in service at this time. HMS Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to be commissioned in late 2017 with "operational military capability" for 2020. HMS Prince of Wales is scheduled to be commissioned in 2020. Of course, this may never happen if the United Kingdom goes bankrupt first.
- By the way, Liaoning is scorned for the black smoke it emits from its diesel engines. What will HMS Queen Elizabeth run on? Two Rolls-Royce 36MW MT30 gas turbine alternators and four 10 MW diesel engines. Good luck!
- How awful is the smoke from the aircraft carrier!?
[Footnote in very small letters: The aircraft carrier in this photo is the Russian ship Admiral Kuznetsov.]- (The Stand) July 7, 2017. According to data from the Environmental Protection Department, the level of sulfur dioxide at the Number 8 pier in Kwai Chung was 10.9 to 15.8 microgrames per square meter. This is more than double the 5.8 to 6.0 found yesterday morning.
- According to the data from the Environmental Protection Department, the level of sulfur dioxide had risen to 10.0 at 7am in Kwai Chung. At the time, the Liaoning was still in the vicinity of the Po Toi Islands to the southeast of Hong Kong Island. How can its smoke emissions pollute Kwai Chung north of Hong Kong Island but not in Stanley (southern Hong Kong Island)? Are you ignorant or malicious?
- And where the fuck were you when the USS Kitty Hawk visited Hong Kong?
Internet comments:
- (SilentMajorityHK) July 5, 2017.
In May last year, US President Barack Obama visited Vietnam. The Hong Kong opposition gloated at the sight of Obama sitting Vietnamese beef noodles with citizens in a small restaurant, as compared to the heavy security when Chinese state leaders come to Hong Kong. However, clever people pointed out that the photo showed that the other diners in the restaurant paid no attention to the presence of the President of the United States in their midst. They don't gawk at him and they don't try to communicate with him. Instead, they concentrated on eating their rice noodles.
What would you do if the President of the United States were sitting at the next table in a restaurant? Would you look at him? Would you take some photos of him? Or even approach him to request a selfie?
In the movie <Infernal Affairs>, there is a famous saying: "When someone seems completely focused on his work but only occasionally glances at you, he is a cop."
In July 1998, US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary visited Hong Kong. Many roads were blocked as well. The Clinton dined at the Maxime Restaurant in City Hall. All the other diners were plainclothes policemen. I know because one of my police friends was one of the actors who performed that day.
But 31 years ago when the Queen of England visited Hong Kong, there were no barriers and security cordon. Why? Because they locked up all the potential protestors during the visit. Pro-UK unification advocates probably don't even know about those dark days.
When a state leader visits some place, roads will be blocked/diverted, normal routines will be disrupted and attendees will be screened. There are no exceptions. When you complain now, you are showing your ignorance. Besides, if you were in the Occupy movement, how dare you complain about disrupting people's lives? Three years ago, you blocked the roads for 79 days. The people of Hong Kong put up with you. How dare you complain that Chairman Xi is inconveniencing people going to work? Your double standards are a sight to behold.
- Here are the side shows:
(Oriental Daily) June 29, 2017.
On the eve of Xi Jinping's visit, the Hong Kong self-determination party Demosisto and two radical political parties (League of Social Democrats and People Power) took action. On June 27, Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong and a dozen or so party members joined League of Social Democrats and People Power members early in morning to wrap the Bauhinia statue in black cloth.
On June 28 at around 5pm, another twenty plus persons sat down underneath the Bauhinia statue while raising black banners. These included Demosisto's Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Agnes Chow and Derek Lam, plus League of Social Democrats' LEung Kwok-hung. They demanded the withdrawal of the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee and the implementation of genuine universal suffrage. Some of them chained themselves together with iron chains.
The police cleared the site beginning at 730pm. They removed legislators Leung Kwok-hung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung. A total of 26 persons were arrested.
26 protestors were arrested in Hong Kong. This story is so significant that it was reported on the front page of The Wall Street Journal:
(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2017.
As of tonight, 9 of the 26 arrestees are out on bail while 17 others (including Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Leung Kwok-hung) are still waiting to be processed. According to lawyers, some of the arrestees had not been processed after waiting for more than 10 hours. They accused the police of 'filibustering' in order to prevent the arrestees to start another round of protest action as soon as they are released.
About 20 people (including "Captain America" Andy Yung) showed up outside the North Point Police Station to show support for the arrestees. They said that they will not leave until the police release the arrestees.
According to League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng's Facebook at 6pm, he is still under detention.
According to information from Leung Kwok-hung to his lawyer at 1am, he had to wait four hours before he could eat the dinner that he requested. Later that night, the League of Social Democrats and Demosisto arrestees decided to apply for haebus corpus.
- (HKG Pao) July 1, 2017.
To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong, the League of Social Democrats brought out their regular coffin. When they started from their headquarters in Cheung Sha Wan, they encountered citizens who destroyed their coffin. Not to fear, because they have a backup coffin ready to go. When they reached Wanchai, the coffin was desroyed by other citizens.
- Hey, it is wrong to express your political opinion by violent means. As much as I approve of patriotism, I must decline to condone what the anonymous citizens did.
- What is going to happen to the League of Social Democrats now? They have lost their main coffin and their backup coffin as well.
- (SCMP) If you can't toe the red line, Hong Kong is not the place to be. By Michael Chugani. July 5, 2017.
What does the red line of President Xi Jinping really mean? It means Hong Kong is being inexorably drawn into the mainland. You can fear this as being sucked into a black hole, or you can extol it as a merging with the world’s second largest economy. Whichever way you see it, you can’t stop it. The mainland magnet is already in place.
If you have no problem with Hong Kong being harnessed ever tighter to an economic superpower ruled by a communist regime, then stay and reap the benefits China’s growing clout offers. If you are spooked by Hong Kong morphing into something that resembles a mainland city, then consider other pastures.
If you’re among those who think “two systems” was intended as a counterweight to “one country”, you need to digest more thoroughly Xi’s likening of “one country” as a tree that can only defend sovereignty if it has deep roots. Take that to mean “two systems” is an offshoot, not a bulwark against Beijing.
Those clinging to the belief democracy as defined by the opposition is still doable, Xi’s red line signals it’s time you stopped deluding yourself. He minced no words in warning that anyone who tries to undermine China’s security, uses Hong Kong to sabotage the country or challenges Beijing’s power crosses a red line.
That in effect means you can kiss so-called true democracy goodbye. Why do you think even the mass Occupy protest didn’t sway Beijing from insisting it vets chief executive candidates? Beijing will never shed its suspicion that a freely elected chief executive could challenge central government power or let Hong Kong be a base to undermine the country, the very actions that cross the red line.
Beijing will allow one person, one vote to elect the chief executive, as stated in the Basic Law, but it will be democracy with Chinese characteristics. Start getting used to it. Those who can’t accept this reality warn we must never allow Hong Kong to become just another Chinese city.
But Hong Kong is already becoming just another Chinese city in every way other than our financial, legal and political systems. Putonghua has almost drowned out Cantonese. Isn’t that all you heard during Xi’s three-day visit? Mainland tycoons are snapping up land, prime offices and residential property.
My new landlord is a mainlander. Now, if that alone isn’t indicative of what lies ahead, I don’t know what is.
[761] July 1st Demonstration March (2017/07/01)
(SCMP) July 1, 2017.
The July 1 anti-government march on Saturday saw its size shrink by almost half to a two-year low of about 60,000, with organisers blaming the low turnout on perceived aggressive tactics by police towards protesters in recent years and heavy rain. Researchers from the University of Hong Kong public opinion programme said about 27,000 to 35,000 people took part.
The Civil Human Rights Front, an umbrella group of some 50 pro-democracy organisations, conceded the turnout was low, but its convenor, Au Nok-hin, maintained it was still “a good show”.
“In recent years, police have taken a more hostile attitude towards protesters and used pepper spray more often than in the past. We should actually praise those who turned up this year for their courage,” Au said.
The march started some two hours after President Xi Jinping left the city after concluding his three-day visit to mark the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule. It kicked off in high spirits as people braved the sweltering heat to protest against what they called Beijing’s encroachment on the city’s autonomy.
Loud chanting filled the air as politicians and protesters, old and young alike, poured out of Victoria Park into cordoned-off streets lined by police officers. They ended at the Tamar government headquarters complex about 21 /2 kilometres away. But the weather turned bad later in the afternoon, forcing the organiser to drop a planned public rally outside the headquarters. Rain-soaked marchers dispersed quickly after arriving at the end point.
The front set the key theme for the march as “Reclaim Hong Kong, Democratic Self-determination”, saying Hong Kong people, not Beijing, should have the final say over local affairs. Some protesters also called for universal suffrage and the release of Liu Xiaobo. The dissident, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work promoting political reform in China, was granted parole recently to be treated for late-stage liver cancer.
Among those leading the march was Lam Wing-kee, one of the five at the centre of the missing bookseller saga that came to light in late 2015. Lam said the city’s autonomy had worsened since the handover. Activists from a pro-British group, the Hong Kong-United Kingdom Reunification Campaign, accused Beijing of breaching the Sino-British Joint Declaration and urged London to take the city back.
Saturday’s march was noisy but largely peaceful. However, some protesters traded jeers and verbal abuse with pro-Beijing activists who were staging celebratory events along the route. Police quickly stepped in and separated them.
Internet comments:
- The Civil Human Rights Front claimed 60,000+ marchers. The police said 14,500 was the crowd size at its peak. Which is closer to the truth? The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme estimated 27,000 to 35,000, but their reputation is tainted by close relationship to the pro-democracy movement. The independent estimates come of 16,000 from the team of Professor Paul Yip Siu-fai of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration, Hong Kong University. That number is consistent with the police estimates of 14,500 after accounting for people who joined late or left early.
- There is Chinese saying about the conditions for victory: "天時地利人和" (the weather, the terrain and the people). It rained on the afternoon of July 1st, so the Civil Human Rights Front had the weather against them. The main soccer fields in the Victoria Park were taken over by a science/technology exposition, so the Civic Human Rights Front lost what they considered to be their home field. Finally, the themes of the march did not resonate with the people.
- (HKG Pao) The Civil Human Rights Front reported 60,000 marchers compared to the police estimate of 14,500 at the peak. Before the march, the Civil Human Rights Front tried to pump up the passions by saying how bad CY Leung's government has been; how the police are suppressing with the march; how Beijing is suppressing freedom; how Liu Xiaobo is being treated inhumanely; etc. But this is where it got them. By comparison, 260,000 persons watched the fireworks show in Victoria Harbour later that night. Such is public opinion.
- Higher numbers for the July 1st march means wider social rifts. But the pan-democrats regard the number as a barometer of public support for them, and therefore they do everything possible to encourage people to come. So this is a group of people who wants Hong Kong to suffer maximally because they think that this will translate into election votes for them. Do you think such people really love Hong Kong?
- The real number is not the number of marchers, but the amount of donations raised.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 3, 2017.
Hongkongers have raised HK$540,000 for activists facing prosecution for taking part in the 2014 Occupy movement during this year’s July 1 democracy march. The Justice Defence Fund attracted the largest amount of donations among all groups who participated in the march. It was originally set up to raise money for the legal fees of lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu, who are facing a government judicial review to disqualify them from their seats. But last month, the Fund announced it had raised enough for the four legislators and would use any additional funds to support Occupy activists facing prosecution. The Democratic Party and the Labour Party also pledged to donate all the money they raised on Saturday – minus expenses – to the fund, reported Apple Daily.
Yet most pro-democracy parties saw declines in donations compared to last year’s march. The turnout this year was also much smaller – 60,000 people compared with 110,000 in 2016. The Civic Party saw the largest drop in donations, raising only HK$260,000 compared to last year’s HK$441,000.
One exception was the League of Social Democrats, which was heavily involved in protests as Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Hong Kong this week. On the morning of July 1, members Avery Ng and Figo Chan claimed they were assaulted by officers after being taken into a police van. They were attempting to stage a protest near the inauguration ceremony of Chief Executive Carrie Lam. The League of Social Democrats raised HK$88,000 more this year than in did in 2016.
- (HKG Pao) League of Social Democrats legislator Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung screamed through a megaphone: "I am 'Long Hair.' I want money. I need money." Why? According to party chairman Avery Ng, the party needs to pay legal fees. "If you don't want Long Hair to go to jail, you must donate money." He added: "Even the judicial reviews filed by the League of Social Democrats are meant to serve the people."
- (HKG Pao) July 3, 2017. Before the event, the Youngspiration duo Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were interviewed about their plans for July 1st. Leung said: "The actual plan is being considered. That is all I can say." He added: "I cannot tell you" because "it is over as soon as I say it." He said that he wants to send a message to either Hong Kong and/or Xi Jinping. Meanwhile Yau Wai-ching only said: "I'll keep it secret."
So what earth-shaking action will they take? I checked the news carefully and all I found was that the two were present at the march, not to march but to observe how other parties were raising money.
They talk big but they do little. That has been their modus operandi for so long.
- (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018.
Seven men were arrested for destroying the paper coffin used in the demonstration and subsequently charged with criminal destruction of property. Four of these men pleaded guilty today. In mitigation, the defense said that the three men had participated in the celebration of the handover and were upset when they saw the coffin.
The magistrate said that there is freedom of expression in Hong Kong and the defendants should not use violence just because they don't like someone else's opinions. The magistrate fined each defendant $1,500 plus another $25 to pay for the property damage.
- (Oriental Daily) February 8, 2018.
A fourth man has pleaded guilty as well. He was fined $1,500 plus another $25 to pay for the property damage.
[760] Death To Choi Yuk-lin! (2017/06/28)
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 22, 2017.
Thousands have signed an online petition opposing the rumoured appointment of staunchly pro-Beijing teacher Choi Yuk-lin as Hong Kong’s next undersecretary for education.
Choi is a vice-chairperson of pro-Beijing industry group Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW), and is the headmaster of the Siu Sai Wan campus of Fukien Secondary School, which was a pro-Communist Party institution during the colonial period. She ran and lost against pro-democracy candidate Ip Kin-yuen for the education sector seat in last September’s Legislative Council elections.
But on Wednesday, the pro-Beijing Sing Tao Daily carried a report claiming that she would be appointed as undersecretary for education, serving under incoming education chief Kevin Yeung Yun-hung. The report caused alarm among pro-democracy educators, who set up an online petition against her rumoured appointment, citing her support for the government’s controversial national education initiative.
“In 2012, the HKFEW’s National Education Services Centre published the shocking ‘China Model’ curriculum, which brainwashes children in the name of national education,” the petition read. “If the vice-chairperson of a ‘red’ association controls the development of Hong Kong’s education policy, the public will completely lose trust in the government’s policy.” “Choi lost in the 2016 Legislative Council education sector elections with less than 30 per cent of the vote,” it added. “This shows her abilities and political opinions are not supported by the majority of the education sector.”
On Wednesday, incumbent legislator Ip said that if Choi were to be appointed into government, it would be a “slap on the face of voters.”
As of 9am on Thursday, over 3,400 had signed the petition – including 1,200 in the education sector and 2,200 members of the public.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 25, 2017.
Advocacy groups have said they will organise street stands opposing the potential appointment of a pro-Beijing school principal as the number two official of the Education Bureau.
Choi Yuk-lin, of the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW), is rumoured to be a candidate for the position of undersecretary for education. Choi is the principal of the Fukien Secondary School (Siu Sai Wan).
But education advocacy groups have expressed concerns that if Choi is appointed, she may push for more widespread use of Mandarin, and a return of the ill-fated national education curriculum. The controversial curriculum failed to be established as a stand-alone subject in 2012 after mass protests.
Appointments of undersecretaries are expected to be announced by early August. The advocacy groups will launch street stands on the Wan Chai MTR station footbridge on Tuesday and visit the office of the HKFEW on Wednesday to request a direct conversation with Choi.
Choi was a senior curriculum development officer of the Bureau between 2006 and 2013.
According to the group Societas Linguistica hongkongensis, which supports the use of Cantonese as teaching medium, more than 70 per cent of primary schools have classes that use Mandarin as a teaching medium.
Chan Lok-hang, convener of the group, said Choi could be a major driving force for using Mandarin to teach the subject of Chinese. He said the projects and resources provided by the bureau during her tenure, such as Language Support Services for Primary Schools, all contain more Mandarin elements.
Chan added that after Choi left the bureau, phrases about teaching Chinese in Mandarin disappeared from documents, indirectly showing that she could be responsible.
Chan also said an article on the bureau’s website in January 2014 said Cantonese is “a Chinese dialect which is not the official language,” when Choi was responsible for the Chinese portion of the Bureau’s Language Learning Support Section.
“Choi very much despises Cantonese,” he said. “The article created a public relations disaster for the bureau, and the bureau’s officials had to tackle the issues created by her. I believe the bureau will not welcome her return as the undersecretary.”
Demosisto party secretary-general Joshua Wong said the HKFEW was the organisation behind the national education curriculum in 2012.
The government provided over HK$10 million in funds to the HKFEW to set up the National Education Services Centre, which published a controversial teaching material handbook named “The China Model,” one of the items that sparked concerns over national education curriculum and the mass protests that came after. The handbook described the Chinese Communist Party as a “progressive, selfless and united ruling group.”
Wong said the funding procedures of the bureau were often a “black box” process and the HKFEW often benefitted from it.
“If Choi is appointed… will it make the black box process even worse? We are very concerned,” he said. “We are very worried that the national education curriculum, which failed five years ago, will be installed in different subjects.”
He also said that Choi often used “very biased words” against students: “She said students who joined the Umbrella Movement formed a ‘democractic hegemony’ through a rushed and selfish political struggle… I believe Education Bureau officials – or even Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung – had never used such biased words.”
Prince Wong of student concern group The Edu Lab said she was concerned about potential “white terror” – the banning of political discussions in schools – if Choi is appointed.
“It is a double standard that Choi wore [patriotic] red scarfs when attending flag raising ceremonies, but she would not allow students to discuss politics,” she said.
Choi lost the education sector seat during the 2016 Legislative Council election to incumbent pro-democracy lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen.
Choi has neither confirmed or denied her potential appointment.
Internet comments:
- (YouTube) The signature campaign!
0:06 -- Name? Andy Lau. Profession? Singer? I oppose Choi Yuk-kin for undersecretary for education. We have received your response.
0:16 -- Name? Chan Ho-nam (note: the main character in the Teddy Boys movie series and played by actor Elkin Cheng). Profession? Triad gang member. I oppose Choi Yuk-kin for undersecretary for education. We have received your response.
0:24 -- Name? Alipay (note: the Alibaba pay system in China).
0:31 -- Name? Letitia Lee (note: famous pro-establishment activist). Profession: Education
0:34 -- Name? Poon Fung (note: minor character in the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms). Profession: General.
0:45 -- Name? Choi Yuk-lin. Profession: Undersecretary.
0:51 -- Name? How-can-you-produce-such-a-list? Profession: Who-is-going-to-believe-this? I oppose Choi Yuk-kin for undersecretary for education. We have received your response.
- (Apple Daily) By Eva Chan, senior lecturer, School of Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Everybody thinks that any human being would be better as the Secretary of Education than the incumbent. But even as we want to set off firecrackers to celebrate the send-off of Secretary of Education Eddie Ng, the news is that Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers vice-chairperson Choi Yuk-lin is going to become the next undersecretary for education. If so, then her destructive is going to orders of magnitude greater than the mediocre and incompetent Mr. Ng who is hogging that post without ever doing anything. Carrie Lam said that her cabinet contains no surprises or shocks, but it seems that the best is yet to come.
Carrie Lam won the Chief Executive despite her low popularity. We only know that she owes a lot to Sai Wan (=China Liaison Office). We should be prepared that Sai Wan will want Lam to appoint people who are preferred by Beijing to her team. We are psychologically prepared to see pro-establishment characters in the cabinet.
But when the news of Choi Yuk-lin's appointment came out, almost 2,000 school principals, trustees and teachers signed a petition of opposition, including the school principle who are friendly to the Education Department and supportive of BCA. This showed that many people are upset.
What kind of organization is the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers? Five years ago, the government proposed that national education be instituted as an independent subject. The National Education Service Centre of Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers produced a "Special handbook the China model" to praise the Chinese Communists as "progressive, selfless and unifying ruling party" whereas the United States is racked by "political infighting and mass suffering." Thus began the anti-National Education campaign.
At the time, Carrie Lam had just been appointed as Chief Secretary. She could not have forgotten the opposition to National Education. Right now Carrie Lam is talking about national education beginning in kindergarten. My understanding is that she meant to teach kindergarten children that we are Chinese people, the origins of the Dragon Boat Festival and the Mid-Autumn Festival, etc. But if the highly controversial Principal Choi is appointed as undersecretary for education, that will cause "strong" anxiety.
There are enough controversies in the education sector already. I ask Carrie Lam to reconsider and not create a unnecessary storm.
- Ip Kin-yuen said that Choi Yuk-lin lost to him in the legislative council elections in the education sector by 45,984 (71.7%) to 18,158 (28.3%). Ip said that this shows that Choi is highly unpopular. This is out of 88,964 registered electors in that constituency.
Let us accept that as true.
As of 9am on Thursday, over 3,400 had signed the petition – including 1,200 in the education sector and 2,200 members of the public.
Let us accept that these are authentic signatures from real persons.
By my count, 2.4% of the education sector and and 0.03% of the public oppose Choi Yuk-lin's appointment.
That only proves that Choi has no meaningful opposition in Hong Kong, either inside or outside of the education sector.
- (Headline Daily) August 2, 2017.
Ip Kin-yuen said that their campaign ultimately gathered almost 20,000 signatures, including at least 7,000 teachers. Therefore the government would be going against mainstream opinion with the appointment of Choi Yuk-lin.
How many teachers are there in Hong Kong? According to the Education Bureau, there are 13,930 kindergarten teachers, 24,765 primary school teachers and 28,853 secondary school teachers in the 2016/2017 school year. According to the University Grants Committee, the eight universities have 9,894 staff members in the 2016/2017 school year.
How many members does the Professional Teachers Union have? According to the 2016-2017 annual report of the Professional Teachers Union, they have 97,000 members. So about 7% of these people signed the petition. Does that constitute 'mainstream opinion'?
The other 12,000 signatures come from non-education workers, including students and parents. How many students are there in Hong Kong? According to the Education Bureau, student enrolment in the 2016/2017 school year was: 185,800 kindergarten students, 352,500 primary school students, 356,600 secondary school students and 324,1000 post-secondary students. And the students have parents/guardians, so the total number of students/parents is well in excess of 2 million. Does 12,000 constitute mainstream opinion?
- (HKG Pao) June 27, 2017.
Eva Chan said that, five years ago, the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers praised the Chinese Communists as "progressive, selfless and unifying ruling party" whereas the United States is racked by "political infighting and mass suffering."
I thank Eva Chan for bringing this back up. Five years ago, she thought that this was a deplorable stand. But today, you cannot get around the fact that all that turned out to be true.
Five years later today, the poverty-reduction campaign has now moved on to the special hardship cases; One Belt One Road has converted cynics into believers through the construction of infrastructure in many countries; the anti-corruption campaign is no show, and it even has an educational television drama <The Name of the People>. Over these five years, the "progressive, selfless and unifying ruling party" has produced an impressive report card.
Meanwhile in the United States, the presidential election showed us what "political infighting and mass suffering" are. In the primary elections, Hillary Clinton was smeared and damaged by party rivals, so that even members of the Democratic Party felt that the Republican Party would be a better choice. In the presidential election, the shamelessness and ignorance in the debates were appalling. And now more than 20 million people will be losing their healthcare insurance when Trumpcare replaces Obamacare.
- (HKG Pao) July 13, 2017.
On one side, HKG Pao posted <James To threaten not to hire Choi Yuk-lin? Click LIKE to support Carrie Lam to stand firm> on July 8. On the other side, Apple Daily posted <Carrie Lam thinks that there are too few people? More than 10,000 people sign to oppose the leftist school principal joining the Education Department>. So far, the HKG Pao has garnered 10,826 LIKE's versus Apple Daily's 1,555.
Apple Daily has 2.11 million LIKE's for their Facebook, compared to only 87,000 for HKG Pao. So isn't it clear what the public thinks on this issue?
- (SCMP) ‘Red scare’ campaign by the pan-dems a low blow. By Alex Lo. July 12, 2017.
The new bureau secretaries may be lacklustre and uninspiring, but at least their appointments have avoided controversies. Oddly, the hiring of their deputies has proved far trickier, as the opposition has started to pick fights. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s political honeymoon may already be over.
Pan-democrats have gone after veteran educator Christine Choi Yuk-lin for her ties to pro-China education NGOs after reports she is being considered for a senior post at the Education Bureau. Now they have expanded their “red scare” campaign to target Simon Lee Hoey, a rising star among the local political elite.
The knives are out as rumours circulate that Lee is being considered for the post of deputy home affairs secretary. He is currently deputy executive director of Our Hong Kong Foundation, the think tank that was the brainchild of former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa.
Pan-democrats such as Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting have accused Lee of being a leftist based on his publications and work experience. Lee does write a lot because he is, well, a scholar. He has a PhD in law from Tsinghua University, and is a specialist in constitutional and international law. He also has advanced degrees from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and University of London, and is an adviser at Harvard Law School and a visiting fellow at the University of Hong Kong’s law school.
His recent publications, which some find questionable, have defended the current chief executive election method, the government’s failed electoral reform package in 2015 and Deng Xiaoping’s conception of the “one country two systems” governing principle for Hong Kong. His views may be disagreeable to pan-democrats, but they are fairly mainstream.
Lam, the legislator, questions if he is not a closet member of the Chinese Communist Party because he had worked as an assistant to a county magistrate in Guizhou.
Is Lee “red”? Who knows? The political backgrounds of Tsang Tak-sing, the former home affairs secretary, and his brother Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, the former Legislative Council president, were redder than red. One turned out to be a competent official and the other is one of the few public figures respected by people on both sides of the political fence. Ex-chief executive Leung Chun-ying has been accused of being a Communist Party member.
Lee may or may not make a good political appointee. But are we disqualifying him just because of his published views? Maybe the pan-dems are right – Hong Kong isn’t free anymore.
- (SilentMajorityHK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 11, 2017.
What is the first thing that you look at when you hire? The face? The body? The manner of speech? The attitude? ... None of the above. You look at the resumé!
So here is the perfect resumé: Male, born in Hong Kong, Baptist University Bachelor of Arts, Hong Kong University Bachelor of Laws, Chinese University of Hong Kong Master in Government and Public Administration, University of London School of Oriental and Asian Studies Master in Politics and International Studies, Tsinghua University Doctorate in Law. In 2008, he received a special scholarship at Tsinghua University to concentrate on studying the Hong Kong Basic Law. He served four years as the assistant to the country chief in Xifeng county, Guizhou province, China. He returned to Hong Kong and was hired as the Chief Executive of Strategic Management the China Resources Group. He is now serving as the Vice-president of the Our Hong Kong Foundation.
The man is Simon Lee Hoey. His resumé is impeccable. His government experience in China is exceptional because very few Hongkongers can say that they have done it.
But when the word came out that Simon Lee Hoey is being considered as an undersecretary in the Carrie Lam administration, Democratic Party legislator Lam Cheuk-ting became hopping mad and said: "There is nothing distinguished about Simon Lee Hoey. He is incapable to handling the job."
I began to wonder what is so exceptional about Lam Cheuk-ting himself. His resumé is brief: Bachelor degree in Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Democratic Party research director and chief executive; Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation director. He had so little to say for himself that he even included his height (6'4") on his resumé. If that is Lam's sole exceptional quality to become legislator, then surely Simon Lee Hoey is more than qualified to become an undersecretary.
- (Oriental Daily) July 25, 2017.
Former Scholarism spokesperson and current TheEduLab media contact person Prince Wong held a press conference in which she denounced Choi Yuk-lin for turning Hong Kong schools to 'red' within Liberal Studies. According to Wong, Choi will suppress political voices in schools if she is appointed to as undersecretary for education.
Actually, nobody paid any attention to what Prince Wong was saying. Instead, everybody wondered why she wore that low-cut red dress to the press conference. Is Wong saying that she has already been brainwashed?
Prince Wong promised that she will set up street booths to explain why Choi Yuk-lin must be opposed. She promised that she will go to the Federation of Education Workers to confront Choi Yuk-lin in person. Yes, but the public wants to know whether she will be wearing red that day?
- Joshua Wong threatened that they will take further action if the government makes the appointment:
"Further action?" People are having a good time on the Internet with their speculations.
Firstly, there is the "indefinite hunger strike." Joshua Wong and Prince Wong were two of the strikers during Occupy Central. Joshua Wong was caught sneaking in some glucose. And will Joshua Wong be caught munching on a Big Mac in the subway (against the rules) again?
Secondly, if Joshua Wong got zero for 79 days of the unlawful Occupy Central, then how many days must this next round of Occupy last? One year? Five years?
Thirdly, there is always the tried-and-true method of self-immolation which has been carried only once in Hong Kong (namely, in a fiction story in the movie Ten Years). Many people wish Joshua Wong would set himself on fire. He won't actually do it, but he may threaten to do so unless we donate more money more frequently to him.
Fourthly, everybody knows that the ultimate action will be yet another round of fundraising so that Joshua Wong will have the money to pay for airfare/hotel/meals in order to go to Taiwan/Japan/United States/United Kingdom to seek foreign pressure on China to give a referendum law to Hong Kong in order to have a vote for "self-determination."
- The Good News Hong Kong Facebook's own signature campaign has 19,027 persons in support of Choi Yuk-lin, after filtering out 7227 likely forgeries (such as Xi Jinping, CY Leung, Choi Yuk-lin, etc). There are 863 education workers, 17034 parents/students and 1130 others.
- (Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2017.
Yesterday Hong Kong Demosisto, EduLab, Societas Linguistica Hongkongensis and other groups charged up to the office of the Federation of Education Workers to protest the rumored appointment of Choi Yuk-lin as education undersecretary. A dozen or so of them stood outside and unilaterally demanded to have "public dialogue" with Choi Yuk-lin. They said that if Choi does not come out to talk to them, it will mean that "she refuses to listen to young people." They pounded on the glass door and pasted banners on the wall. They chanted slogans such as "Oppose Choi Yuk-lin to become undersecretary!" They demanded Choi to come out to explain her views on national education, etc. They said that they were there "to give Choi Yuk-lin a chance to produce the evidence to counter the criticisms." This "political farce" went on for about 20 minutes. Nobody came out to talk to them, so they went home. The banners were quickly removed afterwards.
- Cartoon
Concerning Carrie Lam's new team:
Option 1: If she finds someone who has run in elections before but lost, you criticize her for reviving losers.
Option 2: If she finds someone with no election experience, you criticize her for finding an inexperienced newbie with no popular base support.
Option 3: If she finds someone who has run in elections and won but is pro-establishment, you criticize her for making under-the-table political deals.
Option 4: If she invites a pan-democrat to join her government, then either he is too scared and refuses, or else he is prevented (upon threat of expulsion from his political party), or else he is denounced for selling out for money/power.
Hey, the pan-democrats win all the time!
- (SCMP) August 1, 2017.
A pro-Beijing school principal was officially appointed Hong Kong’s new education undersecretary on Tuesday despite strong opposition, as the government unveiled its first batch of political appointees who will serve government ministers.
A pro-Beijing school principal was officially appointed Hong Kong’s new education undersecretary on Tuesday despite strong opposition, as the government unveiled its first batch of political appointees who will serve government ministers.
Critics fear the appointment of Choi, who recently resigned as vice-chairman of the Federation of Education Workers to take up the position, could mean her spearheading the return of a campaign to implement a controversial national education curriculum under Lam.
In 2012 the government was forced to shelve plans for such a curriculum in local schools after 10 days of protests and claims it would be a brainwashing exercise.
Choi, principal of the conservative Fukien Secondary School (Siu Sai Wan), lost heavily to pan-democrat Ip Kin-yuen in elections for the city’s legislature last September.
A government official told the Post on Monday that Choi had been the sole candidate for the position despite objections from pan-democrats. Sources from the Legislative Council’s pro-establishment camp said high-profile protests against Choi’s candidacy may have strengthened her claim to the job, as Lam had then come under pressure not to back down over the appointment.
(SCMP) Opposition to Christine Choi is opposition for opposition’s sake. By Alex Lo. August 2, 2017.
I have never met Christine Choi Yuk-lin, the newly appointed undersecretary for education. I bet you haven’t, either. Yet, many people have strong opinions about her.
The government has just announced the appointment of 10 undersecretaries and eight political assistants, but Choi attracted all the attention. The opposition has mobilised a months-long campaign against her. But let’s ignore the news reports for a moment and focus on her background and published views.
Her CV looks okay: long-time school teacher, principal of a large school, degrees in linguistics and Chinese literature from Baptist University and a PhD in education from the Chinese University. Good, these are legitimate universities, unlike the academic credentials of some public figures. Still, the education sector lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen has accused her of being unqualified. She had, he said, only worked as a lowly officer at one time in secondary school curriculum development at the Education Bureau. Ip and Choi were schoolmates; she might have lectured him when he was studying for a Master’s degree in education at Chinese University.
He also said she lost to him in the last Legislative Council election for the education seat. It’s true she received less than 30 per cent of the sector’s votes. Should that disqualify her from taking a government job? Legco’s education sector has always been an opposition stronghold, with the Professional Teachers’ Union (PTU) playing kingmaker. Ip is the PTU’s vice-president. Surprised?
As an opposition member, he had been busy encouraging university students to protest and boycott classes and fighting against the teaching of Putonghua in schools and the funding of belt and road scholarships.
Choi was more narrowly focused. She advocated the bureau to overhaul new changes in secondary school curriculum, class sizes, medium of instruction and inclusive education such as putting students with special needs in regular classes. Teachers face “unbearable pressure”, she once wrote, and they need adequate resources to implement those changes properly.
Her real sin is that she had supported national education and was associated with a group that had produced “biased” teaching materials. The opposition says that’s brainwashing, but they say it’s okay for teachers and students to advocate Hong Kong separatism in school. It’s not up to her whether national education is reintroduced, but if it does happen, you might want an experienced and moderate educator to be put in charge rather than a diehard ideologue.
- (Wen Wei Po) August 2, 2017. Retired teacher Han Lianshan posted on Facebook today that the appointment of Choi Yuk-lin means Chief Executive Carrie Lam is declaring war on the education sector. "Come on over! We will fight you all the way!" People Power member Chan Wai-yip concurred and commented that he will start large-scale class strikes to express rage. "Class strike! From individual to wild cat strikes to total strike!" Netizen Francis Tsang said: "Citizens should refuse to pay taxes or mortgages in order to cripple the Hong Kong economy and drive this garbage government down on its knees."
- Dear students, just remember that there are many students in your class. When Chan Wai-yip calls a Hong Kong-wide general class strike, you may join but other students (such as those from the mainland) won't. Your truancy will be reflected in your final grades. Do you think Chan Wai-yip cares about your predicament? No, he will call for an even longer strike.
- Dear Francis Tsang, if you don't pay your mortgage, the bank will repossess your home and auction it off. You will be sleeping under a highway overpass.
- (Oriental Daily) August 4, 2017. According to information, Choi Yuk-lin will begin by working on the salary system for kindergarten teachers. Previously, the education sector had asked the government to take action, but the government said that the issue was complicated and will require time to study. This is an issue supported by the Professional Teachers Union, which would make it awkward for other groups such as the pro-independence/self-determination parties to oppose.
As vice-president of the Federation of Education Workers, Choi Yuk-lin once established a Kindergarten Teacher Salary Concern Group in order to seek reasonable salaries for kindergarten teachers. Therefore she is familiar with those who are actively involved with and influential on this topic.
- This is really bad news for Joshua Wong and Prince Wong. How are they going to instigate kindergarten students to strike in order to prevent their teachers from getting decent salaries?
- This only goes to show how devious and shameless the Hong Kong Communist government can get. They even use kindergarten students as human shields.
[759] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/06/28) (Hong Kong Research Association) (1,244 Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or over were interviewed June 15-21, 2017 by automatic telephone system).
Q1. Are you satisfied with the implementation of One County Two Systems/Hong Kong Ruled By Hongkongers/High Degree of Autonomy in Hong Kong since the handover?
27%: Very satisfied
18%: Somewhat satisfied
17%: Half-half
14%: Somewhat dissatisfied
21%: Totally dissatisfied
3%: Hard to say/no opinionQ2. Overall, how you satisfied with the quality of life since the handover?
16%: Very satisfied
22%: Somewhat satisfied
27%: Half-half
18%: Somewhat dissatisfied
17%: Totally dissatisfied
1%: Hard to say/no opinionQ3. Over all, are you satisfied with your personal economic situation since the handover?
13%: Very satisfied
18%: Somewhat satisfied
35%: Half-half
18%: Somewhat dissatisfied
14%: Totally dissatisfied
2%: Hard to say/no opinionQ4. Are you satisfied with the overall development of Hong Kong since the handover?
10%: Very satisfied
17%: Somewhat satisfied
30%: Half-half
23%: Somewhat dissatisfied
18%: Totally dissatisfied
2%: Hard to say/no opinionQ5. Do you think Hong Kong has an important role in China's state development strategy?
25%: Very important
27%: Somewhat important
25%: Half-half
11%: Somewhat unimportant
7%: Totally unimportant
5%: Hard to say/no opinionQ6. Do you think that the Central People's Government value the overall development of Hong Kong?
28%: Value a lot
24%: Value somewhat
20%: Half-half
13%: Not value too much
11%: Totally no value
4%: Hard to say/no opinionQ7. How much confidence do you have in Hong Kong's overall development over the next five years?
11%: Very confident
15%: Somewhat confident
29%: Half-half
21%: Not much confidence
21%: No confidence
2%: Hard to say/no opinionQ8. How much confidence you have in China's overall development over the next five years?
24%: Very confident
25%: Somewhat confident
23%: Half-half
11%: Not much confidence
13%: No confidence
5%: Hard to say/no opinionQ9. Do you think that Hong Kong's future 50 years after the handover should be One Country One System, One Country Two Systems or self-determination/independence?
17%: One Country One System
63%: One Country Two Systems
9%: Self-determination/independence
4%: Other
6% Hard to say/no opinion(SCMP) Celebrate the handover anniversary? Hongkongers should ask if we’re better off now than 20 years ago. By Michael Chugani. June 27, 2017.
To celebrate or not to celebrate? Are you among the Hongkongers asking themselves this question as we mark the 20th anniversary of the city’s return to Chinese rule? If yes, why? Isn’t reuniting with the motherland a cause for celebration?
Yet here we are, 20 years after the colonisers left, grappling with a question that in itself suggests something is terribly wrong.
Before you decide whether or not to celebrate, ask yourself whether Hong Kong is better or worse off than it was 20 years ago. Is it better to have a governor imposed on us by the British monarchy or a chief executive elected through an imperfect democratic system?
Is it better to have a cabinet filled by bosses of British business houses and a British garrison commander or one that is top-heavy with the chief executive’s allies? Is it better to have a legislature of British-appointed yes-men or one that is partially directly elected and partially indirectly elected in a process favouring Beijing?
Is it better to be ruled by colonisers or communist countrymen of your own kind? Now that’s the crunch question. Depending on how you answer it, the other answers will automatically fall in place. That’s because the fault line that splits our city is ideological, not political.
We say we want so-called true democracy but the truth is many Hongkongers don’t mind being ruled by democratic colonisers who gave us no democracy rather than by communists who give us some democracy.
The ideological split runs so deep that national education is deemed brainwashing but talk of independence is touted as academic freedom. No one thinks twice about Queen Victoria’s statue in Victoria Park, but try erecting one of Deng Xiaoping, the architect of one country, two systems. It would be defaced within a day.
Such ideological hostility won’t change even if Beijing allows us full democracy. Many Hong Kong millennials find the mainland’s restrictive regime too alien. As for the post-millennials, forget about it. They don’t even consider themselves Chinese.
This is the Hong Kong that awaits President Xi Jinping 20 years after reunification. Patriots will celebrate in one part of Victoria Park; protesters will begin a street march in another. That this hallmark of freedom has survived 20 years of mainland rule says a lot.
To celebrate or not is a personal choice, but it is the duty of Hongkongers to make sure we give Xi the impression we are a peaceful and civilised society.
On 1 July twenty years ago, the advent of the transfer of sovereignty meant the fall of Hong Kong once again. In the 1970s, we were already deprived of our right to self-determination. Once China entered the United Nations, Hong Kong was removed from the list of Colonial Territories. Conniving in the process, Britain stood by. China and Britain then started their negotiations on Hong Kong’s future, and Hong Kong people were barred from participating throughout the course. When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed and the sovereignty of Hong Kong was decided to be transferred to China, anxiety spread through society, but our fate had been resolved, and we were left with no choice but accepting the reality. Hong Kong people then put their faith in the Basic Law to freeze Hong Kong for fifty years, keeping the freedom, rule of law and systems at that time intact. Yet, falling to the scourge of the Chinese rule for twenty years, we must now realize the fact – the Basic Law in no way changes the reality that Hong Kong is now a colony of China.
For twenty years, China has been assimilating Hong Kong in an attempt to denigrate Hong Kong as just another city of China and a tool to the communist regime. The government of Hong Kong has never been responsible to Hong Kong people, as the head of the government, be it the Governor or the Chief Executive, is accountable only to the suzerain. The One-way Permit scheme has become the main channel for Chinese to settle down in Hong Kong, and yet, Hong Kong people are denied from our right to determine on the number, vetting and approval on the application. We are thus forced to experience such population transfer. Our Hong Kong identity is perpetually suppressed under the attempts to introduce national education to indoctrinate Chinese identity and Putonghua as the medium of instruction to debase Cantonese that is our mother tongue. Chinese capital are now flagrantly invading Hong Kong and making bullish bids of our land, creating intricate structures with interests in different sectors. While we are suffering from such re-colonisation, the Basic Law and the framework of One Country, Two Systems have never been the bastion protecting us.
If we still cling on to the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems, we are doomed to self-destruction. As the puppet regime of communist China in Hong Kong condemned ‘One Country, Two Governments’ as related to advocating independence, it is now clear that anything that may undermine the totalitarian rule of China will be oppressed, and even the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems cannot be the path to a brighter future. In fact, to blindly put faith in the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems has no difference from deceiving oneself and wasting one’s own precious time to emancipate ourselves from re-colonisation. As 2047 is approaching, we are left with thirty years’ time, and we have no time to lose. To stoutly resist the Chinese regime, we must not restrain our imagination towards our future within the framework of One Country, Two Systems. Together we shall struggle against the enemy and restore the glory of our Hong Kong.
27 June 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Federation of Students- They have issued a joint statement and then will run a discussion forum or two to discuss the very complex issues. Then they will announce that they have done their bit on valiant resistance of the totalitarian colonialists from China.
Well, they are just a bunch of lazy-thinking, lazy-acting bums. The Chinese Communist Party just love to see these big-talking cowardly university students.
- If we have to count on these fools to take back Hong Kong, we are screwed!
- Take back Hong Kong? They can't even take back their own respective universities from the councils appointed by the Chief Executive?
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 28, 2017.
The student unions of 12 Hong Kong universities and tertiary institutions will not join this year’s July 1 democracy march, the unions announced in a joint statement on Tuesday. Instead, they will hold a discussion forum featuring academics and localist figures on the 20th anniversary of the city’s transfer of sovereignty.
[758] Destroyed Rituals, Ruined Music (2017/06/25)
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 22, 2017.
A deputy director of Beijing’s official body in Hong Kong has visited the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and redevelopment project sites in the China Liaison Office’s latest attempts at community outreach.
The office said in a press release that Tan Tieniu visited the URA on Tuesday upon the authority’s invitation. Tan spoke with the URA’s top-level management officials, including chairman Victor So Hing-woh and managing director Wai Chi-sing. The release said Tan visited the project site of the Peel Street/Graham Street redevelopment scheme in order to learn about revitalisation projects and urban redevelopment in Hong Kong. “[Tan] expressed appreciation and approval towards the URA’s advanced redevelopment ideas and its efforts to overcome difficulties, and proposed suggestions on using technology better in order to improve the management of redevelopment and increase exchange and cooperation with the mainland,” it read.
The Liaison Office has increased attempts at community outreach in the past few months, a contrast to its usual practice of having officials attend events as ceremonial guests. Tan visited the St. Paul’s Convent School and the Diocesan Boy’s School – both highly respected local schools – in April and May respectively. He also visited the Po Leung Kuk and the pro-Beijing New Territories School Heads Association in March, in addition to other visits.
But Democratic Party lawmaker Ted Hui Chi-fung of the Hong Kong Island constituency has criticised the URA’s invitation to Tan as “destroying” the “One Country, Two Systems” principle. “What do [the URA’s projects] have to do with Sai Wan?” he said during a protest at URA headquarters on Thursday.
Internet comments:
- (HKG Pao) When The Dove Encountered the Ox. By Chris Wat Wing-yin (06/25/2017)
When a dove runs into an ox, the laws of nature say that the dove will bounce off, groan and fly off. After all, the ox is a monstrous animal compared to the dove.
In Hong Kong, the laws of nature work in reverse. When the dove runs into the ox, it will bark, bare fangs and brandish claws. This is a true story that just happaned ...
Recently, Democratic Party (which has a dove as its party icon) legislator Hui Chi-fung lambasted China Liaison Office deputy director Tan Tieniu (=literally, Iron Ox) for visiting a redevelopment project in Central district. Hui said: "What business is Central district to Sai Wan (=location of the China Liaison Office)?"
The reason why the Doves dare to interfere with the Iron Ox is because they are used to being rude and oblivious of protocol and position. Thus, they believe that a local government can order the Central Government, that One Country Two Systems means that the Hong Kong systems rules over all else and even that Hong Kong is a sovereign country in its own right.
Hui Chi-hung said that when Tan Tieniu visited the Peel Street/Graham Street redevelopment scheme, he is meddling with internal Hong Kong affairs that are forbidden under the Basic Law and destroying One Country Two Systems.
If a short walking tour in a marketplace can destroy One Country Two Systems, then Hui Chi-fung's pals linking up with pro-Taiwan independence elements to interfere with Hong Kong affairs should be counted as blowing up One Country Two Systems with a nuclear-tipped missile?
What is the full title of the China Liaison Office? It is "The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." That is to say, it is the representative of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong. But you agree with me that Hong Kong is a small region under the Central People's Government, then why can't representatives of the Central People's Government walk around the place and look around? Does the Basic Law stipulate that the "Sai Wan" people must not step out of Sai Wan?
The opposition often say that Xi Jinping is failing to listen to the voices of the people of Hong Kong. So do you want the representatives of Xi Jining to stay household in Sai Wan all the time? If one of them should go talk to a butcher in the Central market, you scream that this is the destruction of One Country Two Systems. Then how is Sai Wan (as the representative of the Central People's Government) supposed to listen to public opinion?
Tan Tieniu became deputy director last year. As a newcomer, shouldn't he come out and look around at his new environment? But Hui Chi-fung is saying that his visit has caused "禮崩樂壞" (rituals being destroyed, music being ruined). What rituals are being destroyed as a result? Which music is being ruined? How exactly has Tan meddled in any Hong Kong affairs.
Actually, I have always thought that the People's Liberation Army should not be confined to barracks in Hong Kong. They are here to defend their own national territory but they are forced to hide in their barracks as if they are lepers. Why? Because some people in Hong Kong are afraid of seeing the People's Liberation Army. Well, now the opposition want the representatives of the Central People's Government be confined to their office in Sai Wan. It is even a crime for them to go out and take a look around. Since when have the people of Hong Kong become so narrow-minded, cruel and intolerant.
When China can put up with the abrasive Hong Kong, but Central has to closed to people from "Sai Wan." Who do you think is more authoritarian?
- "禮崩樂壞" (rituals being destroyed, music being ruined)? Is Hui Chi-fung talking about Occupy Central and the Mong Kok riot?
- (SCMP) June 25, 2017.
President Xi Jinping will be in Hong Kong from Thursday to Saturday to mark the 20th anniversary of the city’s handover from British to Chinese rule, swear in a new administration, and “inspect” the city, state media Xinhua announced.
Xi has a packed itinerary that includes overseeing the swearing-in of the new chief executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, and her cabinet on July 1. Before flying out later that day, he is expected to visit one of the city’s two major controversy-plagued infrastructure project sites – either the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge or the high-speed rail link to Guangzhou.
According to the itinerary the president and his wife will land at Hong Kong International Airport on Thursday. He is scheduled to attend a banquet that evening with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying at Government House. On Friday, he will inspect the local garrison of the People’s Liberation Army, before attending functions at the convention centre in Wan Chai.
- Xi Jinping is leading the way to destroy One Country Two Systems. Under Article 22 of the Hong Kong Basic Law,
No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.
Everything in Xi Jinping's itinerary equals interference in Hong Kong affairs. Firstly, the swearing-in of the new chief executive and the cabinet is strictly local. Secondly, the local garrison of the People's Liberation Army is located on lands that are expropriated from the people of Hong Kong by the original colonialists (United Kingdom) and handed over the neo-colonialists (China). Thirdly, the infrastructure projects merely serve to make it easier for mainlanders to move to Hong Kong.
Xi Jinping should not be allowed into Hong Kong. His arrival equals the death of One Country Two Systems.
- Not to fear, because the brave people of Hong Kong will valiantly resist the arrival of Xi Jinping. Led by our great leaders Avery Ng, Raphael Wong, Ray Wong, Edward Leung, Chan Ho-tin, Tommy Cheung, Wong Yeung-tat, Cheng Chung-tai, Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, we will use a hail of bricks to send Xi Jinping fleeing back to mainland China with his tail between his legs.
- This lot? They will be throwing bricks at each other first ...
- As for a violent reception, that would be the trifecta (see New York Times December 7, 2001) for Xi Jinping because he will be handed the justification to:
(1) Enact national security laws in Hong Kong to criminalize Hong Kong self-determination/independence;
(2) Militarize Hong Kong to accommodate a submarine base in Hei Ling Chau island for nuclear-powered submarines; a military airbase for fighter jets/bombers in the land formerly occupied by the Lantau South Country Park; a missile base for the PLA Rocket Force in a militarized North East New Territories under martial law so that strategic and tactical missiles can reach Taiwan and the sea lanes in minutes; etc.
(3) Raise Hong Kong taxes to pay for these People Liberation Army personnel and facilities in Hong Kong.
- (SCMP) June 24, 2017.
The People’s Liberation Army is to make its most visible appearance in Hong Kong in 20 years, marking the handover anniversary with an unprecedented port call by its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, sources told the South China Morning
“Allowing Hong Kong people to see how the Chinese military has developed is a way to boost patriotism,”military expert Zhou Chenming said. “The Liaoning carrier is a calling card for China’s military, and visiting Hong Kong is a rare chance to show its strength and to show confidence to the outside world,” Zhou said.
Collin Koh, a maritime expert from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, echoed that view, adding that the visit would be part of efforts by the PLA’s Hong Kong garrison to win hearts and minds, and raise awareness and support for the military.
- The presence of the Liaoning is clearly a military threat to the Hong Kong Nation. In order to defend freedom and democracy in Hong Kong, the United States must send the two Nimitz class supercarriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan to Hong Kong to counteract this threat. Freedom and democracy depends on it.
- Spare me with this "darkest day in the history of Hong Kong" talk. The People's Liberation Army has been in Hong Kong since 1997. It is just that they are ordered to maintain a low profile. Each PLA soldier is posted to Hong Kong on a four-year rotation, during which they are practically confined to barracks. Their term here is like jail time. They are not allowed like the British soldiers to have their drunken bouts in the city.
- The difference is clear. The British soldiers have freedom and democracy, which means that they can go among the civilian populations, get mightily drunk, have fights with the locals and fuck the local girls who like foreign dicks more than local dicks. Meanwhile, the Chinese soldiers have no freedom and no democracy, so they stay in their barracks, do push-ups and take cold showers.
- Well, if the American supercarriers come, they will have to wait outside of Hong Kong waters because ...
(SCMP) April 29, 2016.
Beijing denied a US aircraft carrier permission to make a port call in Hong Kong, a US consulate official says, a rejection that comes amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry told the US on Thursday night the visit by the USS John C. Stennis would not be allowed, said the official, who requested anonymity.
“[The ministry] needs to approve every ship coming into Hong Kong. [They] said ‘no’ to the carrier,” the official said, adding the reason for the denial was not clear.
In a written reply to the South China Morning Post’s inquiry, the ministry said on Friday night that port calls made by US warships and military aircraft were examined on a “case by case basis in accordance with sovereignty principles and specific circumstances”.
It’s not the first time China has turned down port calls by US warships. During the Thanksgiving holidays in 2007, Beijing rejected the USS Kitty Hawk’s visit to Hong Kong after Washington announced an advanced missile deal with Taiwan and US President George W. Bush met the Dalai Lama.
The consulate said it had originally arranged public tours aboard the Stennis for next Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Cancellation notices had been sent out to invitees, the consulate official said.
- (Apple Daily) June 16, 2017. At 6am on July 26, 2017, Hong Kong Demosisto members (including Joshua Wong, Derek Lam, Agnes Chow), People Power member Tam Tak-chi and League of Social Democrats members showed up at Golden Bauhinia Square in Wanchi and wrapped the Bauhinia statue with several layers of black cloth. Afterwards the demonstrators chanted slogans. The police came and removed the black cloth. The demonstrators dispersed.
- This is yet another triumph for the People of the Hong Kong Nation. Their valiant resistance effort has once again struck fear in the hearts of the Chinese Communists.
- How did Apple Daily know to be present at this non-residential location at the hour of 6am? Because this reporting has been outsourced to Demosisto, People Power and League of Social Democrats. More reporting is expecting from this collection of groups which will stage the news and deliver exclusive reports to Apple Daily.
- The Hong Kong Police proved to be unable to protect the Golden Bauhinia statue. Xi Jinping should reconsider whether Hong Kong is too dangerous for him to visit.
- In addition to the world-leading innovation of the concept of "relay hunger strike," they have now introduced the "pre-demonstration" -- a demonstration held before the arrival of the target.
- Actually, they don't care whether Xi Jinping is present or not. They only want to be in the news so that people will remember to donate more money more frequently to them at the July 1st demonstration march.
- The Hong Kong soccer team will be playing China on July 1st. Our Hong Kong soccer team showed up this morning 6am at the Hong Kong Stadium. The Chinese team had not arrived in Hong Kong yet. So we took a shot at the empty goal. Score! We lead 1-0! (Cheers)
- The black cloth is easily removed. Why not something permanent like black paint? Oh, but that would make it criminal damage to property (see CAP 200 Crimes Ordinance) which is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
- Comments in single descriptive phrases:
白痴 - idiot
無聊 - futile
弱智 - feeble-minded
on9 - (fucking) stupid
小學雞 - elementary school child's play
馬騮戲 - circus monkey show
冇自焚? - no self-immolation?- (The Guardian) June 28, 2017. Hong Kong's last governor Chris Patten feared Xi Jinping was determined to completely roll back the political freedoms guaranteed to its citizens under the handover accord. Western democracies now had a duty to support young activists such as Joshua Wong who were fighting to prevent that happening.
- That is right -- the United Kingdom should give £10 million to Joshua Wong to buy black cloth to cover up everything in Hong Kong. That should put a stop to Xi's nefarious plot to turn Hong Kong into a Chinese city.
[757] Mourning The 20th Anniversary Of The "Fall" Of Hong Kong (2017/06/24)
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 19, 2017.
The pro-independence Hong Kong National Party will hold a vigil at the Tsim Sha Tsui clock tower on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the city’s transfer of sovereignty from Britain to China.
Convener Andy Chan Ho-tin says that the party will mourn the 20th anniversary of the “fall” of Hong Kong, and expects around 300 attendees. “On July 1, there will be many activities celebrating the so-called Handover,” Chan told reporters on Monday. “If we don’t come out and express our opinions, the whole world will believe that Hongkongers welcome Chinese rule.” “We hope to tell the world that Hong Kong is still a colony,” he said. “Hong Kong is a Chinese colony.” Chan added that he hopes to unite the supporters of the various pro-independence and localist groups at the gathering, where participants will be able to reminisce over Hong Kong’s “glory years” – prior to 1997.
Chan said on Monday that the proposed vigil on the evening of June 30 will be peaceful, consisting of music, speeches and the broadcasting of video clips. He added that he has been actively contacting the police to apply for a letter of no objection to stage the event. “But the response from the police management was quite negative.” “Even if they stop this event, we will have many ways of expressing our opinions,” he said. “We will take the situation into account. Even if there is no gathering at that location, we will definitely hold some activities.”
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 23, 2017.
The pro-independence Hong Kong National Party has been barred from holding a vigil on the evening of June 30 outside the Tsim Sha Tsui clock tower because of “maintenance works,” says its convener.
Andy Chan Ho-tin told reporters earlier this week that he wanted to hold the gathering on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the “fall” of Hong Kong so as to tell the world that residents were not celebrating the transfer of sovereignty to China.
He said that the proposed vigil at the tourist site would be peaceful, and consist of music, speeches and the broadcasting of video clips. He expected 300 to attend.
But in a Friday morning Facebook post, he said that the police had notified him that the Hong Kong Cultural Centre – under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department – would close the entire area around the clock tower because of maintenance works. He would therefore not be able to hold an assembly at the area.
“They’re not telling us to participate in other celebration events, are they?” he added satirically.
A Leisure and Cultural Services Department spokesperson told HKFP that it will conduct maintenance and cleaning works at the plaza outside the Cultural Centre between 9pm on June 30 and 11am on July 1, in order to prepare the venue for the public to watch the fireworks on the Handover anniversary. “The plaza has already been leased to another user for an activity during daytime on July 1,” he added.
Reference: The Hong Kong National Party (2016/03/28)
Internet comments:
- (Oriental Daily) June 19, 2017.
Our newspaper obtained information today that many of the pro-independence/self-determination organizations in Hong Kong have been meeting secretly with political parties in Taiwan. In particular, the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party is receiving huge sums of money each month from Taiwan politicians. The Hong Kong National Party spokesperson denied that they are receiving money from Taiwan, but he admitted that they have held meetings.
Our newspaper obtained information that the key contact is Taiwan Chiao Tung University associate professor Sun Chi-pen who has been coming to Hong Kong frequently to meet with pro-independence/self-determination advocates, including Andy Chan Ho-tin and Jason Chow HO-fai of the Hong Kong National Party, Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous, Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang of Youngspiration, Wan Chin, Cheng Kam-mun and Cheung Chung-tai of Hong Kong Resurgence Order/Civic Passion, and self-determination advocates Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick. Our source provide us with photos of Sun meeting with Chan Ho-tin, and Sun meeting Wan China.
Our source tell us too that Sun Chi-pen gives Chan Ho-tin HK$50,000 per month to pay for expenses of the Hong Kong National Party and to promote Hong Kong independence. The party receives another $50,000 to $100,000 for holding large rallies. Chan Ho-tin told our newspaper that he meets with Sun Chi-pen each time the latter comes to Hong Kong. However, Chan denies that he gets financial support from Sun.
- (Oriental Daily) June 21, 2017.
Our newspaper received information about the secrets inside the Hong Kong National Party.
The Hong Kong National Party describes itself as a "revolutionary party" and therefore they will not disclose the identities of the members. At the inauguration, they claimed to have about 50 members whose average age is above 20. Based upon public information, some of the members are current and past members of the student union executive committees at Hong Kong University, City University and Baptist University.
Although Chan Ho-tin and Chow Ho-fai are most often seen as the spokespersons of the Hong Kong National Party, there are four "masterminds" behind the scene. The four -- named Chow, Chan, Chan and Cheung -- make the decisions on policies, finance and human resources. Chow and Chan are about 25 years old; they graduated from secondary school and held some freelance part-time jobs, living mostly off their parents; Chan is a Hong Kong University student; Cheung is only 19 years old. The four are not financially independent.
So far, these four have stayed behind the scenes and let Chan Ho-tin and Chow Ho-fai act as puppets in the front stage. By now, the two have achieved a modicum of fame through their public appearances. Some of the 'masterminds' are jealous of them. So they criticize the two for being too cowardly to lead charges at the police and thus losing the support of the more radical pro-independence elements. Meanwhile Chan and Chow are tired of being controlled so tightly, and are contemplating the establishment of their own organization.
The Hong Kong National Party had no comments on this story.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 23, 2017. Andy Chan Ho-tin told reporters earlier this week that he wanted to hold the gathering on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the “fall” of Hong Kong so as to tell the world that residents were not celebrating the transfer of sovereignty to China.
- Now I am a resident of Hong Kong and I never told Andy Chan Ho-tin that I am not celebrating the transfer of sovereignty to China. So why is he telling the world that "residents are not celebrating"?
If not every resident, then how many residents did Chan mean? "He expected 300 to attend." So the threshold of Andy Chan's calculus is that: "300 = everyone." Or something.
-(Oriental Daily) According to lawyer Maggie Chan Man-ki, the relevant statutes are:
Section 2 Treason
(1) A person commits treason if he—
(a) kills, wounds or causes bodily harm to Her Majesty, or imprisons or restrains Her;
(b) forms an intention to do any such act as is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests such intention by an overt act;
(c) levies war against Her Majesty— (i)with the intent to depose Her Majesty from the style, honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom or of any other of Her Majesty’s dominions; or (ii)in order by force or constraint to compel Her Majesty to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe, Parliament or the legislature of any British territory;
(d) instigates any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory;
(e) assists by any means whatever any public enemy at war with Her Majesty; or
(f) conspires with any other person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c).
(2)Any person who commits treason shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. (Amended 24 of 1993 s. 2)
Section 3 Treasonable offences
(1) Any person who forms an intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say—
(a) to depose Her Majesty from the style, honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom or of any other of Her Majesty’s dominions;
(b) to levy war against Her Majesty within the United Kingdom or any British territory in order by force or constraint to compel Her Majesty to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe, Parliament or the legislature of any British territory; or
(c) to instigate any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory, and manifests such intention by an overt act or by publishing any printing or writing, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life.
(2) It shall be no defence to a charge under this section that any act proved against the person charged amounts to treason under section 2; but no person convicted or acquitted of an offence under this section shall afterwards be prosecuted for treason under section 2 upon the same facts. (1) The Societies Officer may recommend to the Secretary for Security to make an order prohibiting the operation or continued operation of the society or the branch—
(a) if he reasonably believes that the prohibition of the operation or continued operation of a society or a branch is necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; or
(b) if the society or the branch is a political body that has a connection with a foreign political organization or a political organization of Taiwan.
- (Oriental Daily) June 29, 2017. Earlier the Hong Kong National Party applied to the police to hold an assembly near the clock tower outside the Tsim Sha Tsui Culture Centre. Today Hong Kong National Party convener Andy Chan Ho-tin said that the police has given a notice banning a public assembly at the location at that time. Chan said that even though he may face criminal charges, he has the responsibility to fight for the basic rights that Hongkongers still have. He said that he would not put anyone at risk.
Chan said that the police told him that the Hong Kong National Party advocates ideas contravene the Basic Law and that the theme was controversial. Chan objected to the police making political judgments. He said that citizens have the right to express their opinions in the streets. This is a core value for Hongkoners.
- (Oriental Daily) June 30, 2017. Yesterday afternoon Hong Kong National Party convener Andy Chan Ho-tin made an appearance at the alternate location of Centenary Garden in East Tsim Sha Tsui. But a large number of police officers were present and they warned Chan to leave. About one hour before the scheduled time, the Hong Kong National Party announced that the assembly was canceled. Instead, they will meet with the press at Baptist University.
The press conference took place at 9pm. Those present included Chan Ho-tin and the presidents of the student unions of Baptist University, City University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University, Education University and Shu Yan University.
- Duh ... whatever happened to the responsibility to defend the remaining basic rights of Hongkongers.
- Where was the Hong Kong Republican Army? Why perform all the push-ups, weight-lifting and jogging if you don't intend to put it to good use to serve the cause?
- (Unseen Hong Kong)
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from Britain back to China. Hong Kong National Party, a local political party that supports the Hong Kong Independence movement, originally scheduled a gathering to “mourn the 20 years’ fall of Hong Kong”, but was banned by the police. The gathering was therefore canceled, yet there were still over 200 middle-aged Chinese assembled at the Tsim Sha Tsui pier. It was suspected that these people were “blue ribbon” wearers, who support the communist party and the central Chinese government.
These middle-aged blue ribbon crowds did not see the Hong Kong National Party showing up for the gathering, and “attacked” the foreign journalist instead, with a lot of swearing and insulting such as “bastard”, “Get Out” in both English and Mandarin. The foreign journalist in black shirt looked completely helpless.
Not long after, a man with glasses that spoke fluent Cantonese stood up for the foreign journalist, and asked the men and women who made a huge scene to “go back to mainland China”. The man then was also cornered and pushed by the crowds, and was asked to get out of Hong Kong since “he isn’t Chinese if he supports foreigners”.
The foreign journalist in black shirt claimed that he was working with a group of other foreign journalists at that time, and was suddenly insulted by the Chinese guy in red cap. He emphasised that he did nothing to provocate their actions. He also said that he has been working and living in Hong Kong for seven years. “I love Hong Kong and I am part of Hong Kong”.
- Anna Chan's Weibo post with 7.16 million read at the time of the screen capture:
Spies disguised themselves as media reporters but they are actually directing the riot. Sometimes they deliberately pretend to be gathering news in front of the rioters in order to prevent the police from carrying out their duties.
[756] Next Digital In The News (2017/06/23)
(Marketing Interactive) June 13, 2017.
Next Digital has recorded revenue of HK$1,783.8 million during the year ended 31 March 2017, a decrease of HK$543.9 million (23.4%) against the figure of HK$2,327.7 million earned in the previous 12 months. The loss was widened to HK$394 million from that of HK$324.2 million loss in the year-ago period.
The media company attributes its drop to a significant decline in advertising revenue of the group’s print publication in both Hong Kong and Taiwan. Other factors include the downsizing and consolidation of the group’s newspapers publication and printing division, books and magazines publication and printing division, the restructuring of Taiwan Apple Daily, Taiwan Next Magazine and Apple Daily, as well as Next Magazine in Hong Kong.
It ceased the publication of FACE and ME! in April and May 2016 respectively. In June 2016, Ketchup ceased its print version and switched its focus to solely digital. Auto Express and Trading Express have been packaged with Next Magazine and Eat & Travel Weekly as a new bundle to streamline the magazine’s operations and reduce operating costs.
During the six months ended 30 September 2016, the total revenue of the newspapers publication and printing division stood at HK$474.1 million, representing a decrease of 27.1% or HK$176.5 million. The company also associates the decrease with the drop in circulation income of the group’s publications due to the continued shift in reading habits towards free online media over printed properties.
On the digital front, the digital business division’s revenues, consisting primarily of online advertising revenue, together with content licensing payments, games and content sponsorship, and in-app purchase of virtual products, amounted to HK$649.7 million during the year under review. This represents a decrease of 1.5% on the previous year’s figure of HK$659.7 million, of which, around 76.0% was generated in Hong Kong while the remaining was from Taiwan and others.
Next Media’s digital division recorded a segment loss of HK$1.2 million compared with a segment profit of HK$35.2 million in the previous 12 months. It explains in the press release that it was faced with “strong competition not only from an increasing arrays of new local entrants on digital media, but also global platforms and social media that are vying for the same advertisers’ spending as Apple Daily“, which had in effect dampened their topline momentum for the moment.
(Hong Kong Free Press) Apple Daily Taiwan encourages reporters to leave and become freelancers. June 22, 2017.
The Taiwan office of Apple Daily has encouraged its journalists to leave and cover news for the media outlet on a freelance basis, according to an internal memo.
The proposed arrangement comes after parent company Next Digital announced losses of almost HK$394 million for the financial year ending in March. The loss is HK$70 million more than the loss in the preceding year, as advertising income declines.
In a circular dated June 14, originated on popular Taiwanese forum PTT. Apple Daily attributed the proposed arrangement to the difficulties faced by media outlets due to the rise of the internet and smartphones.
“We encourage our colleagues to be entrepreneurial, establishing a small company, a personal workshop or a personal media business – Apple Daily will then cooperate [with them] on a contractual basis.” The outlet told staff that if they left to become freelancers, they could be paid for each written article, and rewarded for exclusive or breaking reports. The outlet added “as an example” that graphic artists would only be paid at 70 to 80 per cent of their current salary if they signed a cooperation agreement with Apple Daily. However, they could also increase their income by submitting work to other companies. “Apple Daily will provide existing hardware and software (such as computers) for work purposes at no cost…. Colleagues from all departments are welcome to suggest proposals for entrepreneurship.”
The Association of Taiwan Journalists, the country’s industry group, criticised the proposal in a Thursday statement, likening it to a re-negotiation of employee labour conditions. “‘Contract reporters’ will lose the protective umbrella of the labour laws, including minimum wage, limits on overtime work and holiday rights, and will even have to pay their own insurance. Apple Daily’s ‘entrepreneurship proposal’ is also a blow against the rights of workers to unite… as an individual company or personal workshop, they will not have a labour union, and will lose collective bargaining rights against Apple Daily.”
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 23, 2017.
Following the lead of its Taiwan office, newspaper Apple Daily has announced arrangements to dismiss employees and rehire them as freelancers in Hong Kong, says its local trade union.
The Next Media Trade Union said in a Thursday statement that staff from Apple Daily’s supplement, entertainment, graphics, sport and finance sections would be affected. Staff contracting arrangements have also been planned for the weekly Next Magazine.
Earlier this month, parent company Next Digital announced losses of almost HK$394 million for the financial year ending in March. The loss is HK$70 million more than the loss in the preceding year, as advertising income declines.
According to the Next Media Trade Union, several departments or teams from Apple Daily have been asked to establish separate companies. The newspaper would then subcontract production work to them. It added that some employees had been asked to leave at the end of June. They would then be rehired as freelancers beginning on August 1, under contracts lasting from six months to one year.
“We understand that the media industry is undergoing massive transformations and the group is facing pressures on costs,” said the union. “However, subcontracting is not the solution to the problem, because labour protection and news quality will take a big hit.”
The union said it would hold a meeting with management on Friday, and urged employees not to accept any contracting arrangements beforehand.
(EJ Insight) June 27, 2017.
Apple Daily newspaper, which has been a vocal supporter of the democracy movement in Hong Kong, is facing a tough time in its key market.
The outspoken daily, launched in 1995 by maverick tycoon Jimmy Lai, has seen its losses widen amid a fall in advertising revenues, forcing the management to resort to drastic steps to cut costs.
In recent days, there was much talk in journalism circles that Next Digital, the company that publishes Apple Daily and some other media titles, could scale down in-house operations and focus on outsourcing of content.
The restructuring will involve pain for the media group’s staffers as they may be asked to work under new contractual arrangements, observers feared.
Well, the apprehensions have come true as we have news that Apple Daily is encouraging staff at its newspapers to leave the company and rejoin as freelancers or sub-contractors.
The development was confirmed by the Next Media Trade Union after it was called for a meeting with the company’s management late last week.
According to a statement issued by the union, Next Digital plans to ask some employees to formally leave the company and become contractors or freelancers.
The restructuring is expected to affect staff working in the sports, finance, entertainment and some other sections as well as those involved in producing newspaper supplements.
Departments and teams will be encouraged to form their own independent companies, which will then be awarded work by the company under a sub-contracting system.
Apart from Apple Daily, people working for the weekly Next Magazine could be asked to shift to the new work arrangement.
Meanwhile, there were reports that staff working for Apple Daily (Taiwan) have also been told by the company’s local office that it wants the employees to move to a new system where they will work on a contractual or freelance basis.
Next Media’s move, which is aimed cutting costs and giving the group more elbow room on the labor front, has sparked concerns among the employees and the wider journalistic community.
By shifting to an outsourcing arrangement, the media group will no longer be constrained by labor laws, saving money on things such as health insurance coverage and retirement fund contributions.
While staff who leave the company may be provided work under a new arrangement, it will however amount to a renegotiation of the rights and privileges of the workers.
Besides, there are worries that if Apple Daily group is allowed to get away with its proposal, other media entities in Hong Kong could try to follow suit, endangering many journalist jobs in the city.
Next Media Trade Union said that while it acknowledges the challenges facing media groups, it doesn’t think sub-contracting is the right solution.
The new arrangement will remove a safety net for media personnel, the union said, adding that the new workflow system could also take a toll on the content and production quality at the newspaper.
These are legitimate concerns given that Next Media, as is the case with some other newspaper groups, could look for further cost cuts down the road due to shrinking advertising and circulation incomes.
While Next Digital has given no timeframe for the kick-off of the new outsourcing model, the plan has drawn fire from employees as well as various trade unions in the city, including the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and the pro-democracy Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions.
The trade unions have urged Next Digital to respect its media talents and withdraw the outsourcing plan.
Looking from the company’s perspective, it is not surprising why it felt it had to make some drastic changes in the way it conducts its business.
Next Digital announced earlier this month that its net loss widened to HK$394 million in the year ended March, from a HK$324 million loss in the previous financial year, as revenue fell to HK$1.78 billion from HK$2.34 billion.
The company blamed the weaker result to a significant decline in advertising revenue at the group’s print media business in both Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Apple Daily (Hong Kong) saw its print advertising revenue fall 38.8 percent from a year earlier to HK$141 million, while its circulation revenue declined 9.2 percent to HK$207 million.
The paper saw its daily circulation slip to an average of 130,000 copies, compared with 150,000 copies six months earlier.
Given the slide in ad revenues and circulation figures, the media group was at a crossroads, forcing it to reconsider its business strategy.
Some analysts had earlier raised the question as to whether Next Digital should abandon the loss-making print business and focus on driving the growth of its digital products.
Judging from the group’s latest financial results, it is clear that the management team has failed to find the right balance between the print and digital businesses.
Next Digital, which was formerly known as Next Media, aimed to be a leader in digital transformation as its traditional print media businesses faced massive challenge from New Media in recent years.
The group bet on its news portal, the online edition of Apple Daily, and its video news service Apple Action News, to drive revenue growth in the online segment and help offset weak print ad sales.
However, massive cost-cutting in its news operations affected the quality of the content, which in turn affected the traffic and advertising revenues in the digital business.
Though the group’s digital business reported HK$650 million revenue for the year to March, the figure was down slightly compared to the previous fiscal year.
A slowdown in digital business is a serious concern for the media group, already reeling from falling print revenues and advertising boycotts by some pro-Beijing enterprises.
With a growing number of online competitors in the market such as on.cc from Oriental Press and HK01 from businessman Yu Pan-hoi, as well as other offerings such as 100Most and myTVSuper, Next Digital’s online platforms are no longer an automatic choice for advertisers.
The group’s websites have seen a downtrend in the number of daily unique visitors over the past year.
For example, Hong Kong Apple Daily website recorded a total of 39 million page views and 2.3 million daily unique visitors in mid-June. That compared with 52 million page views and 2.4 million daily unique visitors three months earlier.
The number of unique visitors in Taiwan fell even more significantly, from more than 6 million previously to around 4 million now.
Now, what should Next Digital do amid this situation? How can it improve its business prospects and stem the losses?
It is amid these questions that the media group has opted to shift to an outsourcing model, deeming the arrangement as a good solution to bring down costs and reduce overheads.
While the company is justified in seeking changes, it should however ask itself this question: Is it right to ask employees to effectively renegotiate their contracts and settle for fewer benefits?
Is the staff being made to pay the price for the management’s faulty business vision and poor execution of business strategies?
The group should bear in mind that journalists are its only real assets, not the offices or printing machinery. All the exclusive news published on the front page of Apple Daily is the result of the hard work of the paper’s front-line journalists.
Letting go of the most important resource is unlikely to do any good for the newspaper group in the long run.
Getting work done through freelancers and sub-contracting arrangements may reduce the financial burden on the company, but is unlikely to enhance the company’s image or foster a sense of loyalty.
Also, it needs to ponder whether it might be sacrificing content quality in order save a few millions.
Instead of asking staff to leave and become freelancers or contractors, the company should streamline its operations and step up focus on digital, which is certainly the future.
To boost online traffic, Next Digital can establish partnerships with independent online news platforms and distribute their content.
Increased traffic and pageviews will lead to more online advertising, helping the group improve its finances.
If the print media business is seen as having absolutely no future, it might be better if owner Lai pulls the plug on the segment as a whole and focus solely on expanding the digital business.
An expanded digital business can help save employee jobs while also ensuring the group can continue to do the bold journalism that it is known for.
Hong Kong’s media landscape and the city’s struggling democracy movement certainly need an entity such as Apple Daily.
It is in the public’s interest that the newspaper group stays robust and expands its readership, using whatever medium — be it print or digital.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 6, 2017.
Over a hundred staff members at the Next Digital Group have staged a walk-out in protest of outsourcing plans.
Next Digital is the parent company of Apple Daily, Next Magazine, and other Chinese-language publications. Last month, the group announced plans to dismiss employees and rehire them as freelancers in Hong Kong, as part of a cost-cutting drive. Next Media Trade Union (NMTU) spokesperson Lam Wai-Chung said that, under the plan, staff members will have the same workload, but a lower salary, and with no labour protections.
The 150 staff members left work for 15 minutes, dressed in black, and protested outside the group’s building on Wednesday evening during heavy rain.
A statement from the union demanded management withdraw its plans and “stop secret negotiations.”
“Time after time we have been treated by the management as merely labour supply or figures on their account of expenses; disposable when they wish to cut cost[s], outsource-able when they no longer wish to be responsible as an employer. We are truly tired of watching our colleagues go or worrying about our own jobs on a daily basis. We, as dignified staff members of this company, today have come together and spoken to stop the management from ripping our departments apart one by one.”
“If the management insists on its plans against the will of the staff members, NMTU will consult our colleagues on future actions and no form of action is ruled out at this stage. In the meantime, NMTU would like to call for public support of our ongoing petition against outsourcing.”
A union statement on June 29 said that a head of the graphics department had reached a preliminary agreement with the management. At graphics departments for entertainment and supplement pages, only a third of staff members were chosen to join a new outsourcing company, whilst the rest would lose their jobs. The union criticised the company for only negotiating with department heads but not frontline staff members.
Apple Daily chief Cheung Kim-hung told the newspaper that the outsourcing plan will mostly be implemented at graphics departments and there were no plans to implement it elsewhere in the company. He said the company was inclined to halt hiring following potential resignations, and that it will try to find content providers from outside the company. He said the firm will conduct a review to see if staff members “are truly suitable” and said there will not be large lay-offs. The goal, however, was to cut staff by 30 per cent. Regarding the low staff morale, Cheung blamed the union for not passing on the correct message and said that the management was disappointed, according to the newspaper.
Internet comments:
- (Hong Kong Journalists Association) June 22, 2017.
(Chinese only)
The Hong Kong Journalists Association has the following comments on Next Media's purported plan to outsourcing:
1. HKJA has contacted Next Media maangement in order to learn more, but has not received any response yet. The HKJA requests Next Media management to disclose more details;
2. HKJA questions whether outsourcing will protect the rights of the workers, and is concerned whether workers can decide on whether to accept the outsourcing arrangements without being under pressure;
3. We concur with the call of the Next Media Trade Union to ask workers not to accept the proposal at this time.
- Why can't the HKJA take their Statement on Government ban of online media from attending press conference held by Carrie Lam on June 21, 2017 and rewrite it as:
1. HKJA expresses deep regret and disappointment with the decision of Next Media owner/management to outsource journalism;
2. HKJA reiterates that forcing workers to accept outsourcing contravenes CAP 57 Employment Ordinance which safeguards a comprehensive range of employment protection and benefits for workers, as well as Articles 33, 36 and 39 of the Basic Law;
3. Next Media majority owner Jimmy Lai has always stated that he supports freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. We hope that he will honour his pledge.
4. Apple Daily always take the lead to criticize government departments and large corporations to outsource services in order to reduce costs and maximize profits. We hope that Apple Daily will take the same stance with respect to the vital interests of its workers.
- Why is the Hong Kong Journalists Association talking about "pressure"? Well, if you quit voluntarily, we will hire you back as a freelancer on a per-piece basis; if you don't quit, we will fire you and we won't ever use you again. That would be coercion.
- In Hong Kong, the pan-democratic political parties bill themselves as the true defenders of workers' rights. I wonder what the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, Confederation of Labour Unions and the League of Social Democrats will have to say on this matter. Over the years, these parties have received millions and millions in political donation from Jimmy Lai. Will the dogs bite the hand that feeds them?
- (Oriental Daily) June 23, 2017. Comment from stock analysts: (1) "Next Digital revenues have declined over the course of several years already, showing that they don't have an effective business plan to deal with the crisis. Since the problems have continued for years, investors should not be holding Next Digital stock." (2) "Next Digital cut back on its print operations in order to focus on digital operations, but the latter has moved from profit to loss as well. Therefore, the digital business has failed while incurring developmental costs. There is no prospect for earnings growth at Next Digital in the foreseeable future."
- Buy low and sell high? This is the bottom because there can't be more bad news, right?
- (Oriental Daily) June 23, 2017. Next Media management issued an internal memo to encourage the workers to voluntarily resign, become entrepreneurs, form workshops and sell news reports back to Next Media.
- What are the tricky issues here?
(1) If you voluntarily resign, you are not entitled to severance pay;
(2) If you become an entrepreneur and form your own company, you are responsible for your own health insurance, retirement/pension fund, workplace injury insurance, etc, and you lose your rights of collective bargaining, minimum wage, standard working hours, overtime pay, paid vacation, maternity leave, etc.
(3) As an outside supplier, you can be fired at will anytime. Next Media does not have to provide you with an explanation (e.g. another service provider will do the same job cheaper; your stubbornness in wanting to be fair and balanced in your reporting; etc).
(3) If you get sued for libel during the course of your reporting (and Next Media has been sued hundreds of times already), you will pay for your own legal fees. In fact, Next Media will stiff you for 100% of the responsibility/liability as the service provider whose contract stipulates so.
- (Oriental Daily) June 23, 2017. Several days ago, Jimmy Lai told the Oriental Press Group reporter: "Fuck your mother's cunt!" Today, Jimmy Lai's employees are saying "Fuck your mother's cunt" to the outsourcing plan. What goes around ... comes around.
- (The Stand News) June 25, 2017.
Veteran news workers often encounter wage discrimination. Since they have 24 hours a day like everybody else, they can come up with two to three news articles per day just like rookie reporters. In the eyes of the boss, news articles are used to fill the pages and so the quantitative contribution of a veteran is the same as a rookie. However, the veteran gets paid two to three times more than the rookie. If the boss cannot create new sources of revenue and must resort to cutting costs in order to staunch the losses, he will begin by firing veteran news workers.
At most Hong Kong newspapers, there are three to four veterans keeping the gates while the frontline reporters tend to be very inexperienced. This is the reason why Internet news today is so poor, with numerous spelling mistakes and logical errors that often stand uncorrected. News has to be fast, and they can't afford to let fact-checkers and editors slow down the output process.
In the world of Internet news, the metric of success is the hit rate. As such, entertainment news dominate. While "restart of constitutional reform process" and "funding of the new airport runway" may be important to the people of Hong Kong, most people are more likely to read articles with titles such as: "Actress XXX totally nude in new television drama", "scandal of talented girl's father." When a newspaper oursources its news reporting and pays on the basis of hit rate, will they end up with entertainment news all the time?
Meanwhile, if you want to become an independent supplier of news stories, you know immediately that you will be in big trouble if you concentrate on politics, art, culture and sports (except soccer). You don't have many potential clients to begin with, because most newspapers have their own news staff already. Furthermore, the newspapers have political positions. So if you supply news to Apple Daily already, will Oriental Daily buy your news stories? Will Sing Tao or Economic Journal buy your anti-government/anti-Beijing news stories?
Can you count on the Internet news outlets as customers? They are not financially sound themselves, so you can hardly count on them.
What is for sure is that the successful news suppliers will concentrate on soft entertainment news. They will not be able to invest time and money on investigative journalism. You should not expect to see extensive news stories such as "CY Leung's UGL corruption sage" or "the conspiracy to plant voters for the Legislative Council elections." When the media fails to perform as watchdog, the people lose.
Related Links:
Bawang vs. Next Magazine (2016/05/24)
Sudden Closures (2015/07/26)
Jimmy Lai - Most Influential Person In The World (2015/04/17)
[755] Hong Kong People's Ethnic Identity (2017/06/20) (HKU POP) June 20, 2017. POP interviewed 1,004 Hong Kong people between 13 and 15 June by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers.
(HKU POP) Survey question
Q1-You would identify yourself as a : (Interviewer to read out the first 4 choices)
Hong Kong Citizen
Chinese Citizen
Hong Kong Chinese Citizen
Chinese Hong Kong Citizen
Others (Please specify)
Don't know / hard to say
Refuse to answer(HKU POP) Findings [sample base: 661, using only a sub-sample of the tracking surveys]
37%: Identified themselves as "Hongkongers"
21%: Identified themselves as "Chinese"
40%: Identified themselves with a mixed identify of "Hongkongers" plus "Chinese" (that is, "Hongkongers in China" plus "Chinese in Hong Kong")
63%: Identified themselves as "Hongkongers" in broad sense
36%: Identified themselves as "Chinese" in broad senseWhen asked to make a choice among 4 given identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Hongkongers in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong”, 37% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 21% as “Chinese”, 26% as “Hongkongers in China”, while 14% identified themselves as “Chinese in Hong Kong”.
In other words, 63% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), whereas 35% identified themselves as “Chinese” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), 40% chose a mixed identity of “Hongkongers plus Chinese” (i.e. either as “Hongkongers in China” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”).
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 21, 2017.
The percentage of young people identifying as Chinese has dropped to a new 20-year low, according to the latest University of Hong Kong survey.
The university’s Public Opinion Programme interviewed around 1,000 people by phone last week.
In one question, they were asked if they were Hongkongers, Chinese or a mixed identity of both. In general, 37 per cent identified as Hongkongers, 21 per cent said Chinese, whilst 40.2 per cent either answered “Hongkongers in China” or “Chinese in Hong Kong.”
But different age groups presented very different results.
Only 3.1 per cent of the respondents between 18 and 29 said they identified as Chinese, dropping slightly from 3.4 per cent when the poll was conducted six months ago. It the lowest result since the survey began in August 1997. 65 per cent of the age group identified as Hongkongers. 28.7 per cent said they had a mixed identity. Of those older than 30, 24.1 per cent identified as Chinese, whilst 32.1 per cent identified as Hongkongers.
The results of the survey came after an interview of chief executive-elect on Tuesday, which she vowed to tackle pro-independence forces and foster the Chinese identity among toddlers.
Reference: Hong Kong By The Numbers (2014/11/12)
[754] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution Part 13 (2017/06/15)
(YouTube) Television coverage of the Mong Kok clearance on the morning of November 26, 2014.
(YouTube) NOW TV coverage of the arrests of Joshua Wong and Lester Shum.
(YouTube) INT News Channel coverage of the arrests of the student leaders(SCMP) June 15, 2017.
Hong Kong student leaders arrested over the city’s 79-day pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014 have indicated that they will admit obstructing the court-ordered clearance of a key demonstration site.
Demosisto secretary general Joshua Wong Chi-fung and former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum, along with nine other protesters, are set to admit that they had committed contempt of court, their lawyers told the High Court on Thursday.
In the present case, a total of 20 demonstrators allegedly obstructed the work of bailiffs acting on a court injunction to clear occupied roads in Mong Kok, a major base for Occupy protesters at the time, on November 26, 2014.
This resulted in the issue of a batch of summonses against them for contempt in April last year. Another group of protesters is facing summonses in a separate case concerning the same clearance operation.
Some of the 20 protesters, including Shum and League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming were in court for a pre-trial hearing on Thursday when their lawyers informed Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai that more than half of their clients would admit liability. Joshua Wong, who was the convener of student group Scholarism when he became the poster boy of the protests at the time, was not present.
Senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam said seven of the clients he handled, including Joshua Wong, would like to plead guilty when the trial was conducted in July. “Mr Lester Shum would also like to plead guilty,” he added. Four more protesters, to be represented by Gerard McCoy SC, will also plead guilty. They are expected to formally admit their liability during the trial to be commenced on July 3, with mitigation put forth on their behalf.
Mr Justice Chan adjourned for another pre-trial session on June 27 for both counsel from the Department of Justice and protesters to sort out details of evidence they would like to call over the clearance operation, which involved more than 800 police officers.
(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2017.
Former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that the reason why they challenged the court injunction was that the government used the court to solve a political problem. Just yesterday, CY Leung admitted that it was a political decision not to use the police to clear the Occupy areas. Shum said that challenging the court injunction does not mean that they are challenging rule-of-law. As long as they accept their legal responsibilities in court, they are respecting rule-of-law. Shum wants to show the pro-establishment camp and the authorities that he is willing to accept the legal consequences, including a jail sentence.
League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming said that he supports Shum, but he himself has doubts about whether disobeying the court injunction is the same as contempt of court. Therefore he chooses to contest the case.
(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2017.
Senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam requested the prosecution to hand over the notebooks of all 800 to 1,000 police officers who helped the bailiffs to clear Mong Kok. The prosecution argued that this case is different from the usual criminal case, because the police officers were merely witnesses who did not conduct any investigation. If the defense can point out the connection between the notebooks and their legal argument, the prosecution is willing to coordinate. Lok explained that the notebooks were to be examined to see if there are discrepancies among the police officers about the interaction between the demonstrators and the police.
Mr Justic Andrew Chan Hing-wai thinks that it is not feasible to turn over 1,000 police notebooks. He arranged for a second hearing on June 27 and asked both sides to narrow their differences on this issue.
(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2017.
Joshua Wong is rumored to be planning to run for District Councilor in Southern Horizon in 2019 and then Legislative Councilor in 2020. But under the District Council Ordinance and Legislative Council Ordinance, anyone sentenced to more than 3 months in jail will not be allowed to enter the election in the next five years.
In the previous case involving Cheng Kam-mun (#676) for the same contempt of court charge during Occupy Mong Kok, the sentence was 3 months in prison which was just under the threshold. So Wong's election plans will hinge on the length of jail sentence. Will it be 3 months or less?
(Oriental Daily) July 4, 2017.
Yesterday, the court was supposed to deal with the guilty pleas for seven of the defendants, including Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong and former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum. However the prosecutor said that they were unable to reach agreement over the facts of the case as presented in the document that the defense sent over on Friday evening.
The judge reviewed the disputed sections and said that the discrepancies were so huge that he wondered if these defendants are actually pleading guilty. If such is the case, then they should go to trial instead of wasting the court's time. In the end, the judge allowed the prosecutor to continue to seek agreement with the defence.
(Oriental Daily) July 7, 2017.
Seven of the defendants admitted that they violated the court injunction. They apologized unreservedly to the court and asked not to be sentenced to prison. Senior Counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam said that the defendants did not engage in verbal or physical violence.
Senior Counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam stated that Joshua Wong would like to run in the Legislative Council election, but he will be barred for five years if he is sentenced to more than 3 months in jail. Wong said that he had heard that the bailiffs would be using violence to provoke the Occupy people. Wong got concerned and therefore he used the megaphone to repeatedly ask the bailiffs to identify themselves. Wong did not feel that he was interfering with anyone at the time, as the injunction was not applicable to him because he was not 'occupying' Mong Kok. When he tried to leave, the police arrested and injured him.
Senior Counsel Lok said that former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum is a student activist who is not involved in any political party. As a student organization member, he has the responsibility to defend the freedoms of speech and assembly. Shum said that he was there to monitor any violence.
(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2017.
Four more defendants pleaded guilty to contempt of court. Senior Counsel Gerard McCoy said that their cases are different from that of previously convicted Cheng Kam-mun because they were passive and apolitical followers ("lowest level of factory workers").
(Oriental Daily) July 12, 2017.
According to the bailiff chief Chiu Suk-man, 35 bailiffs were dispatched to Mong Kok to carry out the court injunction. Meanwhile, the plaintiff arranged for 142 legal agents wearing red hats to clear away the obstacles.
At around 830am, the bailiff chief Chiu Suk-man and the plaintiff's lawyers read out the contents of the injunction to those present. The clearance action started at around 1000am. The scene became chaotic soon, as people yelled and pushed, some falling down. Chiu's sunglasses were damaged during the process. They decided to call the police to help. For safety reason, the police told the bailiffs to move to the entrance of the Wai Fung Plaza.
According to the video, Raphael Wong, Joshua Wong, Lester Shum and others approached the chief bailiff, with Joshua Wong holding a megaphone and asking repeatedly: "Is a person an obstacle? Are you going to remove the people too?" He said that that he could not hear what the bailiff just read out. The bailiff did not reply to him, saying only that he will read the warning again at the next stop. When the workers began to clear the metal barricades, the three stood on the dais behind the metal barricades and questioned the identity of the workers: "Can you clear the scene just be wearing a red hat? What happened to rule of law?"
(Oriental Daily) July 13, 2017.
The bailiff Yu Tak-shun testified that some of those who wore red hats used foul language and threw hats against the protestors. They also pointed their box cutters and pliers against the protestors. Yu said that both sides were veering out of control, so he warned the people in red hats to back off.
In the video shown in court, Raphael Wong and Joshua Wong kept asking the workers to identify themselves and show their authorization papers. The two sides cursed each other. A person wearing a red hat pointed a box cutter at Raphael Wong. Wong asked: "Are you a gangster?" Yu warned the person with the box cutter and pushed him away from the front line.
Yu said that the situation was chaotic and his female colleague fell down. He said that he was also injured in the leg when a metal barricade was pushed against him. But the video showed that no protestors were near Yu and the female colleague when this happened.
(Oriental Daily) July 19, 2017.
According to bailiff chief Choi Tak-ming, representatives of the plaintiff, the bailiffs and the police had met beforehand to discuss the actions. The police was there to support the bailiffs and ensure their safety. If necessary, the police may join in the clearance. Choi said that he formally requested police assistance, but he did not ask the police to make arrests.
According to police chief inspector Lam Chi-yuen, he read out a warning to those present and said that all those who prevented the clearance will be arrested for contempt of court, obstruction of official business and other crimes.
In the videos, Lam was seen to be reading out the statement in English first. But before he got to read it out in English, some of the police officers had already moved among the demonstrators. As one of the commanders, Lam used the megaphone to tell those policemen to stop and retreat. But the policemen did not follow his orders. Meanwhile other police officers were removing the obstacles, with Joshua Wong, Raphael Wong and Lester Shum standing before the obstacles. After the obstacles were removed, Lam was heard to order: "Colleagues of the Crime Team move in arrest those in front."
In a later video, Lam was reading the statement to those present on Shan Tung Street. A group of demonstrators were standing in front of the police. One of them asked: "Where are the bailiffs?" After Lam finished reading, he ordered: "You move ahead. Arrest those who won't leave." Many demonstrators were arrested. Lam told the police officers doing the handcuffing: "Tie them up tighter. These people are not quite human."
(Oriental Daily) July 20, 2017.
Chief inspector Lam Chi-yuen tesified that he issued a warning to the crowd at Shan Tung Street. Af ter waiting for a reasonable amount of time, he saw that the crowd was ignoring his warning. So he ordered his subordinates: "You proceed to persuade them. If they don't leave, arrest them." After reviewing the video, Lam agreed that it was only more than 10 seconds between his warning and his order.
The defense claimed that it was hard for protestors to believe because of the obstacles, tents and police line. Lam disagreed. With respect to the protestors asking him where the bailiffs are, Lam said: "it is his personal problem if he can't see the bailiffs. I mean that they are already obstructing the bailiffs during the entire process."
(Oriental Daily) July 27, 2017.
According to police sergeant But Won-tat, defendant Fung Kai-hei charged at him from the direction of Wei Fung Plaza and so he arrested him. But agreed that the direction of Fung was away from the scene. He disagreed that Fung was pushed forward by others behind him, because he felt that Fung was deliberately charging at him.
Another witness was police constable So Wai-man who arrested defendant Hung Cheuk-lun. According to the defense, Hung did not cause a stir and his attempt to leave was blocked by the police. But So disagreed and said that Hung wagged his finger at the police and spoke louddl.
Another witness was police constable Leung Wai-hung who arrested defendant Kwan Siu-hung. Leung agreed that Kwan was cooperative after the arrest and did not struggle. So he took Kwan by foot.
(Oriental Daily) July 27, 2017.
According to female police sergeant Chan Mei-yuk, she was ordered to make arrests at 10am at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road. After inspector Ng Lok-chun subdued Joshua Wong, he saw female defendant Mak Ying-sheung ready to charge over. "Clearly she wanted to grab her friends back." She told Mak repeatedly: "Don't charge!" But Mak ignored her and charged. So Chan arrested her. Chan rejected the defense's claim that Mak tripped and fell forward. Another police officer testified that, under caution, Mak identified herself as an intern reporter wth InMediaHK gathering news. However, she did not carry a reporter ID on her.
According to female police sergeant Kung Shi-kei, at around 11am at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shan Tung Street she observed the female defendant Chu Pui-yan refusing to leave in spite of repeated police warnings. So she arrested Chu for unlawful assembly, but Chu resisted and attempted to leave. The defense said that the videos showed that Chu wanted to get back on the sidewalk after the police warning. But the police pushed her back onto the roadway. So she walked with the crowd in the direction of Tsim Sha Tsui. It was the police who pulled her back by the hood on her jacket. Kung rejected this assertion: "I arrested her because she refused to leave."
(Oriental Daily) July 28, 2017.
Police staff sergeant Ching Ying-wai arrested defendant Kwok Yeung-lap. At the time, the police read out their final warning at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road. Ching saw Kwok and four or five persons refused to leave. So Ching warned Kwok verbally. But Kwok and the others ignored him and continued to sit. So Ching approached and arrested Kwok.
In the video, Kwok was seen to get ready to leave through the two exits. But he was blocked and then Kwok and defendant Lester Shum were pushed to the roadside. Ching agreed that he spoke to Kwok and he told Kwok: "You can leave." But another group of police officers showed up and ordered the people to sit down to be arrested. Ching agreed that Kwok had said: "I am very cooperative. I really want to leave." The magistrate said: "It is not that he didn't want to leave. It is that you did not let him leave."
According to the police constable who arrested defedant Chiu Yat-chik, the defendant was among the crowd at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shan Tung Street who refused to leave. In the video, Chiu can be seen retreating towards Tsim Sha Tsui with the rest of the people. The crowd encountered a road block near Dundas Street. Someone yelled: "Police, there is no path ahead. Please do not push any further."
According to the female police sergeant who arrested defendant Chan Po-yin, the police issued their final warning at Shan Tung Street at 11am. Twenty minutes Chan had still not left. So she arrested Chan. Under caution, Chan said: "I am nothing to say."
According to the police constable who arrested defendant Raphael Wong Ho-hing, he saw Wong wandering around and yelling through a megaphone from the time that the bailiffs announced that they were carrying out the court injunction to the time when the police issued their final warning. The police constable said that he received orders to arrest Wong.
(Oriental Daily) August 9, 2017.
Defendant Mak Ying-sheung testified that she used to be a computer engineer but found her work boring. So she studied culture at Lingnan University and worth on whether the label "Evil Police" was fair to the police. At the same time, she joined an online media outlet to become an intern reporter. She was due to become a correspondent once she spends 168 hours on her internship. On this occasion, she conferred with the editor and decided to use the Umbrella Movement as her topic. On November 25 and 26, she was in Mong Kok to gather news.
Mak testified that she arrived in Mong Kok at about 10am on November 26, 2014. She was going to go to the very front to understand the situation and take photos so that she can interview the demonstrators who have retreated.
After the police issued their warning, she was prevented from leaving by the police. Therefore she stood along with Joshua Wong, Lester Shum, Raphael Wong and others near the obstacles. Suddenly, she saw Joshua Wong lost his balance. Instinctively she reached out to help him. But she lost balance herself. Fortunately a female police officer grabbed her. The police arrested her afterwards, even though she identified herself as a reporter at work.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor showed her some videos that showed her shaking her fist and chanting slogans with the other demonstrators. Mak denied that she chanted slogans, and also denied that she was acquainted with Joshua Wong.
(Oriental Daily) August 9, 2017.
InMediaHK editor Mak Kok-chi was summoned by defendant Mak Ying-sheung to testify in court. Judge Chan Hing-wai asked Mak Kok-chi: "Are you an independent Hong Kong media outlet, or a media outlet for Hong Kong independence?" Mak replied that InMediaHK is an independent non-profit organization and they do not promote Hong Kong independence.
Mak testified that the defendant became an intern reporter at InMediaHK in early November 2014. He said that he instructed her to cover the clearance of Mong Kok, but did not print a journalist ID for her. After the incident, InMediaHK has improved its system and printed journalist ID's as quikly as possible. He said that the police did not contact InMediaHK to confirm the defendant's status.
Another witness Lam Kin-hang said that he was a photojournalist for the Federation of Students newspaper at the time. On the day of the clearance, the police stopped him but let him ago after he identified himself and showed his journalist ID.
(SCMP) August 22, 2017.
A closing statement session in a trial for 20 Hong Kong protesters who are accused of obstructing a court-ordered street clearance during the 2014 Occupy protests turned into a show of public support for two jailed pro-democracy activists.
In final submissions made to the court, lawyers for the government made allegations that the nine protesters who had denied liability had “intentions to obstruct a street clearance ordered by a court injunction”.
Senior Counsel Victor Dawes said that the injunction order was widely reported and advertised in local media, while a similar clearance operation happened the day before in a nearby area.
“We can’t ignore the critical context of why the crowd was there on 26 November, the conspicuous presence of bailiffs and police near the area, the respondents must have known the injunction execution would happen in the area ... and they chose to remain,” he added.
The allegations were made against nine: Raphael Wong, Chu Pui-yan, Kwok Yeung-yuk, Chiu Chi-sum, Chan Po-ying, Kwan Siu-wang, Hung Cheuk-lun, Fung Kai-hei and Mak Ying-sheung.
Lawyers for Wong however argued that there was no intention on his part to obstruct the proceedings, as his only intent was to ask “reasonable questions” in a polite manner.
Video evidence previously showed that Wong stood at the forefront asking questions pertaining to the identity of the bailiffs and asking whether people constituted “obstructions” in the court’s injunctions to clear obstacles. The bailiffs declined to answer.
“Wong did not obstruct any of the bailiffs ... nor the progress of moving forward of any of the bailiffs ... and those questions are matters of public concern at the time,” Senior Counsel Hectar Pun Hei told the court.
(Oriental Daily) August 22, 2017.
Senior Counsel Hectar Pun Hei said that there are two factors in contempt of court, namely the defendants must be aware of the contents of the injunction as well as seriously impeding the actions of the bailiffs. So causing an inconvenience is not criminal contempt of court. The bailiffs have the responsibility to explain the contents of the injunction and to give those present a reasonable amount of time to depart. The bailiffs must also answer reasonable questions. But it was noisy at the scene and even though the bailiffs used loudspeakers, those present may not have heard the contents of the injunction as read out by the bailiffs.
(Wen Wei Po) August 22, 2017.
The lawyer for Raphael Wong had said that his client politely posed reasonable questions to the bailiffs, including the copy of the court injunction, the legal basis for clearance, whether the men in red caps were legally authorized to carry out the court order, whether humans are obstacles, etc.
The prosecution questioned whether Raphael Wong really wanted to have the answers or just to attract media coverage. If Wong really wanted to know the answers, he should be asking the court. The bailiffs are not obliged to answer him. Judge Chan Wai-hing concurred. He said that while the questions seemed reasonable, once the bailiff answers the first question, more questions will follow and the matter will never end.
The defense said that the police interceded later and warned those present not to interfere with the bailiffs. As such, Raphael Wong should be charged with obstruction of police business instead of contempt of court. He said that the bailiffs were tasked to remove obstacles. Since humans are not obstacles, they should not be removed. Besides violating a temporary court injunction should not be considered contempt of court. For example, there were reporters filming that day and they inconvenienced the bailiffs too. However, the reporters are not charged with contempt of court.
(Oriental Daily) August 24, 2017.
Senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam said that the prosecution must show without reasonable doubt that the defendants knew the contents of the injunction and deliberately refused to abide. The evidence showed some of the defendants were not close to the obstacles due to be removed, nor did they interfere with the bailiffs. Lok said that defendants Kwok Yeung-yuk and Chu Pui-yan wanted to leave on their own, but the police prevented them and later arrested them. Therefore the court should consider whether they intentionally stayed and deliberately interfered with the bailiffs.
(SCMP) October 13, 2017.
Nine Hongkongers were convicted of criminal contempt of court on Friday in the latest round of prosecutions over the 2014 Occupy protests, and will face punishment along with 11 others, including jailed student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung.
The High Court will sentence all 20 at a later date over the common law offence, which carries no maximum sentence but can range from a fine to a jail term, lawyers said.
Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai rejected the defence claim that the nine did not obstruct a court-ordered street clearance in Mong Kok in 2014, during 79 days of road blockades in the name of civil disobedience to fight for greater democracy.
Twenty people were arrested for refusing to leave when bailiffs acting on a court order cleared the protest site on Nathan Road on November 26, 2014. Taxi and minibus drivers secured the court order, complaining that the protests blocking one of Kowloon’s busiest thoroughfares were affecting their livelihood.
The Department of Justice then started contempt of court proceedings against those arrested. Eleven of them, including Wong, who is currently serving a six-month jail sentence for another Occupy-related protest, admitted to the charge in July. But nine, including jailed political activist Raphael Wong Ho-ming, contested the charge and were put on trial.
During the trial, they insisted they had either failed to hear the announcements asking them to leave the site or were in the process of leaving when they were arrested.
But the judge disagreed. In a 44-page written judgment, he noted that the clearance operation had been publicised and it was “highly unlikely that any citizen of Hong Kong would misapprehend the situation”. Those who remained at the site knew precisely what they were doing, he said, and this caused “interference with the due administration of justice”.
In particular, the judge did not accept claims from defendant Mak Ying-sheung that she was an intern reporter covering the protest for online news portal Independent Media. The judge pointed out that he had seen video footage of her chanting alongside other protesters, putting an “extra burden” on officers doing their duty at the scene.
“This case is not about the right or wrong of the Occupy movement,” Justice Chan said.
With the verdict, Wong could face an extension of current his six-month sentence, which already bars him from running in Legislative Council elections for five years.
(Hong Kong Free Press) October 13, 2017.
Lester Shum and Demosisto’s Joshua Wong are among 20 democracy activists found guilty of criminal contempt after failing to comply with an injunction to clear the Mong Kok Occupy protest site in 2014.
Shum, along with League of Social Democrats Vice-chairman Raphael Wong, were charged with criminal contempt of court. Raphael Wong and eight others pleaded not guilty, while Joshua Wong, Shum and nine others admitted to the charges. Judge Andrew Chan found all 20 guilty on Friday at the High Court, though the sentencing will be heard at a later date.
A defence lawyer argued that the sentencing should be delayed for “more detailed mitigation.” Judge Chan agreed, adding that the sentencing may be split into three lots as defendants were represented by different law firms.
In October 2014, a minibus company successfully applied for an injunction from the court to ban demonstrators from occupying streets in Kowloon. The police arrested people who were suspected to have violated the injunction after obstructing bailiffs at the scene in November that year.
“We were definitely disappointed by the verdict,” Shum said outside court. He said Chief Executive Carrie Lam did not care about young people’s interests: “She only cares about how [President] Xi Jinping feels and whether she can execute Beijing’s orders.”
He added that he believed more “political prosecutions” were in store, and that they were prepared for imprisonment.
The court said that Raphael Wong had sought to incite the crowd to continue their defiance by repeatedly questioning the bailiffs and plaintiffs’ solicitors during the clearance: “If Mr Wong had any questions or doubt regarding the scope or validity of the terms of the Amended Injunction Order, he could have sought further directions or clarification from the Court,” a summary handed to journalists said.
It said that, according to video footage, Wong’s presence and challenges “created enormous burden for the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ agents… [causing] interference with the clearance operation.”
Mak Ying-sheung – a master’s student at Lingnan University – was also found guilty. She said that she became an intern reporter with online news outlet In-Media in November 2014 and was reporting on the clearance, rather than participating in the protest. The court noted that Mak was not wearing a press pass.
- This is very bizarre. Lester Shum pleaded guilty as charged. What else can the judge do but to find Shum guilty as charged. But Shum concluded: "We were definitely disappointed by the verdict."
(Oriental Daily) November 28, 2017.
Defendants Cheung Kai-hong, Ma Po-kwan, Wong Lai-wan and Yeung Ho-wah had previoulsy pled guilty to contempt of court charges for interfering with bailiffs carrying out a court injunction. Today they were sentenced to one month in prison suspended for one year and fined $10,000. In addition, they have to pay the legal fees for the Department of Justice.
The defendants ranged in age between 19 and 32, and work respectively at a community center, a real estate agency, a dentistry clinic and a security company.
In the ruling, the judge analyzed the roles of the defendants.
In the case of Ma Po-kwan, Wong Lai-wan and Yeung Ho-wah, the judge reviewed the videos and determined that they merely refused to leave. Due to their limited participation, the judge imposed the suspended sentences and fines. Dentistry assistant Wong Lai-wan and security guard Wong Ho-wah are required to pay their $10,000 fine within three months. Real estate agent Ma Po-kwan does not have a steady income, so he was given six months to pay his fine. If they cannot pay on time, they will have to serve one month in prison.
In the case of Cheung Kai-hong, she was an aide to a legislative councilor at the time of the incident. Today, she is a community development director. In the video, she struggled during the arrest. Her lawyer pleaded that she did not recognized the difference between challenging the police and the administration of justice. All along she did not intend to challenge the law. The judge said that there was no evidence that she had further participation beyond what was seen on the video. The judge also accepted the fact that she turned her focus from politics to livelihood issues (especially environmental and community issues). Since she pleaded guilty early on and expressed remorse, the judge imposed the same sentence as the others. She is required to pay her fine within three months.
HCMP 777/2015 Cheung Kai Yin
2. In Ms Cheung’s case, video footage depicted her presence in the Area, standing with the crowd in front of the police check line near the junction of Shantung Street. She was warned by police officers to leave the Area but she ignored the warning. In the course of her arrest, she put up a struggle.
3. Ms Cheung was 30 at the time, working as an assistant to one Legislative Councilor. She is now working as a Community Development Officer earning $25,000 per month.
4. In mitigation, it was submitted that Ms Cheung could not differentiate the difference between the challenge to the police and to the administration of justice, and that she all along had no intention in challenging the law.
5. There is nothing before me suggesting otherwise or pointing her in playing any greater role in the protest.
6. Further, I accept what has been advanced by Mr McCoy on her behalf that Ms Cheung has since shifted her focus from politics to people’s livelihood. Letters have been placed before this court citing contributions made by Ms Cheung on environmental and community issues. Credit will also be given to her early plea and remorse.
7. Having considered her involvement, it is ordered that Ms Cheung will serve an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. She will also be fined $10,000. Ms Cheung will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.
HCMP 779/2015 Ma Po Kwan
8. Mr Ma was 21 and unemployed at the time. He received relatively little education. He also had no political affiliation. It was submitted that Mr Ma was discontent with the ways in which some police officers had treated the protestors during the “Occupy Movement” that he decided to join in the protest on the material day. Currently he works as an estate agent with fluctuating income.
9. In Mr Ma’s case, video footage captured him being present with the crowd. What Mr Ma did was no more than refusing to leave the scene when repeated announcements had been made by the Bailiffs and police officers.
10. His case was very similar to Mr Au Yuk Kwan’s case in HCMP 2923/2015. Bearing in mind the limited role played by Mr Ma and his personal circumstances, his relatively young age, his limited education, his clear record, and the extent of his involvement, a suspended sentence combined with a fine in my view is sufficient.
11. With the above in mind, Mr Ma will be fined a sum of $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Due to his unstable income, Mr Ma will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 1 month.
HCMP 794/2015 Wong Lai Wan
12. Ms Wong was 19 and a student at the time. She had no political affiliation. At present, she works as an assistant at a dental clinic and earns $15,000 each month and lives with her mother.
13. Ms Wong’s case was again similar to Mr Ma’s case. Video footage depicted her being present with the crowd. She sat on Nathan Road and refused to leave the Area despite repeated warnings given by the Bailiffs and Police. Her role on that day was confined to simply participation.
14. In the case of Ms Wong and given her limited involvement, she will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Ms Wong will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.
HCMP 797/2015 Yeung Ho Wah
15. Mr Yeung was 30 at the time and presently works as a security guard. He makes $20,000 a month and is the sole support of his aged parents.
16. Mr Yeung’s case was similar to Mr Ma’s case. Video footage depicted him being presence with the crowd. Mr Yeung refused to leave the scene when repeated announcements had been made by the Bailiffs and Police. He also put up resistance during his arrest
17. Similar to Mr Ma, Mr Yeung will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Mr Yeung will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 1 month.
Costs
18. The respondents do pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings including all costs reserved on an indemnity basis, with certificate for 3 counsel. The respondents’ own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
(SCMP) December 7, 2017.
Lawyers for Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung on Thursday made a last-ditch attempt to convince a High Court judge not to jail him for defying a court order during the 2014 Occupy protests, only to have him make clear that there were limited alternatives for contempt of court convictions.
However, Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai delayed sentencing to a later date to allow Wong’s defence counsel to address him again, after a two-hour session where lawyers for Wong and 15 other activists highlighted the mitigating factors in their clients’ cases.
Senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam had requested that the court seek a probation report for Wong, something that lawyers do to invite the court to consider a non-jail sentence, such as a probation order.
“There are not many options a sentencing court can impose in relation to criminal contempt,” the judge mused.
But some non-custodial sentences, such as a community service order, were clearly not options for a contempt of court conviction, Chan said. He cited the Hong Kong White Book, a document that governs civil court procedures in the city.
The judge said he wondered if a probation or detention centre order would be an option so he asked Lok to further address him on that before requesting the probation report.
“If at the end of the day, it is not an option. What’s the point?” he said.
On Thursday, Chan reiterated comments he had made at the earlier sentencing, noting that many of the defendants were relatively young when they were arrested.
Joshua Wong, for instance, was only 18 then. Hong Kong law dictates that no court can sentence defendants aged between 16 and 21 to imprisonment unless there are no other alternatives available.
Lok asked the judge to consider the totality principle in sentencing Wong, since he had already been given a jail term in a separate case.
In advancing mitigation for his clients, Lok noted that the case did not involve any violence nor any incitement to cause others to act violently.
Lok said his other client, student nurse Kwok Yeung-yuk, had written a letter expressing “unreserved apology to the court”, adding his concern that an immediate custodial sentence would affect his career.
“I ask your Lordship to give them a chance,” Lok continued. “They all learned a simple lesson a hard way.”
Another defence counsel, Hector Pun Hei SC, argued that some of the defendants did not have a specific intent to interfere with the administration of justice, a point that the judge did not agree with.
Nor had they inflicted injuries on others or gained practical advantage for themselves, Pun added.
In the case of Raphael Wong, the vice-chairman of the League of Social Democrats, who had originally fought the charge before being found guilty, Pun said that he “cared for the well-being of Hong Kong”.
Raphael Wong had been cooperative with police throughout and his actions were consistent with his fight for justice, Pun said.
He also highlighted the case of Mak Ying-sheung, a journalist in training at the time, who showed “total absence of any intention to challenge authority and the law”.
He said she wrote a letter to the court so touching that he could not bear to read it aloud.
But the judge countered: “Read it for the benefit of the press, so that the public can know how difficult a task a judge is asked to do.”
The Chinese letter suggested Mak was very remorseful and regretful about being at the protest site for 30 minutes that day.
“Because of what happened that day, a reckless me paid a heavy price, things have reached a point of no return,” she wrote. “I never thought of breaking the law, I was affected by a radical and turbulent society ... please give me a chance to turn a new leaf.”
The 16 activists awaiting sentencing for their contempt of court conviction are:
Chau Wan-ying
Chu Wai-lun
Chu Pui-yan
Kwok Yeung-yuk
Lester Shum
Chiu Chi-sum
Chan Po-ying
Cheung Kai-hong
Kwan Siu-wang
Hung Cheuk-lun
Fung Kai-hei
Choi Tat-shing
Jason Szeto Tsz Long
Joshua Wong Chi-fung
Mak Ying-sheung
Raphael Wong Ho-ming
(SCMP) January 17, 2018.
After a reprieve from jail of more than two months while awaiting the outcome of an appeal, Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung was given another custodial sentence on Wednesday over a separate case for obstructing the court-ordered clearance of a protest site during the 2014 Occupy movement.
High Court Judge Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai sentenced Wong to three months in prison, and his fellow activist Raphael Wong Ho-ming, vice-chairman of the League of Social Democrats, to four months and 15 days’ jail for contempt of court.
Another student leader, Lester Shum, was given a suspended sentence, as were 13 others. The suspended sentences ranged in length from one to two months, while some were also fined HK$10,000 or HK$15,000. The defendants’ ages ranged between 18 and 65 at the time of the offence.
“Correctional officers please take the two Mr Wongs away,” the judge said after announcing his decision.
Joshua Wong shook Shum’s hand before being taken away from the dock. “Let’s keep it up,” he told supporters at the public gallery, including one woman who began to sob and cried out: “I want universal suffrage.”
The activists’ lawyers lodged an application on their behalf to not jail them yet pending an appeal. But Chan inquired about the grounds of appeal, given he had already paid heed to Joshua Wong’s lawyers not to sentence him to more than three months in jail.
Lawrence Lok Ying-kam SC, for Joshua Wong, previously said that any jail term greater than that length would affect Wong’s chance to stand for election to the legislature.
“This is exactly [what] I give you now,” the judge said. He will decide whether to let the two Wongs go at 4.30pm on Wednesday. Until then, the two will remain in the custody of corrections services officers inside the court building. If the application fails, they are expected to be taken to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre before being sent to their designated jail.
In his judgement, Chan noted that the city guaranteed a right to protest. But by the time the road was cleared, he said, it was “apparent” that their occupation “would not alter anything”. Yet it was affecting the life of other ordinary citizens.
“In the turmoil of any political movement, it is unfortunate always the poorest and the working class who suffer the most,” he wrote.
Chan ruled that Joshua Wong had played a “leading role” as he repeatedly challenged the validity of the court order by asking bailiff officers and others engaged by the plaintiff about their identities. Raphael Wong, he said, also played a significant role, but Shum merely observed quietly.
The ruling comes a day after Wong’s lawyers made a last-ditch appeal to the Court of Final Appeal over another case, urging it to factor in the “noble cause” of protesters.
Speaking outside court prior to sentencing, Joshua Wong told his supporters: “You can lock up our body, but you can’t lock up our mind.” He said he did not regret taking part in the civil disobedience movement in 2014. A score of supporters, including disqualified lawmakers “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu Chung-yim, chanted slogans at the entrance.
Shum said acts of civil disobedience were a right bestowed upon citizens to challenge a authoritarian regime, and that protesters’ jailing would be a significant move in a democracy.
Raphael Wong said the government under the former administration should be held accountable for contempt of court instead, as it had turned the judiciary into a “political tool”. In August last year, Wong was jailed for six months for storming the government headquarters compound at Tamar during an illegal protest.
Members of the group who were sentenced on Wednesday were among 20 charged with contempt of court after refusing to leave a major protest site in Mong Kok, as the Kowloon side of the Occupy movement came to an end on November 26, 2014.
The 16 who attended court on Wednesday (all ages at time of offence)
Chau Wan-ying, 21, undergraduate, one month’s jail suspended for 12 months
Chu Wai-lun, 21, cook, one month’s jail suspended for 12 months, HK$10,000 fine
Chu Pui-yan, 23, account clerk, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 momths, HK$15,000 fine
Kwok Yeung-yuk, 19, university student, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 momths, HK$15,000 fine
Lester Shum, 19, Legco member’s assistant, one month’s jail suspended for 12 months, HK$10,000 fine
Chiu Chi-sum, 65, maintenance worker, two months’ jail suspended for 18 months, HK$15,000 fine
Chan Po-ying, 58, policy researcher, two months’ jail suspended for 18 months, HK$15,000 fine
Cheung Kai-hong, 27, computer technician, one month’s jail suspended for 12 months, HK$10,000 fine
Kwan Siu-wang, 23, freelance photographer and designer, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 months, HK$15,000 fine
Hung Cheuk-lun, 24, baggage handler, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 months, HK$15,000 fine
Fung Kai-hei, 30, hotel waiter, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 months, HK$15,000 fine
Choi Tat-shing, 18, barista, one month’s jail suspended for 12 months, HK$10,000 fine
Jason Szeto Tsz Long, 20, Legco member’s assistant, six weeks’ jail suspended for 18 months, HK$10,000 fine
Joshua Wong Chi-fung, 18, university student and Demosisto secretary general, three months’ jail
Mak Ying-sheung, 33, project manager in toy industry, six weeks’ jail suspended for 12 months, HK$15,000 fine
Raphael Wong Ho-ming, 26, community organiser, four months and 15 days’ jail
- The State Department of the United States of America must complain immediately to China, because one of their citizens Lester Shum was given a suspended jail term for pro-democracy activism in Hong Kong. If China fails to give a satisfactory response, Hong Kong will be designated as a base for international terrorism. Or something.
(SCMP) January 17, 2018.
Joshua Wong and Raphael Wong applied for bail pending a new appeal, but were taken immediately into custody after the judge ruled that he had no power to grant them bail.
The judge inquired about the grounds of appeal for the pair, given he had already paid heed to Joshua Wong’s lawyers not to sentence him to more than three months in jail. Lawrence Lok Ying-kam SC, for Joshua Wong, previously said that any jail term greater than that length would affect Wong’s chance to stand for election to the legislature. “This is exactly [what] I give you now,” the judge said.
A prison van took the pair to Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, from where they were to be sent to their designated prison.
HCMP 774/2015 Secretary for Justice v. Chau Wan Ying and others
1. I deal first with all those who have admitted their liability.
2. In Ms Chau’s case, video footage depicted her presence in the Area from about 10:10 am to 11:40 am. She was seen standing behind the police check line near the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road and the junction of Shantung Street and Nathan Road. She was warned by police officers to leave but ignored the warning and was eventually arrested by the police. Ms Chau was not involved in the organisation of the protest on the day in question.
3. Ms Chau was 20 at the time and grew up in a single‑parent family. At present, she is pursuing an undergraduate study. A letter of her former teacher was produced. According to her teacher, despite the fact that she came from a modest family, Ms Chau had been a school prefect throughout. In order to alleviate her mother’s financial burden and supplement the family’s income, Ms Chau has since 2016 been providing private tuitions to school children and managed to earn $2,000 each month.
4. It was submitted that Ms Chau did not put up any resistance during her arrest. She was not affiliated to any political party and is now deeply worried that a term of imprisonment might affect her studies and future.
5. It is most unfortunate that Ms Chau did not pay heed to all the warnings given on that day. However, bearing in mind the limited role played by Ms Chau and her family’s financial situation, I believe an exception can be made in her case. In line with the others who have admitted their liability, Ms Chau will be given an imprisonment term of one month but suspended for 12 months with no additional financial penalty.
6. In respect of Mr Chu, Mr Cheung and Mr Choi, video footage depicted their presence in the Area despite numerous warnings being given. None of them were involved in the organisation of the protest on the day in question, nor had they taken any active part in it. No violence was used by any of the three respondents either.
7. Mr Chu was 21 at the time. After completing his secondary school, he has been working as a cook. At present, he earns $6,500 a month. Mr Chu was not affiliated to any political party.
8. Mr Cheung was 27 and a computer maintenance technician at the time. At present, he only manages to work on part‑time basis with an hourly rate of $70. Mr Cheung was not affiliated to any political party.
9. Mr Choi was 18 at the time and was educated up to form 2. At present he works as a barista at an hourly rate of $36. He is a keen soccer player and has been recruited into the Hong Kong Premier League Reserve Division and wishes to make a career in football. He was not affiliated to any political party.
10. Given their limited roles, each of them will be given an imprisonment term of one month but suspended for 12 months and a fine of $10,000. They all have 3 months to pay and in default they will go to prison for one month.
11. In Mr Szeto’s case, he was found not only present in the Area but also holding one loudhailer so that the others such as Mr Wong Chi Fung and Mr Wong Ho Ming could make a broadcast to the crowd. Mr Szeto was 20 and a student at the time. In 2014, he was the Secretary General (External Affairs) of the Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Frustrated by the lack of progress in the democratic process, he took part in activities organised by the Hong Kong Federation of Students. It was his belief that civil disobedience was justified in this case. He was not affiliated to any political party.
12. At present, he works for one Legislative Councilor earning $14,000 a month. It was submitted that in anticipation of violence being resorted by both the protestors and the police, Mr Szeto decided to observe the clearance operation. He himself did not challenge the police, the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ solicitors and their agents.
13. Video evidence showed that his role on that day did not confine to mere observation. Mr Szeto was seen holding a loudhailer and assisting others to make broadcast to the crowd, yet that was the full extent of his involvement. In sentencing him, I take all that into account.
14. In view of his involvement, Mr Szeto will be sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment but suspended for 18 months. In addition, he will be fined $10,000. He has 3 months to pay the fine and in default he will go to prison for 6 weeks.
15. In Mr Shum’s case, video evidence depicted his presence in the Area for an extended period of time. He stood at the forefront of the police check line together with Mr Wong Chi Fung and Mr Wong Ho Ming almost all the time.
16. Mr Shum was 19 at the time, a student of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He was also the Vice President of the Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Secretary General of the Federation of Students. He however was not affiliated to any political party.
17. It was submitted that Mr Shum went to the Area on the day firstly to clarify matters which had been troubling him, namely whether protestors amounted to obstacles and the identity of the Plaintiffs’ agents, and secondly to ensure the safety of the protestors in their retreat.
18. It was submitted that Mr Shum had all along respected the court’s decision on granting the injunction and that his grievance was centred on the unwillingness of the government to respond positively to the demand of genuine universal suffrage. It was further submitted that although Mr Shum’s presence might have caused obstruction to the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ agents, he was not violent in his activities and had not put up any resistance during his arrest. He went there simply as a representative of the Hong Kong Federation of Students to observe the clearance and that it had never been his intention to incite other to resort to physical violence. On the contrary, he had been asking protestors not to swear at the police and the police to allow the press to continue their reporting and filming. Most of the time, Mr Shum was simply standing next to the two Mr Wongs, paying attention to their questions.
19. Having viewed the video evidence carefully, I accept what had been said on his behalf. Mr Shum did not himself challenge the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ agents. He stood most of the time quietly and passively next to the two Mr Wongs observing the clearance operation. Apart from standing at the forefront of the police check line, he practically did very little during the clearance operation.
20. Although he was a leading student figure during the “Occupy Movement”, his acts and movements on that day were not much different from any other protestors. The present contempt proceedings were brought against him specifically for his acts and movements on the 26th November 2014. Bearing all those in mind, Mr Shum will be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment but suspended for 12 months and fined $10,000. He has 3 months to pay the fine and in default will go to prison for one month.
21. In the case of Mr Wong Chi Fung, at the request of Mr Lok, I adjourned his sentence on the last hearing pending further written submission as to the applicability of S 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
22. S 109A provides that no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.
23. Mr Lok accepted that in the English case of Morris and Others v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114, the English court had held that S 17(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (the wordings of which were almost identical to S 109A) had no place in criminal contempt proceedings, it was nevertheless submitted that the situation in Hong Kong was different from England in that Article 6(3) and 11(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights were both applicable in Hong Kong.
24. Further it was argued that the wordings were broad enough to encompass those persons of or over 16 and under 21 years of age who might be sentenced to imprisonment for criminal contempt which was not an excepted offence.
25. It was argued primarily by Mr Lok that S 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance was applicable in Mr Wong’s case and also to other respondents who were under the age of 21. It was contended that in sentencing a young offender, the court should heed the concern and intention of the legislative in that a young person should only be sentenced to imprisonment when it is absolutely necessary.
26. Article 6(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provides that the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation and the juvenile offenders should be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. On a careful reading, it seems clear that Article 6(3) does not in any way place any restriction on the sentencing power of a judge in dealing with juvenile offenders. Its primary objective is aimed at our correctional service system. I fail to see the connection.
27. Article 11(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provides that in the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. Again, the primarily objective of Article 11(3) is aimed at establishing a procedure in the dealing of juvenile offenders, such as the establishment of a juvenile court and the different forms of training offered by the Social Welfare Department or Correctional Services Department in promoting their rehabilitation. Hong Kong does provide such a procedure and system. I do not see the connection either.
28. After careful consideration of all the authorities, I am of the view that S 109A does not apply in the present proceedings. S 2 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance defines “court” as “the Court of First Instance acting in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction.” The definition is clear. The Court of Appeal in the Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2016] 4 HKLRD 367 (CA) has decided that the Court of First Instance is not exercising its criminal jurisdiction in respect of the present contempt proceedings. The decision of the Court of Appeal is binding on this court. Paragraph 33 of the judgment provides as follow:
“33. Adopting the approach in Re Kennedy (No 3), since the present sets of contempt proceedings stemmed from the execution of injunction orders granted by Au J in civil proceedings, they remain civil causes or matters notwithstanding that they are proceedings for criminal contempt. The appeals brought against the orders of Chow J are also appeals in civil causes or matters.”As such, S 109A has no place in the present proceedings.
29. Returning to Mr Wong’s case, video evidence depicted his presence from 8:51 am to 10:20 am. During the clearance operation, Mr Wong repeatedly challenged the validity of the injunction order by demanding the Plaintiffs’ solicitors to explain who had been authorized to clear the obstacles, the identity of the Plaintiffs’ agents and their power in dismantling the barricades. His challenges to the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ solicitors and their agents led to vehement exchange of abusive language between the protestors and the Plaintiffs’ agents, undoubtedly some were taxi drivers.
30. Every citizen of Hong Kong has the right to publicly protest against anything which displeases him and publicly proclaim his views provided that he does not infringe the right of others. These respondents rightly or wrongly thought that they had a grievance and as such they were entitled to protest. By 26 November 2014, it became apparent that their continued unlawful occupation of roads and streets especially in Mong Kok would not alter anything and would affect no one except ordinary citizens of Hong Kong in going about their daily routine. When the livelihood of our ordinary citizens had been adversely affected, such as the livelihood of the taxi and minibus drivers who had aged parents to support, mortgage and rent to pay, children to go to school, the court had to intervene and protect not just the right of the protestors but also the right to live of the vast majority of the people. In the turmoil of any political movement, it is unfortunately always the poorest and the working class who suffer the most.
31. Although Mr Wong stayed in the Area for just one and a half hours, his involvement in obstructing the clearance operation was deep and extensive. He played a leading role on that day. In view of his overall involvement, I am of the view that the only appropriate punishment for Mr Wong will be one of immediate imprisonment. For his part, Mr Wong will be sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the imprisonment term he is now appealing before the Court of Final Appeal as they are two separate and distinct incidents.
32. I now turn to those respondents who are found guilty after trial.
33. In Ms Chu’s case, she was 23 at the time of her arrest. She works as an account clerk and earns $20,000 each month. Ms Chu was not affiliated to any political party. Letters from her friends and family had been produced to inform the court the kindness of and the stress faced by Ms Chu for the past 3 years. These people speak highly of her and her struggle to lead a normal life in the face of the present proceedings. They urge the court to impose a lenient sentence.
34. Mr Kwok was 19 at the time of his arrest. He is now a student studying nursing in his fourth year at the university and hopes to become a nurse. Mr Kwok was not affiliated to any political party. A large number of mitigating letters had been produced. Judging from those letters written by his tutors and professors at his university, it is apparent that Mr Kwok has spent his past few years, after the incident, focusing on acquiring all the necessary nursing skills and medical knowledge which enable him to become a better and more caring professional. He has excelled in his studies. In addition, he is also commended by one nursing ward manager for his dedication in looking after patients. These people have no doubt that Mr Kwok will turn out to be a useful citizen contributing his part in building a better Hong Kong.
35. Mr Kwan was 23 at the time of his arrest. He works as a freelance photographer and designer and earns around $11,000 per month. It was submitted that Mr Kwan had played a very passive role during the clearance operation. He did not commit any violent act, nor did he incite others to do so. He was most of the time just standing next to the two Mr Wongs and was co‑operative with the police during his arrest.
36. Mr Hung was 24 at the time of his arrest. He works as a baggage handler at the airport and earns $11,000 each month. Mr Hung was not affiliated to any political party. Again, mitigating letters from his superior and sister had been produced. They too urge for a non‑custodial sentence.
37. Mr Fung was 30 at the time of his arrest. He works as a waiter in a hotel and earns $17,000 per month. He was not affiliated to any political party. He is his aged parents’ sole financial support. It was submitted that Mr Fung was most of the time standing or walking around in the Area simply to show his support for the students. Again he did not commit any violent act. He was co‑operative with the police during his arrest.
38. Ms Mak was 33 at the time of her arrest. She held a bachelor degree in engineering and two master degrees. She had been working as a project manager in the toys industry for the past 8 years. Ms Mak was not affiliated to any political party. Due to certain dramatic change in family circumstances, Ms Mak has left her employment and now devotes all her time and energy in looking after her aged parents and her mother‑in‑law.
39. It was submitted that Ms Mak did not commit any violent act and was most of her time simply standing in the Area. She was co‑operative with the police during her arrest. Mitigating letters from her teachers and colleagues and certificate of appreciation from voluntary agencies had been produced. All these people speak highly of Ms Mak.
40. In respect of the above respondents, their movements and actions had been described in details in my judgment dated 13 October 2017 and I shall not repeat them. Suffice to say that they were all found to be present in the Area for an extended period of time and that they had participated in the protest. Evidence produced in this court showed that none of them was involved in the organisation of the protest even though some might be affiliated to political party. None of them had taken an active part in the protest.
41. These six respondents were found guilty after trial. They do not enjoy the benefit as those who had decided not to contest the case. It is therefore ordered that, except Mr Kwok and Ms Mak, each will be fined $15,000 and given an imprisonment term of 6 weeks but suspended for 12 months. They all have 3 months to pay the fine. In default of the payment, they will go to prison for 6 weeks. In the case of Mr Kwok and Ms Mak, because of their individual financial and personal circumstances, they will be given an imprisonment term of 6 weeks but suspended for 12 months with no additional financial penalty.
42. In respect of both Mr Chiu and Ms Chan, video footage depicted them assisting others in making broadcast to the crowd. Their involvement was limited to that extent. To put it simply, they were not mere protestors.
43. Video evidence however showed that both Mr Chiu and Ms Chan at no stage resorted to any violent behavior or the use of any abusive language. As the police check line advanced towards the direction of Tsim Sha Tsui, they were retreating and reacting passively.
44. Mr Chiu was 65 at the time of his arrest and works as a maintenance worker earning $12,000 per month. Ms Chan was 58 at the time of her arrest and works as a policy researcher earning $12,000 per month. In one hand‑written letter, Ms Chan explained in length her motive behind her participation. I understand it but express no view on that as the court is not the appropriate forum in engaging political debate.
45. As both of them were found guilty after trial, each will be fined $15,000 and sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment but suspended for 18 months. They have 3 months to pay the fine. In default, they will go to prison for 2 months.
46. In Mr Wong Ho Ming’s case, video evidence depicted his presence from 8:44 am to 10:18 am. His acts and movements during the clearance operation were similar to those of Mr Wong Chi Fung. He constantly challenged the validity of the injunction order, the identity of the Plaintiffs’ agents, and queried whether human being amounted to obstacles. He mocked at the Plaintiffs’ solicitors and their agents with the intention of inciting the protesting crowd to continue their defiance, which resulted in hatred between the two groups.
47. Mr Wong was 26 at the time of his arrest. After graduation in 2011, he has been working as a community organiser earning $10,000 each month. Mr Wong played a significant and active role in obstructing the Bailiffs and the Plaintiffs’ solicitors and their agents during the clearance operation on the material day. Given his deep and extensive involvement during the clearance operation and that he was found guilty after trial, I am of the view that the appropriate sentence in his case will be one of immediate imprisonment. He is ordered to serve a term of 4 months and 15 days’ imprisonment.
Costs
48. The respondents do pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings including all costs reserved on an indemnity basis, with certificate for 3 counsel. The respondents’ own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.Andrew Chan
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court(SCMP) January 23, 2018.
Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung was on Tuesday granted bail pending an appeal, six days after a Hong Kong court jailed him for contempt of court during the 2014 Occupy protests. Raphael Wong Ho-ming, jailed in the same case, was denied bail.
The Court of Appeal ruling came after a brief afternoon hearing before Chief Judge of the High Court Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung and Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon.
(Oriental Daily) March 5, 2018.
Today the Court of Appeal heard the case of Raphael Wong. His lawyer said that if the Chief Bailiff thinks that Wong was violating the court injunction, then he should inform Wong. In this case, the Chief Bailiff did not say anything to Wong. Therefore there cannot be any issue of criminal contempt of court here.
The judge said that the injunction and the warnings against violations are directed to violations of the injunction. It does not refer to obstructing the execution of the injunction. The defense is mixing up the two issues.
[753] The Grand Alliance for Taiwan-Hong Kong Independence (2017/06/15)
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 12, 2017.
Over a dozen Taiwanese lawmakers established a cross-party group on Monday to demonstrate concern for the development of democracy in Hong Kong.
The Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus was set up by Huang Kuo-chang of the independence-leaning New Power Party, and aims to promote exchanges in democratic experiences between legislators in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Legislators from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have joined the 18-member caucus, but no legislators from the Chinese nationalist Kuomintang party – currently in opposition – are known to have done so.
Hong Kong pro-democracy lawmakers Nathan Law, Ray Chan and Eddie Chu, as well as activists Joshua Wong and Alex Chow, attended Monday morning’s establishment ceremony in Taipei.
“Hong Kong and Taiwan face a similar problem in that we are being challenged by an authoritarian Chinese government, especially on human rights,” said Law. “From the incidents concerning [the disappearance of] Taiwan’s Lee Ming-cheh and Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay booksellers, to Hong Kong’s democratic development and Taiwan’s lack of international recognition – these all originate from the same authoritarian government,” he added.
Chu said that Hong Kong’s current stage of democratic development is equivalent to Taiwan’s tangwai period in the 20th century, when the Kuomintang ruled as an authoritarian government and violence against opposition was common. “Hong Kong’s pro-democracy lawmakers have obtained over half of the popular vote, but less than half of the seats… we can see from this that Hong Kong must catch up to Taiwan with regards to democratic development.”
New Power Party legislator Huang added that the caucus will not only discuss issues of democracy – it will also exchange views with Hong Kong lawmakers on issues of youth, land distribution, urban development and gender.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 14, 2017.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has strongly opposed several Hong Kong pro-democracy lawmakers’ visit to Taiwan to establish a congressional group on Hong Kong affairs.
Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesperson for the Office, said: “We strongly oppose the collusion of Taiwan and Hong Kong’s independence forces to interfere in the implementation of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle in Hong Kong, and to destroy the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.” “The plot and [their] actions are not welcomed by the people and will never succeed,” Ma added at a regular press conference on Wednesday.
But Nathan Law dismissed criticism of the meeting, saying they were merely excuses.
“The Democratic Progressive Party, which has been labeled a Taiwan independence force, is now the ruling party. The [pro-Beijing] DAB party also formed a group to visit them in 2008,” he said on Tuesday. “It shows how ridiculous the claim of collusion with Taiwan independence forces is – also, it is normal to have interactions in civil societies. Beijing has long implemented an isolation policy on Hong Kong which claims that fighting for international support is equal to colluding with foreign forces – an attempt. But Hong Kong is an international city – we cannot stop and let Beijing control us. Fighting for international support is a necessary part of democratic progress.”
(Ming Pao) Editorial. June 14, 2017.
The "Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus at the Legislative Yuan" has been set up by lawmakers from the New Power Party and the Democratic Progressive Party, and a number of Hong Kong Legislative Council members attended the tea party celebrating the event.
Both Hong Kong and Taiwan people enjoy freedom of speech. Exchanges between citizens from the two regions should not be criticised as long as they are not illegal. In fact, every time the Taiwanese presidential election is held, members of Hong Kong political parties fly to Taiwan to study the election and visit the campaign headquarters of candidates from all the major parties. However, the invitation issued by the Caucus to Hong Kong lawmakers from the "localism" and "self-determination" camps is different in nature from those exchanges. First, the Caucus was set up by Taiwanese members of the Legislative Yuan, and the tea party was held at the Legislative Yuan. The interactions were thus of a higher level than ordinary exchanges between citizens. Second, according to Huang Kuo-chang, Chairman of the New Power Party, the Caucus was a cross-party alliance of members of the Legislative Yuan. However, one does not need to look further than the list of the Caucus's 18 members to realise that the so-called "cross-party alliance" was in fact made up of "deep-green" politicians from the Democratic Progressive Party and New Power Party only, with lawmakers from the Kuomintang and the People First Party not participating in the Caucus. This shows that the Caucus is not an alliance of lawmakers from across the political spectrum, and is instead a group with an obvious political leaning. If Hong Kong politicians want to compare notes with members of the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan, they should meet with people from different camps. They should not contact just a specific group of politicians and leave people with the impression that they are forming an alliance with those politicians.
For a long time, Taiwanese politicians were not particularly concerned about Hong Kong affairs. That was the case during the presidency of Chen Shui-bian and that of Ma Ying-jeou alike. However, since Tsai Ing-wen took office, Taiwan's policies towards Hong Kong have changed without many noticing. As pointed out by a Hong Kong expert on the field, the Democratic Progressive Party's advisers on cross-strait relations now take the view that Taiwan and Hong Kong can "fight shoulder to shoulder with each other to defend the core values that they share, including democracy, freedoms, and judicial independence". The Caucus was established against such a backdrop. Huang has claimed that the Caucus was set up to invite Legislative Yuan members from different parties to be concerned about and support Hong Kong's fight for democracy and to enable lawmakers from the two regions to exchange views on issues like young people and land justice. Despite such an ostensibly lofty goal, the actual proposals of members of the Caucus make one suspicious about their motive — are the so-called exchanges on public policies just a masquerade for promoting something entirely different?
Hong Kong's democratic movement before 2014 was never linked to topics like "self-determination" and "independence", let alone being interpreted as separatist. Joshua Wong, Secretary General of Demosistō and Nathan Law, a lawmaker, who were both invited to the Caucus's tea party, said invariably that both Taiwan and Hong Kong were under pressure from Beijing and as such should "support each other". But they have failed to understand one key difference: Hong Kong is fighting for democracy in the face of Beijing, while what deep-green politicians in Taiwan want is Taiwan's independence! Forging friendship with advocates of Taiwan's independence in the belief that "an enemy's enemy is your friend" is likely to backfire — it will complicate Hong Kong's fight for democracy and make it difficult to separate the democratic cause from the Hong Kong independence ideology.
(SCMP) Taiwan is sending wrong message about Hong Kong’s rule of law. By Alex Lo. June 15, 2017.
Some political groups in Taiwan are helping to turn a Hong Kong fugitive into a human rights claimant. They are, in effect, undermining the well-earned reputation of the city’s judicial independence.
Lee Sin-yi, 18, who allegedly took part in the Lunar New Year riot in Mong Kok last year, has been charged with rioting and assaults against police. She jumped bail and escaped to Taiwan. A court has issued a warrant for her arrest.
A simple case of absconding? Not according to some Taiwanese activists. New Power Party legislator Huang Kuo-chang, who has been briefing reporters about the case, said several Taiwan-based human rights groups had been helping Lee.
But why? She is clearly not a dissident, nor is there any evidence that her civil and legal rights may be violated under Hong Kong’s judicial system. The young woman made a terrible mistake but now refuses to face the music. Yet, some groups in Taiwan are deliberately misrepresenting her situation as a human rights case.
Huang and other members of his pro-independence party have formed the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus, which is allied with pan-democratic lawmakers and activists such as Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Alex Chow Yong-kang. The caucus is pushing for legal protocol to be set up in Taiwan for Hong Kong and Macau people who may need to seek political asylum. Do they really think people in both places are facing persecution and need to flee like Lee?
A fugitive is being turned into a cause celebre. This picture is so wrong on so many levels. It sends a message to young people in Hong Kong that it’s okay to behave violently and lawlessly – and to refuse to face legal consequences – so long as you claim to take an anti-government stance.
It sends a message that our judiciary is not independent but politically compromised, and so cannot be trusted.
It sends a message that our city is not a free society but runs on a system of repression. As a result, any normally legitimate law enforcement or prosecution may be in danger of being dismissed as an act of political persecution so long as it suits someone’s political agenda.
If the pan-democrats really stand for the rule of law and judicial independence, now is the time to speak up.
(The Standard) Rival camps argue over Taiwan caucus. June 16, 2017.
The pro-establishment camp has shown no signs it will stop pro-democracy lawmakers from joining a Taiwanese legislature caucus even as the former condemned their colleagues for colluding with independence advocates on the island. Raymond Chan Chi-chuen of People Power, Nathan Law Kwun- chung of Demosisto and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick of Land Justice League on Monday participated in the establishment of the "Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus," a group of 18 Taiwanese Legislative Yuan members who aim to track the SAR's progress toward democracy.
Law and Chu said they advocate self-determination, but not independence. Chan does not support self- determination.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has slammed self-determination, citing it as a prelude to independence.
Thirty-nine pro-establishment legislators yesterday signed a joint declaration, strongly condemning their three colleagues. Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen was not among the signatories.
"As legislators of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China, they openly joined activities of that organization [the caucus], and advocated 'Hong Kong Independence', 'Subtle Independence' and 'Taiwan Independence' and intervention in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, threatening the 'one country, two systems,' unity of the country and violating the Basic Law," according to the declaration.
Martin Liao Cheung-kong, convener of the pro-establishment caucus, described the Monday event as "collusion," citing members of the Taiwan caucus.
The pro-establishment side has had many contacts with Taiwanese political groups, but those contacts were different, the DAB's Elizabeth Quat Pui-fan said. "This group [Taiwan caucus] has vowed to interfere with Hong Kong's internal affairs," Quat claimed.
Law hit back, saying the Taiwan caucus was similar to Legco panels which cover nothing about Hong Kong independence. Chan said the pro-establishment camp's declaration would mean stopping all contacts with the Taiwan government.
Internet comments:
- (EJ Insight) Can Hong Kong rely on Taiwan to help it fight for democracy? By SC Yeung. June 13, 2017.
Many Hong Kong people admire the culture and democratic political system of Taiwan but would they also accept Taiwan politicians voicing out support for Hong Kong democracy?
On Monday, about 20 Taiwan lawmakers formed an alliance to support calls for democracy in Hong Kong. The group is led by Huang Kuo-chang, chairman of Taiwan’s pro-independence New Power Party, and includes lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party.
Several Hong Kong pro-independence politicians and activists including Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, Chu Hoi-dick and Raymond Chan attended the launch ceremony.
“We need to be united and share our experiences more as we are faced with suppression,” Wong said, adding that his party does not advocate independence for Hong Kong but self-determination.
There are many reasons for politicians in Hong Kong and Taiwan to join hands against the Communist Party of China. The alliance could cement the public impression that both Hong Kong and Taiwan are under massive pressure from Beijing. That should help send a signal to the world community that Hong Kong and Taiwan are the victims of Beijing’s “one China” policy.
New Power Party said Hong Kong and Taiwan face difficulties like a housing shortage and an inefficient youth development policy. The party would be a good platform for exchanging ideas.
The incidents concerning the disappearance of Taiwan’s Lee Ming-cheh and Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay booksellers, as well as problems in Hong Kong’s democratic development and Taiwan’s lack of international recognition are tied to the authoritarian regime in Beijing.
Meanwhile, the new alliance could trigger another round of criticism of local pro-independence politicians. Beijing could further label them as enemies of the “one China” policy.
Hong Kong and Taiwan may just want to find a way to get rid of the iron rule of China. Beijing, on the other hand, could interpret the move as an attempt by the younger generations from both places to challenge the legitimacy of Beijing’s rule over Hong Kong.
The alliance also shows the transformation of the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong.
Previously, traditional democrats from the Democratic Party were willing to challenge Beijing’s red line under the “one China” policy. But now, a younger generation has taken up the role to promote Hong Kong’s independence overseas.
In fact, if Beijing kept its promises under the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong people should enjoy a high degree of autonomy under “one country, two systems”.
But sadly, Beijing failed to keep its commitments, which worked against the interests of Hong Kong people, but strengthened its political agenda.
Hong Kong is not a closed-door issue. The global community has also expressed its concern about Hong Kong’s democratic development.
Early this year, US Republican Senator Marco Rubio, his partymate Tom Cotton and Democratic Senator Ben Cardin jointly reintroduced the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” to Congress, a move that might prompt Washington to review its policy on Hong Kong and increase uncertainty in Sino-US relations in the days ahead.
Once the bill is passed, the State Department will submit a report on the state of human rights and democratic development in Hong Kong to Congress on a yearly basis.
It’s not surprising that Beijing would ferociously attack the Taiwan-led alliance as evidence of collusion between pro-independence forces. But the Hong Kong and Taiwan partnership should send Beijing a warning that it needs to keep Hong Kong in good shape.
- (EJ INsight) For Hong Kong lawmakers, no Taiwan friends, please. By SC Yeung. June 14, 2017.
Does Hong Kong still enjoy freedom of expression, or more to the point, is it free to make friends in Taiwan?
There could be no definite answer after Beijing criticized a group of Hong Kong lawmakers for supporting a Taiwan-led alliance on democracy.
That triggered allegations by the pro-Beijng camp that the alliance is a joint independence force by certain lawmakers from both sides to challenge Beijing and its “one China policy”. It accused the Hong Kong legislators of violating their oath of office.
Based on that, Beijing loyalists want Nathan Law, Chu Hoi-dick and Ray Chan, who are labelled as pro-independence politicians, to be ousted from the legislature on the grounds that they are a threat to China’s national security.
Pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao criticised the Taiwanese lawmakers who are spearheading the alliance for blatantly interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs. It said Hong Kong is a matter for Beijing alone.
However, what the Taiwan lawmakers want to do is their own business, so in that case, Beijing is trying to poke its nose in their backyard.
The pro-Beijing camp is using an old tactic to deal with the collaboration between the pro-independence camps of Hong Kong and Taiwan by using an out-of-date argument to set the bottom line.
For example, Business and Professionals Alliance lawmaker Priscilla Leung said the collaboration highlights the need to introduce national security legislation in Hong Kong.
If three local lawmakers showing up at a press conference in Taiwan can threaten the national security of China, then the “motherland” is simply too weak to be Hong Kong’s sovereign.
Hong Kong people are clever enough to understand the rationale behind the collaboration between the Hong Kong and Taiwanese lawmakers in pushing for Hong Kong democracy.
The alliance shows the muscle of the pro-independence camp in dealing with overseas politicians and bring Hong Kong issues beyond Hong Kong, as well as raise political awareness.
Hong Kong people also have the right to know how the Taiwan experience can help to achieve Hong Kong democracy.
Such discussions could be more like academic sharing rather than an action plan that can affect the national security of China.
But Hong Kong people know Hong Kong’s fate is tied to Beijing, not Taiwan, or any country in the world.
Hongkongers may not like to express their patriotic feelings publicly but deep in their minds, they believe that Hong Kong cannot be separated from China.
That should be enough for Beijing to stop worrying about the growing independence movement.
In fact, it’s a non-issue raised by outgoing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying two years ago without providing concrete evidence, using it as a tool to attack a small group of politicians who prefers to maintain the uniqueness of Hong Kong rather than fully embrace China.
Speaking to reporters before the weekly Executive Council meeting, Leung said Hong Kong cannot be complacent in its response to calls for various degrees of self-determination, including separatism and outright independence.
However, Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam is convinced that the idea of Hong Kong independence is supported by very few people and has not gained ground as a popular ideology.
Still, Leung insists Hong Kong must adopt a clear and strong stance against calls for self-determination, as the notion violates the Basic Law.
But it is not appropriate for Leung to talk about Taiwan independence. The more he talks on this issue, the more pushback he gets from Taiwan people. That could further drive Taiwan away from Beijing.
In fact, if Beijing strongly believes that “one country, two systems” has achieved significant results in the past two decades, top leaders should welcome opposition lawmakers to make friends with their Taiwan counterparts without fear of upending the system.
But can Beijing do that?
- Even before the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus at the Legislative Yuan officially came into existence, the New Power Party is already meddling in the judicial system of Hong Kong. After initial denials, they admit that they are harboring the fugitive Lee Sin-yi from the Mong Kok trial. In so doing, the New Power Party has decided that they shall decide what is justice in Hong Kong instead of some Hong Kong court, judge, magistrate or jury. I am sure that the one of the first actions of the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus at the Legislative Yuan will be to summon Lee Sin-yi to report on the state of freedom/democracy/human rights in Hong Kong.
- This will make Hong Kong into One Country Three Systems, with the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch of the Hong Kong system being the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus at the Legislative Yuan.
- No, this will make into One Country Four Systems, with the Legislative Branch of the Hong Kong system being co-located at the United States Senate per the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of Republican senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.
- Yes, and we need the United Kingdom to host the Executive Branch of the Hong Kong System in the person of ex-governor Chris Patten in order to have One Country Five Systems.
- Talk about the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus is just hot air. The real question is: Will they put their money where their mouths are? How much are they going to donate (openly or surreptitiously) to Nathan Law/Joshua Wong/Agnes Chow, Eddie Chu or Chan Chi-chuen? Until the money is delivered, all the talk is worth less than a piece of toilet paper.
- The United States of America puts its money where its mouth is as it funneled billions of dollars through the National Endowment for Democracy to promote freedom and democracy all over the world.
- (ESWN November 11, 2006) Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian once gave Chinese student leader Wang Dan US$200,000. So how much is Joshua Wong worth?
- (Taipei Times) June 9, 2017.
Exiled Chinese democracy activist Wang Dan (王丹) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Culture and Communication Committee deputy director Hu Wen-chi (胡文琦) yesterday engaged in a war of words after Hu chided Wang for saying “there will not be Taiwanese independence without bloodshed.”
Wang, a student leader in the pro-democracy protests in Beijing in the spring of 1989, in a Facebook post marking the 28th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on Saturday called on Taiwanese independence advocates to stop advocating independence if they are not prepared to shed blood, otherwise their words would only amount to “verbal masturbation.”
Hu yesterday commended Wang for “speaking the truth,” but criticized him for the timing of the remark, as Wang, who has spent eight years in Taiwan, is scheduled to leave for the US next month.
Wang has “milked” his “charmed life” in Taiwan “for all it was worth” and only spoke the truth before “abandoning” Taiwan, Hu said.
Wang said on Facebook that the KMT had deliberately misinterpreted his words.
The “bloodshed” remark was meant to encourage younger generations to fight for independence, but also act as a reminder that they should be prepared to pay a price, Wang said. He dismissed Hu’s remarks about him living a high life in Taiwan only to abandon it.
Wang compared Hu’s words to propaganda by China’s Internet trolls, calling them “vulgar.” He urged the KMT to “mind its own business,” saying that countless Republic of China soldiers were killed by the Chinese Communist Party during the Chinese Civil War, but instead of avenging them, the KMT has played second fiddle to Beijing.
The KMT lost its reign over China and repeated its mistake after it retreated to Taiwan, he said. “If I were the KMT, I would have dug a hole in the ground and jumped in. How come you still have the audacity to accuse others?” Wang said. “Spokesman Hu, how shameless you are.”
Hu yesterday said he is not ashamed of “stating the facts.” Citing a list pan-green camp politicians that have also criticized Wang’s “bloodshed” remark, he said the antipathy toward the remark had crossed party lines.
The best “revenge” the KMT can have is to promote the teachings of the democracy pioneers who died during the war and pass on Taiwan’s democratic values to all Chinese, Hu said. Wang’s remark that the KMT should take revenge on China shows that he is not well-versed in democracy and that his thoughts have progressed little since 1989, Hu said.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 13, 2017.
Panama and China announced Tuesday they were establishing diplomatic relations, as the Central American nation became the latest to dump Taiwan for closer ties with the world’s second-largest economy.
The move prompted an angry response from Taiwan and will likely further strain ties between Taipei and Beijing, which considers the self-ruled island a renegade province awaiting reunification with the mainland.
Taiwan is recognised by around 20 countries worldwide and its status is one of the most politically sensitive issues for Chinese leaders who pressure trade partners to accept its “one China” principle.
Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela said in a nationally televised message “to the country and the world” that “Panama and China establish diplomatic relations today”.
The two countries issued a joint statement saying: “In light of the interests and wishes of both peoples, the Republic of Panama and People’s Republic of China have decided to grant each other, from the date of this document’s signing, mutual recognition, establishment of diplomatic ties at the ambassadorial level.”
Taiwan reacted furiously to the latest move. “We strongly condemn Beijing for manipulating the so-called ‘one China’ policy to continue to suppress Taiwan’s international space through various means,” the presidential office said. “This kind of action is not only an open threat to Taiwanese people’s survival and welfare but also an open provocation to peace and stability in the Taiwan strait and the region.”
- (SCMP) June 14, 2017.
The United States wants China and Taiwan to engage in dialogue instead of escalatory or destabilising moves, a US State Department spokesperson said after Panama cut ties with Taiwan and switched its official recognition to Beijing.
The US continues to oppose unilateral action by either side to alter the status quo across the Strait, spokesperson Heather Nauert told a press briefing on Wednesday.
Nauert declined to comment whether Panama, a small Central American nation, had informed the US of the change in advance.
“The United States urges all concerned parties to engage in productive dialogue and to avoid escalatory or destabilising moves,” Nauert said.
- Hmm, " the United States continues to oppose unilateral action by either side to alter the status quo across the Strait"? Whatever happened to the rights of the sovereign nation of Panama to choose which countries it wants diplomatic relations with?
- The Hong Kong independence movement needs strong and powerful friends. Taiwan is not one. What Hong Kong needs is the United States Seventh Fleet permanently guarding Victoria Harbour. But the United States sees no reason to do so.
- The Hong Kong independence movement is not looking for that single strong and powerful friend. They are looking for many friends. They think that if Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang declare independence simultaneously, the Chinese Communists won't be able to attack on all fronts at the same time. This is the Whac-A-Mole strategy.
- While it would be a major war to invade Taiwan, and Tibet and Xinjiang have huge areas to cover, Hong Kong is a piece of cake -- just cut off food, water, electricity and telecommunications. Hong Kong will capitulate within a week.
- All it takes is one torpedo from a Chinese submarine to blow up the underwater internet exchange cable connecting the Information Technology Centre of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to the United States. Hongkongers will surrender immediately because there is no point in having a revolution if you can't broadcast it live on Facebook.
- Here is the list of the 20 countries which still recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan):
The top picks for the next to go are: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vatican City. However, China will probably schedule them to take place one every three months.
Nicaragua's president is Daniel Ortega (Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN)) while El Salvador's president is Salvador Sánchez Cerén (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN)). Both are leftists/socialists. Just like Panama, these countries are always worried about being invaded by the United States to overthrow their democratically elected leftist/socialist governments. They need China's support at the United Nations. The only reason why they haven't done so yet is that China told them to wait.
Meanwhile Vatican City's has to weigh the conditions of the Devil's Bargain because there are 1.4 billion Chinese souls waiting to be saved. If Vatican City does not act, they will all go to hell.
- (HKG Pao) June 15, 2017.
On Radio Free Asia, Causeway Bay Bookstore's Lam Wing-kee said that Hong Kong independence is unlikely to be realized in the foreseeable future. "However, Hong Kong independence can serve as the bargaining chip against Chinese Communist meddling." He said: "What is wrong with the people of Hong Kong fighting for independence? I don't see anything wrong with it. It can be used as a bargaining chip!"
Lam Wing-kee said that he does not approve of violent resistance. However, the people of Hong Kong should be able to bring up self-determination, independence and other demands as bargaining chips in negotiations with the Chinese Communists over their meddling. "If you have bargaining chips, why not use them?"
Lam Wing-kee said that culturally speaking, the Chinese Communists should be able to rule for another 3,000 years. The China problem can only be solved by "rectifying" the traditional Confucian ideas in Chinese tradition. He said that it will be impossible to bring down the Chinese Communists. "But I think that it is possible to maintain a distance from them, in the sense the river water won't mix with the well water."
Lam Wing-kee said that the people of Hong Kong can hold down Chinese Communist meddling if they stick to their principles. He does not think that Hong Kong is a hopeless, but it all depends on how the people of Hong Kong. "You have to ask the people of Hong Kong, not mainland China." Lam said previously that he has no plans to immigrate to Taiwan. He said that Hongkongers can surely immigrate to Taiwan to enjoy the "fruits of their resistance." But as Hongkongers "hae the duty to defend the land in which they were born and raised." Therefore he does not approve of immigration.
- Here is a gambler who holds a hand that is a sure loser (=Hong Kong independence will be impossible to realize), but he wants to bet the family house on it.
What is the situation of the other player (Chinese Communists) in the game? If he concedes to this bluff, he will also lose Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and the hearts and minds of all Han persons. So he will have to go all in, and take over the gambler's family home in the end.
- (AM 730) By Lee Wah-ming (Democratic Party). June 16, 2017.
In Taiwan, eighteen legislators formed the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus on June 12. The Democratic Progressive Party's Secretary-general of the Legislative Yuan Lin Chih-chia said that, as the representative of the speaker and deputy speaker of the Legislative Yuan, he promises to do everything possible to provide resources to this Caucus.
The signs are that the members of the Caucus come from the New Power Party and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. The New Power Party was formed in January 2015 and won five seats in the Legislative Yuan elections last year to become the third most powerful political party after the Democratic Progressive Party and the KMT. This youthful organization supports Taiwan independence. They are basically formed by young persons backed by the Democratic Progressive Party, which includes Taiwan independence in its party policy.
The Caucus is clearly formed by pro-Taiwan independence elements. Although the three Hong Kong legislators who attended the inaugural ceremony insisted that they have never advocated Hong Kong independence, their previous ideas and actions show that they do not think they are Chinese. They use the term "Chinese Communists" instead of the "Central Government" or "Mainland Government." During the legislative council elections, they repeatedly emphasized that they are for self-determination and not Hong Kong independence. But there is not much difference between the two ideas.
Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party took over the reigns in Taiwan, cross-strait relationship has dropped to the freezing point. The Chinese government is isolating Taiwan internationally. Earlier, they prevented Taiwan from participating in the World Health Organisation meeting. Recently Panama broke off diplomatic relationship with Taiwan. My guess is that the Taiwan government wants to use Hong Kong to make trouble for the mainland government, even secretly giving resources to support Hong Kong forces to oppose the central government.
My other interesting observation is that while Caucus chairman Huang Kuo-chang (New Power Party) noted that this is the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China, Chan Chi-chuen, Joshua Wong and others from Hong Kong said that this is the 20th anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty to China. The different ways of characterization of the same event showed that these Hongkongers don't like the word "handover" for obvious reasons which I don't need to explain.
I am not criticizing the formation of this Caucus because I am afraid of making the central government angry. I will fully support anything to help democracy in Hong Kong. But there is absolutely no point in these kinds of actions that only provoke the central government. Above all, I don't want to see Hong Kong being used as a chess piece by Taiwan and other foreign forces. We have to fight for our own democracy, and we cannot expect someone else to do it for us!
- (Ming Pao) June 16, 2017.
Certain Hong Kong Legislative Councilors went to Taiwan to form a Taiwan Legislative Yuan Hong Kong Democracy Concern Network with Taiwan legislators.
Unsurprisingly, the Beijing camp characterized this network as a coalition of Hong Kong independence and Taiwan independence elements. Joshua Wong said that this was a mischaracterization and insisted that this was just political exchange.
Actually, the Hong Kong delegates must know beforehand how this coalition would be viewed.
Traditional Hong Kong political parties such as the Democratic Party and the Civic Party did not participate. From Taiwan, only the pro-independence New Power Party and the Democratic Progressive Party participated while the Nationalist Party and the People First Party did not.
This sort of coalition cannot be said to be a coalition between the legislatures in both places. Instead, it is at most a coalition of certain kinds of political forces.
Irrespective of whether this is a coalition of pro-independence forces or not, what is the practical usefulness of such a network?
Can Hong Kong use Taiwan to apply pressure on mainland China?
Taiwan can hardly even take care of itself. Taiwan was hapless when Panama dumped it for mainland China. How can it change the political hold of mainland China on Hong Kong?
Democratic Progressive Party legislator Wang Ting-yu said that he hopes that Hong Kong legislators will not be disqualified for failing to take the oath of office in accordance with the ceremonial rules.
How can such a Taiwan-Hong Kong network hope to apply pressure on the Hong Kong Legislative Council?
Another New Power Party legislator Kawlo Lyun wanted to be able to introduce motions in the Taiwan Parliament for the government and society to provide help to Hong Kong people who are facing political suppression.
This makes one think of Lee Sin-yi who skipped bail for the Mong Kok riot charges and went to Taiwan to seek political asylum. It seems that the short-term goal of the Taiwan-Hong Kong network is to turn Taiwan into a safe haven for Hongkongers seeking political refuge.
But does the Taiwan parliament have consensus on such difficult issues?
Is the Taiwan government willing to do so? When Taiwan becomes the safe harbor, will Hongkongers become even more extreme when they fight against the government because they know that someone is looking after their backs?
There is no clear roadmap at this point.
Wang Dan said that it is bullshit to fight for Taiwan independence without shedding blood. This has raised controversies in Taiwan, and I think it is thought-worthy.
Will the network become a battleground? Are our political figures prepared to go to war? We wait for the answers.
- The model would be the Contras. Taiwan can covertly fund and arm a Hong Kong Resistance Movement.
- (HKG Pao) June 21, 2017.
- In a June 12, 2017 news report in Taiwan, "Legislative Yuan secretary-general Lin Chih-chia said that Taiwan's international space is under pressure from China. The executive branch has its difficulties, so Legislative branch representatives must form various parliamentary friendship association at various countries around the world to break through the political difficulties and raise the visibility of Taiwan. So far, the Legislative Yuan already has 60 international friendship associations with various countries.
According to the Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area Article 5-1,
Any authorities or institution at each local government level of the Taiwan Area shall not negotiate or execute any agreement in any form with any individual, juristic person, organization, or other authorities or institution of the Mainland Area unless authorized by the Mainland Affairs Council, Executive Yuan. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the civil servants, elected public offices at all levels, or local representative organs at all levels.
Any individual, juristic person, organization, or other institution shall not execute any agreement involving the governmental powers of the Taiwan Area or political issues with any individual, juristic person, organization, or other authorities or institution of the Mainland Area unless authorized by the Mainland Affairs Council, Executive Yuan or each competent authorities concerned in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Please note the point about "execute any agreement in any form." Nathan Law, Chan Chi-chuen, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Alex Chow and Joshua Wong went to Taiwan for a signing ceremony for the establishment of a network with the pro-Taiwan independence legislators. According to pro-independence legislator Huang Kuo-chang, "This network is formed mainly by the Taiwan Legislative Yuan and the Hong Kong Legislative Council together. No matter what form this takes, the exchange will continue on issues ranging from youth, land justice to urban development, high housing prices, low wages. Taiwan and Hong Kong can learn from each other about the various policies adopted to deal with the common problems."
- Please note also that the Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area refers to the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. There is no such thing as the Hong Kong Area or the Macau Area, because those are considered sub-areas under the Mainland Area.
- The three legislators told the media afterwards that they participated as "individuals"". But once they met in Taiwan, they pronounced that the meeting was "an exchange between the legislatures of Hong Kong and Taiwan." So the three legislators have appointed themselves to represent the Hong Kong Legislative Council in Taiwan.
Has the Legislative Yuan receive the authorization of the Mainland Affairs Council, Executive Yuan in according to Article 5-1 to establish a Taiwan-Hong Kong network supported only by pro-Taiwan independence legislators?
What does it take to for Hong Kong legislative councilors to officially represent the Hong Kong Legislative Council? There are some very specific steps. For example, according to Legislative Council document CB(1)712/16-17, the Legislative Council received an invitation from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and the World Trade Organisation to send two Legislative Councilors to attend a workshop in Singapore. The Panel on Commerce and Industry at the Legislative Council met to decide whether to accept this invitation. Once there was agreement to accept, the next consideration was to determine which two legislative councilors would go. Yiu Chung-yim and Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu were selected. A budget was estimated for expenses. After the Panel on Commerce and Industry passed the request, the matter was referred to the Home Council for approval. Only then can these two legislative councilors officially represent the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
In the case of Nathan Law, Chan Chi-chuen and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, they did no such thing because it should be very clear that the Home Council would never approve of a delegation to sign a cooperation agreement with something called the Taiwan Legislative Yuan Hong Kong Democracy Concern Network.
- Indeed, Hong Kong and Taiwan have entered a joint law enforcement project:
(Oriental Daily) July 22, 2017. 53 persons have been arrested in Hong Kong/Taiwan, of which 46 are Taiwanese, 5 are Hongkongers and 2 are mainland Chinese. The suspects are charged with using social media to look for fraud victims. These people claim to be Hong Kong Customs officers, investment advisors and betting service managers looking to make friends with Taiwanese divorcees between the ages of 35 and 55. They look to gain the trust of the women to give transfer their money into Marriage Funds. 127 Taiwanese women were victimized, losing nearly NT$300 million.
The Hong Kong Police said that perpetrators and victims of these fraud cases are not located in Hong Kong, so that activity is not in Hong Kong's jurisdiction. However, the suspects used Hong Kong bank accounts to accept the money, so they may be violating money-laundering laws. The Hong Kong Police reminds people that the maximum penalty for money-laundering is a $5 million fine and 14 years in prison.
- Full steam ahead! It is time to plot ahead for the new Hong Kong Nation. Here is the Hong Kong Territorial Extension Plan.
Why does the State of Hong Kong want to annex Tung Kwun and Wai Chau in Guangdong province? Because Hong Kong gets its water from the Dongjiang River, and annexation will guarantee undisrupted water supply.
Why would China cede the Dependent Territories to the State of Hong Kong?
Because the international pressure will be too much for China to bear.
The United States will be there to press Hong Kong's case, because the United States always defends freedom and democracy. The Seventh Fleet will sink the Liaoning and force China to concede the Dependent Territories to the new State of Hong Kong, Zhuhai to the new State of Macau, Hainan Island to Vietnam, Xiamen to the Republic of Taiwan, Shanghai to Japan, Heilongjiang province to South Korea, Inner Mongolia province to the Mongolian People's Republic, Xinjiang province to the Republic of Turkey and Yunnan province, Sichuan province and Tibet province to India. Everybody gets something. Afterwards, the United States will sell out-of-date weaponry to all these relevant parties to make sure that they can
protect themselves againstkill each other.The United Kingdom will be there to press Hong Kong's case, because they are obliged guarantee the security of Hong Kong under the Joint Sino-British Declaration.
Japan will be there to press Hong Kong's case, because the United States will order them to do so.
Taiwan will be there to press Hong Kong's case, because the Republic of China owns the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
- Why would Shenzhen want to be annexed into the State of Hong Kong? After all, only 28% of the Shenzhen population speak Cantonese. Why would the majority want to be annexed into a place in which they don't speak the official languages (Cantonese and English)? And, economically, Shenzhen has already surpassed Hong Kong in total GDP.
- Who cares what the people Shenzhen thinks? The decision will be made by adults in Washington DC, London and Tokyo. These adults know more about freedom and democracy than those bumpkins in Shenzhen. If the Shenzhen bumpkins don't like the arrangement, they can always go back to wherever they came from.
- Ha ha ha! Someone forgot to check the population data. Hong Kong has a population of 7.3 million but Shenzhen has 11.9 million, Dongguan has 7 million and Huizhou has 4.5 million. In the merged city of 30.7 million people, Hong Kong accounts for 24% of the population. So are we really going to push for genuine universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote with civil nomination of candidates)? Or are we going to stick to dictatorship/tyranny by the Hong Kong puppet government of the United States of America/United Kingdom/Japan?
[752] Democracy Is On The March in Hong Kong (2017/06/12)
(SCMP) June 12, 2017.
The Democratic Party has vowed to fight for “self-determination to the greatest extent” for Hong Kong, although it flatly rejects calls for Hong Kong independence.
The party also says it rejects “any form of violence” in pursuing democracy, while saying it appreciates why there has been a rise in “violent or radical resistance” in recent years.
The party spelled out its stance on a range of political issues in a 16-page report released on Sunday after a review of the city’s democratic movement since the 1980s and the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy after the 1997 handover.
The document reads: “The Democratic Party will not allow Hong Kong to move towards ‘one country, one system’. Nor will we support Hong Kong independence. We believe that we should strive for self-determination to the greatest extent under the current framework of [recognising China’s] sovereignty.”
Without naming any party, the Democratic Party also rejected the idea of having a referendum for Hongkongers to decide whether the city should cut ties with mainland China, calling it a “political gamble with extremely high risk”. Such an idea has been put forward by Demosisto, a political party led by former student activist Nathan Law Kwun-chung.
The Democratic Party is the biggest pro-democracy party in the Legislative Council with seven seats. It has more than 600 members. The document was released at a seminar hosted by the party on the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover.
Most speakers were from the pan-democrat camp. They criticised Beijing for not respecting the “one country, two systems” policy by imposing tighter control over Hong Kong in recent years.
One speaker, Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming said: “It has now become the Communist Party ruling Hong Kong.”
The only pro-establishment speaker, lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee of the New People’s Party, argued that increasing calls for independence, as well as the city’s failure to enact a national security law, had caused Beijing to adjust its policies on Hong Kong.
Representatives of various pan-democratic groups told the seminar they had to learn more about Beijing and its politics to advance the democratic movement.
Democratic Party lawmaker Helena Wong Pik-wan said: “We can’t knock down China. China is getting stronger. We need to ask ourselves if our democratic movement is aimed at destroying a giant. We should get to know more about China. We are not making a revolution. We have no army, no weapon. So, what is our democratic movement aimed at?”
Raphael Wong Ho-ming of the League of Social Democrats agreed. “It seems Beijing knows us much more than we know it. Without an understanding of your opponent, how can you tackle it?”
Internet comments:
- The Democratic Party document referred to the relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China as "Hong Kong-China relationship." This is the same positioning as the Taiwan-China relationship, as if Hong Kong and China have equal standing. Worse yet, this is "Hong Kong-China relationship" with Hong Kong taking precedence over China. What were they thinking? Or were they not thinking when they wrote it?
- The Democratic Party arrived at this position by procrastination. A year or two ago, it was fashionable to talk about Hong Kong independence as a possibility. They could not bring themselves to go against the current and oppose. So they dithered around. Now the situation is clearer in view of developments over the past couple of years:
(1) The Central Government/Chinese Communist Party are firmly against Hong Kong independence/self-determination.
(2) The Chinese University of Hong Kong survey showed that 83.5% of persons age 15+ think Hong Kong independence is impossible and 2.9% think it is possible.
(3) The only possible path to Hong Kong independence is based upon the Coming Meltdown of China.
(The Diplomat) March 20, 2015.
The temptation to make predictions about China is probably irresistible, because it is arguably the most important contemporary case in international relations. Thus, a few Western observers have risked their professional reputations by acting as prophets. Perhaps the most (in)famous is Gordon Chang, who published The Coming Collapse of China in 2001. “The end of the modern Chinese state is near,” he asserted. “The People’s Republic has five years, perhaps ten, before it falls,”
China didn’t collapse, as we all know. “So, yes, my prediction was wrong,” he admitted in an article (“The Coming Collapse of China: 2012 Edition”). But he remained convinced about the imminence of a Chinese apocalypse and offered a new timeline: “Instead of 2011, the mighty Communist Party of China will fall in 2012. Bet on it.”
But China seems to be getting stronger every day. So how do you rationalize your timeline/path to Hong Kong independence?
(4) No foreign country is willing to support, fund or arm a Hong Kong independence movement. Not the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan or Taiwan.
(5) After the Fishball Revolution, it is clear that the leaders of the Hong Kong independence movement are great at incitement but they run off to 'study' at Oxford University or Harvard University while the foot soldiers are arrested and sentenced to jail.
(6) When resources are limited and even shrinking fast, what is left to do is to plunder from fellow travelers. Thus, the Democratic Party issues its position paper in order to cannibalize Demosisto, Civic Passion attacks Raywond Wong/MyRadio, Wong Yeung-tat fights Cheng Chung-tai within Civic Passion, etc.
- Why is Helena Wong Pik-wan so humble about the need to know more about China? Previously (Ta Kung Pao, June 1, 2017)
Democratic Party legislator Helena Wong Pik-wan said that many people recommended her to watch the television serial drama <In the Name of the People>. So far she has reached Chapter 9. She said that she has gained greater understanding of political culture in mainland China through this show.
Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen told Wong that he has reached Chapter 16 of <In the Name of the People>. "The show runs to more than fifty chapters, so there is plenty more to watch. This is a good show, so I recommend Legislator Wong to finish watching it." However, Tam said that Wong should not be purely watching television drama in order to understand China. He urges Wong and her fellow party members to go more often to mainland China to observe and communicate.
- Raphael Wong Ho-ming of the League of Social Democrats agreed. “It seems that Beijing know more about us than we know about them. Without an understanding of your opponents, how can you tackle them?”
The League of Social Democrats' toolkit of dealing with Beijing consists of (1) hanging down banners from Lion Rock; (2) carrying a cardboard coffin to the China Liaison Office, spreading joss money and then disbanding; etc. How do you gain any understanding of the opponent?
(Wen Wei Po) June 9, 2017.
Recently former Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat has been attacked on multiple fronts. On one hand, his mentor Raymond Wong Yuk-man is accusing him of betrayal and disloyalty in order to make more money. On the other hand, there are internal dissension at Civic Passion, with many veterans breaking away. The two major ex-Civic Passion members are Pierre Cheung (aka "The French Guy") and Lee Ching-hei.
Cheung and Lee followed Wong Yeung-tat at many of the major clashes, such as the Occupy movement, breaking into the Legislative Council and the so-called Restore movement in Yuen Long.
According to Cheung and Lee, Wong Yeung-tat is guilty of three things:
(1) Wong Yeung-tat told his trusted aides to clash with the police. Beforehand, he promised to pay for all legal expenses. Afterwards, Wong refused to give a single cent and in fact sever relations with them. Lee Ching-hei is now in court for clashing with the police and Wong refuses to help him. Lee is cursing Wong as a cowardly bastard "who talks deceptively about morality/ethics all the time."
(2) Wong Yeung-tat believed that it is advantageous for him to run for office on a list with other people who have criminal records. Pierre Cheung said that Wong wanted him to run for Legislative Council on Wong's list, because his criminal record gives him an aura of social activist hero. When Cheung refused, Wong ostracized him from Civic Passion.
(3) Wong Yeung-tat cared only about reaping money for himself. He believes that politics is merely a business to make money, and his supporters are merely financial tools. When they are useful, he refers to them as brothers. When they are no longer useful, he discards them.
Internet comments:
- (HK Nuts Power Facebook)
Here are the 11 vacations that Mr. and Mrs. Wong Yeung-tat took over the past 5 years:
May 2017: Osaka
February 2017: Tokyo
October 2016: Vancouver/Toronto
September 2016: Taipei
April 2016: Taipei
October 2015: England
February 2015: Taipei
December 2014: Osaka
May 2014: Seoul
October 2013: Portugal
August 2013: Kenting (Taiwan)
Here are the Cartier rings that Mrs. Wong bought ($12,600 for white gold, $25,900 for platinum)
Where does the money come from?
Civic Passion member Chan Pak-yeung was sentenced to 9 months in prison for participation in the Mong Kok riot. Civic Passion asked people to donate money, noting that Passion Times will keep 30% of each donation to cover daily operational costs.
- (HKG Pao) Mrs. Wong responded on Facebook: "My only thought is that two trips per year is too miserly. Over the past decade, the many trips to France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, England, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere have been great ." This is an insult to those who cannot even afford to visit a wilderness park in Hong Kong once a year, or have fewer than 7 days of vacation per year.
There is nothing too unusual about two trips per year. What is astonishing is that Mr. and Mrs. Wong keep wanting the Civic Passion supporters to donate money which is always in short supply, and then they take vacations and buy jewelry for themselves. Don't the Passion Times supporters feel foolish about how their money is being put to use?
(Wen Wei Po) June 12, 2017.
On the night before yesterday, Chau Sze Tat held a Facebook live broadcast, during which he played an audio recording of Civic Passion chairman and legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai spoke during a work session.
Cheng was heard to say: "Between September last year and January/February this year, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching ... fuck you! They should have died, fucking bastards! But the problem is that I cannot say so in public. I have to pretend to be their friend. I need to show people that I am helping them, because people are idiots! They think that we are Localists, do you understand? The Localists are in one camp. Some people actually think that we are Youngspiration!"
Chau Sze Tat said that Cheng Chung-tai is a bare-faced liar. If Cheng dislike Leung-Yau, he should say so. During the oath of office conflict, Civic Passion provided no help to Leung-Yau. "There is no way to spin this. Fuck your mother! Go home and sleep on it ... Fuck your mother! You don't have to purge your party. You should disband your party!"
In addition, a former Civic Passion member named Ah Lok all called in on Chau Sze Tat's show and provided multiple screen captures of mobile phone text messages of the group "Full White Flag" headed by Cheng Chung-tai.
At the time, the localist Jacob Choi had passed away and a Pui Kiu Middle School teacher had his identity forged to create a Facebook account to make critical comments about Jacob Choi and Localism. The Civic Passion organized a demonstration at Pui Kiu Middle School. The screen captures showed that Cheng Chung-tai made a call to action late on the night before. "We must burn some mourning clothes to let people know that Civic Passion did this. We must have very loud loudspeakers."
Ah Lok said: "They wanted to publicize Four Eyes (=Cheng Kam-mun). So Four Eyes led the group to the school ... I don't sense any sorrow among them. They merely felt: 'Jacob is dead and we can exploit his aura.' They were laughing and joking about taking more photos of Four Eyes. I fuck your mothers! You are not fucking human! How can you fucking laugh at a time like that?"
Last night, Cheng Chung-tai admitted that the audio recording was authentic. "Someone just told me that my internal report to the working group has been leaked." He said that he regrets profoundly that someone should disobey party rules and violate internal communication protocol. He said: "There is nothing in there that could not be publicly said. There are no secrets or exposés." He added later: "All those who supported Leung-Yau on September 4th (2016 Legislative Council elections) and caused Raymond Wong to lose are mentally defective."
Some Civic Passion supporters believe that the audio recording was leaked by Raymond Wong Yuk-man, who has broken up with Civic Passion and Wan Chin. Most of Cheng Chung-tai's aides worked for Raymond Wong previously. "So it is not surprising that someone is Raymond Wong's mole and passed the audio recording to Chau Sze Tat."
(SCMP) June 13, 2017.
Beijing-friendly politicians are often accused of practising “united front” tactics. As it turns out, pan-democrats and their radical allies are doing exactly the same. Worse, some have such contempt for the public in whose name they are always claiming to be speaking that it’s truly breathtaking.
The radical Civic Passion chairman and lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai has found himself at the centre of a political storm among anti-government circles. This comes after a heated discussion during a secretly taped party meeting was released online at the weekend.
Cheng was heard blasting ousted lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching – both of the localist group Youngspiration – and dismissing the public as “retarded”. The two localist activists had disrupted the Legislative Council’s swearing-in ceremonies and other meetings last October, behaviour that led to their disqualification as lawmakers.
Cheng was heard shouting Cantonese obscenities while discussing the case of Leung and Yau, saying they both “should just die”. He also complained about having to pretend to be their friend, “to make it look like I was helping them”.
“The public is retarded,” he said. “They assume I am part of localism. Some even think I belong to Youngspiration, do you understand?”
Posting a response on his own Facebook page, Cheng neither confirmed nor denied he was the one speaking during the meeting. But he complained that his party comrades should not have made unauthorised recordings of confidential party meetings and then released them on the internet.
So it turns out Cheng and presumably more than a few other opposition figures have had tremendous contempt for Leung and Yau. Yet, they have kept up what is literally a united front for the longest time, just to exploit the pair’s disqualification from the legislature as a rallying point to fight the government.
Cheng is also in legal trouble himself. He has been charged with desecrating the national and Hong Kong flags after he turned upside down small versions of those flags that lawmakers from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong had displayed on their desks inside the Legco chamber in October. It was a completely pointless gesture, other than as a childish insult to the Hong Kong and central governments.
Maybe Cheng shouldn’t be so harsh on Leung and Yau. He is turning out to be as big a fruit cake as those two.
Audio recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agogBdKsVU
(SCMP) Radical localists have pressed the self-destruct button. By Alex Lo. June 21, 2017.
If a recent poll is anything to go by, localist-inspired separatism has just self-imploded. The June study – by the Chinese University’s centre for communication and public opinion survey – finds that only 14.8 per cent of people aged between 15 and 24 support independence for Hong Kong, down from 39.2 per cent last year. Meanwhile, 43 per cent from the same age groups oppose independence, compared to 26 per cent a year ago.
A single poll may not be representative, but the localist movement is certainly losing steam. Cheng Chung-tai is just the latest so-called radical to be exposed for his questionable character and political judgment. The Civic Passion chairman and legislator was caught cursing ousted lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching and dismissing the public as “retarded”.
Edward Leung Tin-kei, once a localist star who threatened the need to spill blood, went overseas to pursue studies on independence movements after calling himself “a coward”. Wong Yuk-man and Horace Chin Wan-kan, the so-called fathers of localism, have been the ones most looked up to by young radicals. Both men now spend more time attacking each other and their own one-time followers than anything else.
Wong single-handedly caused more splits and disputes within the pan-democratic and localist camps than anyone. Just think of all the groups he had split from, causing deep-seated resentments along the way. He went from the League of Social Democrats in the early 2010s to People Power, the Proletariat Political Institute, Civic Passion and finally a so-called alliance with Chin by the combined acronyms CP-PPI-HKRO, only for both men to lose in the last Legislative Council elections.
But let’s not forget the crucial role Wong played in the original spit within the pan-democratic camp that has been at the root of its disarray. That was after the Democratic Party held not-so-secret meetings with Beijing in 2010 that led to a significant expansion of the franchise in the 2012 Legco elections.
That marked the start of local radicalism, when Wong and others helped whip up hysteria against the Democrats. If only the pan-dems had been able to continue dialogue and build trust with the central government!
But with so many leaders discredited, radical localism is burning itself out. Sadly, its only real legacy will have been to give Beijing the perfect excuse to intervene in Hong Kong affairs.
(SCMP) Political conflicts have left our real problems on the back burner. By Alex Lo. June 22, 2017.
When Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying leaves office next week, he will leave behind a highly contentious legacy that will be the subject of debate for years to come. But while his enemies and critics will never admit it, there is no doubt that he has scored two major victories: against the Occupy movement and localist-inspired separatism. Ultimately, they count the most in the eye of the central government.
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that Leung did not so much as defeat the two movements than that they self-imploded through poor leadership, lack of organisation and constant infighting. You can draw a straight line from the Occupy protests to localist separatism. Clear-sighted observers had always known that the Occupy movement would get nowhere, having been led by naive and incompetent scholars, churchmen and youngsters. Leung and his bosses in Beijing knew no massive state violence in the mould of Tiananmen was necessary or even desirable. All they needed was to wait it out. Sure enough, it lasted just 79 days.
The outcomes were also predictable: political disillusionment for most, self-styled radicalisation by a few. Pan-democrats like to blame Leung for creating radical localism. That’s their backhanded acknowledgement of his success against the Occupy protests. Having exhausted the sloganeering on universal suffrage when pan-democratic lawmakers voted down the last electoral reform package in 2014, the worst of the city’s political malcontents switched to the notion of sovereignty, hence their ever changing, usually incoherent, sometimes contradictory demands for independence, full autonomy and/or city-state status over different time frames, up to 2047 and thereafter. The problem is that the localist radicals can’t even agree among themselves when and in what form Hong Kong’s separation from the rest of China will take, let alone convincing others that it’s a viable political programme.
Having seen the Occupy movement self-destruct, we are now watching the localists self-implode. But Leung’s victories may yet be pyrrhic. Marxists like to point out that political conflicts are merely the surface problems caused by underlying socio-economic contradictions within a society. And they would be exactly right. Our legion of social problems – from extreme inequalities and lack of social mobility and opportunities to profound demographic changes, declining productivity and inability to innovate – are the real issues. Sadly, our leaders and our community as a whole don’t seem to be up to the challenge.
(Marxists. org) Sectarianism. By Duncan Hallas (1985/1987)
The term sectarianism is used so loosely that it may be as well to start by clarifying what it does not mean. It is sometimes asserted that it is sectarian to try to build your own organisation in the course of intervention in various struggles. This is nonsense. If you believe that your organisation’s politics are correct, or at least more correct than those of others, you will naturally want it to grow and will try to build it. Otherwise you are not politically serious.
Of course, this may sometimes be attempted in an arrogant or insensitive fashion, but that is not so much sectarianism as stupidity.
Sectarianism refers exclusively to erroneous attitudes to the class struggle.
“By directing socialism towards a fusion with the working class movement,” wrote Lenin, “Karl Marx and Frederick Engels did their greatest service: they created a revolutionary theory that explained the necessity for this fusion and gave socialists the task of organising the class struggle of the proletariat.”
Fusion, in this context, does not mean the dissolution of a revolutionary organisation into a non-revolutionary one. Lenin was totally committed to building a revolutionary organisation and broke ruthlessly with those, including many of his former collaborators, who wavered on this central point. The key words are “the class struggle of the proletariat”. It is with this that socialists must “fuse”.
The notion goes back to the Communist Manifesto. Sectarians, for Marx and Engels, were those who created “utopias”, abstract schemes derived from supposed general principles, to which people were to be won by persuasion and example – co-operative “islands of socialism” and suchlike – as opposed to the Marxist emphasis on the real movement’, the actual class struggle. It was with this in mind that Marx wrote: “The sect sees the justification for its existence and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement.” (The emphasis is Marx’s own.)
Class movement is meant literally. It is not a matter, or not primarily a matter, of this or that working class institution but of the course of development of the real class struggle and the development of class consciousness. Marx was a revolutionary. For him revolution was not a “particular shibboleth”, but a necessary stage in the struggle for socialism which, in turn, can only be based on the class struggle, regardless, as he wrote, of “what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim”.
However, sectarianism is not necessarily avoided by formal acceptance of the centrality of the class struggle. As early as the 1880s Engels was ridiculing the German Marxist emigrés in the USA for turning Marxism into “a kind of ‘only-salvation’ dogma and [keeping] aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma”. Engels had in mind the Knights of Labour, a considerable, although confused, attempt at working class organisation, which, he argued (vainly, as far as the German-American Marxists were concerned) “ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but revolutionised from within”.
The argument applies generally. So, in the early years of the Communist International, a good number of genuine revolutionaries, mainly in Germany but not only there, were opposed to systematic work in the existing unions. Their argument was that these unions were bureaucratised and conservative, if not downright reactionary. It was broadly true. It was also true that these unions organised millions of workers and, however bureaucratised and reactionary their leadership, they were class organisations which necessarily played a role (a bad one) in the class struggle and could not simply be bypassed. As Lenin wrote:
We are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self-evident truth. Yet this is the very absurdity that the German “Left Communists” perpetrate when, because of the reactionary and counterrevolutionary character of the trade unions’ top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that – we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organisation! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render the bourgeoisie.
The common thread between this mistake by the (for the most part) active and revolutionary “lefts” and all other forms of sectarianism is failure to relate to the concrete struggles of workers, however difficult it may be to do so, and to set up utopian schemes as alternatives.
Thus, the propagandistic forms of sectarianism, very different at first sight, have this same root. There is a rich (if that is the appropriate word) experience of this in Britain. We may call them “the pure selected few” sectarians after a verse by the late Tommy Jackson, referring to the British Socialist Labour Party:
We are the pure selected few
And all the rest are damned
There’s room enough in hell for you
We don’t want heaven crammed.The SLP, although by no means the worst of its kind, placed excessive emphasis on propaganda and a very high level of formal (Marxist) training as a condition of membership. Not so surprisingly, it also believed in separate “red unions” and had a rule forbidding members to hold union office, although they were allowed to be card holders where “job necessity” (that is, the closed shop) required it.
An obsession with “high quality” members, and fear of “dilution” by “raw workers” also came to characterise some of the Trotskyist groups (though not all) and their offshoots. Why is this attitude sectarian? Again we come back to the class struggle as the heart of the matter. And that cuts both ways.
As Trotsky himself wrote: “Coming from the opportunists the accusation of sectarianism is most often a compliment.” True enough, but this in no way alters the fact that sectarian deviations can be a real danger. Trotsky explained the emergence of sectarianism amongst some of his followers by the circumstances of their origin.
Every working class party, every faction, during its initial stages, passes through a period of pure propaganda ... The period of existence as a Marxist circle invariably grafts habits of an abstract approach onto the workers’ movement. Whoever is unable to step in time over the confines of this circumscribed existence becomes transformed into a conservative sectarian. The sectarian looks upon life as a great school with himself as a teacher there ... Though he may swear by Marxism in every sentence the sectarian is the direct negation of dialectical materialism, which takes experience as its point of departure and always returns to it ... The sectarian lives in a sphere of ready-made formulae ... Discord with reality engenders in the sectarian the need to constantly render his formula more precise. This goes under the name of discussion. To a Marxist. discussion is an important but functional instrument of the class struggle. To the sectarian discussion is a goal in itself. However, the more he discusses, the more the actual tasks escape him. He is like a man who satisfies his thirst with salt water; the more he drinks, the thirstier he becomes.
Fortunately this variety of sectarianism is less common now than it was even a few years ago. many of the erstwhile sectarians of this stamp having been absorbed by the Labour Party.
But doesn’t everything that has been said point to the conclusion that revolutionaries ought to intervene in the Labour Party and, to do so more effectively, join it? Isn’t it sectarian, as Militant argue, to stay outside?
[751] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/06/07)
(Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Chinese University of Hong Kong) June 2017. 1,028 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong citizens aged 15 or older were interviewed by telephone on May 23-June 2, 2017 at a response rate of 37%.
Q1. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means totally dissatisfied, 10 means totally satisfied), how would you rate the Central Government on implementing One Country Two Systems?
0-4: 30.2%
5: 30.1%
6-10: 38.7%
Average score: 5.17
(July 2016 average score: 4.77
July 2015 average score: 4.87
December 2014 average score: 4.99)Q2. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means totally distrust, 10 means totally trust), how much do you trust following entities:
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government: average score 4.86
The Central Government: 4.91
The Hong Kong Police: 6.09
(Compared to 4.43, 4.33 and 5.93 in July 2016, and 4.38, 4.54 and 5.41 in July 2015).Q3. How does Hong Kong compare now against before the handover 20 years ago?
62.9%: Worse
19.2%: About the same
15.4%: BetterQ4. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means extreme pessimism, 10 means extreme optimism), how would you rate the future of Hong Kong?
0-4 33.4%
5: 37.1%
6 to 10: 29.1%Q5. Have you considered immigrating overseas?
16.1%: Have considered
2.6%: Have seriously planned
1.1%: In the process of immigrating
79.0%: Have not consideredQ6. What do you think about these three preferences about the future of Hong Kong?
Maintain One Country Two Systems
71.2% support
4.9% oppose
22.3% so-so
(compared to 69.6% support and 6.0% oppose in July 2016)Direct rule by China
14.7% support
58.6% oppose
24.3% so-so
(compared to 13.8% support and 59.2% oppose in July 2016)Hong Kong independence
11.4% support
60.2% oppose
25.9% so-so
(compared to 17.4% support and 57.6% oppose in July 2016)Q7. What is the likelihood of Hong Kong independence occurring in the foreseeable future?
83.5%: Impossible
12.5%: Half-half
2.9%: Possible
(compared to 81.2% impossible and 3.6% possible in July 2016)Q8. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means totally negative, 10 means totally positive), how would you rate these three political factions in Hong Kong?
Localists: average score 3.48
Pan-democrats: average score 4.51
Pro-establishment: average score 3.9
(compared to 3.45, 4.54 and 4.00 in July 2016)Q9. Do you agree that constitutional development must adhere to the principle of peaceful non-violence?
78.4%: Agree
15.5%: So-so
4.8%: Disagree
(compared to 71.3% agree and 5.9% disagree in July 2016.[Note: In July 2016, 39.2% of persons 15-24 support Hong Kong independence while 26% oppose. In July 2017, 14.8% of persons 15-24 support Hong Kong independence while 42% oppose. Why the reversal? (1) small survey sample size for persons 15-24; (2) National People's Congress Standing Committee interpreted Basic Law Article 104 against pro-independence legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching; (3) heavy jail sentences given to Mong Kok rioters; (4) disarray and squabble among localist groups (Civic Passion; Hong Kong Resurgence Order; Proletariat Political Institute; MyRadio; Youngspiration; Hong Kong Indigenous).]
(Hong Kong Economic Journal) June 20, 2017.
In less than two weeks’ time, our next chief executive, Carrie Lam, will be sworn in and, together with her new administration, they will open a new chapter in our city’s history.
For now, it might be too early to tell whether Lam will make a good leader in the next five years, but so far we have seen two good omens about her which may indicate that at least she and her new government won’t get off to a bad start on July 1 like her predecessor did five years ago.
The first good omen is that compared to Leung Chun-ying, who had already been engulfed by scandals over the illegal structures found at his own home, and who had provoked thousands of protesters to take to the streets and demand his resignation even before he officially took office, Carrie Lam seems to be a lot more popular among the public at this moment.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Hong Kong University, Lam’s approval rating stands at 54.7 percent, its highest level since March when she was elected the new chief executive. Her relatively high popularity suggests that Hong Kong people are eager to give their first ever female CE an opportunity to show them what she is made of.
The second good omen was created by Lam herself. During an interview she gave to former Legco president Jasper Tsang, Lam said that most people in Hong Kong, including the pan-democrats, have faith in “one country, two systems”; all they are demanding is to preserve “two systems” more properly.
On the other hand, she said she has strong reservations about whether separatism truly poses a real threat to “one country, two systems” like some people have suggested.
As she put it, separatism remains an impractical and infeasible idea proposed by a very small bunch of radicals, while the overwhelming majority of the public are against it. As such, she believes separatism in Hong Kong is a rhetoric among the minority and doesn’t constitute any cause for concern.
We believe Lam’s opinion about the so-called “growth” of separatism in Hong Kong is rational, objective and healthy. In contrast, Leung Chun-ying has entirely, or perhaps deliberately, blown it completely out of proportion over the past couple of years.
In fact, we are more than delighted to learn that our next chief executive hasn’t lost her head nor her sense of perspective over the issue of separatism in Hong Kong, if we can call it an issue at all, which is undoubtedly a good omen.
It is because her proper and sensible assessment of this issue, as well as her ability to keep things in proportion will help put an end to the controversy surrounding the false proposition of secession from the mainland and restore balance to “one country, two systems”.
In fact, the hype surrounding the growth of separatism has led to overreaction and misunderstanding in both Beijing and Hong Kong, thereby leading to Beijing’s toughened stance on our city in recent years on one hand, and deteriorating public confidence in “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong on the other.
As Jasper Tsang put it during the interview, as the separatism hype continues to heat up, Beijing has become increasingly under the impression that things in Hong Kong are spinning out of control.
And the oath-taking saga surrounding the Youngspiration duo in Legco last year only further reinforced Beijing’s impression that separatism poses a real threat.
As a result, it took quick and heavy-handed actions to intervene and curb the rise of so-called “separatism”, thereby arousing growing suspicion and apprehension among people in Hong Kong that Beijing is deviating from the original intention of “one country, two systems”. This is how much distrust across the border has grown.
As a matter of fact, some key Beijing officials almost share a similar view with Lam on this matter. For example, both Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and Wang Zhenmin, director of the legal department of Beijing’s Liaison Office, have both dismissed separatism in Hong Kong as “negligible” and “insignificant”, let alone an imminent threat.
And there are numbers to support this view, and numbers don’t lie. According to a recent poll conducted by the Chinese University, only 11 percent of respondents said they are in favor of separatism, down 6 percentage points from last year.
In particular, among the 15 to 24 age group, the number of those who support separatism has plummeted by 24 percentage points compared with last year. Altogether, 70 percent of respondents are for preserving “one country, two systems”.
It is our sincere hope that Carrie Lam’s correct and rational assessment and understanding of separatism can help put an end to this meaningless controversy and the ongoing ideological witch hunt against separatists mounted by the pro-Beijing camp, so as to put “one country, two systems” back in working order again
(Hong Kong Economic Journal) Editorial. June 28, 2017.
There will be a lot of official pomp and circumstance to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to the mainland on July 1, not to mention that President Xi Jinping himself will be coming to Hong Kong to officiate at the inauguration of incoming Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her new cabinet.
Meanwhile, the pan-democrats are also busy preparing for the July 1 rally on Saturday. However, it is widely expected that this year’s rally is likely to have a lower turnout than last year’s.
Lam remains fairly popular among the public since her election, and the majority of the people of this city are eagerly awaiting the transition of government on Saturday and looking forward to Lam’s promised “new deal”, thereby reducing the incentive for people to take to the streets this time.
Another major reason for an expected low turnout for this year’s July 1 rally is that political extremism and separatism, which were once at the forefront of local social mass movements, have fallen out of public favor in recent years, while a centrist and moderate approach to democracy has been gaining in popularity.
Andrew To, former chairman of the League of Social Democrats and once a radical himself, recently told an interview that the so-called valor faction and the radical localists started to fall apart three years ago. And today, they are basically “finished”.
Indeed, a recent poll conducted by the Chinese University indicated that the percentage of young people in favor of secession from China has plummeted significantly.
According to some academics, the recent plunge in public support for separatism can be attributed to several factors, such as changing attitudes as a result of more profound reflection on the issue among young people, and the negative public image of some localist politicians.
That both extremism and separatism are losing ground in Hong Kong matches Lam’s assessment of the so-called growth of separatism in our city. During a media interview hosted by former Legco president Jasper Tsang, Lam said the vast majority of people, including the pan-democrats, still have faith in “one country, two systems”.
She also expressed strong reservations about the notion that separatism poses an imminent threat to Beijing’s sovereignty over Hong Kong as some in the leftist camp have insisted. She said separatism is far from constituting the slightest cause for concern at this point.
Although Carrie Lam has toughened her stance on separatism recently and declared that all separatist activities would be considered illegal in Hong Kong, it hasn’t contradicted her initial views on this issue. It is because even though separatism remains negligible at this stage, it doesn’t mean the government would sit on the sidelines and allow it to grow unchecked.
In fact, it is of the utmost importance for our incoming leader to get her priorities right and continue to keep things in proportion over the “growth” of separatism. Magnifying the issue would do more harm than good.
As a matter of fact, the entire separatism farce would probably never have taken place if Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying hadn’t taken pains to draw public attention to the subject in his policy address and then build up a massive hype surrounding this false proposition.
The result of his act has proven catastrophic: not only did secession from the mainland, an idea that no one has ever taken seriously in the past, suddenly become a legitimate subject of public discussion, it has also aroused Beijing’s grave concerns and triggered its heavy-handed reaction.
Even Chris Patten, the last British colonial governor of Hong Kong who was once denounced by Beijing as “the sinner of the millennium”, has also realized that separatism is nothing but a dead end and urged the people of Hong Kong to be more realistic and stay focused more on fighting for democracy rather than dreaming about seceding from China.
In conclusion, the declining public support for separatism will not only facilitate dialogue between Beijing and the moderate pan-democrats so as to break the current deadlock over political reform, but can also help put an end to this meaningless argument so that our society can move on and get down to real issues.
[750] "I Am Going To Get Someone To Cause You Trouble!" (2017/06/07)
(Oriental Daily with video) June 7, 2017.
Media tycoon Jimmy Lai is a devout catholic who embraces the universal values of freedom and democrdacy.
On June 4, Lai attended the June 4th prayer meeting at Victoria Park. An Oriental Daily reporter was present at the scene. At around 7pm, the reporter was positioned about 7 to 8 meters away from Jimmy Lai, who was sitting on the ground. The reporter used his photo camera and video cameras to record the scene. During this time, the reporter was aware that Jimmy Lai glared angrily at him. However, there was no contact or conversation between the two.
At about 715pm, the prayer meeting ended and the participants got ready to leave. Jimmy Lai was still seated on the ground. The reporter put down his equipment and stopped recording. About 15 seconds later, Jimmy Lai stood up and walked over to the reporter with a fierce expression on his face. Lai wagged his index finger at the reporter and said "I fuck your mother's cunt" a couple of times. Then he said to the reporter: "You should not film me from so close. I am surely going to get someone one fucking cause you trouble. I will surely cause you trouble. I am telling you now. I have fucking taken your photo."
Afterwards the Oriental Daily reported filed a police report about a criminal threat against his person. The Hong Kong Island Criminal Investigative Division is following up on the case.
(Oriental Daily) June 6, 2017.
After the June 4th assembly, Jimmy Lai traveled by car back to his home. An Oriental Daily reporter followed the car and filmed it. When the car went down Argyle Road and turned left onto Kadoorie Avenue, the driver drifted over to the opposite lane for several seconds. Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic late at night. The driver realized his mistake suddenly and cut back across the double white line back to the proper lane. This evidence has been submitted to the West Kowloon Traffic Police to follow up.
According to the CAP 374 Road Traffic Ordinance, careless driving carries a maximum penalty of a $5000 fine and six months in jail; dangerous driving carries a maximum penalty of a $25000 fine and three years in jail.
(Oriental Daily) June 9, 2017.
On June 6, Sing Tao Daily reported on this incident. Without checking with the Oriental Daily, Sing Tao Daily reported that "the video had been edited so that we do not know how the incident started or ended." The Oriental Press Group issued a legal letter to Sing Tao Daily to demand a correction/apology.
Today Sing Tao Daily posted an advertisement on Sing Tao Daily as well as Oriental Daily and On.cc: "In our June 6th report on the On.cc reporter being insulted/scolded by Jimmy Lai, it was inaccurate for us to write: 'the video had been edited so that we do not know how the incident started or ended.' We make this clarification and we withdraw that previous report. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the Oriental Press Group."
(Oriental Daily) June 8, 2017.
Ever since the incident was reported, a number of Internet users have gone to the Hong Kong Journalists Association Facebook and asked why they are not commenting. Today, there was a statement ostensibly from the Hong Kong Journalists Association:
With respect to the On.cc reporter being threatened by Next Media's Jimmy Lai during the June 4th assembly this year, the Hong Kong Journalists Association strongly condemns Jimmy Lai and demands the Hong Kong Police to conduct a thorough investigation. Our association will refuse to accept any more donations from Jimmy Lai. Anything that Jimmy Lai does in the future has nothing to do with our Association.
In the afternoon, the Hong Kong Journalists Association makes an official statement:
On 8th June 2017, a fake statement with attached logo of HKJA circulated on the Internet. The contents in that fake statement referred to an event that happened on 4th June. HKJA clarified that it was a false statement and was not issued by HKJA. HKJA strongly condemns the issuance of the fake statement under the Association’s name，and reserves the right to hold to account those behind the fabrication.
(Hong Kong Journalists Association) June 8, 2017.
A journalist has recently filed a report to the police alleging media owner Jimmy Lai of verbal intimidation. Hong Kong Journalists Association strongly adheres to the principle that journalists enjoy freedom of reporting in public space. Public figures should respect this freedom.
Should a journalist feel intimated by any interviewee, verbally or otherwise, the most appropriate course of action is to report the incident to the police.
Internet comments:
- CAP 200 Crimes Ordinance Article 24: Certain acts of intimidation prohibited:
Any person who threatens any other person—
(a) with any injury to the person, reputation or property of such other person; or
(b) with any injury to the person, reputation or property of any third person, or to the reputation or estate of any deceased person; or
(c) with any illegal act,
with intent in any such case—
(i) to alarm the person so threatened or any other person; or
(ii) to cause the person so threatened or any other person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do; or
(iii) to cause the person so threatened or any other person to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do,
shall be guilty of an offence.
Article 27: Penalties
Any person who commits an offence against section 24 or 25 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $2,000 and to imprisonment for 2 years and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 5 years.
- (HKG Pao) From the Hong Kong Journalists Association Facebook:
Question: Sham Yee-lan, any comments?
Answer (from Sham Yee-lan): According to information, a police report has been filed. No comments. Please don't be fifty-cent ganger.
Question: Someone asked me whether the Hong Kong Journalists Association is selective in their responses. I did not know how to reply. Therefore I asked you! How is that being a fifty-ganger?
- Why is Jimmy Lai in such a foul mood? (Oriental Daily) June 5, 2017. Next Media announced that the losses have multiplied as of March 31, 2017, mainly due to the economic conditions in Hong Kong and Taiwan as well as the general shrinkage of the print media market. The advertising and distribution revenues of the Next Media publications have decreased by 23.4%.
- But is that an excuse to vent his unhappiness at a reporter?
- (Speakout.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.
This incident occurred because Boss Lai was upset at the Oriental Daily reporter for observing him closely. I am perplexed. Mr. Lai's newspaper, magazines and website have always used this type of doggedness to gather news. From Occupy Central to the Mong Kok riot, the Next Media cameras record their news right next to the police officers' noses. Their paparazzi hounded celebrity stars everywhere. At press conferences, Next Media reporters always asked the most provocative questions (see what was asked of Emma Stone). Thus, their boss should believe that this must be the only, logical way to gather news.
Unexpected, our media boss blew up at the presence of the paparazzi and said: "I'm not going to let you get away with this!"
When a multi-billionaire who owns multiple media outlets said that he is going to "cause trouble for you," you have reason to be afraid.
But the reporter was even more shocked by the silence over at the Hong Kong Journalists Association. Whenever a government official won't answer media questions, or responds with too stern a tone, Association chairwoman Sham Yee-lan can always be counted upon to come out and issue condemnations. But when a media boss stopped a reporter from covering news and told him "to watch it," the Hong Kong Journalists Association had no response. Chairwoman Sham was nowhere to be found.
Question to the Hong Kong Journalists Association: Is the ON.cc reporter a journalist? When Boss Lai stopped this reporter from gathering news, it is suppression of the freedom of press? To take a close-up photo of the reporter, point a finger at the nose of the reporter and say "I'm definitely going to make trouble for you" .... is this not threatening a reporter? To tell the reporter that "I fuck your mother" ... is this not insulting the reporter?
When someone suppresses freedom of press, and threatens and insults a reporter, you make no response. What is the point of setting up this association for journalists?
- Jimmy Lai must be the real-life Vordemort (= "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"). Look at the contortion in the clarification statement from the Hong Kong Journalists. The incident is simply "the incident that took place on June 4th" and the participants are not named. Is it really so hard for the Hong Kong Journalists Association to be clear about which "incident" or the involvement of one Jimmy Lai?
- In the past, the Hong Kong Journalists Association would come out to condemn any insults, threats and attacks against reporters. In this case, the Hong Kong Journalists Association is punctilious in stating that it has not issued a condemnation of Jimmy Lai's insult and threat against a reporter.
- (Oriental Daily) June 10, 2017.
There is a western saying: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Everybody saw that Jimmy Lai insulted and threatened the reporter, thereby angering the whole world. But the freedom-defending Hong Kong Journalists Association acted as if they were deaf, blind and dumb. Their chairwoman vanished from public view.
The incident is clear: Jimmy Lai threw a fit and told the Oriental Daily reporter: "Fuck your mother's cunt", "I fucking took a photo of you," "I will get someone to fucking cause you trouble." The police is treating the case as criminal intimidation. So why does the Hong Kong Journalists Association act as if nothing has happened? Do they think Oriental Daily reporters are not journalists?
Of course, they can't avoid the issue forever. Over the past several days, numerous organizations have asked the Hong Kong Journalists Association to state their position. Finally, the HKJA issued a written statement. However, it was very lame. They did not condemn Jimmy Lai's actions. They only told the reporters that "when threatened during the course of news gathering, the correct thing to do is to report to the police."
Each year, the Hong Kong Journalists Association holds a fund-raiser, because "they will never bow to the forces that suppress freedom of press." But at this critical moment, they said that the matter should be referred to the police!? Why is their raison d'être?
It is one thing for the HKJA to be silent about Jimmy Lai's actions. The worst part is that they rushed out to denounce the fake statement on the Internet. They even said that they have filed a police report. Actually, the key sentence in that fake statement is: "Our association will refuse any donations from Jimmy Lai in the future. Anything that Jimmy Lai does hereafter has nothing to do with our Association." After all, what happens if Jimmy Lai actually thinks that this is a true statement and turn off the money flow in future? Of course, they have to come out with a denial.
People have wondered: If the person who used foul threatening language was the owner of another newspaper or a pro-China organization and the reporter works for Next Media, then the Hong Kong Journalists Association would have jumped out immediately to issue a denunciation about "this darkest day in freedom of press in Hong Kong."
Do you recall that during the Chief Executive election, a pro-democracy activists refused to support John Tsang. Jimmy Lai immediately jumped out and denounced him as a "Chinese Communist mole" and banned his writing from appearing in all Next Media publications. The Hong Kong Journalists Association saw and heard nothing. By contrast, when a certain media commentator had his essay title changed at a pro-China newspaper, the HKJA immediately said that freedom of press is being suppressed. So is this a show of double standards? A case of goalpost moving?
The Jimmy Lai case showed that hypocrisy not only at the Hong Kong Journalists Association. The pro-democracy newspapers and the Jimmy Lai-funded pro-democracy political parties and politicians were equally silent All of these people are enemies of freedom of press in Hong Kong. As long as they get their way, Hong Kong is doomed.
- (Oriental Daily) June 11, 2017.
One week later, Sham Yee-lan was finally cornered by a reporter.
Sham: Have you filed a police report?
Reporter: Yes, yes.
Sham: Since you have filed a police report, I won't make any further comments. And so with respect to ... that is, if ... that is, I personally believe that using foul language against anybody is inappropriate behavior. So, if that one ... that is, if you have filed a police report, then I think the police will deal with it.
Reporter: So the statement will not be changed in any way? Will you add any words of condemnation?
Sham: We won't say anything. Okay? Thank you.
Reporter: Do you feel that the Hong Kong Journalists Association is a toothless tiger?
Sham: We won't respond to anything. I have finished talking. Okay? Thank you very much.
Reporter: Are you being selective?
[The police have merely set up a case file for investigation. The case has not entered into the judicial system. Therefore commenting on the case does not affect the non-existent court trial.]
- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 22, 2017. The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) has expressed “deep regret and disappointment” with incoming chief executive Carrie Lam’s decision to bar digital media outlets from attending her press conference on Wednesday.
- That is to say, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has no "deep regret and disappointment" with what Jimmy Lai did to the Oriental Daily reporter. When they feel it, they say it; when they don't feel it, they don't say it.
[749] June 4th Candlelight Vigil (2017/06/04)
(SCMP) June 4, 2017.
A sea of candle light blanketed Victoria Park on Sunday night as tens of thousands of people converged there to mourn those killed in Beijing’s bloody military crackdown in Tiananmen Square 28 years ago, but in numbers that were the lowest for nine years.
Organisers said 110,000 people attended the event,the lowest turnout since 2008. Last year’s memorial drew 125,000 people. Police put the figure at 18,000 at the height of the event, down on their estimate of 21,800 last year.
Police put the figure at 18,000 at the height of the event, down on their estimate of 21,800 last year.
(Coconuts Hong Kong) June 1, 2017.
In recent years, an increasing number of people — especially university students — have dropped out of the annual candlelight vigil. This year, with anti-China sentiment growing amongst the city’s youths, all 10 universities in Hong Kong will be completely boycotting the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China’s vigil in Victoria Park.
Instead, June 4th-related forums will be held at the schools, including the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK). Student union representatives told HK01 that they would not attend the vigil as they do not agree with the Alliance’s goal of building a democratic China.
The external affairs vice president of Hong Kong Baptist University’s (HKBU) student union, Kwan Wai-mak, said achieving the goal set by the Alliance is not Hongkongers’ responsibility. He also referred to the Tiananmen Square crackdown as “merely the neighboring country’s history”, HK01 reports.
A joint forum led by OUHK and Education University of Hong Kong will focus on Hong Kong’s present and future, instead of solely commemoration, said the president of Lingnan University’s Student Union.
Internet comments:
(Hong Kong Free Press) The Victoria Park Tiananmen vigil debate: Should you go, or stay at home? By Jason Y. Ng. June 4, 2017.
Today marks the twenty-eighth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, known more delicately in this part of the world as the June 4th Incident. Members of the so-called ‘June 4th Generation’—people born in, or before, the 1980s who feel a deep connection with the thousands of student protesters murdered that summer—have always felt a sense of duty toward them: to vindicate their death, and until then, ensure that the younger generations do not forget what happened.
The second duty is what compels parents to take their children to the Victoria Park candlelight vigil year after year, come rain or shine. The annual sit-in, organised by the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, fills several football pitches and features impassioned speeches, songs and prayers. Just like marching down Hennessy Road on July 1st and sweeping grandpa’s grave on Ching Ming Festival, it is one of those things that people do out of habit and respect.
Since the Occupy Movement of 2014, every year in the lead-up to the massacre’s anniversary, university students will debate fiercely whether they should continue to partake into the Victoria Park memorial. Most of these discussions end in a decision to withdraw. Just today, the Chinese University Student Union issued a statement declaring the ‘end of the road for June 4th commemoration’. They argue that the annual ritual has become a ‘tick-the-box’ exercise: participants show up at the park, post a sad-faced selfie on Facebook and feel good about themselves for having ‘done something’ when all they have really achieved is group therapy. They also believe that the pan-democratic parties have turned these memorials into fundraising campaigns and political shows.
Some students have gone further then that. Social media and online forums are plastered with memes and status posts with the rhetorical question: ‘What the F does June 4th have to do with me?’ Their point is that Hong Kongers have nothing to gain from redressing the wrongs of the massacre, and to put less diplomatically, whatever happened in 1989 happened on the mainland to mainlanders and is therefore irrelevant to them and outside their agenda. Hong Kong people have enough on their plate fighting for greater autonomy and even independence from China. They won’t and can’t be bothered with what goes on north of the border.
Expectedly, these sentiments draw outrage and condemnation from older politicians, parents and teachers. The June 4th Generation pounced on the students, calling them sacrilegious and heartless. Likewise, the students hit back with their own name-calling, accusing the adults of being “Greater China plastic”—an epithet for those who talk incessantly about ending one-party rule in China without doing anything about it and who still believe that a better China will mean a better Hong Kong.
So who is right and who is wrong?
The best way to arbitrate the dispute is to go back to one of our earlier examples: sweeping grandpa’s grave on Ching Min Festival. Doing so will allow us to isolate the two issues at hand and deal with them separately.
The first issue concerns whether one should attend the Victoria Park memorial. Here, the students have a point. If they are not interested in speeches and prayers, then why force them? If your kids don’t want to travel to faraway Wo Hop Shek Public Cemetery and trek up the hills just to burn incense in front of grandpa’s grave, then leave them at home. Yelling at them for not respecting their ancestors will only backfire. For all you know, your children have their own ways of remembering grandpa that don’t involve posing a fire hazard in Fanling or benefiting greedy florists who jack up the price of chrysanthemums every Ching Ming. Mom and dad should just take a chill pill and get on with their trip without the kids. Both sides are better off.
The second issue, however, is altogether different—it is a question of ideology and basic human decency. Asking ‘what the F does June 4th have to do with me’ is no less morally repugnant than saying ‘I don’t care if the Holocaust happened’ or ‘the Paris terrorist attacks don’t matter to me’. Any liberal-minded person should take a stance against evil, murderous acts, whether you are Chinese, Hong Konger, French or Jewish. The isolationist approach to history and current events—the thinking that what happens elsewhere is irrelevant to me—is naïve and irresponsible. It is Donald Trump.
Worse, denying that Hong Kong is a part of China and that the city’s fate is intricately linked to that of the mainland is to think that the Earth is flat or to call global warming a hoax. The notion that Hong Kong can somehow have meaningful electoral reform and genuine democracy without a more politically open China is mind-boggling. Put more bluntly, university students and young politicians who talk night and day of achieving autonomy and independence without ever proposing a concrete plan or a viable path is simply another kind of ‘plastic’—the localist plastic.
So what I have to say is this: if you find the whole Ching Ming routine pointless and banal, all you have to do is stay home. You don’t need to say ‘who the F care about grandpa?’ just because the old man died before you were born.
- (SCMP) June 5, 2017.
More than 200 Hong Kong activists from localist groups and political parties staged a protest march through the city’s busy streets Sunday night after the end of the annual vigil marking the 28th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
They were marching from Victoria Park in Causeway Bay to the central government’s liaison office, Beijing’s representative office in Hong Kong, located in Western district.
Leading the “post-vigil” march, which kicked off around 10.15pm, were Joshua Wong Chi-fung, secretary general of localist political party Demosisto; pan-democratic lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats and the party’s chairman, Avery Ng Man-yuen; and Fastbeat Tam Tak-chi of People Power. Members of the tertiary student group Student Fight For Democracy also joined.
The protesters planned at the liaison office to demand the release of political dissidents and human rights lawyers. As they marched, they chanted slogans such as “Vindicate the democratic movement of 1989!” and “It’s no crime to defend civil rights!” They also invoked individual dissidents by shouting “Release Liu Xiaobo now!” and “Stop Liu Xia’s house arrest now!”
March organisers did not apply for a police permit to stage the event, claiming it was their civil right to hold such a protest. But some march participants spilled onto Hennessy Road, blocking two lanes of the major thoroughfare in Causeway Bay and jamming traffic. Police eventually closed one of the lanes for the marchers.
By 11.30pm the march was still proceeding, with the head of the procession reaching Central. The event was largely peaceful, albeit noisy. After walking more than two hours from Victoria Park, the marchers arrived at the liaison office at about 12.25am Monday.
The group included 28 people who each lit a candle to remember the 28th anniversary of the crackdown. An activist read a speech stating “no room for reconciliation with Beijing” in apparent reference to a recent warning by state leader Zhang Dejiang that Hong Kong was not to confront the central government.
The other marchers then passed by the liaison office entrance to conclude the march, with some throwing “hell money” – a traditional Chinese offering to ancestors that is often used by activists to condemn officials.
The march participants dispersed without incident at about 12.50am.
- This is the classical example of Leftist Retardism. Here are the most salient features:
(1) Egotism: They numbered just 200 persons, but they insist on walking on the car lane to impede vehicular traffic. They claim to be fighting for the people, but they clearly don't give a damn about what the people feel or need.
(2) Ineffectiveness: The demonstrators arrived at the China Liaison Office at 12.25am. Isn't anybody still working there at this hour?
(3) Showboating: Everybody knows that this demonstration will do nothing to vindicate the democratic movement of 1989 or release Liu Xiaobo. Why are they still addicted to doing this? Because it gets media exposure! Are there better ways to realize the stated goals? Possibly, but those ways don't get as much media exposure and therefore will not be explored.
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.
Earlier a group of students from the Hong Kong Kong University Student Union were cleansing the Pillar of Shame at the Wong Haking Building as their first step in commemorating June 4th.
In the video, the twenty or so students were wiping the pillar inch by inch. They looked very awkward, because they are clearly not experienced in doing household chores. This is just a group of brainwashed Hong Kong kids cleansing a pillar that has nothing to do with them.
Hong Kong University Student Union president Wong Ching-tak told the reporters (verbatim): "In the past, people speak of patriotism when they commemorate June 4th. Chinese sentiments. But in this society, fewer and fewer people share these sentiments. So how should June 4th be regarded in the future, or what should be done on June 4th? The June 4th evening assembly of the Alliance still has very strong Chinese sentiments. But today in Hong Kong society, especially among young people, we don't have these Chinese sentiments anymore. When identity and emotions have changed so much, I think that we can feel very different about the June 4th massacre."
Frankly, I have no idea what he was saying? What did he want to say? If you don't have patriotic sentiments, then why commemorate June 4th?
We belong to the generation of June 4th 1989. In that year, I was a university student. We fell the same way as the young people on Tiananmen Square. Back then, the Hong Kong university donated money, and some even traveled north to offer support. A classmate of mine skipped his final exams because he wanted to bring tents and medicine to Beijing.
We opposed corruption because we wanted our beloved country to become better. Without patriotism, the June 4th incident in Beijing has not connection to the people of Hong Kong. When we saw the 9/11 terrorist attack on television, we said: "Oh, how terrible!" And then we continued to go to school/work the next day.
Hong Kong University Students Union president Wong Ching-tak said on behalf of the young people of Hong Kong: "We no longer have these Chinese sentiments." So why were you cleansing the Pillar of Shame? Since you have no feelings about the country or the dead, what are you mourning over?
Wong said: "I am not a Chinese, I am not a Chinese Hongkonger. I am simply a Hongkonger." Therefore they can't even accept the Alliance, whose full name is the Alliance of Hong Kong citizens to support patriotic democratic movements in China. Anything with "patriotism" is bad and "fifty-cent gang." Therefore they won't participate in the Alliance meeting. They will only hold a forum on university campus and maintain a moment of silence.
I wonder why the reporters did not ask: "If China is not your country, then why business is June 4th to you?"
June 4th arose out of patriotism 28 years ago. The memorial services were held for 28 years in a row out of patriotism. It was a patriotic democratic movement. As such, it is meaningless to someone who does not have a country. Since the Hong Kong University students are not Chinese, what do they care about Chinese issues? The Chinese can live or die, and you shouldn't not have to care or commemorate.
Since you are not Chinese, you should take our your identity card and cut it up. You should also give up your student subsidy which comes from the Treasury of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. You should get out of Hong Kong University, you should get out of Hong Kong, because the land that you are standing upon belongs to China which has nothing to do with you.
- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.
Lee Cheuk-yan said: "Twenty years ago, Tung Chee-hwa told us to put the baggage down. I never expect that today it would be the young people who tell us to put the baggage down or say that they won't carry the baggage ..."
As is well known, the consequence of setting up the Red Guard is to be brought down by the Red Guard using the same method. Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho and their ilk are now tasting the bitter fruits this June 4th.
For twenty-eight years, the June 4th march and the candlelight vigil had a slogan about passing the torch to the next generation. This year, we won't see this banner anymore because the torch has been extinguished during the political division of the dirty spoils.
On March 28, the June 4th march was attended by 450 people. The Victoria Park candlelight vigil is down to 18,000 persons. The student unions at Hong Kong University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Science and Technology, Baptist University, City University, Polytechnic University, Lingnan University, Open University, Education University and Shu Yan University declared they won't attend any June 4th memorial activity organized by the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Not only are they not coming, but they are viciously criticizing the activities.
Former CUHK Student Union president Chow Shu-fung said: "It is unrealistic to want the next generation to assume the duty to assume the memory of resistance of the preceding generation."
The CUHK Student Union said: "The Alliance's staid business-as-usual commemoration is using the people's moral feelings to gain political capital. Our Union does not agree ... As the times change, patriotism is completely eviscerated and replaced by Localism. For the new generation, June 4th has little or no meaning left. Localism is their enlightenment. The civic awakening of the Umbrella Movement and the valiant resistance of the Fishball Revolution are affecting the younger generation deeply."
Baptist University Student Union external affairs vice-president Mak Kwun-wai was even more striking: "It is not the responsibility of the people of Hong Kong to build democracy in China. The June 4th incident is the history of the neighboring country ..."
As the Hong Kong University Student Union, they have previously stated that they are not Chinese and they are not Hong Kong (China) either. So Chinese matters mean nothing to them.
The Red Guards scorn Lee Cheuk-yan and his ilk that the June 4th activity is just a bunch of people gathering around the fireplace to get warmth. Therefore they won't play anymore. But how can the candlelight vigil still claim 110,000 participants without any university students coming? Well, they are not gathering around the fireplace to gain warmth. They are gathering around the fireplace to race money.
On Great George Street, there were donation boxes lined up. The purpose of June 4th is to raise money.
Please understand that they are not there to take away your money. For them, the headcount is more important, because this annual activity is the best way to launder money in an untraceable manner.
For example, if some person wants to give $50 million to the pan-democrats. If only 1,000 people show up at this assembly, then each person must have to donate $50,000 on the average in order to reach the $50 million. Now that is impossible. So they need a bigger attendance figure. So if you say that 1 million people came, then it is possible that the average person gave $50 each.
Here are the number over the years:
Year Alliance figure Police figure 2004 82,000 48,000 2005 45,000 22,000 2006 44,000 19,000 2007 55,000 27,000 2008 48,000 15,700 2009 200,000 62,000 2010 150,000 113,000 2011 150,000 77,000 2012 180,000 85,000 2013 150,000 54,000 2014 180,000 99,500 2015 135,000 46,600 2016 125,000 21,800 2017 110,000 18,000 - Here is the scorecard (Oriental Daily, June 5, 2017)
Yesterday, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China received $1.4 million in donations, compared to $1.74 million last year.
The Civic Party took in $160,000, the Labour Party $38,000, the League of Social Democrats $188,000 and Lau Siu-lai's Democracy Classroom $80,000.
The Democratic Party donated every cent that they took in to the Alliance. The Civic Party and the Labour Party gave 10% of their intake to the Alliance. The other political parties did not indicate where their money is going.
- Here is the video of the true Star of the Evening: https://www.facebook.com/149918838878285/videos/163974880806014/
And here is our Star snuggling up to Lau Siu-lai:
[748] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 11 (2017/06/02)
(Hong Kong Free press) June 2, 2017.
At least five defendants facing prosecution in relation to last February’s Mong Kok clashes have said they were assaulted or threatened by police during interrogation. Ten defendants appeared before District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin on Thursday. They were charged with rioting, criminal damage or assault in relation to the disorder in the early hours of February 9 last year.
At least five of them told the court that they intended to reject statements they gave during police questioning, on the basis that they were threatened or forced to say they took part in the protest.
Defendant Yep Chi-fung, 18, claimed that four police officers took him to a room in a police station and stripped him naked. He said he was told by the officers “you have the guts to take action but no guts to admit it,” as they punched him in his stomach and kicked his thighs when he denied being involved in the clashes, Apple Daily reported. He said he was eventually allowed to put on his clothes after he agreed to cooperate.
Defendant Lam Wing-wong, 22, said a police officer told him: “It is no big deal. Just admit it. If you are cooperative, you can pass some of the responsibility onto Yep.”
Another defendant Li Cheuk-hin, 20, said he was threatened during questioning. According to Li, an officer said in Cantonese: “You are definitely going to feel stuffed tonight.” Li’s lawyer said the phrase could be interpreted as “You are definitely going to be beaten up tonight.” Li said he was then beaten by police and forced to admit to “throwing bricks for fun.” He also claimed he was not told what charges he would face before being interviewed, HK01 reported. An officer allegedly told Li: “Don’t waste my time and make me get off work late,” and said to a colleague: “Pre-write a statement for him. Say [Li] was helping others pick up bricks. You will only be given probation at the most.”
Defendant Tang King-chung, 29, gave a similar account. He said he was scared and tired while in police custody, and was not informed of his charges. He said he was punched in the arm and was told by an officer: “Don’t dawdle and make me get off work late. Sign [the statement] quickly.” He said that when he denied having taken part in the protest, an officer said: “Have you not been beaten enough? If you give a good statement, you will at most get probation for throwing bricks.” An officer allegedly wrote in the statement that Tang took part in the protest, even though Tang insisted that he had not. When Tang protested, he said an officer told him: “Do you want to stay here and not be released on bail?” Tang said he felt compelled to stay silent.
Defendant Chung Chi-wah, 30, said his videotaped interrogation was conducted while he was under threat. He said an officer told him: “You were photographed throwing bricks. Don’t deny it.”
The trial, beginning Thursday, is expected to last 30 days.
On Thursday morning, defendant Mo Jia-tao, 18, pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer. He denied three other charges of rioting and a charge of criminal damage.
Another defendant Ng Ting-kai, 25, pleaded guilty on Friday to one count of rioting. He denied an assault charge.
The remaining eight defendants denied their charges.
The ten defendants are: Mo Jia-tao, 18; Chung Chi-wah, 30; Anthony Ho Kam-sum, 37; Fok Ting-ho, 24; Chan Wo-cheung, 71; Tang King-chung, 29; Li Cheuk-hin, 20; Lam Wing-wong, 22; Yep Chi-fung, 18; and Ng Ting-kai, 25.
An eleventh defendant, Lee Sin-yi, 18, is being sought by the authorities after failing to appear in court.
(Facebook video) Defendants running away from the press after the court session. Also Oriental Daily.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 1, 2017.
An activist pleaded guilty on Thursday to one count of assaulting police officers during last February’s Mong Kok clashes.
Mo Jia-tao, 18, was accused of throwing a bottle at a police officer in the early hours of February 9. The item missed the target and hit a barricade, while other officers stepped in to restrain Mo, the court heard. Mo was also charged with three counts of rioting and one count of criminal damage. He denied these charges.
Besides Mo, eight other defendants also denied their charges. Counsel for the remaining defendant, Ng Ting-kai, 25, said they would be discussing their client’s two charges with the prosecution on Thursday afternoon.
Counsel for defendant Tang King-chung, 29, requested that the prosecution summon the police officer who fired warning shots during the clashes. They wanted to examine whether the officer used excessive force in order to establish a case of self-defence, Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. Objecting to the request, the prosecution said the incident was irrelevant as Tang’s alleged offence took place at a different location and more than an hour after the shots were fired. Judge Kwok Wai-kin said he would hear arguments from both parties before ruling on the matter.
Though the case has been transferred to the District Court, the hearing was relocated to a bigger room at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts owing to the large number of defendants and the extensive use of video evidence. However, rules relating to the District Court remain applicable, including a maximum sentence of seven years in prison – compared to three years in magistracies. If convicted of rioting or criminal damage, the defendants face a maximum jail term of seven years.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 2, 2017.
A defendant admitted on Friday one count of rioting in relation to a protest that took place in Mong Kok in the early hours of February 9 last year.
Ng Ting-kai, 25, requested bail after pleading guilty. His lawyer said Ng had been suffering from autism since he was young and the condition had worsened following the incident. Ng also showed symptoms of severe depression, the court heard.
District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin approved the bail request, on the conditions that Ng is forbidden to leave the territory and must report to police once a week.
The court heard that Ng was filmed throwing bricks or other items thrice at police officers at around 4am on the night in question. Officers later arrested Ng and found flashlights, surgical masks and goggles in his bag.
The prosecution said four police officers were injured during the incident, Stand News reported. An officer’s middle finger was said to be fractured. She was given a 1.5 per cent permanent disability rating and 360 days of sick leave. Ng was also charged with one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The prosecution asked the court to withhold the charge until after the conclusion of the trial. Judge Kwok approved the request.
(Oriental Daily) June 2, 2017
The prosecution said that the case involves three incidents.
In incident #1, the police pushed from Nathan Road into Shan Tung Street and encountered a rain of bricks and other hard objects from the crowd. The police retreated back to Nathan Road and then to Nelson Street. Defendant #1, defendant #3 and defendant #4 were among those who chased and attacked the police.
In incident #2, the crowd attacked a police man on the northbound lanes of Nathan Road near Dundas Street. Defendant #1 and others threw bricks, garbage bins and other objects at the police van. There were four police officers inside the van. The van sustained more than $26,000 in property damage.
In incident #3, the police formed a police line at the intersection of Soy Street and the southbound lanes of Nathan Road. The crowd on Soy Street threw bricks at the police. Defendant #3 and defendant #7 were identified to be present based upon identifiable characteristics (a blue-white scarf and prior participation in the Shopping Revolution).
(Oriental Daily) June 5, 2017.
Police inspector Mok Hing-wing testified that he was a commander at the scene. At the time, there was a traffic accident with a taxi on Portland Street. A large number of people yelled at the traffic policemen handling the case. Afterwards, a large number of people took over Portland Street between Argyle Street and Shan Tung Street. Mok believed that the people were in an unlawful assembly. Among the crowd were masked men wearing the dark blue Hong Kong Indigenous hoodies.
At 1145pm, the police called on the people to step back onto the pedestrian sidewalk. The crowd got upset and started to throw glass bottles. There was a physical clash. The police set up a defensive semi-circle. At 130am, there was another clash. Some people held shields and a leader yelled: "Three, two, one. Charge!" and the crowd charged at the police line. The police applied pepper spray. The police pushed forward and the crowd threw bricks at them.
At around 2am, Mok learned that a police had fired two shots. Mok said that some people had occupied the southbound lanes on Nathan Road. The police set up a line at Argyle Street but failed to push the crowd back onto the pedestrian sidewalk. At 330am, the police set up a line at Dundas Street and prevented the crowd from heading towards the Yau Ma Ti district. At 410am, the police line advanced to Shan Tung Street. The crowd suddenly threw a large number of bricks at the police. Because the police only carried shields, they decided to move back for safety reasons. The crowd chased the police and threw bricks at them. Some police officers were injured. Mok was hit on the left shoulder by two bricks.
Senior Inspector Ng Sin-nong testified that the police turned into Shan Tung Street from the southbound lanes of Nathan Road at 350am. There were about 100 to 150 people on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. They threw bricks and other objects at the police. A number of police officers were injured. At the same time, people were tearing down the road signs and setting garbage on fire. People then threw bricks at the police officers who carried the small round shield, being careful to aim at the unprotected legs. At first only four to five people were doing so. When the tactic was successful, more people began to do so. The police were not able to hold the line, so they retreated to the southern lanes of Nathan Road. The crowd pursued them. The police retreated to Nelson Street. A policeman was down on the ground, apparently 'unconscious.'
(Oriental Daily) June 6, 2017.
Senior Inspector Ko Chung-ying testified that people on Shan Tung Street were throwing rocks and glass objects at the police line at 4am. Ko warned those people: "The rioters up there pay attention! Stop attacking the police!" But the crowd threw even more objects at the police. Many police officers were down with injuries. So the police line moved back towards the Nathan Road. The rioters followed and threw more bricks. Ko was hit multiple times on his body.
Female sergeant Hung Pui-si testified that she was at the police line at 4am on Shan Tung Street. As the police line moved back, a colleague was surrounded and knocked to the ground by rioters. Hung went up to help her colleague. While swinging her baton, she was hit on the right hand by a hard object. She was wearing a helmet at the time, and her helmet was hit by a hard object. Hung was pushed from behind and fell down on the ground. Hung and two other colleagues were taken across the Bank Centre. Hung said that one colleague was bleeding profusely from the mouth and appeared to be unconscious. Hung was bleeding in her right fingers. Later she was assessed to be 1.5% permanently disabled.
The news video shown in court showed that Hung was pushed by a man wearing a black hat. As Hung used an electronic pen to mark herself on the computer screen showing the video. She had to use her left hand to steer her right wrist to do so.
Here is a TVB video of the police under the rain of bricks. Look at 0:40 -- how does this man prepare a defense case? Temporary insanity?
(Oriental Daily) June 7, 2017.
Female sergeant Yu Ching-yee testified that at 4am on February 9, she and her colleague were patrolling along the northbound lanes of Nathan road. A man attacked her colleague. The colleague and two supporting plainclothes policemen subdued the individual. At the time, the crowd gathered on the southbound lanes began to throw rocks and bricks at her.
Senior Constable Chow Wai-kit testified that he saw police officers struggling with a man on the road. So she and another Senior Constable went up to push the man down on the ground and handcuffed him. About 50 rioters began to throw rocks and hard objects at them. Four to five uniformed police officers used round shields to protect them. Chow said that he felt that his life was at risk.
The arrested man took advantage of the attack to escape. A number of rioters came forward and knocked Chow on the ground. His right shoe fell off. Chow was dizzy for a few seconds before he picked up his shoe. Chow saw another Senior Constable being knocked down on the ground and assaulted by two persons, one wielding a foldable chair and another wielding a 5-foot pole. Chow brushed the two men aside to save his colleague. Chow lost his balance and fell down on the ground too. A reporter said: "Stop beating them. There may be deaths." Other policemen came over and the rioters retreated. During cross-examination, Chow was asked whether he retreated in disarray. Chow said: "Yes."
Police constable Yip Kin-kwun testified that he was in a police van heading up north on Nathan Road near Cheung Sha Street. About 120 people surrounded the van and attacked the vehicle with rubbish, rocks and bamboo poles. Yip said that the van was unable to drive away due to the obstacles on the street. Yip instructed the other police officers to put on their helmets. The two policemen sitting in the rear had to duck low to avoid being hit. The glass windows on the two sides of the van were broken, and people threw objects into the van. After 7 to 10 minutes, other police officers came and drove the crowd away. The four police officers in the van were not injured. But the police van was damaged, with broken headlines and windows.
Police constable Chung Yu-chi sat in the rear of that police van. He said: "I was very scared of being hit." He felt that his life was being threatened. The police car sustained more than $26,000 in property damage.
(Oriental Daily) June 8, 2017.
The eleventh defendant, 18-year-old female Lee Sin-yi, had not attended the trial so far. Today, the news was that she skipped bail and traveled to Taiwan to seek political asylum. The Taiwan Immigration Department confirmed today that Lee entered Taiwan in January this year, but her current whereabouts are unknown. There is no departure record for her. According to Taiwan regulations, Hongkongers can stay at most 30 days. Therefore, Lee has exceeded her allowed time of stay.
According to a Hong Kong social activists, Lee went to Taiwan to seek help from the New Power Party. It is unknown whether she was successful. The New Power Party told our newspaper that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the flight of Lee Sin-yi. Furthermore, they want nothing to do with Hong Kong independence and they won't comment on anything related to the Mong Kok riot.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 9, 2017.
The Mainland Affairs Council of Taiwan’s government said that there has been no asylum application. It said it will handle the case in accordance with law, and in accordance with rules if it discovers any case of Hong Kong residents overstaying in Taiwan, Ming Pao reported. The Council also told the newspaper that it supports Hong Kong’s values of freedom, democracy and human rights.
Andrew To Kwan-hang, a director of the New School of Democracy, told the newspaper that the School’s staff members had mentioned Lee’s case to him in mid-January. At the time, he was told members of the New Power Party of Taiwan mentioned Lee sought help from the party to stay there, as she had already arrived in Taiwan. The School acts as a platform for communication between Hong Kong and Taiwan activists, and often hosts events in both regions.
There is no agreement to transfer fugitives between Hong Kong and Taiwan. In the past, top Hong Kong police officers who were accused of corruption in the 1970s have stayed in Taiwan for decades, and some died there.
- (Taipei Times) April 13, 2017.
Three Hong Kong residents allegedly implicated in a grisly body-in-cement case in Hong Kong last month were deported from Taiwan yesterday afternoon, the Criminal Investigation Bureau announced.
The three, including the main suspect, a 26-year-old man surnamed Tsang (曾), were in handcuffs when they arrived at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport under a police escort at 1:15pm. They kept their heads down and did not answer any questions from waiting reporters.
The police handed them over to Hong Kong officials who were waiting on the jet bridge to a Cathay Airways plane and the group boarded the plane at 3:20pm.
The bureau said the trio entered Taiwan on tourist visas along with an 18-year-old woman, surnamed Ho (何), on March 11. Ho turned herself in to Taipei City Police Department’s Wenshan Second Precinct on Sunday night, saying she feared for her life and wanted to return to Hong Kong to help with the investigation. She told police where the trio could be found and the men were picked up in New Taipei City’s Banciao District (板橋) on Monday, while Ho returned to Hong Kong the same day. The trio were said to have only NT$4,300 with them when they were detained.
The bureau said the men had told police that they hid in Taipei’s Songshan (松山) and Wanhua (萬華) districts and, planning to stay for a while, had rented an apartment through a friend.
After the police said the trio’s presence posed a public safety risk, the National Immigration Agency revoked their entry permits and expelled them.
Hong Kong was shocked after police investigating a missing persons case on March 29 found a badly decomposed body inside a cement-filled box in an apartment in the Tsuen Wan District. The victim, 28-year-old Cheung Man-li (張萬里), was last seen entering the building on March 4. His girlfriend reported him missing two days later. Hong Kong media reported that Tsang and other suspects in the case had fled to Taiwan.
- (Wen Wei Po) June 10, 2017.
According to Youngspiration 'adivsor' Lam Ho-ki who is in Taiwan at the moment: "To various friends/enemies/passersby/spectators in Taiwan and Hong Kong, please do not share any information related to Lee Sin-yi ... According to what I know, Ms. Lee is hiding somewhere in a certain country. If the news gets magnified, the local government may expel Ms. Lee back to Hong Kong. Please do not discuss, do not speculate, do not find out, do not share. Just treat this person as if she does not exist."
According to a Discuss.com.hk summary of Internet information, "I believe that Ah Me (Youngspiration) took T (=Lee Sin-yi) to Taiwan to seek political asylum. However, Ah Me was totally unprepared, because there Ah Me did not check with the social activist groups beforehand, did not understand the conditions for political asylum in Taiwan and did not bring the needed documents. Although the newly released audio tape said that Lee Sin-yi is safe, she is known to have asked friends about how to work as a prostitute. Therefore we in Hong Kong are worried about her current situation."
- This is supposed to be the photo of Lee Sin-yi being arrested.
Did the policemen remember to pick up the rocks on the ground as evidence?
- (Oriental Daily) June 12, 2017.
The New Power Party chairman Huang Kuo-chang confirmed today that Lee Sin-yi is in Taiwan and being looked after by human rights organizations. Huang said that after the Taiwan Congressional Hong Kong Caucus is established in the Legislative Yuan, the New Power Party will push for the parliament to amend the Hong Kong-Macau Relations Act to provide political asylum for Hongkongers.
- This is even better news for Hong Kong than sending all the Mong Kok rioters to jail. It means that they will all skip bail and flee to Taiwan on fishing boats, and never ever come back to Hong Kong.
- Of course, they don't think that way. They believe that if and when Hong Kong achieves independence, their crimes will be pardoned immediately. So they will wait for that day to come, and they know that it will come. And then they will be greeted with a hero's welcome.
- (Apple Daily) August 27, 2017.
In a statement, Lee Sin-yee identified herself as "Lee Sing-yee who was prosecuted for participation in the 2016 New Year's Day Fishball Revolution. I have chosen exile just before the court trial began."
"When I am middle-aged, I will become an outsider in a Hong Kong that has become China. Therefore I chose exile in order to find the possibility of a new freedom."
While people criticize her for cowardice, "in her heart she no longer believes that there is rule-of-law in Hong Kong anymore." "My Taiwan friends tell me that the Mong Kok trials will just be a Hong Kong version of the Formosa trials." She said that Hongkongers let themselves and foreigners be easily convinced that it was possible to have rule-of-law without democracy."
- This is a lot of rubbish. She knew that she did wrong and she would have to go to jail (3 years). She chose to skip town. And then she wrote a lot of nonsense to rationalize her cowardice.
- (Oriental Daily) August 28, 2017. Lee Sin-yee issued an audio recording. On one hand, she admits her own cowardice to try to avoid legal penalties. On the other hand, she says that there is no rule-of-law in Hong Kong, and the judiciary exists only for the government to carry out political prosecutions. Therefore she has chosen exile in Taiwan under the protection of a pro-independence organization.
The statement is logically muddled. Cutting through the noise, it was just an excuse to justify her running away. Although there is no extradition between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Hong Kong Police Force has said that Lee Sin-yee is on the list of wanted persons. This means that she will be arrested as soon as she enters Hong Kong from anywhere.
(Oriental Daily) June 8, 2017.
Inspector Chan Wai-ki testified today that he was called to duty early in the morning of February 9. He was off duty at the time, and he went from his home to the scene without any special equipment. At the time, the police had set up a defensive line on Soy Street. At around 5am, more and more bricks were being thrown. So the line was pulled back more than 10 meters near the southbound lanes of Nathan Road. Chan said that "bricks were falling down like rain." At the time, Police Sergeant Wong Lok-on tried to arrest the first defendant Mo Jia-tao but failed. Chan went up to help. Chan said that suddenly the rioters threw more bricks because they saw the arrest. Chan said that he was hit at the left side on the back of his head and also above his left ear which caused bleeding. Another brick was aimed at his face, but he fended it off with his left hand. He called for help.
Chan said that many police officers were hit by bricks. Chan stood behind the line and observed three masked young men about 3 meters away throwing bricks from the left. A 60-something-year-old man (not masked) threw a brick from the right. Chan issued warning at them. The four continued to throw bricks. Chan decided to counterattack and charged to arrest the brick throwers. The three men on left turned and ran down Sai Yeung Choi Street South. The older man on the right also turned around and run. But he was slower and Chan grabbed his left hand. Chan and two police officers subdued the older man and dragged him back behind the police line. The defence does not dispute that the individual is the sixth defendant, 71-year-old Chan Wo-cheung.
Chan said that he saw Police Sergeant Wong On-lok lying down on the ground with his face covered in blood and seemingly unconscious. Chan kept calling Wong to keep him awake. At the time, the scene was becoming calmer. Chan said that if Wong was hit again, he may suffer ever more serious injuries and die. Wong was taken to the hospital. Chan was also taken to the hospital, where the doctor applied 4 stitches to a 2mm wound on the back of his head. He also suffered bone fractures in the middle finger and ring finger of his left hand. Later on, Chan was assessed with a 1% permanent disability.
During the cross-examination, Chan said that the sixth defendant ran at "tortoise speed" which allowed Chan to catch up. The defence said that the sixth defendant merely came out of the tunnel to walk towards Sai Yeung Choi Street South and was stopped at the tunnel exit. Chan emphasized that he saw the sixth defendant threw bricks.
Videos of the attack on the police van: The Epoch Times, YouTube
(Oriental Daily) June 9, 2017.
Police sergeant Lin Kin-kwok testified that he subdued defendant #6 Chan Wo-keung along with police inspector Chan Wai-ki. From the news video, Lin identified defendant #6 as wearing a hat. But the defendant was not wearing a hat when subdued. Lin does not know why, but he insisted that he recognized the defendant very clearly because he had thrown rocks multiple times at the police.
Police constable Pang Tak-ching testified that he was at the police line on Soy Street early morning of February 9th. Six or seven persons were standing in front of a rock-throwing crowd. One of the persons was 60 to 70 years old, wearing yellow shoes and not masked. The man threw a rock at Pang, who used his shield to block the rock. Pang picked up the rock, which was triangular in shape and about 12mm long. Today the rock was presented in court as evidence. Later on, inspector Chan Wai-ki and another police officer subdued the 60-to-70-year-old man and Pang took over as the arresting officer. Pang said that he recognized the man as the one who threw the rock at him, because of his face and clothes. Under cross-examination, Pang said that more than 100 rocks must have been thrown at him. So why did Pang pick up the rock throw at him? Pang said that defendant #6 was close to him and therefore he had a good chance to make an arrest eventually.
(Oriental Daily) June 12, 2017.
Police constable Lai Kim-hung testified that he and his colleagues went to the resident of defendant #4 Anthony Ho Kam-sum at 6am on February 26, 2017 to arrest. At the time, defendant #4 said: "Yes, I was in Mong Kok." The police took Ho back to the Wong Tai Sin Police Station, and noted down what defendant #4 said.
On videotape #1, defendant #4 said that he and a female friend went down to Mong Kok on the night of February 8th. There were itinerant vendors. A riot was taking place, with "a lot of people, a lot of noise, something was burning." The police also showed defendant #4 the post cards and wrist bands found in his apartment. These objects have the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" on them.
Defendant #4 said that he requested to call Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung to procure a lawyer, but the police said that they were unable to reach Leung.
In videotape #2, defendant #4 said that he paid no attention to the conflict between the vendors and the police. Defendant #4 said that he had no contact with the police and did not charge the police line. When defendant #4 got home, he learned from the news that there was a riot in Mong Kok.
During the video interview, the police showed relevant recordings of the Mong Kok riot. They said that they had reason to believe that defendant #4 was a man present on Shan Tung Street throwing bricks at the police. Defendant #4 disagreed.
(Wen Wei Po) June 13, 2017.
Hong Kong Police Organized Crime Unit detective Lai Kim-hung testified that 17 days after the Mong Kok riot, he went to the residence of defendant #4 Anthony Ho Kam-sum in Diamond Hill district (Kowloon) to make the arrest. Under caution, Ho said: "Yes, I was in Mong Kok." The police found an Octopus card and a mobile phone at the residence. Defendant #4 was taken back to the Wong Tai Sin Police Station to have his statement taken down. Since no lawyer was present, the statement was not signed.
In videotape #1, Ho said that he wanted to call Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung to procure a lawyer. The police agreed to stop the interview. Lai said that he called Leung Kwok-hung in the presence of defendant #4, but nobody picked up the phone on the other end. Defendant #4 asked to contact lawyer Yeung Hok-min, who said that he won't represent Ho.
Defendant #4 agreed to have his statement taken down on his own. He said that he was down in Mong Kok with a female friend to get something to eat. He found out that there were a lot of people and a lot of noise, but he had no idea what was happening. Later he learned from the unlicensed vendors that there was a clash between the police and the unlicensed vendors. Defendant #4 insisted that he did not charge the police line and he had not physical contact with the uniformed police officers.
Lai played a video posted by SocREC in which a man with dyed blonde hair, no eyeglasses and white t-shirt was throwing bricks at the police from King Wah Centre, Nathan Road, Mong Kok. The man looked back at the camera afterwards. This man matched defendant #4 in appearance, hair color and hairstyle. Defendant #4 denied that he was the man.
In videotape #2, Ho told the police that he forgot whether he picked up any object at the scene. He denied that he charged at the police fine. The police asked him about the gloves and other objects found at his residence. Ho denied that he used those objects that day in Mong Kok. He said that he wore gloves only while he play sports.
Four more videos were shown. There was a man with dyed blonde hair, wearing a bluetooth earpiece, dressed in white clothing and holding a brick. Lai pointed out that this individual as defendant #4.
(SocRec YouTube video) Skip to 10:00 and look for the man with dyed blonde hair and long-sleeve white shirt. How conspicuous can he get?
(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2017.
Police constable Cheung Chun-yan testified that he was patrolling with colleagues on the night of February 10 and observed defendant #5 and four other persons acting in a suspicious manner. The police examined the mobile phone of defendant #5 and found numerous photos and two videos about the Mong Kok riot. These items were taken between 2am and 7am on February 9. The police also found Whatsapp message in which defendant #5 said that he was in Mong Kok through text, photos and audio recordings. The mobile phone also has Facebook content containing the same type of materials.
When police asked defendant #5 where these materials came from. Defendant #5 told the police that he went to Mong Kok at 2am on February 9 and saw a large number of masked men throwing bricks and setting off fires. He photographed these people and shared the photos with his friends.
Two videos were played in court. In the first video, the police and a group of people were standing in the road and a voice was heard yelling: "Fuck you ... do you dare to fire a shot?" In the second video, a man yelled excitedly at the police: "All the police should die" and a police officer replied calmly: "Same to you."
(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2017.
Police constable Cheung Chun-yan testified that the mobile phone of defendant #5 Fok Ting-ho contained audio messages such as: "I am in Mong Kok. There are a lot of people here. A lot of police. Get people to come out. It is fun and exciting."
Police constable Lee Cheuk-keung testified that police constable Cheung Chun-yan interrogated defendant #5 and then Lee made the arrest. Under caution, defendant #5 said: "I was in Mong Kok that day." At the police station, Lee searched defendant #5 and found a laser pen.
In the afternoon, some of the audio recordings in defendant #5's mobile phone were played in court. There were messages such as: "Play with fire ... you too can come out here ... MK", "Everybody can fucking together ... you have no idea how much fun this is" and "Get some rocks .. What the fuck for? To fucking throw at the police."
Defendant #5 Fok Ting-ho.(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2017.
During cross-examination, the defense said that all three statements of defendant #5 taken by police constable Lee Cheuk-keung were inaccurate. Of these, the second and third statements were creatively written by Lee who told defendant #5 to sign. Specifically, in the third statement, "Nobody directed me to do so. I saw other people having so much fun throwing stuff, so I did it too" and "I did not hit any policeman ... I don't remember how long between the two times that I threw bricks." In the second statement, "I thought that it was fun and so I picked up the bricks on the ground to throw at the police. I did not dig out the bricks."
During the taking of the statements, the defense alleged tht Lee told defendant #5 loudly: "You were arrested obviously because you did something. Should I get some colleagues to give you a welcome?" The defense said that Lee persuaded the defendant #5 to admit: "Admit it! This is a trivial matter. At the most, you will be prosecuted for unlawful gathering." Lee denied that he did any of this.
Police state chief Ho Cheung-tim testified in the afternoon. He said that he went on vacation between February 3 and 10. He was called back to duty at 6pm on February 11. The defense said that Ho was already working down at the Mong Kok Police Station at 1am on February 11. While there, he told defendant #5: "You better admit to everything, so that I won't get my colleagues to give you a welocme." Ho denied that he said do.
(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2017.
Police constable Yuan Wing-fung testified today that about the police line at Shan Tung Street was broken by a charge of 60 to 70 demonstrators down the southbound lanes of Nathan Road. About 20 to 30 demonstrators threw bricks, fire extinguishers and iron bars at the police officers near 619 Nathan Road. And then the demonstrators scattered and fled.
On February 16, Yuan saw a TVB news video titled: "Some people used bricks to attack the police; Ambrose Lee said that this was a beastly act." At seconds 19-21 of this video, a man wearing a green jacket and blue jeans picked up a brick behind the group who were attacking police officers at 619 Nathan Road. At seconds 58-59, this man was seen running down Shan Tung Street in the direction of Nathan Road. Yuan said that he saw the same individual on the morning of February 9 running with the crowd towards Nathan Road.
Yuan said that the man was someone that he had frequently seen during the Shopping Revolution demonstrations. Between October 2015 and February 2016, he had seen this man 6 to 7 times, observing him 1 to 2 minutes each time. Yuan said that the man was short and skinny, and Yuan can clearly remember him.
Yuan told his supervisor that he had made this identification. Yuan and other police officers then went down to Mong Kok to locate the man. Finally, they came across the man on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. At the time, the man wore a green jacket. Yuan asked the man: "Where were you on the early morning of February 9th?" The man said: "I know that I went too far that night." Yuan arrested the man and issued the caution. Under caution, the man said: "I only did what others did. Please give me a chance." The defence does not contest that the man arrested by Yuan was defendant #3 Chung Chi-wah.
(Oriental Daily) June 21, 2017.
Police constable Yuan Wing-fung read out the statement from 29-year-old cleaner Chung Chi-wah. Chung admitted that he threw bricks at the police but believed that he missed hitting anyone. Yuan testified that Chung was "shorter and skinnier" than most people and was wearing identifiable clothing, and that was why Yuan recognized Chung in the television news video.
(Oriental Daily) June 22, 2017.
Police superintendent Chan Wai-ki testified today that he was injured by a brick thrown at him. However, his medical report indicated that his left hand was injured on the way falling down. Today the prosecution summoned Princess Margaret Hospital doctor Tse Choi-fung to testify as a medical expert. Tse said that the medical records indicated that Chan's left hand was injured as he fell down on the ground. The information came from Chan himself. Tse said that Chan's injury is consistent with falling down, but he is not 100% certain.
(Silent Majority for HK) August 22, 2017.
The video of Lam Wing-wong's police interview was shown in court. Lam said that he did it for fun. "I did not want to throw bricks. But Yep Chi-fung told me, and then I did it." He said that at about midnight, he and Yep Chi-fung and another friend walked from Temple Street to Langham Place, Mong Kok. Therefore he saw Edward Leung and the Hong Kong Indigenous members.
At the time, Edward Leung was yelling slogans from the top of a van. Leung told the demonstrators to charge forward. There were 40 to 50 of them, including the Hong Kong Indigenous members. Some of them held home-made shields. Lam said that he was 20 to 30 meters away from Edward Leung. Afterwards he determined from the tv news videos that the person on top of the van was Edward Leung.
Lam said that the three of them saw some demonstrators digging bricks out of the ground. He and Yep Chi-fung picked up the bricks to throw at the police. He threw 10 to 15 bricks in about 2 minutes. He emphasized that "Yep Chi-fung told me to throw with him."
(Oriental Daily) August 25, 2017.
Defendant #7 Tang King-chung testified today on his own behalf. Tang said that he was intercepted and searched by the police at Soy Street that night. The police found one glove, one knife and a set of darts on him. Tang was handcuffed behind his back and taken back to the police station for interrogation. Tang said that one policeman hit him thrice on the arm and threatened him: "Kid! Don't fool around! ... Make your statement quickly, and I will let you go home to sleep." The police officer also forced Tang to give the passcode for his mobile phone.
The police officer went through the mobile and found a recording: "We are rioting in Mong Kok. Come over quickly, but we are going to be done soon." The police officer believed that Tang said those words and wrote them down on the statement. The statement also included this part: "Afterwards we pried bricks from the ground to give to some people that I don't know, so that they can break the bricks in halves to throw at the police." The police officer then gave the statement to Tang to sign.
Tang said that he did not utter what was on the recording and that he told the police that "he was not the one who pried out or picked up the bricks." But the police officer wrote them down all the same. "Then he told me to sign."
(Oriental Daily) August 29, 2017.
The fifth defendant Fok Ting-ho testified in court that the police officer belted him on the stomach as well as elbowed him before he gave his statement. At the time, Fok had denied throwing bricks. The police officer threatened him: "You better admit everything or else I'll get my colleagues to give you a treat, okay?" Fok said that the police officer then lured him: "Why don't you admit it? It is a minor matter. You will be charged at the most with unlawful gathering."
The third defendant Chung Chi-wai changed his mind and will not be testifying.
(Oriental Daily) August 30, 2017.
The eighth defendant Lee Cheuk-hin testified that he was taken police station after being arrested on February 9. He was not permitted to contact his family. He was assaulted in the search room and the interview room. A policeman threatened him: "You better admit to something or the other." Therefore, he was scared and admitted in his statement: "Sir, I threw the bricks for fun ... but I didn't hit anyone." Lee said that those were false things that he was forced to invent.
(Local Press) August 30, 2017.
In the afternoon, the eighth defendant Lee Cheuk-hin was cross-examined by the prosecution. Concerning the many versions of "Tonight, you will surely get enough" and "Tonight, you will be surely be beaten", Lee said that he couldn't remember what was said exactly. Lee then said that he did not remember being beaten, because he would surely remember if he was. The prosecution suggested that Lee made up the allegation that he was beaten, but Lee disagreed. The prosecution asked about what happened at the police station, such as the amount of time spent in the photo room, the location of the photo room, etc. Lee said that he cannot remember.
(Oriental Daily) October 4, 2017.
Today the judge ruled that the evidence exists for the defendants. On Friday, the defendants can decide whether they want to summon witnesses or testify themselves.
Defendant Tang King-chung has indicated that he will testify himself as well as summon a police officer as witness. It is said that the police officer will be Wong Hing-wai, who fired two shots into the air during the riot. Three other defendants said that they will neither testify nor summon witnesses. The remaining defendants said that they want to seek legal advice first.
(Wen Wei Po) October 5, 2017.
Previously, the prosecution played a number of news videos in which a group of people were clearly seen to be throwing bricks and thrusting bamboo poles at the windows of a police van. A police constable testified that their police van turned from Dundas Street into the northbound lane of Nathan Road. When they got near Changsha Street, they stopped in front of a large number of green garbage receptacles that were placed in the middle of the street. More than one hundred demonstrators screamed to each other to surround the police van.
At that time, a 1.7-meter-tall, 20-something-year-old black-haired man wearing surgical mask, grey shirt and black pants rushed up to slap the left side of the police van with a one-meter-long bamboo pole. Another 20-something-year-old man in surgical mask, grey hoodie and dark-colored pants with a backpack threw rocks at the front of the police van. The police officer told the other two police officers to put on their helmets and duck down. They heard the sound of objects being thrown inside the car.
Shortly afterwards a man in surgical mask, black clothes and dark-colored backpack used a one-meter-long bamboo pole to stab at the rear window of the police van in the manner of a javelin.
Although the four police officers in the van were not injured, the police van suffered serious damage, including broken windows and body dents.
The police officer sitting in the middle row said that a large amount of broken glass fell upon him. He laid down low by the car door to avoid being struck. "At the time, I was very scared of being hit. My life was being threatened."
YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpeSQl_sAuk Rioters attacking a police vehicle
(Oriental Daily) October 6, 2017.
Defendant #7 Tang King-chung testified on his own behalf. During the cross-examination, Tang said that he was too tired and needed to rest. After a break of about 30 minutes, Tang's lawyer said that Tang is tired and requested the trial to adjourn until next Monday. The prosecutor asked Tang about his state of being. Tang explained that he had worked from 12noon to 10pm the day before (October 5), went to bed at 12 midnight and woke up at 8am. Tang said that he will have to work tomorrow (October 7), but he can rest on Sunday (October 8).
The prosecutor requested Tang's bail be revoked, pointed out that his work hours yesterday were not extremely long and he had eight hours of rest which should be adequate. The prosecutor has reservations about Tang's claim and was concerned that the same thing will happen on Monday. The prosecutor said that there is no intention to punish Tang by revoking his bail, but the request was being made out of concern that Tang should not have to feel fatigued. Ultimately the judge did not revoke the bail.
Tang continued to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. He admitted that he was present in Mong Kok that night. But Tang denied that he dug up bricks or rioted.
(Oriental Daily) October 9, 2017.
Defendant #7 Tang King-chung testified that he went down with friends to Mong Kok at 1030pm on February 8, 2016. He saw a large number of police and civilians outside Langham Place, with some citizens being hit by pepper spray from the police. The police cleared the site at 12am, and so he and his friends went to play pool and darts in Sai Yee Street. At around 3am, he and his friends walked down to Fa Yuen Street and Shan Tung Street, where they saw people throwing objects and setting off fires. So he and his friends stayed to watch and film.
Tang wanted to summon police officer Wong Hing-wai who fired two shots into the air to testify, but the judge denied his request because that incident has no connection to this case.
The prosecutor read out Tang's statement to the police. Tang said that he and friends saw people throwing bricks around Sai Yeung Choi Street South at around 2am-3am on February 9. A man handed gloves to Tang and told him to help dig out bricks. Tang admitted that the statement wasa accurate, but denied that he knew that the bricks would be thrown at the police afterwards.
The police found a Whatsapp voice message on Tang's mobile phone after his arrest. There was a voice message from Tang's phone to another party, saying "We are playing riot in right now." Tang admitted in court that it was his own voice.
(Oriental Daily) October 19, 2017.
During summation, the prosecutor said that there were at least 30 individuals gathered at the scene. These individuals refused to leave upon police order and some of them engaged in acts that disturb social peace and caused property and personal injuries. Thus, there was a riot in progress. The prosecutor said that a large number of people threw objects and then pushed forward. Even if an individual did not throw objects, they are part of the riot if they pushed forward.
For this court session, defendant #1 Mo Jia-tao and defendant #7 Tang King-chung were late to arrive, causing a delay of 30 minutes. Defendant #1 explained that he forgot to wake up. Defendant #7 said that he encountered traffic problems on the way. He also said "I was not quite sure if I have to come to court today" and did so only after being reminded by other defendants. The judge said: "You can't remember the dates? Do you want me to rescind your bail?" Defendant #7 apologized quickly.
The prosecutor continued with the summation. He played a news video which showed a large number of demonstrators throwing objects at the police on Shan Tung Street. The prosecutor said: "This is surely a riot. There is no doubt that the social peace has been disturbed." The prosecutor also said that this video showed defendant #1 throwing a bamboo pole at the police.
(Oriental Daily) October 20, 2017
During summation, the prosecutor pointed that defendant #7 Tang King-chung admitted that he had dug out bricks from the sidewalk, but testified that he did it for fun and was only a spectator. The prosecutor said that Tang knew what the bricks were intended to be used for and therefore he is not a mere spectator.
The prosecutor also pointed out that Tang pointed out that police officer Wong Hing-wai fired shots near the scene that night, and this prompted Tang to act accordingly in self-defense. The prosecutor said that Tang was not near the scene when the shots were fired, and had no further knowledge about the incident. There is no evidence that the shots threatened the personal safety of Tang or his family or his friends. Therefore the prosecutor said that the court should reject Tang's defense.
(Oriental Daily) October 30, 2017.
During summation, the lawyer for defendant #3 Chung Chi-wah said that when the court considers whether the defendant was engaged in a riot, there must be consideration that while the participants may be disrupting social peace, they may not necessarily have the same goals or demands. Even if the participants charged the police line at the same time, some may be "purely expressing their discontent," some may be "going up to see if they can help" and others may be "doing whatever others are doing." Such being the case, this should not be considered an unlawful assembly or riot.
The judge said that as long as it is established that the participants charged at the police and threw objects, it is an unlawful assembly. The common goal was to disrupt social peace, and their motives are immaterial. "If one person said that he wanted to have some fun, another didn't like the way the police look at him and a third had yet another reason, then there can't be a riot? If one hundred persons are throwing bricks, and the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of them have the common purpose, then this is not a riot. Such being the case, there cannot never be a riot charge. This does not make sense!"
(Oriental Daily) October 31, 2017.
Counsel for defendant #5 Fok Ting-ho and defendant #7 Tang King-chung said during summation that the High Court had just ruled that the police can only examine the mobile phones of citizens in cases of emergency. Therefore the judge in this case should consider whether the contents of the mobile phones were admissible evidence. The prosecutor disagreed, because the two defendants volunteered to give the access codes to the police.
Counsel for defendant #7 Tang King-chung said the judge should consider the fact that the participants may not share the same purpose. Unless the prosecutor can show that share the same purpose, they cannot be said to be in a riot. For example, "they may have various reasons for throwing bottles. Maybe they are throwing bottles at the police to offer them beverage." The courtside audience erupted in laughter. The judge said: "You should go and look at the videos first."
Internet comments:
- (Local Press) June 8, 2017.
At this time, many participants in the Mong Kok incident have been sentenced to jail. Ray Wong said that Hong Kong society should not ignore the background to criticize these demonstrators. People must try to understand the needs of these young people and the oppression of the people wrought by the authorities. If the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists had not ignored the quest for universal values such as freedom, democracy and human rights by the people of Hong Kong, the people would not have chosen to defend their dignity in such a manner. The demonstrators were not looking after their personal interests; they were working for the interests of the Hong Kong Nation. All the jailed martyrs are martyrs who sacrifice themselves for the greater good. They have the will to take responsibility and therefore they are political prisoners who are being oppressed by the authorities in the name of the Law.
So far, I have been following the trials of several dozens of these so-called 'martyrs'. Every single one of them adopted the defense that it was a case of mistaken identity because they were not there, or they did not do what the police said even if they were there, or their actions were misunderstood even if they were recorded on video, or they didn't mean what they said after being cautioned, etc. Not a single one of them said anything like: "Yes, I threw bricks at the police because I was fighting for freedom, democracy, human rights and the right of unlicensed fishball vendors to sell their food anytime anywhere that they want." Not a single one of them. I guess I will wait for Ray Wong's trial to see whether he will do so. My bet is that he will seek political asylum in Taiwan and stiff his mother on the $200,000 personal bond. His rationale will be that he has much more to contribute to the War of Independence of Hong Kong from the outside in Taiwan than from inside Stanley Prison in Hong Kong.
- Martin Luther: "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."
- Defendant #5 Fok Ting-ho said things as recorded on his mobile phone such as:
"I am in Mong Kok. There is a lot of people here. A lot of police. Get people to come out. It is fun and exciting."
"Play with fire ... you too can come out here ... MK"
"Everybody can fucking be together ... you have no idea how much fun this is"
"Get some rocks .. What the fuck for? To fucking throw at the police."
He did not say:
"We must defend the right of small vendors to set up shop in Mong Kok on New Year's Day because this is the Hong Kong tradition."
"We must defend our freedoms of speech and assembly here in Mong Kok, even though the police are shooting demonstrators."
"There is strength in numbers. All pro-democracy activists should come down to Mong Kok to defend freedom, democracy and human rights."
"I have no fear of being arrested and shot at, because I know that my cause is righteous."
So how do you justify giving political asylum to Fok Ting-ho?
- (Oriental Daily) August 28, 2017.
After appearing on a radio program, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching decided that they would go to the West Kowloon Court to support the defendants in the Mong Kok riot. When they got there, they found out that the case would not be heard today. So the two left.
[747] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 10 (2017/04/27)
Top left: Chris Yung Tsz-hin
Top Right: Leo Chan Siu-kwan
Bottom left: Sung Kwan-wo
Bottom right: Lin Yun-fat
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 12, 2017.
Five defendants charged with rioting during the Mong Kok clashes last February pleaded not guilty at their District Court hearing on Friday morning.
The prosecution submitted photographs, videos and 105 video screenshots as evidence against the defendants, reported RTHK. According to Ming Pao, some of these videos were taken by police officers, while others were retrieved from the internet.
Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, Law Ho-yin, 20 and Lin Yun-fat, 26 were jointly charged with one count of rioting. Meanwhile Sung Kwan-wo, 27 and Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 48 were charged with one count of rioting each.
The prosecution told the court on Friday that Yung and Law both positioned themselves near the front of the protests and held glass bottles before they were arrested. Lin, Sung and Chan were accused of throwing bricks at police officers, reported Ming Pao.
Counsel for Yung, Sung and Chan told the court they will contest whether the trio were present at the scene of the clashes. Counsel for Law and Lin will not contest that the pair were present at the scene, but will dispute whether their actions constituted rioting.
(SCMP) May 12, 2017.
Five men accused of carrying glass bottles and throwing bricks and stones at police during last year’s Mong Kok riot denied charges of rioting on Friday. The District Court is expected to hear testimony from three senior officers who claimed to have witnessed three of the men throwing bricks, before they chased and arrested them. The two youngest defendants allegedly appear in police footage carrying glass bottles at the front line.
The case centred on clashes between police and 100 protesters – most of them wearing face masks – at the junction of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street at about 6.45am on February 9, where the two groups were separated by burning objects.
Assistant director of public prosecutions Derek Lai Kim-wah said some people were seen waving objects like sticks, while others used bricks to hit railings.
Delivery workers Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, and Law Ho-yin, 20, and worker Lin Yun-faat, 25, were jointly charged with one count of riot as prosecutors observed they were often seen together on the front line. Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 47, who is unemployed, and travel agent Sung Kwan-wo, 27, each face a separate count of the same charge.
All pleaded not guilty.
Judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che noted that the case rested on three questions: whether there was an unlawful assembly or a riot at the time; whether the defendants were present; and whether they participated.
Prosecutors will summon 15 witnesses. The court heard all five men were arrested in Mong Kok that morning on charges of unlawful assembly and assaulting police. But three of them deny having been at the alleged crime scene, while another defendant demanded prosecutors prove the scene amounted to a riot.
Opening his case, prosecutor Lai took the court through a bundle of stills from police footage to show all five had been present. “At the centre of the photo were [Yung and Law],” he said as he flipped through the album. “We invite the court to compare whether the two men in the photos were the ones sitting in the dock now.”
Videos played in court showed police issued repeated warnings for protesters to disperse. On another occasion, protesters were seen hurling objects at police before turning to run, prompting officers to rush forward.
Inspector Wang Lam testified that some of the objects hit his colleagues’ shields. “We had to avoid the flames and flying objects when we advanced,” he recalled. “I was hit three times, on my left forearm, chest and left thigh.”
(Silentmajority.hk) May 12, 2017.
Yesterday the third defendant 47-year-old unemployed man Leo Chan Siu-kwan was late by 10 minutes. Frankie Yiu Fun-che asked Chan's Senior Counsel Randy Shek about it. Shek said that the defendant was held up by traffic problems. The judge said that the case involves several defendants, so that the trial gets held up if one of them is late. If the defendant should be late again, his bail will be revoked in order to guarantee that he will be in court on time in the future.
(Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.
In the opening statement, the prosecutor said that there were about 100 persons gathered at the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street at the time. Most of these people wore surgical masks and held glass bottles and bricks in their hands. There was a pile of garbage on flames which generated a lot of smoke.
Among the five defendants, defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin and defendant #2 Law Ho-yin stood in the front, holding glass bottles in hand, while defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat held a brick-like object in this hand.
At 710am, the police took action to disperse the crowd. Defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat threw a brick at the police. Senior inspector Li Ka-chim saw it, gave chase and made the arrest. Other police officers saw defendant #3 Chan Shiu-kwan and defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo threw bricks at them and then fled. The officers subdued and arrested them.
The prosecution showed videos that lasted about 50 minutes, including the videos taken by the police and another video downloaded from the Internet. Chan Siu-kwan and Sung Kwan-wo cannot be seen on the videos, so their case will be based upon the testimonies of the police officers. In these videos, the police repeatedly told the crowd to disperse to no effect.
There was one video in which the man believed to be defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo being arrested with blood streaming down his face. The police arrested him for throwing rocks at their colleagues. The man believed to be defendant #3 Chan Siu-kwan yelled "I am open and fair. Film me!"
(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2017.
Inspector Wong Lam was cross-examined today. He said that he saw citizens filming alongside the persons in the gathering. Periodically some persons in the gathering also filmed. The Senior Counsel said that when the police dispersed the crowd, there were persons who threw objects as well as persons who were merely filming. Wong said that he couldn't see who was who.
Senior Police Officer Lee Yiu-hung testified that he was on duty at 5am in Mong Kok. He manned the police line near the Bank of China office on Nathan Road. Some rioters threw rocks at the police and set off fires in the streets. Lee and his colleagues used shields to protect themselves and issued verbal warnings. More police reinforcements arrived. Lee and his colleagues pushed the police line to Soy Street near Tung Choi Street. At 8am, Lee and his colleagues intercepted five suspects. Lee arrested defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin. On Yung's mobile phone, Lee found photos of the unlawful gathering and arson.
Under cross-examination, Lee said that defendant #1 showed him the mobile phone. Lee saw one or two photos showing an unlawful riot. However, Lee does not know whether defendant #1 took those photos or someone else forwarded them. The Senior Counsel for defendant #1 said that defendant #1 told the police that "I just finished eating and I want to take a bus/minibus" and he walked down this street "because there was no other streets opened." Lee said that defendant #1 said that he wanted to find transportation and there was no other way to go, but Lee said that there was no mention of having just eaten.
Another senior police officer Chik Kin-fai said that he manned a police line at Soy Street and Tung Choi Street. Five men looking frightened came at them and tried to sidestep the police line. Chik went up to stop and check them. Defendant #2 told Chik: "Earlier I and my friend were watching people throw rocks and set off fires." Defendant #2 showed two video clips and some photos. One video showed a taxi being destroyed and the other showed several individuals destroying a road sign.
Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part to break apart the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 wearing black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket, throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.
(Oriental Daily) May 16, 2017.
Sergeant Chan Pak-kan testified that he was on the police line at the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street at around 7am. At the time, 80 to 100 persons were gathered at Fa Yuen Street about 30 to 40 meters away. There was a damaged taxi plus burning fires between the two groups. Some people cursed the police as "Evil Police."
Chan said that he saw defendant #4 Sung Kwun-wo standing on a railing. Sung wore a green jacket, blue jeans, had short hair which was "Gel'd very high." Sung cursed the police: "May the whole families of the Evil Police die!" Then Sung got off the railing and threw a brick at the police. He missed. Chan pointed at Sung and told him not to throw any bricks.
Police officers charged to disperse the crowd. Chan followed them. At the intersection of Sai Yee Street and Soy Street, Sung was subdued by several police officers. He broke free at one point, ran a few steps and was quickly subdued again. Chan went up to offer assistance. At first, Sung was face down on the ground. Then he sat up with blood streaming down his face. Chan believed that Sung was injured in the back of his head. Chan arrested Sung.
On cross-examination, Chan said that the testimony of Chan (namely, shouting "May the whole families of the Evil Police die", Sung throwing a brick when the police advanced and Chan telling Sung not to throw bricks) was not supported by the videos taken by the police. Chan admitted that the videos did not show these details, but he denied that he lied.
The defense said that Chan's notebook, the oral statement and the court testimony contained discrepancies. Chan corrected and said: Before the police pushed forward to disperse the crowd, defendant #4 did throw a brick once. Afterwards defendant #4 was seen carrying a brick in his hand, but Chan did not see him throw it. After the police advanced, the defendant #4 threw another brick.
The defense said that defendant #4 was beaten by 6 to 7 police officers while being subdued. Chan said that his vision angle allowed to see only one police officer hit defendant #4 once. Chan is not sure how many police officers took part.
(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2017.
Senior inspector Lee Ka-chun testified that he was on the police line at Soy Street/Tung Choi Street at 7am. The police charged at the crowd at the intersection of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street. He observed defendant #5 in red clothes throwing a brick at him, so he gave chase and caught defendant #5 after 30 meters or so. He pushed defendant #5 on the ground, and asked another police officer to take custody of the arrestee while he himself moved forward to disperse the crow.
(Oriental Daily) May 18, 2017.
Sergeant Cheng Ming-fung testified today that on the morning of February 5, defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat was subdued by Senior Inspector Lee Ka-chun and arrested by Cheng Ming-fung. Under caution, defendant #4 said: "I came here after 4am. I saw other people throwing rocks. So I followed." Cheng took defendant #5 onto the bus to the Sau Mo Ping Police Station. While waiting to meet the officer on duty, Cheng took a written statement for defendant #5.
The defence said that after defendant #5 was subdued, he was punched and kicked by many police officers for 2 to 3 minutes. When defendant #5 got on the bus, he saw defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo being hit in the face. Cheng allegedly yelled at defendant #5 and others: "This is none of your business!" Cheung told Lin to lower his head and not look at others. At the police station, Cheng told Lin that his charge won't be serious, so if Lin admits to brick throwing, he will be quickly bailed out. Cheng denied that he said so.
(Oriental Daily) May 26, 2017.
Today, the court ruled that the evidence exists against the five defendants. The defendants can decided whether to testify themselves on May 29.
(Oriental Daily) May 29, 2017.
Defendant #3 Chan Siu-kwan testified on his own behalf. He said that he has not been working in recent years because he has to take care of children. Chan explained that he was influenced by Benny Tai's Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Occasionally he takes pictures at incidents related to social activism. He said that he takes videos in order to help those who are falsely accused by the police.
At around 2am on February 2, he went to film in Mong Kok. At around 7am, he was at the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street. He was ready to leave to go home to take care of the children when his wife goes to work. But his wife told him that she didn't have to go to work. Therefore Chan stayed on. At 712am, the police pushed forward. Chan ran towards Sai Yee Street. After 20 to 30 meters, he was pushed down on the ground the police, hit several times on his right leg and arrested.
Chan said that he took 18 video segments that day. He emphasized that he did not throw any bricks. His lawyer said that Chan was a "fly on the wall".
(Oriental Daily) June 6, 2017.
The prosecution said that there is no evidence that the first two defendants engaged in violence, but they were holding glass bottles in their hands. The other three defendants threw bricks. The prosecution said that even if the court is unsure whether the defendants #3 and #4 threw bricks, the charge of unlawful assembly should be considered instead.
The defence said that there is no conclusive evidence that the defendants #1 and #2 are the two men in the screen captures. The defence said that there is a convenience store in the screen captures, and it is an everyday occurrence for people to hold glass bottles in front of convenience stores. Defendant #2 may have left the scene already before the police took action.
The lawyer for the defendant #4 said that the police testimonies are inconsistent with the video. Furthermore the proposal for the alternate charge of unlawful assembly was brought up for the first time today, and it should be rejected in consideration of procedural justice.
The lawyer for the defendant #3 said that presence at the scene does not equate participation, which requires a common purpose as well as the use of force. Defendant #3 was said to be there only to film as an observer. During his testimony, defendant #3 said that he did not chant "Evil Police" that day, but he may just do so in future after being falsely charged this time.
(Oriental Daily) June 7, 2017.
Summation continued today. The second defendant Law Ho-yin was late by 10 minutes. His lawyer explained that he felt uncomfortable when he got up this morning, took medicine and rested. The judge confiscated half of his $1,000 bail.
The lawyer for the fifth defendant Lin Yun-fat said that the prosecution must prove that the defendant and the other participants share the same purpose. The television videos showed that a policeman fired twice into the air and then pointed his gun at the demonstrators. Therefore the court should consider whether the defendants were merely defending themselves. The judge pointed out that the two shots were fired at 1am on Argyle Street whereas the defendants were arrested at 7am on Soy Street/Sai Yee Street, so the time and location are sufficiently different. The defence said that the police first told the demonstrators to leave peacefully then they sent out the Special Tactical Unit a minute later to arrest people. Therefore the judge should consider whether the defendant was defending himself as opposed to participating in a riot.
(Hong Kong Free Press) July 17, 2017.
The District Court has convicted three people and acquitted two others on Monday of rioting during last February’s Mong Kok clashes, bringing the total number of rioting convictions related to the protest to eight.
Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, Law Ho-yin, 20, and Lin Yun-faat, 25, were jointly charged with one count of rioting. They were convicted of the charge. Meanwhile, Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 47, and Sung Kwan-wo, 27, were each acquitted of one count of rioting.
Upon hearing the acquittal, some audience members clapped inside the courtroom. They then gathered outside the room and congratulated Chan and Sung.
Chan said after the hearing that he would have “lost everything” had he been convicted of rioting. He said he has two young sons, and is responsible for looking after his family members.
All defendants denied the allegation earlier, contending that they were not present during the clashes or that the event did not constitute a riot.
Judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che held Monday that Yung, Law and Lin jointly participated in a riot.
The court heard that Yung and Law were filmed holding two glass bottles near the front of the crowd. But the defence lawyers questioned whether the footage was sufficient for identification purposes, as the persons in the footage were wearing surgical masks and the prosecution relied only on clothing to make its argument.
Judge Yiu held that the pair were the ones filmed in the footage, as they wore the same shirts, trousers and sneakers when they were arrested together an hour after the act was filmed. He said it is “difficult to imagine” such a coincidence. Meanwhile, Lin was accused of throwing bricks at police officers. He denied he was involved in a riot, but Judge Yiu held that Lin was “undoubtedly” participating in a riot on the basis that he was filmed among some 100 people at a standoff for around 10 minutes.
The three defendants were remanded in custody, awaiting a sentencing hearing scheduled for August 7.
Meanwhile, Judge Yiu said the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chan and Sung took part in a riot. During the trial, the prosecution relied on police testimonies saying that Sung and Chan threw bricks at police, though video footage did not capture the action.
Chan said he was only documenting the clashes as a citizen journalist. The founder of Resistance Live Media told the court earlier that his platform had posted Chan’s footage on numerous occasions, and that he had never seen Chan interfere in protests, according to Ming Pao. Judge Yiu said the testimony given by a police officer that Chan was holding a mobile phone and a brick as he ran away was “not impossible but not easy.” He said Chan would have thrown the brick earlier if he intended to do so.
The judge said he had to weigh the evidence carefully as the prosecution only relied on the testimony of one officer. Hence, he said, while it was “unwise” for Chan to run away from officers, the prosecution did not provide strong evidence that he was involved in a riot.
Meanwhile, Sung was arrested hours after the alleged offence. He was photographed being arrested with blood on his face. During the trial, the prosecution and defence showed footage of Sung during his arrest, but none of him appearing to be involved in the clashes. Sung’s lawyer argued earlier that police officers used excessive force when arresting Sung. He said news footage from Now TV showed four to five offers appearing to hit Sung on his head, back and limbs with their batons. A sergeant involved in the arrest denied the allegation. Judge Yiu acquitted Sung on the basis that there was no footage to support the charge.
(South China Morning Post) July 17, 2017.
Two men accused of taking part in the Mong Kok riot last year that shook the popular shopping district walked free on Monday as prosecutors failed to prove they were involved.
They were the first people charged with rioting over the Lunar New Year violence to be acquitted. But three other defendants in the District Court case faced possible jail time after judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che found they had carried glass bottles and hurled bricks at police during what he described as a “rather intimidating scene”. Applause erupted in the packed courtroom, with some people in the public gallery shouting “yes” when the acquittals were announced.
Mitigation submissions and sentencing for the three were adjourned until August 7, pending reports. Rioting is punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. Three men and a woman were previously jailed for between 36 and 57 months for taking part in the same riot, which escalated from a hawker control operation gone wrong and ended with more than 100 police officers injured.
The present case centred on clashes between police and 100 protesters at the junction of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street at about 6.45am on February 9, where the two sides were separated by burning objects. All five men were arrested on site. While delivery workers Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, and Law Ho-yin, 21, had argued it was a case of mistaken identity, the judge found they were properly identified in footage of the frontline of the stand-off, with glass bottles in their hands as if they were ready to strike.
Yiu also found that worker Lin Yun-faat, 25, was without doubt a participant when he threw bricks at officers. Lin himself had admitted hurling bricks four or five times during a police interview that he failed to strike out from evidence. Yiu said there was a substantive breach of peace that morning and the scene amounted to a riot, with the men sharing a collective aim of defying police officers in their attempt to restore order. Together the three men were convicted of a joint rioting charge.
But the judge sided with the defence in acquitting Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 47, who is unemployed, and travel agent Sung Kwan-wo, 27, of rioting because he could not ascertain their roles and behaviour in the protest.
Chan, who was arrested after he ran away during a police chase, claimed he was filming events. He had testified that since the Occupy pro-democracy protests in 2014 he had recorded more than 200 public order events as a citizen journalist. In January, a wedding photographer was similarly acquitted of assaulting police during the riot after a lower court found the police might have misidentified the attacker.
Outside court, Chan said he might lodge a complaint against the sergeant who testified against him. “I’d like to ask [the sergeant], how can you face your family and children after committing such despicable behaviour?” he told reporters. “Do you have a conscience?” Chan also said he did not feel the verdict had brought him justice, given the impact of the prosecution on his future. But he said he would not be deterred from filming again. “I won’t stop because of the risk,” he said. “I won’t run away from police any more.”
(Oriental Daily) August 7, 2017.
Defendants Chris Yung Tsz-hin, Law Ho-yin and Lin Yun-faat.The judge said that about 100 persons were assembled at the time of the arrests. Most of these people wore masks, some held bricks and bottles and some were setting off fires and destroying properties (such as a taxi). They confronted the police for about 20 minutes. When the police took action, these people threw bricks at the police.
The probation officer's report recommended that 18-year-old Chris Yung Tsz-hin be sent to a training centre. The defense said that Yung had behavioral problems as a child. Although Yung was holding a glass bottle at the time, it was not certain whether he had thrown it. Generally speaking, a person will have to serve in a training centre between 6 months to 3 years. Since the starting point of the sentence is 3 years, this may be appropriate. The judge point out that the probation officers said that the attitude of Yung has been rash, with "not much reflection." The defense said that Yung has been deeply worried for more than a year, because he recognized that he had made a huge mistake. The judge sentenced Yung to a correctional institution.
The probation officer's report did not recommend 21-year-old Law Ho-yin to be sentenced to a training centre. The defense said that Law's role was inactive. Even though the other demonstrators took action, Law did not do anything disruptive. The judge sentenced Law Ho-yin to three years in jail.
As for 25-year-old Lin Yun-faat, the defense said that he arrived in Hong Kong in 1997 and got very interested in history. On the night of the incident, he saw the police fire shots into the air. He thought that the political situation may be changing, so he went down to the scene to observe. The defense said that Lin does not hate the police, is not influenced by any political group and has no intention of creating anarchy. The defense cited the 1967 riot in which people used home-made bombs, compared to throwing bricks this time. Based upon case precedents, the defense argued that Lin should not be sentenced to more than 2 years. The judge sentenced Lin Yun-fat to three years in jail.
(SCMP) August 7, 2017.
In a first for the criminal cases emanating from last year’s Mong Kok disturbances, a rioter was on Monday spared jail and sent instead to a training centre.
The man’s two co-defendants were jailed for three years for carrying glass bottles and hurling bricks at police during the disturbance in the popular Kowloon shopping district over the Lunar New Year period.
Judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che said rioting is a serious crime, as it can quickly spread and cause widespread damage in a city as small and crowded as Hong Kong. But he acknowledged the three men’s involvement was not premeditated and the level of violence was moderate.
He sentenced delivery man Law Ho-yin, 21, and worker Lin Yun-faat, 26, to three years in prison. But he sent 19-year-old delivery man Chris Yung Tsz-hin to a training centre. Yung is the first person convicted of rioting that night not sent to prison.
Law, Lin and Yung were convicted last month on one joint count of riot, an offence punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.
The three men’s case centred on clashes between police and 100 protesters at the junction of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street at about 6.45am on February 9, where the two crowds were separated by burning objects.
The District Court heard all three were stood on the front line of the riot. Lin threw bricks at officers, while the other two wielded glass bottles as though ready to strike.
The judge initially adopted a starting point of three years and six months for the sentence. But he reduced that by six months after noting Law did nothing beyond holding the glass bottles, and Lin had a good background.
Sentencing reports recommended the training centre for Yung, whose counsel revealed that he had had behavioural issues since he was a child, leading to past convictions. “It remains uncertain if he threw the glass bottle,” Yung’s lawyer Cheung Yiu-leung said. “Considering the [sentencing] report recommended a training centre order... instead of sending him to an adult prison, I’d suggest Your Lordship adopt the report recommendation.”
Convicts can spend anywhere between six months and three years at training centres, which are intended to rehabilitate people between the ages of 14 and 20. Terms there are followed by three years’ supervision.
Michael Leung, for Law, revealed the probation officer did not recommend a training centre due to his client’s age.
Lin’s lawyer Douglas Kwok King-hin asked for a sentence of no more than two years for his client, citing the historical precedent that even the leader of the 1967 riots got no more than that, despite it being a more serious riot involving home-made bombs. The court also heard that Lin, who had no prior convictions, had no affiliation with any political parties or pressure groups, and knew no one at the riot. Lin wrote in mitigation that he went to the scene after seeing police pointing guns at civilians and firing shots into the air. Kwok said Lin’s actions were influenced by the atmosphere at the time, and he had not intended to breach the peace.
(Oriental Daily) February 8, 2018.
Law Ho-yin applied for bail pending the appeal of his sentence, but the Court of Appeal judge turned donw. Law will continue to serve his sentence.
Internet comments:
- Here is the on.cc video that was submitted into evidence. A screen capture from that video shows some people holding glass bottles in their hands.
- Here are some photos from the on.cc news report. Was there an unlawful gathering or not? Was there a riot or not? What do your lying eyes tell you?
- The argument is not to deny that there was a riot somewhere sometime that night. The argument is whether there was a riot at the precise moment when the defendant was arrested. A short while before that, glass bottles were raining on the police and fires were ablaze in Fa Yuen Street. There was a riot. Then came a short lull. The police organized, charged and arrested certain individuals. Were they in a riot?
- (Oriental Daily) Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part in the police action to disperse the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 with black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket, throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.
- Unclear? let Google Map help you. You are running down Soy Street chasing after a suspect 30 meters ahead. The suspect reaches the cross street Sai Yee Street and turns left. Do you lose line-of-sight of him?
- (Ming Pao) August 7, 2017. The judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che said that the defendant Chris Yung Tsz-hin has four prior criminal records, including theft and common assault. The defendant Law Ho-yin has four prior criminal records, including theft and injuring a person, plus a stay at a drug rehabilitation centre in 2015. The defendant Lin Yun-faat has no criminal record.
- Indeed, these are your typical high-education, high-income pro-democracy activists.
(Oriental Daily) August 7, 2017. The defense said that the defendant Chris Yung Tsz-hin had behavioral problems as a child.
- The Yellow Ribbons always insist that they have "high education, high income, high quality" compared to the Blue Ribbons. But every time they wind up in court, it is always the case that they have long criminal records and/or mental problems and/or they were mistakenly caught in all innocence.
[746] July 1st March (2017/05/11)
(SCMP) May 11, 2017.
Hong Kong’s annual pro-democracy march on July 1 may be unable to start at Victoria Park because a pro-Beijing group celebrating the 20th anniversary of the city’s return to China has been given priority.
Au Nok-hin, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, queried the decision by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which is responsible for allocating the venue.
The front applied for use of the six football pitches at the Causeway Park as it has done since 2004.
“A department member of staff called us yesterday telling us that they would allocate the football pitches to another group based on an internal guideline, which said if two groups applied for using the same venue at the same time, consideration would be based on the ‘nature of the organisation’,” Au said on Wednesday. The department had yet to approve the use of the lawn, which would accommodate a much smaller crowd.
It is widely understood that President Xi Jinping will be in Hong Kong that day to mark the anniversary.
“Is the government trying to shut out opposing voices when the state leader is in town? Is it only allowing celebrations but no demonstration? I don’t rule out political factors are in play,” Au said.
The group given use of the park’s six football pitches is the Hong Kong Celebrations Association, which is composed of 40 pro-Beijing groups, including business chambers and the Federation of Trade Unions. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, are the honorary patrons.
The front has used pitches at the park, which can accommodate tens of thousands of people, as the starting point for marches since 2004.
The pro-democracy marches, which have been held since the 1997 handover, became increasingly significant in 2003 after drawing 500,000 protesters against the introduction of a national security law and in the wake of severe acute respiratory syndrome.
The front submitted its application for renting the pitches on the earliest possible date, three months in advance in April. However the department said the association submitted its application to hold a science expo on March 15, before that of the front.
Au said the pro-Beijing association had always leased the pitches in the morning, and the front occupied the area for the march in the afternoon. Now the association has applied to occupy it in the afternoon too – obviously they planned to kick us out,” Au said.
Tam Yiu-chung, honorary president of the association, said it was reasonable to grant the venue to his group because it was “representative”. “The march can always go elsewhere,” he said.
A police insider said the leisure department had sought security advice from the force about the application and there had been no objections. A police spokesman said: “Police earlier received a department’s request for comments regarding an organisation’s plan to hold activities at Victoria Park on July 1. Police have already replied to the department.”
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 11, 2017.
The organisers of Hong Kong’s annual July 1 democracy rally have questioned the government’s explanation that the protest’s starting venue – Causeway Bay’s Victoria Park – has already been promised to a pro-Beijing group.
The Civil Human Rights Front announced on Wednesday afternoon that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) rejected its application because the Hong Kong Celebrations Association – a charity – has “priority consideration.”
Responding to HKFP’s enquiries, an LCSD spokesperson told HKFP that it accepted the Association’s request in accordance with its published guidelines, since the Association is a registered charity and the Front is not. The department received an application from the Association on March 15 to hold a science and technology exhibition named “Innovation Drives the Achievement of Dreams” from late June to early July at Victoria Park’s six football pitches.
The spokesperson said the exhibition is part of a series of events celebrating the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China. She added that the Front applied for use of the six football pitches, the central lawn and the bandstand under the organisation Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union on April 3 – but neither the Front nor the Union are registered charities. “If the union chooses to stage an activity at the central lawn and bandstand areas of Victoria Park, the department will reconsider its request,” she said. “[The department] will take into account factors such as the flow of people, traffic and public order, and consult other government departments for their opinions.”
At a press conference on Thursday, Front convener Au Nok-hin agreed that charities have priority over regular organisations, but questioned whether the activities described by the LCSD would be related to charity at all.
“The purpose of the Association’s activity this time is clear: it’s to celebrate the handover,” said Au. “How is celebrating the handover related to charity? Is it donating any money to disadvantaged communities? We don’t see that at the moment.”
“The nature of the activity is an innovation and technology exhibition. How is innovation and technology exhibition related to charity?” he asked. “There is no way [the Front] can use a registered charity to organise the July 1 rally, because charities cannot organise political rallies.”
Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. “We told the LCSD before our New Year’s rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.”
He asked the LCSD to clarify its claim that the Association had booked the Victoria Park football courts in late June. “When we speak about a ‘late’ period in a month, we usually mean after the 20th day. So when you say the LCSD received an application on March 15 for an event on [June] 20, then this will not have fallen within the three-month timeframe for application.”
As the park has been the rally’s traditional stating point for many years, Au said there could be “factors of uncertainty” if people went there and discovered it was holding an exhibition. “We don’t want to add all this trouble to the police and the public,” he said. “We don’t have a clear Plan B.”
Au said the Front applied for the use of Victoria Park’s central lawn and bandstand areas again on Wednesday. He said he would also reach out to the Association to try and coordinate their activities together.
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 26, 2017.
The organisers of Hong Kong’s July 1 democracy rally have been told they can gather on Victoria Park’s lawn, two weeks after they revealed that their traditional starting point – the football courts – had been booked by a pro-Beijing group. However, the police have vetoed the Civil Human Rights Front’s application to gather even more protesters at Causeway Bay’s Great George Street and on East Point Road.
The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) told the Front on Wednesday it would also be allowed use of Victoria Park’s bandstand – but not the area around the water fountains. The parties have not yet agreed on the route of the annual march, said the Front in a press release. The police plan to use the park’s water fountain area as a barrier to separate protesters from visitors to the technology exhibition – a proposal that the Front said would further complicate crowd movement.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 28, 2017.
The student unions of 12 Hong Kong universities and tertiary institutions will not join this year’s July 1 democracy march, the unions announced in a joint statement on Tuesday.
Instead, they will hold a discussion forum featuring academics and localist figures on the 20th anniversary of the city’s transfer of sovereignty.
The 12 universities and institutions are: City University, Hang Seng Management College, Baptist University, the University of Science and Technology, Chu Hai College, the Technological and Higher Education Institute, the Academy for Performing Arts, Education University, the University of Hong Kong, Open University, Shue Yan University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Although representatives of Lingnan University’s student union attended a joint press conference on Tuesday in which student leaders said they will opt out of the march, it later posted a statement saying that it will in fact attend. “Because of an error in communication, we misled the public to believe that all higher institutions will not join the Civil Human Rights Front’s July 1 democracy march.”
Explaining the unions’ collective decision at the press conference, University of Hong Kong student union president Wong Ching-tak said the groups were sceptical about advocating the Basic Law as a way of protecting the city.
“The Civil Human Rights Front… is still talking about how the Basic Law can protect Hongkongers’ interests,” he said. “This is different from what we believe.”
In a statement posted Tuesday by the Hong Kong Federation of Students, the 13 unions – including Lingnan University – also criticised the city’s lack of control over mainland Chinese immigration and investment.
“Our Hong Kong identity is perpetually suppressed under the attempts to introduce national education to indoctrinate Chinese identity and Putonghua as the medium of instruction to debase Cantonese that is our mother tongue,” it read. “While we are suffering from such re-colonisation, the Basic Law and the framework of One Country, Two Systems have never been the bastion protecting us.”
Internet comments:
- (Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.
Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that they have been able to procure the Victoria Park soccer fields as the starting point of their demonstration marches over the years. Thus the rejection of their application this time is unprecedented. He questioned whether the decision was based upon "political considerations" of not wanting citizens to protest against the government. He said: "Only the government officials are allowed to celebrate the handover, but the citizens are not allowed to march."
As long as the Civil Human Rights Front stay within the law, nobody is going to stop them from demonstrating or marching. But the Civil Human Rights Front cannot force the government or other organizations to reserve Victoria Park for their own exclusive use. In this case, the Civil Human Rights Front made procedural mistakes (both in terms of the timing of the application and the identity of the applicant). But they are blaming the government and others for having nefarious purposes.
Actually, why must the Civil Human Rights Front march start off from Victoria Park? Why can't it be Kowloon Park? Tin Shui Wai? Is Victoria Park their exclusive domain? Is the true slogan: "Only the Civil Human Rights Front can march, but nobody else can celebrate the handover"?
The reason why the Civil Human Rights Front seemed so upset is that they want to hype up the July 1st march. At the present time, people are sick of the political fights. Everybody knows that it will be hard to mobilize supporters to come out to march. So instead of reporting five times the number of participants, they might have to report ten times as many. They are using the Victoria Park venue issue to generate the sense of tragedy and mobilize their supporters.
- Demosisto Facebook
First time since the transfer of sovereignty
July 1st march not permitted to assemble in Victoria Park
This year I will definitely march!- In his press conference, Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that Chief Executive elect Carrie Lam has been talking about a Great Reconciliation on one hand, but she is not letting the Civil Human Rights Front using Victoria Park on the other hand. Therefore Carrie Lam is insincere about the Great Reconciliation.
- Eh, first of all, this supposes that the Chief Executive-elect is already interceding with the Leisure and Cultural Services over the permission to use a sports facility. If so, Carrie Lam must be a very busy beaver with a million things to micro-manage when in fact none of these government departments are reporting to her as yet. She is only the Chief Executive-elect; she is not the Chief Executive.
- If Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam intercedes now and asks Chief Executive CY Leung and the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to let the Civil Human Rights Front use the Victoria Park soccer fields on the afternoon of July 1st, do you think that the Great Reconciliation will be even an inch closer? The nature of the July 1st march is an anti-government demonstration march. Why would Carrie Lam be interested in assisting these people to inflame hatred against her incoming administration?
- Why does Au Nok-hin talk as if the Civil Human Rights Front has presumptive rights on the use of a public sports facility? Over the years, the Civil Human Rights Front talked about fighting for democracy, justice and human rights. But it seems that they behave more like a hegemon that everybody else has to bow to.
- Democracy? Cheng Yiu-tong pointed out that more people want to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover than march against Carrie Lam. Justice? Please read the guidelines of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department on booking sports/recreational facilities. Human rights? All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
- (Leisure and Cultural Services Department) Guide to the booking procedure for use of non-fee charging recreation and sports facilities.
Three-month in advance
Recreation and sports facilities may be reserved three months in advance for championships, leagues, and training events promoted or organized in order of priority by –
(a) Community Tai Chi Clubs under the LCSD Community Tai Chi Club Scheme at their regular training/practice venues and time.
(b) Subvented non-governmental organisations registered with Social Welfare Department and charitable organisations registered with the Inland Revenue Department.
(c) Affiliated clubs of National Sports Associations, registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.
(d) Government departments (including trading fund departments), public/statutory bodies organising departmental/public functions.
(e) Bona fide associations and corporations (including government staff clubs/unions) and offices of District Council members, may also apply for use of recreation and sports facilities. To qualify as bona fide associations and corporations, applicants should be registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.
Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015).
- The Hong Kong Celebrations Association is in priority category (b) as a charitable organisation registered with the Inland Revenue Department. The Civil Human Rights Front filed under the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union which is in priority (e) as a bona fide association with a Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance. (b) has higher priority than (e).
If you upset the priority system and take (e) over (b), then you are destroying rule-of-law.
- How would you choose? The Hong Kong Celebrations Association or the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union?
- The only thing that Ap Lei Chau is famous for is Leung Chung-hang's claim that "republic of China" is pronounced as "re-fucking of Chee-na" in Ap Lei Chau accent (note: there is no such accent).
- "Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015)." That means bookings for July 1 2017 should reach the booking office between 1 and 31 March 2017. The Civil Human Rights Front submitted their application on April 3 2017. That is to say, they were late.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. “We told the LCSD before our New Year’s rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.”
The Front was not prevented from applying until April. They were told in January to apply three months beforehand. Unfortunately, the guy can't even count three months.
The Guide gives the example:
Bookings for May 2015 should be made in January 2015
Let me walk you through how to book for July 1st 2017:
Bookings for May 2017 should be made in January 2017
Bookings for June 2017 should be made in February 2017
Bookings for July 2017 should made in March 2017I think that this question is too easy even for the Primary 3 Basic Competency Assessment (BCA) test. But Au Nok-hin and the rest of the Civil Human Rights Front leaders think that the answer is April 2017.
- Au Nok-hin knows very well that there is no possible judicial review. The Guide by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department clearly states the timing and the priority scheme.
They could have filed their application on March 1, but it would be harder to move up the priority list. Subvented non-government organisations and charitable organisations cannot engage in political activities.
- Why did they use the Ap Lei Chau Community Union to apply? Because Au Nok-hin is a member of that organization and a Southern District Councilor, and he wants to give the organization as well as himself a boost. Yes, it is known as nepotism.
- Here is the weirdest part: Au Nok-hin started off with questioning what kind of charitable organization the Hong Kong Celebrations Association is. Once he realized that he does not have a Plan B for the July 1st march, he proposed that the Hong Kong Celebrations Association yield the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Front on July 1st as a gesture of Love and Peace. Bwaaaahhhhh!
- You said that they were Dark and Evil before, so how are they going to find Love and Peace in their hearts? Given their essential nature, you have just slapped them a minute ago and now you want them to make you happy? A sincere apology and some nice words would be in order first.
- (Ming Pao) Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that if the Hong Kong Celebrations Association refuse to let them use Victoria Park, their march will have starting points that "bloom like flowers everywhere", including East Point Road, Great George Street and the Central Library.
- Au Nok-hin also urged participants not to clash with other persons. This is saying the opposite -- he wants clashes to show that denying the Civil Human Rights Front has bad consequences, so they will get Victoria Park next year.
- (Sing Tao Daily) May 13, 2017. Hong Kong Celebrations Association executive chairman Cheng Yiu-tong refused to lend space to the Civil Human Rights Front, saying that there could be fights between the two groups. Au Nok-hin re-emphasized that they are not using force to use Victoria Park because the Civil Human Rights Front does not have exclusive rights there. They are presently negotiating with the police to use multiple starting points in Causeway Bay. As for Cheng Yiu-tong saying that the science/technology expo of the Hong Kong Celebrations Association includes exhibits of Chinese space technology and performances by robots, Au Nok-hin said that it is sad that the exhibitions are being used as political pawns.
- I believe that the use of the facilities should be awarded to whoever ranks higher on the priority list and applies on time. The Hong Kong Celebrations Association ranks higher on the priority list and applied on time. The Civil Human Rights Front ranked lower on the priority list and applied late. If the Leisure and Cultural Services Department awarded the use of the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Front, it would be a clear political decision in which they contravened all the rules and procedures that they published beforehand.
- The Civil Human Rights Front is asking the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to lend them parts of the soccer fields for their July 1st march. Suppose Au Nok-hin rents a Leisure and Cultural Services badminton court for 60 minutes next Tuesday, but some guy comes along and said that they want to use half of the court. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES. Would Au Nok-hin agree?
- Au Nok-hin felt that it was a political decision to let the Hong Kong Celebrations Association use the soccer fields. The supposition is that the Civil Human Rights Front has always used the Victoria Park soccer fields on July 1st afternoons and therefore any other decision must be political. But what if they were to hold the Homeless World Cup in Victoria Park? Will the Civil Human Rights Front still insist that this was a political decision? Will these homeless people be called political henchmen?
[745] The Raid On Hidden Agenda (2017/05/08)
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 8, 2017.
Independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Tuesday night by police, hygiene and land officials, who demanded it to stop operating as a performance venue.
The raid took place during a concert by Canadian and Hong Kong bands Braids and So It Goes. A Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) official posed as a concert-goer, and purchased a ticket as evidence that the venue held performances without a place of public entertainment licence.
The concert went ahead successfully after the disturbance. “Not even the police or the so-called government can ruin tonight for us,” said So It Goes on Facebook.
Hidden Agenda has only opened at its current Kwun Tong location – the fourth in its history – since December, following a HK$500,000 public fundraiser. It returned its previous venue to its landlord after receiving multiple warnings from the Lands Department, which said that it had violated the terms of its land lease.
It now operates officially as a takeaway food stall, after successfully obtaining a food factory licence from the FEHD. It does not have a place of public entertainment licence, as it is located in an industrial building.
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 8, 2017.
Hong Kong independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Sunday night, leading to the arrests of a reported seven people – including British and American performers and venue founder Hui Chung-wo.
Concert-goers live-streaming the incident said that Immigration Department officials raided the venue after the concert was over under the suspicion that overseas performers did not possess work visas. They demanded to conduct an investigation on the premises. Police later received a report of fighting. Officers with riot shields and police dogs responded.
The evening’s concert at the Kwun Tong industrial building venue featured British band This Town Needs Guns and US act Mylets, as well as Hong Kong group Emptybottles.
Hidden Agenda claimed that seven arrests were made: Hui, another venue staffer, a member of the audience, all three members UK outfit This Town Needs Guns, and the sole member of Mylets – an American. Police confirmed that Hui and another staffer had been charged with obstructing a police officer, and a third staff member was charged with common assault.
Live-streaming videos showed Hidden Agenda founder Hui dragged out from a crowd of people by several police officers. He later sat down on the floor, demanding to have his injuries examined – but was then taken away in a police van.
A police spokesperson told HKFP that they were called to the scene at 11:49pm to attend to a case of fighting involving over 10 people. The spokesperson said that two people were injured, and that there were still some 30 to 40 people at the scene as of 1:00am. “Police have the situation under control,” she said.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 6, 2017.
Members of British and American bands TTNG and Mylets have been ordered to return to Hong Kong in July after they were arrested for performing without a work visa last month. The four musicians were among seven arrested in a high-profile raid on Kwun Tong’s independent live house Hidden Agenda on the night of May 7. The Immigration Department told HKFP they were suspected of breaching their conditions of stay, while venue owner Hui Chung-wo faced four immigration charges including employing illegal workers.
They had originally been told to return to Hong Kong to report to the Immigration Department this Monday, and set a £5,000 (HK$50,100) crowdfunding goal for travel and other costs. But on Monday, TTNG wrote on Facebook that their bail had been extended to July 17. “The airline is allowing us to amend the date of our existing flights, but sadly this has added unforeseen extra costs due to increased ticket prices and change fees,” they added. The musicians have crowdfunded a total of £7,470 (HK$75,000) from fans as of Monday afternoon.
Last week, Hidden Agenda owner Hui told the media it may close down in mid-July, after a number of overseas bands cancelled scheduled performances in the wake of the arrests. Hui says he must also pay for over HK$100,000 in losses due to the cancellations, as well as an encumbrance order from the Lands Department.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vNI2xMG99c
Internet comments:
- TTNG Facebook
First of all, we would like to thank our fans for their love and support, Hong Kong Legislators and legal team for their assistance and the media for their concern. After being held in custody for a few hours, we have been released on bail. We will head back to the UK and the USA respectively on Tuesday 9th of May and Wednesday 10th of May, and will be returning to Hong Kong to report back to the Immigration Department on 5th of June.
After last night’s event, we have learnt that it is extremely difficult for musicians to thrive in Hong Kong. It requires an incredible amount of strength and passion to persevere. Hong Kong as we know as an international city with freedom and diversity, should give greater room for creative works and performance to flourish.
That said, we shall not be discouraged, instead we will continue to travel and share our music with the world. We sincerely hope that we will be welcomed by more fans and music lovers rather than law enforcers at our possible future performances in Hong Kong.
Thank you for your support! We are so grateful for how helpful and supportive everyone has been to us. We are thankful for the kindness and compassion everyone in Hong Kong has shown to us.
- TTNG, Mylets
- (Discuss.com.hk)
Load of shits.
No one is privileged!
Abide by the LAW. Get the proper visa then do whatever LAW allowed!
Fucking lawless POMs go home!- Hidden Agenda's Facebook
- (Oriental Daily) Here is a photo from inside the "takeaway food stall":
- Did the police overreact with several vanloads of police officers and even a canine?
(Oriental Daily) At around 11pm, the Immigration Department officers identified themselves and wanted to take the bands and the organizer named Hui away. There was pushing and shoving. More than 100 audience members were in an uproar. An Immigration Department worker was injured in the back and knee. The Immigration Department workers called the police.
Should the police have just sent two patrolmen down to the scene to see what is going on? What kind of force should they send after a report from Immigration Department workers saying that they are being surrounded and assaulted by a mob of over 100 persons?
- (Passion Times) At around midnight, a 22-year-old woman was robbed by a man of her mobile phone and bank cards by a man on the pedestrian overpass on Kwun Tong Road in Ngau Tau Kok district. She was then taken nearby and raped.
Comment: The police were too busy raiding Hidden Agenda. Therefore the robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was the police's fault.
- I think that you have the story completely wrong. What happened was that the police had full patrol coverage of the Kwun Tong district including Ngau Tau Kok. Suddenly at 11pm, the HA staff began to assault the Immigration Department workers. All police officers on patrol were dispatched to the scene of a potential riot. As a result, the other areas were not patrolled for a brief period of time. The robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was HA's fault.
- First, there was a visit from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Next, there is a visit from the Immigration Department. Who's coming next? My bet is on the Fire Services Department checking for fire code violations.
- On the afternoon on the next day, two Fire Services Department workers and the Kwun Tong Organized Crime Unit showed up at Hidden Agenda. It is not known what, if anything, they found. Of course, once the public suspects that the venue does not meet the fire code for holding an event with hundreds of participants and so informs the fire department, the fire department would be delinquent if they failed to follow up and then something bad happens later.
- (SCMP) Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has defended the arrest of several foreign musicians and an indie club’s founder, saying the city’s rules on immigration and safety at industrial buildings must not be ignored. He said: “Our policy of revitalising industrial buildings has been a success, but our policy does not mean that you can use the industrial buildings however you like. We must consider the safety of the buildings’ users, for example the bands and the audience they attracted.” He added that the government had stopped other unlawful use of industrial spaces in the past, even in buildings under the revitalisation programme. “Under our immigration policy, anyone who comes to Hong Kong must obtain a work visa,” he said.
- The Immigration Department and the Hong Kong Police Force were very unfair in how they dealt with HA and its guests. They claim that they were enforcing the law. But based upon prior cases in common law, they are selectively lenient here.
(China Post) April 8, 2016.
Hong Kong authorities have sentenced Taiwanese model Cindy (星野優) to two months behind bars for working illegally, Hong Kong's Sing Tao Daily (星島日報) reported on Thursday. Cindy, whose real name is Tang Tzu-han (唐子涵), had appeared in the early episodes of variety show "Blackie's Teenage Club" (我愛黑澀會) and went on to a career in sensual photography.
A court in Hong Kong's Sha Tin District has sentenced Tang to two months in prison for working in Hong Kong without a permit, according to the Sing Tao Daily.
The newspaper reported that Tang, 32, arrived in Hong Kong on April 1 for what she said was a three-day photo shoot. At 7 p.m. the same day, Tang and the Japanese model Tomomi attended an event held by a Hong Kong photography association in a hotel room, the report said. They were apprehended by an undercover border official and sent to authorities for questioning, according to Sing Tao Daily.
According to Hong Kong media, Tang had expected payment of NT$8,000 for participating in the event. Entering Hong Kong to work without a permit is subject to a fine of up to HKD$50,000 (NT$209,000) and up to two years behind bars.
In the case of the three members of TTNG and one member of Mylets, they were clearly working illegally. But they are now allowed to continue to travel abroad for their tours while on bail.
- Fact: If these four individuals are mainland Chinese citizens, the standard treatment for working illegally and violating the condition of stay would be two months of jail followed by immediate expulsion with a lifetime ban against re-entry.
- The case has been elevated to government suppression of the culture industry. Let me understand this: when the Immigration Department goes after musicians with no work visas, they are suppressing the culture industry. So when the Immigration Department inspectors go to construction sites to check for illegal workers, they are suppressing the construction industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to restaurants to check for illegal dishwashers, they are suppressing the food/beverage catering industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to round up mainland prostitutes, they are suppressing sex. Etc etc.
- In order to stop the suppressions, the Immigration Department inspectors should just stay in their offices and play mahjong.
- (HKG Pao) The Civic Party rushed over to take media attention on this case. First of all, legislator Jeremy Tam showed up at the scene to "provide assistance," made a live broadcast from the scene, questioned whether this was suppression and challenged government policies on industrial building and work visas. Next, legislator and party chief Alvin Yeung wrote on Facebook that the government is suppressing the culture industry. Legislator and barrister Tanya Chan represented some of the arrestees. Tam and Chan also faced the media at the Legislative Council building to challenge what the Immigration Department and Police did.
Based upon what these Civic Party politicians are saying, anyone who is in Hong Kong for cultural reasons does not need to have a work visa. The Immigration Department acted as a result of a tip that HA was hiring musicians without work visas. What the Civic Party is saying that as soon as the Immigration Department realizes that these people are musicians, they should have walked away.
Let me ask another question: The four musicians are British/American; what if they are mainland Chinese musicians? Will the Civic Party be so hot on defending the rights of mainland Chinese musicians coming to play in Hong Kong for pay without work visas?
- According to an Immigration Department investigation director, this was a routine law enforcement action. But this one was hijacked by a political party with ulterior motives so that the case is being packaged with politics. The result is the demoralization of the frontline Immigration Department workers, and the destruction of public trust in law enforcement.
This Immigration Department investigation director emphasized that the four foreigners did not have work visas, in clear violation of the Immigration Ordinance. If these foreigners want to work, they should apply for work visas from the Immigration Department. The process takes four to six weeks, and there are ways of expediting the process. But in the current case, the arrestees never applied for work visas.
- A question for the Civic Party lawyers. Music has no borders, and therefore musicians should be able to cross borders at will to play their music to audiences in different nations. Does that mean that a Hong Kong band can travel to the United Kingdom or United States and play their music without bothering with things like work visas?
- Here is the UK Border Agency on Entering the UK as an entertainer or an artist. And they haven't even gotten into the small matter of taxes yet.
- On the same day, there was another case of a business being busted by a Customs Department undercover agent. A complaint had been lodged against a certain restaurant for false advertising. An agent went and ordered Abalone Fukien Fried Rice, and took a sample back for laboratory analysis. There was no abalone in the food. Today, the restaurant manager faced the press and acknowledged that they broke the law in order to increase profits. The restaurant was fined $5,000. On the Internet, they praised the restaurant for owning up to its mistake.
Why doesn't HA have the courage to admit that they broke the law?
- Are you pretending to be stupid here? The answer is so simple. If you engage in false advertising, you will only be fined a few thousand dollars. If you confess and apologize properly, the publicity would be worth a lot more than the fine. But if an employer hire workers with no work visas, the workers go to jail for 2 months and the employer goes to jail for 3 months. These penalties are unbearable. So this is when rule-of-law goes out of the window/down the toilet.
- If you want the Gold Standard of how to apologize if you must, then the unanimous choice is Leon Lai. No amount of money can buy the goodwill that came out from the public.
- The Immigration Department said that HA had previously applied successfully for work visas for their foreign musicians. So it is not as if this was impossible. But in this case they got lazy and decided to take a chance.
- On next Wednesday, Hidden Agenda has scheduled the Finnish band Insomnium to play. According to the organizers, they are undecided as to whether or not to proceed.
- The case of TTNG/Mylets is worse in that HA never even bothered to apply for work visas. A much better defense would be something like: "We applied in November and we haven't received any response one way or the other." HA just didn't fucking care!
- (Headline Daily) May 11, 2017.
What can HA do? They should not ignore the law and do whatever they want, as in hiring foreign bands without worrying about work visas or holding concerts without worrying about property use restrictions or doing whatever they want because someone is willing to play music and others are willing to pay to listen. What can HA do? Since some legislative councilors support them, they should ask these legislative councilors and other music fans to fight for more public performance space.
As for those legislative councilors who are so sharply critical of the government, they should know the facts first before they speak. How many people were present at the concert? If several hundred people are squeezed into one industrial building unit, are there safety problems? When the government revitalize an industrial buildings, should they ignore all the land use restrictions in the books? Can any and all activities be allowed in these industrial buildings? Legislative councilor Tanya Chan said that "it is hard to say whether the four foreign musicians were working commercially or engaged in cultural exchange", and that the government is trying to eliminate the space of survival for performance arts in industrial buildings. But this concert charges admission fees to the tune of $380 per head, so was it just cultural exchange?
Today, it is the easiest thing in the word to criticize the government. It is cost-free. But if Tanya Chan and Jeremy Tam really want to help local performance groups and musicians, they should not stop with just voicing some support in a single case. They should pressure the government to provide more performance venues for musicians. If HA wants to a space for survival, they should ask these legislators to apply pressure on the government. This is better than hiring illegal workers to hold unlawful concerts.
- Indie music concerts must have low admission prices and are therefore not very profitable. The way to make money is to rent improper venues and get expelled. That will allow you to solicit donations in order to locate another (improper) venue and repeat the cycle.
- Well, the Immigration Department is not omnipresent. How would they know that you have foreign visitor-musicians playing for you? Somebody must have lodged a complaint with them. Once the complaint is logged into the system, they must investigate. And if the investigation yields evidence that supports the complaint, they must take action. So who lodged that complaint? People who hate HA? Or HA themselves?
- It used to be that an employer hires illegal workers and promises to pay at the end of the month. When the end of the month approaches, the employer gives an anonymous tip to the Immigration Department to arrest the illegal workers and deport them. The now departed workers do not get the money owed them. Employers do so because they are not penalized under the old law. Under the current law, employers face huge penalties. For example, in the case of the Taiwanese/Japanese models, the two girls got 2 months in prison and the two employers got 3 months in prison.
- This event had more than 100 persons in attendance. The entrance fees are $280 (advance booking), $380 (walk-in), $200 (student). This means that Hidden Agenda took in more than $30,000 this night. That may seem a lot to a person, but this is not a lot when divvied up between the organization which has to pay rent, utilities and salaries and the appearance fees for the three bands (TNNG (HK), Mylets (USA), Empty Bottles (HK)).
- Some dudes were playing music at a private concert. What makes you think that they are 'working'?
Section 17N Presumption
Any person who is found at a place where employees are in the employment of an employer shall, unless evidence is adduced that he is lawfully employable, be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary -
(a) to have entered into a contract of employment to be employed by that employer; and
(b) to be an employee of that employerSection 41 Breach of condition of stay
Any person who contravenes a condition of stay in force in respect of him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 2 years.
Under this ordinance, the prosecutor does not need to have contracts or payments in evidence. It is up to the defendants to prove the contrary.
- (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Don't Employ Illegal Workers
Q1. What should an employer do before employing a person?
A. The law requires an employer to take all practical steps to ensure that the job seeker is lawfully employable. If the job seeker is not holding a Hong Kong permanent identity card, the law requires an employer to inspect the job seeker's valid travel document.Q9. Can I employ a visitor?
A: No. You can't.Q10. How to identify a visitor?
A. They should not have a Hong Kong identity card. The immigration stamp/landing slip on their travel documents has the word 'Visitor'.Q11. What are the penalties if an employer employs a person not lawfully employable?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $350,000 and three years' imprisonment.Q12. What are the penalties if an employer fails to inspect the job seeker's identity card and, if the job seeker does not have a Hong Kong permanent identity card, his/her valid travel document?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $150,000 and one year imprisonment.- Of course, nowadays in Hong Kong, the law is optional for pro-democracy activists.
- Time for the United States government, the United Kingdom government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pay serious attention to the plight of these British and American citizens being politically persecuted in Hong Kong!
- Facebook comments
Huanwai Poon:
Fuck your mother, government
You have been busting Hidden Agenda
as long as the movement to activate industrial buildings has been going on
You said that they are unlicensed but that was actually a problem with the procedure
You sent in undercover agents
Now you want to charge them over working visas
Fuck, there are plenty of mainlanders in Mong Kok
They sing their songs with music systems and they set up a tin cup before them
Why don't you go arrest them?
They keep busting HA each time
Any clear-eyed person would know what this is aboutSmart Dum
Brother you are right.
The entire Sai Yeung Choi Street is filled with mainlanders making money with song and dance
They block the street
I don't see the Immigration Department jews stopping themTrinity Hui
Agree!- This is all talk and no action! Why don't you guys call up the Immigration Department and report that there are persons illegally working on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall? Once the complaint is logged in, the Immigration Department will have to investigate. Perhaps they will arrest all those mainland middle-aged singers and dancers, along with the French jugglers, South American pipe players, Italian opera singers, American rappers, African drummers, etc. Then Mong Kok will be the exclusive domain of the "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution.
- It is said that Hidden Agenda's hidden agenda is the renaissance/revival/revitalization of industrial buildings for civic use. Once upon a time, Hong Kong had a manufacturing industry. After the opening of China, all manufacturing activities have move to mainland China due to the significantly lower costs up there. So industrial buildings in Hong Kong are under-used right now. Hidden Agenda is showing us how to use the industrial buildings to promote local art and culture.
- What kind of excuse is this? How are you different from triad gang lords who rent a floor in an industrial building, convert it into a bar, sell liquor and hire mainland girls (on two-way visitor permits) as 'companions'?
There are gray areas as far as zoning and licensing go. Given the history of HA, you have to know that before this. But when the relevant departments come in, you behave just like triad gangsters. This is not the model example to set in the renaissance/revival/revitalization/rejuvenation of industrial buildings in Hong Kong.
- What about the United States? (Musical America)
A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. It’s illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensive…and those are just the high points. Nonetheless, it’s the one we’re stuck with.
The “easy answer” is simply that “it’s illegal.” Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes “training” or is “educational”, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?
Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularity—resulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by “googling” his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the US—even as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artist’s visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.
The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., it’s much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.
In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, it’s akin to running a red light. It’s illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not it’s advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.
- (Silentmajority.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 10, 2017.
In our times, there is a descriptive term known simply as "MK." When you say that somebody has that "MK" feel, you mean to say that this person wears the cheap, vulgar and tasteless clothes available in the Mong Kok district. Typically that person has dyed blonde hair and speaks vulgarly.
When someone says that you are very "MK", it is not a compliment. It is derogatory.
Recently I watched our legislator Tanya Chan (Civic Party) in action and I cannot help but inject: "You're very MK!" Raymond Wong is no longer at the Legislative Council as gangster godfather, but Tanya Chan has taken his place as gangster Big Sister.
When Chan speaks, she does not sound like the senior barrister that she is. Instead she is aggressive and abrasive like a gangster Big Sister, as if she was ready to pull out a butcher knife to chop you into minced meat.
On this day, our Big Sister showed up with several foreigners in tow.
Earlier the Immigration Department had sent inspectors to the Kwun Tong industrial building to monitor the musical performance organized by Hidden Agenda. An English band was suspected of illegally working and thus violating their condition of stay. The Immigration Department inspectors were assaulted and called the police for assistance. Seven persons were arrested.
As senior barrister, Chan led fellow legislator Jeremy Tam and solicitor Bond Ng to stand before these illegal workers and decry the Immigration Department/Police for unreasonable law enforcement and 'suppression the culture industry.' I am confused! Every day, the Immigration Department is arresting the fake mainland Chinese monks for violating their conditions of stay when they beg in the streets. So why does the Honorable Legislator Chan stand in front of the monks and protest against the Immigration Department for suppressing freedom of religion! Could it be that arresting foreigners means suppression, but arresting mainland Chinese means justice served?
The English band TTNG and the American singer Mylet came to Hong Kong on tourist visas and worked illegally at an unlicensed venue which was charging admission fees. It is evident that these are criminal acts. But our senior barrister legislator called this law enforcement "suppression" by the government. How in the world did senior counsel Tanya Chan ever got her bar license?
When Chan first entered politics, she stood by the roadside on the Peak and bowed to the voters every morning. At the time, she had long hair, wore glasses and looked refined and smart. As a senior counsel, she impressed the elite living on the Peak. So she got elected.
At the time, it was Audrey Eu who discovered Tanya Chan, because she spotted talent in political theatrics. Actually Chan had entered the Miss Hong Kong Pageant in 1992, but she did not qualify. This shows that she has always been looking for her own theater.
On this occasion, our gangster Big Sister led some foreign illegal workers and showed her mantle. She had the form, but she lacked the reasons. Besides Chan has her own problems, as she is being charged with Public Nuisance for the 2014 Occupy Central. Chan's theater moved from the Peak to Mong Kok and may just move to Stanley (prison) soon.
- (Oriental Daily) May 10, 2017.
Legislative councilor Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) denounced the Lands Department for protecting and colluding with rural gangsters. The Audit Commission had also criticized the Lands Department for not effectively dealing with illegal occupied government lands. He said that Hidden Agenda had asked the Lands Department for approval as an entertainment venue many times but were rejected even though they meet the fire code requirements. Therefore Chan Chi-chuen is proposing to cut off the entire funding for the Lands Department.
- Bizarre. HA moved into the present location for just over a month. According to Chan Chi-chuen, HA had applied multiple times for an entertainment venue already. If HA has such high efficiency for filing applications, then why didn't they apply for work visas for TTNG/Mylets?
- District Councilor/Umbrella Soldier/Hong Kong Culture Monitor Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying appeared on radio:
Hidden Agenda has elevated cultural exchange with so many different kinds of music, so many different kinds of song types. For example, I have never heard of this group Math Rock from England. When different kinds of music come to Hong Kong, it will stimulate the cultural earth of our Hong Kong.
The government has done so many things. HA moved four times. This time, there were even undercover agents. The ferocity of law enforcement is amazing to behold. They are being heavily oppressed. We have always wanted to engage in cultural activities in an open and proper manner.- But has HA founder Hui Chung-wo always done things in an open and proper manner? Here is a photo from the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2016, showing some masked men threatening a cameraman for television station TVB (attention: Hong Kong Journalists Association.
Can you say "Hui Chung-wo"?
[744] Police Cameras and Laws (2017/05/07)
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 6, 2017.
The police have decided to increase the use of body-worn video cameras. By 2021, every frontline uniformed police officer will be equipped with one.
Undersecretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu said the use of body cameras can help with investigations, relevant prosecution work and trials. “Last year, in 90 per cent of the cases when the camera was on, the subjects stopped over-reactive behaviour and became calm when being video-filmed – it reduced confrontations,” Lee said at a Panel on Security session at the Legislative Council on Friday.
The Security Bureau said that by March 31 this year, the police have recorded a total of 724 clips with the cameras in 493 incidents, from which 172 clips were used in investigations or submitted as evidence. It said in a case of assaulting a police officer and a case of obstructing a police officer, relevant footage served as important evidence for convictions.
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.
Pro-Beijing lawmakers have proposed a bill against insulting law enforcement officers in Hong Kong, which if passed would stipulate a maximum penalty of one year in prison.
Legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung hope to amend the city’s Public Order Ordinance to prohibit insults against officers from five government branches: the Police Force, the Customs and Excise Department, the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Announced Friday afternoon, the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 would criminalise uttering abusive or insulting words, behaving in a disturbing or insulting manner, or exhibiting a disturbing or insulting slogan against law enforcement officers. The trio hope to stipulate two categories of punishment. For regular breaches, offenders could be summarily convicted and handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$2,000. For “repeated and malicious” breaches, offenders could be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. They could be handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$5,000 and spend a year behind bars.
Explaining the background to the proposal, Leung said that the “atmosphere of hate” towards the police force since the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests necessitated a law against insulting officers. She claimed that hatred of police officers has not only been manifested during large-scale protests, but also in day-to-day incidents such as issuing traffic tickets or enforcement on the MTR. “We hope to provide our law enforcement officers with a working environment where they can be respected and have dignity,” she said. “Our proposal is a response to constant calls [for the law] in society.”
Internet comments:
- (eInvestigator) Police Body Cameras: Do They Reduce Complaints of Officer Misconduct?
Pros to Police Body Cameras
Following is a list of the advantages for both cops and citizens:
- The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see. Both officers and citizens may tend to be more restrained, knowing that their words and actions are being captured.
- Use of the cam while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations.
- Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse against officers.
- Increases transparency and accountability of officers.
- May help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.
- May help provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.
- Video footage captured may help speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of situations. This may lead to a reduction in court expenses due to an increase in pre-trial plea bargains or possibly an increased rate of convictions. Cons or concerns to police body cameras
Following is a partial list of the cons and disadvantages:
- According to early versions of policies governing their use, law enforcement officers must physically activate the camera when they exit their patrol car. The recording equipment must be manually activated when interacting with civilians or recording statements during investigations. However, officers decide when to activate the camera, and for how long the footage is stored, and if and when should it be made accessible to public. For example, the camera can be deactivated when interviewing a victim of sexual assault, to maintain the victim’s privacy.
- Privacy issues are of concern for both cops and civilians. How to deal with those concerns is still being evaluated. Use of body cameras may prevent people from coming forward as credible witnesses to help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of public exposure.
- Technological issues related to the cameras may prevent proper functioning at times. This could be due to a dead battery, damaged components, obstructed lens, and other problems. This could result in personnel missing important witness statements or crucial behavior by officers or citizens.
- The equipment is expensive. Potential costs involved in their use include the cost of the device itself, ongoing maintenance, and costs associated with storing and maintain the video footage and recorded data that is collected. In addition, costs would be associated with cataloging and retrieving footage in response to subpoenas, investigations and public information requests.
After looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, it becomes apparent that the pros of using the devices outweigh the cons. Given the recent officer-involved shootings and brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, South Carolina and Baltimore, Maryland, we are likely to see departments quickly begin adopting their use.
[SPOOF] (The Onion) April 9, 2015.
Following several high-profile civilian deaths at the hands of police officers, many Americans have called for the mandatory use of body cameras by law enforcement as a means of curbing the excessive use of force and providing clear accounts of officers’ actions. Here are some of the pros and cons of body cameras for police officers:
PROS
- Provides accurate record of where police were when they turned off their body camera
- Helps to reinstate trust between Americans and surveillance
- Unlimited footage of police officers breathing heavily during a foot chase
- Turning camera askew allows officers to record beatings with stylish Dutch angles
- More things to watch
- Finally gives Americans glimpse at what it’s like to turn on that siren and gun it straight through a red light
CONS
- Major invasion of privacy for police officer and man he has in chokehold
- Costs money that could be used on machine guns and armored vehicles
- Police brutality might lose its mystique
- Those could be anyone’s arms bashing citizen with nightstick
- Distracting to officers who must now shift focus to cinematography and mise en scène
- Is still only going to be the irrefutable video evidence’s word against the police officer’s
- This video was posted today. The background is that somebody reported to the Water Supplies Department about a case of suspected theft of service. WSD workers were sent out to the location to investigate. At this point, an old man came out of the house and stopped the WSD workers, who summoned the police. The video began at this point. Several policemen worked together to subdue the man on suspicion of obstructing public service workers from carrying out their duties. The man rolled on the ground and screamed: "Police assaulting people!" A middle-aged woman interceded and pushed a policeman, who arrested her for assaulting a police officer.
- There were seven to eight police officers in this video taken by a citizen. If the police officers all wore body cameras, there would not be any doubt as to what happened.
- If the man and the woman did not resist violently, there was no reason why the police have to arrest them and file plenty of paperwork afterwards. If the man and the woman never stole water, they should have let the WSD workers do their work and leave after finding nothing.
- (Oriental Daily with video) April 30, 2017.
On April 29, 2017 outside the Sheung Shui MTR station, a private car stopped at a bus stop to let a mother and her son off. Two policemen approached to issue a ticket for this traffic violation. First up, the mother argued with the police. The police told her that she can leave. So she said "That sounds better" and then she left. The police proceeded to write the ticket. The male driver launched an obscenity-laced tirade. The man laughed at the police for having no other skills or knowledge and are destined to walk the beats the rest of their careers. The police said calmly, "Yes, and that is why we are issuing a ticket to you."
This video was taken by a third party. If the two policemen wore body cameras and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 was passed, would the man still behave that way?
- Here is a classical video from several years ago:
0:01 Unknown male voice: I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I did not wear a safety belt. Right now I am leaving in my car. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. Right now I am letting you issue a ticket, dickhead!
0:12 Unknown male voice: You issue a ticket to me! I fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay? Your mother's stinking cunt! Huh! You are a beggar! I fuck your mother!
0:22 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt! What is your police ID number? I am going to lodge a complaint against your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! You dickhead!
0:30 Unknown male voice: Are you issuing a ticket to me? Dickhead! Do it!
0:38 Unknown male voice: You are sticking out a beggar's tin cup and hoping to get some food. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! You do it!
0:48 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quick about it! Right now I am letting you write the ticket! I fuck your mother!
0:55 Policeman: You calm down.
0:55 Unknown male voice: Me calm down? I fuck your mother! I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me. I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me.
0:57 Policeman: Be more civilized.
0:57 Unknown male voice: hat the fuck is there to be civilized about? I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! Dickhead!
1:07 Unknown male voice: Unknown male voice: Go ahead and write up the ticket. Do you think that I can't afford to pay? I can even pay in cash. Your mother! I am giving you cash now. How are you going to take it? Fuck your mother!
1:19 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt. What the fuck is the matter with you writing a ticket for $320. Why don't you erase it, dickhead? Fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay it?
1:32 Unknown male voice: Fuck your mother! You four-eyed dog. Fuck you! You are being insulted now and you don't even know what the fucking matter this is. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt.
1:40 Unknown male voice: What is your fucking ID number I fuck your mother! You are rank-and-file. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You are rank-and-file. ID starts with 5. I fuck your mother. What the fuck do you know? Your mother's stinking cunt. You are a rank-and-file policeman. Remember that.
2:09 Unknown male voice: Fuck you mother! You take such a long time to fucking write a ticket. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You don't know even known how to make money when it is there for the making. Your mother's cunt. You are really something. A wastrel. Fuck you mother.
2:29 Unknown male voice: Write faster, dickhead. Fuck your mother. In a hurry, bastard!
2:42 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quicker. I am in a hurry. Hey, four-eyed dog. Be fucking quicker. Fuck your mother.
2:59 Policeman: You are wearing a safety seat belt.
3:00 Unknown male voice: Yes, that's why I am being ticketed. I am getting out right now. I want to take a stroll. You say that I don't wear a seat belt. This is clearly a false accusation. I am lodging a complaint.
3:11 Policeman: Did you move the car?
3:12 Unknown male voice: I did. But I did not turn on the lights and I did not move the car.
3:12 Policeman: The car was moving.
3:12 Unknown male voice: How many such cases will you catch a year? I don't want to fucking waste my time to argue with you. Right now, I am paying the money to you. $320. Do you think that I cannot afford to pay in cash? Fuck your mother!
3:21 Policeman: Okay. It does not matter.
3:22 Unknown male voice: You are a sergeant, sir?
3:23 Policeman: Don't use obscene language, mister.
3:24 Unknown male voice: I am lodging a complaint against him.
3:25 Policeman: Mister, calm down. It does not matter.
3:26 Unknown male voice: What am I calming down for?
3:27 Policeman: Calm down a bit.
3:28 Unknown male voice: I didn't even fucking get out on the road. Fuck you!
3:30 Policeman: Police work in accordance with the law.
3:31 Unknown male voice: I did not even get on the road and you say that I did not wear a safety seat belt.
3:33 Policeman: My colleague saw you. I saw you. Earlier you drove the car out ...
3:35 Unknown male voice: I did not wear a safety seat belt. I did not get out of the roadway, brother! I only drove for five feet.
3:38 Policeman: Your car was in motion. This is not an issue of whether you crossed the street or not.
3:41 Unknown male voice: How many cases each year are there people who drive like this? You start the car and then you move ahead, right? Why arrest only me?
- Is Public Order (Amendment) Bill of 2017 going to pass?
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.
As a private bill, it must be voted in by over half of the 35 legislators in both the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies. The pro-democracy opposition camp holds over half of the seats in the geographical constituencies, while the pro-Beijing camp holds most of the seats in the functional constituencies. However, the distribution of seats may change following the government’s bid to disqualify pro-democracy lawmakers, and ongoing prosecutions related to the Occupy protests and the desecration of the national flag.
Actually, legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung are probably hoping for the pro-democracy legislators to veto the bill. Previously, the Hong Kong Police Rally in support of seven of their colleagues had a turnout of 40,000. So this bill will force the pro-democracy legislators to take sides: Are they for or against the Police? If all 27 pan-democrats vote against the Bill, it means that they support the insulting of police.
- Furthermore, these incidents will continue to take place. Every time that another video shows up, people will be reminded that the pro-democracy legislators think this is okay.
- Already the pro-democracy legislators seemed to be resigned to the reality of police body cameras. If they object, everybody will think that they don't want their own lawbreaking actions be captured irrefutably on video.
- (SCMP) Proposed law to protect police against insults is laughable. By Alex Lo. May 9, 2017.
I have the greatest respect for our police force, especially for their remarkable restraint and overall professionalism during those terrible three months of the Occupy protests in 2014.
Still, it’s hard not to find the grandstanding by pro-government lawmakers laughable. Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Junius Ho Kwan-yiu and Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan have called for legal amendments to make insulting law enforcement officers punishable by up to three years in jail along with a heavy fine under the Public Order Ordinance.
The Security Bureau has already said there is no plan to introduce any such amendments. As a practical matter, the lawmakers have no hope of passing such an amendment bill as it would require at least half of the members of the Legislative Council in the geographical constituencies to support it. The pan-democrats – who are in the majority in the geographical sectors – would simply vote it down, and in this case, be perfectly justified to do so.
But perhaps more importantly, there are already laws that provide safeguards such as for police officers to charge those trying to prevent them from discharging their duties. It’s already a criminal offence to assault or resist a police officer.
When insults become excessive and prevent police officers from doing their job, they can always make an arrest. The reason why they often don’t do it is that they are trained – unlike many police departments overseas – to de-escalate a confrontation and resolve it peacefully. That’s proof that our officers are generally well-trained and disciplined, not that they are being hampered by a lack of safeguards.
In any case, the issue is not being neglected. The police force will be introducing the use of body cameras in phases. Almost 1,400 such cameras are already in use by officers in the Emergency Units, the Police Tactical Unit and several police districts. About 270 more will become available in the coming months. By 2021, it’s expected that every frontline officer will be wearing one.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 13, 2017.
The Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017, a draft prepared by three pro-government legislators who want to make it illegal to insult a policeman, makes riveting reading. The trio of drafters are all lawyers. One of them, indeed, teaches law in a local university. But the Bill is gibberish.
You do not have to take my word for it. The thing is quite short. Here it is, in its lovely entirety:
Leaving aside the merits, if there are any, of the new offence, what bothers me is that three people licensed to practise law in Hong Kong, one of whom habitually teaches it, could come out with something so nonsensical. They have reportedly submitted it to the Law Draftsman section of the Department of Justice, where it must have occasioned a great deal of mirth. In fact I imagine the professional law draftsmen are rolling on the floor laughing.
The poor drafters couldn’t even get past the title without making a mistake. It is not an “offence against insulting a law enforcement officer” that we are dealing with here. The offence IS insulting a law enforcement officer. The title would make sense if it said “Offence of insulting…” or if it started “Prohibition on insulting…” – as it is it is meaningless.
The next subsection is the most important one, because it defines the new offence. Unfortunately this does not make sense either because a vital word has been omitted. That word is “who”. The standard way of constructing the definition of an offence is to say that “a person who” does whatever we now wish to criminalise “commits an offence”. If you miss out the “who” you finish up with a non-sentence: “a person acts… commits an offence.
Somebody seems to have fallen asleep between sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), because after our ban on a miscreant who utters, or a miscreant who behaves, we suddenly find a miscreant exhibiting.
Subsection (2) is a standard piece of legislative boilerplate. An unkind observer might speculate that as the vital “who” is still present here the whole paragraph was lifted from some existing ordinance. Subsection (3) on the other hand was clearly composed without help, and as a result is dangerously ambiguous. I suppose the writers intended it to mean that on a second conviction for the same offence the upper limit on the penalty should be higher. But the “repeatedly” or “in repetition” bit could be subject to another interpretation. Saying “fuck your mother” once qualifies for the fine, twice for the jail sentence.
This brings us to subsection (4) where, once again, the intention is clear but the writing is not. What are we to make of the curious mixture of tenses. The person “knows” that the victim “was” a law enforcement officer. Is this supposed to cover retired policemen as well?
In fact if this were passed as it is – which mercifully is highly unlikely – the question of who is or was a law enforcement officer might well give some difficulty. Policemen, obviously. I suppose this phrase was intended to cover other uniformed guardians of the government, like Immigration and Customs Officers. How far can it stretch, one wonders… Environmental Hygiene inspectors, traffic wardens, meter readers, Legco security guards, private security guards employed by the government, park attendants… your watchman? But not, presumably, firemen. Connoisseurs will also be surprised by the inclusion of “disturbing” as a punishable quality of behaviour or slogans. Many of us are no doubt quite happy with the idea that our policemen should not be insulted. But disturbed?
Overall this is such a shoddy piece of work that it would hardly be acceptable coming from a student. The most senior drafter was actually Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG Mei-fun, SBS, JP, as the official Legco guide has it, adding the stunning afterthought that besides representing the fortunate electors of Kowloon West the honourable lady is an Associate Professor in the City University Law School.
In support we have Horace Cheung (DAB: Hong Kong Island) who is a solicitor trained at the City University Law School. Also on my list of lawyers from whom I would not now buy a used draft bill is Junius Ho, another solicitor, trained in England.
But let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the English. It is unfair and inconsiderate to chide local politicians for any deficiency in their English language skills. The language of local politics is Cantonese. Lawyers, though, need to know that law draftsmanship is a specialised skill and if they haven’t got it they shouldn’t fake it. We can perhaps have a useful debate on whether it should be a criminal offence to insult a policeman. This is not the place to start.
[743] The US Congressional Hearing on Hong Kong (2017/05/05)
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover
May 3, 2017, 9:30am-11:30amOpening Statements: Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Christopher Smith
Witnesses:
The Rt. Honorable Lord Patten of Barnes CH: 28th Governor of Hong Kong, 1992-1997
Martin Lee: Barrister, founding Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law and former Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985-2008)
Joshua Wong: "Umbrella Movement' Leader and Secretary-General, Demosisto
Lam Wing Kee: Founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of five victims of the forced disappearance of Hong Kong booksellers
Ellen Bork: Writer(SCMP) May 4, 2017.
The commissioner for the foreign affairs ministry has accused Hong Kong’s most high-profile democracy campaigners of attempting to meddle in China’s internal affairs at a US congressional panel on Wednesday night.
The campaigners urged the US to take a tougher stance against Beijing in order to protect the city’s freedoms.Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, one of the leaders of the Occupy protests, attended the session in Washington, along with veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming and Lam Wing-kee, one of the Hong Kong booksellers who went missing and later turned up in the custody of mainland Chinese authorities.
The city’s last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them as the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was told that the “high degree of autonomy” promised to Hong Kong had decayed over two decades of Chinese rule.
The two-hour session was meant to help the commission assess Hong Kong’s situation, two decades after its handover to China.
Commission chair Senator Marco Rubio and two of his colleagues are also sponsoring the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which seeks to, among other steps, punish officials in mainland China and Hong Kong whom the US government holds responsible for suppressing the city’s basic freedoms. Those officials could have their assets frozen in the United States or be barred from the country.
Wong urged US President Donald Trump’s administration to keep an eye on developments in Hong Kong. He cited recent court cases against pro-independence lawmakers as evidence that freedom of expression was under threat. He said US support was important for their fight for full democracy in Hong Kong.
Patten accused Beijing of having failed to honour its promises under the pre-handover agreement it signed with the UK and the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, to allow greater democracy in Hong Kong, and warned the US government that this could reflect the way China would deal with its other international obligations.
“If China can’t even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations as it promised to do for the people in Hong Kong, it doesn’t give one a huge amount of confidence about its ability to handle wider issues,” Patten said, speaking from London by video link.
Patten urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to take the opportunity of visiting Hong Kong for the 20th anniversary of the handover to reassure Hongkongers that Beijing would still honour its promises. He also cited the city’s recent chief executive election as an example of Beijing’s “interference”, claiming that popular candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was not favoured by Beijing because he advocated dialogue with the opposition pan-democratic camp.
Lee shared Patten’s views and urged the US to raise its concerns about Hong Kong’s autonomy with Beijing. “President Xi Jinping must be told that the eyes of the world are on China, and on Hong Kong,” Lee said.
Referring to his run-in with mainland Chinese authorities over smuggling banned books across the border, Lam also urged the US Congress to keep up its interest in Hong Kong issues through such hearings that “would be beneficial to people like me”.
Rubio’s Hong Kong act dates back to late 2015 after the mysterious disappearances of Lam and his fellow booksellers at the Causeway Bay Books store caught international attention. But a subsequent partisan gridlock in Congress saw the bill temporarily taken off the legislative calendar. It is now back on the agenda.
A spokesman for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China said: “It is not a hearing to consider legislation, but to consider how best to proceed with legislation the [commission] chairs have already offered – the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. “For that purpose, we are seeking information about the guaranteed freedoms and high degree of autonomy promised Hong Kong in international agreements.”
A spokesman for the foreign affairs ministry’s commissioner in Hong Kong expressed strong objection against the panel for what he called a blatant attempt to meddle in the affairs of China and Hong Kong. “Hong Kong matters are purely China’s internal affairs. China opposes any foreign government interfering in Hong Kong affairs in any way,” he said. “The hearing confused wrong and right and [is a] blatant attempt with ulterior motives to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.” The Chinese government is determined to uphold the “one country, two systems” principle as promised in the Basic Law, the spokesman added.
Veteran China-watcher Johnny Lau Yui-siu said such hearings would not exert any pressure on Beijing. “[The congressional hearing] is just a political show for the US congressmen to tell the US voters that they are doing something,” Lau said. “The Trump administration is unlikely to make a fuss about pressuring Beijing because of Hong Kong affairs. Trump has already said that he wants to maintain a good relationship with Xi Jinping as Xi appears willing to help on North Korea.”
Pro-establishment legislator Gary Chan Hak-kan said: “From the people the US commission has invited to speak, you can already tell what kind of conclusion the US congressmen would get. [Wong, Lee, and Lam] would like to have the world believe that everything in Hong Kong has deteriorated after the handover – no democracy, no human rights, no freedoms. If Hong Kong’s situation was that bad, they might not have had the chance to go to the US to speak against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.”
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 4, 2017.
Pro-Beijing newspapers have accused Hong Kong democracy activists of betraying the “Chinese race” by “inviting the US government to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.”
The attacks came after former colonial governor Chris Patten, pro-democracy figures Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and Lam Wing-kee, and writer Ellen Bork gave testimonies on Wednesday in relation to Hong Kong’s political situation at the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
Beijing mouthpiece Ta Kung Pao called Lee and Wong “old and young race traitors” on Thursday’s front page. “Various sectors of society restate that the US should not comment on the affairs of other territories,” the paper wrote. It also ran an anonymous commentary calling Wong “ignorant and ugly.” It said: “It is obvious that Americans are using Wong to attack the One Country, Two Systems policy and the central government, but he is happy about his role as a political clown manipulated by others.”
Meanwhile, the Global Times wrote: “Hong Kong independence advocate Joshua Wong has been condemned as a race traitor after defaming the One Country, Two Systems policy in the US and begging for attention from the US government.” The two papers, as well as Oriental Daily, all criticised the activists of “badmouthing” Hong Kong in front of the international community.
Chris Patten hit back at Beijing’s consistent argument against foreign interference in Hong Kong. He cited the bilateral Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed semi-autonomy to Hong Kong for 50 years. “China is supposed to keep its word to the people of Hong Kong, and Britain has every right to interfere in that,” he said during Wednesday’s hearing. He also criticised the British government for not being “very robust in drawing attention to breaches – whether large or small – in the undertakings of both the letter and spirit made by China.” “I’ve always felt that we – and I blame myself a bit, but I blame [the] British government over a long period of time – I’ve always felt we let down the generation before Joshua Wong,” the former governor said. “And I hope we won’t let down Joshua Wong’s generation as well.”
Wong, meanwhile, urged US democrats and republicans to work together to defend human rights in Hong Kong. He vowed that Hongkongers will continue resisting rule by the Chinese Communist Party and fighting for the right of self-determination.
“The Father of Hong Kong’s democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle,” the 20-year-old activist said. “I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy?”
(Coconuts Hong Kong) May 4, 2017.
Former governor Chris Patten, democracy activists Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee called on the United States to safeguard Hong Kong’s autonomy yesterday during a US Congressional hearing.
The democracy advocates had been invited to speak to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and assess Hong Kong’s development in the 20 years after the handover.
ppearing through video teleconference, Patten criticized China for breaching the Joint Declaration by . Referring to China’s assertion that “what happens in Hong Kong is nobody else’s affair”, Patten stressed that the Joint Declaration was an international treaty and thus of international interest.
“It’s perfectly clear that Hong Kong has not been given what it was promised by the new sovereign power.” As an international trading and economic hub, Hong Kong’s government and balance between its economical and political freedom was “plainly a matter of considerable interest to the rest of the international community”, Patten said. “Britain has every right to interfere.”
“If China can’t even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations it promised to do of people in Hong Kong [in the Joint Declaration], it doesn’t give one a huge amount of confidence to its ability to handle wider issues.”
He went on to criticize the Hong Kong government for “cutting off” any dialogue with the pro-democracy movement, using as an example Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam, whom he accused of showing no interest in negotiating with student protest leaders during the mass Occupy rallies of 2014.
Patten called on Chinese president Xi Jinping “to put people’s hearts and minds at rest” during his anticipated visit for the handover celebrations and reassure Hongkongers that the city’s autonomy and way of life would remain unchanged until 2047.
Meanwhile, Wong, one of the leaders at 2014’s Occupy movement, said that “One Country, Two Systems” would be no more if China’s grip on Hong Kong continues to tighten. Wong spoke of “massive political prosecution [sic]” to “pave the way” for the 20th handover anniversary celebrations. “The government intends to disqualify democratically-elected lawmakers in the opposition camp […]. Unfortunately, Hong Kong remains far from a democracy after the Umbrella Movement.”
Wong called for support from the Trump administration, saying that support from the U.S. was crucial to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp. “Some people may think [the movement] is a failure because we can’t achieve the goal of universal suffrage, but I am here to tell you today that the spirit of the movement is in the heart of Hong Kong people. That’s why I have been trying to gather more support at the international level by strengthening our collaboration around the world,” the student activist said.
“I started my fight for democracy six years ago when I was 14. The Father of Hong Kong’s Democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle. I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy?” he added.
Lee, a veteran pro-democracy activist, former legislator and esteemed lawyer, said the “two systems” part of “One Country, Two Systems” wouldn’t be fully realized until Hongkongers become the “masters of our own house” by winning the right to democratic elections.
The barrister also highlighted a warning made by China Liaison Office’s legal chief Wang Zhenmin over the weekend, in which he said further calls for independence would threaten the existing “One Country, Two Systems” policy, describing the statement was “deeply unwise” as it would undoubtedly spark further protests.
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China monitors China’s human rights and rule of law developments. The Commission proposed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2015 after the disappearance of Lam and his fellow booksellers.
Beijing mouthpieces Ta Kung Pao and the Global Times, as well as local newspaper Oriental Daily, immediately commented on the hearing, calling Wong and Lee “race traitors” who had “badmouthed” Hong Kong and accusing the United States’ of malice for inviting them to speak at Congress.
Internet comments:
- (Global Times) May 4, 2017.
On May 3, the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a hearing in Washington on the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Martin Lee Chu-ming, founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, student activist Joshua Wong and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee turned up at the hearing. Hong Kong's last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them via video stream.
Wong uttered the attention-grabbing words that the "one country, two systems" model will be turned into "one country, one system" eventually. Mainstream Hong Kong society is furious about these people's attendance at the US hearing.
The issues of Hong Kong and so-called human rights have become marginalized in Sino-US relations. The administration of US President Donald Trump has not even mentioned them when dealing with Beijing.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told State Department employees in a speech on Wednesday that pushing human rights abroad "creates obstacles" to US interests. Sometimes, values have to take a back seat to economic interests or national security, he noted. Apparently, the US is a bit tired of its diplomatic maneuvering on human rights issues.
There are too many committees in the US Congress and lawmakers have to pick something to do their job, with hearings about human rights becoming the easiest ruse as it is considered politically correct.
People like Wong are fanning new flames in the US. But such hearings are politically insignificant. They can neither affect the policies of the US government nor create waves in Hong Kong. Most mainstream US media did not even bother to report it. It is just a fuss made by some local Hong Kong media.
The Hong Kong government is obliged to solve Hong Kong's own issues. When it is out of the local government's reach, the central government will come to help. The West lacks the legality, resources and strength to manage Hong Kong affairs. Some Westerners always make indiscreet remarks or criticisms about Hong Kong, but these only have limited impact. They are reduced to playing dirty ideological tricks.
From the Occupy Central movement to the failure of its political reforms, Hong Kong had experienced the most chaotic times. The central government has also adapted to the changes.
But Hong Kong continues to develop. The extreme opposition forces failed to put pressure on China by messing up Hong Kong. The law will bring them to account, and Hong Kong affairs will develop in a virtuous manner.
Perhaps this is how the "one country, two systems" model functions. Hong Kong needs to develop in a diverse and free environment. The country also needs development. People like Wong will continue to make trouble, but if they bring actual harm to the country, the law will have the final say.
- The title of the hearing was Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. It was not Will One Country Two Systems Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. Joshua Wong is with the political party Demosisto, which lists 'self-determination' on its policy platform. But as far as the Central Government, 'self-determination' is just another name for independence. The title was thus chosen because they don't accept One Country Two Systems.
- (Bastille Post) May 4, 2017.
When Chris Patten came to Hong Kong last year, his main theme was Hong Kong independence. He said that Hong Kong independence was impossible, and it was shameful and rash to lump Hong Kong independence with democracy. He criticized the two disqualified legislators Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for turning their oaths of office into child's play.
But at the US Congressional hearing, his emphasis was about the British government's failure to make China implement One Country Two Systems and guarantee freedom, democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong.
- So Chris Patten will tell people whatever he thinks that they want or need to hear.
- (SCMP) June 25, 2017.
However differently they might have led colonial Hong Kong’s dealings with Beijing, David Wilson and Chris Patten agree on one message for Hongkongers 20 years after the handover: Forget the idea of a breakaway city state.
The two ex-governors of the former British colony made the appeal in exclusive interviews with the South China Morning Post as some young people, including those in the post-1997 generation, appear to have lost patience in a sovereign state they blame for the undemocratic political structure back home.
Wilson and Patten were far from critical of the youngsters, however. Instead, both recognised their efforts in shaping a city they call home. But the duo sounded an alarm bell for those whose actions could have gone too far and led to a rebuke from Beijing.
“Hong Kong is not a would-be nation-state,” Patten said. “With no disrespect to the people who advocate this, it is never going to happen.”
Patten, the last British governor before the 1997 transfer of sovereignty, called it a “big mistake” to have allowed the campaign for greater democracy to “morph into” an argument for independence over the past few years, saying: “I think that waters down the support of the overall community for democracy.”
Wilson shared the sentiment, likening calls for independence to waving “a red rag to the bull in terms of Beijing”. “If Hong Kong is producing problems or is in confusion, then people in the north start getting worried and they start sending people to look into what’s happening and why it’s happening,” Wilson said. “That doesn’t necessarily produce a more peaceful situation.”
He added: “In a number of different parts of the world, where protesters – perfectly legitimate protesters – push something and they have gone on pushing too far, the counter-effect has been very damaging to them.”
Talk of independence, rarely heard of when Hong Kong was a colony, emerged after the pro-democracy Occupy campaign in 2014, in which tens of thousands of protesters took part in sit-ins across the city to protest against electoral reforms. But their action failed to move Beijing to relax its restrictive approach to the city’s path to universal suffrage.
...
Wilson said he saw the rise of discontent as stemming not just from political aspirations, but economic privation as well.
“You do see a parallel in these elections we’ve just held [in the UK] – a lot of young people getting involved. The [Labour leader Jeremy] Corbyn’s support has been massive among young people, many of them very idealistic,” he said.
In Hong Kong, a lack of upward social mobility had been a catalyst for discontent, he felt. “Nearly everybody could hope either they or their children would move up, up the ladder. I think there’s a bit of a feeling now that you can’t expect that in the same way,” said Wilson, whose governorship of Hong Kong encompassed one of its brighter periods for the city when mainland China was still developing.
“In a lot of societies, young people have the feeling that there are not enough chances for them to be a Li Ka-shing, for instance.”
Wilson himself had a taste of post-handover youth activism when he was one of the guests celebrating the centenary of the University of Hong Kong, where students protested against then vice-premier Li Keqiang, now China’s No 2 leader. Not being the target himself, Wilson said: “It wasn’t unpleasant for me; no, not in any way at all.”
Both men agreed that it was a good thing for young people to take an active part in politics. For Wilson, the reason is simple: “It is their future.”
Patten, who expressed sympathy with the student-led campaign in 2014, recounted his memories. “I can’t remember mass demonstrations before when people cleared up their own litter when they were youngsters, not much older than my grandchildren, helping others on their homework on the streets, and there was so little violence associated with this scale of demonstration,” he recalled. “It’s a great lesson to others on how to conduct a political debate in that way.”
The two ex-governors offered similar thoughts on the increasingly politicised younger generation at the centre of the widening rift between Beijing and Hong Kong.
Citing the dilemma facing Occupy student leaders, Patten said: “I think there was a moment when people … were saying: ‘Look, you’ve won the argument; you got huge international support. Quite sensible now to step back and put the pressure on the government to respond’.”
That served as a lesson for pro-independence activists, he said. “It’s always a test of statesmanship to know when you’ve gone too far and know about going back to the moral high ground.”
Also referencing the Occupy protests, Wilson said: “I’m worried about the fact that there is not an ability to understand where you’d made your point, you’d gone far enough, and the thing is to say, ‘OK we’ve made our point. That’s it’.
“I do think if you are going to get involved in a major way, you have to have a sense of what is possible and what’s not possible,” Wilson said.
Donald Trump is now the President of the United States (POTUS). During the campaign period, he criticized China sharply on many fronts. But after meeting with Xi Jinping last month, Trump has decided that Xi is a "good person" who can help him with North Korea. Under such circumstances, it seems unlikely that the s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 will go anywhere.
- Predictgov puts the chances of s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 being passed at 16%:
This is better than the 1% that was given to the defunct Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2016.
- The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 is toothless insofar as human rights and democracy in Hong Kong goes. It all depends on what POTUS thinks is in his own best interest. At this point, POTUS needs Xi Jinping to deal with North Korea.
The first part requires some Department of State person to write a report "on conditions in Hong Kong that are of U.S. interest." This person will simply write up whatever POTUS wants.
The second part requires the Department of State to "certify to Congress annually whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify separate treatment different from that accorded to China in any new laws, agreements, treaties, or arrangements entered into between the United States and Hong Kong." The report will be whatever POTUS wants. Congress cannot override the certification.
The third part requires to "the President to identify persons responsible for: (1) the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong; and (2) other actions suppressing basic freedoms. The President shall freeze the U.S.-based assets of identified individuals." POTUS can simply state that he hasn't been able to identify any such persons.
The fourth part states that "entry, work, or study visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest or detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process." This may cover Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, who will eventually stand trial for unlawful gathering and incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central. But it won't cover Lam Wing-kee.
Is the Act going to force Hong Kong to have universal suffrage with civil nomination to elect the Chief Executive and Legislative Councilors? No.
Is the Act going to stop Basic Law Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong? No.
Is the Act going to re-instate Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching as legislative councilors? No.
Is the Act going to stop the judicial review against the oaths of office of the 'DQ4' legislative councilors? No.
You can cycle through the other important issues and the answer will be NO.
- It would be simple if POTUS is actually worried about the best interests of the United States. But he appears to be more concerned with the best interests of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's business deals in China ...
- The Act is toothless because it punishes Hong Kong for what China does. All those persons in China responsible for oppressing Hong Kong face no repercussions. Bad things will only happen to Hong Kong when preferential economic treatment by the United States is removed.
If such is the line of attack, how about going even further?
- Tourist/business visas from Hong Kong to the United States will be stopped unless there is universal suffrage with civil nomination.
- Travel ban to United States citizens to Hong Kong will be imposed if a Basic Law Article 23 (National Security) bill is proposed.
...
- Martin Lee's statement to CECC:
"We are merely asking that China uphold its pledge to let us freely choose our leaders by universal suffrage, and exercise the “high degree of autonomy” promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration as a condition of the handover of Hong Kong."
- Under the August 31st 2014 framework, Hong Kong would have been able to choose the Chief Executive in 2017 via universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote). But the pan-democratic legislators vetoed the bill on the grounds that the candidates were not chosen by the universal standard of universal suffrage with civil nomination.
If Senator Rubio and Congressman Smith asked Martin Lee to explain this 'universal standard' that they have never heard of, they will find that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa and more than 150 other countries around the world are not using this 'universal standard.'
- (Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.
Americans are like this. They don't want to mind their own business, but they like to mind other people's business. Twenty years after the handover, the US Congress is holding a hearing, with the old Chinese traitor Martin Lee and the young Chinese traitor Joshua Wong being invited to testify. It is easy to predict what the US Congressional leaders want to hear.
If the Americans genuinely care about Hong Kong, they would have invited representatives from different sections of the political spectrum. The reality is that they are only interested in what these several specific individuals have to say. This proves that the hearing was malevolent and provocative by design in order to make life awkward for the Hong Kong and Beijing governments. Since the handover, there have been many troubles in Hong Kong. Most of them suggest that Next Media chief Jimmy Lai is behind them, with the money being handled by his American assistant with military intelligence background.
The difference today is that the United States is no longer what it used to be, and neither is China. During the election campaign, Donald Trump talked tough about taking action against China. After the Sino-American summit meeting, Trump heaped praises on Xi Jinping as "a respected leader." This was surely disappointing to those Chinese traitors in Hong Kong.
This is no longer the era when Americans can do whatever they want. Chinese traitors no longer have it easy, because the payout is rapidly diminishing.
- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.
At the hearing, congressman Steve Daines (MT) expressed great "concern" over the political future of Chief Executive candidate John Tsang. Chris Patten said that it was hard for him to comment, because as the former leader of the British colonial administration, his endorsement of Tsang would be "the kiss of death."
- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.
Lam Wing Kee's testimony was delivered in Cantonese with an interpreter giving a simultaneous interpretation in English. Clearly the audience could not follow his story. A 10-minute break was held so that Lam could regroup. After the break, the interpreter read off the written statement in English. So this was a joke. The session was scheduled to go from 930am to 1130am, but it was over by 1100am.
- (Silentmajority.hk) May 6, 2017. Martin Lee and Joshua Wong took their show to Washington DC to get help from the United States for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Will the United States threaten to impose severe economic sanctions against Hong Kong (yes, against Hong Kong) and thus make the Central Government capitulate and allow the universal standard of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination in Hong Kong?
Rita Fan is the sole Hong Kong representative on the National People's Congress Standing Committee. She said that she has not heard a single suggestion at the National People's Congress, including the Standing Committee as well as the Hong Kong delegation, to withdraw the August 31st resolution. Today Rita Fan said that the appearances of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong have consolidated the determination that the August 31st framework must be adhered to. This means that as long as the pan-democrats oppose the August 31st framework, there is no point in discussing constitutional reform. Instead of wasting time on that issue, Hong Kong will be better off dealing with livelihood issues.
- United States: 8,000 families in Flint (MI) still have to pay their water bills even though the water is poisoned. If they don't pay, the banks will repossess their homes. The problem has been going on for three years without any solution.
Hong Kong: The Hong Kong government immediately provided free drinking water as soon as lead was detected in water, and immediately worked on to correct the problem as well as seek responsibility.
What do we want a foreign government that does not care about civil rights and people's livelihood to interfere in Hong Kong? Are these people telling lies for the sake of their own political careers, or American dollars, or green cards?
- The testimonies of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong contained numerous falsehoods. They are well-known to be false in Hong Kong, but they may fool a few Congressional representatives.
- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) Martin Lee spoke about the Hong Kong Police cracking down on peaceful demonstrators. In Hong Kong, we have seen many, many acts of violence. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the release of all those charged with these types of violent crimes?
- (HKFP @ YouTube) Joshua Wong spoke of the government attempting to disqualify pro-democracy legislative councilors. Here is legislative councilor Lau Siu-lai's oath of office. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the Hong Kong government to accept this type of oath?
- (SCMP) Exercising the very freedoms they say they are losing. By Alex Lo. May 6, 2017.
Imagine a few members of the National People’s Congress have developed a sudden interest in racial violence and civil right violations in the United States. To get a more accurate and objective picture before calling for laws to punish US officials guilty of such crimes, they invite to a hearing an all-star cast that includes numerous leaders of Black Lives Matter and African-American victims of police brutality. It’s a foregone conclusion what they would say.
Well, that was what happened this week, in Washington. It doesn’t take much of an imaginative leap to guess the rather transparent agenda of US junior senator Marco Rubio. To get an understanding of the alleged erosion of freedom and autonomy in Hong Kong after the 1997 handover, he and his Capitol Hill friends invited to a congressional hearing the likes of activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming and Lam Wing-kee, one of the once-missing booksellers, and former governor Chris Patten.
They ended up saying exactly what you would expect them to say, which was that our freedoms and autonomy were being flushed down the Chinese toilet. At least our last colonial governor didn’t bother to fly to Washington and only talked through a video link, thereby saving himself a plane ticket and, for Planet Earth, a more harmful carbon footprint.
Are Wong and Lee any less free in Hong Kong than they would be if they were living in the US? They can fly in and out of the city, and criticise and agitate against the local and central governments with virtual impunity. And that includes saying they are losing those very freedoms while exercising them unhindered, with their views and their US visit reported freely in major local news outlets. They are denying the very conditions of freedom that make it possible for them to jump in bed with the Americans in the first place.
As for our new chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, at least 250,000 Hongkongers voted for members of the Election Committee that chose her. And everyone could have voted for or against her if pan-democratic lawmakers didn’t vote down the last universal suffrage package. Now, who voted for Patten to be our governor?
My sympathy is only with Lam Wing-kee. Clearly, his civil and legal rights were violated, and he could not seek redress in Hong Kong or on the mainland. I would not blame him for trying to seek justice for himself and others in the US, the UN, The Hague or anywhere else.
- (SCMP) If Joshua Wong thinks he is the new face of democracy in Hong Kong, he is delusional. By Michael Chugani. May 9, 2017.
Will the true father of Hong Kong democracy please stand up?
Upstart democracy activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung named Martin Lee Chu-ming as the holder of that title during last week’s US Senate hearing on Hong Kong. Lee was the international face of democracy in the city leading up to and after the 1997 handover. But the late Szeto Wah has equal claim to that crown.
The pair, along with Emily Lau Wai-hing, fought a noble fight for democracy without once hurling bananas or behaving like thugs in the Legislative Council. Szeto is no longer with us. Lee has lost credibility by cozying up to media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying who uses our democracy movement as a cover to oppose China’s communist system.
If Wong harbours any ambition to assume the mantle from Lee and Szeto, he’s delusional. The Western media has made him the new face of Hong Kong democracy. But before he gets carried away he should know it fits the agenda of the Western media to romanticise the so-called fight for democracy in Hong Kong.
Why else would the Western media bestow the title of the conscience of Hong Kong on Anson Chan Fang On-sang? Hongkongers more accurately taunt her as a sudden democrat who never championed democracy until after she quit as chief secretary. She has as much claim to being the conscience of Hong Kong as our property tycoons.
Can you think of anyone among our current self-proclaimed champions of democracy who has the moral stature to be the conscience of Hong Kong? I can’t. Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi has moral stature. India’s Mahatma Gandhi still has it 80 years after his death. These titans never cried white terror, political persecution or political prosecution when the law came down on them.
But our so-called democracy fighters shout persecution every time. Are they saying they should not face the law for storming a Legislative Council conference room that injured security guards or for clashing with the police during an illegal assembly outside Beijing’s liaison office? Our independent judges are well able to differentiate between trumped-up and credible charges.
If political persecution exists here, they would already be in jail without due process. Those who shout white terror whenever they are held to account for their actions insult our internationally respected legal system. And they insult the good name of democracy.
- (SCMP) Opinion: how Hong Kong’s political rot started in the 1990s, and the rise of Joshua Wong and his sort. By Jason Wordie. May 12, 2017.
Monkey see, monkey do, as any schoolteacher knows only too well – and Hong Kong’s youthful protesters have had plenty of simians-in-office to emulate in recent years.
During the 2016 Legislative Council election, several of the older cohort climbed back into the branches to make way for younger and even more cantankerous political hopefuls.
Saturation media coverage further encourages juvenile antics, which are just one more example of Hong Kong’s mindless copying of lamentable overseas trends; in the 1990s, Korea and Taiwan made rowdy transitions to more mature political systems. Now it’s Hong Kong’s turn to yodel tunelessly into the political karaoke machine’s tinny, feedback-prone microphone.
From early childhood, Hong Kong’s millennial legislator-activists have observed some pretty doubtful role models. Foul-mouthed ravers (we know who they are) who fling drinking glasses, bananas, slices of luncheon meat, cardboard microwaves and such like, along with crude epithets and ranted slogans, have dominated local political life – and news headlines – ever since the handover.
In earlier times, strident public viewpoints were better expressed. Elsie Elliott (later Tu), Brook Bernacchi, A. de O. Sales, and other elected members of the Urban Council (disbanded in 1999) seldom minced their words – as verbatim records from council sessions make clear. Nevertheless, they remained polite. The rot began in the early ’90s, with legislators such as the shrill-voiced Emily Lau Wai-hing (privately dubbed “unbearably loud” by the plain-speaking Tu) and Hong Kong’s ubiquitous, all-purpose rowdy “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, who was eventually elected in 2004.
Shrewd inside observers have long since noted that this individual’s carefully staged Legco disruptions typically take place just before lunchtime, so that the culprit can be melodramatically “dragged” from the chamber in time to adjourn to the members’ canteen, there to cackle about his latest aria with his erstwhile political opponents over a taxpayer-subsidised meal.
One young acquaintance, formerly a political assistant to another – shall we say, controversial – popularly elected legislator, explained to me exactly how this farce on the public purse plays out. He now works in public relations and claims that, compared with Hong Kong’s legislature, at least that tawdry profession allows him to maintain some semblance of integrity.
Hong Kong’s leading youthful loudmouth, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, evidently learned his oratorical “skills” at home. His father, Roger Wong Wai-ming, is one of Hong Kong’s leading anti-LGBT-rights activists; curiously, connections between the two are seldom made when the froth-flecked ravings of either father or son are reported.
Wong Snr is a member of a well-resourced fundamentalist Christian coalition that campaigns against the provision of scientifically accurate, belief-free information on human sexuality to Hong Kong youth. The intellectual contradiction is obvious; Wong Jnr – let us remember – spat out his milk teeth in 2011 gibbering against the imposition of national education and its alleged “brainwashing” effects on Hong Kong’s young people. When the government swiftly dropped its (admittedly ill-considered) proposal, this “victory” gave young Josh a heady sensation of triumph that encouraged even more vocal opposition.
And for all their rejection of the broader culture from which they hail, these men’s responses to public challenge – lost face, hurt feelings and a desire for revenge when eventually pulled up – have an obvious cultural origin. Wong Snr even lodged an official complaint with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – eventually dismissed – against a senior British diplomat stationed in Hong Kong who had amusingly disdained his homophobic ranting, eliciting resounding laughter, at a public forum on LGBT rights and inclusion held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2014.
[742] The Great Exodus (2017/05/04)
(SCMP) May 4, 2017.
The number of Hongkongers trying to emigrate to other parts of the world reached a three-year high last year, according to the latest government data. Figures released by the Security Bureau show 7,600 Hongkongers applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC) for outward immigration purposes – 8.6 per cent more than in 2015 and 10 per cent more than in 2014. The last time so many locals applied to leave the city was in 2013.
The United States remained the most popular destination for Hong Kong residents, with 2,800 applying for immigration visas. It was the highest number of US applications in the past five years. Meanwhile, Australia and Canada attracted 2,100 and 1,000 applications respectively.
Although the figures provide a rough estimate of the number of Hongkongers emigrating, the government noted that not all successful CNCC applicants obtain immigration visas.
Goldmax Immigration Consulting director Benny Cheung said social, political and financial pressures had caused an increasing number of locals to seek greener pastures.
“There are three catalysts: the national education protest in 2012, the Occupy movement in 2014 and the Mong Kok riots in 2016. We received a surge of inquires soon after the incidents emerged.” Cheung said.
He believed skyrocketing property prices and issues surrounding the education system were also key reasons for so many residents choosing to leave.
Cheung said Taiwan had also surfaced as a favoured relocation destination. “It is close to Hong Kong, with similar language and culture, and the spending is relatively lower,” he said.
Figures released by Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency, show 1,086 Hong Kong residents were granted residency permits last year
.Internet comments:
- They pick through the data and found something to support an existing prejudice. Here is some more data.
(Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.
Estimated number of persons who applied to immigrate by year.
Columns:
(1) year
(2) total number of persons
(3) number of persons to United States of America
(4) number of persons to Australia
(5) number of persons to Canada
Source: Security BureauDo you think that there has been a huge surge in out-migration between 2010 and 2016?
- Here is the lede from the front page of the SCMP website. This is literally true, of course. But the lede would not work if you show the data for the past 7 years.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017. There are even more years of data here, and the text is: "The Security Bureau has estimated that 7,600 Hong Kong people migrated overseas in 2016. The figure was the highest over the past three years. In 2006, more than 10,000 people moved away from Hong Kong. After that year, the figure remained between around 7,000 and 9,000 each year. In 2011, 4,000 were estimated to have moved to the US, the highest number in more than 12 years."
- Ah, I completely know how to read this table. The lowest figures for the United States column occur between 2012 and 2016 when CY Leung was the Chief Executive. The highest figures occurred between 2005 and 2011 when Donald Tsang was the Chief Executive. This proves that CY Leung has done a great job in Hong Kong, much more so than his predecessor who drove people away. I wonder which newspaper will let me write this data-supported story ...
- I have another story: "Canada no longer favored by Hong Kongers." In 2005, the number of applicants to Canada was 1900; in 2016, the figure fell down to 1000! Wow!
- As for the figures on Taiwan, here are the statistics from the National Immigration Agency (Taiwan):
Hong Kong/Macau residents Year Residency Permanent
Residency1991 271 3703 1992 868 820 1993 953 1246 1994 2246 1576 1995 1750 1548 1996 1710 1678 1997 1839 1541 1998 1389 1323 1999 1769 1081 2000 1369 1185 2001 1305 726 2002 1580 535 2003 1694 488 2004 1773 502 2005 1643 592 2006 1682 481 2007 1984 484 2008 2421 519 2009 3109 568 2010 2736 498 2011 2447 504 2012 3169 643 2013 4574 575 2014 7506 697 2015 6339 891 2016 5829 1273 [Note: The data from years 1992-2015 grouped Hong Kong with Macau. The year 2016 separated Hong Kong from Macau, showing that 4,057 Hongkongers got residency and 1,086 got permanent residency.]
So do you think that this is a shock to the population structure of Hong Kong?
- Hong Kong, population 7.3 million, had 4,057 residency permits and 1,086 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016. That is, 68 out of every 100,000 Hongkongers went to reside in Taiwan.
Macau, population 600,000, had 1,772 residency permits and 187 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016. That is, 327 out of every 100,000 Macau persons went to reside in Taiwan.
The more interesting demographic question is just what is driving these Macau citizens to flee to Taiwan, more so than Hongkongers?
What are their trauma equivalents of National Education, Occupy Central and Mong Kok riot?
Relevant link: Yellow Journalism.
- The Security Bureau merely publishes the number of those who applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC), most probably in order to apply for an immigrant visa to elsewhere. Application does not automatically mean approval. So what is the number of visas?
Here is the number of Immigrant Visas issued by the United States in March 2017 for Hong Kong S.A.R.:
Visa Class Issuances CR1 7 CR2 1 EW3 1 F11 3 F12 2 F21 1 F24 1 F31 3 F32 2 F33 4 F41 16 F42 13 F43 28 FX1 1 FX2 1 FX3 1 IR1 8 IR2 2 IR5 8 That's a total of 103 for the month of March 2017.
For Fiscal Year 2016, the immigrant visas issued in Hong Kong S.A.R. were:
321 immediate relatives
1 special immigrant
903 family preference
83 employment preference
51 diversity immigrants
1359 TOTALAt this rate, how quickly will the population of Hong Kong be depleted?
Why is this a news story? Is the news really that slow today?
- Let me see. If you lose 1359 persons each year out of 7,300,000, the population will dwindle to zero in 7,300,000 / 1,359 = 5,372 years. As John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."
- You still haven't figure out why this is a news story? Are you stupid or what? The answer is clearly that the story is being pushed by immigration agencies! Of course, they want to help you to apply to immigrate to the United States. They get paid their fee whether you are approved or not. So the important thing for them is that you should apply!
- (Oriental Daily) May 5, 2017. At the Wanchai Police Headquarters office where the applications for certificates of no criminal conviction are processed, we asked citizens why they came.
Mr. Lee plans to immigrate to Canada next month. He and his wife have been planning this for almost two years, and he has other families over there. He said that housing prices in Hong Kong are too high, "working people cannot afford to make the down payment." He thinks that it is hard to live in Hong Kong. Mr. Lee also said that the political environment in recent years is bad, with the various legislators not looking after the interests of the people. Mr. Lee has lost hope for the political prospects of Hong Kong and therefore he has decided to immigrate.
Mr. Wu works in the healthcare field. Her children are going to study in England, so she has decided to move her entire family over there. She has been planning this for five to six years. She decided to do this after the political chaos in the past several years. She said that she lost confidence in Hong Kong after the failure of the constitutional reform. She said that the fake asylum seekers and new Chinese immigrants are taking away resources from taxpayers like herself. She believes that it will be easy for her to adapt in England.
Mr. Hui works at a hair salon and thinks that he wants to be anywhere except here. "Every Hongkonger is unhappy." He said that the filibustering at the Legislative Council makes people want to leave.
Mr. Kwok works in the human resources field. He has not planned to immigrate and he is trying to develop his career. But if should have children later on, he will consider immigrating, because the education system in Hong Kong is not good for the next generation.
- On one hand, some people say that they are leaving because there is no FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY in Hong Kong, because the new Chinese immigrants are stealing the resources of Hong Kong, because schoolchildren are being brainwashed in school, because Hongkongers risk being kidnapped by Chinese national security agents, etc.
On the other hand, other people say that they are leaving because rule-of-law has been displaced by lawlessness (people can occupy the streets for 79 days and face no charges), because the Legislative Council is only interested in filibustering to sabotage governance, because the radicals want to destroy the Hong Kong economy by occupying/rioting in order to fight for non-issues such as self-determination/independence, because your children raised here may become wastrels and non-competitive, etc.
[741] Chinese National Security Agents in Hong Kong (2017/05/03)
Background: VOA Prominent Communist Party Critic Guo Speaks With VOA China Service April 20, 2017.
(Apple Daily) May 2, 2017.
Ever since VOA interrupted its special interview with Guo Wengui, Apple Daily has interviewed him Wengui multiple times already. On April 23, Guo told Apple Daily that Chinese Ministry of State Security and the Chinese Public Security Bureau have multiple locations in Hong Kong to conduct surveillance, monitoring and eavesdropping of democrats and anti-China forces in Hong Kong. These locations include the Chinese Resources Building, the China Liaison Office, the former Xinhua News Agency, a club in Causeway Bay as well as other locations in Fotan, Taikoo Shing, etc. Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security.
Guo Wengui said that the Ministry of State Security has 200 to 300 plainclothes agent working at these locations. They break Hong Kong laws and violate One Country Two Systems. The mobile telephones of all several million people in Hong Kong are monitored by them.
Guo Wengui said that the former Ministry of State Security deputy minister Ma Jian was in charge of activities in Hong Kong. One of his underlings named Gao was the director in charge of monitoring the anti-Chinese democrats in Hong Kong. After Ma fell, Gao was seized back to China and tortured to death. Guo said that Gao told him privately that they were eavesdropping on the numerous Occupy Central people in Hong Kong.
Today Guo Wengui told Apple Daily that there is a safe house in Causeway Bay which is used to house those who are temporarily seized. "The people of Hong Kong knows nothing about this. Other people have put the knife to your necks and entered your bedroom, but you still want to listen to them talk about One Country Two Systems! The Hong Kong government is pretending that they don't know anything! I used to cooperate with the Ministry of State Security. Therefore I know best. They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will. Xiao Jianhua, Che Feng and others were like that. Lawless! Because you Hongkongers are kind, naive and patient, you have been used by these thieves. Hong Kong has become a city in which the Chinese law enforcement agencies can commit crimes at will under the slogan of One Country Two Systems!"
Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses.
(Hong Kong Free Press) June 10, 2017.
Exiled Chinese tycoon, Guo Wengui, who is now residing in New York, has rocked Chinese politics for months by claiming to expose the corrupt lifestyle of high-ranking Communist Party officials. Guo made the allegations ahead of the looming transition in the standing committee of the party’s politburo.
Guo, a billionaire who claimed to have worked closely with the Chinese secret police on overseas operations for years, left China in 2013. In January 2015, China arrested the government’s spy head Ma Jian on suspicion of corruption. Soon after prominent economic news outlet Caixin published an investigative report on Guo and his association with Ma Jian, suggesting that his success in business has been backed by the secret police. In return, Guo accused Caixin’s chief editor Hu Shuli of extortion.
Beijing decided to prosecute Ma Jian on corruption charges in December 2016.
Guo opened his Twitter account in early 2017 and started revealing details of the corrupt practices of government officials including those with hidden wealth outside China. By end of May, Guo had 225,000 followers on Twitter.
Guo has explained that his intentions are personal: reclaim his money and life, as well as retaliate against those who persecuted him. He has put forward seven principles for his personal campaign:
Against using illegal means in anti-graft, against corruption in fighting against corruption, against using public security force in anti-graft, against police-state; would not stand against people, the country and [President] Xi Jinping.
Chinese Twitter users are divided over Guo’s motivations. Some believe once Guo is able to negotiate with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to unfreeze his assets, he will happily work with the party again. For example, @liushui1989 said:
For those who support Guo the liar, please understand that Guo is “against the corrupt, not the emperor”. His intention is to make a deal with the ruler — reclaim his money, life, and retaliate — not work for the sake of social progress and democracy. He has transformed himself from a criminal into a hero, manipulating public opinion and evidence of corruption as a negotiating chip. He will destroy all the beautiful hearts in his deal. All his supporters will turn into bullets and ashes. And they are helping the villain rather than the weak.
Yet many also believe that as an insider of the political system, Guo’s revelations of the internal power struggle and corruption in the top bureaucracy can shake up the political status quo.
Among those accused by Guo of being corrupt is Fu Zhenghua, China’s executive deputy minister of public security. In response, the Ministry of Public Security’s social media account released a video confession of Ma Jian accusing Guo of bribing him with RMB 60 million yuan (approximately US $8.72 million).
Guo issued a rejoinder by appearing in a live interview with US government-funded news outlet Voice of America on April 19, which he described as a “nuclear bomb” about Chinese politics.
However, the Voice of America interview was abruptly cut short with an alleged order from its director Amanda Bennett, who said Chinese officials that Guo named must be given an opportunity to respond “in advance” to any accusations of corruption.
Hours before Guo’s interview was scheduled, China had asked Interpol to put out a global warrant for his arrest. Many Chinese believe Beijing was behind Voice of America’s decision. Below is a typical criticism of the Voice of America (VOA) incident on Twitter:
Balanced news is just an excuse. The reality is that [VOA’s leader] dares not offend the CCP and had submitted to its pressure. Balanced news is to let both parties express their views in full, not to edit the original expression. Should [VOA] take away the other side’s opportunity to speak out in the name of balanced news because CCP refuses to respond? Disclaimer is a form of balance in legal term. But we should thank VOA for its malicious act. Now the whole world knows that the CCP is really scared of Guo Wengui, an egg who dared to crash the wall [meaning political system].
Guo’s wife and daughter, who were previously barred from leaving China, visited Guo in New York in mid-May after he had kept low profile for a month.
But the reunion has not stopped Guo from making further allegations on Twitter.
Notably, Guo’s posted a series of photos and shareholding charts on his YouTube and Twitter accounts, identifying relatives of China’s anti-graft czar, Wang Qishan, who allegedly has secret shares in the HNA Group, a prominent aviation conglomerate which went on a global acquisition spree, including the Hilton, aside from owning massive wealth offshore. Guo also accused Wang of having illegitimate children and owning many overseas properties; according to Guo, his family wealth could allegedly reach 2 trillion yuan (approximately US $300 billion).
The 19th National Congress of the CCP will be held in Beijing in the autumn of 2017, and there are speculations that 69-year-old Wang Qishan will remain a key figure in the standing committee of the party’s politburo.
News and information about Guo are strictly censored in China, though official media outlets have published stories accusing Guo of bribery, fraud, and rape. However, the comment sections on these news websites have been disabled.
Meanwhile, Chinese tycoon Pan Shiyi, whose name has also appeared in Guo’s allegations, responded with an open letter accusing Guo of working with the secret police in building his business empire.
Both Pan Shiyi and Hu Shuli have filed documents in the United States to sue Guo for libel. Opinions are also split over the legal action.
Some believe that Pan and Hu represent Wang Qishan in the internal political power struggle. Others believe the legal action will help reveal more information about corruption in government.
The allegation against Wang Qishan has attracted hundreds of thousands of Chinese netizens flocking to Guo’s YouTube and Twitter accounts to express their support for him. Many of his commenters have slammed the party’s corrupt top leaders as traitors and called for China’s network firewall to be dismantled so more Chinese will have access to the “truth”.
Others have urged Guo to put aside his personal interests and work to change the political system because only rule of law and democracy can protect individual rights.
@wtuo said:
Really, Bro Guo, don’t overestimate the impact of your revelations, even such explosive information relating to China’s top leader. Chinese people have become so numb to politics that they will just be onlookers unless their own interests are involved. Remember Lu Xun’s depiction of how Chinese people reacted to pubic execution, they just consumed the bloody scene as onlookers. So the top priority should be pulling down the wall [meaning the political system].
@milpitas95035 explained the significance of Guo’s allegations:
The power struggle between Jiang Zemin, a now-retired top leader of the CCP from 1989 until 2003)] and Xi [Jinping] is that the latter has accused Jiang and his faction for all the wrongdoings and glorified the anti-graft campaign under the leadership of Xi and Wang. They want to take power from Jiang and his faction using anti-graft as the pretext to gain public support. Guo Wengui’s revelations have denounced the anti-graft campaign, revealing to the public how the campaign has destroyed the rule of law, stood upon human rights. It is a fake anti-graft campaign aimed at robbing money [from one political camp] and the campaign has endangered the whole country, intoxicating the people and deterring the reform of rule of law and democracy.
Bao Tong, 85-year-old former CCP official who has been in exile since the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy movement, expressed his support for Guo Wengui (via reporter Gao Yu’s Twitter) because Guo has put forward a new agenda for Chinese political transformation:
Some said that Guo Wenguo is a billionaire within the current system and hence he is not clean. My answer is that Guo is the same as me. He was a billionaire inside the system, and Bao Tong was a high ranking official inside the system… As a billionaire, he understands the relationship between the rise of China and corruption… Guo’s demand is against illegal criminal acts, he keeps talking about his position against using illegal means in anti-graft, this point alone has opened up my horizon. I have learned that we can study China from its “red” tradition as well as from its “black” [criminal and illegal] tradition. [The system] can be darker than the triad society…
(SCMP) August 10, 2017.
US broadcaster Voice of America (VOA) has sent a letter to Chinese conglomerate HNA saying the views expressed by exiled tycoon Guo Wengui during an interview in April did not represent its views or those of the US government. The letter was a response to an earlier letter sent by HNA to VOA in early June, seeking clarification on the matter.
In his live television interview, the controversial property tycoon thrust HNA into the centre of his storm of corruption allegations against the top ranks of China’s ruling Communist Party. HNA later denied the allegations and filed a defamation lawsuit against Guo in New York.
Both VOA and HNA confirmed the authenticity of the letter to the South China Morning Post.
Signed by VOA director Amanda Bennett, dated July 30, and addressed to Andrew Levander, a New York-based lawyer representing HNA, it said the decision to invite Guo for the interview did not suggest any endorsement of his claims.
“VOA never stated that Mr Wengui (sic), or any statement by Mr Wengui, should be understood to represent the view of the VOA, or otherwise represent the official views of the United States government. Nor should the decision to have Mr Wengui on the show be understood to indicate that the VOA or any other part of the United States government has endorsed those statements,” it said.
“The statements made on the show by Guo Wengui were his, and his alone. They should not be understood to be the opinion of VOA, nor understood to have been endorsed or verified by VOA.”
HNA provided a copy of the VOA letter to the Post.
Asked why HNA had sent a letter to VOA seeking clarification in June, an HNA spokesman said that in the April interview, VOA had “offered Guo a chance for his so-called ‘direct exposé’ without verifying the source or the authenticity of his information”, and that the “groundless, false” allegations made by Guo had harmed the group’s reputation.
VOA, which is funded by the US government but operates independently, was the first mainstream Western media outlet to offer Guo a platform to speak his mind.
The interview was promoted by VOA as being three hours long, with Guo promising to drop a “nuclear bomb” revelation of corruption within the party, but was ended abruptly less than halfway through, sparking intense speculation on social media that it had been cut short under pressure, something VOA denied.
In May, the broadcaster suspended five staff members from its Mandarin-language service who were involved in the interview, including hosts Dong Fang and Gong Xiaoxia, and subjected them to a full investigation.
Referring the Post to an earlier statement, VOA said the decisions made regarding the interview with Guo were “based on the journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness”, and denied any input from the US government or pressure from the Chinese government in its decision-making.
(Global Times) August 10, 2017.
US news outlet which interviewed fugitive Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui said that Guo's statement does not represent the views of the US government in a letter sent to Hainan Airlines (HNA), the airline told the Global Times. Guo has made several accusations against HNA, which the airlines shrugged off as "groundless."
The Voice of America (VOA) on July 30 sent a letter to the HNA, saying that VOA never said Guo or any of his statements "should be understood to represent the views of the VOA, or otherwise represent the official views of the US government," HNA said. VOA also said that the decision to have Guo on the show should not be "understood to indicate that the VOA or any other part of the US government has endorsed those statements," HNA said.
The letter, signed by VOA director Amanda Bennett, was first posted by the Twitter account "The truth of Guo Wengui" on Tuesday.
Internet comments:
- Next Media has been firing and hiring reporters like crazy? What is the deal?
The job specification for the new hires are: "Familiar with various social media platforms. Enjoys carefree creative writing."
That is to say, they are ditching the eggheads who believe in leftist retardism such as journalistic ethics and they are collecting creative writers with unbridled imagination.- The reporter who wrote this particular report interviewed Guo Wengui and then failed to ask some very basic questions. But at least the reporter did not fill in the details in creative fashion.
For example, the person is in charge of monitoring anti-China democrats in Hong Kong is named Gao. Gao what? If the guy is so close to Guo that they can freely discuss these national security matters, shouldn't Guo know more than the family name? There is nobody to protect here, because Gao has been tortured to death already. And if Guo provides a full name, then the reporter can check whether a person by that name was ever a director of the Ministry of State Security.
- The "interview" was not conducted by normal telephone service. Instead, it was through voice messages over whatsapp, which gives the interviewee plenty of time to decide what to say and what not to say. The reporter cannot press further on an issue.
- According to Wikipedia, in the late 1960's, the Xinhua News Agency purchased a building on Queens Road East in Happy Valley to serve as its office building. On January 18, 2000, the Xinhua News Agency building was renamed the China Liaison Office. In 2001, the China Liaison Office moved to The Westpoint on Connaught Road West, Sai Wan district. The former location on 387-397 Queens Road East in Happy Valley became the four-star hotel Cosmopolitan Hotel in 2004 and then the Dorsett Wanchai Hong Kong hotel since 2016. So how many rooms in this hotel is the Ministry of State Security renting? Are there cheaper and less conspicuous choices? Do you have to tell all hotel workers and guests that floors 8 through 10 are restricted access areas at which the elevators won't stop?
- A club in Causeway Bay? Can Guo Wengui be a bit more specific? The Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club? The World Trade Centre Club? The Hongkong Japanese Club? But, no, it is just some 'club'.
- A club is going to have all sorts of people coming and going, including club members and their guests, employees and delivery persons. Why would you co-locate this with a surveillance centre with several hundred eavesdroppers? What is the explanation for these suspicious-looking mainlanders with military crew cuts going in and out of the fingerprint-locked door on the side?
- Everybody knows that the surveillance centers are located on top of Mount Parker, Hong Kong Island and Beacon Hill, Kowloon. They have to be located on high points. If you are located in Sai Wan or Causeway Bay, how can you monitor the signals in New Territories or Hong Kong Island south? The white-topped building structures on top of Mount Parker and Beacon Hill are secured facilities with private access roads. The cover is that they are Civil Aviation Department facilities operating Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), but everybody knows that they are eavesdropping centers where the workers live and work.
- The China Resources Building? Wouldn't you want a surveillance/eavesdropping operation be located not in the same building as the Consular Department of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FMCOPRC)?
- A safe house in Causeway Bay to keep detainees? Why do you want this to be located in the middle of Hong Kong Island? Someone will see you come and go at all times of day. Who are the hooded persons being taken in or out? One telephone call about a suspected kidnapping and the Hong Kong Police come rushing in. Why not Stonecutters Island? Or Shek Kong Airfield? Or Stanley Fort? Even if some Hong Kong citizen is known to be held inside these other facilities, the Hong Kong Police cannot enter and search because they belong to the People's Liberation Army Ground Force.
- If Guo Wengui really knows about the safe house in Causeway Bay, he can tell Apple Daily where it is and they will stake it out, gather sufficient evidence, publish it and then Guo Wengui's credibility will be solid hereafter. But he doesn't.
- In the first paragraph, "Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security." In the last paragraph, "Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses." Well, here is a driver who knows much more about Chinese lawbreaking activities in Hong Kong than Guo Wengui. Find him already! He is the bigger story!
- "They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will." What? Does this mean that they can modify transaction records/land records at the Housing Department/Land Registry to take over your house at will without needing your agreement? If so, and they are thieves as Guo Wengui called them, then why haven't they stolen everybody else's houses/lands already?
- Specifically, Guo Wengui spoke of 房產賬號 (account numbers of real estate property). That is to say, Guo believes that as soon they know the 'account number' of someone's apartment, they can take possession. The Apple Daily reporter was uncurious about this extraordinary development in the Hong Kong real estate sector.
- Once they get the account number of your real estate property, they can use the Tianhe 1 supercomputer to crack the password on that account. Once they go in and change the password, you will be locked out of your real estate property forever. If you call the police to say that someone has stolen your real estate property, they will tell you that, as far as they are concerned, the owner of the property is whoever holds the password. This is what I understand Guo to be saying.
- Neither Guo Wengui nor the Apple Daily reporter understand the theory/practice of surveillance.
The analogy is with the surveillance camera systems. There are hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras around Hong Kong. There is no need to hire several hundred thousand workers to monitor these cameras on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.99% of the time. The recorded videos become of interest only after something has happened (e.g. a robbery committed outside a convenience store, a row of motorcycles being set on fire, etc). Then the recorded videos are retrieved for the relevant time-space coordinates in order to learn what happened.
In like manner, it may be the case the government is siphoning all communications (text messages, whataspp messages, emails, telephone calls, etc) into a huge database. But they are not going to hire several hundreds of thousands of workers to process the data on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.9999% of the time. The recorded data become of interest only when someone becomes a person of interest. Then that person's data history is retrieved from the database for scrutiny and that person and those whom he/she communicates with are monitored on a real-time basis.
There is no need to scare the population by telling them that the Chinese Communists (or the US National Security Agency) are monitoring everything that everybody says all the time. It is neither feasible nor necessary for the Chinese Communists/NSA to do so.
- In the longer Next Weekly interview, Guo Wengui goes on to explain how the corrupt Chinese government officials are implementing a plan to infiltrate Chinese people into Hong Kong. Guo does not seem to have made up his mind as to what conspiracy these corrupt Chinese government officials are running.
On one hand, the theory is that these corrupt Chinese government officials are greedy moneygrubbers who want to steal money from China and Hong Kong.
On the other hand, the theory is that these Chinese government officials want to destroy Hong Kong and therefore they have this whole plan of sending large number of Chinese immigrants into Hong Kong to dilute and divide Hong Kong's population and thus destroy the Hong Kong economy.
So why in the world are people like Ma Jian getting two apartment units in Tai Koo Shing from Guo Wengui as bribe, and then trying to destroy the Hong Kong real estate property market at the same time?
If Ma Jian and his ilk want to destroy Hong Kong, shouldn't he ask Guo Wengui to get him some apartments in Thailand or somewhere else -- anywhere but the doomed Hong Kong?
Here are the Hong Kong Census data by place of birth for the years 2006, 2011 and 2011 (source: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department Table A106)
2006
Hong Kong-born: 4,138,844 (60.3%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,298,956 (33.5%)
Elsewhere: 426,546 (6.2%)
TOTAL: 6,864,3462011
Hong Kong-born: 4,278,126 (60.5%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,267,917 (32.1%)
Elsewhere: 525,533 (7.4%)
TOTAL: 7,071,5762016
Hong Kong-born: 4,452,493 (60.7%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,272,293 (31.0%)
Elsewhere: 612,799 (8.4%)
TOTAL: 7,336,585Somebody is sending large number of immigrants into Hong Kong to dilute and divide Hong Kong's population and thus destroy the Hong Kong economy. But it isn't only the Chinese Communists. More invaders come from elsewhere other than Mainland/Macau/Taiwan. They are Americans, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos, Nigerians, etc.
- The sub-population of mainland-born people in Hong Kong is decreasing because the earlier generation is literally dying off. For example, a person born in Shanghai in 1920, moved to Hong Kong in 1949 and died in 1995 would be make it one person fewer. The replacement rate of 150 per day won't be enough to replace the sub-population.
And here is the Usual Language data (source: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department Table A107):
2006
Cantonese: 90.8%
Putonghua: 0.9%
Other Chinese dialects: 4.4%
English: 2.8%
Other languages: 1.1%2011
Cantonese: 89.5%
Putonghua: 1.4%
Other Chinese dialects: 4.0%
English: 3.5%
Other languages: 1.6%2016
Cantonese: 88.9%
Putonghua: 1.9%
Other Chinese dialects: 3.1%
English: 4.3%
Other languages: 1.9%The Cantonese language is being threatened with extinction, and the biggest threat is English and Other Languages as opposed to Putonghua.
- (SCMP) May 2, 2017.
A group of journalists at US government-funded broadcaster Voice of America (VOA) had been suspended after they were involved in an interview with Chinese fugitive tycoon Guo Wengui last month, one of the reporters said on Tuesday.
In a written reply to the South China Morning Post, the broadcaster confirmed the suspension of VOA Mandarin service chief Sasha Gong Xiaoxia and four other Mandarin service employees over the interview, but denied it had anything to do with the US or Chinese governments.
It said the decisions were “based on the journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services. There was no input whatsoever from the US government ... Pressure from the Chinese government played no role in any decision-making.”
Here is an example of the problems in that report:
(VOA) April 20, 2017.
“What I am going to show you are conversations I had with Mr. Fu Zhenhua,” Guo told VOA Mandarin Wednesday, “and what did he instruct me to do as the head of the national anti-corruption group.”
Fu Zhenhua is a top official of the Ministry of Public Security. “He tried to threaten me, to extort $50 million from me and already got $1.5 million U.S. dollars from me,” Guo said. “As long as I give him $50 million, he would guarantee the safety of my family members, they would release my employees, my family members, my brothers, my wife and my daughter. And also [he] would guarantee the safety of my assets. In addition, I would need to help him access some information.”
Chinese officials had expressed concerns to VOA about the interview beforehand, but declined repeated offers to rebut his claims during or after the segment aired. In the past, Guo has made allegations of secret businesses controlled by senior Chinese leaders or their families. He outlined more details in Wednesday’s interview, which have not yet been substantiated.
“He [Fu Zhenhua] instructed me to look for information on Wang Qishan,” Guo said. “He [Fu Zhenhua] said he was doing this on behalf of President Xi Jinping.” Wang Qishan, known as China’s anti-corruption tsar, is a senior leader of the Communist Party of China and the secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.
“He [Fu Zhenhua] asked me to look for [information on] Secretary Wang Qishan and his relationship with Hainan Airlines. Secretary Wang Qishan’s nephew has stocks in Hainan Airlines,” Guo told VOA. Hainan Airlines is one of the largest airlines operating in China. “The wealth of Hainan Airlines after mergers and acquisitions, as we see in the past two or three years, involves almost a trillion” RMB, Guo said.
VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo.
At least VOA was forced to add that last sentence. But Apple Daily has no compunctions about publishing the interview with Guo Wengui in which no verification has been conducted and obvious doubts are present but not raised.
When VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo, it has to be concerned that VOA are being used as a tool by a known corrupt person Guo Wengui to attack known anti-corruption Chinese fighters such as Wang Qishan.
- “The journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services" does not just mean letting Guo Wengui have his say and then inviting a Chinese government spokesperson have equal time for a rebuttal. It means that VOA has to do some due diligence to verify Guo's assertions. If and when this is a live broadcast, and Guo seems to be getting unhinged on some of his allegations, what would VOA do?
- Are there Chinese Ministry of State Security agents in Hong Kong? Of course, there are. There has to be. Hong Kong has plentry of agents for the CIA (USA), SIS/MI6 (UK), GRU (Russia), BND (Germany), DGSE (France), ASIS (Australia), Mossad (Israel), National Intelligence Service (Republic of Korea), Research and Analysis Wing (India), etc. So why wouldn't there be Chinese Ministry of State Security agents here?
- (SCMP) June 9, 2017.
Three executives of the flagship company of fugitive Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui pleaded guilty to fraud charges on Friday in a court hearing in the northeastern port city of Dalian. Yang Ying, the chief financial officer of Beijing Pangu Investment Company Limited, Lu Tao, its deputy general manager, and Xie Honglin, a financial manager, had been charged with obtaining loans using fraudulent documents, according to a notice posted by the Xigang District People’s Court in Dalian. Lu and Xie had also been accused of buying foreign currency by fraudulent means. They will be sentenced at a later date.
Lu testified in court that Guo had instructed him to make fake company stamps. Yang said that Guo had given her the fake invoice, which Guo had bought from somewhere. She said 1.6 billion yuan of the loan was used to buy a majority stake in mainland brokage Minzu Securities, while 600 million yuan was transferred to Hong Kong.
The charge of fraudulently acquiring foreign currency centred on Guo’s purchase of a private jet in Hong Kong, according to the indictment. In 2012, Guo sought to buy a second private jet in the name of a Hong Kong company called World Century Limited. To pay for it, Lu and Xie applied for foreign currency to the value of US$13.5 million at a Construction Bank branch in Beijing, claiming that it was for the purchase of furniture for World Century. They also produced a fake contract and invoice for import of the furniture, the prosecutors said. Xie said in court that Lu told him it was Guo’s decision to purchase the foreign exchange. Xie said he realised at the time that it was against the rules, but he did not think it would break the law.
Guo had previously strongly denied any irregularities over the loan, saying that he had paid back all the capital and interest to the bank well before the deadline. In a live streamed interview with overseas Chinese media Mingjing on Friday morning from New York, before the hearing, Guo said he had not yet seen the indictment or other documents related to the case. But he said he had got some bits of information from pretrial meetings. “I was baffled after reading it ... It was completely different from the truth as I know it,” he said. He said he did not want to make too many comments about the case because it was still being heard, but he did protest strongly about the charge of illegal purchase of foreign currency. “I was very surprised by the charge ... it is out of the question that I would buy foreign currency through fraudulent means,” he said.
- (SCMP) June 9, 2017.
An Australia-based Chinese woman who was implicated in Guo Wengui’s allegations of high-level corruption has dismissed the fugitive billionaire’s claims as “absurd” and suggested she is exploring a potential defamation lawsuit against him to clear her name.
Yuge Bromley, the wife of Melbourne, Australia-based artist David Bromley, described Guo’s allegation that she was the illegitimate daughter of Wang Qishan, the Communist Party’s top anti-graft official, as “incredibly ridiculous and unbelievable”.
“Everything he has said and all the subsequent commentary on social media is not only completely false but deeply hurtful to me and my family,” Bromley said in an email to the South China Morning Post.
“Up until he broadcast my name and image on his YouTube channel and website, I had never heard of the guy nor had any contact with him nor the political people he is alleging I have any relationships with,” Bromley said. “Since then, I and my family have been inundated with social media and internet barrages about the allegations, none of which we wish to dignify other than with a complete denial.”
Chinese real estate tycoon Pan Shiyi, the head of the Hong Kong-listed property company Soho China, filed a defamation suit against Guo in the US last week, making him the first big name to hit back at Guo over his allegations. Pan’s US suit, filed in the Supreme Court of New York, responds to claims last month by Guo about Soho’s ownership.
Hu Shuli, editor of Caixin Media, a prominent mainland outlet, has filed libel lawsuits in both Beijing and Hong Kong against Guo over allegations implicating Hu and Caixin. Hu has asked a New York court to compel Guo to turn over documents and recordings that prove his claims, according to court documents.
- (SCMP) July 8, 2017.
Guo Wengui, the billionaire fugitive from China, is facing new claims worth US$1.5 billion against him in the US as more mainland Chinese companies try to recover assets awarded to them in Beijing.
Escalating a war of words with Guo’s attorney David Boies, New York-based attorney Kevin Tung said he will file a complaint in the local court system next week on behalf of 10 Chinese companies. As with a lawsuit filed last month, the companies alleged that assets Guo owns in the US – including a luxury apartment near Central Park in Manhattan – were acquired with assets illegally transferred out of China.
Those assets had previously belonged to entities under Guo’s direct control, including Beijing Pangu Investment Co Limited, and were subject to distribution to Guo’s creditors, according to the complaint prepared by Tung’s firm, Kevin Kerveng Tung PC.
Last month, Tung announced details of a lawsuit he filed against Guo and entities he controls on behalf of nine mainland Chinese plaintiffs, mostly construction firms, seeking $50 million worth of direct and punitive damages sustained because of their inability to recover assets awarded by Beijing courts.
While speaking to reporters in New York about the latest claims, Tung also addressed criticism levelled at him by Boies, who is known for representing the US Justice Department in a case against Microsoft, as well as former US Vice President Al Gore and New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in other high-profile cases.
Boies warned Tung in a letter dated June 14 that allegations that Guo illegally transferred assets from China constituted defamation.
Allegations made in formal complaints registered with the courts can’t be considered defamation “and that’s why I was wondering why a self-proclaimed super lawyer doesn’t know this”, Tung said. “Or maybe he just ignored this and is just trying to bully me.”
Boies Schiller responded to Tung’s comment. “We are not alleging what is said in the complaint is defamation, but we are alleging that what Kevin Tung said at his press conference was defamation,” David Boies said in an email to the Post.
Boies was referring to a June 13 press conference in New York, where Tung made numerous comments about why a US court might rule in his clients’ favour.
“I believe that a US tribunal will agree with me,” Tung said at the time. “They will not tolerate this kind of practice whereby someone takes assets out of a country, and comes to the United States to enjoy a luxurious life at the expense of creditors.”
- (SCMP) July 22, 2017.
A Beijing government official is suing China’s fugitive tycoon Guo Wengui in New York for US$10 million for defamation, citing allegations of sexual favours and graft, which Guo made against her in a public YouTube video.
Huang Yan, vice minister of housing and urban-rural development, accused Guo of deliberately spreading false information to damage her reputation by posting the video in May. The complaint was filed with New York State’s Supreme Court by Kevin Tung of the law firm Kevin Kerveng Tung PC, the same attorney who filed complaints on behalf of other Chinese entities suing Guo in New York.
According to the complaint, Guo alleges falsely that Huang secured approvals for Beijing real estate developers from former Beijing Vice Mayor Liu Zhihua in exchange for sexual favours, and then received property assets from the developers who benefitted.
By posting the video, “Guo has falsely claimed that plaintiff Huang had engaged in various nefarious actions, including, but not limited to: sex scandals and corruption”, the complaint says.
“These spoken statements have been heard by hundreds of thousands of viewers. Defendant Guo published and disseminated the video on YouTube maliciously for the sole purpose of impugning plaintiff Huang’s reputation and standing and casting aspersions upon plaintiff Huang.”
The YouTube video is no longer available publicly.
- (New York Times) October 2, 2017.
A Chinese billionaire living in virtual exile in New York has riled China's leaders with his sometimes outlandish tales of deep corruption among family members of top Communist Party officials.
On Saturday, Guo Wengui's tales proved too much for one of his favourite platforms for broadcasting those accusations: Facebook.
The social media network said it had blocked a profile under Guo's name and taken down another page associated with him. Facebook said the content on both pages had included someone else's personal identifiable information, which violates its terms of service.
Facebook investigated the accounts after receiving a complaint, according to a spokeswoman.
"We want people to feel free to share and connect on Facebook, as well as to feel safe, so we don't allow people to publish the personal information of others without their consent," the spokesman, Charlene Chian, said. She declined to say who had complained.
Guo did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The profile under Guo's name was not verified.
For Facebook, it is the latest setback to the company's efforts to expand in China. Mark Zuckerberg, its founder, has made a series of grand gestures to gain market access, including meeting with Chinese politicians, learning to speak Mandarin and even reading Communist Party propaganda, most of it to little avail. Many Facebook apps have been blocked in China for years.
Facebook has nonetheless signalled its continued interest in China, even though operating there under current laws would require it to bend to Chinese laws on censorship and personal information disclosure.
Facebook insiders said last year that they had worked on a tool that could appeal to China's censors. This spring, Facebook quietly authorised a small Chinese company to release a version of Moments, its picture-sharing app.
Meanwhile, Facebook is facing scrutiny in the United States, where it faces a congressional investigation for hosting ads linked to Russia that may have played a role in the 2016 presidential election.
Many of Guo's accusations have seemed outlandish, but he has remained a thorn in the side of the Chinese government. In the spring, China asked Interpol to issue a request for his arrest. At the time, both Facebook and Twitter suspended Guo's accounts. Facebook later said the suspension was a mistake.
Some evidence that Guo has presented to back up his claims is easy to refute. But others have been corroborated by The New York Times.
More recently, Guo, who is in the United States on a tourist visa and who lives in a US$68 million (S$92 million) apartment overlooking Central Park in Manhattan, has sought asylum because of what his lawyer claimed was his status as "a political opponent of the Chinese regime."
Chinese news outlets, many of them controlled by the government, have ramped up scrutiny of Guo, with reports accusing him of fraud, money laundering and even rape. Guo has denied the allegations, calling them a smear campaign.
The blocks affect both the profile under Guo's name and an associated Facebook page, a type of account often used by businesses and other organisations.
Neither will be able to add content while the block is in place, Facebook said; the company would not specify how long the block would last. It also said that the page associated with Guo would remain off the site unless an administrator for the page appealed to the company.
On Sunday, the profile with Guo's name was still visible, but with what Facebook said was a "temporary feature block."
A verified page with Guo's name remained on Facebook.
- (EJ Insight) October 12, 2017.
Fugitive Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui posted on social media this week four pictures that show him in meetings with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
The billionaire businessman, who is wanted in China in connection with corruption and other charges, said on his Twitter account that he and Bannon met twice within the past seven days.
The first meeting took place on Oct. 6 while the second one happened on Oct. 10, said Guo, who lives in exile in the United States.
Guo said he had lunch with Bannon in Washington last Friday after a press conference, and that Chinese dissident Yang Jianli was also at their table.
The second meeting between Guo and Bannon took place on Tuesday this week, when Bannon and his team visited the Chinese tycoon’s home in New York for a three-and-a-half-hour dinner.
Guo did not reveal what he and Bannon discussed during the meetings, but said they both share some common friends and common goals, Apple Daily noted.
The tycoon claimed that he has been in constant contact with Bannon over the last six months, setting off speculation as to what might be happening behind the scenes in relation to the fugitive.
Guo tweeted that he was deeply touched by Bannon’s visit at a critical time and how much the latter has cared about him.
Guo’s high-profile move came after Bannon was reported to have met Wang Qishan, China’s anti-graft tsar, in Beijing in September for 90 minutes.
- (The Guardian) October 23, 2017.
Donald Trump called for the deportation of a Chinese dissident living in the US, after receiving a request from Beijing hand-delivered by a casino owner with business interests in China, according to a US report.
The Wall Street Journal described a Chinese government attempt to put pressure on Guo Wengui, a real estate tycoon living in exile in New York, to halt his allegations of corruption in high places in China.
A group of officials from China’s ministry of state security, who entered the US on visas that did not allow them to conduct official business, visited Guo in his New York apartment in May, and used veiled threats in an attempt to persuade Guo to stop his accusatory tweets, which have a wide following in China, and return home. Guo shrugged off the pressure and made a recording of his conversation with the officials, part of which he posted online.
After that visit, FBI agents confronted the Chinese officials at New York’s Pennsylvania Station. The Chinese visitors first claimed to be cultural diplomats and then admitted they were security officials. The agents warned them they were violating the terms of their visa and told them to leave the country.
However, two days later, just before leaving the country, the Chinese officials paid a second visit to Guo, triggering a debate within the administration over whether they should be arrested. FBI agents were posted at John F Kennedy airport ready to carry out the arrests before the officials boarded their flight, but they were not made, after the state department argued it could trigger a diplomatic crisis.
Guo has filed an application for political asylum in the US, which is pending. But according to the Journal’s account, Trump called for Guo’s deportation in a discussion on policy towards China, describing him as a “criminal” at an Oval Office policy meeting in June, on the basis of a letter from Beijing accusing him of serious crimes.
The report said the letter had been hand-delivered to him at a private dinner by Steve Wynn, a Las Vegas casino magnate and Republican National Committee finance chairman with interests in the Chinese gambling enclave of Macau, for which Wynn relies on Beijing for licensing.
The marketing director for Wynn Resorts Ltd, Michael Weaver, told the Journal in a written statement: “[T]hat report regarding Mr Wynn is false. Beyond that, he doesn’t have any comment.”
Weaver did not respond to a request for comment from the Guardian on what part of the story was false and whether Wynn had ever delivered a letter from the Chinese government to Trump.
The Journal report said that aides tried to persuade Trump out of going ahead with Guo’s deportation, noting he was a member of the president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. The aides later ensured that the deportation would not go ahead.
There was no immediate response from the White House or the state department to a request to comment on the report. A state department representative told the Journal: “Decisions on these kinds of matters are based on interagency consensus.”
A justice department representative said: “It is a criminal offense for an individual, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attache, to act in the United States as an agent of a foreign power without prior notification to the attorney general.”
[740] Are You A Dickhead? (2017/05/03)
(Oriental Daily with video) May 2, 2017.
The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council met today to discuss the allocation of HK$6 billion from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to be injected as capital stock in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
A legislator pointed out that there was a mistake in the government's documents. Finance Committee chairman Chan Kin-por ruled that this was merely a typographical error and refused to reject the document. Legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that Chan Kin-por was unfair. He said that legislators are "eggheads" (in English) who are bullied by the "dickhead" (in English) government officials. Pro-establishment legislators said that this was vulgar language. Chan Kin-por demanded that Leung retract what he said. When Leung refused, Chan ejected him from the meeting.
Leung refused to leave. Chan decided to call a 5-minute adjournment. When the meeting was resumed, Chan Kin-por denounced that saying "dickhead" is setting a bad example for children and causing embarrassment among ladies. Chan ejected Leung once more. But the pan-democratic legislators formed a circle around Leung and defended him. In the end, Chan decided to adjourn the meeting for the day.
At the same time, someone thought that Chan Kin-por used vulgar language himself, wherein the sentence directed at legislator Cheng Chung-tai, wherein the sentence "If you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking" came out as "Fuck, you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking."
Afterwards, Leung met with the press. He said that his use of "dickhead" was inoffensive. He said that the chairman could have asked him to retract, or rule that the term should not be used in a Legislative Council meeting. Leung said that "dickhead" corresponds with "egghead" and the chairman should not associate it with other meanings. He said that the ruling was inexplicable. He said that if Chan found it offensive, he should point that out directly. He said that Chan ordered him to leave without explanation. Leung said that when a word has multiple meanings, the chairman should ask the legislator just which was the intended meaning instead of just ejecting him.
Leung said that "Dickhead' refers to a stubborn, unreasonable person, or a fool. He said that a committee chairman should have intelligence and knowledge, and it is important to know about culture, literature and human behavior. He said that Chan is hysterical in his effort to support the government. He called on Chan to take a break, visit a psychiatrist and let the vice-chairman take over meetings.
Chan Kin-por said that he rarely objects to vulgar language. Although his English is not good, the language here was clearly vulgar. Many female government officials told him that they were offended. Therefore Chan had to deplore the behavior.
As for the charge that he also used vulgar language, Chan said that he might have slurred. His situation is different from deliberately saying and repeating vulgar language. He apologized for his pronunciation and promised that he will speak properly in the future. He emphasized that he would never be so shameless as deny that he used vulgar language.
Internet comments:
- Leung Kwok-hung was adamant that "dickhead" is not vulgar language. He also said that "dick" is not vulgar either, and he told people to look up the dictionary.
(Merriam-Webster) Dickhead
usually vulgar
: A stupid or contemptible person.origin and etymology
: dick (penis) + head(Wikipedia) Dick
Dick is an English language euphemism used for a variety of slang purposes, some generally considered vulgar. It is used to refer to the penis, and by extension as a verb to describe sexual activity. It is also used as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible. In this context, it can be used interchangeably with jerk, and can also be used as a verb to describe rude or deceitful actions. Variants include dickhead, which literally refers to the glans.
- In 2001, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published guidelines that summarized instances in which a number of media outlets had violated indecency laws when using the word "dick" in a sexual context. These included, for example, the State University of New York's WSUC-FM, in Cortland, New York, which in 1993 was fined for broadcasting a rap titled "I'm Not Your Puppet", which referenced "shoving my dick up this bitch's behind" in one lyric, and stated in another, "I pulled out my dick, popped it in her mouth, and she sucked it".
- More English lessons from Leung Kwok-hung:
(HKG Pao) May 6, 2017.
Yesterday morning at the Security Committee meeting, the subject were the legislator councilors who were denied entry into Macau. Leung Kwok Fung talked about Macau Chief Executive Fernando Chui Sai On: "The figurehead of the Macau ... that is, the leader ... he is a shithead ... that is, a foot!" He continued: "Will Chui Sai On be allowed to enter Hong Kong? Of course not! He is a figurehead, he is a shithead! Let me repeat once more. Anyone who won't let people in is a shithead!"
Yesterday after at the Financial Committee meeting, the allocation of funds to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was the subject. Leung Kwok-hung challenged the committee chairman Chan Kin-por: "If you have to apologize for a slip of the tongue, you should not be the chairman, brother. What will happen if you use vulgar language frequently?" Then he rattled off a list of English 'head' nouns: "Dickhead, thickheaded, shithead, warhead." Chan ignored this persistent effort to get ejected, and made Leung Kwok-hung sat through the entire meeting and thus earn his pay.
- (Oriental Daily) May 6, 2017.
At the afternoon meeting of the Finance Committee, Leung Kwok-hung wanted to bring up again his motion on Tuesday to adjourn. He said: "I won't say that you are a dickhead. I will say that you are thickheaded, but I don't know if you can be a shithead or perhaps even a warhead. You cannot be like a dickhead, you must not use a warhead to shoot someone. Listen to this lecture!" On this occasion, Chan Kin-por did not respond at all, and made no ruling on what Leung said. When Leung finished, Chan went on to ask the next legislator to speak.
At the previous meeting, Leung used vulgar language and Chan expelled Leung. In the end, that meeting was called off ahead of schedule. Perhaps Chan got smart and refused to be baited anymore.
- What 'head' has not been used by Leung Kwok-hung yet?
Airhead
Blockhead
Bonehead
Butthead
Cementhead
Dunderhead
Fathead
Fuckhead
Hammerhead
Knucklehead
Lunkhead
Meathead
[739] Freedom To Advocate Independence (2017/05/01)
Hong Kong Independence
Hong Kong National Party
District Speech
Date: April 30
Outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre
Time: 430pm-530pm(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.
About 20 masked Hong Kong National Party members showed up outside the Serenade Chinese Restaurant outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre to prepare to get the speech going.
Several Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin that the location had been rented to other groups already and asked Chan to leave.
Chan Ho-tin said that he will move his event to the harbor front opposite to the Tsim Sha Tsui clock tower. The masked individuals then moved their equipment to Pier 4 and set up again.
The Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Chan that they are in violation of the regulations on venue activities. Chan said: "You must be joking." Then they ignored the LCSD workers and went ahead. The LSCD workers called the police, who came but did not do anything. The speech finally began at 530pm and lasted for about one hour.
In his speech, Chan Ho-tin said that this is the first speech given by the Party. There were many obstacles, but they managed to provide "political enlightenment" for the citizens. The theme of the speech today is that about the housing crisis. Twenty years after the handover, "the Chinese kept coming to rob the resources of Hong Kong so that citizens have no hope of ever owning a house."
Internet comments:
- The Hong Kong National Party said beforehand that they expect less than 50 people to attend. The photos and videos show lots of people, but there seem to be many more HKNP workers (20 of them) and plenty more reporters. However, the event drew lost of media coverage. Unfortunately the media had no interest in what Chan Ho-tin had to say. So how many citizens were "enlightened" today?
- Masks for everybody? Why are you so afraid of advocating Hong Kong independence? The Falun Gong people are much more courageous than you.
- They are suffering from a case of mass infection of "Hong Kong independence poison" and therefore they wear surgical masks to stop the germs from spreading.
- When you take your dog out for a walk in the street, you have to put a muzzle on it. When you take your independence advocate out for a speech in the street, you have to put a mask on him.
- When Hong Kong triad gangsters want to make a show of force, they put on gloves and chew on drinking straws.
- If you mom spots you on television news, she is going to cut off your allowance and then you will have to get a real job.
- The Localists have a favorite saying: "We are born in a time of chaos and the people cannot make a living." That is why We the People have to rise up and overthrow the tyrants! The problem is that they look like well-fed compared to other people in places such as Afghanistan or Syria. In the case, Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin looked pretty well-kept, doesn't he?
- The theme of today's talk was the housing crisis, because citizens despair that they will ever own their own apartment. Chan Ho-tin has his own housing problem.
(Wen Wei Po) April 29, 2017.
The Hong Kong National Party is most active in raising money. Earlier this month, the group tried to get the City University Student Union to sell their pro-independence accessories, but the school's administration and student union council vetoed it. At this time, the Hong Kong National Party rents a 1,000-square-feet unit in a Tuen Mun industrial building for about $150,000 per annum. But recently they have been checking with property agents about switching to a smaller unit. At present, the two Hong Kong National Party leaders Chan Ho-tin and Jason Chow Ho-fair have no steady jobs and are living with their families in public housing units. According to neighbors, Chow does not seem to have to work: "He goes out late in the day as if he had just woken up. He saunters around downstairs while p laying with his mobile phone. He looks 100% like a 'young wastrel'."
Chan and Chow's housing problems are due to their refusal to get proper jobs. They have never worked since graduating from university. They may have figure that advocating independence may be more lucrative than a regular job, but perhaps the election of Donald Trump has stopped the money flow.
- Why do these people seem to have so much in resources without having to work? There are two opposite theories. On one hand, they are getting money from the CIA/National Endowment for Democracy to start a Color Revolution. On the other hand, they are getting money from the China Liaison Office to destroy self-determination/independence through acts of gross incompetence to justify the government crackdown.
- The obstacles that the HKNP encountered during this event were due to the fact that they could not obtain corporate registration. Their application was rejected because the stated purpose of the group contravenes the Basic Law. Without corporate registration, they cannot obtain an event permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.
- Chan Ho-tin said that he was exercising the citizen's freedom of expression. This means that he does not need to apply for any event permits. Do regular citizens need 20 people to carry equipment (backdrops, flags, sound equipment, etc) to exercise their freedom of expression? Is that what they have at the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park (London)?
- The Chinese Communist Party won China by using guns and ammo. If the Hong Kong National Party wants to win Hong Kong, they must use guns and ammo too. But if all they do is deliver speeches to "enlightenment citizens" into donating more money to them, then they are just swindlers.
- On this same day, there is another incident that increases the fear among Hongkongers. But the Hong Kong National Party and other Localists have no intention of doing anything.
(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.
The area around Wong Chuk Street and Maple Street in the Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon has a lot of recycling centers that hire part-time South Asian workers to move materials. The business is controlled by several Indians with triad backgrounds. Recently some Pakistanis have moved into the area to compete for the business. This has led to conflicts.
At around 7pm on April 16, several South Asians quarreled outside a convenience store on Wong Chu Street. There was a fight and one person was injured by a glass bottle smashed against his head.
At around 10pm on the night before yesterday, the two sides decided to "discuss" at the Maple Street soccer field. More than a dozen Indians showed up first, some of them carrying golf clubs. Shortly afterwards, about 40 Pakistanis showed up in cars and by foot. Without saying anything, they charged onto the soccer field with knives, metal pipes and glass bottles. The Indians fought back with golf clubs. The fight spilled onto Cheung Sha Wan Road and Wong Chuk Street.
The Indians were outnumbered and began to retreat. The Pakistanis pursued and threw objects at them, including handcarts by the roadside. Citizens fled and passing cars braked. The police received multiple emergency calls.
The police showed up in force with batons and shields. The two parties immediately dispersed. A large number of weapons and broken glass shards were left on the soccer field, pavements and roads. The police searched for the combatants. They arrested five injured Indians on Cheung Sha Wan Road and Lai Chee Kok Road.
- Why won't the Hong Kong National Party do anything about the South Asian fake asylum seekers stealing the resources of the Hong Kong Nation? Because those guys have golf clubs, metal pipes and knives! It is far less risky to beat up Chinese grannies, pregnant women and small children.
- (SCMP) China’s bewildering focus on a fringe group spooks Hong Kong, deters investors. By Peter Guy. May 1, 2017.
Athenian statesman Themistocles said: “I cannot fiddle, but I can make a small town into a great state.”
The Hong Kong of the ’80s and ’90s held out that hope of becoming a great global city state of business, but today it is dragged down by internecine and nonsensical political strife.
Despite victories on the constitutional and judicial fronts over separatists and independence agitators, Wang Zhenmin, legal chief of the central government’s liaison office, said the “one country, two systems” policy under which Hong Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for half a century might be scrapped if it became a tool to confront Beijing.
Wang warned that autonomy could diminish if Hongkongers continued to challenge national security. “The more Hong Kong fails to actively defend the sovereignty, national security and development interests of the country in accordance to the law, the more wary the country might be on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the ‘two systems’. There would be less room for its autonomy,” he said.
For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers.
Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea. But I wonder what would happen if an imaginative writer like myself produced a book, video game and movie version of Tom Clancy’s Op-Center and replaced the plot with a story about separatist Hong Kong student leaders working with US Navy Seals and CIA operatives to take over the city in an astonishing coup?
Even though America has been destroyed numerous times in box-office hit films, my idea would be so comically and realistically subversive that I might be invited for a booksellers’ long weekend in China.
My point is that applying the communist dialectic playbook for purges to free civil society like Hong Kong only frightens the local and expatriate populace and foreign businesses for the simple reason that there are so few separatists or independence seekers among us.
Warnings of foreign anti-China forces making use of a post-transition Hong Kong as a subversion base for China-containment purposes are not useful in confronting the most important economic challenges we are facing.
By magnifying the unworkable ideas of a small group seeking something that is impossible, China only stokes doubt in investors. Many foreign and local businesspeople are quite simply bewildered at the amount of unrelenting wailing and frothing over a tiny group of independence seekers.
Throughout its history, Hong Kong has always managed to find its economic balance and usefulness to China and the world. Adaptive, pragmatic and audacious locals and foreigners always doubled down their bets and prospered after the 1967 riots, the 1970s oil crisis, the 1984 Joint Declaration and all the property crashes and bank failures in between. Hong Kong now must find its fulcrum in the 21st-century melee.
So without any constraints, chasing the ghouls of separatism only feeds the propaganda machine that is not looking for the truth, but a story. The central government appears to be pursuing Hong Kong independence insurrectionists with the same religious zeal that the Holy See pursued apparitions of the Virgin Mary during the Renaissance.
Ultimately, Wang’s remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law. Such threats disenfranchise Hong Kong people by saying they cannot truly be Chinese citizens.
- "For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers." It is in the interest of Hong Kong to evolve into a new, digital economy with the freest and most creative thinkers. What is the interest of Beijing? Do they need Hong Kong as a new digital economy? No, they don't because the new Silicon Valley is already in Shenzhen. What do they need? Protecting sovereignty, national security and development interests.
- "Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea." Why don't you tell it to Chan Ho-tin? Maybe the idea is impractical, but he is bent on talking about it (in order to raise more money so that he can talk even more about it).
- "Wang’s remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law." The Basic Law? Let us start with Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." You are tossing out the Basic Law if you support independence/self-determination.
- When the LCSD worker told Chan to stop, he said: "You are joking." What does that mean? Chan means to say that he is a citizen of the Hong Kong Nation, and therefore the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China are not applicable to him.
- If and when Chan Ho-tin starts something like the Mong Kok riot, it will be much more discouraging and dispiriting for the business community than Wang's remarks.
- (ETnet.com.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 2, 2017.
A few days ago, the pro-Hong Kong independence Hong Kong National Party of 20 masked persons led by Chan Ho-tin held a discussion forum outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre with Hong Kong independence banners in front of several dozen reporters.
This is the first time I have ever seen an event in which both speakers and attendees were masked.
It is bad enough to have a public speech on Hong Kong independence. Worse yet, this event holders never applied for a permit to hold a public meeting. Chan Ho-tin said that it was because the Hong Kong National Party had not been able to register as a social group, and therefore cannot applied for a permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. According to the news reporters, many LCSD workers and Cultural Centre workers asked the Hong Kong National Party to leave because the location was rented to other parties. However, the individuals in mask paid no attention, and continued to raise their banners and set up their audio system. The workers had to summon the police.
Amazingly, the police were unable to to do anything to them. So the speech took place under the watchful eyes of the police and the LCSD workers. The so-called rule-or-law seemed to have gotten out of hand nowadays.
When a group of lawless people publicly engage in unlawful behavior, the law enforcement agents and property managers can only watch them even though their numbers are several times more.
If the group of people were triad gangsters using megaphones to recruit new members, do you think that they would be arrested immediately?
If the group of people were unlicensed itinerant vendors who say: "Yes, I don't have a license", "No, they wouldn't issue a license to me in this location", "Do you think I want to do this?", "CY Leung has lousy policies" ... do you think that they would be arrested immediately.
Arrest is a certainty in the two examples above. So why are Chan Ho-tin's masked gang allowed to operate freely? Are you afraid that they may get upset? Or are you worried about the several dozen reporters with cameras in hand?
But if those were triad gangsters who brought reporters with them, would you hesitate?
I remember that a frontline police commander telling me during Occupy Admiralty: "The orders from above are that our first commandment no matter what happens is: Don't create scene. Simply put, we have to hold back. As soon as you arrest someone, you create a scene."
We may consider that to be a strategy during the Occupy Central period. But when you are forbidden to "create a scene" in everyday matters, then we will never ever have peace.
[738] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 9 (2017/04/27)
Reference: The Revolution Begins Today...
The Nine Heroes/Martyrs(Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.
Police have arrested up to nine activists on Thursday – they are expected to be charged with participating in unlawful assembly and for public disorder following a protest five months ago against an impending Basic Law interpretation by Beijing.
Avery Ng Man-yuen, the chairman of the League of Social Democrats, was charged with two counts of inciting disorderly conduct in a public place, according to a Facebook post by his party.
The others arrested include:
- Derek Lam Shun-hin and Ivan Lam Long-yin of the Demosisto party.
- Dickson Chau Ka-faat and Chan Man-wai of the League of Social Democrats.
- Sammy Ip and Lo Tak-cheong of the group Student Fight for Democracy.
- Cheng Pui-lun, the former president of Lingnan University’s student union.
They were unable to contact Victor Wong Hon-leung, a former deputy secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Reports said he has been arrested as well.
Demosisto and the League of Social Democrats said they expected they would be charged with unlawful assembly and public disorder, among other possible charges.
(Oriental Daily) December 13, 2017
Derek Lam Shun-hin said that he intends to plead guilty to inciting disorderly conduct while Ivan Lam Long-yin said that he intends to plead guilty to participating in an unlawful gathering.
(Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018.
The defense cited the case of the London police pushing a man who had both hands in his pockets down on the ground during the G20 meeting. The man died due to a ruptured organ. Afterwards the London Police and the European Human Rights Court reviewed police procedures in order to protect future peaceful demonstrations.
The defense said that the Hong Kong court should scrutinize the relevant procedures. That is to say, even if the demonstrations in the present case used violence, the Hong Kong Police should treat each person on an individual basis and not deprive all persons of their right to demonstrate. If the police guidelines showed that the police were restricting everybody on the sidewalk, then this is a human rights violation. Therefore the disclosure of police procedures is crucial to the outcome of the present case.
The defense said that about 2,200 persons were gathered around the China Liaison Office that night. The police crowd control procedure affects how these persons behave. The defense said that the police would not even open a single car lane. That was what made the demonstrators cross the metal barricades and be arrested and charged. Therefore the police must disclose their orders.
The defense said that if the police orders are not disclosed, they will request for a permanent adjournment with the Chief Secretary as a potential witness to the case.
(Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018.
The prosecution applied to exempt three police action orders and one police post-incident report from disclosure. Alternately, only the relevant parts of those documents should be shown to the defense. The prosecution argued that the information was about police resource deployment and not pertinent to the case. The disclosure of such information may affect police planning and strategies in future incidents.
The prosecution presented a document from Chief Secretary Cheung Kin-chung stating that the documents should be exempted from disclosure because the public interest is at issue. The prosecution said that Cheung is not needed to testify because he had nothing to do with the present case.
(Oriental Daily) January 30, 2018.
The defense cited the cases before the European Human Rights Court about how the police handle demonstrations and argued that the Hong Kong police should be talking to demonstration leaders. For example, the police should let the demonstration pass at the appropriate time or else "the peaceful demonstration could escalate to a clash." Therefore the defense demanded that the police reveal their action guidelines in order to see if the police acted properly. The prosecution responded that even if the police erred in their handling, violence by demonstrators is not protected by any human rights law.
(Oriental Daily) February 8, 2018.
The magistrate rejected the application for permanent adjournment of the case. He reasoned that there is a balance between the disclosure of the police order and the chance for a fair trial. He emphasized that the public interest is not overriding the right to make a defense in court.
The prosecutor said that since the defense will not agree to a single fact, a total of 57 witnesses will have to summoned to testify. The court trial is expected to last 20 days.
(Hong Kong Free Press) February 13, 2018.
At a pre-trial review on Tuesday, the prosecution applied to add three more charges. Two of which were for Avery Ng and one was for Derek Lam. In addition to the incitement of public disorder charges, the prosecution asked to add two alternative charges of incitement of unlawful assembly for Ng and one for Lam.
The prosecution had applied to change the description of charges against Ng, which were scheduled to be heard on Tuesday. However, it was retracted so that the new alternative charges could be applied.
Ng’s lawyer opposed the additional charges as it was an “abuse of procedures” to continuously modify them, he said. Ng said the move caused the accused to be uncertain of what he was being charged with, and led the defence to lose trust in the prosecution. Ng claimed on social media that the government was not truthful in its goal of mending rifts in society: “A world class Department of Justice – even though it is so busy dealing with illegal structures, it still makes effort to deal additional charges to me – it is determined to convict me,” he said.
Internet comments:
- Why elevate to the level of a systematic White Terror political persecution? Go review what happened on that day (see, for example, the 9:28 long summary TVB news report the next day). Was there an unlawful gathering? Yes, there was, by any standard. So can we let the courts decide whether the accused were culpable?
- Was this a breach of peace? Did the passengers in the trams have cause to be afraid? Are they prevented from going home?
- (NOW TV) Legislative Councilor Nathan Law said that these arrests are politically motivated oppression which won't help to mend social divisions.
- If you arrest and prosecute the people who breached the peace, it is a political decision that won't help to mend social divisions. But if you won't arrest and prosecute them, it is also a political decision which won't help to mend social divisions.
So what kind of society do you want? A rule-of-law society in which all lawbreakers are arrested and prosecuted irrespective of political beliefs? Or a rule-of-man society in which some lawbreakers cannot be arrested and prosecuted because of their political beliefs?
- Avery Ng: "The police are using anti-triad methods against us."
If three or more triad gang members get together and breach the peace, the police arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
If three or more pro-democracy activists get together and breach the peace, the police must not arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
What does this mean? It means that the social group known as "pro-democracy activists" is above and beyond the law. They enjoy special privileges that others don't. Is this democracy?- The tragedy of Avery Ng is that even the arresting cops think that it is a farce:
- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.
Beijing mouthpiece Wen Wei Po raised eyebrows after it “predicted” the arrests of several pro-democracy activists on Thursday. The report was apparently compiled hours before the actual arrests took place. On page A5 of its Thursday edition, Wen Wei Po said it had an “exclusive” scoop, reporting that as many as ten activists would soon be arrested for their participation in the November protest.
“We learned that police will launch a new round of arrests today, at the earliest” it wrote. “Nearly 10 people will be arrested, including the leader of a political party and active members of new opposition groups. They may face charges such as organising and participating in an unlawful assembly.”
- “Does this mean police are teaming up with Beijing-backed newspapers? Don’t police owe an explanation to the public?” said Tommy Cheung, who is facing prosecution for his leading role in the 2014 pro-democracy movement. Activist Joshua Wong of the Demosisto party also urged police to explain how the pro-Beijing paper obtained the information.
- Well, you cannot go ask Wen Wei Po where they got their information from, because protecting a source is the foundation of freedom of press. Even the Hong Kong Journalists Association/Reporters Without Borders will concur.
- And now we come to this fact of life: Nowadays Wen Wei Po is much more readable and informative than Apple Daily. Most of the time, I skip when I see an Apple Daily story because I think that it is more likely fictional than not. But Wen Wei Po has some interesting exclusive stories that turn out to be accurate afterwards.
- A good starting point is to ask legislators Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong and Lam Cheuk-ting about how they got their information on the ICAC investigations of Chief Executive CY Leung's UGL deal.
- Leaking an arrest ahead of time gives the target persons the chance to run to the foreign consulates to seek political asylum. So the police must plug the leak.
- (Wen Wei Po) April 28, 2017.
Our reporter waited for many days. Finally at 730am yesterday morning, we saw a group of plainclothes policemen arrived downstairs of where Avery Ng lives. About half an hour later, two officers brought down the blue-suit-dress Avery Ng to the gate. At this time, three other officers waiting outside the building went up to Avery Ng, issued the standard caution and checked identification.
This scene drew the attention of security guards and residents who approached to observe. Whereas Avery Ng is known to be the articulate, brilliant and valiant General in front of the media, he now seemed nervous and unresponsive to the questions from the police. He thought for a while before he answered. When he saw people pointing at him and discussion among themselves, he seemed very embarrassed. He lowered his head as if he wanted to evade something. Some residents who did not know him asked: "Who is that?" Other residents who knew about him said: "Hey, General, why do you look so lame?"
Soon, the police officers completed the preliminary procedure and directed Avery Ng to go with them to the parking lot. Ng took out his mobile telephone and seemed to be calling a friend to tell him about the arrest. Finally, the two policemen escorted Ng into the van. At this moment, it began to rain heavily. An old man suddenly said: "Time's up!"
Now this news report seems to imply that Wen Wei Po had patiently staked out Avery Ng's residence for quite some time before detecting signs that an arrest was imminent.
- (Apple Daily) On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching wrote "Even though we may have thousands and thousands of different ideas, we have an even larger common enemy." She wrote that only tyrannical regimes push people to protest in the streets. The ordinances on public order and unlawful gathering refer to "breach of peace." Who is responsible for breaching the peace? "The protestors or Chinese Communist tyranny? The answer is almost self-evident." The essay said that organizations such as Youngspiration, Demosisto and League of Social Democrats will not be spared by the tyrants, and therefore they must all rise up and oppose the tyrannical regime. "Holding illusions about the authoritarian regime will ultimately result in being used up and discarded."
- Photographic evidence in support of Yau Wai-ching's thesis: 'Chinese Communists digging out bricks from the pavement to throw at Hong Kong citizens.'
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has urged the Hong Kong government to stop its “orchestrated” campaign to prosecute dissidents, following Thursday’s surprise arrests of nine activists over their participation in a protest last November. “The repeated use of vague charges against prominent figures in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement reeks of an orchestrated and retaliatory campaign by the authorities to punish those that advocate for democracy in Hong Kong,” said Mabel Au, director of Amnesty International Hong Kong. She said the government attempted to discourage participation in peaceful protests through the prosecution of activists. “The Hong Kong government should be protecting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” she added, “but instead it appears intent on intimidating people who are challenging the authorities.”
- More photos of pro-democracy activists exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in Hong Kong that night.
- What is the relationship between lawmakers and law?
25 Hong Kong pan-democratic Legislative Councilors sign a letter
to strongly condemn the CY Leung government for prosecuting in accordance with the law the rioters who have broken Hong Kong laws.- Hong Kong University Students Union Facebook
Since the winning of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor in the Chief Executive Election, the de facto communist regime of Hong Kong has started persecution against the dissidents of the government. The slaughters of rebels are coming one after another. The crackdown begins with the police launching arrests of the participants of the Umbrella Revolution, including Chan Suk Chong, Lee Wing Tat, Wong Ho Ming, Cheung Sau Yin, Shiu Ka Chun, Chung Yiu Wa, Tai Yiu Ting, Chan Kin Man and Chu Yiu Ming. Elected Legislative Councillors Leung Chung Hang and Yau Wai Ching have also been arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and attempted forced entry into the conference room of the Legislative Council. It is undoubtedly legitimate for Legislative Councillors to enter the conference room and participate in the meetings, and thus, the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council Leung Kwan Yuen that the two could not enter the room was already sheer absurdity in the first place. The government has gone as far as charging the two in order to suppress opposing forces. Participants of the demonstration against the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress including Lam Shun Hin and Lam Long Yin have also been arrested yesterday morning. The Students’ Union condemns such attempts by the government to terrorise our people for it is merely creating a reign of terror through the state apparatus in order to subjugate us to the authoritarian rule of the puppet Chief Executive.
It is alarming that the activists facing the suppression all have very different positions in the political spectrum, implying that in the future no one can be promised to be safe and immune. We must now eschew our unrealistic expectation on the government that it genuinely hopes to ‘heal the social divide’ and ‘communicate constantly’. People with various political views, be it supporting independence, self-determination or universal suffrage, will all be labelled as separatists by the government. We must not succumb to the abominable regime, but at the same time, we know our future will be rife with woes and obstacles. To those who simply want to enjoy freedom and rule of law but have yet to take concrete actions to fight for them, remember, no man is an island entire of itself, so do not ask for whom the bell tolls – it is now tolling for every one of us.
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
28 April 2017(Schoolmates who will be or who have been arrested please contact the Students’ Union and we will provide all possible assistance within our capacity.)
- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.
What happened on that night in November last year? The Civil Human Rights Front organized a demonstration march to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The demonstrators gathered at Shelton Sports Ground in Wanchai and marched towards the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. During the march, people can see the pro-Hong Kong independence banners including "Hong Kong is not China." and the British Dragon-Lion flags. Therefore some people considered this demonstration march to be a show of force by the pro-independence people.
When the marchers arrived at the China Liaison Office, some of them deliberately provoked the police by charging at the metal barricades.
[In this photo, the police were content to stay behind two rows of metal barricades to keep the demonstrators on the sidewalk and off the roadway in order to let vehicular/tram traffic continue to run on Connaught Road West. The demonstrators (including at least two of the arrestees) are charging and pushing at the barricades). This is Occupy Sai Wan in which the demonstrators will occupy the roadway, stop all traffic and prevent the police from clearing the road.]More people arrived and the demonstrators went on the roadway to paralyze traffic on the road. Some policemen were violently attacked and sustained injuries. The demonstrators clearly came prepared because they carried umbrellas and masks. They even began to dig out bricks from the pavement. The Hong Kong University Students Union provided lots of bottled water. So this was a pre-meditated pre-planned violent attack.
... We must be clear on two things.
Firstly, is legal responsibility applicable only on the basis of political position? Citizens are very clear on this. If you break the law, you bear legal responsibility. This is true no matter who you are. If former Chief Executive Donald Tsang has to go to jail for his crime, then why should 'pro-democracy' activists be spared for their misdeeds? If you let the convicted Mong Kok rioters go free, then it implies impunity for all future 'pro-democracy' riots under common law.
Secondly, was this pre-planned political persecution? The basis for this statement is a single newspaper article, which clearly stated that it was "speculation" without any substantive details (no WHO, WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, HOW). Once Frankly Chu and the Nine Men/Women were arrested, speculations were rampant about who's next: the Occupy Central trio? Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for the clash at the Legislative Council? Occupy Sai Wan? etc. They are all likely targets. Even now, speculations are rampant about who's next next: Jimmy Lai for Occupy Central? Joshua Wong and Nathan Law for the Zhang Dejiang visit?
There is a Chinese saying about the rule-of-man: 「只許州官放火，不許百姓點燈」 ("The provincial government officials are allowed to set off fires, but the common folks are not even allowed to light a lantern"). The pan-democrats have updated this saying: 「只許泛民暴力衝擊，不許警方依法拘捕」("The pan-democrats are allowed to charge violently, but the police cannot arrest them in accordance with the law.").
- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.
With respect to being arrested by the police, the arrestees questioned whether this was "politically motivated prosecution." They said that they are being oppressed for trying to defend democracy in Hong Kong blah blah blah.
The police made these arrests in accordance with the law. On that day, what the League of Social Democrats and Demosisto members did outside the China Liaison Office was seen by eyewitnesses and television viewers. The case against them will be based upon videos and testimonies from eyewitnesses. If there were no evidence against them, the police would not have arrested them, the Department of Justice would not have prosecuted them and the court will not rule against them.
It is true that the nine were politically motivated when they violently charged at the China Liaison Office in order to protest the NPCSC interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. But they are being prosecuted for breaking the law, not for their politics. Claiming "political persecution" won't get them off.
- (NOW TV) 1:55 League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen called on the demonstrators to hurdle the metal barricades and get on Connaught Road West. The police raised the red flag again and arrested Ng. Many people tried to prevent that. The police swung batons against those who tussled with them. After a wrestling match, the police took Ng away.
Repeated at at 3:13.
- (Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) May 6, 2017. On November 6, 2016, the Anti-Basic Law Interpretation demonstration march set off at 330pm from Luard Road (Wanchai) to the Court of Final Appeal. Some of the demonstrators continued to march to the China Liaison Office. Since there was no application for this part, the police set up a temporary demonstration area outside the Kwan Yick Building. But some of the demonstrators insisted that they must demonstrate right outside the China Liaison Office.
At this time, Avery Ng suddenly sat on the top of the metal barrier and used a megaphone to say, "We have more numbers than the police. We can just climb over like this. It is blocked ahead." After he said that, defendants Dickson Chau Ka-faat and Sammy Ip ignored the police warnings and climbed over the metal barriers. The police approached Avery Ng and attempted to pull him down to arrest him. Defendants Chau and Ip held onto to Ng from the other side. A police chief inspector swung his baton at the arms of Chau and Ip. The two attempted to seize the baton but failed. It is alleged that Chau hit the police chief inspector twice in the face.
Ng is charged with two counts of incitement of others to create public nuisance. Ip is charged with one count of unlawful gathering and one count of obstruction of police business. Chau is charged with one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of obstruction of police business.
- (Oriental Daily) April 28, 2017.
League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen will be a busy beaver on the next few days. On May 5 at 230am, he will appear in Eastern Court for the Occupy Sai Wan case. On the morning of May 5, he will appear in Eastern Court for a pretrial hearing for common assault because Ng allegedly threw a sandwich at Chief Executive CY Leung on Legislative Council voting day. On May 8, he will appear in court again lodging a complaint at the ICAC and then telling the press afterwards.
Is this political persecution against the chairman of a dissident political party? Take a look at the evidence.
Case #1 Occupy Sai Wan: Videos taken by various news outlets show Avery Ng using a public address system to tell everybody to breach the police barricades and then he took the leap himself first.
Case #2 Legco election day: Videos taken by various news outlets showed Avery Ng tossing an object in the direction of Chief Executive CY Leung.
Case #3 ICAC investigation: Videos taken by various news outlets of Avery Ng telling everybody about what he just did down at the ICAC.
There is reasonable cause in each case. Should these cases be nullified because the defendant happens to be Avery "The General" Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the League of Social Democrats?
- If I brought a bunch of people to crash into the LSD office, Avery Ng would call the police to have me arrested and charged.
- If I tossed a sandwich at Avery Ng, he would call the police to have me arrested and charged.
- If I filed a frivolous complaint at the ICAC against Avery Ng and tell the press about the juicy (and fictive) details of the mix of sex, violence and politics, Avery Ng would expect the ICAC to have me arrested and charged.
- Favorite derivative art on the Internet
- (Silentmajority.hk) May 1, 2017.
With respect to the arrests of Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, their former assistants and the nine Occupy Sai Wan men, Joshua Wong (Demosisto) got on radio and declared that the police had "washed the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」) before the new Carrie Lam administration takes over.
Joshua Wong must have watched too many Hong Kong gangster movies, but he never bothered to find out about the true background of the term "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」). He thought that he was making a brilliant criticism on the police, but he ended up becoming a joke.
What is "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」)? Back in 1894, there was a major outbreak of bubonic plague ("Black Death") in Hong Kong. The most seriously hit area was around Tai Ping Shan Road (=Peaceful Mountain Road) in the Sheung Wan district. The government took stern steps to stop this outbreak. They used anti-septic germ-killing liquid to clean the grounds of the Tai Ping Shan Road area, and they fumigated every house with sulfur. The bubonic plague was stopped. Thus, 「洗太平地」refers to a thorough cleaning to eradicate problems. Years later, the term would be used to refer to the police going into an area and sweeping all illegal activities (黃賭毒 prostitution, gambling, drug abuse) in order to bring peace back to the neighborhood. The residents love it, but the gangsters hate it because it ruins their livelihoods.
So when Joshua Wong said that the Hong Kong Police is acting to "wash the peaceful ground", he is acknowledging that his political allies are causing trouble in Hong Kong in the same way as "bubonic plague" and "黃賭毒 prostitution, gambling, drug abuse." Such being the case, the Hong Kong Police is doing the right thing by getting rid of these vermin.
- (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018.
Of the nine defendants, former Demosisto member Derek Lam and Demosisto executive committee member Ivan Lam have pleaded guilty. The other seven defendants gathered outside the court to demonstrate against the political suppression of the freedom to assemble peacefully.
[737] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 8A (2017/04/26)
Reference: "I Have Sworn My Oath" (2016/11/02); Epoch Times news report
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 26, 2017.
Ousted lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang have been arrested for allegedly participating in an unlawful assembly. Police visited them at their residences on Wednesday morning and took them to the Central Police Station at around 7am, their office said. The duo was transferred to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai and then sent back to the Central Police Station. A legislative aide to the duo was also taken to the Central Police Station, according to their office. Under the Public Order Ordinance, the offence carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison upon conviction on indictment, or a HK$5,000 fine and three years in prison upon summary conviction
Internet comments:
- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 18 Unlawful Assembly
(1) When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)
(2) It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.
(3) Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable— (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years. - Youngspiration Facebook
Youngspiration received information from Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching at 7am this morning that the police have come to their homes and arrested them. At this time, they are being detailed at the Wanchai Police Headquarters. We have arranged for lawyers to assist them. We will post any new information as soon as possible.
[9:45 update] The charge is "unlawful gathering." The former legislator aides of the two are being brought to the police station.
We will absolutely not give up - YoungspirationThis morning, Sixtus "Baggio" Leung and Wai-Ching Yau of Youngspiration, their assistants and a few volunteers, were arrested by the Hong Kong Police.
In this grave hour, Youngspiration wishes to send a message to all Hongkongers and all freedom-loving people in this world: Over and over again, Hongkongers have tried to find a peaceful way to achieve what was promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which is to achieve democratic autonomy in Hong Kong, but it has been in vain. If we have to use one word to describe actions of the PRC government and its puppet in Hong Kong, we would say: EVIL. Pure evil of authoritarianism, which persecutes every dissenting voice, is against all values that Hong Kong holds dear.
There maybe dark days ahead, there maybe more arrests and legal challenges, but we shall struggle against evil on the streets, in the courts, within the community, and on every media platform.
With God's help, we shall prevail.
- The unlawful assembly did not refer to the attempt at administering the oath to themselves in the large chamber. That meeting was adjourned and moved into a conference room on the second floor. This is when the incident began:
(Oriental Daily) November 3, 2016. The surveillance videos at the Legislative Council showed Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang leading more than a dozen legislator aides down in two elevators. When they arrived on the second floor, they shouted "One, Two, Three, CHARGE!" and charged towards the conference room. At the time, there were fewer than 10 security guards outside the conference room. They were punched and kicked by these 16 attackers. Most of the injured security guards suffered bruises and sprains.
Justice means that the security guards should not suffer their pains and injuries in vain.
- Tough shit to the security guards! They are being highly paid at $34.50 per hour, and this sort of thing comes with the job. Besides this is a grave matter of right-and-wrong, and little people like them always get crushed if they choose to stand in the way. We need Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang to be out in the street leading the Valiant Resistance movement!
- Legislative Councilor Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) said: 「香港是法治之區，任何人都不可以凌駕法律之上，『我哋喺立法會有任何抗爭行動，都應該文明、和平方式去進行。』」"Hong Kong is a place with rule-of-law. Nobody can be above the law. Any resistance action at the Legislative Council should be conducted in a civilized and peaceful manner."
- Lam Cheuk-ting has just tossed Yau-Leung over the side of the boat ...
- Why is the SCMP story titled "Disqualified pro-independence Hong Kong lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung arrested"? After being elected, Yau and Leung were lawmakers-elect. They do not officially become lawmakers until they take their (properly administered) oaths of office. They never did. They are "disqualified lawmakers-elect."
- Because they never officially became lawmakers, Yau and Leung are not covered by the 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."
Article 78: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall not be subjected to arrest when attending or on their way to a meeting of the Council."
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Two weeks after the incident, the High Court ruled that the oaths of Yau and Leung were invalid, thereby disqualifying them from the legislature. Baggio Leung argued that they were still lawmakers before the ruling. He described the charge of unlawful assembly as “bizarre, unreasonable and unacceptable” on the basis that lawmakers are entitled to attend meetings to fulfill their duty.
- Reference: Leung/Yau are Out! (2016/11/15) High Court statement (HCMP 2819/2016)
11. The Court agrees with the CE/SJ that the undisputed and unchallenged evidence in the present cases shows that (a) Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau had been requested to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016, (b) the manner and way in which they purported to take the oaths show objectively and clearly that they did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations under the LegCo Oath and BL104, as they objectively clearly did not recognize the principle of “one country, two systems” and the importance of “one country” under that principle, which (as well recognized by the Court of Final Appeal) is the foundation for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the People’s Republic of China and of the Hong Kong’s constitutional model under the Basic Law.
12. In the premises, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau therefore objectively manifested a clear conduct to refuse (thus “decline”) to take the LegCo Oath, whether in form or in substance, as required under BL104 and the ODO. It is again noted that neither Mr. Leung nor Ms. Yau has suggested otherwise by way of submissions or evidence.
13. In such circumstances, s.21 of ODO should apply and operate as a matter of law to disqualify Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from continuing to be a LegCo member.
...
23. Upon the President’s request, the Court further clarifies that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have vacated their office since 12 October 2016.
So what is the status of Yau/Leung before October 15, 2016? Are they Legislative Council members. According to BL104, they aren't until they have taken their oaths. If they take part in meetings, what are the restrictions? It seems clear that they should not be allowed to vote because any bill passed with their votes will easily be nullified later. It is less clear whether they should be allowed to speak. If they can't vote and they can't speak, what is the point of their presence? If they want to observe the proceedings, they can do it just as easily with the live television broadcast.
- Yau/Leung's other argument is that they brought their own megaphone and administered the oaths to themselves in the meeting hall in which the Legco president Andrew Leung was present at the time, so they are officially lawmakers. When they tried to enter the conference room, the security guards blocked their way in violation of Basic Law Article 78. That was why Yau/Leung told the security guards that they are going to sue the security guards who are carrying out an illegal order from their superiors.
- If they had to bring their own megaphone to administer their own oaths, it means that they agree that they are not officially Legislative Councilors yet. If they believe that they already are, they should just attend the meeting without having to administer their own oaths.
- A number of other legislators (Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League), Nathan Law (Demosisto), Shiu Ka-chun and Claudia Mo (Civic Party)) tried to lead the way for the DQ2 (Leung/Yau). Under Basic Law Article 78, official lawmakers cannot be arrested because they were attending a meeting of the Council. But while they cannot be arrested during a meeting, they can be arrested and charged afterwards! An example is the 2-week sentence on Raymond Wong Yuk-man for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council meeting.
- Raymond Wong Yuk-man was once caught traveling in the first-class carriage of the MTR without paying for the surcharge. He explained: "I am on the way to the Legislative Council." This is invoking Article 78.
- Article 77 and 78 does not mean that Legislative Council members can do whatever they want during meetings. For example, suppose one of them brings in a pound of C4 explosive to a Legco meeting and set it off to kill half the people present. Is he protected from prosecution under Article 78 forever afterwards?
- Some are arguing that Leung and Yau are Legislative Council members as soon as the election results were made official. If so, why do you need to have Basic Law Article 104?
When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
Is Donald Trump the American president as soon as the Electoral College electors are done with their voting? Or does he have to be sworn in by the Supreme Court Chief Justice first?
- If the oath is totally unnecessary, then why is it there?
- The evidence is incontrovertible on unlawful assembly. The only suspense is what kind of sentence will be imposed by the magistrate. If the magistrate says 80 hours of community service, it will be another blow to public confidence in the judiciary.
- Time for another round of crowdfunding. Please remember to give more money more frequently to Youngspiration. The future of Hong Kong depends on your doing so.
- (Apple Daily) June 27, 2017.
After being disqualified, Yau said that she was unable to find a full-time job. Even part-time jobs are hard to find. So she is living off her savings. "So far I have not come up with a way of making a living."
Leung Chung-hand has not gotten a job yet. Employers are worried that he might become the target of pro-China media or perhaps be prosecuted. "I am living off my savings."
Furthermore, the two of them have been followed around by pro-China media paparazzi. Late October last year, Yau said that the paparazzi went to her family's home and wanted to take photos of her parents. After a recent court appearance, the paparazzi told her building security guard that they are her 'friends' and tried to enter her apartment unit. In the end, the security guard called the police. Leung said that the paparazzi sent someone to run into him and see if he will fight back. So he has been avoiding the paparazzi. Whenever he attends a function, he always scouts for an escape route first.
Have they paid a price for joining the Localist movement? Yau said that her own situation is not serious: "What about those justice fighters who are in prison? They have paid with their entire futures." Leung said that about 300 to 500 resistance fighters have been arrested or imprisoned. He said that their future will be either imprisonment and/or bankruptcy.
- Tough shit about not being able to land a job anywhere! It is high time that you go back and reflect on why this is so.
- On the Internet, people don't give a rat's ass about the finer legal points. The two major issues and one minor issue of interest are:
(1) When Youngspiration reported that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were arrested by the police at 7am, people wanted to know the where and how. The police won't say. The favorite guess is that the two were at their love nest in the Kam Lok Mansion penthouse, Wanchai (see Leung/Yau are Out!). Their own version is that three Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Leung's residence and four Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Yau's residence.
- More information! (Oriental Daily) April 27, 2017. Yau Wai-ching reported her residence to be a high-floor apartment unit in Kam Lok Mansion, Wanchai. The OCTB went to the building that morning. Two officers knocked on Yau's apartment door and explained their purpose. Yau said that she needed time to change clothes. The officers waited outside the apartment. Yau came out and left with the officers.
Other officers were posted in the ground-floor lobby and the roof. Half an hour later, Leung Chung-hang was found walking up to the roof in bare feet. His shoes were left in the hallway. He was arrested by the officers. Throughout all this time, the officers waiting down in the lobby did not see Leung entering. So only Leung knows where he was. Leung reported his residence to be in Aberdeen district on Hong Kong Island South.
- (Ta Kung Pao) May 3, 2017.
Recently, a real estate property posted that the penthouse apartment in Kam Lok Mansion is for sale. The asking price is $6.2 million for this 360-sqft apartment, at $17,000/sqft. Before Leung/Yau rented this apartment, it was already put on the market for either rental or sale. The rental contract for Leung/Yau expires November this year. If the potential buyer finds out that the renter is Leung/Yau, will he/she back off immediately?
(2) When are Leung/Yau going to give back the $1.9 million in advanced expenses that they received from the Legislative Council? That money belongs to the public and was meant to be given to Legislative Councilors for official business. Since they are not Legislative Councilors, the money should go back to the treasury.
(3) (Hong Kong Free Press) Leung Chung-hang added that he and Yau were politically targeted because technically “unlawful assembly takes place every day.” He gave the example of Tuesday’s football match at Mong Kok stadium where Chinese football fans unfurled an anti-Hong Kong independence banner. “That was also an unlawful assembly, and they harassed a lot of Hong Kong people,” Leung said.
- This is called switching subjects to confuse the issues.
- Quiz: In Guangzhou versus Hong Kong, how many security guards were assaulted and taken to the hospital? Answer: Zero.
- There were 5913 spectators at the match. Guangzhou Evergrande was given 350 tickets in accordance with the standard rules. Why are 5,000+ Hongkongers scared of 350 Guangzhou'ers? If they are scared of 350 football fans, then how are they going to "valiantly resist" the People's Liberation Army and attain nationhood?
- Many of them are already doing 7 minutes of pushups every day.
- (HKG Pao) April 27, 2017.
Yesterday Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching came out of the police station and met with the press. They did not seem to have received much support afterwards from various sectors in society. The pro-establishment camp was obviously all for law-and-order, rule-of-law, etc. Even the Democratic Party said that legislators should be civilized and non-violent. Raymond Wong Yuk-man was too pre-occupied fighting with Civic Passion and Wan Chin. Demosisto and League of Social Democrats are reluctant to be allied with the pro-independence Leung/Yau. So Leung and Yau had to go to Facebook themselves.
Yau wrote on Facebook to explain that she is not afraid. I have to scratch my head as to what she was saying. Fortunately, everybody knows that what Yau writes is immaterial. The important thing was that she posted a photo of herdrlg in shorts. Whereas she previously covered up her short chubby legs, this photographer managed to present her legs in the best possible way. As a result, Yau accomplished her mission.
By comparison, Leung Chung-hang wrote a long-winded essay to get the support of localist/self-determination groups. "Please do not believe that you can stay above the fray. Whether you want democracy, defend rule-of-law, guard freedom, oppose colonization, want self-determination/independence, etc, it is the same to the murderous Chinese Communist tyrannical regime. We all want to limit the powers of the tyrants. We all want to take away the powers of the tyrants. We are all enemies of the tyrants. Unless you plan to surrender and go over to the Communists, we are all the same. We cannot afford disunity ... In the face of darkness, we must be even stronger and more determined. We believe that we will meet again on the day of the final battle."
- The day of the final battle? Here is Leung Chung-hang last seen at the Battle of Sai Wan, outsprinting everybody else to grab a taxi and leave. You would be a fool to follow him into that final battle.
Spoof:
The battle begins ...
Help me grab a taxi!
[736] People's Liberation Army Ban Hiking in Hong Kong (2017/04/25)
(EJ Insight) April 25, 2015.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has barred hikers and other unauthorized people from entering Por Lo Shan, a hiking trail in Tuen Mun that is under its control, as it undertakes a clearing of illegal farms in the area covered by the Tsing Shan Firing Range.
On Monday morning many hikers who arrived at Por Lor Shan, more popularly known as the Mini Grand Canyon, were turned away by PLA officers stationed at the entrance, Apple Daily reports.
According to hk01.com, the PLA put out notices in the area warning that intruders could face prosecution. Three PLA soldiers guarding the entrance told disappointed hikers that they were clearing out illegal farms inside the Tsing Shan Firing Range. The soldiers made no comments when asked whether people entering the area would be arrested or whether they were reopening the Tsing Shan Firing Range.
A man surnamed Tsang, who had come all the way from Sha Tin, said he comes to Tuen Mun twice a week to take care of his grandchild, and uses the occasion to visit the Mini Grand Canyon for its beautiful scenery. He said the new PLA restriction would not stop him from walking up the mountain, but this time he would use a small trail from Leung King Estate. He said he was not worried about getting caught and arrested.
Another hiker, Mr. Liu, arrived at the area around 6 a.m. on Monday, using his mountain bike. He said he came before the PLA soldiers arrived, and he did not know the range had been closed down until he was leaving the area. Liu said the firing range is suitable for mountain bike training because of its terrain, adding that he once saw the Hong Kong mountain biking team train in the area.
Another hiker surnamed Tung said he was able to hike up the mountain via a small trail at Leung Tin Au, but warned that the trail was slippery and dangerous. He said he had met PLA troops patrolling the area who told him the place was declared off-limits to hikers.
(Oriental Daily) April 25, 2017.
The three People's Liberation Army soldiers posted at the gate said there are almost 30 illegal farms up the hill. These people grow vegetables, peppers, pineapple, papayas, honey and even dogs. One person had even built a wooden shed with all the daily amenities.
A number of citizens learned about the closure only when they arrived at the gate. Some people criticized the People's Liberation Army for preventing them from making their exercises. Other people supported the People's Liberation Army. 72-year-old Mr. Tse criticized the illegal farmers: "Some people take over public land for personal profit. They dig out so much soil that landslides are possible." Mr. Woo said: "They should not be planting. They chopped down all the trees in order to make a clearing to grow their stuff."
Internet comments:
- The Tsing Shan Firing Range is one of 18 sites covered in CAP 245B Military Installations Closed Areas Order.
(1)Subject to subsection (2), any person who—
(a) enters or leaves a closed area save under and in accordance with a permit issued under section 37; or
(b) contravenes any condition to which any such permit is subject, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 2 years.
If you don't like this, get the Legislative Council to amend CAP 245 according to your wishes.
- There is a metal gate/barb wire fence on the road with a sign that reads: "Military Closed Area/No Trespassing." Which part don't you understand?
- Why the interest in Por Lo Shan? Thanks to a television program segment: https://youtu.be/syGS1SVVLKY including scenes of military exercises with live rounds. Nobody went there previously, because it is in a remote corner of the region. The television program gave it so much publicity that the place now looks like Mong Kok on weekends.
- "Dangerous Road/No Trespassing": Hundreds of people ignoring the danger.
- No, the publicity actually began last September. (HK01) At 2am, the police received reports about a fire at the Tsang Shan Firing Range. When they got there, the found 11 men and women between the ages of 20 and 25 playing with candles.
- (Apple Daily) Our reporter went to observe the small trail from Leung King Estate up to the mountain. There are steps that lead up, but the trail is very steep and requires the use of a hiking pole.
- (Apple Daily) Some citizens asked the PLA soldiers to pose for photos. The soldiers were cooperative. But as the Apple Daily reporter took photos/videos, they also recorded the proceedings.
- Why kind of soldiers are these? They are undisciplined and unarmed. How do they expect to fight the US Marines who will be coming to liberate Hong Kong and bring freedom and democracy?
- (Apple Daily) Citizen responses:
Citizen Mr. Tsang said that the plants were flowers planted by the hikers away from the trail. "I really enjoy the fragrance of the flowers and the songs of the birds." Mr. Tsang does not think that they should remove the plantings. Mr. Tsang said that he will try to go up will tomorrow through the small trail from Leung King Estate. "I am not afraid of being arrested. Even if I come across the PLA, I will explain why the citizens want to hike this mountain. I hope that they can re-open the place."
Citizen Mr. Liu said that he came at 6am to ride his mountain bike at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. "Few people ride bikes at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. That is why I choose to go there." Mr. Liu does not think that the illegal farming was serious. "Please don't ban people from coming."
Citizen Mr. Chiu said that he wanted to go to the Grand Canyon but the PLA soldiers persuaded him to turn back. He said that he won't hike there for now. "Who knows what happens if they arrest me? It is very dangerous."
- I once tried to walk from Por Lo Shan to Pak Nai. I came up to an illegal farmer, and the guy told me to turn back because it was his farm. This time, I really have to say that I support the People's Liberation Army!
- Under Hong Kong common law, if the owner of a piece of land does not evict an illegal squatter for 12 years, that land becomes the property of the latter. It will then cost you millions to relocate them.
- The issue does not appear to be about illegal farming. This is a firing range and therefore it carries some danger. What if you come across unexploded ordinance? Or what if you secretly build a house in the forest and suddenly live rounds come showering down?
- Don't you remember the famous sayings of the Tai Mo Shan woman? "Our lives belong to ourselves and we are free to do whatever we want" and then "It is the job of the Police/Fire Departments to rescue us when we get into trouble."
- Por Lo Shan literally means "Pineapple Mountain." In Cantonese, "pineapple" is the colloquial term for a "bomb." So there are plenty of bombs to be found on Por Lo Shan. When you go to Pineapple Mountain, you should expect to step on a "pineapple" or two.
- Incidentally, your personal injury insurance policy does not cover any injury sustained in a restricted military area.
- If a Hongkonger gets injured in this closed military area, he is going to blame the government/PLA for not warning him about the dangers.
- And they still want to go hiking there ... (info.gov.hk) March 27, 2017.
Firing practice will take place at the San Wai/Tai Ling Firing Range and the Tsing Shan Firing Range next month (April).
For their safety, people are advised to leave the firing area before firing takes place and not to enter the area within the period of firing. Red flags or red lamps will be hoisted at the firing areas before and during firing practice.
Following are the dates and times for the firing practice sessions in April 2017:
Date Time April 1 (Saturday)
April 3 (Monday)
April 5 (Wednesday)
April 6 (Thursday)
April 7 (Friday)
April 8 (Saturday)
April 10 (Monday)
April 11 (Tuesday)
April 12 (Wednesday)
April 13 (Thursday)
April 18 (Tuesday)
April 19 (Wednesday)
April 20 (Thursday)
April 21 (Friday)
April 22 (Saturday)
April 24 (Monday)
April 25 (Tuesday)
April 26 (Wednesday)
April 27 (Thursday)
April 28 (Friday)
April 29 (Saturday)8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm- The site was a firing range from the days of the British colonial administration. Here is a 1987 television commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgCSfeGHS8 telling people to stay away from the firing ranges. Here is a video of an October 2016 joint army-navy-air force exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpHTcqjLps
- Back in the British colonial days, their barracks have signs in Chinese: "This is a guarded area. You must stop if you are ordered to half, or else you will be shot." (此乃保衛地區，一聞喝令即須停步，否則將受槍擊)
- (Oriental Daily) In fact, the People's Liberation Army is studying whether they should open the Tsing Shan Firing Range to the public. But there are issues such as a thorough clean-up.
- Lots of public places are banned to the public. For example, you go to a public restroom and there is a sign: "Closed: Maintenance in progress." Will you exercise your right as a member of the public to charge in and do you business?
- Time for the Localists to organize a 10,000-person march to the Tsing Shan Firing Range and dare the People's Liberation Army to shoot us all!
- Don't be silly! Por Lo Shan has little or no mobile phone coverage, unless you are paying for roaming charges using the Shenzhen signal towers. What is the point of occupying Por Lo Shan if you cannot post selfie photos/videos onto Facebook?
There is also no electricity of any sort on the mountain, so you cannot recharge your mobile phone batteries. There are no 7/11 convenience stores on the mountain either, so food and water have to be brought up. Someone has to haul a diesel-fuel electricity generator plus lots and lots of bottled water and sandwiches up the mountain. Better you than me ...
- There are also no public restrooms. So you have to do your business in open air, with mosquitoes biting your ass. P.S. Don't forget to bring toilet paper, or else you will have to use tree leaves.
- Exercise of the sovereignty of the new Hong Kong Nation begins with the reclamation of the 18 military installations currently under the control of the Occupation Army. Actually, Tsing Shan is a bit faraway. There are other more convenient sites. For example, there is a People's Liberation Army barracks at 1A Cornwall Road, Kowloon Tong right across the Hong Kong Baptist University camp. Even closer, there is a residential building guarded by PLA soldiers on Bonham Road just around the corner from Hong Kong University. Why don't our university Valiant Warriors start reclaiming these nearby locations?
- The university Valiant Warriors can just charge in barehanded under their favorite slogan: "They can't shoot all of us." So who is going to lead the way?
- They can't shoot all of you, but they can shoot some of you. Who wants to be the ones shot? Any volunteers?
[735] Putonghua, Anyone? (2017/04/24)
(Wen Wei Po) April 24, 2017.
Two evenings ago, District Councilor Roy Tam Hoi-pong (Greensense) went to attend the Demosisto party anniversary. On the mini-bus, he heard some people speaking in putonghua in the front, middle and back rows. So he immediately posted onto social media to say that he wanted to tell them to go back to mainland China. Quite a number of pro-independence persons checked LIKE, including people like Ronald Leung. Even Hong Kong University Students Union former president Billy Fung Jin-en (whose mother is from mainland China) checked LIKE.
Of course, quite a number of people objected to this sort of hegemony. Leung Kai-chi commented: "Let me interject -- if they were talking among themselves and not forcing you to talk to them, what business is it to you?"
The war of words began.
Contra Leung Kai-chi were comments such as "leftist retard dickhead!" and "only you intellectuals are so fucking stupid!"
Leung Kai-chi pressed on: "If any conversation between two persons in Hong Kong must be conducted in Cantonese because such is local custom, then the statistics show that the Japanese people are the group most unwilling and unable to learn Cantonese."
Roy Tam responded that he did not have a problem with language of speech, but he thought that too many people are speaking putonghua. He told Leung: "You like to change to subject. We don't have 150 Japanese coming here daily, or 50,000 annually. This is not comparable." He demanded Leung Kai-chi to immediately state his position on reducing the number of one-way visas (for mainlanders to immigrate to Hong Kong).
Leung Kai-chi is a professional commentator, so he has no problem hitting back: "Your originally sentence was : 唔講廣東話，不如你哋番大陸啦！做乜落黎 ( "Not speaking Cantonese. Why don't you go back to the mainland! Why come down here?"). You did not say: "Why are there so many mainlanders?" Your emphasis was clearly on language ... your original sentence was on language, and that is why I want to talk about the language with you. But now you want to talk to me about the number of people. It seems that you are the one who is changing the subject, not me."
Leung Kai-chi also listed some data. There are 104,000 persons who have resided in Hong Kong for more than 10 years but still can't speak Cantonese. Of these, just over 9,000 are putonghua speakers. "In other words, the number of putonghua speakers who refuse to learn Cantonese is the minority."
But of course, it is waste of time to talk reason and data with pro-independence people. Roy Tam insisted: "If we don't have any sense of crisis, Cantonese will disappear sooner or later." KingMing Chan wrote: "It is a waste of time to try to reason with Brotherly Love Leftist Retards (such as Leung Kai-chi)." Yan Chan added: "Leftist retards are trying to confuse the issue. This is not a debate competition. This is the people of Hong Kong complaining about what they come across in their daily lives. What is the problem? Do the Germans have to convince other people first before they kick out the refugees?"
Internet comments:
- (Wen Wei Po) April 24, 2017
Chan Lokseng: Thank you for the opinion from this leftist retard dickhead. Hong Kong ends up in this state today due to the irreplaceable contribution from you leftist retards. The Chinese government will thank you deeply.
Yan Chan: Only you intellectuals are so fucking stupid to give the mainlanders the opportunity ... What kind of logic is it to want to become a Hongkonger but refusing to melt into Hong Kong? I know that you intellectuals will ask: How do you know that they don't want to melt into Hong Kong society? The reason why Donald Trump became the American president is due to you anti-human-being thinking intellectuals."
Patpat Lau: I always thought that the Hong Kong intellectuals who are biased on behalf of mainlanders should reflect on what they are doing.
Tsui Tingpong: If a Hongkonger immigrates to an English-speaking country such as Canada and he speaks Cantonese in a pubic space, will the Canadians curse him out?
Natalie Hui: Actually you don't have to see it this way. For example, I live in Canada. When I go out with my family, we speak Cantonese as opposed to English or French. Not many people think that they have the right to demand that I must speak English or French, or tell us to go back to Hong Kong. Diversity and inclusion are important values of democracy.
Helix Ha: If you think that even conversations are restricted in Hong Kong, then you should ban all non-Cantonese languages/dialects and not just putonghua ... as a political figure, you can have your prejudices. But it is inappropriate to publicly disseminate hate. This is not good for you.
Emma Ho: Americans, Brits, Swedes ... when they come to Hong Kong, will you please tell them to speak Cantonese or else you are going to kick them back where they came from! Bastards!
Ricky Chan: If you see westerners in Hong Kong, you will just roll your tail and speak to them in their foreign tongues. I don't see you telling the westerners to learn to speak Cantonese. You stupid cunts have no idea what a cosmopolitan city is supposed to be. Why don't you go back to farming in the countryside?
- Here is the screen capture:
Roy Tam
I just finished attending the Demosisto party anniversary. I took the van from Kowloon City to Tsuen Wan. At least three persons on the van spoke putonghua, in the front, middle and back. I really wanted to tell them: "If you don't speak Cantonese, then why don't you go back to mainland! What come down here"
#Repeat once more that they are not tourists- Here are the data from the 2011 Census on Duration of Residence by Ethnicity by Usual Language for persons aged 5 and over.
- Among the 5,722,240 persons who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 5,465,492 usually speak Cantonese, 49,125 putonghua, 216,292 other Chinese dialects, 90,475 English and 43,753 other languages.
- If you want to talk numbers, then the crackdown should start with 216,292 who speak other Chinese dialects, and then the 90,475 who speak English before you get around to the 49,125 putonghua speakers.
- There are 11,874 Japanese in Hong Kong. Their Usual Languages are distributed as 9,240 Japanese, 2,408 English, 123 putonghua and 463 Cantonese.
- Among the 3,906 Japanese who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 2,481 usually speak Japanese, 937 English, 390 Cantonese and 98 putonghua.
- There are 51,194 Whites in Hong Kong. Their Usual Langauges are 37,119 English, 7,620 Cantonese, 202 putonghua, 466 other Chinese dialects, 5,787 other languages.
Among the 23,934 Whites who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 15,560 usually speak English, 6,787 Cantonese, 15 putonghua and 412 other Chinese dialects.
- There are 6,373,196 Chinese in Hong Kong. Their Usual Languages are 5,957,039 Cantonese, 89,956 putonghua, 272,442 other Chinese dialects, 45,859 English and 7,900 other languages.
- 272,442 other Chinese dialects? For example, this could be New Territories indigenous people who speak the Weitou dialect. What is Roy Tam going to do? Force them to speak the dialect of Canton (=Guangzhou) instead of their Hong Kong indigenous tongues? Isn't he be reversing which one is Localist culture and which one is Alien/Foreign/Outsider culture?
- If this is a language issue because the use of putonghua offends people such as Roy Tam, then a Language Police can be set up to fine anyone caught speaking putonghua in public, in the same manner that the Tobacco Control Office (Department of Health) enforces the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance.
The MTR by-laws says:
(1) No person shall at any time while upon the railway premises-
(a) use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language, or behave in a riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner;
The maximum penalty is $5000 fine and 6 months imprisonment. We don't even have to modify this law, because putonghua is by definition (per Roy Tam) "offensive." So we only need to enforce in accordance with the existing law.
- By the same token, will the police accept a complaint from a mainlander who claims to find Cantonese "offensive"?
(SCMP) Are you a true Hongkonger? It depends who you ask. By Jenny Marsh, May 2, 2015.
"Why would anyone leave Hong Kong?" wrote a friend on Facebook recently, beside a picture of a beautiful sunset at Repulse Bay.
"Why does everyone leave Hong Kong?" might have been a more pertinent question.
Since moving to this land of neon signs and HK$20 noodles three years ago, my friendship circle has changed countless times, as expatriates routinely wrap up their two-year-ish flings with the city.
The nine months of sunshine; efficient transport; delicious dim sum; beaches; brunches; and a low tax rate just weren't enough to make Hong Kong the One.
Although, obviously, many expats do end up staying longer, why do so many newcomers leave after short stints? Is there a fundamental reason for this trail of break-ups?
During last year's Occupy protests, scmp.com ran a picture captioned, "Foreigner protests in Causeway Bay."
Only the white man pictured wasn't a foreigner; he was born in Hong Kong.
"But he's not a Hongkonger," local Chinese friends told me. "He speaks Cantonese, and his wife is Chinese," I argued. His status, they said, would depend on how deeply he'd connected with local "culture".
What is a Hongkonger then, if not someone born in Hong Kong?
In the multicultural British capital, a Londoner can be of any skin colour, eat any type of cuisine and have a mother tongue other than English. To describe a British-born man with Indian parents, say, as a "foreigner" might well spark a riot.
If a lifetime spent in Hong Kong can't make you a Hongkonger, if the children you might have here can't access that identity (at least, not in the eyes of some), perhaps this city - despite the ease of life that welcomes newcomers - isn't a natural place to call home, after all.
(SCMP) What makes a true Hongkonger: knowing what ‘fly sand go milk’ means, perhaps? By Peter Kammerer. December 19, 2016.
A Hongkonger overseas, when asked where they’re from, will invariably answer, “Hong Kong” rather than “China”. I was born in Toowoomba in the Australian state of Queensland, but do not reply “Toowoomba” or “Queensland” when posed that question; the answer is always “Australia”. The Hong Kong response is not what the powers in Beijing want to hear, although it’s an inevitability given the circumstances, culture and pride. They are the reasons I can never call myself a true person of this city, no matter how many years I make it my home.
Carrying a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport rather than a Chinese one invariably assures the “Hong Kong” reply. But Hong Kong is also a city very much on the world map, one that everyone has heard of and knows from movies. The same reasons are cause for someone from New York or London to name the place rather than the country after the “where are you from?” question. But there is much more to being a Hongkonger. After 28 years, I have adopted some of these characteristics; others, however, remain too challenging or alien.
Language is the biggest definer. Cantonese Hong Kong-style, with its slang and swear words that are ever changing, marks a Hongkonger out from their dialect-speaking brethren across the Sham Chun River and the wide-eyed student. Some of the expressions outsiders easily pick up are wah, and that multipurpose aiyah, which can be used for anything from pain to showing concern. But the linguistic ingenuity of Hongkongers comes out in their shorthand for commonly used words and phrases, or in response to current events, producing layers that need full command and constant exposure to come to grips with.
Hong Kong Cantonese takes full flight in the cha chaan teng, where customers demand fast and efficient service. It’s an ideal environment for inventiveness and, as such, has produced all manner of food and drink terms. “Fly sand go milk”, I have been informed, means coffee without milk and sugar, “add the bottom” is to ask for more rice or noodles and calling for “Liza Wang” is not meant to conjure up the famed actress, but a hot coffee, apparently the title of one of her songs. The style extends into everyday-speak as the times and trends demand.
I can’t pretend to know more than a few fistfuls of Cantonese words and, even then, being tone deaf holds me back from grasping so tonal a language.
I can be a Hong Kong person in other ways, though: A click of the tongue in annoyance at the person blocking my way, showing impatience that the bus hasn’t arrived within moments of getting to the stop, and that weekend dim sum ritual. But other aspects I simply cannot embrace, among them feeling at home in a crowd and doing my utmost on public transport during rush hour to avoid bodily contact with other passengers.
It still feels odd when, in a Western-style restaurant, my Chinese meal partner asks to taste what I’m eating; I’ll always oblige, but there’s no desire to share from their plate. And I’ll only join that scramble to pay the restaurant bill if I’m in the mood for playing that game; it’s so much easier to just say that I’ll take care of the bill and, if someone disagrees, promise that I’ll pick it up the next time.
Living conditions and circumstances make people from big cities develop particular characteristics; Hongkongers, like New Yorkers and Londoners, have their own traits. In Hong Kong, I’ve embraced those I’m comfortable with, but there are limits. I’m a citizen, a taxpayer, a resident, but not a true Hongkonger.
(SCMP) Cantonese-speaking ethnic Chinese aren’t the only ones who qualify as Hongkongers. By Peter Kammerer. August 14, 2017.
A comment on my last column about the rudeness of Hong Kong people got me thinking. The reader obliquely accused me of not knowing what I was talking about because I probably lived in Discovery Bay and was therefore unlikely to have used public transport. Stereotypes are one thing, but suggesting what we know about where we live depends on ethnic or economic background is quite another. It raises an intriguing question, though: What is a Hongkonger?
Broadly, anyone who lives and works in Hong Kong can call themselves a Hongkonger. From the official standpoint, it’s about passing the seven-year permanent residency mark and gaining the rights of being able to work without a visa, vote in elections and stand for public office. But then there are those who like to think in terms of language or ethnicity, believing only those who can speak Cantonese or are Chinese should be able to use the term. Then the purists among us step in, contending that the privilege should be bestowed only on Hong Kong passport holders and “natives”, a racially neutral way of saying Hong Kong-born Chinese whose first language is Cantonese.
Only on the first two grounds do I qualify. I was not born and bred in Hong Kong and am Caucasian, although I have lived here for 29 years, more than half my life. Criminally, many would argue, I cannot speak Cantonese and know only a few fistfuls of the numerous colourful expletives and slang words for which the Chinese dialect is so renowned. If I can’t carry on a conversation in the local language with a taxi driver or vegetable seller in the wet market, then there’s no way I can be considered a local, the argument goes. Nor do my two sons qualify; although born in Hong Kong, they are not ethnically Chinese.
But then matters get murky, as a colleague with every known qualification to be referred to as a Hongkonger pointed out. I know too much about the everyday Hong Kong that the typical Cantonese-speaking denizen frequents to be called an outsider. My free time is spent where there are few foreigners, if any; going to restaurants with Chinese-only menus, hanging out in working- and middle-class districts and visiting shopping malls. Blame that on my Hong Kong-born and raised, Cantonese-speaking girlfriend.
Having explained that as the reason for my perceived-as-unusual knowledge, it occurred to me that I rarely frequent places where my own racial group can be found. The same is not always true for members of Hong Kong’s ethnic minorities, some of whom live, shop and even work among their own kind. That is also the perception of many Hong Kong Chinese of Caucasians; I suspect it was such a person who tagged me as being a Discovery-Bay-dwelling, taxi-rider. Little does he or she know that I have been to Discovery Bay on average once for each of the three decades I have lived in Hong Kong and that I rarely use anything but buses, trains and trams.
But, to my mind, those details in themselves don’t mark me out as a Hongkonger. It’s my adoption of things typically local that gives me that right. Why take a taxi when there are far cheaper and as-direct options? Physical contact with a stranger is to be avoided at all costs. Who would pay HK$60 for a hamburger when there is McDonald’s? More than 600 square feet of living space is a waste. Crowds of people are comforting.
Above all else, the test for whether someone is a Hongkonger is where they intend to live after retirement. I have been away from Australia, my country of birth, for so long that I think of it as “foreign” when I visit. When I return here, I give a sigh of relief that I am home again. So, call me a Hongkonger.
[734] Yet Another Demonstration (2017/04/23)
(SCMP) April 22, 2017.
More than 300 people took to the streets a month after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was elected Hong Kong’s next leader, reiterating their call for “genuine universal suffrage” and urging Lam to reopen the sealed-off “Civic Square” in a bid to bridge social divides.
“We are here to reiterate the principles we stand for,” legislator “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats said, ahead of the march. “In order to achieve so-called reconciliation, Hongkongers should be able to enjoy the right to universal suffrage as enjoyed by people in every democratic country.”
Demosisto lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who was also an Occupy student activist, blamed the city’s social conflicts on the widening wealth gap, political suppression and the “government-business-landlord-triad” collusion – a long-time allegation made by lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick.
“Without concrete actions to address these problems, [Lam’s pledge] to mend the rift would only be empty words,” Law said.
The marchers also urged the government to stop what they called political persecution of pan-democrat lawmakers, referring to its attempt to disqualify four more Legislative Council members over improper oath-taking. The protest was led by a number of political and civil rights groups, and was attended by all major pan-democratic parties. Civil Human Rights Front convenor Au Nok-hin yesterday said Lam should reopen the “Civic Square” – the east wing forecourt at the government’s Tamar headquarters – if she really hoped to mend social rifts. “The Front will try to obtain approval to hold a rally on July 1,” said Au, referring to the annual pro-democracy march on the anniversary of the city’s handover. “If Lam refuses to let us hold a rally at Civic Square, then she should stop shedding crocodile tears.”
Internet comments:
- (Oriental Daily) The police said that 150 persons started the march. The peak number was 320 persons.
- Previously the organizers gave an estimate of 800 marchers. When asked whether the turnout was disappointing, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung said that the number was what he expected. If he thought that there would only be 300 before, then why did he say 800?
- (Cable TV News) The procession included Legislative Councilors Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party), Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party) Claudia Mo, Leung Kwok-hung, Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai. With such a stellar cast, the total turnout was still 300. Chu Hoi Dick got 84,121 persons to vote for him in the Legislative Council election in September 2016. Where have they gone now?
- (RTHK) Legislator Leung Kwok-hung who called the demonstration march said that he is very satisfied with the number of participants. He said that most people have a wait-and-see attitude towards the Chief Executive-elect. But given the ongoing political persecution now, Leung believes that more people will turn out for the July 1st demonstration.
- (RTHK) Legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that he invited the Democratic Party to march this time, and Democratic Party legislator Hui Chi-fung showed up. He also invited the Civic Party to march this time, and Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki showed up. Therefore Leung does not believe that there are any schisms within the pan-democratic camp.
- Ha ha ha! How come the Democratic Party and the Civic Party sent one and only one of their bit players? What happened to the rest of their crews?
- And they won't tell you about the funniest part of the whole event. Here are the pieces that you can put together for yourself.
(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. When the demonstration reached the building in which the Chief-Executive-elect's office was housed, the demonstrators wanted to hand over certain materials that were sarcastic about '777' (=number of votes that Carrie Lam received) . However, the worker at the Chief Executive-elect's office refused to accept the material. The demonstrators gradually dispersed peacefully.
[How stupid can you get? The Chief Executive-elect rented an office inside a commercial office building. This is a Sunday. The building and all the offices inside are closed for business. So if they march down there, there is no one in the Chief Executive-elect's office at all. The demonstrators marched to the building and then the security guard told them that everything is closed on Sunday. That was all.]
[If you call a demonstration on a weekday, the turnout will be very low. So they maximized turnout (to 300) on a Sunday. What hope is there when the demonstration culture is restricted only to Sundays with business as usual on the other days?]
(Resistance Live Media @YouTube)
2:28 Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats chairman): There is no need to make an appointment. Is anyone going to accept this '777 Small Circle Election'? Anyone?
2:44 Security guard: You want someone to take this?
2:45 Avery Ng: I can tell you that she is not there. This one, this one, this one, this one. This is a letter.
2:55 Security guard (turns around and leaves because he expected to receive a letter but this prop is just a kindergarten toy)
2:55 Avery Ng: Why don't you want it? He doesn't want it. (throws the prop on the ground) Leave it there. Everybody, she says "Reconciliation". She ordered ... if Carrie Lam sees a man and a woman, then it is not acceptable. But everything else is okay. If she says that she will accept it, she will accept it. If she says that she won't accept it, she won't accept it. She is not accepting it, so it will be left here. Everybody can see that this new Chief Executive is so petty-minded. She is so very rude. She won't accept anything ...
[The demonstrators want Carrie Lam to come out on a Sunday outside her office to accept a black cardboard display with the numbers '777', her own photo and the words ' small circle'. With due respect, this is a waste of time for Carrie Lam, the demonstrators and the media entourage.
The cardboard prop contains no information whatsoever, nothing about anything substantive such as demands for 'genuine' universal suffrage, maximum working hours, universal retirement protection, etc. It is simply a way to humiliate Carrie Lam.
And when the office turned out to be unmanned on a Sunday, the demonstrators said that this proves Carrie Lam is rude, haughty and petty-minded for not accepting their 'letter.']
[(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. On the way, a dissident approached the group and started to scold legislator Leung Kwok-hung who was leading the parade. The group stopped as the two persons yelled at each other. The police had to mediate.
Of course, what the dissident said is never reported by the media. Wouldn't you like to know sometimes? Isn't this more interesting that the 777 Small Circle prop?
- Well, if you must know, the man said that Leung Kwok-hung should hand back his public housing apartment unit for other needy persons since Leung makes $95,000 a month whereas other people make just thousands of dollars per month. Leung said that the man was misrepresenting the facts. Now wouldn't you want to know which facts are being misrepresented? That Leung makes $95,000 a month? Or that indigent people make a pittance and still cannot get public housing?]
[733] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/04/22) (DAB) April 21, 2017. 579 adults were interviewed by telephone April 12-18, 2017.
Q2. Do you support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong?
64.1%: Yes
31.5%: No
4.4%: No opinionQ3. What is the main reason why you don't support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q2)
27.1%: No need
39.1%: Too expensive
26.7%: Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close
4.2%: Other
2.8%: No opinionQ4. The Express Rail Link will become operational in 2018. If you want to go to mainland China then, would you choose to take the Express Rail Link?
56.2%: Yes
28.3%: No
15.5%: UndecidedQ5. Have you ever crossed into mainland China through the Shenzhen Bay border-crossing point?
70.6%: Yes
24.9%: No
4.5%: Can't rememberQ6. Right now the discussion is about a single immigration checkpoint for passengers. That is to say, immigration procedures for Hong Kong and mainland China will be handled at the same location as it is at Shenzhen Bay. Can you accept this in Hong Kong?
62.5%: Yes
32.4%: No
5.2%: No opinionQ7. What is the main reason why you accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "Yes" in Q6)
9.2%: Attracts tourists to come to Hong Kong
85.1%: Speeds up the immigration/customs process
3.6%: Other reasons
2.0%: No opinionQ8. What is the main reason why you won't accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q6)
1.4%: No need
7.2%: Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally
49.6%: Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong
37.1%: Destroys One Country Two Systems
3.3%: Other
1.3%: No opinionQ9. Did you travel to mainland China within the past year?
79.7%: Yes
18.1%: No
2.2%: Cannot rememberInternet comments:
- Background (SCMP) May 21, 2015.
Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities have yet to agree on allowing mainland immigration officials to work at the cross-border high-speed railway terminus in West Kowloon but believe the matter can be resolved, the city's justice minister said.
The issue of how these officials can enforce mainland laws in the city without breaching the Basic Law arose during talks between Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and mainland officials in Shenzhen yesterday.
He expressed confidence the matter would be resolved by the end of 2017, when the long- delayed link is scheduled to open.
Speaking after the meeting, Yuen reiterated that both sides had agreed a single immigration checkpoint for passengers should be created, instead of checkpoints at each side of the border.
The two governments do not want checkpoints to be set up on each side of the border, as it would lengthen train journeys and defeat the purpose of building the express railway link to Guangzhou.
- Why don't the opponents want the Express Rail Link?
27.1% "No need"? That's fair enough -- if you don't need it, you don't need it. That's all.
39.1% "Too expensive"? The money has been mostly spent already. It will cost more not to complete the project and start using it . For example, there will be is a big hole in the ground at West Kowloon and you need to find an alternate designation of usage. Even if nothing is to be done there, it will cost you to keep it there
26.7% "Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close"? Those Chinese Communists can come down by air, sea and land (train, bus, private vehicle and even walking) already. If they want to come, they will come anyway. You can't seal off the borders.
Why don't opponents want to accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link?
1.4% "No need"? If they mean that there is no need for immigration/customs control at all, then it should be eliminated for other entry methods as well. So they mean that there should be separate checkpoints, one at the West Kowloon terminal and another at the Shenzhen border. The result is that it will be faster to reach Guangzhou from Hong Kong through the regular Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train than this 400 km-per-hour Express Rail.
7.2% "Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally"? They are using the same procedures as at the other border control checkpoints, so it won't be easier or harder.
49.6% "Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong"? What do you think of the presence of the People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong? Do their wild beer parties keep you from sleeping at night? Do they rape/murder local girls like the American soldiers on Okinawa? What exactly are you afraid of?
37.1% "Destroys One Country Two Systems"? How so? One Country Two Systems is a constitutional principle that is implemented through the Basic Law. If you think so, then the Shenzhen Bay Control Point has been doing co-location customs clearance for years already. Has One Country Two Systems been destroyed yet?
[732] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/04/22) Reference: Hong Kong Palace Museum
(West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Report on the Key Findings of the Public Consultation Exercise on the Hong Kong Palace Museum Project
An independent consulting firm (the Consumer Search Group, the “Consultation Consultant”) was commissioned by WKCDA to provide data collection and analysis services for the public consultation process.
The public opinion poll collected and analyzed the opinions from the general public in order to understand the similarities and differences of their views on the HKPM project and provide information for WKCDA’s reference in the deliberation of the project development.
The public opinion poll covered the Hong Kong resident population aged 15 or above. Quota sampling was adopted to ensure that the enumerated samples could represent an appropriate composition of the target population. The quota was set with reference to the corresponding population figures as at the third quarter of 2016 provided by the Census and Statistics Department, including (i) age, (ii) gender, (iii) highest educational attainment and (iv) working status.
A total of 1,805 respondents were successfully enumerated in 18 locations with major traffic junctions, transport hubs and landmarks in Hong Kong1 , covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, between 28 February and 7 March 2017 via on-street face-to-face interviews.
The fieldwork locations included
i. four (4) sampling points on the Hong Kong Island (Smithfield Market in Sai Wan, Wan Chai MTR station, Tai Koo Shing Aeon, Aberdeen Centre);
ii. five (5) sampling points in Kowloon (Mong Kok Soy Street, Carpenter Road Park in Kowloon City, Kwun Tong Yue Man Square, Sham Shui Po MTR station, Wong Tai Sin MTR station);
iii. four (4) sampling points in New Territories East (Shatin Market, Tai Po Centre, Sheung Shui Shek Wu Hui Market, Po Lam MTR station); and
iv. five (5) sampling points in New Territories West (Tung Chung MTR station, Tsuen Wan Lo Tak Court, Kwai Fong MTR station, Tuen Mun Yan Oi Tong, Kolour Yuen Long).
To correct the potential bias as introduced by the incidence of non-response and non-contact cases, all information collected was properly weighted by age group (15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 or above), gender (male and female) and highest educational attainment (primary or below, secondary and post-secondary or above) in accordance with the corresponding Hong Kong population figures of persons aged 15 or above as at the third quarter of 20162 (i.e. N = 6 143 600 in total).
Key Analysis and Opinions
General awareness of the proposed HKPM project was high with more than four-fifths of the (81.2%) general public being aware of the proposed HKPM project
Supporting views towards HKPM project exceeded opposing views by a big margin. About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.
The key reasons for those in supporting this project (52.0%) evolved around strengthening the ties between Hong Kong and China; establishment of a new attraction and its impact on the tourism industry; and the macro benefits that it would bring to Hong Kong14 . Specifically,
Nearly a quarter (25.2%) believed the HKPM would offer good educational value and could facilitate the learning and understanding of Hong Kong and China, particularly the history (11.1%), culture (10.5%) and cultural relics (3.3%);
8.2% of them believed that the HKPM would become a new attraction in Hong Kong and a good place to go for leisure; the development of the HKPM would attract more tourists to Hong Kong (7.8%); visitors could conveniently enjoy and see the artefacts from the renowned Palace Museum in Hong Kong (5.1%).
Nearly three-fifths (58.3%) of the general public agreed with the statement that this project would provide the WKCD visitors a more diverse range of cultural facilities and experience.
Almost half (49.9%) of them agreed that this project would be beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole, bringing cultural, social and economic benefits; and
4.7% of them expected the project to bring about social and economic benefits to Hong Kong; and
Additionally, a few (0.1%) had mentioned that this world-class museum would uplift Hong Kong’s overall international stature.
However, those general public who opposed the HKPM project (14.7%) were more concerned with the resources spent in building the museum (4.9%), and the lack of public consultation (2.4%) than establishing the HKPM itself15 . Nevertheless, their key opposition against establishing the HKPM could mainly be categorized into three aspects:
The role of the HKPM amongst existing Hong Kong museums – 1.6% of the general public stated that there were already a lot of museums in Hong Kong; of which, some were considered to be of similar nature (0.8%);
The appropriateness to build the HKPM in Hong Kong – 2.3% of the general public stated that people could simply and easily go to Beijing to visit the Palace Museum if they would like to enjoy the exhibits and artefacts; and
The appropriateness to build the HKPM within WKCD –1.5% of the general public were not supporting building the HKPM within WKCD.
Internet comments:
- The main finding in the WKCD Authority report is this:
About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.
Got it? Here is how it was reported in South China Morning Post:
Overall public opinion is split on the decision to build Hong Kong’s version of the Palace Museum in the city’s art hub, according to the findings of a consultation released to a panel on Friday.
In the [face-to-face citywide] interviews, 52 per cent of respondents were supportive of the palace project, with 48 per cent either opposed to the plan or having no opinion.
- Why wasn't it written as: Opposition to HKPM is small -- In the interviews, 15% opposed the palace project, with 85 percent either supportive of the plan or having no opinion?
- In December 2015, Public Policy Opinion interviewed 532 Republican primary voters in the United States.
Q38. Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?
30%: Support bombing Agrabah
13%: Oppose bombing Agrabah
57%: Not sureWill this be reported by SCMP as: "Overwhelming support to bomb Agrabah: only 13% opposed"?
[Note: Agrabah is the fictional nation portrayed in the Disney movie Aladdin.]
- (Reuters) July 25, 2016.
About one in six people in Hong Kong want the special administrative region of China to become independent of the mainland, a university poll has shown, although few think it will ever happen.
According to the poll, released on Sunday, 17.4 percent somewhat supported or strongly supported independence for Hong Kong when its 50-year "one country, two systems" agreement, under which it is governed by Beijing, expires in 2047.
Another 22.9 percent were ambivalent, according to the poll, which was conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey. Another 57.6 percent were somewhat or strongly against the idea.
Why wasn't this reported as: "17.4% were supportive of Hong Kong independence, with 80.5 per cent either opposed or having no opinion" à la SCMP?
- 33.3% have no opinion on the West Kowloon Palace Museum? At least they are honest about not knowing or caring enough. Most people don't know much about the project now, either in terms of culture or economics, although that has not stopped some of them from offering their opinions. And most people are not going to bother to learn about the project either. They are not going to have an informed opinion until years after it is built (if ever). Are you going to let them make the decision now in the name of democracy?
- Here is another controversial issue: Organ donations by Under 18's. Let's conduct yet another poll of the Hong Kong general public to gauge their expert medical opinions on the risk-benefit tradeoffs for donors and recipients. You can argue for either YES or NO just as effectively because you can lump the 80+% "Don't know/Not sure/No opinion" on your side of the argument.
- (SCMP) Tanya Chan Suk-chong, a lawmaker who is in the same subcommittee, said however that she was not convinced by the consultation results. “Given that the project seems a foregone conclusion with everything already in place, including Rocco Yim as the architect, the support figure of 52 per cent in the opinion poll is surprisingly low,” Chan said. “There is also a problem with the consultation: it did not ask the key question of whether the city’s version of the Palace Museum should be built at all.”
- So the key question is not whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. It is whether the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ or not?
- (West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Apart from the face-to-face interviews, data were also collected through three other channels -- 623 paper questionnaires were distributed and completed at the City Gallery exhibition; 905 online questionnaires completed at the WKCDA website; and 54 written submissions. The paper questionnaire only covered those who visited the City Gallery exhibition, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The online questionnaires only covered those who visited the WKCDA website by chance or were told by others to visit the WKDCA website, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The written submissions came from a total of 119 individuals/associations/bodies, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The face-to-face interviews come closest to represent the entire population. The other channels are of interest only to the extent that they present certain insights and views.
[731] Guangzhou versus Hong Kong (2017/04/21)
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 21, 2017.
Police have arrested a man on suspicion of making threats towards a football match between the champions of the Hong Kong and the Chinese leagues next Tuesday.
The 31-year-old was arrested on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent for comments he made online about the Asian Champions League match between Eastern and Guangzhou Evergrande.
In a press conference on Thursday, chief inspector Paul Wong Tak-choi said the police received a public complaint about online speech that allegedly threatened the game at Mong Kok Stadium. “It includes [threats] of violence against people coming to watch the match, and even arson,” he added.
The man was arrested in the Jordan area on Thursday morning. His residence in Chai Wan was also searched, reported Apple Daily.
(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.
At 8pm next Tuesday, Hong Kong Eastern will host Guangzhou Evergrande at Mong Kok Stadium in an AFC Champions League Group G match. Eastern had previously declared on February 13-14 that all tickets have been sold out. This caused Hong Kong fans to be upset, because they think that the visiting team had bought up all the tickets so that they will have more fans at the stadium than the home team!
One Internet user declared that if the visiting team fans are the majority, "then I will cause trouble outside the stadium, including assaulting the other fans and setting fire to their team uniforms even if I have to go to jail." The Mong Kong Police District Crime Investigation Department has arrested a 31-year-old man named Lee in the Jordan District on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent.
According to information, Eastern plays three matches in AFC Champions League matches at home: on March 1 against the Kawasaki Frontale; on March 14 against the Suwon Samsung Bluewings; on April 25 against Guangzhou Evergrande. The tickets are either 3-game sets ($480 regular price; $200 special discounts) or single-game ($180 regular price; $80 special discounts). Sales began at 10am on February 14 via Internet, telephone and box office. Each person can purchase at most 2 single-game tickets or 2 three-game ticket sets.
(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.
Eastern general manager Leung Shou-chi said that the Asian Football Confederation stipulates that the tickets be divided in the ratio of 94% for the home team and 6% for the visiting team. For next Tuesday team, the visiting team Guangzhou Evergrande has asked for about 350 tickets. The Hong Kong Football Association asked for about 1,000 tickets. The home team players and other insiders asked for about 1,000 tickets. The remaining 3,000 tickets were sold to the general public.
The visiting team's fans will have the words "visitor" stamped on their tickets, and they will enter the stadium through a special entrance. The home team fans must show their Hong Kong ID's in order to be admitted to the home team fans' area in the stadium.
Leung Shou-chi pointed out that a typical Hong Kong professional soccer game is watched by a few hundred spectators. At their best, Eastern can draw only 1,000 spectators. This year, Eastern is playing in the AFC Champions League and their three home games are all sold out. In February this year, Eastern was the visiting team in Guangzhou. The stadium had a capacity of 60,000. But not many Hong Kong fans wanted to go to Guangzhou, so Eastern only asked for about 400 tickets.
Why didn't Eastern use the larger Hong Kong Stadium instead? Leung Shou-chi explained that they would have to play in that stadium for all three matches under Asian Football Confederation rules. Last month, the Hong Kong Stadium hosted the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens, which could not be stopped to make way for these soccer games.
As for the fan who was arrested for threatening physical violence and arson, Leung Shou-chi said: "If some people couldn't get tickets for the Mayday concert, do you think that they should go and burn down the Hung Hom Coliseum?"
(SCMP) April 25, 2017.
Hong Kong officials will implement additional security measures for Eastern’s Asian Champions League meeting with Guangzhou Evergrande on Tuesday evening amid concerns Chinese fans have purchased tickets for areas restricted for home supporters.
The Hong Kong champions take on the Chinese Super League winners, who are coached by Fifa World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolari, at Mongkok Stadium. Local supporters are being asked to produce identity cards before being admitted.
Organisers are concerned that supporters from China have purchased tickets outside the area designated for Guangzhou’s travelling support. They issued a statement on Monday evening advising home fans that a valid Hong Kong identity card was required along with their tickets to gain access to seating.
All 5,800 tickets for the game have been sold, with Guangzhou allocated just 350 in accordance with tournament regulations. Hong Kong officials have been sensitive to any prospect of trouble at sporting events featuring Chinese teams since street protests brought parts of the city to a halt in late 2014.
Similar restrictions were put in place when China’s national team played against Hong Kong at the same stadium in a World Cup qualifier in November 2015.
(SCMP) April 24, 2017.
Eastern are confident of avoiding another humiliating defeat when they meet Guangzhou Evergrande in the AFC Champions League group stage at Mong Kok Stadium on Tuesday.
The two-time AFC Champions League winners inflicted a stunning 7-0 defeat on the Hong Kong champions in the opening group match in Guangzhou two months ago. “We are confident of securing some points from the match,” said Eastern coach Chan Yuen-ting at the pre-match press conference. “We come back to our familiar pitch and the compact venue will also give our defensive play advantages. More importantly, we have gained a lot of experience at this level after the Guangzhou game and are now in a much better preparation for the Champions League, both mentally and physically.”
Internet comments:
- Round 1 result: (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.
PaybackRound 2 Result: (SCMP) April 26, 2017.
Guangzhou Evergrande of China face punishment from the Asian Football Confederation after their fans displayed a provocative political banner during their 6-0 AFC Champions League win against Hong Kong’s Eastern.
In the closing stages at Mong Kok Stadium, Evergrande fans showed a banner in the away end saying “annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong independence poison”.
Angry Eastern fans from the nearby stand ran over and tried to confront the visiting supporters but were stopped by security.
“We informed the match commissioner of the banner content, and he has put it in his report to the AFC,” said a Hong Kong Football Association source. “This banner is not allowed as they never applied to display it, but we don’t know how they got away with the bag search. We will have to investigate.”
AFC rules ban displays of political slogans in any form, with the Chinese Super League club likely set to face a charge of improper conduct.
Nervous Eastern officials had already doubled the number of seats allocated to mainland fans from 350 to 700 just hours before the match in a bid to segregate them and avoid crowd trouble, amid fears tickets for home fans may have fallen into the hands of away supporters.
Heavy security was deployed in front of the away end, with both sets of supporters verbally abusing each other throughout the match.
Eastern head coach Chan Yuen-ting and her Evergrande counterpart, Luiz Felipe Scolari, said they did not see the banner.
“It was a disappointing result as we expected more from the home game,” said Chan, whose side prop up group G with one point from five matches having lost their opening encounter 7-0 to Scolari’s men. “Guangzhou are in a class of their own and had some classy goals which our defence found difficult to handle. But we still have made progress from the first match.”
Despite the slippery surface following a non-stop downpour all afternoon, Evergrande went into the break with a 2-0 lead thanks to Brazilian midfielder Paulinho’s strike and an own goal from Eastern defender Josh Mitchell.
After the restart, Evergrande extended their lead with a double from Brazilian Alan Douglas. Paulinho then added his second before substitute Yu Hanchao fired in a free kick.
Videos: The game itself and the other politics (0:01 Viking rally call; 0:20 "Team Guangzhou!" chant; 0:41 Chinese national anthem; 1:30 "Fuck your mother" chant; 2:24 "Guangzhou" chant).
- AFC Champions League Group G results
22-02-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 1, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
22-02-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC 7, Eastern SC 001-03-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 2, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 2
01-03-2017: Eastern SC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 114-03-2017: Eastern SC 0, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
14-03-2017: Guangzhou FC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 112-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 5, Eastern SC 0
12-04-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 0, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 025-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 0, Kawasaki Frontale 1
25-04-2017: Eastern SC 0, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 609-05-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC, Suwon Samsung Bluewings
09-05-2017: Kawasaki Frontale, Eastern SC- Why the emphasis on the freedom of speech issue or why criminalizing "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent" is bad? Why not ask what is wrong with Mr. Lee? Where did he get the information that Evergrande bought up most of the tickets for its fans to take away Eastern's home field advantage? Did he hear it from voices inside his head? Did he read it in Apple Daily? Did he get it from an Internet discussion forum such as the Hong Kong Golden Forum? Did he get it from Facebook?
- In Hong Kong, the Guangzhou Evergrande fans displayed a banner with a political message? So what! Look what happened previously when Hong Kong fans displayed "Hong Kong is not China" or booed the Chinese national anthem (which is also their own national anthem). Using that as a precedent, what can the Asian Football Confederation penalize a Chinese team when China is paying their bills?
- If you object to the politically charged banner saying “annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong independence poison”, then what do you say to the British dragon/lion flag for Hong Kong independence in the audience? Political message or not?
The Asian Football Confederation is in no position to go after individual fans. However, they can penalize the organizers (the Hong Kong Football Association and Eastern FC) for failure to inspect the belongings of the audience members and seize those props which break the rules. That is the responsibility of the Hong Kong side, not the Guangzhou side.
And that business about chanting "Fuck your mother" occurred both ways (see the Hong Kong side of "Fuck your mother").
- (Line Post) April 28, 2017.
... I personally believe that it is hard for political factors not to be added into large sports events. When I watched China play Japan in volleyball, every point won by the Chinese team pleases me. However, such feelings should be used to support my team as opposed to insulting the opponent. No matter how I hate a country, I will rise to attention at their national anthem. This is respect for myself.
I remember that the habit of insulting of the national anthem began with Scholarism members showing up at the flag-raising ceremony, turning their backs and crossing their arms over their heads. This opened Pandora's box and escalated such that ripping and setting fire to the national flag became commonplace. The soccer match between Hong Kong and China was the apex, wherein many Chinese citizens felt the insults hurled at them by Hongkongers by the first time.
Fortunately, the Chinese fans directed their invective only at the British dogs and Hong Kong independence poison. Frankly, when I saw the banner, I did not feel offended in the least, because I am not an English dog and I don't support Hong Kong independence. Afterwards many people said angrily that they are insulted etc. Even the Brits are not complaining about the insult to their dogs, so why are you so upset? Are you indeed the Brits' dogs? Or do you support Hong Kong independence and that is why you are offended?
Before the 1997 handover, a group of Hong Kong legislative councilors went to London to beg for right of abode for Hongkongers. In the end, approval was granted to about 1% of Hongkongers to become second-class citizens of the United Kingdom. The remaining 99% of Hongkongers could not even become British dogs. They didn't qualify before, and they certainly don't now. Today those who wave the British Union Jack for independence/self-determination are merely being nostalgic. It is their personal choice to be nostalgic about British colonialism, and that is okay. But the Brits have told you many times that they don't want you, and you still want to stick your hot face up against their cold arse. In my view, this is pretty pathetic.
The racist statement by the Evergrande fans is directed against the wrong targets. I believe that they should be seriously and severely punished. They need to apologize to the very innocent British people and their lovely dogs. As for those guys who screamed "Chee-na dogs," they will end the same way as the final score of this home-and-away series (13:0 Guangzhou Evergrande to Eastern SC). You can create even more myths about Yapp "Hero" Hung-fai, but reality is cold and brutal.
The Flood has arrived, and there is no Ark. You should wake up from your dream of British colonial nostalgia.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) According to the disciplinary and ethics code of the Asian Football Confederation, a club whose spectators display “insulting, religious, or political slogans” can be punished with a fine of US$2,000 (HK$15,500) per banner.
Duh, the members of the Guangzhou Evergrande team reportedly received a bonus of 21 million RMB for winning this match. Can this club afford to pay US$2,000?
- It takes two to have a shouting match. These photos of Hong Kong fans are from Weibo: "These Hong Kong fans jumped down onto the field and raised their middle fingers when the Guangzhou Evergrande fans sang their national anthem. Let us take at look at these serfs who are still living in the British colonial era."
(HK01)
Facebook: Middle-finger exercise https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1943639365883642/
- In Hong Kong, the local Hong Kong fans chanted "Chee-na dogs" at the Guangzhou Evergrande fans. In reply, the Guangzhou Evergrande fans, sang the national anthem (video), chanted "Fuck your mother!" (see video, video) and "Stupid cunt, fuck stupid cunt" (see video, video). But this is very dumb, because these Hongkongers are of Chinese descent, so they are also "Chee-na dogs" themselves.
- Bonus video: A white Caucasian woman chanting "6-0" in Cantonese in the visitors' section.
- The difference between the two teams is $MONEY$: Five of the six goals were scored by foreign-born players (Paulinho 2, Alan 2, Josh Mitchell 1). So if we exclude the contributions of the foreign-born players, the final score was just 1-0, with the one goal coming from a free kick awarded by the bribed referee.
- Josh Mitchell's goal? He is an Eastern SC player who yielded an own goal. Are you suggesting that he was paid to do so?
- And when the foreigners known as MSN (Lionel Messi (Argentina), Luis Suarez (Uruguay) and Neymar (Brazil)) score for Barcelona FC (Catalonia/Spain), it should not be counted?
- Several hundred courageous Guangzhou Evergrande fans traveled to Hong Kong into the lions' den to support their team. Meanwhile back in Round 1, the Hong Kong Eastern SC fans were nowhere to be seen or heard in Guangzhou, because the club had security concerns. What does this tell you?
- (Ming Pao) Yesterday, there were about 5,000 home fans and 600 Guangzhou Evergrande fans. The Evergrande fans were singing because their team was leading. The home fans section was as quiet as a library except for some who cursed back with foul language. The 50-strong Eastern SC cheerleading team could not create any atmosphere. Mr. Leung sat in Section 16 and kept chanting for Eastern SC goalie Yapp Hung-fai. He said: "I am not a diehard Eastern fan. But we should be united against visiting teams. Win or lose, the players need our support. But I don't see the audience around me cheer. Instead, the Evergrande fans sang the whole way. This does not look like a home field. I am somewhat unhappy." Ms. Ho said that the Evergrande fans appear to have received training in singing before, whereas the Hong Kong fans are relatively disorganized.
- (HK01) It stands to reason that the newcomer Eastern SC would lose badly to former champion Evergrande. But when the 5,000 home fans went up against the several hundred Evergrande fans, it was no match at all. Mr. Wong said that the home fans were not as vocal as the visitors. When another goal was scored, the home fans only knew to chant obscenities instead of encouraging the home team to fight back. If Hong Kong wants to do better in this, they will need to invest money to organize cheerleading like Evergrande does. In this game, some Evergrande fan brought 4,000 red t-shirts down from Guangzhou and gave them away to all comers, so that there was a sea of red in the visitors' area (sections 19, 20 and 21) as well as elsewhere in the stadium. It is alright to lose a match according to the scoreboard; but if we also lose on impetus and spirit, we will have nothing left.
- Here is the video of the Guangzhou Evergrande team doing the Viking rally call with their fans after the match. The team players knew how to lead, and the fans knew how to respond.
- Postscript:
After the match, the visiting team's fans were not allowed to leave until after the home team fans have completely departed. Several cleaning ladies were waiting to clean up. But they won't have much to do, because the visiting team's fans came with their own garbage bags and picked up most of the litter themselves. Some of the security guards applauded the visiting team's fans.
Postscript: As a Hongkonger, I am moved by the sight of the Guangzhou team fans cleaning up their section and then thanking the security guards for their efforts tonight. I have watched soccer in Hong Kong for thirty years, and I never see our fans do anything like this. The conflict between mainland China and Hong Kong is complicated and will not be resolved overnight. But prejudices and labeling are no doubt the causes of the heightened hostility. The behavior of the visiting team's fans after the match subverts the belief by common Hongkongers about mainlanders being uncivilized. Unfortunately, most Hongkongers will have only seen that one particular banner and not find out about this post-match happening. So I have posted this for you to forward.
- (Asian Football Confederation) April 27, 2017.
The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has charged Guangzhou Evergrande (China PR) under Article 58 for discrimination and Article 65 relating spectator misconduct at their match against Eastern SC in Hong Kong on Tuesday evening.
- (SCMP) April 28, 2017.
Chinese netizens reacted furiously to the news that Guangzhou Evergrande face sanctions for an offensive banner displayed in the stands in a match in Hong Kong this week. The Chinese champions could face a fine and have to play matches behind closed doors after the Asian Football Confederation charged the team with discrimination and spectator misconduct.
Fans unfurled a banner reading “Annihilate British dogs, Extinguish Hong Kong independence poison” in the Champions League match against Hong Kong champions Eastern on Tuesday, the latest incident of political tensions between the mainland and its special administrative region being expressed in the football stands.
And judging by online reaction in China, few had a problem with the banner.
A poll on Sina, one of the country’s largest web portals, asked readers if they felt Guangzhou fans had done anything wrong. Less than 20 per cent of the 3,000-plus respondees said yes. The poll attracted 5,000-odd comments, with the most popular overwhelmingly in favour of the fans’ action.
“First, the home fans displaying the former colonial flag is not a political symbol?” read the top-rated comment, from a reader in Fujian province.
“Second, the home team fans booing the national anthem is not wrong?
“Third, giving visiting fans the middle finger during the national anthem is not insulting?
“Please answer AFC! Let’s also hear from Chinese Football Association chairman Cai Zhenhua!!!”
A Hong Kong colonial-era flag was hoisted by an Eastern fan during the game, while the national anthem of China has regularly been booed at recent international games in Mong Kok Stadium.
Many said the AFC “should not interfere in China’s affairs”, a common line wheeled out by China’s government when accused of human rights violations and the like by foreign powers.
“Get out of China you brutes,” said another acclaimed comment. “Hong Kong ‘chop suey’ boo the national anthem, are you so righteous? ... [when] you are insulting the dignity of the country, what’s wrong with fighting back?”
A popular opinion was that Evergrande fans were being good patriots.
“The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states that every Chinese citizen has the right and obligation to safeguard the dignity and interests of the State,” said one commenter.
The AFC’s official Sina Weibo account was besieged with angry messages in the same vein. Its post announcing the investigation had attracted more than 11,000 comments on Weibo on Friday morning. By contrast, its English-language post on Twitter received 16 replies.
“AFC suspected of supporting Hong Kong independence and not recognising the one-China principle!” blasted one Weibo commenter.
Another popular argument is that the Guangzhou fans could not be guilty of “discrimination” since the Hong Kong fans are Chinese too.
China’s media initially did not mention the banner, but the AFC’s announcement that Guangzhou were facing punishment forced them to acknowledge that something happened, without providing details – or pictures.
“Due to well-known reasons in recent years, individual Guangzhou Evergrande fans displayed a political slogan,” is an example of the fashion in which the incident has been reported.
Sina’s story mentioning possible sanctions has attracted nearly 60,000 comments, the most popular of which express the same kind of outrage.
“Hong Kong is China! This is beyond doubt! If you don’t like to be Chinese people you can leave any time! Support Evergrande fans, you speak the hearts of the people of the country!” was one example.
Tobias Zuser, a researcher on sports culture and policy currently based at Hong Kong Baptist University and founder of local football blog offside.hk, pointed out some ironies of Evergrande fans’ new-found nationalism.
“I think the incident shows once more that fan behaviour and attitudes are always flexible and contextual. Guangzhou supporters are famous for taking pride in their regional identity on a regular basis in the Chinese Super League, with some fancying the idea of an autonomous ‘Republic of Cantonia’.
“However, for occasions like the Asian Champions League, the patriotic and nationalist agenda always dominates. Evergrande fans also sing the national anthem during away games in South Korea and Japan.
“Given the way it was executed, the banner was certainly a well-planned provocation. However, it also carries a subtle tone of irony, as this very behaviour would never be tolerated in a Chinese stadium – even within the CSL, where there are strict limitations on banners and flags.”
Eastern fans were reportedly not allowed to travel to the corresponding group stage match in nearby Guangzhou in February because of ‘security fears’. But Guangzhou fans travelled en masse to Hong Kong this week after snapping up tickets meant for home fans online.
High-profile football games at Mong Kok Stadium have in recent years become a popular outlet for pro-independence, anti-China sentiment among Hong Kong fans, with the national anthem regularly booed and “We are Hong Kong!” (in English to underline the point) one of the most popular chants.
Guangzhou fans had the last laugh in both games, as their big-spending team hammered minnows Eastern 7-0 and 6-0.
- (SCMP) April 28, 2017.
Guangzhou Evergrande fans insisted on Friday that they had nothing to do with the offensive banner displayed at Hong Kong’s Mong Kok Stadium in a match last Tuesday, blaming people with “ulterior motives” and pleading with football authorities not to “hurt the feelings” of genuine fans.
The Chinese champions face a fine and having to play matches behind closed doors after the Asian Football Confederation charged the club with discriminatory behaviour and spectator misconduct for the banner, which read “Annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong [independence] poison”.
Twenty Guangzhou fan clubs issued a joint statement on Weibo claiming that after an “investigation” they had determined that the four men who displayed the banner were not genuine fans, and asked that the AFC therefore not punish their team.
Photos of the banner appear to show it being held up by at least 20 people, not four, and the fans’ plea seems certain to fall on deaf ears.
“All 325 Guangzhou fans that night ... went through the strict security of Mong Kok stadium,” read the statement. “During the match, all Guangzhou fans were in strict accordance with the security requirements ...
“After the incident, we quickly launched an investigation. Four men raised a banner suspected of having political content. We further verified that the four are not our registered fan members. As for their true identity, and how they carried such a clear banner through the strict stadium security, we have no knowledge.
“Over the years, whether in the Chinese Super League or AFC competitions, home or away, we have followed Guangzhou north and south as civilised spectators at hundreds of games, [and] never have displayed illegal banners.
“We love football, enjoy the fun of football, and don’t want to involve politics – but we don’t want people with ulterior motives people to discredit the image of Guangzhou fans, and destroy the relationship between Guangzhou and Hong Kong fans.
“It is known that the behaviour of non-Guangzhou fans may cause the AFC to punish our beloved team. We earnestly hope that the AFC can conduct an in-depth investigation of the incident, conducted impartially and not make a perfunctory or hasty decision, and do not hurt the feelings of the majority of Chinese fans.”
- (SCMP) May 4, 2017.
Guangzhou Evergrande have escaped with a slap on the wrist after their fans displayed an offensive banner in a match in Hong Kong last month.
The Chinese champions received a fine of US$22,500 and a suspended two-match stadium ban after their supporters unfurled a banner reading “Annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong [independence] poison” at Mong Kok Stadium against HK champions Eastern last month.
The club was found guilty of discrimination and spectator misconduct under the Asian Football Confederation’s rules.
“In the AFC Champions League, Guangzhou Evergrande were found to have violated Article 58 and Article 65 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code relating to the actions of away supporters at the match Eastern SC (HKG) vs Guangzhou Evergrande on April 25,” said an AFC statement.
“Away supporters displayed a banner depicting a discriminatory message relating to national origin and political opinion.
“Guangzhou Evergrande were ordered to play two future matches in AFC club competitions which they host in China PR without spectators, with both matches suspended for a probationary period of two years. They were also fined USD22,500.”
If there is a further breach of the rules within the probationary period, the stadium ban comes into effect. Guangzhou were warned that a repeat violation will lead to more severe punishment.
- (AFC) May 26, 2017.
Match: AFC Champions League 2017 (Group Stage) Eastern SC (HKG) vs. Guangzhou Evergrande FC (CHN) on 25 April 2017
Defendant: Eastern SC (HKG)
Matter: Liability for spectator conduct Article 65, AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code Organisation of matches Article 64, AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code
Basic Facts: Defendant spectator(s) displayed the “Colonial Flag of Hong Kong”, a political slogan involving an element of nationalism in the context of a match between clubs from Hong Kong and China.
Terms:
1. Eastern SC (HKG) is ordered to pay a fine of USD10,000/- for violating Article 65.1 read together with Article 64.1 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code (Code).
2. The fine shall be settled within 30 days from the date that this decision is communicated in accordance with Article 11.3 of the Code.
3. Eastern SC (HKG) is informed that a repeat violation of this provision will be met with more severe punishment.
- The people who caused the sanction to be imposed don't give a rat's ass about the sanctions. Eastern SC pays for it and they don't. They only feel good about yet another victory over the Chinese Communists.
[730] The Great Reconciliation? (2017/04/18)
(Ming Pao) April 18, 2017.
Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposes that the new Chief Executive Carrie Lam used her powers to grant a special amnesty to all participants in Occupy Central as well as the Seven Policemen and retired police superintendent Franklin Chu.
In a special Ming Pao interview, Wu Chi-wai said that Carrie Lam must take concrete actions to mend social divisions. He recommends that Lam establishes a special group to conduct an in-depth investigation into the causes of Occupy Central and then take measures to mend the social divisions accordingly. Wu recommended Lam to exercise her powers under Basic Law Article 38 to grant amnesty to all persons convicted during Occupy Central, including the seven policemen, Franklin Chu and the Occupy Central participants. He said: "The social conflicts in Hong Kong were caused by the political system. Therefore it will take political action to mend the social divisions."
Wu Chi-wai emphasized that this recommendation falls with the realm of Hong Kong autonomous rule, and therefore the Central Government does not have to be consulted. "These recommendations will let Mrs. Lam show her ideas of governance. For her, it means that the social divisions can be healed and the citizens can rebuilt their confidence for her. The social atmosphere will improve when that time comes."
(TVB) April 18, 2017.
In the evening, the Democratic Party met. Afterwards Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said: "It was clearly an idea that was not well thought through, because I did not speak to my Democratic Party colleagues in detail. I did not anticipate the reaction in society about the proposal. Here I have to apologize deeply over this affair. I will now take this opportunity to formally retract my statement about how the Chief Executive can exercise the power of Basic Law Article 48 to pardon all those who participated in Occupy Central."
Internet comments:
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(12) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties
Please read this carefully. The persons have to be first convicted of criminal offences and given penalties before they can be pardoned. They cannot be pardoned before they stand trial.
- At this time, nine persons have been charged for participation in and/or incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central (Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 11). This is out of 48 who were previously arrested by the police. These nine cannot be pardoned until as such time when they are tried in court, convicted and given penalties. The remaining 39 will have to be charged first and go through the same process. Police superintendent Franklin Chu is in a similar situation as the 39.
- By contrast, the Seven Evil Policemen were charged, convicted, sentenced to two years in prison and serving their terms now. They can be released immediately. [Note: They have appealed their sentences, so their cases are not done yet unless they stop their appeals.] I would like to see how pan-democrats react when Carrie Lam announced that she accepts this solution and immediately orders the release of the Seven Evil Policemen while the cases of the Occupy Central participants wind through the courts over the years with immense legal costs.
- Wu Chi-wai was an Occupy Central participant himself. He was the lone pan-democratic legislator who surrendered to the police together with the Occupy Central trio. Isn't it a conflict of interest to push for a general amnesty that covers oneself?
- (SCMP) April 22, 2017. CY Leung, who was on an RTHK radio programme on Saturday morning, said he had considered his power to call for an amnesty amid public debate on the issue. He did not refer to specific cases but said: “They are still under legal proceedings, which could not be intervened by the chief executive and the administration.”
- (Oriental Daily) How often has the Chief Executive exercised his powers under Basic Law Article 48 in the past? According to information provided by the Department of Security to the Legislative Council, there were 98 instances during 2012-2016 in which Chief Executive CY Leung pardoned prisoners who had been convicted and serving time.
Of these 98 instances, 58 were sentence reductions based upon recommendations by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board for persons who were sentenced to more than 10 years in jail or were under age 21 at the time of committing their crimes.
Another 31 cases were based upon recommendations of medical experts that the prisoner's life is at risk in jail or that the prisoner has a terminal ailment such that his life expectation is less than his jail term.
Another 9 cases were based upon the commendations of the Department of Justice that the prisoners had been helpful to the prosecution of certain cases.
However, the Chief Executive will not exercise the pardon power until as such time as the judicial process is complete.
- (SCMP) "Robber King" Yip Ki-foon was serving his sentence of 41 years when he died from cancer at the hospital. He did not receive a pardon in consideration of his medical condition.
- (Basic Law Article 63) The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.
This means that the Chief Executive cannot order the Department of Justice to either commence or stop the prosecution of the Occupy Central participants or police superintendent Franklin Chu. This is key to an independent judiciary as opposed to a political tool for the executive branch.
- (Ming Pao) also quotes an unnamed pan-democratic legislator. This person supports an amnesty for those persons who were charged with crimes during the 79 days of Occupy Central, including the participants as well as police officers. However, this should not include those who were arrested during the Mong Kok riot because violent acts such as throwing bricks should not be pardoned.
- Bwaaahhh! Very simply put, this is a case of the traditional pan-democrats trying to cut a deal with Carrie Lam while cutting loose the Localists.
- Hey, during Occupy Central, they refused to talk to Chief Executive CY Leung because they said that the man was not elected democratically. Now they want to cut a deal with CY Leung's successor Carrie Lam who was elected under the same system? If you refuse to acknowledge her authority, then you reject her ability to exercise pardons under Basic Law Article 48.
- All persons convicted in actions related to Occupy Central? I am afraid that the pan-democrats don't want to include Ng "Capone" Ting-pong, who was convicted of assaulting three off-duty police officers in Admiralty Centre and sentenced to 10 months in jail.
- The pan-democrats want amnesty for a select group of people -- the past and present pan-democratic legislators, the members of the Democratic Party and the Civic Party, mega-donor Jimmy Lai, the Occupy Central trio and certain celebrities (such as Archbishop Joseph Zen, singer Denise Ho, actor Wong Yiu-ming, etc).
- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, district judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the sentence needed to remind young people that they will pay a heavy price if they break the law. But immediately afterwards, we find out that the court verdict can be overturned by an amnesty! How are teachers and parents ever going to convince young people not to riot? Whatever you tell them, they are simply going to say: "There will be an amnesty even if I am convicted in court!"
- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) The idea of an amnesty should be put away. Political parties should not be interfering with court cases that are already in court. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
- The pan-democrats can't say that violent crimes cannot be pardoned, because the seven policemen were convicted of common assault. There is no deal if the pan-democrats say that all non-violent criminals (namely, themselves) should be pardoned whereas all violent criminals won't be.
- Do Chan's Facebook
I have to ask myself: What would if I do if the deal is about the release of Chan Pak-yeung, Yeung Ka-lun, Cheng Kam-mun and others?
What I want is justice. Cheng Kam-mun, Chan Pak-yeung and Yeung Ka-lun should be declared innocent and released. The Seven Policemen and Franklin Chu should be going to jail. Therefore what I want is not a swap and not any special amnesty. I want a fair and just society. I know what I say is quite cruel. But if I don't have any principles, then why do I have left?
- The pan-democrats have no intention of including Chan Pak-yeung (convicted of assaulting a police officer) and Yeung Ka-lun (convicted of rioting and arson) in their deal.
The case of Cheng Kam-mun is arguably part of Occupy Central, because he was convicted of contempt of court when he refused to leave during the clearance of Occupy Mong Kok. Vacating a contempt-of-court conviction by executive fiat is the most blatant attack possible against rule-of-law.
- Leung Yat-long's Facebook
The Civic Party was known to have voted for three different candidates in the Chief Executive election. Now a Civic Party member (Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu) is voting two different ways at the same time.On one hand, Alvin Yeung says: "The special amnesty is not a political swap. It should not turn rule-of-law into rule-of-man. The Great Reconciliation cannot be accomplished just by the government not seeking further criminal responsibility."
On the other hand, Alvin Yeung says: "If the new administration offers an unconditional amnesty, it will mean the greatest sincerity on the part of the new administration towards Hong Kong, with the hope that the divisions over the past two years can be let go."
So Alvin Yeung is placing bets on both sides. Mr. Yeung, do you support or not support a special amnesty?
- (SCMP) April 18, 2017. Civic Party leader, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, initially backed Wu’s suggestion when he was asked by Ming Pao. But facing pressure from party colleagues, including Tanya Chan, he backtracked, saying Wu’s remarks were rushed. “I am sorry if my words have caused any misunderstanding. I disagree that the rule of law could be used for any political exchange.” Yeung told the Post. He said the best way for the government to achieve reconciliation was by launching a political reform consultation without any conditions.
- (HKG Pao) April 18, 2017.
When the original Ming Pao report came out at 8am, it drew about 196 ANGRY's, 20 LIKE's, 18 SMILE's and 8 WOW's. All 58 comments were critical of Wu Chi-wai and the pan-democrats.
Two hours later, Ming Pao published Wu Chi-wai's explanation of his proposal. Within 2 hours, there were 250 ANGRY's. The 91 comments were all against Wu Chi-wai and his proposal.
Clearly this proposal to swap hostages was not even supported by Ming Pao's Yellow Ribbon readers.
Here are some of those comments:
- How did the Democratic Party get to represent the pan-democrats? You should tell Wu Chi-wai to go and eat shit!
- Everybody should accept responsibility for what they did under the law. This is rule-of-law. When it's right, it's right; when it's wrong, it's wrong.
- Participating in a riot, throwing glass bottles and bricks at people and setting fire to a taxi are criminal acts that should be punished. So is assaulting a handcuffed person in a dark corner. Saying the crimes can nullify each other in an amnesty is reckless disregard of the rule-of-law.
- Has the Democratic Party gone Blue Ribbon? So stupid! They don't even understand the spirit of rule-of-law.
- Previously so many valiant warriors were sent to jail. Nobody talked about an amnesty. Now that Benny Tai and Tanya Chan are on trial, they suddenly want to have an amnesty in which even the Seven Policemen can be freed. The pan-democrats are shameless!
- The pan-democratic Occupy Central political hacks are scared of going to jail. So they proposed swapping the Seven Policemen/Franklin Chu for themselves. If you guys are so scared of going to jail, you should not have joined in the rioting. You Yellow Ribbon thugs should get ready to go to jail. The people of Hong Kong will not let any one of you thugs go free. Not a single one of you! See you in court, thugs! The people of Hong Kong will not let you get off!
- As you might expect, one commentator said that Wu Chi-wai and Alvin Yeung accomplished the impossible by making the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and the neutral camp unanimously join in the single project of criticizing the proposed special amnesty. Unfortunately, the commentator is one of two persons in the world who should not be saying this.
This commentator is Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration). Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who managed to unify all persons of Chinese descent in the whole wide world to denounce their anti-Chinese Oaths of Office. This was a far greater accomplishment than Wu-Yeung could ever aspire to.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 18, 2017.
Pro-democracy lawmaker Nathan Law has criticised the suggestion by one lawmaker that all participants in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests should be pardoned, saying that a reconciliation in the absence of the government fixing its mistakes would just be “begging for mercy.” Law said a reconciliation is not possible before the government “tells the truth and confesses its crimes.”
“Will the government explain who was responsible for the tear gas? Who was responsible for the dozens, hundreds of injured protesters? Who will be responsible for postponing democracy?” he asked, referring to the 87 tear gas canisters used on protesters on September 28, 2014. He added that it was never an imperative for the pro-democracy movement to fix splits in society: “If fighting for basic human rights is to blame for the social divide, then what is the point of a harmonious society?”
Law said it was the international norm for amnesty and reconciliation to take place after democratic transitions. “This is the most basic way for a democratic country to reflect on its tyrannical past. Reconciliation without the truth, without justice, without discussing right and wrong, only by ‘pragmatically’ asking for a ceasefire, is to beg for mercy by abandoning our moral power – it is drilling blood from a stone, it is suicide for civil disobedience,” he said.
- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.
Wu’s idea failed to garner much support from his own party and the wider pro-democracy alliance. Democratic Party colleague, lawmaker Hui Chi-fung, disagreed with the call for amnesty, saying it contradicted the rule of law. “The origins of the social rift is not the Occupy movement, but the public’s distrust of the undemocratic government.” Hui said.
- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.
Police Inspectors’ Association chairman Jimes Lee Jim-on described the idea as “deplorable”. “It would be a fatal blow to the city’s judicial independence and system,” he said. “No matter it is about the seven policemen or any other Occupy participants, we should let the judges decide if their acts are right or wrong. We should respect the court.”
- (Robert Chow's blog) April 18, 2017.
Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed a full amnesty for Occupy Central participants (and he had to withdraw his proposal on the very same day due to criticisms from across the entire political spectrum). Chairman Wu wants to save the Occupy Central masterminds, but he ended up putting himself and his party in deep shit. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung agreed with Wu at first, and also put himself in deep shit.
Why did the Democratic Party do this?
Simply put, this proved that it was wrong for the Hong Kong SAR government to try to appease the opposition over the twenty years since the handover. The government retreated again and again. They think that by saying that we are all Hongkongers, the opposition will relent and let them breathe. Instead, what they got was an escalation of struggles until we reached the full Hong Kong Independence/Color Revolution situation.
What was the most important condition that Wu stipulated? Do you realize? It is this: Wu said that Carrie Lam will be exercising the powers given to her under Basic Law Article 48: "This being within the scope of Hong Kong autonomous rule, the Central Government does not have to be consulted."
Clearly the opposition wants Carrie Lam to give up rule-of-law and take it easy on the lawbreakers. That's what this is about. Do we have a case of enemies being at the gate, and the HK SAR/Beijing governments having no choice but to sign a treaty against public opinion?
Why did the opposition support John Tsang and oppose Carrie Lam? While there is no evidence that there was a secret pact on amnesty between Tsang and the opposition, it goes without say that elected politicians will act favorably towards their supporters.
Wu Chi-wai and the Democratic Party want an amnesty for the Occupy Central trio and other principals, including their financier Jimmy Lai and members of the Democratic Party. So far Lee Wing-tat (Democratic Party) is among the nine men/women who are charged in the initial wave. More Democratic Party members are expected to be included in the upcoming waves.
The Civic Party also has to defend its financier Jimmy Lai. Alvin Yeung was elevated to party leader and got the chance to meet with the financier recently. Of course, he responded to Wu's call.
The Central Government has clearly stated its opposition to Hong Kong independence, and the Occupy Central masterminds are classified as the promoters of Color Revolution. The drive against the Occupy Central movement is thus well-motivated.
By making the proposal and then withdrawing it on the same day, Wu Chi-wai has shown that he holds a very weak hand. What are the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and their financier afraid of? According to their original expectations, they would only be given probation (not even community service) for their participation in Occupy Central. If so, they would still be talking big and loud now. As things turn out right now, they are facing up to seven years in jail under the common law charges against participation in and incitement of unlawful gathering. So there is a palpable sense of panic.
This also showed that the only proper thing for the HK SAR government to do is to enforce the law. This will make potential lawbreakers reconsider thrice before they break the law.
When I saw how the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and neutral Hongkongers decried Wu Chi-wai's proposal in a completely one-sided manner, I have to wonder how many votes the Democratic Party/Civic Party will get for looking only after their bosses and party members?
- DAB's Facebook
Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed that the Chief Executive use her powers to pardon all Occupy Central participants. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu concurred with this proposal. After the news got out, the Democratic Party and Civic Party members criticized the proposal severely. The two changed their tune and said that they were expressing personal opinions that do not represent the positions of their respective political parties.Mom! I am very confused!
The Democratic Party chairman does not represent the Democratic Party.
The Civic Party chief does not represent the Civic Party.- Notwithstanding your confusion, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party both insist that they represent the People of Hong Kong, and that Occupy Central is supported by the People of Hong Kong. You should have no confusion about this.
- If you don't understand that, then you hate FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE JUSTICE RULE-OF-LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.
- Wan Chin's Facebook
The pan-democrats want to swap hostages with the government. This is somewhat odd. The so-called Great Reconciliation of the pan-democrats proposed to have the seven policemen who were convicted of abusing their power to assault a citizen being swapped with the nine pan-democratic leaders who are being prosecuted by the government. They are not swapping for those demonstrators who have been convicted of rioting. This is because those demonstrators in jail are not pan-democrats; they are merely citizens who decided to take a stand for justice at the spur of the moment.
The seven policemen do not need the pan-democrats to get a special amnesty for them. They were prosecuted by the Hong Kong Communist government and they deserved what they got. Meanwhile the pan-democrats do not believe that they deserve to go to jail; instead they are being politically persecuted. There is no reason why they have to discuss terms under which the government will let them off.
The pan-democrats and their supporters are actually an in-group working for their self-interests. They are a selfish group of middle-class bourgeoisie who are detached from the masses. They only care for themselves, and they don't care about justice or appearances. In the future, the pan-democrats and their supporters should not pretend to represent Hong Kong and call for people to support them. We will ignore them hereafter. They can play their own game of politicking. They have the United States behind them; they don't need any Hongkongers to support them.
- Li Yi
The political swap proposed by Wu Chi-wai ignores the righteousness of the Occupy Movement and confounds the political acts of the Umbrella Movement with the crimes committed by the seven policemen and Franklin Chu. As such, it damages the core value of rule-of-law and procedural justice. Ignoring these ill-conceived ideas, there were several cases of young people being given heavy jail sentences for their involvement in resistance, but Wu and others did not offer them any support. This special amnesty does not cover these young political prisoners either. Is it quite clear whether this proposal of a special amnesty intended to obtain a genuine reconciliation, or was it a plea on behalf of someone's pals who are scared of being found guilty? [Sigh] Please do not talk anymore about democracy and civil disobedience. You have blasphemed against those terms.
- Lee Wai-ling
Who should be proposing the Great Reconciliation?Talk of the Great Reconciliation has been circulating within the political circle for two months already
But things are different now than previously
Beijing has just ignored public opinion
and refused to let the highly popular Mr. Pringle become Chief Executive
And now we humbly offer to reconcile?
That's is too silly, too naive
Beijing should be proposing a reconciliation, not the democrats.- And if Beijing stubbornly refuses to reconcile, will you all keep your pride, line up and willingly head to jail? Or will you rush over to the US Consulate and ask for political asylum?
- And if Beijing makes a proposal for reconciliation, we will switch subjects immediately and denounce Beijing for interference leading to the death of One Country Two Systems.
- (EJ Insight) Why the Occupy universal pardon idea was a non-starter. By SC Yeung. April 19, 2017.
It’s no surprise that Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai has drawn widespread criticism and ridicule for offering an unsolicited suggestion to chief executive-elect Carrie Lam.
In an interview published in a Chinese-language newspaper on Tuesday, Wu suggested that Hong Kong’s incoming leader should consider pardoning all those convicted or awaiting trial for offenses related to the 2014 Occupy Central protests.
Pardoning the civil disobedience activists as well as seven policemen who were jailed for committing excesses during law enforcement operations during that period can heal the divisions in society and help restore trust between the government and the public, Wu told Ming Pao Daily News.
Meanwhile, the government can form a special committee to look into the reasons behind the 2014 mass protests, Wu added.
But in less than 24 hours after the interview was published, Wu retracted his comments and offered an apology, saying the issue had not been thought out properly.
The U-turn came as the universal pardon idea attracted a storm of criticism from all sides, including the pro-Beijing camp as well as Wu’s own comrades from the opposition.
In the interview, Wu suggested that Lam can exercise powers under Article 48 of the Basic Law to pardon those in the dock over Occupy incidents, saying the move can bring reconciliation in society.
Asked to respond to Wu’s suggestion, Lam’s office said it was inappropriate for her to comment on ongoing legal cases.
From Lam’s perspective, universal pardon is a no-go unless Beijing changes its stance on the Occupy campaign, which came after mainland authorities nixed electoral reforms in relation to Hong Kong’s 2017 chief executive contest.
Beijing keeps insisting to this day that the street protests were illegal and that the key people behind the movement must be brought to book.
According to some pro-Beijing observers, China has set three conditions for any discussion with Hong Kong’s opposition camp, namely acknowledgment of Beijing’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, recognizing a National People’s Congress decision made on Aug. 31, 2014 in relation to the Hong Kong CE election framework, and lastly, admitting that Occupy was an illegal event.
Against this backdrop, Wu’s universal pardon suggestion was a non-starter.
With some Occupy activists already sent to jail and some others awaiting trial, legal amnesty for political reasons will also raise worries about the sanctity of rule of law in Hong Kong.
Bending the rules and granting universal pardon will amount to mockery of the local justice system, a fact that even many opposition members acknowledge.
Some activists, meanwhile, have bristled at Wu’s suggestion that Occupy leaders and the policemen who were jailed for beating up a pro-democracy protester in 2014 be put in the same league and pardoned together.
Facing a series of questions from the public as well as his own party members, Wu has walked back his idea of universal pardon.
He said that it was just his personal idea, and that he had merely sought a solution to heal the wounds in society and bring about a more harmonious political environment.
But the argument failed to convince even those who would like to see authorities be more tolerant of democracy activists.
Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung is among those who poured cold water on Wu’s suggestion, after initially seeming to back the amnesty idea.
To achieve reconciliation, the right way forward is for the government to restart political reform consultations without any preconditions, he said.
Demosisto also opposed the proposal, saying it would shake the foundation of the pro-democracy movement.
Following the latest developments, Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong may be feeling happy in one way.
Wu’s comments and the ensuing debate could deepen divisions in the already fragmented pan-democratic camp. That could help pro-Beijing groups gain support from the so-called silent majority in Hong Kong.
As most people are interested in preserving the sanctity of rule of law and the justice system, any move that can undermine established procedures will cause unease.
Even those who sympathize with democracy activists and favor reforms don’t want rules bent to achieve a political purpose.
Now, we come to this question: what prompted Wu to go public with his suggestion, before walking back the comments?
According to some critics, democrats had been working on a similar proposal early this year, especially after police groups held a meeting to show their support to seven officers who were jailed for attacking democracy activist Ken Tsang during an Occupy event in October 2014.
The jail terms for the policemen triggered intense debate in society, with opinion split as to whether the punishment was justified.
Some veteran democrats felt the court judgment would only widen the rifts within the community, prompting them to think about some remedial action.
Wu’s suggestion of a pardon for the jailed activists as well as policemen came against this backdrop.
But what he perhaps didn’t imagine is that his idea would be met with scorn even from those whom he had sought to help.
Occupy leaders had known very well that they might face legal risks, and were prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions.
They want their cause to be recognized as just, lending validity to their efforts, rather than being handed a show of compassion by authorities.
In any case, how can those fighting for democracy and the policemen who broke the law be put on a par when it comes to legal amnesty?
Given such feelings and criticism from almost all quarters, is it any wonder that Wu had to beat a hasty retreat?
- (EJ Insight) April 20, 2017.
Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai made a suggestion to Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a media interview a couple of days ago that she should seriously consider pardoning those who were either convicted or are still awaiting trial for criminal charges related to the Occupy Movement after she assumes office as a gesture of goodwill to facilitate reconciliation in society.
According to Wu, the acute social tension and divisions in the city largely have their roots in our unjust political system.
As such, only by resorting to political means can the incoming administration truly mend fences and heal the wounds in our politically torn society.
And by political means, Wu is referring to the act of pardoning all those who were found guilty or are facing charges linked to the Occupy Movement.
All offenders, both pro-democracy and pro-establishment alike, should be given the same treatment, he said.
Among those he believed should be granted pardon are the Occupy participants who have been arrested on public nuisance charges, the seven police officers found guilty of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, as well as retired police superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai who is awaiting trial on charges of assaulting pedestrians during an Occupy protest.
Wu also urged Lam to order an independent inquiry to find the root causes of the Occupy Movement and to make recommendations on how to address those issues.
Under Article 48 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong chief executive can exercise discretion and either pardon convicted criminals or reduce their sentences.
However, the law does not specify the exact circumstances under which the chief executive can exercise this special executive power.
Almost immediately after making his suggestions, Wu came under fire not only from the pro-establishment camp but also from pan-democrats, including some of his own partymates.
As it turned out, his proposal was so disfavored that even Civic Party whip Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, who had earlier echoed Wu’s suggestion, decided to make a sudden U-turn by retracting what he had said and making an apology to the public for having failed to think it through before openly supporting the idea.
Wu’s suggestion is so badly received because if the next chief executive did accept his proposal and pardon Occupy activists and the police officers in question when court proceedings on their cases were still underway, that would constitute an outright violation of the rule of law and judicial independence.
For example, some of the seven police officers who were convicted of assaulting Ken Tsang have already filed appeals against their conviction and the sentences they received, and are awaiting court hearings.
If Carrie Lam bypasses the court and pardons them before the entire appeal process is completed, that will certainly amount to a gross interference in the judiciary by the executive branch.
Likewise, it will also constitute a breach of our rule of law if she pardons the principal organizers and participants of the Occupy Movement while they are still awaiting trial.
We firmly believe there is no room for compromise when it comes to our rule of law, and that no cause, no matter how good and noble it might seem, can justify violating proper legal procedures.
The rule of law and judicial independence are the cornerstone of the stability and prosperity of our society, and they must be upheld at all costs and under all circumstances.
Wu’s suggestion also constitutes an apparent conflict of interest because many of his pan-democratic colleagues are awaiting trial in connection with the Occupy Movement.
Even Wu himself might also face criminal prosecution for the part he played in the 2014 protests.
How could Wu convince the public that he was putting forward that idea out of entirely selfless and genuine concern for society when the pan-democrats, including himself, would be the biggest beneficiaries of the very suggestion he made?
Facing strong criticism from all sides, Wu admitted that he did not make a careful consideration of his suggestions before making them, apologized to the public and retracted his proposals.
If Wu and his party are sincere in their intentions to facilitate reconciliation in society in the aftermath of the Occupy Movement, perhaps they should come up with some other ideas that are more sensible and practical.
- (SCMP) Democrats’ leader Wu Chi-wai is digging party’s own grave. By Alex Lo. April 20, 2017.
The Democratic Party is not what it once was. And under Wu Chi-wai, it’s in danger of fading into irrelevance. The Democrats’ chairman seems to have an uncanny ability to inflict self-harm on his own party and the larger pan-democratic cause.
His latest hare-brained idea was to call on chief executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to use her powers under the Basic Law to pardon Occupy participants who have been charged or jailed, including the seven police officers imprisoned for assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu and former superintendent Chu King-wai, who is facing trial for assault.
Wu had to retract his proposal and apologised in less than a day. His motive, he said, was to help with reconciliation between the opposing camps. What he did manage was to upset everyone from across the political spectrum. The blue- and yellow-ribbon factions would rather see punishment for those from the other side than pardon for their own.
It’s also clear there is not an overwhelming public interest to be served in interfering with the work of the courts by granting a general amnesty – quite the contrary.
It is no less embarrassing for Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu of the Civic Party, who initially supported Wu until he found that practically everyone was against it. This is the same person who helped Legco rejects Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching fight their way into the chamber and disrupt meetings last October. It seems Yeung is good for anything anti-government or against Beijing, however mindless or counterproductive.
While saying he wants to help ease tensions and reconcile the two camps, Wu has banned party members from joining Lam’s new government. He is now helping to rally pan-democratic lawmakers against the latest government budget, saying it doesn’t spend enough to improve people’s livelihoods.
It’s the same Wu who helped make sure every pan-democrat voted in the chief executive race for John Tsang Chun-wah, surely one of the most miserly finance ministers in recent times. In any case, blocking the budget won’t get more money for the poor and grass roots; it will delay the underprivileged from receiving allowances that have been budgeted, such as HK$30 billion earmarked for the elderly and disabled.
The Democratic Party has always been among the more reasonable and moderate of the pan-democrats. It would be a shame to see it fade away under poor leadership.
[729] The Godfather Lectures on Political Ethics (2017/04/16)
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 14, 2017.
Localist leader and ex-lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man said Friday that he will be withdrawing from politics. “I am saying goodbye to politics, meaning I am quitting. I will not join or lead any political group, nor will I stand as a candidate in any election,” Wong said in a statement. “Baby boomers like me should not stand in the way of young people.”
The 65-year-old veteran politician was a lawmaker between 2008 and 2016, but he failed to be re-elected during the 2016 Legislative Council elections. His retreat may affect the upcoming Legislative Council by-election which will likely take place to fill two seats left by Youngspiration politicians Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang. The localist duo were ousted from the legislature last year. Wong decided not to run in any by-election, as he believes the pair will contest the seats.
He said another reason was that an alliance of localist groups – his Proletariat Political Institute, the Civic Passion party, and the camp led by scholar Chin Wan – were greatly defeated in the legislative elections. “Running for elections is just a means, the end is to achieve self-autonomy,” he said. “We shouldn’t join the race just to fight for a seat.”
Wong promised to continue caring about politics despite his withdrawal. “I will keep doing what I have been doing for the past 40 years: host internet talk shows and pen commentaries,” he said.
He said he wrote the statement to show his concern for localist youth who are going through the “toughest of times” as they face “political prosecution, oppression and isolation.” “All I can do is write articles denouncing [the government]. I feel very heavy that I can’t do more,” he said.
Wong added that attacks from various political camps and police roundup of protesters in last year’s Mong Kok unrest marked the intensification of oppression in the city. He said Hong Kong has seen a growth of “young political prisoners” under the reign of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.
“Having been in existence for less than three years, the budding localist movement has already been eradicated,” Wong said. But the politician urged young supporters not to give up or make “unnecessary sacrifices.” Instead, he asked them to stay low for the time being, as “time is on their side.”
Wong has formed and then quit two political parties – the League of Social Democrats and People Power – citing differences with other leaders. Since becoming an icon of the localist movement, Wong has been dubbed “godfather” by supporters.
Internet Comments:
- (Merriam-Webster) Internecine
Internecine comes from the Latin internecinus ("fought to the death" or "destructive"), which traces to the verb "necare" ("to kill") and the prefix inter-. ("Inter-" usually means "between" or "mutual" in Latin, but it can also indicate the completion of an action.)
Internecine meant "deadly" when it appeared in English in 1663, but when Samuel Johnson entered it in his dictionary almost a century later, he was apparently misled by "inter-" and defined the word as "endeavouring mutual destruction." Johnson's definition was carried into later dictionaries, and before long his sense was the dominant meaning of the word.
"Internecine" developed the association with internal group conflict in the 20th century, and that's the most common sense today.
- (Wikipedia) Purge
In history, religion, and political science, a purge is the removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team owners, or from society as a whole.
The Shanghai massacre of 1927 and the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, in which the leader of a political party turned against and killed a particular section or group within the party, are commonly called "purges"
The term "purge" is often associated with the Stalinist and Maoist regimes. While leading the USSR, Joseph Stalin imprisoned in Gulag-labor camps and executed, i.e. purged, "wreckers", or citizens accused of plotting against communism.[1] Stalin initiated the most notorious of the CPSU purges, the Great Purge, during the 1930s. Mao Zedong and his associates purged much of the Communist Party of China leadership, including the head of state President Liu Shaoqi and then-General Secretary Deng Xiaoping, beginning in 1966 as part of the Cultural Revolution.
- So they formed a revolutionary group with the explicit purpose of carrying out a revolution. Things are fine when you think that you are making progress. But when the revolution is stalled due to exterior factors (such as an overwhelming counter-revolutionary oppression or the waning of public interest), you turn inwards and blame everything on the fifth column inside your organization. Purging this fifth column will keep you very busy for a long time without having to attend to the original purpose of starting a revolution.
- How do you pull off a Revolution to build the Hong Kong Nation? At this point, the consensus among all the leading theoreticians is that this will not come from an uprising of the people of Hong Kong, because they are no match for the People's Liberation Army. Instead, all the leading theoreticians are counting on the upcoming China Meltdown. If China melts down, the Chinese Communist Party melts down, the People's Liberation Army melts down and the Hong Kong people will seize the opportunity to declare independence. Until China melts down, we'll just have to wait. While we wait, we spend our time eating each other.
- Raymond Wong said that the localist movement has already been eradicated and therefore young people should not be making unnecessary sacrifices. Instead they should stay low for the time being, as “time is on their side.” How did this happen? "Political prosecution, oppression and isolation" was Wong's explanation.
That can't be true, because the Localists always insist that they are valiant, they are strong, they are firm and they will never yield.
How did an ascendant Localist movement come to be "eradicated"? Raymond Wong won't say, but everybody else is pointing fingers at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration for equating Localism with foolishness and sinophobia, as well as Edward Leung and Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous for telling other people to attack the police and suffer the consequences while the two are furthering their studies at Harvard University and Oxford University respectively. With such precedents, why would young people still come forth and fight for Localism? Whatever you gain, Leung-Yau are going to blow it up for you. And if you heed Leung-Wong's call to blow up a trash bin, you will be spending three years in jail.
- Nevertheless, Raymond Wong continues to insist that he is required by political ethics not to compete against Leung-Yau for their vacated Legislative Council seats? The reasoning is unfathomable.
- Political ethics requires Raymond Wong to run against Leung-Yau and stop them from inflicting even greater harm to Localism.
- Leung-Yau's behavior suggests that they must be Chinese Communist moles. So if Raymond Wong wants Leung-Yau to continue their wrecking trail, he must also be a Chinese Communist mole.
- Raymond Wong talks about "unnecessary sacrifices". What does he mean?
Throw a water bottle at a policeman => 3 years in prison.
Blow up a trash bin outside the Legislative Council building => 2 years in prison.
Join in a riot and tried to set a taxi on fire without success => 4 years 9 months in prison.
These were sacrifices that lead to absolutely no gain. That is why they are unnecessary.
- (Bastille Post) What does Raymond Wong really want? Some people read his essay and concluded that he intends to engage in politics once more. Other people read his essay and concluded that he is leaving politics for good and his followers had better look out for themselves afterwards.
- (Bastille Post) Here is the key part in Raymond Wong's long-winded diatribe: Certain people are conducting purges irrationally because of personal grudges and party affiliations. "Can people like that still be trusted?" Raymond Wong did not name names, but is it so hard to guess?
- Wan Chin's Facebook
According to the so-called political ethics, the New Territories East Legco by-election seat belongs to Gary Fan Kwok-wai. After all, he is a semi-localist who had certain known accomplishments while he was a legislator. Therefore the pseudo-Hong Kong Independence Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration) should not contest.
According to the so-called political ethics, the leadership post of Hong Kong belongs to Chris Patten because he left before completing his term. Therefore Carrie Lam should not contest.
My political ethics is even more awesome -- China belongs to the Manchurian dynasty. The Kuomintang, Wang Jingwei, the last emperor Chongzhen of the Ming dynasty should not contest. Hong Kong will follow the decision of the Manchurian royalty and be given to the British Empire for custody.- Wan Chin's Facebook
Withdrawal from social activism caused those people with nothing to do to start quarreling among themselves and thus reveal their true natures. The party needs to purge itself in order to forestall future problems.
In revolution, the most important thing is propaganda. Next comes purging the party. Those who don't agree with me on the need to purge the party are simply not interested in having a revolution. They should go back to the side of Leung ("Long Hair") Kwok-hung and the pan-democrats to make their trips to China to watch the five-star national flag rise. Those people are doing fine. Even Hong Kong Independence proponent Edward Leung is with the Democratic China school. There is no need to stay on this side and starve.
- (HKG Pao) Raymond Wong said that he is retiring from politics in order to make way for young people. He said that since Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang will surely enter the Legco by-election. "Based on political ethics, I cannot contest a Legislative Council seat that belongs to them originally." The immediate consequences is a dogs-bite-dog show wherein the followers of Civic Passion (known colloquially as "Hot Dogs") went after Raymond "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man.
- The One Drawing Narrative Facebook
"We are nothing without Raymond Wong Yuk-man."
I agree with this statement.
The contribution of Raymond Wong in the Localist Resistance Movement is undeniable. The radicals and the localists arose because of him. Not only did he provided the narrative and opinion support for resistance, he also proposed the idea of a new popular constitution as a new direction in Hong Kong politics.
But does that mean that Raymond Wong is sacrosanct?
Raymond Wong's subordinate MyRadio's technical general manager Marco has repeatedly smeared Passion Times and the supporters of Wan Chin. He has damaged the Constitution camp. However, Raymond Wong has continued to support Marco. He said that everything that Marco does has his tacit approval. He openly decried Yip Ching-shun who was smeared by Marco as having called on people to stop paying their monthly subscriptions. At the time, many listeners (including Yip Ching-shun) did not pursue the matter in the interest of peacefulness and only stayed silently disappointed.
Recently Marco went even further by assassinating the characters of Wong Yeung-tat and his wife and denying the contribution of Civic Passion. He insulted the martyr who had just been sentenced to 4 years 9 months in prison. This is intolerable.
Raymond Wong did not comment on this at all. But on the same day he denounced the ongoing purges. Since he had previously said that everything that Marco does is in accordance with Wong's wishes, I cannot help but think that all this had Wong's tacit approval.
In this incident, many listeners including myself chose not to keep silent anymore. This drew a crowd of Raymond Wong-ism followers who support Wong blindly and classified all criticisms as smears with ulterior motives. Their speeches are contrary to what Raymond Wong usually preaches, but these are now supported by the other followers including Marco.
I have to think, Did Raymond Wong's political enlightenment actually enlightened the masses? Or did it merely breed politician groupies who are no different from Yellow Ribbon fools?
- Chiu The Dragon Facebook
Reviewing all matters small and large that took place over the past half-year, I conclude today that I had misjudged.
When the Eunuch caused trouble, I thought that the Godfather was misled by evil people
When Brother Kidney made false accusations, I thought that the Godfather let up because he appreciated a talent.
When the Godfather said: "Whatever Marco says is the same as what I say," I thought that he was too busy and had to rely on a "spokesperson."
But six months later after repeated problems, this turned out to be my misjudgment due to wishful thinking. This is not a matter of how to define "purging" or "consorting with the enemy." This is about where we stand with respect to justice and righteousness. It is one thing for certain foxes to act on the tiger's authority, but the tiger is protecting the foxes each and every time. Afterwards, anyone critical of them are said to be moles who want to destroy the entire radio station.At this moment the Eunuch is insulting the political prisoner that you say that you want to protect. I want to know whether you are going to defend him again?
- Chiu The Dragon Facebook
Do I want to "purge" the villains around the Godfather? No.
I have never wanted to purge the villains around the Godfather. If someone to trust villains, there has to be reasons. I criticize these villains for the purpose of showing the villainy to others. As to when these villains will lose power and vanish from sight ... well, do you think anyone cares? Those who choose to take the wrong path must bear responsibility for themselves.
The Eunuchs want to tell us about how they are being persecuted. But they need to rise to the level of being 'purged'. Unfortunately, they don't quality.- Restore Hong Kong Facebook
List of Civic Passion people to be purged:
- In his statement, Raymond Wong said that he will not enter the Legco by-election, because Leung-Yau are likely to try to take back their seats. Raymond Wong said that political ethics would make it wrong for a big person to bully a smaller person. The true meaning is this: If the Godfather wants the seat, he can take it with no effort whatsoever. But he believes that Leung-Yau will lose badly so as to put the last nail in the coffin for Hong Kong independence. That will show Leung-Yau to be even lesser persons than just losing to Wong.
[728] A Lawless Driver (2017/04/15)
(Ming Pao) Private car got on pedestrian sidewalk in order to go through the traffic light and get ahead; car owner is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB). April 15, 2017.
Earlier this week a citizen uploaded a video (copy) time/date-stamped as 730am, August 24, 2016. In the video, a private vehicle came to a stop outside Victoria Court, Hing Fat Road, Tin Hau District. A foreign domestic helper came out with a small child in school uniform. The child entered the car, which then got on the pedestrian sideway and proceeded several dozen meters ahead to Tsing Fung Street where it turned left in the direction of Causeway Bay against the traffic light signal.
According to the information in the video, the registered car owner is former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Our reporter called Kwok yesterday. Before we even got to ask our question, Kwok said that he was away from Hong Kong and hung up immediately.
Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB)Now isn't this a classical piece of investigative reporting? Citizens posted the incontrovertible video of unlawful, reckless behavior. The license number of the vehicle can be seen clearly to be SP-4450. The reporter made the inquiry at the Department of Transportation and found out that the owner of vehicle SP-4450 is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun, who has the same name and address as the former DAB district councilor. Kwok refused to answer questions from the reporter on telephone. Case closed. Time for an Internet persecution campaign!
Duh ...
(Speakout HK) April 15, 2017.
Based upon Ming Pao's report, the DAB contacted Benjamin Kwok, who provided a copy of the vehicle sales contract. Benjamin Kwok purchased the car on February 3, 2017 from used car dealer DCH. In other words, the owner of SP-4450 on August 24, 2016 was not Benjamin Kwok. The DAB urges Ming Pao to make this clarification as quickly as possible. They also urge the media to obtain the facts first before they report.
Internet comments:
- The DAB urges the media to find out the facts before reporting? This is a blatant interference with freedom of press as well as the public's right to know in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journalists Association must come out immediately to condemn this piece of White Terror political persecution.
- The facts do not matter here. What matters here is that the people of Hong Kong have the right to know that their lives are at risk from the lawless and reckless activities of pro-establishment politicians and their families. Hong Kong will never be safe unless they are all expelled to mainland China.
- As usual, when the initial Ming Pao story came out, the Yellow Ribbons immediately dumped on the DAB. In so doing, they have violated the first rule of the Internet: Do not stay too close to the preceding car or you may end up in a multiple-vehicle collision. Right now they have completely gone underground after the new revelations.
- Actually Rule #1 is "Do Not Believe Anything in Apple Daily/Ming Pao/RTHK" because the past experience is:
- Here is the non-correction by Ming Pao.
The title of the story is: [Video] Private vehicle got on pedestrian sidewalk to get ahead and go through the traffic light last year; Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun: Just bought the vehicle in this case in February this year; the owner of the vehicle which got on the pedestrian sidewalk is somebody else.
The report went on to say: This morning, former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun told Ming Pao that he purchased the vehicle in February this year, so that the owner of the car at the time of the incident was someone else.
- There is nothing to correct or apologize about. The video proved that SP-4450 went onto the pedestrian sidewalk and ran against the traffic light. The registered owner of SP-4450 is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Everything above is truthful. I am sorry if you think that the car which went onto the pedestrian sidewalk was owned by Benjamin Kwok. It is just sad that there is no medicine that can cure your stupidity.
- Should Ming Pao do a bit more investigation to find out who owned the car in August 2016? They probably did but found out that the story has no news value because the owner was not a pro-establishment political figure.
- This is such an elementary mistake, but neither the reporter nor the gate-keeping editor saw the missing gap. It is no wonder that Ming Pao lost the crown of Number 1 In Public Trust.
- When the Ming Pao reporter checked for the ownership of SP-4450, there is a date of purchase listed. The newspaper knew exactly what was going on. They knew that they would get many more LIKE's if they reported it like they did. If they had listed the date of purchase, there would be nothing to report. The only news value here is the 'fact' that the owner is a DAB member.
[727] Saving The Political Prisoners (2017/04/13)
(Hong Kong Indigenous) April 12, 2017
On 31/3, our spokesmen Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Edward Leung Tin-kei arrived at Washington D.C. to attend a conference held by Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that promotes better human rights protection around the world, has spoken up for Hong Kong’s human rights issues for a number of times, such as criticising Hong Kong's Chief Executive election last month and keeping a close eye on the Causeway Bay Books disappearances last year.
At the conference, Wong and Leung talked about the current state of the protesters arrested in Fishball Revolution, and also explained the causes of the civil unrest. As there has been a deadlock over Hong Kong's democratic development in the recent years, and the Hong Kong government is getting more oppressive and becoming a police state, Hongkongers are extremely discontent with the government. In our opinion, such resentment eventually led to the outbreak of the conflict.
However, the communist government has a propaganda to name the demonstration as a 'riot' and the protesters as 'rioters' who were making troubles. We cannot agree with this viewpoint at all. From our point of view, the protesters targeted at the government only, it was apparently a protest against the corruptive government. When we look at the history of 1967 Leftists Riots, there were bomb attacks, police officers killed and curfew imposed. On the contrary, during Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued orderly when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do.
Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners. In view of this, Wong and Leung called for international concern at the conference, and also discussed this issue with the US congressmen and government officials. Hong Kong Indigenous shall continue to find allies who are willing to offer help to the arrested protesters in order to provide suitable assistance to them.
On the other hand, Radio Free Asia conducted an interview with Wong and Leung after the conference and it will be aired soon. Please stay tuned.
Internet comments:
- Here are several video compilations of what happened that night in Mong Kok:
ABC Hongkong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnjWxP93i-A
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTda-evMO6A
Various TV news reports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Upte16Af4
You can let your own lying eyes help you to decide whether this was a 'riot' and whether the participants were 'rioters'.
- Hong Kong Indigenous said: "During Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued in an orderly manner when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do." Yeah? What was this then?
Not vandalism? Not wanton destruction of private property? Were they queuing up in an orderly manner to try to set fire to the liquid gas tank in the parked taxi? Were they competing to see who would be the first to blow the taxi up along with everybody else within a 10 meter radius?
- The scene shown in this photo is an isolated incident which does not represent the event as a whole. More generally speaking, all the hundreds of other photos and videos showing riotous behaviors are isolated incidents and do not represent the event as a whole.
So what was the event as a whole? There were two major features. Firstly, the police brutally attacked the small vendors with pepper spray and batons in order to shut down the traditional Lunar New Year night market. Secondly, the police prevented Hong Kong Indigenous from holding an election rally which was allowed under the law. When citizens objected to these police actions, the police turned and attacked all the citizens found in Mong Kok that night. A policeman fired two shots to kill but fortunately his aim was poor and nobody was hurt.
- Why are Ray Wong and Edward Leung so anxious? Because they can sense the momentum in the court cases.
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
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 7The trials began with the simple cases of peripheral players. The first major figure was Chan Pak-yeung who got 9 months in jail for assaulting a police officer. Then three more individuals received 3 years each for rioting. Most recently, Yeung Ka-lun received 4 years 9 months for rioting and arson. Ray Wong and Edward Leung are scheduled to stand trial in January 2018 along with 8 others for rioting and incitement to riot. The video evidence against the two is incontrovertible. Given the jail sentences handed out so far, the two should be looking at 7 years or more in jail as the instigators. The best strategy is to raise as much money as possible for legal defense and then seek political asylum when the trial comes up. A 7-year jail term is a very long time to serve. Both Wong and Leung have previously said that their paramount objective is not to go to jail.
- (TVB) News report on the cause of the Mong Kong riot
8:32 The cause of the riot was Hong Kong Indigenous said that they wanted to support unlicensed cooked food vendors to sell their products. Then they said they wanted to hold an election march for their candidate in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election.
8:42 The Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook page called on citizens to come on the night of Lunar New Year's Day to Mong Kok to defend unlicensed vendors' night market. They said that they wanted to valiant defend a unique local feature.
8:54 When the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors tried to enforce the law, they were surrounded. "Go away, go away." The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department workers called the police for assistance.
9:08 Some people pushed the handcarts onto the road to block vehicular traffic.
9:12 After the police came, Hong Kong Indigenous called at the scene and on Facebook for more people to come.
9:16 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone on top of a van: "I hope that you will use every means possible to tell everybody else to come down to Mong Kok to support us citizens."
9:28 At around midnight, the police set up a tall stand in order to impose pedestrian traffic control. A clash took place. There were quarrels and jostling.
10:04 It was observed that certain people came prepared and wore protective gear. They also held home-made shields and forced human chains to face off against the police.
9:45 Afterwards, the violence escalated. Someone threw objects at the police. The police used pepper spray and wielded police batons to disperse the crowd. Flower pots and shards were scattered all over the ground.
10:14 During this time, Hong Kong Indigenous posted on its Facebook:
[The flames of revolution]
Not suitable for filming
The people of Hong Kong already know to tear up bricks from the ground in order to counterattack10:23 At midnight, they announced that they will use the election campaign rights of candidate Edward Leung to hold an election campaign march. They said that they numbered fewer than 30, so that they do not need to notify or obtain approval from the police beforehand.
10:34 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone: "All those in blue clothing are members of the election campaign march."
10:39 Ray Wong: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong, we Hong Kong Indigenous, will go big-time with you!"
10:46 At 2:00am, the police warned the demonstrators to disperse.
10:52 The demonstrators suddenly charged ahead. Ray Wong: "Three, two, one." The demonstrators charged.
- Hong Kong Indigenous said that protestors have been sentenced to 3 to 5 years in jail, "becoming political prisoners." I wonder which of (1) Amnesty International; (2) the Dalai Lama; (3) the Japanese government; (4) the Taiwan government; (5) the US State Department; (6) US Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton; (7) Noble Peace Prize Committee; etc ... are willing to demand the immediate release of the political prisoner of conscience and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yeung Ka-lun pictured here:
According to Hong Kong Indigenous, Mr. Yeung was unjustly sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail by a Hong Kong Communist judge for the peaceful activity recorded by these and other photos/videos taken by citizens and reporters.- If Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail, then how can Ray Wong and Edward Leung who instigated people like Yeung to riot get less jail time?
- Notice that Ray Wong and Edward Leung will only say: "Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners" without ever naming Yeung Ka-lun (4 years 9 months) or Chan Pak-yeung (9 months). Why? They haven't provided any help to Yeung or Chan so far, so it would be untoward to invoke their cases to raise money for themselves. Why not? Because Yeung and Chan are with rival localist organization Civic Passion.
This is the reason why Hong Kong Indigenous spent more time on the anonymous martyr arrested in Tai Lok House, Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po District on April 11, 2017 by the police for participation in the Mong Kok riot. They wanted information in order to do everything possible to help.
... unless, of course, this person is Civic Passion too.
- While the Civic Passion foot soldiers stew in prison, the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders conduct their 2017 World Tour attending conferences, giving media interviews, meeting with foreign government bigwigs, etc. What a contrast!
- Hong Kong Indigenous claimed that the Fishball Revolution was started to stop the corruptive government from oppressing unlicensed small vendors. If Amnesty International agrees, then they should begin by looking into the plight of small vendors in New York City. (New York Times) June 14, 2014.
There are 853 general vending licenses available to nonveterans. The number has not changed since 1979. The waiting list for a license, with more than 1,800 names, has been closed since 1993.
Selling goods without a license is a misdemeanor; officers have discretion to merely issue a summons or to make an arrest. In recent months, vendors in Chinatown selling items like 1.2 ounce bottles of liquid plant food, plastic lotus flowers, ceramic bobble-headed turtles, tube socks and red envelopes used for offerings during the celebration of the Lunar New Year, have been handcuffed, fingerprinted and taken to jail.
A police spokesperson said that 7,230 summonses were issued for unlicensed vendors in 2013. In the same year, the criminal courts processed arraignments for 1,905 arrests for selling goods without a license, according to the courts' administrative office.
- Finally, please remember to send more money more frequently to Hong Kong Indigenous in order to help the political prisoners of conscience and to fight against the 'corruptive government.'
- Put your money where your mouth is, and make sure that Ray Wong can travel all over the world to tell people about our story of suffering.
- (Wen Wei Po) April 23, 2017.
Last evening, Ray Wong attended a forum organized by the Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre on the Democracy Movement, on the choice of Peace-Reason-Non-violence versus Valiant Resistance.
Wong said that more and more young people are being arrested for the Mong Kok riot. Personally Wong said that he is "unable to assess" whether it was worth it, or whether the action that night was appropriate. He said that a number of citizens agreed with the action for a brief period after the riot. "If you want democracy and you want to fight against the Hong Kong SAR government, you have to break out of the existing framework."
After the Legislative Council elections last year, the Resistance Movement has ebbed. Wong does not believe that this will continue. He said that that urgent task at this time is to educate the masses and re-gather the "Forces of Resistance". He said that the masses will come back together again for Valiant Resistance as the oppression by the government increases. More and more citizens will be willing to pay higher costs in order to resist the existing authorities.
Wong said that the Valiant Resisters will avoid direct conflicts with the police. They will not throw bricks "openly and fairly" against the police in front of the media. Instead they will go underground.
During the Q&A session, a member of the audience pilloried Wong. He said that the blue-jacket Hong Kong Indigenous members were nowhere to be seen during the brick-throwing incidents in Mong Kok. "I resent most of all the fact that Hong Kong Indigenous is all talk but they never accept any responsibility." Wong put propped his jaw up with his hand and said contemptuously that he merely called on the participants of the Mong Kok riot to "use their own methods" to express their discontent. Wong asked: "What do you want me to accept responsibility for?"
Ray Wong said that Hong Kong Indigenous is not advocating civil disobedience in the manner of the Occupy Central participants who are willing to be arrested. Hong Kong Indigenous will do everything possible to keep the demonstrators from being arrested. Therefore he recommends that all demonstrators wear Black Bloc clothing plus face masks.
Will the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders accept responsibility for incitement of riot? Wong said that if the courts are acting as the henchmen for the authorities and the demonstrators believe that Valiant Resistance is unavoidable, then their actions cannot be Civil Disobedience and therefore there is no issue of accepting responsibility and so on.
- (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. April 23, 2017.
- He means to say that it is none of his business that people went out to throw bricks or set off fires.
- Piece of trash! He doesn't dare to admit what he did. How is he qualified to issue orders as the commander-in-chief?
- He says that it is none of his business. Is he being fucking scared now? Right now, people are receiving three to four years in prison. As the mastermind, he is looking at five to seven years. He needs to take more Viagra pills to get courage.
- What even happened to his Big Brother poise?
- He urged others to charge and turned an assembly into a riot. As the inciter, how can he say that he accepts no responsibility? When bricks were flying and fires were being set off, did he ever tell people to stop!? When he says that he didn't know, he is refusing to accept responsibility.
- Now you really know what this guy is made of. Now that the police are after the perpetrators, he immediately severs all ties. This is a lesson to all fellow travelers.
- Here is another novel interpretation of how laws work. When you believe that you are engaged in civil disobedience, you know that you are breaking the law and therefore you accept whatever judicial sanctions that are delivered against you. But when you are engaged in Valiant Resistance, the law is a tool for the Oppressors and therefore the law is no longer applicable to anything that you do. If you blow up the entire block in Mong Kok and kill 800 people, you will have no responsibility under the law.
- That's swell, but I would like to see what his lawyer is going to say when Ray Wong is found guilty under the law. What will be said in mitigation? This fine young man has no prior criminal conviction; he has low IQ/mental retardation; he came under bad influence (Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching); he feels remorse and promises never to relapse; he has plans to study at Oxford University; etc.
Or will Ray Wong follow Martin Luther: "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."
[726] Flag Desecration (2017/04/10)
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.
Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai of Civic Passion is to face prosecution for allegedly desecrating the national and regional flags after he was seen flipping the flags in protest during a legislative session last October.
Cheng said his office received a phone call from police on Monday asking the lawmaker to pick up a prosecution notice at the Central Police Station. Police said his conduct violated the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, as well as the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance.
Cheng was filmed apparently flipping the Chinese and Hong Kong flags inside the LegCo chamber last October. Shortly following the incident, pro-Beijing lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan reported the case to police and urged them to prosecute Cheng. Lau said there are things Chinese people and and lawmakers of “Hong Kong SAR, People’s Republic of China” that cannot be tolerated.
Pro-Beijing lawmakers displayed the flags during the session as a political gesture. Cheng said at the time that he flipped them upside down because he considered the display to be “cheap patriotic acts,” as pro-Beijing lawmakers ignored livelihood issues and the nationality controversy that the legislature’s president Andrew Leung was embroiled in. “I flipped the Hong Kong flags upside down on behalf of Hong Kong people to show my discontent,” he said at the time.
(Oriental Daily) April 11, 2017.
Cheng Chung-tai posted on his Facebook that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest process.
(SCMP) April 18, 2017.
An angry crowd of pro-establishment protesters greeted a localist lawmaker with a dozen red flags as he made his first court appearance on Tuesday to face charges of desecrating the Hong Kong and Chinese flags in the Legislative Council last year. But Civic Passion leader Cheng Chung-tai avoided confrontation by walking from another side of Eastern Court and turning his back to the sea of red caps and flags, ignoring protesters who shouted: “Cheng Chung-tai does not deserve to be a lawmaker.” There were about 30 protesters from a pro-establishment group, waving both Hong Kong and China flags.
Cheng, 33, was charged with one count of desecration of the national flag and another over the regional flag. Both crimes carry a HK$50,000 fine and three years’ imprisonment. Prosecutors alleged that Cheng publicly and wilfully defiled the flags inside the Legco chamber on October 19, 2016. They were small flags, one local and one national, placed side by side at each legislator’s seat. The case was set for plea on Tuesday afternoon, but Cheng asked that it be adjourned to May 16 so he could find a lawyer. Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai agreed.
At issue was whether Cheng repeatedly turning the flags upside down amounted to “defiling”, which is not explicitly defined in law. When asked if Cheng had to rely on the dictionary definition to prepare his defence, prosecutor Derek Lai said a Court of Final Appeal judgment had defined it as “dishonouring”. That judgment upheld the convictions of Ng Kung-siu and Lee Kin-yun for carrying defaced national and regional flags during a rally in January 1998. The pair were bound over for HK$2,000 and ordered to keep the peace for 12 months.
(Hong Kong Free Press) May 17, 2017.
Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai has pleaded not guilty to two counts of desecrating the Chinese and Hong Kong flags after he was seen flipping them in protest during a legislative session last October.
Prosecutors told the Eastern Magistrates’ Court that they would submit video recordings totalling 40 minutes as evidence, reported local paper Ming Pao. But Cheng did not provide them with a statement under police caution. The prosecution said it would also call on 12 witnesses to testify at the trial.
It is an offence to desecrate the national or regional flags by methods such as “burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling.” It carries a maximum penalty of a HK$50,000 fine and three years behind bars.
Cheng, Civic Passion’s sole legislator, was not represented by a lawyer on Tuesday afternoon as his case was mentioned in court. He told magistrate Bina Chainrai that he only received documents provided by the prosecution two weeks ago. He said he was considering what type of lawyer to hire because the charges he faced were unusual. “After seeking legal advice, I will hire a lawyer to represent me in my defence,” Cheng wrote on Facebook after leaving the court.
Magistrate Chainrai set the date of his pre-trial review for June 27.
(Hong Kong Free Press) September 29, 2017.
Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai has been found guilty of desecrating the national and regional flags. The sentence was handed down by the Eastern Magistrates’ court on Friday, which ordered him to pay a HK$5,000 fine.
Earlier this month, pro-establishment lawmakers Ann Chiang and Edward Lau testified before the Eastern Magistrates’ court and gave their accounts of the incident. The prosecution also submitted CCTV footage and news clips as evidence.
Magistrate Cheng Lim-chi ruled that Cheng’s acts amounted to desecration. He said that a fine was appropriate, noting that the incident took place in the Legislative Council chamber and the defendant continued to flip the flags after being discovered by others, but the acts were not as serious as burning a flag.
Lau said that he decided to hand out 12 sets of national and regional flags at the second legislative meeting for other lawmakers to display on their desk, as a reminder that the country should be respected. However, he admitted that his flag replicas did not fully meet the legal requirements for the dimensions and proportions of flags.
Cheng said at the time that he flipped them upside down because he considered the display to be “cheap patriotic acts,” as pro-Beijing lawmakers ignored livelihood issues and the nationality controversy that LegCo President Andrew Leung was embroiled in: “I flipped the Hong Kong flags upside down on behalf of Hong Kong people to show my discontent.”
Outside court, Cheng said the incident was triggered by the pro-establishment camp walking out of the chamber. He called the walkout and Friday’s ruling “ridiculous.”
“However, under today’s political climate, the outcome is not unexpected,” he said. Cheng also said that the verdict reminded Hongkongers that society is not free and democratic, and that they are facing an authoritarian government: “It emphasised that it’s not rule of law, but rule by law.”
He said he has already handed in the fine, and will ask his legal team for advice on whether to appeal.
(Hong Kong Free Press) October 14, 2017.
Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai will face disciplinary action at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University – where he is a teaching fellow – after he was found guilty of “desecrating” flags in the legislature.
Cheng, who is a teaching fellow at the university’s Department of Applied Social Science, said in Facebook post on Friday that he has met with the school’s personnel department.
“I officially received a notice that the president and senior administration has, in accordance with procedures, set up a ‘disciplinary committee’ to follow up on disciplinary action with regards to the criminal conviction over my national and regional flag desecration case,” Cheng said.
Cheng said that he has not decided whether to lodge an appeal, but the members of the disciplinary committee have confirmed with him that there will be a verdict in around a month.
(SCMP) January 12, 2018.
A Hong Kong localist lawmaker is set to lose his job as a university lecturer in disciplinary action over his court conviction for desecrating the Chinese and Hong Kong flags in the city’s legislature.
Cheng Chung-tai, of pro-democracy party Civic Passion, on Friday said he had received notice that Polytechnic University would not renew his contract as a teaching fellow at the Department of Applied Social Science when it ended in June.
Cheng, 34, said the decision was a result of disciplinary action related to his conviction last September for flipping over the small Chinese and Hong Kong flags in the Legislative Council in 2016, for which he was fined HK$5,000.
“Your conduct and conviction are inconsistent with the university’s commitment to quality education and aspirations to embrace internationalisation,” the lawmaker quoted PolyU as saying in a statement posted on Facebook.Cheng said it amounted to “political persecution” as there was no appeal mechanism against the decision and the accusations made against him by the university were “ridiculous” and not related to his teaching performance during his six-year tenure.
The classes he was due to teach at the beginning of the next semester on Monday would be handed over to other staff, he added.
Cheng said his dismissal was the second case in two years of academics being targeted for holding more radical views. In 2016 a Lingnan University professor well known for his localist stance on many issues did not have his contract renewed after seven years of teaching.
Dr Horace Chin Wan-kan, an assistant professor at the university’s Department of Chinese, published a book suggesting Hong Kong should become a city state. The book has been credited with inspiring and laying the foundations for Hong Kong’s autonomy movement.
Chin, also known as Chin Wan, is considered by many to be the godfather of Hong Kong localism. He was criticised for his active role in encouraging people to take part in the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014.
Cheng’s case will add pressure to tertiary institutions in the city already under fire over controversial issues such as whether students should be allowed to discuss Hong Kong independence on campuses.
Cheng, who completed his bachelor’s degree at PolyU, is a part-time lecturer, teaching classes on Hong Kong society and contemporary Chinese society and popular culture.
He was the first Civic Passion member to enter the legislature in the 2016 elections, securing 54,496 votes.
A statement from PolyU on Friday said their staff disciplinary committee made the decision after more than two months of investigations and discussions.
“The decision was made after taking into account the seriousness of the behaviour of Dr Cheng, the judgment of the court and the nature of Dr Cheng’s work, with reference to other cases judged by the committee,” the statement read.
The university added that the decision was made “in the best interests of the university” and that Cheng’s behaviour had deviated from the institution’s requirements for teaching staff.
Related Link: How To Burn Your National Flag (If You Must)
Internet comments:
- (CAP A401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance)
Section 7. Protection of national flag and national emblem
A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.
(CAP A602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance)
Section 7. Protection of the regional flag and regional emblem
A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and
(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.
- (Wikipedia) Flag Desecration
Hong Kong:
In 1999, two individuals were convicted for desecration of the Regional Flag of Hong Kong and the Chinese flag. They were found guilty by a magistrate, had the conviction overturned in the High Court but the convictions were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. They were bound over to keep the peace on their own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each of the two charges. In the judgement, Chief Justice Andrew Li said although the Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, flag desecration is not legal because there are other protest methods.
Social activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted twice of flag desecration. He was sentenced to a nine-month prison term in 2013 for the offence. However, the sentence was reduced to four months and two weeks after an appeal. In March 2016, he was sentenced to a six-week prison term for burning the regional flag in Wanchai on HKSAR Establishment Day in 2015. Koo responded that "he is happy to be punished as being jailed is part of the life of an activist, and he would continue to protest against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and fight for democracy."
Selected situations in countries around the world:
Algeria: In Algeria, flag desecration is a crime. According to article 160bis of the Algerian penal code, the intentional and public shredding, distortion, or desecration of the national flag is punishable by 5 to 10 years of imprisonment.
Argentina: The Penal Code (Código Penal) on its Article 222 criminalizes the public desecration of the national flag, coat of arms, national anthem, or any provincial symbol, imposing from 1 to 4 years of imprisonment.
Australia: Flag desecration is not, in itself, illegal in Australia.
Austria: In Austria flag desecration is illegal under §248 Strafgesetzbuch. Offenders can be fined or punished with up to 6 months of imprisonment.
China: Flag desecration is prohibited in China. The penal code provides for an imprisonment up to three years, criminal detention, public surveillance, or deprivation of political rights for anyone who "desecrate[s] the National Flag or the National Emblem of the People's Republic of China by intentionally burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling upon it in public".
France: According to French law, outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is liable for a fine of €7,500 (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering).
Germany: Under German criminal code (§90a Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)) it is illegal to revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public. Offenders can be fined or sentenced to a maximum of three years in prison, or fined or sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison if the act was intentionally used to support the eradication of the Federal Republic of Germany or to violate constitutional rights.
Italy: In Italy, desecration of any Italian or foreign nation's national flag (vilipendio alla bandiera) is prohibited by law (Article 292 of the Italian Penal Code) and punished with fines (between 1,000 and 10,000 euros) for verbal desecration and with reclusion (up to two years) for physical damage or destruction.
Philippines: Section 34a the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines declares that it is a prohibited act "[t]o mutilate, deface, defile, trample on or cast contempt or commit any act or omission casting dishonor or ridicule upon the flag or over its surface; Section 50 Any person or judicial entity which violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (5,000.00) not more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
Portugal: According to article 332 of the Penal Code,[80] "Who publicly, by means of words, gestures or print publication, or by other means of public communication, insults the Republic, the Flag or the National Anthem, the coats of arms or the symbols of Portuguese sovereignty, or fails to show the respect they are entitled to, shall be punished with up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to 240 days". In the case of the regional symbols, the person shall be punished with up to one year imprisonment or a fine of up to 120 days (fines are calculated based on the defendant's income).
Saudi Arabia: The flag of Saudi Arabia bears the shahada or Islamic declaration of faith. Because the shahada is considered holy, Saudi Arabia's flag code is extremely strict and even the slightest violation amounts to desecration not only of the flag but is also blasphemous to Islam.
United Kingdom: Neither the law of England and Wales nor the law of Scotland has a concept of "flag desecration".
United States: The flag of the United States is sometimes burned in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."
- What, if anything, did the Honorable Cheung Chung-tai do? Here it is on YouTube, YouTube.
- There can be no doubt that Cheng Chung-tai flipped the flags. But the ordinance says:
A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence ...
Cheung did not burn the flags, he did not mutilate them, he did not scrawl on them and he did not trample on them. At issue is whether "flipping the flag" is "defiling it." According to Dictionary.com: 'to defile' is to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase; violate the chastity of; to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate; to sully, as a person's reputation. So it can be argued that "flipping the flag" is not "defiling it." Perhaps this was the reason why the the Hong Kong Police had to ask the Department of Justice for legal advice. It seemed that the received opinion was "green light to proceed."
Even if found guilty, the precedents seem to imply that Cheng will only have have to pay a small fine (say, $500) while getting a chance to expound on his political views outside the courtroom. So it is definitely a worthy investment.
- (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.
The desecration of a flag is arguably "symbolic speech." However, the Legislative Council meeting was adjourned and the hall was largely empty of Legislative Councilors at the time when Cheng Chung-tai moved in to flip the flags. Therefore, Article 77 cannot be invoked in defense.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) The 10 lawmakers facing disqualification: Post-Occupy payback in slow motion. By Suzanne Pepper. April 22, 2017.
No one knew exactly what to expect from central government officials in Beijing when Hong Kong’s Occupy protest movement erupted on September 28, 2014 and went on to blockade major city thoroughfares for 79 days. The last of the encampments were not cleared until mid-December.
Since Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing media remained in full fighting mode throughout the 2013-14 preparations, during the 79 days, and ever since, it can be safely assumed that Beijing officials were not pleased.
But by and large, Hong Kong’s one-country, two-systems way of life was allowed to play itself out without any direct observable Beijing intervention.
The Hong Kong government ignored protesters’ demands for a re-think of Beijing’s restrictive August 31, 2014 electoral reform mandate that triggered Occupy; Hong Kong’s police force handled all the provocations on its own; and the protest eventually wound down. A series of high-profile arrests were made but mostly not followed up with court action. No one seemed in any great hurry to exact retribution.
In this way, after Hong Kong legislators vetoed the offending electoral reform proposal in June 2015, political life returned more or less to normal.
A series of local elections followed. They began in late 2015, with three in 2016, and the last in March this year. Throughout all that time, the Hong Kong government, conservatives, pro-Beijing loyalists, and the pro-Beijing media did everything they possibly could to discredit everything and everyone associated with the Occupy protest movement.
In 2015, Zhang Dejiang, who is currently the top-ranking Beijing official responsible for overseeing Hong Kong affairs, enjoined loyalist politicians to be sure and win five more seats in the next Legislative Council election. The extra seats would secure the super-majority needed to pass the electoral reform proposal that Occupy supporters were able to veto and block with their slim one-third minority.
But such “soft-power” ordinary Hong Kong-style politicking didn’t work. Zhang Dejiang’s wish did not materialise.
Conventional conservative wisdom had it that the voters would punish Occupy sympathisers and pan-democratic politicians for all the disruption they had caused. All including both moderates and radicals were represented in the June 2015 Legislative Council vote to veto Beijing’s electoral reform mandate.
Yet voters rewarded them all, including many young Occupy generation candidates. In all the post-Occupy elections, pro-democracy candidates did better than anyone expected.
Whether the official laid-back approach would have continued indefinitely in the absence of what happened next will doubtless never be known. Probably it would not have continued indefinitely, because the resolve of all pro-democracy candidates seemed to have been strengthened by arguments the younger generation brought with them from the barricades and the whole Occupy experience.
Many had concluded that no matter how reasonable, righteous, and self-evident Hong Kong’s demands might be, Beijing officialdom was not listening and would never listen. The next step then was to demand autonomy, the genuine kind that Hongkongers thought they had been promised by all the handover guarantees Beijing had offered before 1997.
People were beginning to think maybe the promises had not been made in good faith after all, but only to ease the transition from British to Chinese rule.
In any case, scattered among this angrier disillusioned younger generation’s arguments are some now demanding not just “genuine” autonomy, but self-determination, and even independence. Probably it was the link between such newly defiant ideas and the voters who repeatedly rewarded them in 2015, 2016, and 2017 that set alarm bells ringing in Beijing.
Because that link points directly to Beijing’s instinctive fear of popular elections.
To grant power to elected politicians is to acknowledge popular sovereignty, and in Beijing’s eyes there can be no greater heresy. Sovereignty resides in Beijing – in the central government and the Chinese Communist Party as representative of all the people – not in any popular mandate bestowed by ordinary voters on elected politicians and their representative assemblies.
Hence Beijing’s decision to try and disqualify Hong Kong voters by overturning their choices and asking them to try again.
If all goes according to current official plans, a total of 10 legislators elected in September 2016 will lose their seats. That will give Zhang Dejiang more than enough leeway to try and win those five extra votes he needs to pass Beijing’s August 31, 2014 electoral reform mandate.
The excuses whereby the 10 might lose their seats: oath-taking indiscretions plus disruptions during Occupy – with Hong Kong courts serving as the means of finessing this intricate manoeuvre. The implications are serious because they mean further erosion of Hong Kong’s political autonomy and judicial independence – despite all the incantations to the contrary.
Oath-taking and disqualification
Several Occupy generation candidates won seats in the September 2016 Legislative Council election. So did some like-minded pre-Occupy democrats. A total of 15 – by Beijing reckoning – used the occasion of their swearing-in on October 12 to demonstrate disloyalty by improvising their oaths.
Beijing officials moved with more speed than usual in such matters and issued, on November 7, an Interpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 104. This concerns the matter of oath-taking.
Beijing’s interpretation was wide-ranging. It said the oath must be taken word for word, solemnly and sincerely, and followed up ever after by like-minded behaviour under pain of mortal sin – meaning in this case disqualification as Legislative Councillors.
The swearing-in ceremony itself had occurred on October 12. Two new legislators were especially offensive in their choice of words. But following customary procedures, the two were told they could retake their oaths, which they planned to do.
It was not to be. By the next council sitting on October 19, conservative forces had been mobilised. Their legislators left the chamber. Without a quorum the session could not continue so the oaths could not be retaken.
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying meanwhile applied for a judicial review asking the Hong Kong court to decide if the two could be disqualified under Hong Kong law for the manner in which they had improvised their oaths.
A Hong Kong judge ruled their behaviour warranted disqualification. But before he could issue his judgement, Beijing preempted the Hong Kong court by issuing a judgement of its own. This came in the form of an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) on November 7.
Beijing thus added, via its interpretation, the new conditions that inspired official reconsideration, retroactively, of all that had been said by all legislators during the October 12 swearing-in ceremony.
Eager to fulfil its duty, the Hong Kong government then asked the Hong Kong court for permission to disqualify four more new legislators. The request was for separate judicial rulings to be based retroactively on Beijing’s November 7 interpretation. These judgements have yet to be issued.
As for the first two legislators, they are currently awaiting their day before Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
But that court only agreed to give them one last hearing on special public interest grounds. The two had already been told, on appeal, by a three-judge panel that their cases were without merit because the Hong Kong courts are powerless to defy a ruling from Beijing that comes down via the SCNPC. In fact, the appeal judges seemed quite irritated that the defence counsel should have presumed to suggest otherwise.
Veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming is now helping with the defence. But given the judgements to date, there seems little reason to think the four legislators will fare any better than the first two, or that the latter will receive an answer from the Court of Final Appeal any different from all those they have received so far.
The arguments from the three-judge appeal panel suggest that Hong Kong courts have no desire to assert any independence on this matter.
Not satisfied, however, the Hong Kong government is still searching for more offending post-Occupy legislators to disqualify and has just found a seventh. He is university lecturer Cheng Chung-tai, who received his summons on April 10.
As a Beijing University graduate, Cheng is a rarity among Hong Kong legislators. Ironically, he is also among the most radical. Officials are constantly exhorting Hong Kong young people to visit their Motherland but in his case it didn’t have the hoped-for effect.
He took his oath on October 12, and may still have a case to answer on that score because of some extra words he added. But government lawyers have found additional grounds that seem more likely to produce the desired result.
At the subsequent council sitting on October 19, when the pro-establishment councillors vacated their seats to prevent a quorum, Cheng used the empty time to move about the chamber where he proceeded to dishonour the Chinese national and Hong Kong regional flags.
This he did by turning upside down the miniature replicas that some pro-Beijing legislators had placed in holders on their desks to demonstrate their patriotism.
For this act of disrespect, Hong Kong’s Justice Department is asking the court to rule on whether Cheng has violated Hong Kong’s law against flag desecration. He was summoned by phone informing him of the pending prosecution but refused to turn himself in voluntarily.
That’s why he was visited by 14 Criminal Investigation Division officers who escorted him to Hong Kong’s central police station for a late night check-in where he was formally charged and released on bail. Under Hong Kong law, flag desecration is punishable by a fine and prison sentence of up to three years.
Aside from his October 12 verbal indiscretion, Cheng Chung-tai is actually now in double jeopardy due to another aspect of the oath-taking saga. Under Hong Kong law, individual voters can challenge the qualifications of legislators representing their constituencies.
In this case, one voter is asking for a judicial review based on Beijing’s November 7 oath-taking interpretation that the government is using to try and unseat the others.
This voter lives in the New Territories West constituency and is asking the court to disqualify two of its legislators. One is Cheng, the other is “King of Votes” Eddie Chu Hoi-dick who received more votes than any other candidate in the September 2016 election. He read out his oath properly, but used the occasion to shout out “democratic self-determination” and “tyranny must die.”
Altogether eight Legislative Councillors elected in September 2016 are now in danger of disqualification over their oaths. The government has already budgeted HK$320 million to cover costs for the coming by-elections that will be called to fill the anticipated vacancies. The eight are:
- Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, New Territories East
- Yau Wai-ching, Kowloon West Lau Siu-lai, Kowloon West
- Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Hong Kong Island Edward
- Yiu Chung-yim, functional constituency, architecture, surveying sector
- “Long Hair“ Leung Kwok-hung, New Territories East
- Cheng Chung-tai, New Territories West Eddie
- Chu Hoi-dick, New Territories West
Alleged crimes and possible punishments
And there are more. Cheng Chung-tai is the only legislator who has actually been charged with an offence that carries a possible prison sentence. But two other legislators have just been charged with such offences – stemming from actions two years ago during Occupy.
Hence these two are also now at risk of losing their Legislative Council seats, making for a grand total of 10. The two latest possibilities:
- Tanya Chan, Hong Kong Island
- Shiu Ka-chun, functional constituency, social welfare sector
These two are part of the other official shoe to drop in the government’s slow-motion tidying-up exercise designed to do as much damage as possible to what Beijing calls Hong Kong’s new “separatist” tendencies.
The Occupy arrests were timed for obvious political effect coming as they did just one day after Hong Kong’s long post-Occupy 2015-17 election cycle finally came to an end. The Election Committee formalities whereby Carrie Lam secured her endorsement as Chief Executive were concluded on March 26. She was Beijing’s preferred candidate to replace the much disliked loyalist Leung Chun-ying.
The very next day, nine Occupy leaders and activists were formally charged.
About a thousand people were arrested for various infractions during the 79-days of Occupy and some 200 of those cases have already proceeded through the courts. But the nine dramatically charged on March 27, were among the 30+ leaders and activists who were arrested at the end, either just before or just after the last of the barricades came down in December 2014.
These nine include the three original founders of Occupy Central: University academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man, and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Besides the two legislators, the others are two former student leaders, and two politicians.
At the time of their arrest two years ago, they were all told to expect charges associated with unauthorised assemblies: participating in, organising, inciting, and police obstruction. They were also told that formal charges would not be announced for at least three months.
Government prosecutors obviously needed more time, which they used to search the archives for other ordinances that might carry more weight than those the defendants had been led to expect.
The three co-founders are each being charged with three public nuisance offences: conspiring to commit, inciting others to commit, and inciting others to incite others. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The other seven defendants are being charged with one or two of the public nuisance incitement offences.
Nor is that all. Soon after Beijing issued its November 7 interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 on oath-taking, a political study session was held across the border in Shenzhen to help generate more publicity for all these unfamiliar mainland-style procedures. Among the speakers was retired Beijing official Chen Zuo’er, a hardliner long associated with Beijing’s Hong Kong portfolio.
Chen used the occasion to blast Hong Kong’s judiciary for using the law as a political tool and also for the soft wrist-tapping sentences judges were handing out to political activists. He said there had been many such cases. They carried national security implications because they challenged Beijing’s authority.
Yet Hong Kong’s judges seemed still not to have grasped that point. Perhaps now they have because sentences have grown noticeably stiffer since then.
A few months before Chen’s tirade, the three student leaders who actually precipitated Occupy walked away with the mildest of sentences. The three were Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow. They had led students in an attempt to storm a recently restricted public area at the Legislative Council complex on the night of September 26.
All were convicted of unlawful assembly offences. But the judge cited their youthful idealism in mitigation and let them off with community service and a suspended sentence.
Now, in the wake of the oath-taking saga and all the tough official Beijing talk, Occupy leaders find themselves unexpectedly charged with offences that carry seven-year prison terms.
Meanwhile, trials resulting from the February 2016 Lunar New Year violence are concluding.
The violence was provoked by post-Occupy Hong Kong autonomy protesters – or separatists as Beijing calls them. It was only a one-night affair on February 8-9, with little property damage but there were many arrests and many police injuries.
One rioter has just begun his nine-month sentence for throwing water bottles at the police and resisting arrest. Three rioters including two university students have received three-year prison sentences.
The harshest sentence so far has been given to a university computer technician found guilty of setting fire to a taxi. He has just been jailed for four years and nine months… all delivered with stern homilies from the bench and triumphant editorials in the pro-Beijing press.
- First, the oaths of DQ2 Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were not recognized and their offices were vacated. Next the Chief Executive filed a judicial review against the DQ4 (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu Chung-ym) for their oaths of office. The case is winding through the judicial process. Now a seventh legislator Cheng Chung-tai is being charged.
In all seven cases, one has to ask: What for? Why did they engage in these inconsequential trick plays? The answer is always: "Well, they will be coming after us anyway. If not for these things, it will be for something else. Therefore we don't believe that we caused our own problems." That is neither verifiable nor testable.
- When 'they' came after these legislators, it was not an executive action. This was not the Chinese Communist Party secretary handling down an order. Rather, the case was initiated by the Department of Justice (which acts independently of the executive branch) and will be tried in an independent court of law. If the charges are nonsensical, they will be dismissed in court soon enough. If the charges are substantiated, who is to say that they should not be filed? Unless of course you think that the executive and judicial branches are all Commie tools.
- Two more legislators (Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun) will go on trial for activities related to the unlawful Occupy Central. Out of 27 pan-democratic legislators, 9 are under a cloud of uncertainty.
- (Basic Law Article 79) The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall declare that a member of the Council is no longer qualified for the office under any of the following circumstances:
(2) When he or she, with no valid reason, is absent from meetings for three consecutive months without the consent of the President of the Legislative Council;
...
(6) When he or she is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one month or more for a criminal offence committed within or outside the Region and is relieved of his or her duties by a motion passed by two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council present;
(Legislative Council Rules of Procedure Section 49B. Disqualification of Member from Office)
(1) A motion to relieve a Member of his duties as a Member under Article 79(6) of the Basic Law shall be moved in the following form: "That whereas (name of Member) was convicted on (date) in (court) in (place) of a criminal offence(s) and was sentenced on (date) by (court) to imprisonment for one month or more (as particularized in the Schedule to this motion), this Council relieves (name of Member) of his/her duties as a Member of the Legislative Council.".
- Cheng Chung-tai posted on Facebook that the police told him to pick up a letter that informs him that he is formally being charged with "insulting the national flag" and "insulting the regional flag." Cheng replied that he is busily serving the People of Hong Kong and has no time to go down to the police station. He told the police to mail the letter to either the Legislative Council chairman or the Legislative Council Secretariat but not directly to himself. The news report said that if Cheng Chung-tai won't go down to the station, then the police will show up, arrest him, take him down to the police station and notify him there.
- (TVB) Cheung Chung-tai said: "The incident took place during a Legislative Council meeting. So they cannot just hand a letter to a democratically elected parliamentarian to charge him for activities related to his speech and action during a parliamentary meeting. The most basic process is that I do not believe that I need to go down to the police station to pick up the letter. Clearly this was a big political persecution that is happening before Carrie Lam takes over."
Legislative Council president Andrew Leung said: "I remind my colleagues at the Legislative Council that the speeches of the Legislative Councilors are indeed protected under special privileges guaranteed by the law. But they must be responsible for all activities to themselves and to the public.
- The freedom of speech of a legislator is protected, but actions are not. For example, former legislator Raymond Wong was sentenced to two weeks in jail for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung. Raymond Wong could have screamed obscenities and he will be protected. If you think that throwing a glass cup is protected, where does your slippery slope stop?
Throwing a paper airplane? Okay ... (but $1,500 fine for littering)
Throwing a pile of dog dung? Eh ... okay ... (but $1,500 for fouling the street or public place with dung)
Throwing a glass cup that missed? 2 weeks in jail.
Throwing a javelin? Eh ... 2+ weeks in jail (much more if the javelin actually hits a person)
Throwing a handful of pig intestines? 18 weeks in jail according to a previous case.
Throwing a Molotov cocktail? Eh ... not so okay (unless it can be proven that the device was designed to look scary but cannot actually catch fire).- Cheng Chung-tai's various attempts to explain were incoherent. He said that the Hong Kong Police should be arresting the pro-establishment legislators for bringing in national/regional flags into the meeting hall because that is defiling the flags for political purposes. Alternately he said that the dimensions of their flags do not match official specifications, so they are desecrating the flags. Then Cheng said that the items that he flipped were display objects and not national/regional flags. If so, why does he want the police to arrest the pro-establishment legislators? Does he admit that those objects are indeed national/regional flags or not?
- Selective prosecution! Why wasn't this man arrested and charged?
- Cheng Chung-tai is a political opportunist. We can review his record in politics. He studied sociology at the University of Peking and graduated with a PhD in 2010. He returned to Hong Kong and became the assistant of former Democratic Party district councilor Lee Kai-hung. He could have joined the traditional Democratic Party. In 2012, Cheng joined Civic Passion, and became one of their valiant warriors. Not only did he support democracy, he also supported Hong Kong independence.
The fact is that if Cheng had joined either the Democratic Party or Civic party, he would be very low in the hierarchy. He would not have risen through the ranks even if he waited until his hair turns white. But at the time, Hong Kong independence was a hot issue and more and more young people were supporting the notion. These young people don't even think that the League of Social Democrats/People Power are radical enough. So there was a market for even more radical groups.
Once Cheng joined Civic Passion, he was looked upon favorably by Raymond Wong. One reason was his education level. Wong supported him to run for the Legislative Council. This proved that Cheng had made the right decision.
After being voted into the Legislative Council, Cheng was about to continue to use Hong Kong independence. Unfortunately, the two fools Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching insulted China during their attempted oaths and drew the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. At first, Cheng supported Leung and Yau. But after seeing that the Central Government was serious, Cheng switched his position and deplored what the two did. Cheng said that he had no foreknowledge about what the two planned, and he does not approve.
Next, as the sole elected legislator, Cheng ascended to become Civic Passion chairman. His first declaration was that Civic Passion will switch from street protests to parliamentarian protests, because valiant resistance is futile. The truth was that Hong Kong independence had no future after the NPCSC interpretation and those who advocate such may lose their legislator posts. So Civic Passion is now interested in a permanent extension of the Basic Law with democratic self-determination.
Everything about Cheng Chung-tai is naked opportunism. The pathetic thing is that his idea of parliamentarian protest turned out to be flipping national/regional flags on the desks of pro-establishment legislators. What is the difference between this and elementary school students hiding the pencils and erasers of other students?
In Hong Kong today, there are plenty of political opportunists. Twenty years ago when Hong Kong was handed back to China, a bunch of politicians suddenly became patriotic. They proclaimed themselves to be more Chinese than the Chinese and they are moved to tears at the sound of the national anthem. In recent years, a bunch of politicians suddenly support democracy, universal values and localism! These two types of opportunists simply want to feed off politics. The only difference is that their food comes from different kitchens.
- (Oriental Daily) April 12, 2017.
RTHK: Legislative Councilor Cheng Feces (Civic Passion) announced on social media that he is being charged with the crimes of insulting the national and regional flags. The case will be heard next Tuesday. Last evening Cheng Chung-tai said on social media that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest procedure. At around 2am, he posted again to say that he has left the police station and will appear in Eastern District Court at 2pm next Tuesday.Sharp-eyed Internet users noticed the name "Cheng Feces." In response to our inquiry, RTHK said that the text was scrambled when their News Department uploaded the story onto the website. They have made the correction and apologized to Cheng Chung-tai. Cheng has accepted their apology. RTHK said that they remind their colleagues to be careful in the future.
- Occasionally words get scrambled during data transmission, so that "hello goodbye" comes out to be "@#*$(#_@(". But what kind of random scrambling will result in "Cheng Chung-tai" becoming "Cheng Feces"? It could not be random. RTHK is lying about what really happened!
- (EJ Insight) Who is really desecrating the flag? By SC Yeung. April 13, 2017.
Since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on July 1, 1997, the national flag of the People’s Republic of China has been flying proudly in the city, a symbol of Beijing’s sovereignty over the territory after more than 150 years of British colonial rule.
The flag should remind Hong Kong people of their national identity as Chinese, but it shouldn’t be used by Beijing loyalists as a tool to attack the opposition.
On Tuesday, Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai was formally arrested by the police and charged with desecrating the national and SAR flags.
The case pertains to an incident at the Legislative Council last October when Cheng turned several small flags upside down as an act of protest against his pro-Beijing colleagues.
Cheng, who represents the New Territories geographical constituency, was arrested by no less than 14 police officers in Kowloon on Tuesday night while he was on his way to an online radio station to host a program.
He was then taken to the Cheung Sha Wan police station to complete the arrest procedure. Cheng criticized the police for lacking respect in dealing with him as a lawmaker.
He said the arresting officers apparently took a hostile attitude toward him, when compared with the arrangements for the arrest of pan-democrat lawmakers involved in the 2014 Occupy Movement.
Cheng’s arrest itself was controversial since the incident that prompted it took place at Legco and not in public.
Legco had also formed a committee to investigate Cheng’s alleged misbehavior, following a motion by pro-establishment lawmaker Paul Tse Wai-chun, who said Cheng’s action constituted mischief.
Cheng may lose his Legco seat if he is censured for misbehavior or breach of oath by a vote of two-thirds of the legislators present upon completion of the probe.
As to the charge filed by the police, Cheng, if he is found guilty by the court, could face a jail sentence of one month or more and lose his Legco seat as well.
Cheng stressed that a lawmaker cannot be punished for words and actions during council meetings because of parliamentary protection under Legco’s Powers and Privileges Ordinance.
It seems the Beijing camp is intent on attacking enemies at Legco, including Cheng, who has been labeled as a radical and pro-independence localist.
According to some legal experts, it could be quite difficult to prove in court that Cheng had desecrated the Chinese and SAR flags. He had only turned the flags upside down without any insult or action to disrespect them.
The law that may be invoked in the case is the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, particularly the section called “Protection of national flag and national emblem”.
It says “a person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for three years”.
The law does not have any provision that considers it an offense to turn the flag upside down.
On the other hand, the question arises: Might Beijing loyalists have committed an offense when they threw the national and SAR flags into rubbish bins after attending a demonstration to show their support to the authorities?
Some legal professionals also said arguments could be made on whether or not it was improper for the pro-Beijing lawmakers to put the flags on their desks.
According to established rules and protocols, there are specific ways to display the national and SAR flags. Inside a building, for example, the national flag should be on the left side while the SAR flag should be on the right side.
With only a couple of months left in office, the Leung Chun-ying administration is pursuing its crackdown on localists who had won in the Legco elections last year, citing all sorts of offenses and violations to kick them out of the government.
Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were the first to suffer this political vendetta as they were ousted for their improper oath-taking.
Nathan Law, Lau Siu Lai, Edward Yiu and Leung Kwok-hung are also facing similar cases. Late last month Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun were charged with committing public nuisance for kicking off the Occupy protests in September 2014.
Together with Cheng, there are seven lawmakers from the opposition camp who may lose their seats as the government stepped up its campaign against the opposition.
From Beijing’s perspective, Cheng’s action was an insult not only to China’s sovereignty but also to the Communist Party and its top leaders.
But for many people, it was just a naive, spur-of-the-moment act by a young legislator who found it hard to tolerate the “patriotic” antics of his pro-Beijing colleagues.
What is truly a desecration of the national flag is when it is used by the establishment camp as a weapon against the opposition, as a tool to widen divisions in society, instead of a symbol to unite us all.
[725] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 7 (2017/04/10)
(Sing Pao) February 20, 2016.
Sing Pao front page on February 20, 2016.
The man in the photo is suspected of setting a taxi on fire.
Do you recognize him?Facebook tip on February 20 1:13pm:
His name is Yeung Ka-lun. He lives at Fung Ting Court, Yuen Long district. Please forward (this information) like crazy!According to information, the name of the arrested man is Yeung Ka-lun. He was suspected of setting fire to a taxi on the night of the riot. The key breakthrough was that a citizen called up the Hong Kong Police Organized Crime Division's hotline and provided the telephone number and address of Yeung. Based upon the information, the police checked surveillance videos in the area as well as the videos taken by the media, citizens and the police that day. They determined that this was their man and made the arrest. The police said that they are grateful for the many useful tips coming from citizens.
(Oriental Daily) February 26, 2016.
A police arrested a 31-year-old man named Yeung on suspicion of setting a taxi on fire during the Mong Kok riot. The police took the man back to his home in Fung Ting Court, Fung Cheung Road, Yuen Long district. The police removed a mobile phone, clothing and an Octopus card as evidence.
(SCMP) February 29, 2017.
Yeung Ka-lun, 31, faces the one charge of rioting over his alleged involvement on February 9 along with an additional charge of arson for allegedly burning a taxi at the junction of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street on the same day. Yeung was granted a cash bail of HK$30,000 with the condition that he lives in his reported address, surrender his travel documents, remain in Hong Kong, obey a curfew from midnight to 5am each day and refrain from entering parts of Mong Kok except on transport.
(HK ET) October 11, 2016.
Today Yeung Ka-lun pleaded not guilty against the charges of rioting and attempted arson. The trial will be held on March 13, 2017 and is estimated to last five days. The prosecution intends to summon six civilians and twelve police officers as witness. The defense will plead not guilty and argue that Yeung was not present at the scene and did not participate in the incident. The judge reminded that the defense should offer evidence of not being present as soon as possible (so that the trial does not even need to be held). The defendant posted bail of $30,000 while awaiting trial. He also has to observe a curfew and a ban from setting foot in the Mong Kok area.
(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017.
In the opening statement, the prosecution said that at around 5am on February 9, 2016, the defendant participated in the riot on Soy Street, including throwing burning objects at a parked taxi and caused damage. The process was filmed by a NOW TV News camera crew and a foreigner. The action caused $4,600 damage to the left rear door of the said taxi.
The prosecution said that photos taken by the foreigner Mein Smith showed that defendant placed the inflammable objects next to the taxi. The defendant's ex-employer was able to identify the defendant through those photos.
Seventeen days later on February 26, 2016, the police intercepted the defendant at the lobby of his housing estate and arrested him for alleged participation in a riot. Later the police found an Octopus card issued on February 10, 2016 and four photo albums.
The prosecution said that defendant wore a beanie and eyeglasses at the time of the incident. When arrested, the defendant did not wear eyeglasses. When taken to court, the defendant wore eyeglasses at one point. The prosecution said that if the defendant wants to testify on his own behalf, they will ask him to wear the beanie and let the judge make a comparison between himself and the person in the photos.
In the opening statement, the defense said that they will provide evidence to prove that the person in the photos is not the defendant.
The first witness was PTU sergeant Shi Cheuk-yin. He testified that proceeded to clear Nathan Road at around 5:55am on the day of the incident. When they got to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, he saw 50 to 60 persons screaming and yelling. When they got to the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street, he observed somebody setting off a fire next to a taxi. Some people were throwing bricks and garbage. The police issues warnings and applied pepper spray. During the chaos, Shi was hit in his upper left arm by a flying brick.
(Oriental Daily) March 14, 2017.
According to foreign language teacher Mein Smith, he came to live and work in Hong Kong since 2014. At the time of the incident, he was living on Fa Yuen Street. At around 5am, he was awakened by a commotion. He looked outside the window and he saw some people tearing up the sidewalk. He called the police and went downstairs with his camera. When he arrived at Soy Street, he observed some people throwing bricks at the police who used pepper spray. The two sides seesawed back and forth. He saw a red taxi parked on the roadside. Its windshield was damage. There were burnt cardboard paper near its left rear wheel. So Smith used his $40,000 Nikon D4s camera to film using medium-long lends. In some of the photos, there was a man wearing eyeglasses and dark-colored hooded sweatshirt. The man placed the cardboard underneath the taxi door. He also saw people throwing bricks at the heads of other people. He also heard that they will throw bricks at photographers. So he sensed danger and went home.
(Oriental Daily) March 15, 2017.
Open University Human Resources Department director Sin Suk-man testified that Yeung Ka-lun worked at the Education and Science/Technology Publishing Department. Sin said that she had seen Yeung two to four times, and that Yeung wore black-rimmed glasses like the judge was wearing today. Sin identified Yeung in court. The defense challenged whether this was because Yeung was sitting in the defendant's box today. Sin said that she can identify Yeung independent of the environment.
The prosecution said that they had a former employer of Yeung who was able to identify Yeung in the photos taken on the day of the incident. However, the prosecution has learned that the man had left Hong Kong for mainland China last year and was arrested there. Therefore the prosecution will not summon this man to testify.
Today, the judge ruled that the evidence exists for the case. The defendant will decide whether he testifies on his own behalf tomorrow.
(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2017.
Today defendant Yeung Ka-lun decided not to testify on his own behalf. Previously the defense said that they have evidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time. However, no such evidence was introduced. Summations will be made on March 22.
(Oriental Daily) March 22, 2017.
The prosecution said that the defendant bought a new Octopus card and stopped wearing glasses in order to prevent identification. The defense said that this inference is baseless. Furthermore, it is not 100% certain that the individual in the photos/videos has dyed hair, or any hair, or even male. The individual in the photos/videos was visible only from the eyebrows downwards. The judge agreed that this was just like himself and the senior counsels wearing wigs in court. The defense said: "That is why nobody can identify me." The defense continued that the angles and facial expressions can also affect the exterior appearances of the individual. Since none of the witnesses have known the defendant for an extensive period of time, they can't identify them confidently just as we cannot identify strangers confidently based upon some photos/videos.
(Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017.
Previously, the prosecution had presented videos and photos that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual who participated in the riot on Soy Street and set fire to a red taxi. Today, the judge ruled that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual in the videos/photos. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant had protruded upper teeth like the individual in the videos/photos. The only difference was that the defendant is not wearing glasses today. The judge found the defendant guilty on both counts (participation in a riot and arson).
After the verdict will come the sentencing on next Monday. In mitigation, the defense pleaded that the defendant did not throw any objects at the police or said anything disrespectful to the police. The defense admitted that his participation encouraged other participants. The defense said that the defendant was not a bad and ruthless person, and all he did was to place a burning piece of cardboard next to a taxi and the fire did not spread. The judge pointed out that a spark can start a conflagration as in the case of the people who were burned to death in a car recently. The defense did not object to Yeung being remanded to custody. The defense wanted the two sentences to be served concurrently.
(Sing Tao) April 3, 2017.
The judge said that the two main issues were: Was there a riot that night wherein a rioter set fire to a taxi? and whether the defendant took part in the riot and set fire to the taxi?
The judge ruled that there was a riot of three or more persons, and that someone set a fire next to the taxi in a breach of peace. So the first issue was answered in the affirmative.
The judge compared multiple photos between 2006 and 2016, and he also carefully observed the defendant. There were some minor differences, such as the defendant used to wear glasses but not at this time. But in the wedding photos of the second elder sister, the defendant showed protruded front teeth just as the judge observed in court. The defendant's eyes, nose, side profile, height and body shape were identical to the perpetrator in the photos/videos. Just because the defendant no longer wears glasses does not mean that everything else is different. The judge ruled that the defendant was the perpetrator in the photos/videos.
After the day of the incident, the defendant purchased a new Octopus card, changed his habit of wearing glasses and had no computer at home even though there is a computer desk. These three amazing situations could not all be coincidental. The defense said that the Crime Investigation Department made a surprise arrest that the defendant could not foresee. The judge disagreed. He said that the act of arson was filmed and publicly aired so that the defendant must know what everybody else in the world (including the police) knows. This three occurrences have a cumulative effect, such that the only conclusion is that they cannot possibly be coincidental. Therefore the judge found Yeung Ka-lun guilty on both counts.
(SCMP) April 3, 2017.
A technician was found guilty on Monday of taking part in last year’s Mong Kok riot – Hong Kong’s worst unrest in years – and setting a taxi on fire. The conviction of Yeung Ka-lun, 32, marked the first arson charge over the Lunar New Year clashes, which led to more than 80 protesters arrested and seven convicted so far. Yeung has been remanded and will be sentenced next Monday.
District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.
The case centred on whether Yeung was the bespectacled man filmed committing the crimes as his face was partially obscured by a black cap. Yeung had pleaded not guilty to one count of riot and another of arson.
The District Court heard that Yeung, who had no alibi, was arrested on February 26, more than two weeks after the riot.
Prosecutors relied on Now TV news footage and high-resolution photographs taken by a Mong Kok resident to identify Yeung at the scene. They also seized his sister’s wedding and family photos as well as Yeung’s job application forms for the court’s reference – all of which showed his habit of wearing a pair of glasses that closely resembled those of the pictured bespectacled man. Yeung appeared in court for the trial last month without glasses.
While the defence argued that Yeung’s appearance was extremely ordinary with no striking features, the court noted that he had slightly protruding front teeth similar to the man in the photos.
“The defendant is the man pictured,” the judge concluded. The court also noted there were “odd coincidences”, such as Yeung obtaining a new Octopus card a day after the riot, and the absence of glasses and a computer in his home. The judge said the coincidences led to only one conclusion – Yeung was attempting to cover his tracks.
Yeung had no prior criminal record and did not testify or call witnesses in his favour.
A police officer had testified that the damage to the taxi was very serious. Photos of the vehicle showed burn marks on the left glass door. Towing and repairing the taxi cost HK$6,400.
Rioting is a criminal offence punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment on summary conviction; and 10 years upon conviction on indictment. Arson is punishable by life imprisonment. But the District Court can only hand down a maximum sentence of seven years.
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.
The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February.
Handing down the sentence, Judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the level of violence during the protests was so serious that a deterrent sentence was necessary in order to maintain peace and order in the city.
Technician Yeung Ka-lun, 32, was convicted last week of participating in a riot and setting fire to a taxi in Mong Kok on February 9 last year. He was handed a jail term of four years and nine months for rioting, and four years and three months for arson – both served concurrently.
“The defendant is unfortunate – he might have been aware of the legal consequences before committing the crime, but he might not have known that the consequences would be so heavy,” Judge Kwok said, according to Apple Daily.
Yeung was sent to prison after the sentencing hearing.
Internet comments:
- Here are the photos of the perpetrator alleged to be 'Yeung Ka-lun'. Who do you trust, his defense lawyer or your own lying eyes? This man tried to set the liquid gas tank in a taxi on fire. The explosion would have put everybody (especially himself) in a diameter of 22 meters in harm's way.
- For the trial, Yeung Ka-lun had a different look, with no black-rimmed glasses and a new haircut. This is the reason why the prosecutor wants the testimonies of ex-employer/co-workers and to ask him to don a beanie in court for the magistrate to look at.
Yeung Ka-lun was not arrested at the scene. Instead, the police began to look for him afterwards and arrested him at home. During this time, the police must have wondered whether this was the right person given the changed appearance. When the arrest was made, the police took four photo albums from his home. Why? Because the photo albums have photos of what he looked like before the recent change in appearance. The judge noted that Yeung had protruded upper front teeth in the 2009 wedding photos of his second elder sister, as well observed by the judge personally during the trial. The judge also noted Yeung's 2007 Hong Kong ID photo as well the photo in Yeung's application for a job at Open University all showed him wearing glasses.
The police also took his Octopus card. Notice that this Octopus card was issued on February 10, 2016, which was the day after the riot. Yeung threw out his old Octopus card immediately after the riot in order to prevent the police from tracking him.
This Yeung person had followed all the standard tips for 'civil disobedience', including discarding any Octopus cards, discarding the clothing worn at the time, discarding his home computer but keeping the desk even though he is a computer technician by profession, changing the exterior appearance (glasses, haircut, etc), etc. He had to do all this because his photo appeared on the front page of Sing Pao. Yeung did not have time to visit a dental surgeon to fix his protruded front teeth.
- (SCMP) Defense counsel Paul Wu said that the defendant "is not a violent person." Bwahhhhhh! Setting fire to a taxi is not a violent act!? Because Paul Wu said that the vehicle was quickly towed away and repaired with damages amounting to only $6,400!? It was only sheer luck that the defendant could not pry over the gas tank which would have caused an explosion with 20-meter blast radius to kill all 20 to 30 rioters.
- Common law is based upon precedents. If the Seven Evil Cops got 2 years for assaulting Ken Tsang, and university student Hui Ka-ki got 3 years for throwing bottled water at the police, then technician Yeung Ka-lun is going to be facing 4 years or more for rioting and arson with total lack of remorse.
- The verdict is out! Four years nine months for rioting, and four years three months for arson, to be served concurrently.
- Why concurrently? Because the arson was a part of or an extension of the rioting.
- The starting point was five years. Because the defendant had no prior criminal record, a three month reduction was given.
- If Yeung Ka-lun had pleaded guilty, he would have had another 1/3 sentence reduction, but he took his chances and lost. I wonder why he decided not to plead guilty. Did he insist himself? Or did his lawyer tell him that he has a good chance to get off? Of course, when a lawyer gives bad advice, the client goes to jail and the lawyer gets paid one way (by the client) or the other (by the Legal Aid Department).
- The opening statement by the defense includes a promise to produce evidence that this was a case of misidentification and that Yeung was in fact elsewhere at the time. No such evidence was produced. Even in the absence of evidence (such as the testimonies of friends/relatives that Yeung was sleeping in his bed, or surveillance videos around wherever he was), Yeung could have taken the witness stand and said "I slept through the night" or something. He did not. Refusal to testify cannot be used against the defendant, but it does make you wonder.
- You wouldn't want an additional perjury charge, right?
- Hong Kong Free Press began with "The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February." This is giving "activism" a bad name.
(Dictionary.com) "Activism" is the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc. Setting fire is not normally considered "activism." Alternately, most activists would not consider criminal damage of private property as part and parcel of their activism. Social activism should be directed against the System, not against the private properties of regular citizens.
Besides, has Yeung Ka-lun ever said anything about being an activist? His original defense was that it was a case of misidentification and that he would prove that he was not present at the scene at the time. After being found guilty, the defense pleaded in mitigation that Yeung is not a bad person, that he has no prior criminal record and that the repair cost for the taxi was only $6,400.
At no point has Yeung Ka-lun ever said that he was any kind of activist, or what he was protesting/demonstrating/rioting about. No activist group ever came out to say that he is their member or even a friend. The 'activist" label (or, worse yet, 'justice fighter' and 'freedom warrior') was thrust upon him by outside forces with ulterior motives.
- (HKG Pao) Hours shortly after Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced and taken directly to jail, Civic Passion former leader Wong Yueng-tat disclosed that Yeung was a Passion Times editor. Wong said that the relationship was not disclosed before because it may affect the outcome of the case. Later that evening, Wong posted a link for people to donate money to help Yeung. Wong did not highlight the fact that 30% of the donations is earmarked for "administrative/production costs" at Civic Passion.
- SCMP has the story title of "Hong Kong man jailed four years, nine months for rioting and setting taxi on fire in Mong Kok unrest." After all this time, they still want to call it the "Mong Kok unrest." Let's revisit what the judge said last week as reported by the same newspaper:
(SCMP) April 3, 2017. District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.
A riot is a riot is a riot. It is not "unrest."
- Adof Lau's Facebook
Righteousness comes first. Nothing needs to be said. Please donate money to Civic Passion to overturn the verdict! Afterwards we will withdraw completely!- Chiu the Dragon's Facebook
Please put aside your prejudices and grudges. Do not listen to those bastards saying that "political asylum is useless."
Today's 4-years-9-month sentence is the final call.- Political asylum? Easier said than done. How many nations would offer political asylum to the man in this photo:
- (Apple Daily) The judge pronounced the sentence and exited. Afterwards, some spectators pounded on their seats to express their dissatisfaction. They used foul language to curse out the judge. The security guards told them to stop. The spectators said: "Does the court forbid people to speak?"
- The case of Yeung Ka-lun is being compared to the case of Shi Junlong.
(Wikipedia) Around the turn of the millennium, the Immigration Tower was the site of continual occupation by Mainland Chinese activists demanding right of abode in Hong Kong. At 2:00 pm on 2 August 2000, visa overstayers petitioned immigration officers to issue them Hong Kong Identity Cards on the spot. The officers refused on the basis of the law, and told them to apply in writing. They refused to leave, staging a sit-in until closing time at 6:00 pm when staff attempted to evict the protesters, who responded by splashing highly flammable paint thinner around the 13th storey and setting it ablaze with cigarette lighters. A massive fireball engulfed the crowded room 1301 and shot into the corridor where others were standing. Some 50 people, immigration officers and protesters alike, were injured in the resultant conflagration before it was extinguished by the building sprinkler system.
Two people died in the following days. Senior Immigration Officer Leung Kam-kwong, after being set on fire and sustaining burns to 65 percent of his body, died in hospital. A 26-year-old protester also died on 11 August.
Seven of the Mainland arsonists were sentenced to prison in 2002. The so-called ringleader, Shi Junlong (Chinese: 施君龙), was sentenced to life in prison for two offences of murder and one count of arson, while six accomplices were jailed for 12 to 13 years for two counts of manslaughter and one arson offence each. Following sentencing, Shi Junlong showed no remorse and stated in Chinese that the crime was "a tragedy created by the Immigration Department". After appealing, the arsonists were granted a retrial, at which they won sharply reduced sentences for pleading guilty to the lesser crime of two counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. A third count of arson was dropped in exchange for the guilty pleas. Shi Junlong was released from prison in 2005 and extradited to Mainland China. In 2013, he acquired right of abode in Hong Kong through legal channels to much media attention and public outcry.
If all Shi Junlong got was 8 years in prison for killing 2 persons and injuring 50 others, then isn't Yeung Ka-lun's 4 year 9 months without killing or injuring anybody somewhat harsh?
- The cases are not similar. In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, the main charge was rioting which led to 4 years 9 months of imprisonment. The arson charge is part of or an extension of rioting, and its 4 years 3 months of imprisonment was allowed to be served concurrently. How do you compare a rioting charge against a manslaughter by gross negligence charge? They are apples and oranges.
- Baggio Leung Chung-heng's Facebook
Certain matters are common knowledge.
Suppose these are the truths. Which is more serious: burning a person to death or burning a taxi?
Only fools believe that burning a taxi is more serious, okay?
What if the law says that burning a taxi is more serious?
Then there is a problem with the law itself.- (Wikipedia) The 1996 Pat Sin Leng Wildfire killed three students and two teachers and injured a further 13 students of HKCWC Fung Yiu King Memorial Secondary School. The coroner believed that the fire was caused by students smoking.
As Baggio Leung would say, it is commonsense that the more people you kill, the more serious is your crime. So why wasn't the student smoker sentenced to the death penalty?
- (Coconuts.co) Some people believe that the student smoker was Stanley Cheung. He suffered burns to more than 60 percent of his body in the fire. There is no case for either premeditated murder or manslaughter through gross negligence. Cheung would survive and eventually received the Top Young Person Award for his work with the Hong Kong Burns Association.
- If Yeung Ka-lun gets 4 years 9 months for participation in a riot, then those who incited/participated in the riot will be facing six or more years. The two instigators Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous must be sleepless from the fear and trembling.
- If Ray Wong and Edward Leung are smart, they can ask their contacts at the US Consulate General to explore the possibility of political asylum/exile.
- Yeung Ka-lun was not the only one to attempt to vandalize or set fire to the taxi. He was the one who was unfortunately identified and caught.
- This festive occasion calls for the standard film screen capture with actor Eric Tsang: "I don't know what fucking else to say except: Congratulations! Bottoms up!"
- (Wen Wei Po) What is this to him?
"Elder Brother Edward Leung, where are you?"
"Someone is being sent to jail for supporting you! What is to be done?"- (HKG Pao)
Here are the Facebook reactions to the news stories of Yeung Ka-lun's 4 years 9 months prison sentence. At Apple Daily, there were 1,901 Facebook responses, including 1,047 LIKE's, 299 ANGRY's and 419 SAD's. At Ming Pao, there were 373 Facebook responses, including 186 LIKE's, 74 ANGRY's and 90 SAD's.
Yeung Ka-lun's martyrdom for the cause of Hong Kong independence brought him 373 ANGRY's and 509 SAD's at the two major Yellow Ribbon newspapers. Any other news story about animal cruelty would have garnered many more votes.
So what is the point of Yeung Ka-lun's martyrdom? Unlike Yeung, the instigators of the Mong Kok riot Edward Leung and Ray Wong are living in America with several hundred thousand dollars in their pockets. Meanwhile Yeung can look forward to staring at the prison walls for more than three years.
It is said that men and beasts are different to the extent that men learn more readily from previous experiences. Given what happened to Yeung Ka-lun, how many valiant warriors will answer the call to riot next time?
[724] We Are Never Responsible For Anything (2017/04/07)
(SCMP) April 6, 2017.
Students who were involved in an indecent video that went viral have been suspended from their residential hall until an investigation is complete.
Simon KY Lee Hall, a dorm at the University of Hong Kong, confirmed in a statement that the students who were current residents were involved in “inappropriate conduct” as depicted in a video that went viral on Wednesday.
The statement came as the police stepped in, saying they were looking into the incident as they received a report on the case from two people through an online reporting room.
The 19-second clip showed a man, wearing a maroon hoodie with the words “Chemistry” and “HKU” printed on it, using his genitals to hit the back of another man’s head. The victim was pinned on a bed by two others, while another person filmed the incident.
“Upon discovery of the incident, the warden, hall tutors and the Executive Committee immediately conducted an investigation with the hallmates involved. It confirmed that the relevant conduct raised no concern about bullying,” the statement from the hall’s student association executive committee said.
In response to a Post inquiry, a committee representative had no further explanation or clarification of why the incident was not regarded as bullying. The case was handed over to the university for an investigation. The association called it a “one-off incident” that had “no association whatsoever” with hall culture and education.
Students and alumni from 13 dorms at the century-old university consider hall education a key component of university life outside of academic learning.
HKU has set up a committee, which will be chaired by a university vice-president, to look into the incident.
A police spokesman said that two people made reports on Thursday after seeing a clip online and suspected a student had been inappropriately treated. The Western district crime squad have been investigating but no arrests were made.
A source close to the matter said the district crime squad had admitted \difficulties in the probe. “We have to figure out who reported the case – the victim, witnesses or just netizens,” the source said. “The university so far did not report the case. It would be difficult for us to enter the school campus to collect evidence.”
(SCMP) April 5, 2017.
The incident came a few days after a candidate in the election for the council of St John’s College, another HKU residence, quit the race amid claims that he was being bullied and personally attacked and intimidated.
He said in a Facebook post which has now been deleted that one election candidate had wax poured over his lower body by over 20 people.
The HKU spokeswoman had previously said St John’s College was conducting a comprehensive investigation into the suspected bullying. She added that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken if students were found to have been involved in improper behaviour.
Media reports say the practice was a tradition at the residential hall. Ed Wong Ching-tak, the president of HKU Students’ Union, rejected such claims, saying that according to the union’s understanding, there were no such traditions. He also said both bullying incidents, if proven to be true, were “unacceptable”.
(SCMP) Our immature university students need counselling ... and punishment. By Alex Lo. April 7, 2017.
The University of Hong Kong is constantly in the news these days, but usually for the wrong reasons. The latest has to do with a possible sexual assault and bullying after a video clip was released showing a young man being held down while another one slapped his head with his private parts.
This followed allegations made by a student that some 20 people had stormed into a dormitory room of a student resident and took turns dripping hot wax on his nether regions.
While these events at the city’s oldest and most prestigious university are disturbing enough by themselves, they may not be isolated incidents. In some student online forums, there have been claims that such practices are “hall tradition”. Wax-dripping and organ-slapping are campus tradition? I seriously hope not. Some parents may now have second thoughts about sending their children to study there.
For the sake of simple decency, such behaviour must be condemned. Sadly, some online commentaries from HKU students seem to be unusually accepting. “If you can play along then you’ll treat it as a game, but if you can’t play along you’ll accuse people of bullying,” one post said.
I don’t know about you, but those acts go beyond mere bullying.
Education sector lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen said he believed this kind of behaviour among students could be the result of the general mood in society, as well as what they were exposed to on the internet.
What, the state of Hong Kong society made them do it? Pray tell how.
Ip is probably right, though, about the internet. Immaturity, sexual frustration, watching too much online pornography and having little to no sex education – all these make for a dangerous combination.
We are still a deeply conservative Chinese society, where parents are not very helpful when it comes to the birds and the bees. It’s probably the first time for those youngsters to be away from home, free of parental restraints. And given the “anything goes” mentality of some students and lecturers at HKU these days, perhaps such incidents are not surprising at all.
The university administration says it is investigating. Those found responsible should be disciplined. But the culprits also need help, althoughtheir actions must never be tolerated. Such behaviour is not about wild partying or youthful excesses; it’s potentially criminal.
Internet comments:
- Famous Hong Kong adage: "Whose fault is it? It is society's fault." This is just a way of saying that nobody has to take responsibility for what happened. I am happy, you are happy, we are all happy.
- (HKG Pao) On radio, Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that students may have seemed similar acts on the Internet and went ahead themselves while forgetting any legal or moral constraints. Ip said that the incident must not be glossed over lightly, because the students must be made to realize that such acts have consequences. He said that the university should tell the students about the red lines beyond which are criminal sanctions that will ruin their futures.
Ip cited scholars who said that one reason was that sex education in Hong Kong schools is inadequate. "When the schools fail to teach well, the students will learn from elsewhere." An audience member phoned in and said: "This has nothing whatsoever to do with sex education. The problem is that students do not have any bottom lines and therefore they think that they can do whatever they want." The man said that this has to do with respect for other individuals. He added: "I am more than 40 years old and I have not received much by way of sex education during my schooling. But I am not doing this sort of thing!"
In Hong Kong today, young people think that the law and morality are worthless. That is why they can occupy the streets or lay siege to their University Council with total disregard of the law. Such being their state of mind, what is the big deal about a little sexual molestation?
- (Silentmajority.hk) Today a magistrate found a police sergeant guilty of three counts of common assault. The magistrate said that the police sergeant pinched the female police officer on the hand and ear lobes on three different occasions. These actions are not normal between male and female co-workers.
Fine. If pinching the hand and/or earlobe is common assault, then how about slapping someone's face with a penis? Or is that normal between fellow male students?
- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee announced after one day that this case did not involve bullying and that there is no relation whatsoever with hall culture and education. At the same time, it was reported that residents received text messages telling them not to wear hall clothing outside and to refuse media interviews. It was even said that the baseball team is not allowed to wear uniforms in today's game; ditto no identifiable clothes at the Joint Hall Mass Dance.
- If this is not bullying, then what does it take before you see it as such?
- If you mess up, you should 'fess up. This is just making it look so much worse.
- Friends cover up for each other. Of course.
- Not bullying? Was this an adult video shoot?
- Not bullying? How about sexual assault?
- Not bullying? Of course not. Instead there are at least three criminal counts: unlawful imprisonment; sexual harassment; common assault.
- In addition, whoever posted this video onto the Internet is guilty of distributing obscene/indecent materials.
- In addition, the Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee, the Hong Kong University Students Union and the university administration may be guilty of obstruction/perversion of justice through failure to report a crime to the police.
- No wonder students break the law all the time. There are no consequences even after doing this. The perpetrator wasn't even expelled from the dormitory, much less from the university, because those in authority (namely, the Executive Committee and the Hall Warden) will always protect the students.
- Protect the students? The person who was assaulted is also a bona fide student. You can't protect both the victim and the perpetrators. Of course, you could mean that if the three perpetrators are expelled, then the victim will be bullied again by the other students who regard the behavior as normal. Therefore you think that you are protecting the victim by leaving the perpetrators alone.
- Who is the real victim here? I go through the discussion forums and there are hundreds and hundreds of jokes about the hoodie guy's small dick. How is he going to live through the psychological trauma?
- (Headline Daily) In the video, it was clearly seen that the male student was held down by others and the guy in the maroon hoodie took out his penis and slapped it on the face of the male student. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee said that no bullying was involved. So I take it that male student must have enjoyed the special attention from his hall mates?
- No, the whole point is that this is part of the maturation process. When a male student starts dating a female student, he has to make an open declaration to the POOL. By tradition, the male student has to go through this particular rite of baptism. So if the male student and the others willingly went through the rite, there is nothing that the administration, the public or the police can or should do. In this case, someone took a video and posted it onto the Internet. Once the public sees it, they get upset about what they see as immoral. The public is filled with moral pricks.
- S&M is not a crime between consenting adults.
- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017.
With respect to this incident, HKU alumnus Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) denounced it as sexual perversion. HKU alumnus Tanya Party (Civic Party legislator) said that she had seen the screen captures but she cannot bear watching the video. "I don't what to tell these students. I can't bear to watch it."
In recent years, there have been a number of violent incidents on the HKU campus.
On July 28, 2015, the students and others prevented University Council member Ayesha MacPherson from leaving. They also blocked the ambulance carrying injured University Council member Dr. Lo Chung Mo from leaving. At the time, Alan Leong and other Civic Party core members were present. They did not help the University Council members. Instead, they chanted slogans from the sidelines in support of the students.
On January 26, 2016, students laid siege to the University Council members again. They threw objects at the police who were summoned to maintain order. University Council president Arthur Li accused Alan Leong and the Civic Party of inciting the students. There is no doubt that the campus violence has plenty to do with the pan-democratic politicians telling the students that their actions were justified in defense of freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university.
- In order to continue to defend the freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university, the administration will not report this occurrence of a crime to the police. Without a complaint, the police will have no reason to come on campus to gather evidence. Thus, the university continues its autonomous self-rule which frees the professors and students to continue with their academic research of the effects of slapping penises on other people's faces.
- You can't blame Alan Leong and Tanya Chan for everything. (The Standard) April 3, 2017. Seven male students of St Stephen's College in Stanley, who are aged between 15 and 16 were arrested today on suspicion of access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent. They have been released on bail. Teachers have found secret cameras installed in the changing rooms in the sports ground, swimming pool and various classrooms. The incident was reported to the police on March 24. So far Alan Leong and Tanya Chan have not been implicated.
How can slapping your head with my penis be bullying? This is literally a blow in the head to wake a fellow student up to the realities of our society. This is a strong reminder that life isn't going to be smooth sailing just because you managed to get into Hong Kong University. There is a very long road ahead of you, and an endless number of things will let you feel as if you were getting slapped in the head with a penis.
You will slowly get used to being slapped in the head with a penis. Sometimes, before you fall asleep, you will secretly remember that male student who slapped your head with his penis. As you toss and turn in bed, you travel backwards through the time tunnel. You keep asking yourself why you didn't let him slap you more with his penis?
You will shed some tears, because you remember that his penis was really so much more gentle than this society.- Chiu the Dragon Facebook
The Hong Kong University Students Union says that hitting the head with my penis is not bullying. Hey, maybe the student volunteered for it. Or else the HKUSU is saying that even if the student was not willing, it is a trivial matter to have one's head slapped by a penis?
Will the Hong Kong University KOL's (Key Opinion Leaders) please comment?- Chiu The Dragon Facebook
The positions of the various Hong Kong University KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) on these incidents are very risible. Most of them pretended that they see and hear nothing. Some of them avoided posting anything at all. A very few went out to spin as follows:
1. You people should not be surprised over nothing.
2. So what? Does a single incident represent all of Hong Kong University?
3. The important point is that the public does not understand hall culture.
Logically speaking, this is plausible. But this narrative is like the one about mainlanders defecating in Hong Kong streets:
1. Have the people of Hong Kong never seen anyone defecate before?
2. So what if the person did defecate? Does a single incident represent all 1.4 billion Chinese people?
3. The important point is that the people of Hong Kong do not understand the situation in China today.
If you have to resort to these types of arguments as soon as your own case comes up, please do a bit better, okay?- More fun stuff from the Simon KY Lee Hall at Hong Kong University
Applying spray paint to the abdomen
Dripping hot wax from a lit candle
Grand parade in a shopping cart -- with a helmet to protect against the balls thrown by the hall mates.- Next thing we request is a video of "happy corner" at Hong Kong University. (Urban Dictionary) A form of ritual corporal punishment enacted usually in Hong Kong among male university students. 3 to 4 "executioners" carry their victim by their arms and legs; then split the victim's legs; and swing them so their groin area is subjected to bumping against a pole or corner (not violently). This is not meant to hurt the victim, but can be used maliciously by friends or enemies alike. It may take more than 5 minutes occasionally, until the executioners are satisfied. Sometimes it is called "to Bring Joy" and can be used for a victim's birthday, with "Happy Birthday" being sung to the individual while it being inflicted upon them. While some may be flattered or honoured for this to happen, many others find it humiliating or a form of sexual harassment.
- The two SKY.Lee cases came into light because a mainland Chinese student made the videos/photos public because he found the behavior totally unacceptable. This is the reason why mainland Chinese students should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong to study. They are culturally inferior and completely misconstrue the superior hall cultures in Hong Kong. They are simply not ready to join the global community and adopt universal values and practices.
- If you want to argue that the SKY.Lee Hall cases are not sexual assault, then nothing in the world ever is, including this case: (Hong Kong Free Press) April 7, 2017.
A former welder pleaded guilty to one count of bestiality at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Friday. Chung Lin-fai, 58, was accused of having sex with a stray dog in Tung Chung on February 1. His lawyer pleaded in mitigation that Chung was “caught in a moment of confusion” and that the dog did not resist at the time. He also said Chung suffered from alcoholism and had lost his job since the incident attracted media attention.
Acting Principal Magistrate So Wai-tak said Chung’s conduct was “very disgusting” and had hurt the feelings of his wife and three children, HK01 reported. So said imprisonment was inevitable, as he remanded Chung in custody pending a sentencing hearing on April 21. The magistrate accepted the prosecutor’s request to transfer the dog to the animal welfare group SPCA.
The court heard that Chung led a 2-year-old stray dog to near a stream on Wong Lung Hang Road, Lantau, where he assaulted the animal. The incident came to light after a villager spotted a suspicious figure apparently luring a canine with food into the woods. Several hours later, the dog – appearing in distress – emerged with injuries to its lower body. An examination by a vet detected suspected human semen. Chung admitted when arrested to having sexual intercourse with the dog. He said he occasionally fed the dog over the past two years and took her to a nearby stream to give her a shower. He said he had never had sex with the canine before that.
The magistrate will hand down a sentence on April 21 after obtaining a psychiatric report and a background report. It is an offence to have sexual intercourse with any animal under the Crimes Ordinance. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$50,000 fine and 10 years of imprisonment.
- Here is how the St. John's College case was settled.
- "I want genuine justice" -- We demand St. John's College refer the case to the Hong Kong Police for a range of potential charges such as common assault, sexual assault, etc.
- The St. John's College can only take measures that relate to the College itself. The maximum penalty is expulsion from the College permanently. The issue is whether they refer the case to the University administration. The maximum penalty within the university is expulsion. The University administration can also make a crime report to the Hong Kong Police at which point the Hong Kong crime ordinances apply.
- How about CAP 212 Offences Against the Person Ordinance Section 29 Causing gunpowder to explode, etc., or throwing corrosive fluid, with intent to do grievous bodily harm
Any person who unlawfully and maliciously
... puts or lays at any place, or casts or throws at or upon or otherwise applies to any person, any corrosive fluid or any destructive or explosive substance, with intent in any of such cases to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable any person or to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, shall, whether any bodily injury is effected or not, be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life. This covers the situation of dripping hot wax onto the body of a person.
- HKU Student Union ex-president Althea Suen Hiu-nam's Facebook
Everybody feels helpless and despondent over the Internet speculations and the lop-sided negative public opinion. How are the halls going to continue to function?
People put their 3-seconds worth of attention on juicy images and single-sentence taglines that don't require much brainpower to process. The story and the truth underneath are unimportant to them. They only want something that suits their tastes and agenda. (I must admit that #too_long_didnt_read is a common habit.)
Last year, I also experienced the communicative power of these matters. Since I was the student representative, I accepted 200% of the responsibility. I had to be cautious about what I said in order to avoid mistakes that might cause misunderstanding.
These cruel ruthless social mores should not be borne by you alone. It is hard for us to stop these criticisms, but at least we can remind ourselves that we don't want to be people like these. We should not get lazy and fan certain accusations that are not based on truths.
I want us to seek the the truth with a certain sympathetic understanding and give us a chance to make this place perfect. I hope that people can give the university investigative team some room to find the facts and give an account. We want those cyber bullies who claim to be serving justice when they run their public trials and make baseless accusations stop.
- What kind of democracy is this? When public opinion goes overwhelmingly against you, you call the public a bunch of fools? Whatever happened to your claims of trusting in the wisdom of the people? Are you students the sole purveyor of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUE? So it was with Occupy Central and now with these hall ragging incidents.
- What is this profound mistrust of the hoi polloi outside of the Hong Kong University student body? How are they wrong?
1. Did ragging occur? We have photos and we have videos. Should we not trust our own lying eyes and take your word instead?
2. Is such behavior wrong? Well, I can't imagine this being normal in an office or factory. Someday Althea Suen is going to get a job in the outside world. After her probation period, she is officially welcomed into the corporate family by behind held down while her male co-workers slap her face with their penises? When that time comes, the justification shall be: Corporate culture.
The public is reacting the way that they should be. It is Althea Suen and the rest of the HKU KOL's who should be reflecting on why they are trying to rationalizing the egregious behavior. Why are they weaving and dodging to avoid the objective facts, the relevant laws and the public opinion?
- Somebody passed this uncredited screed for me to read. I read through it, and I swore that this must have been written by a CY Leung supporter who is once again complaining about the fact-free unjust pan-politicization of everything under the sun against Leung.
[723] Yau Baby's Cheongsam (2017/04/06)
It began when friends of Yau Wai-ching began posting photos of her and a friend dressed in tight body-hugging cheongsam.
Wan Chin's Facebook
Wan Chin: The independence sect has its unique aesthetics. To thank you for your support at the voting booths, they will come back in the by-elections. Right now, they are starting their election campaign promotion of their cultural tastes. The young men and women who support Youngspiration will find this easy to accept, because they are of the same type as Ms. Yau.Yau Wai-ching's Facebook
Cultural differences arise due to differences in geographical, political and economic conditions. Clothing, cuisine, habitation and mobility are all affected in addition to aesthetics.
The Cheongsam was popular in Hong Kong during the 1950's and 1960's. At the same time, the Chinese Communist founded their nation in which Cheongsam (and qibao which came from the same origins) began to disappear only to revive in recent years. In Hong Kong, the cheongsam is still the formal dress for many young ladies on formal occasions. Its design reflects historical factors in Hong Kong, and integrates the special features of various cultures. Apart from clothing, the popular music and movies of Hong Kong in the 1980's went into the just opening China and affected that generation of Chinese people. During this period, Hong Kong terminologies such as "taxi", "steak" and "bus" became popular there. Therefore, Hong Kong has always had the responsibility of fusing, preserving and inherting Chinese culture, eventually evolving into a unique Hong Kong-style culture. By comparison, China went through various political transformations as well as the Cultural Revolution. At first, it was influenced by Soviet Russia (especially in terms of official propaganda) and then it purged itself of all civilization. Today it has rebuilt into something completely different. This showed that China has discarded its own culture many times over history, but Hong Kong has managed to combine the best of various culture to form its own style.
We used to be formidable. The movie stars, clothing, cuisine and even transportation vehicles were renowned around the world. If we want to create another acme, we must value the culture that we have inherited and not demean ourselves. If during the process of severing from certain political powers we deliberate cleanse our unique culture, we will have fallen into the trap set by those political powers and become no different from the Chinese Red Guards.
#By-election campaign
#It's gotta be this wayWan Chin's Facebook
Wan Chin: "Production base for the Hong Kong Independence Movement"
Photo: This cheongsam/qibao is available on Taobao for 228 RMB, 48-hour delivery.
(YouTube) Apple Daily
Internet comments:
- The traditional cheongsam is not available in Hong Kong department stores, whether the Japanese Sogo, or the Hong Kong Sincere/Wing On, or the Chinese Yue Wah Emporium. The whole point is that it must be body hugging. Since women come in all sizes and shapes, the cheongsam is traditionally custom-tailored by the Shanghai tailors with several fittings during the process.
- Well, people are surely going to say that you can't find a cheongsam tailor in Hong Kong anymore. This explains why Yau Wai-ching paid 228 RMB to buy her cheongsam on Taobao.
But let me tell you: Taobao is the first place in which Hong Kong independence from China has been physically realized. If you make a purchase from anywhere in mainland China, the postage is included in the price. If you make the same purchase from Hong Kong, you will be charged extra for postage/handling. This proves that Hong Kong is not China.
- You take a look at Yau BB's photo taken from the rear. Her body is shaped like a barrel. With a body like that, the cheongsam is a death knell. If she wore a big and fluffy dress (maternity/pregnancy dress), nobody would know for sure. Once she put on this cheongsam, it becomes very apparent that the fat, short and round-faced Yau Wai-ching had none of the attributes of Chinese beauties.
- If you saw those two women in a dark alley, you will probably become scared as hell.
- When a Facebook commentator complained about Yau wearing a traditional Chinese qibao, she countered that "This is a Hong Kong-style cheongsam." Do you know the difference between a Chinese-style qibao and a Hong Kong-style cheongsam? Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
(Cheongsam) The cheongsam (from Cantonese Chinese: 長衫) is a body-hugging one-piece Chinese dress for women, also known as qipao (from Mandarin Chinese: 旗袍), and was ROC's mandarin gown. The stylish and often tight-fitting cheongsam or qipao (chipao) that is best known today was created in the 1920s in Shanghai and made fashionable by socialites and upper class women.
And if you check for Qipao in Wikipedia, it redirects to Cheongsam. So Wikipedia thinks that they are the one and the same thing.
- So this is the same issue as Freedom fries not being french fries. Any difference between cheongsam and qipao is only clear in the pea-sized brain of Yau Wai-ching.
- Yau Wai-ching explained that she rented the clothes from Yan Shang Kee Qipao Rental. In other words, she rented a Chinese-style qipao and not a Hong Kong-style cheongsam.
- That's even more pathetic -- she paid expensively to rent something that costs 228 RMB on Taobao.
- Now that you mention money, what about the $950,000 in taxpayer money that she owes the Legislative Council? She's got money to buy qipao, but not to pay her debts.
- People still don't understand the issue with the cheongsam/qipao. The Manchurians were defeated by an uprising of the Hans. As the victorious majority, the Hans preached Racial Harmony and thus appropriated the Manchu's qipao as the Chinese national dress. In the early Republican days, the qipao became very popular in Shanghai among the nouveau riche who liked to imagine that they are a class of nobility in the new China. When the Communists took over, they banned the qipao because it was the symbol of western capitalist compradores/running dogs. The wealthy folks of Shanghai who had the means fled to Hong Kong and brought the qipao fashion there.
In summary, the qipao represents the cultural invasion of Hong Kong by the northern Chinese bitches. When Yau Wai-ching said that "Hong Kong absorbed outside cultural influences and merged the qipao into their own culture," she is spouting nonsense. The true Hong Kong-style women's clothes are those of the Tanka people:
If Yau Wai-ching were an authentic Hong Kong Localist, she would be dressed like this! Instead her standard dress code is a calf-length skirt with calf-high boots because she needs to hide her barrel body and short fat legs.
- On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching left a comment: 「我東星耀揚今日黎（嚟）collect your skin」. Literally, this translates to "I, Yiu-yeung from the Tung Sing Gang, will kill you today." This is what the gangster character Cheung Yiu-yeung said in the movie Teddy Boys. But the battle so far seems to have ended with Wan Chin scoring a knockout with his Taobao pictures.
- If this is an advertisement for a Japanese adult video, then the Japanese words should be added:
- A short history of the Live and Death of Localism in Hong Kong:
... In retrospect, the so-called Localism began at first with giving "priority" to Hongkongers in the allocation of resources. And they also thought of themselves as the authentic inheritors of traditional Chinese culture which will be the basis for a new nation. Youngspiration went further by advocating de-Sinofication. They ended up blowing away all other Localists first and then they killed themselves along with their modus operandi. Thinking back about the case of Siu Yau-wai, the Localists focused on "Hong Kong Priority" in resource allocation and even the Blue Ribbons stood on our side!
If Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration were really sent by the Chinese Communists, then they are truly brilliant.
First of all, they leaped to the extreme end of the political spectrum and denounced all other Localists as pro-unification with China. Localism became their exclusive terminology and everybody else is a phoney. Then they proceeded with a string of stupid asinine actions. Then they used the "Re-fucking of Sheena" oath ceremony to blow themselves along with Localism. The entire movement is now back to before the anti-High Speed Rail protests of 2009.Ten years of time was wasted. Worse yet, the Chinese Communists are beginning to learn to use the Internet. We have not only gone back to Level 1 in the game, but the Boss has upgraded himself by ten levels now.
- (HKG Pao) It is the sense of Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgent that Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang are Chinese Communist moles who destroyed the Localism movement. "You can't sell anything unless someone is willing to buy it. So some dickheads must buy it first before they have a market. Many people buy Localism because the term is so cool. Not many people really care what Localism is supposed to mean. When Hong Kong Independence appeared, it was even more cool than Localism and so many were attracted to it. For such people, Localism and Hong Kong Independence are just sound bites. They will go over to whichever sound bite seems more attractive at the moment. Hong Kong politics is the politics of sound bites. It is unimportant how stupid the inside contents are. If you have good sound bites, you will attract votes at elections."
Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were able to use slogans to attract voters to get them into the Legislative Council. But they were too stupid and destroyed their own careers. Today, Yau-Leung are like rats-in-the-streets being chased by the Localist, Pan-democratic and Pro-Establishment camps alike.
- Thanks to Yau-Leung, Localism and Hong Kong Independence have lost their luster. Blowing up a rubbish bin seems to be a lot of fun, but people don't want to spend three years in jail for doing so. They want risk-free fun. But incitement to riot carries a ten-year jail sentence.
[722] Spoofs (2017/04/05) 48 persons were previously arrested by the police for incitement/participation in the unlawful Occupy Central. Nine of them (known as the Occupy Central Nine Men/Women) have been charged already. What happens to the rest? What are they thinking?
Here is a spoof of Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok, former Hong Kong University Student Union president.
Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok's Facebook (March 31, 2017): I am no longer Yellow. I have been approved for a scholarship to do further studies in the United States. Farewell to the people of Hong Kong.
Anthony Fung's Facebook: I am the father of Billy Fung. May I ask what arrangements can be made when he goes to jail and comes out afterwards?
Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok:
How are you, Mr. Fung? I believe that you must have discussed these matters with Billy. I am an outsider. I have nothing to do with his arrest. I am his predecessor (as the Hong Kong University Students Union president) and it is my fault not to let him safely serve through his term and share his worries. Therefore no matter what the outcome of Billy's sentencing, I will do my best to pray for him.
Everybody has parents. Mr. Fung, your concerns are the same as the concerns my own parents have for me. Bu when we became union presidents, we were twenty-something-years-old already. Ultimately Billy has to be responsible for his future. We all know that what we did may have certain consequences, but we were not going to stop because of these unknown problems. When some things have to be done, they will have to done. This is in accordance with what my mentor Alan Leong taught me.
It is still not unknown whether Billy has to plan for "going to jail" and "coming out afterwards." Your worries are reasonable, but they really have nothing to do with me. Perhaps Billy does not mind going to jail.
Best wishes.
Internet comments:
- (Speakout.hk) On her Facebook, Yvonne Leung said: "The bill? I did not intend to run away. If you want, you come. I am waiting."
0:30 Yvonne Leung: "I am carrying out civil disobedience. Afterwards I will turn myself in."
What happened to that bit about turning herself in? It is more than two years later now (more than nine hundred days later). She has not yet gone to the police station to turn herself in.
And speaking about paying the debt, she has a prior record -- on the day of the clearance of Admiralty, Yvonne Leung was nowhere to be seen.
0:54 (TVB) Why did I not remain until the last moment at Admiralty? That's because we had to take class exams that day.
- What are Yvonne Leung's priorities in life? FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE for Hong Kong? Or her Hong Kong University law school class exam?
[721] ICAC Arrests Social Activist (2017/04/03)
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 3, 2017.
Hong Kong’s anti-corruption watchdog arrested activist Avery Ng on Monday for allegedly disclosing the identity of a person that it is investigating. Ng, chair of the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats, was accused of violating a law that prohibits anyone from disclosing to the public the identity of people being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
Last April, local media alleged that Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee had a conflict of interest when exchanging properties with a tycoon and benefiting from the price difference. Ng reported to the ICAC following news reports and was later invited to the ICAC offices to give a testimony. He told the press at the time that he could not disclose anything, except that he hoped Fung would give a public explanation, Oriental Daily reported.
The 40-year-old activist was arrested on Monday morning for his remarks and taken to the the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts in the afternoon. Ng’s party colleagues – including lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung – turned up in support of the embattled activist. “Since the Legislative Council elections last September, it is the third time law enforcement agents have searched my home and arrested me. They keep coming up with charges that are just excuses,” Ng said following his arrest. “The Chinese Communist Party will not allow Hong Kong to have a breathing space. But sorry, I’m not easily defeated. The more oppressive you are, the more determined I am, and the more resistance I will commit myself to,” he added.
The ICAC confirmed on Monday that Ng was arrested and charged with three counts of disclosing to the public the identity of persons under investigation, an offence under section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$20,000 fine and a year behind bars.
(SCMP) April 3, 2017.
The chairman of Hong Kong’s League of Social Democrats was charged on Monday for allegedly disclosing details of a probe by the city’s graft buster based on a complaint he lodged last year.
The prosecution of Avery Ng Man-yuen came on the day before the one-year time limit for initiating a prosecution was to expire, with senior public prosecutor Samantha Chiu Ping-yan apologising at the afternoon hearing for the “urgent manner” in which the case was brought to court. The urgency was also recognised by principal magistrate Bina Chainrai, who noted that prosecutors had miscalculated the timing and the cut-off point would have passed if the case had been brought to court later than Monday.
Ng, 40, faces three counts of disclosing the identity of persons being investigated. He was not required to take a plea on his first appearance in Eastern Court.
Prosecutors alleged the business consultant had without lawful authority or reasonable excuse disclosed to the public the identity of a person facing an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, as well as broadcaster RTHK. He was also accused of disclosing details of the investigation in revealing that he had been invited to give and was in the course of giving a witness statement as a complainant. The alleged offences spanned April 5 to May 24 last year. A statement from the ICAC revealed that Ng had earlier lodged a complaint against the subject on April 2 of the same year.
The case was adjourned for five weeks to May 8 for Ng, who was not legally represented, to seek legal advice. He was released on cash bail of HK$1,000, with the condition that he live at his reported address and alert the ICAC 24 hours ahead of any change.
Prosecutors also asked for an additional condition that he refrain from having contact with any of the witnesses, but that was turned down by the magistrate. “The witnesses listed are ICAC officers,” Chainrai said. “I don’t think that’s a reasonable condition.”
The offence is punishable by a HK$20,000 fine and one year in prison.
(The Standard) August 25, 2017.
A magistrate has refused to stay the court proceedings against the chairman of the League of Social Democrats over his alleged disclosure of the details of a corruption probe. Avery Ng Man-yuen will have to stand trial for allegedly revealing on his social media and to news outlets details of an ICAC case, RTHK reports. The Eastern Court magistrate said there was not enough evidence to support Ng's argument that it was a case of selective prosecution.
(Wen Wei Po) March 7, 2018.
The court trial began with ICAC investigation director Yung Lai-ming testifying that he informed Avery Ng that the ICAC will be taking up his complaint. Yung asked Ng to come down to ICAC headquarters and meet. Yung reminded Ng that the complaint should not be mentioned to other persons. Ng said that he understood. But later on Yung found on Yahoo! News the news reports of Ng making the complaint.
On the same day, Yung called Ng again to remind him again that he should not discuss the case in public. But Yung did not point out it would be crime to do so. However, the ICAC colleague who took down the Ng's statement had added that the identity and other information about the target person cannot be divulged under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30. Ng agreed and signed the statement.
ICAC senior investigation director Lau Wai-yin testified said that he found various media reports in April 2016, including those from RTHK, TVB, NOW TV, Fin TV and On.cc. There was also a recording of an RTHK interview with Avery Ng by telephone.
Lau said that he followed orders to proceed to Ng's home to check Ng's mobile phone. He also too screen captures of Ng's Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. There were three selfie photos of Ng when he gave his statement to the ICAC on April 6.
The judge ruled that the evidence exists. Avery Ng will get a chance tomorrow to mount his own defense.
(Oriental Daily) March 7, 2018.
The defendant Avery Ng Man-yuen testified that he knows nothing of the details of the case of Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee. He had filed the complaint in order to apply pressure on the ICAC to begin an investigation as quickly as possible. What he told the media was information that had been previously reported. Therefore he does not believe that it would affect the progress of the investigation.
During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Ng if he agrees that the world would not know about the ICAC investigation if he did not make the public disclosure. Ng agreed. The prosecutor said that the ICAC investigator had reminded Ng multiple times not to disclose the information. Ng said that he does not recall. Ng emphasized that he would have revealed the information regardless because of public interest. The prosecutor asked Ng whether he did it in order to improve name recognition. Ng denied it.
Internet comments:
- CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30
(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. (Replaced 48 of 1996 s. 15)
- (Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017. Outside the courthouse, Avery Ng told the press that this was a political persecution of the League of Social Democrats. He said that he was merely the complainant, but he is being arrested one year later. He emphasized that he never disclosed any details of the investigation, nor was he in any position to know what was happening. He said that he needed to seek legal advice to see whether he was breaking the law. Ng said that the people have the right to know that senior government officials are corrupt, as in the Donald Tsang case. In this case, a citizen filed a complaint against a senior government official. One year later, the citizen is arrested but nothing has happened to the senior government official.
- Hey, buddy, according to CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b), you are breaking the law if you disclose that a subject person is the subject of an investigation. Further details may or may not be provided.
- At 2:55pm, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng, vice-chairman Raphael Wong and two other members presented themselves at the Eastern District Court. They raised banners and chanted slogans such as "It is no crime to lodge a complaint" and "It is just to fight back."
Eh, this case is not about the right to lodge a complaint with the ICAC. This case is about the perversion of the course of justice by publicly disclosing information about an ongoing investigation against CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b). If Avery Ng did not know what it is, he knows now.
- (Bastille Post) April 3, 2017.
The three charges against Avery Ng pertain to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30(1)(b) on the disclosure of the identity of the subject person in an investigation.
This piece of legislation exists for two reasons.
Firstly, it is to ensure that the investigation does not get interfered with. The disclosure of the investigation may allow the subject person to flee, or destroy evidence, or tamper with the witnesses, or otherwise pervert the course of justice.
Secondly, it is to protect the reputation of the subject person. Eventually even if the publicized investigation did not result in prosecution by the ICAC, the public will retain the impression that the subject person had been under a cloud of suspicion for probable cause.
In recent years, the pan-democrats have routinely lodged complaints at the ICAC and then tell the world about it afterwards. The action against Avery Ng shows that the ICAC intends to put a stop to the practice in order to defend the reputations of the subject persons of their potential investigations. If Avery Ng is prosecuted, so will a number of other pan-democrats for doing similar things in the past. These people have plenty to worry about.
- The ICAC is forced into this, because people are taking advantage of their rule of silence about ongoing investigations. People make insinuations and the ICAC can neither agree nor deny. For example, how about another "CY Leung about to be referred by ICAC for prosecution over UGL bribe" story?
- Let me give you an example. Suppose I go down to the ICAC this afternoon and I tell them that there is a report that Jimmy Lai gave a dog biscuit to Avery Ng in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC is required by law to open a file for an investigation.
I come out of the ICAC meeting and declare on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, RTHK, Commercial Radio, Apple Daily and Ming Pao that Avery Ng is under investigation by the ICAC for accepting a dog biscuit from Jimmy Lai in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC will neither acknowledge nor deny this. So everyone will go away thinking that Avery Ng must be a dog, and the only debate left is whether he is Japanese Akita, British Bulldog, German shepherd, French Poodle, Chinese Shih Tzu, or whatever. Eventually the ICAC will close the file on this nothing case. But the world will remember Avery Ng as a dog.
Is that fair to Avery Ng?
Of course not.
By prosecuting Avery Ng, ICAC is trying to defend Avery Ng against the same thing happening to him.
- When Avery Ng says that this was one of many political persecutions against himself, he is misleading people. By definition, the Independent Commission Against Corruption is independent -- the Chief Executive, the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Security and others have no say in what the ICAC does. If Avery Ng thinks that the ICAC is CY Leung's lapdog, then why is the point of asking the ICAC to investigate CY Leung's UGL dealings?
[720] RTHK vs. Carrie Lam (2017/03/29)
(SCMP) March 10, 2017.
A pledge by chief executive race front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to help the city’s public broadcaster expand its reach without a firm promise on securing extra resources or clearing political obstacles has left the RTHK union more miffed than mollified.
Her qualified offer of help came with a dash of criticism of the station, which disappointed programming staff, RTHK insiders said after she spoke at a Journalists’ Association forum attended by the three leadership candidates.
Lam did not endear herself to RTHK staffers by calling one programme outdated and praising state-owned CCTV programmes carried by the broadcaster.
While she vowed to embrace media diversity if elected on March 26 and promised to see whether “policy support is lacking or that resources are mismatched” at RTHK, her comments attracted criticism.
The public broadcaster has faced constant manpower and resource shortages, due in part to strong opposition from pro-establishment lawmakers who accused the station of producing anti-government content. Its plan for a new broadcasting house came to a halt after lawmakers refused to approve funding in 2014.
But as she vowed to expand RTHK, Lam said she could not imagine that those lawmakers, most of whom were her supporters, would all back her plan. “It is never my opinion that the broadcasting policies in this administration are good policies,” Lam said. She then said one of the station’s new channels relied too often on still photos, making it appear “substandard” and “outdated”.
Instead, she suggested the station loop funny remarks from officials, such as her often-cited comment that “an official has more guts when she has no more desire”. She made the remark in 2015 when defending her decision to order government officials not to be pressured to drink possibly lead-contaminated water during the city’s tainted water scare.
Hitting back, Gladys Chiu Sin-yan, chairwoman of RTHK’s programme staff union, said: “We wish to emphasise that we are not the government’s mouthpiece and should not be instructed to loop what officials say. We appreciate her high hopes for RTHK, but we also need the next chief executive to help secure funding for our development into a professional TV station.”
On Lam’s claim that she had little knowledge of the problems facing RTHK, the union said in a statement it was “deeply disappointed” that she was blaming others when “she ought to be clear about all policy areas” as a candidate.
(RTHK) March 28, 2017.
Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam appeared on our programme this morning. The RTHK Programme Staff Union presented her with an open letter which urged her to show responsibility for public broadcasting policies, to increase resource allocation and to meet with RTHK management as soon as possible to firm up the plans for the new building.
Internet comments:
- As noted, RTHK "faced constant manpower and resource shortages, due in part to strong opposition from pro-establishment lawmakers who accused the station of producing anti-government content."
Why do these pro-establishment lawmakers feel so strongly? What are they upset about? Is it because they hate freedom of press? Do they just want RTHK to become a government mouthpiece?
To help you understand, here is a recent sample of RTHK's work.
- (HKG Pao) At the post-election conference, RTHK reporter Chan Miu-ling posed separate questions to Carrie Lam and John Tsang. Is she fair and balanced? Are her questions politically and personally motivated? Do you trust her reporting?
To Carrie Lam: "I want to ask again. Earlier many other colleagues have asked a question: That is, Will you go to the China Liaison Office to thank them for their support? Can you answer clearly? That is, in the upcoming period of time, will you or will you not? Will you promise the people of Hong Kong that you will not go to the China Liaison Office to thank them for their support? Instead, you will do as John Tsang did to attend gatherings without bringing bodyguards and police officers in order to be in contact with citizens? In addition, I want to ask with what kind of feelings do you welcome or otherwise be psychologically prepared that over the next five years, the people at the Legislative Council and those who oppose you will call you 777 7 9 (dog)? Thank you!"
To John Tsang: "RTHK Chan Miu-ling. I want to the same thing. You could not replicate Barcelona because at this match, the organizers, the sideline judges and the referee all come from the other side. That is why you lost. Or do you accept that you lost fairly and squarely? I also want to ask: Although you said that you are going to sleep for a few days, there is going to be a Legislative Council by-election coming up really soon. New Territories East and Kowloon West. Will you take real action to thank your supporters? Or will you have another dream with us five years from now?
- Chan Miu-ling (RTHK) did not even bother to observe the most basic manners. Her question on visiting the China Liaison Office was posed in the form of the proverbial: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer YES or NO."
If Carrie Lam refuses to make that promise, it means that she is admitting that she had China Liaison Office support in violation of Basic Law Article 22. If she makes that promise, it means that she can never ever visit the China Liaison Office for any reason. Alternately, every time that Lam visits the China Liaison Office, she must state the nature of her business.
- This is also supremely stupid. Why do they have to meet at the China Liaison Office for Carrie Lam to express her overflowing gratitude? Why can't they just meet in a private room at the exclusive members-only China Club. Who is going to know?
- (RTHK) March 29, 2017. Carrie Lam visited the China Liaison Office. She was greeted by China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming. The two shook hands and posed for the media. Her next stop is to visit the Chinese Foreign Ministry office in Hong Kong and then the People's Liberation Army garrison.
- I hope Chan Miu-ling has a fit.
P.S. John Tsang would have followed the same protocol were he elected. But Chan Miu-ling would have spun it as a FUCK-U victory parade.
- Chan Miu-ling suggested that Carrie Lam has to be protected by a phalanx of secret service agents because regular people hate her everywhere, whereas John Tsang walks around with no police protection. (YouTube) Well, who might the guy in the khaki jacket be then?
- John Tsang said “I once thought perhaps I could turn the tables by the end of the match, just like Barcelona did in that epic game. But the fact is, you might not be able to win for sure no matter how good your team played, even when you have support from fans and keep scoring.” So Chan Miu-ling added her own interpretation: "At this match, the organizers, the sideline judges and the referee all come from the other side. That is why you lost." Then she asked for John Tsang whether he agreed or not. Regardless of Tsang's answer, Chan had sneaked her message through. Is this how they teach journalism nowadays?
- The second part of Chan Miu-ling's question to John Tsang sounded like the trumpet call to John Tsang's Legislative Council election campaign. For fairness, shouldn't she be asking: "You got 365 votes. Are you worried that it will stick to you that you HEA 365 days a year? Do you work hard only on February 29th (in a leap year with 366 days)?"
- (Variety) March 15, 2017. President Trump is proposing to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides federal support for public broadcasting, as part of a budget package that makes massive cuts across government agencies while increasing defense spending by $54 billion. Trump’s proposed cuts also include eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
- Wherever the United States go, so goes the rest of the world.
- Hong Kong does not have an army, so there is no defense expenditure. Is it time to build its own army? After all, the People's Liberation Army cannot be relied upon after the forthcoming China Meltdown.
[719] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 12 (2017/03/28)
(SCMP) March 28, 2017.
Nine leaders and key participants of Hong Kong’s Occupy movement were arrested and charged on Monday night over their roles in the 2014 pro-democracy street protests – a day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pledged to unite a divided society as the city’s newly elected chief executive. In a move considered long overdue by critics of the protests, authorities ordered the three Occupy Central founders, along with six lawmakers and activists, to report to the Wan Chai police headquarters.
The three leaders of the protests, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man, face three counts each – conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to commit public nuisance. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.
The trio will be prosecuted over offences allegedly committed between March 27, 2013 – when they first published in newspapers their Occupy manifesto – and December 2014, when they turned themselves in to police.
One or both of the incitement charges were laid against the remaining six – lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wah, two former leaders of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming, and former legislator Lee Wing-tat.
They will be prosecuted for offences allegedly committed from September 27 to September 28, 2014. All nine were released on bail last night and will appear at Eastern Court on Thursday. They said police had phoned them in the morning to tell them of their arrest by appointment.
While some questioned whether Lam was involved, others accused Leung of deliberately timing the crackdown to follow the election. Lam was quick to distance herself from the arrests, stressing that she had no prior knowledge. “This is the action of the current administration,” she said. “[While] I want to unite society and bridge the divide that has been causing us concern, any such action should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong.”
The Department of Justice issued a statement denying any political consideration and dismissing suggestions about Lam’s involvement as “baseless and utterly untrue”. “When handling prosecution work, the department does not give prior notice to the executive branch, nor did [it] give prior warning to the chief executive-elect, Mrs Carrie Lam, as suggested by certain rumours,” the department said.
(SCMP) March 30, 2017.
Nine leaders and key protesters of the 2014 Occupy movement charged for their roles in the 79-day demonstration made their first court appearance on Thursday morning, flanked by more than 100 supporters holding yellow umbrellas and banners reminiscent of the sit-in.
The nine – comprising mostly scholars, lawmakers, and former student leaders – heard a variation of public nuisance charges at Eastern Court.
Among them, three Occupy Central founders – academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming – each face three charges: conspiracy to cause public nuisance, inciting others to cause public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to cause public nuisance.
Lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun as well as former student leaders Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wah each face the two incitement charges, as does League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming.
Former lawmaker Lee Wing-tat faces one charge of inciting others to cause public nuisance.
Each charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years in jail.
Prosecutors alleged that the founding trio conspired with other persons to cause a nuisance to the public through the unlawful obstruction of public places and roads within or around Central.
They further accused the three and other defendants – with the exception of Wong and Lee – of unlawfully inciting crowds present at Tim Mei Avenue in Admiralty to cause a nuisance to the public by unlawfully obstructing public places and roads, as well as inciting others to incite people to do the same.
Meanwhile, Wong was similarly accused of both incitement charges, but with the site of the alleged offence at Fenwick Pier Street in Admiralty.
Lee was accused of having incited others present at Harcourt Road and Tim Mei Avenue to cause a nuisance to the public by unlawfully obstructing the carriageway of Harcourt Road.
The period of the alleged offences spanned from March 2013 to the time when some participants turned themselves in to police on December 2, 2014 for the charge of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.
The incitement charges covered the period in 2014 from September 27 to 28, the day when the 79-day movement officially began.
In court, the nine replied: “We understand”, when asked to acknowledged the charges they faced.
None were required to enter a plea.
Deputy director of public prosecutions David Leung Cheuk-yin SC said they needed six weeks to prepare transfer papers and bundles to move the case to the higher District Court, which can impose longer sentences of up to seven years.
But Martin Lee Chu-ming SC, representing five of the defendants, indicated that they might ask for the trial to be heard at the Court of First Instance in High Court.
“My clients would like their case to be tried at the High Court where there is a jury,” he said. “After all this is a case of public interest.”
Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai replied that prosecutors would decide on this matter.
She adjourned the case to May 25 after the defence for the founding trio requested an additional two weeks.
All nine were released on bail and reminded to adhere to their existing bail conditions.
They were legally represented at the brief hearing by barristers Nisha Mohamed, Emma Tsang, Kim McCoy, Wong Ching-yue SC, Martin Lee SC and Joe Chan.
(Hong Kong Free Press) April 1, 2017.
Over 200 scholars from local and overseas universities have signed a joint statement criticising the prosecution of Hong Kong activists for their leadership role in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.
“We are alarmed and outraged,” the statement read. “We strongly oppose the Hong Kong government’s decision to charge these scholars and activists for their non-violent fight to realize Hong Kong people’s right to universal suffrage.”
“These criminal prosecutions against peaceful academics and citizens have immense chilling effects on the international and local academia, students and the youth, in addition to inflicting permanent damage to Hong Kong’s reputation as a free and open society.”
The statement was signed by more than 90 scholars from overseas institutions in countries such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Spain. The president of the Hertie School of Governance in Germany, Professor Helmut Anheier, was among those who spoke up. At the time of publication, 100 scholars from local universities have also signed the document.
(SCMP) A crime is a crime, whoever commits it. By Alex Lo. April 3, 2017.
So much for their professed respect for the rule of law. More than 200 local and overseas academics have expressed “outrage and alarm” at the prosecution of nine Occupy leaders for their alleged roles at inciting others in the pro-democracy protests in 2014.
Shouldn’t our independent courts decide whether or not those charged are guilty? Why do “scholars”, local or otherwise, think they have any special insight or authority to judge the decisions of local prosecutors and courts? I have found taxi drivers, whose livelihoods were undermined by the protests, have had far more common sense, real-life experience and trustworthy judgment about the unrest.
There seems to be at least some evidence that the nine charged had helped organise and incite people to protest. It was all captured on TV. Maybe they did it for what they considered a noble cause. But encouraging people to block three major arteries of a big city in a protest that lasted for months would, I think, have broken a few laws under any jurisdiction.
“We are alarmed and outraged,” the joint statement by the academics said.
“These criminal prosecutions against peaceful academics and citizens have immense chilling effects on the international and local academia, students and the youth, in addition to inflicting permanent damage to Hong Kong’s reputation as a free and open society.”
Permanent damage to our city’s reputation? I know of no Western democracy that would allow protesters to occupy a key city location for months, let alone three major traffic arteries; and many of those arrested would have been charged.
And chilling effects? What they mean is that if you think your cause is just or if it is one that they approve of, you ought to be able to do anything without suffering the consequences.
Chan Kin-man certainly thinks so.
The Occupy co-founder has reportedly said he and his alleged partners-in-crime – fellow academic Benny Tai Yiu-ting and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming – would not plead guilty, after all.
Didn’t these guys write in their Occupy pledge: “To carry out acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defence in the trial”?
Chan, a sociology lecturer, was quoted as saying the charges against them couldn’t be true because they were “based on the backward assumption that those incited do not have a free will”.
Surely you must be joking, Professor Chan?
(Hong Kong Free Press) February 13, 2018.
A court has refused to retract a charge of “incitement to incite” public nuisance for the nine leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement protests.
The defendants are facing charges of inciting others to create a public nuisance, and inciting others to incite more people to create a public nuisance. The three co-founders Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming face an additional charge of conspiring to create a public nuisance.
The defence had argued last month that the “incitement to incite” charges were unconstitutional and “unnecessarily” formulated to increase pressure on them.
But Judge Johnny Chan refused the demand to quash the double inchoate charge on Tuesday. Chan said the charge exists in common law and is not unconstitutional. He also said the charges of incitement and “incitement to incite” have different prosecution factors and are easily distinguishable. Chan added that the court will not interfere in how the prosecution selected charges, with Director of Public Prosecutions David Leung saying that the charges were the most appropriate ones.
Chan Kin-man said they were disappointed with the result. “Some of these charges have never been used in history – especially the ‘incitement to incite’,” he said. He said the charges were related to their speeches, and if they were convicted, “it might infringe freedom of speech protected by the Basic Law.” He also said that more than a million people joined the protests out of free will and there was no incitement.
The six others charged include lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, the Democratic Party’s Lee Wing-tat, the League of Social Democrats’ Raphael Wong, and former student leaders Tommy Cheung and Eason Chung.
The case will be heard in mid-November.
Internet comments:
- (Occupy Central With Love And Peace) Manual of Civil Disobedience.
1. Philosophy
1. Civil disobedience refers to acts of opposing injustice through refusing to comply with a law, decree or order. The participants will not resort to violence. Rather, they will proactively accept the due legal consequences. The acts have to display not only civility but also a disobedient attitude in refusing to cooperate with the unjust authorities, and to strive for societal changes through continuous protest. Genuine pacifism does not mean not to resist against evils, but to fight against evils squarely with non-violent means.2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest
1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.
2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.
3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.
4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.
5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.
6. For the sake of consistent crowd control information, no one except designated personnel should use any loudspeakers. Do not put up any long flags or large posters that will block the views.
7. Leaders of the operation could be arrested anytime. Be prepared for changes in leadership and try to maintain good order all along.
8. Respect the decisions of OCLP. Any disagreements should only be reviewed after the operation. Avoid any action that may disrupt the operation.
1. Guidance Note on Legal Matters OCLP is a peaceful movement of civil disobedience, the purpose of which is to inspire other people in the society, to let them see some of the injustices in the law or the current system, and to motivate them to support correcting all the injustices. Those participating in civil disobedience are going to challenge the injustices in the law or the system by means of a restricted scope of unlawful conducts and will bear the legal consequences of their unlawful conducts. This is to demonstrate the commitment of Hong Kong citizens to fight for universal suffrage even in the face of bearing legal liabilities, as well as to galvanize the rest of the society. Although we are willing to bear the legal consequences of our conduct, we must also understand the relevant sections of the law, protect individual as well as collective rights, and be cautious in our actions, so as to prevent unnecessary liabilities and conflicts.
1.1 Sections the Prosecution may use against the Rally
1) Obstruction of public places: Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong
2) Unauthorized assembly: Section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong
3)* Unlawful assembly: Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong
4)* Disorder in public places: Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong
*: Participants will not contravene these sections if they are able to uphold OCLP’s conviction of non-violence
1.1.1
Obstruction of public places Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong:“Any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves, or causes to be set out or left, any matter or thing which obstructs, inconveniences or endangers, or may obstruct, inconvenience or endanger, any person or vehicle in a public place shall be liable to a fine of $5000 or to imprisonment for 3 months.”
There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will only be fined.
1.1.2 Unauthorized assembly Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong
Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance provides that a meeting of more than 50 persons may take place only if an application for a Letter of No Objection is made to the Commissioner of Police under section 8 of the Public Order Ordinance. Section 9 of the Public Order Ordinance gives the Commissioner of Police the power to prohibit the holding of any public meeting notified under section 8 in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
According to Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong, Occupy Central is an unauthorized assembly and “every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly… shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable – (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and (ii) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.”
There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will be fined, or may be imprisoned for several weeks, but the sentence may also be suspended.
1.1.3 Unlawful assembly
According to Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, “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. – (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.”If participants of OCLP only stand or sit on the road without doing anything and uphold the spirit of non-violence, calmness and peace, then the chances of committing the offence of unlawful assembly due to participating in OCLP should not be high.
1.1.4
Disorder in public places Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance provides, “(1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months” or “(2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.”As with the offence of unlawful assembly, if we can uphold the OCLP spirit of non-violence, the chance of committing this offence is not high.
- They went in knowing full well that they are violating various laws and that there are legal consequences. Now they are screaming that they cannot be prosecuted? Whatever happened to rule-of-law?
- They went in saying that they will engage in an act of civil disobedience that breaks certain laws. They said that they will accept the legal consequences. They will go to jail proudly knowing that they are morally superior.
But now the day of reckoning is here. What do they do?
I did not break any law.
Even though I broke the law, I should not be prosecuted.
Even though I am prosecuted, there is no evidence that I was at the scene.
Even if you can prove with videos that I was there, there is no evidence that I took part in creating a public nuisance.
Even if you can prove with videos that I took part in creating a public nuisance, I was temporarily insane and/or permanently mentally retarded, and therefore not accountable for my actions.
Even if you can prove with videos that I was of sound mind all the time, my motives were noble.
Even if noble motives cannot be an excuse to vacate the 2 year jail sentence, I will appeal to the High Court of Appeal.
Even if the High Court of Appeal upholds the sentence, I will appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Even if the Court of Final Appeal upholds the sentence, I will seek political asylum at the Swedish Consulate.
Whatever happened to the original intentions? Why go through all this? Because for me to go through the entire appeal process, I will need lots of money to pay for the legal fees. So please send your money to my crowdfunding PayPal account. Thank you. It is very important for you to do that, because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY HAPPINESS in Hong Kong depend on it.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 28, 2017. Law professor Benny Tai, one of those targeted, said he is willing to plead guilty if the charges against him are factually accurate. He said a guilty plea aligns with the spirit of civil disobedience – the central theme of the 79-day Occupy demonstrations.
- Is this a parody? (QuoteInvestigator.com) Here is the old lawyers' adage:
There is an old trial lawyers’ saying “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.”
Benny Tai is at the preliminary stage of pounding on the facts. That phase should quickly pass due to his voluminous writings and the videos taken by numerous persons/organizations. Soon he will be pounding on the law. Ultimately he will be rolling on the floor throwing a tantrum and they will put him in a white straitjacket and take him to the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital for observation.
- The court ultimately issued clearance orders because minibus operators were suffering economic losses. So there is not much doubt that Occupy Central was a public nuisance for a large number of citizens. So what can't the Occupy Central leaders be prosecuted for inciting and participating in public nuisance? If you answer FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE POLITICAL CLEANSING, then you are proposing rule-of-man (specifically, rule by "pro-democracy activists") instead of rule-of-law.
- Public Nuisance: A Common Law Crime
What is public nuisance?
At common law public nuisance is a crime for which the remedy is criminal proceedings. It is defined as an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public. Probably the most well-known example of public nuisance is obstructing the highway.
Who are the ‘public’ in public nuisance?
Identifying the public affected by a public nuisance is not as simple as might initially be thought. Clearly, unlawful obstruction of the highway in Liverpool does not affect the public of Plymouth. But does it affect all, or only some, of the public of Liverpool? The modern definition is that rights common to all HM’s subjects must be affected, in other words, not necessarily all the public, but rather the rights which they enjoy as citizens. A good illustration is found in the Law Reports. A quarry produced noise, dirt and vibrations which affected the neighbourhood. The court had to decide if this was a private nuisance which only affected some residents, or a public nuisance affecting all HM’s subjects in the area. An injunction was ultimately granted to stop the quarry from causing a public nuisance. Among other things, the court held that the public means a class of HM’s subjects. Not every member of the class need be affected by the nuisance so long as a representative cross-section is. Additionally, if the nuisance is so widespread that the community as a whole must take action, as it would be unreasonable for a single individual to do so, then the nuisance is public. Consequently, the public means a considerable number of persons or a section of the public.
- (SCMP) March 28, 2017.
The charges faced by nine Occupy leaders and protesters due in court tomorrow are rarely sought offences requiring prosecutors to prove the accused obstructed the public in exercising their rights, legal experts said.
Three Occupy Central founders – academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming – were arrested on Monday, each facing one count of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, inciting others to cause public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to cause public nuisance.
University of Hong Kong principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming said public nuisance offences descend from common law and were seldom sought.
Criminal defence lawyer Jonathan Midgley described the charges as “not at all common”.
Public nuisance is defined in the influential British case R v Rimmington as an act or omission endangering the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or one obstructing the public in the exercise of rights common to everyone.
Cheung said the present case would likely centre on obstruction.
He said blocking major highways could be a “classic example”, citing British activist Matt Pearce – nicknamed “Spiderman” – who was found guilty of public nuisance after climbing a building in Central in his superhero suit in 2005 and clambering the Tsing Ma Bridge in 2008.
Midgley said he did not know what defence would be mounted but thought a possible argument might be that what was done was not contrary to the public interest.
It was rare to see a double incitement charge, the two added.
Cheung explained the charge as akin to a meeting in which one tells attendees what to do and they subsequently instruct others.
- Why was the charge related to "common law public nuisance" instead of the usual "unlawful gathering." 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.
There are restrictions on each of these freedoms. For example, freedom of speech cannot be used to justify libel; freedom of publication cannot be used to publish child pornography; etc. Freedom of assembly means that you are free to assemble -- provided that you are not making a public nuisance of yourselves (as in interfering with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public at large).
- If you hold an assembly in a remote corner somewhere without applying for police permission, then you are in an unlawful assembly but you are not causing public nuisance because the public is not around. But if you assemble in the middle of Connaught Road and block all vehicular traffic for 79 days, you are in an unlawful assembly that is a public nuisance.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 27, 2017.
An international human rights watchdog has accused the government of attacking Hongkongers’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, following a police clampdown on at least nine leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. “This vindictiveness shows contempt for well-established freedoms in Hong Kong and will only lead to more political tensions,” Amnesty International Hong Kong Director Mabel Au warned on Monday.
Au questioned the timing of the crackdown, which took place just one day after former chief secretary Carrie Lam was elected as the city’s next leader. “The authorities have had years to consider these cases,” she said. “[It] raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now.”
The Civil Human Rights Front will be staging a solidarity protest during that time outside the police station. They have called on the public to join the protest.
- (Hong Kong Basic Law Article 63)
The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.
If anyone has any information of interference by parties outside the Department of Justice (for example, Chief Executive CY Leung, Chief-Executive-to-be Carrie Lam, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming, etc), they should bring it out as quickly as possible. The fate of Hong Kong depends on it.
P.S. Saying that it "raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now" is only personal speculation. I also have "serious questions" about the seriousness of Amnesty International Hong Kong to bring this very serious matter up in this very unserious manner.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Tanya Chan, a barrister, said the Department of Justice was part of the government and that Leung Chun-ying must have been involved in the decision to prosecute the Occupy leaders.
- If Tanya Chan produces this sort of thing as court evidence, the judge would have scolded her for wasting everybody's time. Does she not know Basic Law Article 63? Or does she think that Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen and Chief Executive CY Leung not know Basic Law Article 63 and therefore worked together on this?
- The events took place years ago. If it wasn't prosecuted long ago, it shouldn't be prosecuted now. Yes, I am totally in agreement with a statute of limitations. But if you want it, then what is your view of this other prosecution today? Are you going to hold up your usual double standards?
(Hong Kong Free Press) Retired police officer Franklin Chu King-wai has been arrested and charged with assault for allegedly hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. The offence carries a maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment under the Offences Against The Person Ordinance.
- Why did it take several years after the actual events before the charges were made? It would be very easy under CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance Section 4 Nuisances committed in public places, etc. However, the penalty is light (a fine of $500 and/or imprisonment for 3 months). Since creating a continuous public nuisance for 79 days is far more serious, the Department of Justice wanted to upgrade the charge to common law public nuisance. Since this is through common law, the Department of Justice sought outside legal advice on the likelihood of success based upon the available evidence on a case-by-case basis. The maximum penalty now is 7 years in prison.
- (SCMP) March 28, 2017.
Civic Party chairman Alan Leong Kah-kit, who is a senior counsel, believed that political factors were behind the timing, questioning why police chose to charge the nine on Monday when the force was given advice by the Department of Justice months ago.
“When I was still a lawmaker, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung ... said in the Legislative Council that the Department of Justice had already provided legal advice (to police). That was half a year ago,” Leong said in a Commercial Radio programme on Tuesday.
“It was then up to police to decide when to start the process of arresting and charging [the participants].” He elaborated: “The [chief executive] election took place on March 26. Then on March 27 at around 9am, (police) phoned the Occupy Central trio. Why was there such a timing when the files were already passed to police half a year ago? Why did [the force] pick that day? If no political considerations were involved, what considerations were involved?”
Why does a Senior Counsel spend so much time on the issue of timing instead of the central issue: Were these nine persons responsible for a public nuisance? Because there is nothing much that a Senior Counsel can say in defense?
Was Occupy Central a public nuisance? (Wen Wei Po) During Occupy Central, fire trucks and emergency vehicles had to make detours because the major streets were blocked. The standard of 12 minutes or less response time to Central was attained only 61% of the time compared to the 92.5% previously. Therefore people's lives were placed at risk. Retail sales volume tumbled in Central, Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Therefore people suffered economic losses. There can be no doubt that Occupy Central was a public nuisance.
Did these individuals participate in Occupy Central? There are plenty of videos showing them inciting and participating in this public nuisance.
Case closed. Sentencing next.
- There isn't any evidence that Carrie Lam was responsible for the prosecution of the Occupy Central leaders. However, as Chief Executive-to-be, Carrie Lam will have the power under Basic Law Article 48: To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties. However, under Basic Law Article 63, not even the Chief Executive can halt a prosecution and the subsequent trial. If these persons were found guilty and sentenced at trial, the Chief Executive may issue pardons afterwards. But not before. Right at this moment, there is nothing that Carrie Lam can or should do.
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Social welfare sector lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun “The prosecution sent a ridiculous but clear message: the government wants political cleansing whilst [Lam] proposed reconciliation with people across the political spectrum.”
- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. I am curious: Why does letting you guys off mean making peace, whereas rigorous enforcement of the law means making war? As Carrie Lam said, “I made it very clear that I want to unite society and mend divisions. But it should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong.” As long as these lawbreakers have not been brought to justice, we law-abiding citizens will not compromise with you.
- Of the nine persons, Shiu Ka-chun's case has an additional feature. (TVB) On October 16, 2014, Shiu Ka-chun got on the Grand Stage at Harcourt Road and used the public announcement system to say: "Tear gas has just been released over at Lung Wo Road. Tear gas has been fired. A friend has excitedly come over here to tell us. Tear gas has been fired. Therefore everybody should go and support their friends. Bring your towels ... wet towels ... you need to bring your goggles over." No such thing ever happened. But all all-night riot ensued as a result.
- (Ming Pao) Editorial. Many key Occupy Central member said at the time that they will use civil disobedience for the sake of their democratic ideas and accept the legal consequences. Today, they are being arrested and charged. Rather than calling this "political persecution", we should be saying that they got what they asked for.
(Ming Pao) Editorial : Do not politicalise criminal prosecution decisions. March 29, 2017.
BENNY TAI, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming, the three founders of the 2014 Occupy movement, and six other individuals including lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun have been arrested by the police and charged with crimes such as conspiracy to commit public nuisance and inciting others to commit public nuisance.
Regarding the prosecution of the Occupy movement's three founders and six other individuals, two aspects have attracted particular attention. They are the charges against the defendants and the timing of the prosecution. Chan Kin-man, one of the movement's three founders, said that they had already turned themselves in and admitted to taking part in unlawful assemblies previously to keep their promise of civil disobedience. But they did not expect the government to charge them with public nuisance, arguing that the government had made an all-out effort to charge them with new offences. Lawmaker Tanya Chan said that a criminal charge of public nuisance carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison under common law. A lawmaker loses his or her seat if sentenced to more than a month's imprisonment. In no way can anyone on the outside know whether the government is employing a craftier strategy by charging the three Occupy movement founders with more serious crimes. However, if the many sensitive cases that have been heard recently are anything to go by, all sides of society should have confidence in the impartiality of the legal system. According to legal precedents, if the Department of Justice (DOJ) believes that the disruptive behaviour involved in a case posed a threat or danger to people's lives and the public interest, it can choose to prosecute the people involved in such a manner. If the prosecution has indeed "cooked up charges" against any people arbitrarily, the court can be trusted to acquit those people citing insufficient evidence.
Who is to blame for Hong Kong's divided society? Different people have different answers. What is undeniable is that the Occupy movement was a watershed moment. After Carrie Lam's election as Chief Executive, she promised to make the effort to heal the divisions in our society. But the very next day, the DOJ pressed criminal charges against nine participants in the Occupy movement. Such an action is no different from pressing one's fingers against the wounds of a divided society, and the timing is not conducive to Carrie Lam's effort to promote an atmosphere of unity. This shows that there is a long way to go before the divisions can be healed.
Some of the defendants have argued that the prosecution was "well-planned" and was "a calculated move to 'celebrate' Carrie Lam's election". By ascribing the decision of the incumbent government to the newly-elected CE but offering no evidence, these people have demonstrated that they have two problems. If the allegation was made deliberately, it can be said to be a classic example of post-truth politics, which is aimed at reinforcing the impression shared by supporters of the pan-democratic camp that Carrie Lam is the symbol of a new phase of social division (the so-called "division 2.0"). If those people have not made the accusation on purpose, it means that their judgement has been completely clouded by a mentality of politicalising everything and treating people who disagree with them as sworn enemies. Neither of these problems is conducive to the healing of wounds in society.
In its response to enquiry by the media, the DOJ said that no one should politicalise criminal prosecution decisions. The DOJ said that allegations that the move had been ordered by Carrie Lam were absolutely untrue, and that the department would not inform the administration — let alone Carrie Lam, who is not a public office holder at the moment — of its criminal prosecution decisions in advance. Lee Wing-tat, one of the nine defendants, also said candidly that, though the police's move the day after the election would inevitably leave the public with a rather bad impression, he did not think the decision had anything to do with Carrie Lam. And the DOJ has rejected such a claim rather categorically.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 28, 2017.
Hong Kong legislative councilor Nathan Law (Demosisto) said that the political cleansing directed against Umbrella Movement will continue. He predicted that more people will be prosecuted.
Previously, Nathan Law joined with other legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, Siu Ka-chun and others to declare that they will cast blank ballots at the Chief Executive election. This made them the enemies of the John Tsang fans.
Here are some quotes:
- "If you elected John Tsang, you wouldn't have been arrested. You people deserve what you are getting. Nobody will have any sympathy for you."
- "I told you to vote for John Tsang. But now Carrie Lam wins and she begins with sweeping arrests."
- "I don't regard anyone who cast a blank vote as a pan-democrat. At the next Legco election, I will vote ANYONE BUT NOT (a blank ballot voter)."
- "If you had supported John Tsang, people will help you. But now you have upset all the citizens. Who is there to help you?"
- "It is useless to say anything. The people of Hong Kong are still mad at you. The Blue Ribbons obviously want you all to die. But now even the Yellow Ribbons have abandoned you. You asked for this. Please enjoy this feeling of abandonment."
Here are some reactions:
- Chapman To: "Whether you succeed or fail, you will always be a leftist retard."
- "How come you Yellow Ribbon pigs are not going after 689 (CY Leung)? He was obviously behind this, but you blame it on 777 (Carrie Lam)."
- "Many of you say that Carrie Lam ordered this political cleansing. This proves that you have no brains. You only let your imagination and stance lead you. Carrie Lam resigned as Chief Secretary already. She may be the Chief Executive-elect, but she has no power whatsoever until she takes office. It is none of her business. A large wave of prosecutions was not done haphazardly. It was not decided upon yesterday. No matter who won on Sunday, the prosecutions were scheduled to begin on Monday. If John Tsang won, CY Leung would get the blame. But Carrie Lam won, so she gets the blame. This is the typical Yellow Ribbon school of thinking."
- (SCMP) Charges against Occupy activists is bad timing, not persecution. By Alex Lo. March 29, 2017.
The godfather of Hong Kong’s civil disobedience, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, has denounced charges brought against him and eight other leaders or participants of the 2014 Occupy protest movement as persecution. Coming as they did a day after the election of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as the next chief executive, one has to admit the optics look very bad indeed.
But most of the discussions yesterday, including Tai’s persecution claims, conflated two very different issues. One has to do with the timing of the charges; the other with whether the charges are legally appropriate. Once we have decided that the charges are appropriate, there is no question of persecution.
Of the charges, the three Occupy leaders – the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man – face three counts each of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to commit public nuisance. Six others, including lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun, face one or both of the incitement charges.
Bearing in mind that the three occupy leaders had already turned themselves in to the police more than a year ago, their being charged should not be a surprise, even if the timing was unpredictable.
Tai even said yesterday that he would plead guilty if the facts of the case were in line with what had happened. Shiu has also said he takes responsibility for his actions during the Occupy protests.
It’s hard to claim political conspiracy or persecution when some of the key players themselves have admitted guilt or acknowledged responsibility.
I respect Lai and Shiu’s stance. Theirs is the real meaning of civil disobedience, so unlike that of many other Occupy protesters and Mong Kok rioters who have refused to take responsibility on the ground that their cause was just.
That leaves us with the timing. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, that Lam, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and government prosecutors conspired together to make sure the charges were laid only after her election.
Or, maybe Lam was in the dark, as she claimed yesterday, but the others were in on it. If so, why not wait a bit longer?
It’s also possible, as the Department of Justice claimed yesterday, that the timing was purely coincidental. We will never know for sure. But we do know there is no persecution.
- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) March 28, 2017.
0:11 Benny Tai: The timing of our arrest this time ... I think there is reasonable doubt about political considerations ...
0:22 Ronny Tong: I think that to interpret this as political persecution is going too far. Since you said that Occupy Central is civil disobedience and you are willing to accept the legal consequences. But when the legal reckoning arrives, you say that this is political persecution. You say that the timing is politically motivated. It does seem logically plausible.
0:48 Nathan Law: Using the public nuisance charge is meant to have some more serious charge filed against these arrested friends, to apply greater legal pressure.
0:58 Ronny Tong: If the law was not broken, nobody would be arrested. The charge is not determined based upon the maximum sentence. It is based upon whether the charge is consistent with the facts of the case.
- (HKG Pao) March 32, 2017. Here is the chronology of events:
March 27, 2013: The Occupy Central trio Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chiu Yiu-ming published the "Occupy Central Credo" in which they said that they will participate in civil disobedience, surrender themselves afterwards and make no defense in court.
December 2, 2014: The Occupy Central trio published "Letter to the citizens" to reiterate that "resisters will bravely accept the legal consequences."
December 3, 2014: The Occupy Central trio surrendered themselves at the Central Police Station and said that they will accept the legal consequences.
Yesterday before entering the courtroom, Benny Tai said that he will reconsider whether to plead guilty. Chan Kin-man said that the charges "went beyond legal considerations" and the relevant ordinances are "feudal and backwards" and therefore he is also reconsidering whether to plead guilty. Why? Because it has something to do with freedom of speech and civil rights.
But what is the real deal?
The real answer is here: September 21, 2015: Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor Benny Tai told Ming Pao: "The likelihood of imprisonment seemed small ... I might have to get ready for community service."
Based upon his expert knowledge of the law, Benny Tai had determined that the penalties under the existing ordinances are acceptable to him. For example, the Summary Offences Ordinance imposes only a $500 fine or a maximum of 3 months in jail for Public Nuisance. That was the reason why they said that they were "willing to accept the legal consequences."
The government is now prosecuting them under Common Law Public Nuisance with a maximum of 7 years in jail. The burden was more than what they had expected previously, and therefore all the bravado will have to be shelved indefinitely.
- (HKG Pao) March 31, 2017.
Did you naively think that Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chiu Yiu-ming will willingly go to jail?
When they surrendered themselves to the police, there was a standard form with a list of potential charges, including: incitement of an unlawful gathering; assaulting a police officer; criminal damage of property; participation in an unlawful gathering; etc. They checked only "participating in an unlawful gathering." Benny Tai called on all others to do the same.
Benny Law is a law professor, so he knows that the only precedent since 1997 is this:
On November 25, 2002, the Public Order Ordinance was used against three demonstrators (including Leung Kwok-hung) for holding an unlawful gathering without applying for police permission beforehand. The three were found guilty and the sentence was a $500 3-month good behavior bond. The Court of Final Appeal turned down the appeal by the three defendants on July 8, 2005.
A conditional $500 fine is a bearable burden for them. Seven years in prison is unbearable.
- As an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University, Benny Tai makes more than $100,000 per month. $500 is peanuts to him, and it will make him Hero of the People.
- (HKG Pao) March 32, 2017. Previously Chan Kin-man together with Chiu Yiu-ming and Joseph Cheng had set up a Justice Defense fund for the DQ4 legislators (Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Yiu Chung-yim). The goal of $5 million there has not been attained yet. Now we have the Occupy Central Nine in court. So it is time to ask for more donations more frequently. And it will be a lot more than $5 million.
- (Bastille Post) There was an online radio program with three discussants: Raphael Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats), Kwok Siu-kit and Au Nok-hin (Civil Human Rights Front). Wong is one of the Occupy Central nine in this case, and he has been prosecuted many times before. In the past, his cases were heard at the magistrates' courts but this case is being heard at the District Court. In the magistrates' courts, the bail is set at $500 or $1,000; in the District Court, the bail was $10,000. At the magistrates' courts, the maximum jail time is 3 years; at the District Courts, it is 7 years. Wong does not expect to receive the maximum, but he expects the jail term will be in years (as opposed to weeks). He apologized to his family and girlfriend, because he may not be able to see them for a while.
Kwok Siu-kit was arrested but has not been charged yet. He said that he was not active prior to Occupy Central, because he has a wife and children and he has a public service job (as life guard). He thought that he would have to serve several months but now it looks like several years. Kwok is divorced now, but he has custody of his children. If he is sent off to prison, his ex-wife will gain custody of his children and he will lose his job. People advised to run off to America. But Kwok said that he came back to Hong Kong in 1997 for the sake of his children and his home is here. Wong interjected, "In Hong Kong, you will stay at Stanley Prison."
Au Nok-hin said that he heard that Lau Siu-lai who is one of the DQ4 legislative councilors is afraid to speak out now, and she does not even operate a Legislative Councilor's office yet.
The three were not happy about John Tsang. After the election, Tsang said that he will take it easy and go hiking. The three said that they wish that they can go hiking too, but they can't.
- Spoofs based upon the film Prison On Fire
After so many legislative councilors, professors and university students join us in here, our level will be immediately elevated! Today, the prison is very much civilized!
Re-united again:
Lester Shum, Alex Chow, Leung Kwok-hung, Martin Lee, Benny Tai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho (back row)
Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai (front row)
We demand one-person-one-vote to elect the prison warden!- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 1, 2017. Over 200 scholars from local and overseas universities have signed a joint statement criticising the prosecution of Hong Kong activists for their leadership role in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.
“We are alarmed and outraged. We strongly oppose the Hong Kong government’s decision to charge these scholars and activists for their non-violent fight to realize Hong Kong people’s right to universal suffrage. These criminal prosecutions against peaceful academics and citizens have immense chilling effects on the international and local academia, students and the youth, in addition to inflicting permanent damage to Hong Kong’s reputation as a free and open society.”
- The short summary: The law is not applicable when you fight for FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
- Prioritization scheme for Hong Kong: (1) FREEDOM; (2) DEMOCRACY; (3) HUMAN RIGHTS; (4) JUSTICE; (5) UNIVERSAL VALUES; (6) GENUINE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE; (7) OPENNESS/TRANSPARENCY; (9) PRIVACY; (10) RULE OF LAW.
- If you enforce the law, it will inflict permanent damage to Hong Kong's reputation as a free and open society that abides by the rule of law.
- If you enforce the law, it will damage the freedom of academic research because university professors won't be able to conduct experiments on incitements to riot, incitements of others to incite riots, incitements of others to incite others to incite riots, etc.
- If you enforce the law, young people might be afraid to set fire to taxis, or experiment with bomb-making techniques, etc. This will damage Hong Kong's progress to become the scientific and technological innovation center of the world.
- If you enforce the law, people will stop peaceful demonstrations and resort to violent riots instead. After all, what is the difference between 7 years in prison for participation in a peaceful demonstration in which nobody was killed after 79 days versus life imprisonment for participation in a violent riot in which hundreds were killed?
- (Asia Times) By Kent Ewing. April 15, 2017.
Yes, the occupation of three key parts of the city – Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok – was illegal. And, yes, in a manifesto advocating civil disobedience that was written and published prior to the actual launch of the Occupy protests, the movement’s founders confessed to their crime even before committing it.
At this point, however, the government would have been wise to let sleeping dogs lie. Reopening the old wounds of Occupy two years after the fact could very well foment a second mass movement in Hong Kong. But Occupy 2.0 would likely be a lot uglier.
- Why are the scholars being so concerned about the Occupy Central "Nine Men/Woman"? The nine said beforehand that they know that they are breaking the law and that they will turn themselves in and accept the legal consequences. So why stop them from completing their process?
- The Nine meant that they are ready to pay the conditional $500 fine, but they won't accept 7 years in prison. Capiche?
- The case of the Occupy Central "Nine Men/Woman" has now entered the judicial process. It is wrong to interfere/meddle right now with irresponsible comments. Even Benny Tai refuses to comment on this ongoing case. Are these 200 scholars trying to get the Chief Executive to pressure the Secretary of Justice? To get the Department of Justice to drop the case? To get the court to consider their opinions and not in accordance with the law?
- This case is now being colloquially referred to as The Occupy Central Nine Men/Women (佔中九男女). In Cantonese, the word "Nine(九)" is a homonym of "Dog(狗)." So the case is better known as "The Occupy Central Dog Men/Women(佔中狗男女)," which has the broad meaning of men and women engaged in illicit love affairs.
- The reputation of Hong Kong is based less upon a free and open society than a society with rule-of-law and an independent judiciary. The economic advantage of Hong Kong over mainland cities is rule-of-law and an independent judiciary. But these scholars want to usurp rule-of-law and the independent judiciary because they want an open, free and lawless society.
- Here is a reminder Occupy Central With Love And Peace.
- What does the world outside the closeted academia think? Here are the Facebook responses to the news stories:
At Apple Daily, there were 2,127 LIKE's and 5,477 ANGRY's.
At HKG Pao, there were 10,000 LIKE's and 43 ANGRY's.
At Silentmajority.hk, there were 14,000 LIKE's and 67 ANGRY's.
- (Think Hong Kong) March 31, 2017. 22 pan-democratic legislators (including the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, People Power) issued a joint statement with certain demands to newly elected Chief Executive Carrie Lam. The demands were (1) to ask the Central Government to withdraw the 2014 One Country Two Systems white paper; (2) restart constitutional reform without the August 31st framework of the National People's Congress Standing Committee; (3) guarantee independence of Hong Kong judiciary; (4) defend procedural justice and anti-corruption; (5) promote harmony with the Legislative Council.
- What are they talking about with so many words? What does "harmony with the Legislative Council" entail? Harmony with the Legislative Council means that the Executive branch must not interfere with anything over at the Legislative Council. Specifically,
- In the case of DQ2 (Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching), the Department of Justice must inform the Court of Final Appeal that the government will no longer contest the appeal of Leung/Yau who will be restored to their legislative council posts.
- In the case of DQ4 (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-Lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim), the Department of Justice must inform the court that the government is withdrawing its judicial review and the DQ4 will continue as Legislative Councilors.
- In the case of Leung Kwok-hung failing to report $250,000 in donations from Jimmy Lai Chi-ying, the Department of Justice must inform the court that the government is withdrawing its case.
- In the case of the Occupy Central "Nine Men/Woman", the Department of Justice will withdraw charges against the two current Legislative Councilors Shiu Ka-chun and Tanya Chan and the ex-Legislative Councilor Lee Wing-tat.
- Furthermore, the government will make no judicial review against any current or past Legislative Councilor in the future for any reason whatever. This includes Occupy Central participants such as current legislators such as Leung Kwok-hung, Claudia Mo, Nathan Law, etc and past legislators such as Raymond Wong, Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, Cyd Ho, Alan Leong, etc.
- Everybody knows (Hong Kong Basic Law Article 63): The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.
But the Secretary of Justice reports to the Chief Executive, who has the final say. If the Secretary of Justice refuses to carry out the (illegal) order, he will be fired; another secretary will be appointed until one is found willing to do so.
Common law precedent: Saturday Night Massacre, from whence came the verb bork (as in the borking of Carrie Lam through a concerted attack on the nominee's character, background and philosophy).
- (Hong Kong Free Press) Hong Kong’s Occupy protests as a public nuisance… It took two years to notice this? By Tim Hamlett. April 5, 2017.
The legal status of the Occupy movement in Hong Kong has a curious history. Before September 28, 2014 the official line was that, as Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying put it, the protest would be “neither peaceful nor legal.” The secretary for security urged potential participants to consider their “personal safety and legal liability.” The commissioner of police said that “any collective attempt to hold up traffic unlawfully” would not be tolerated.
These were not the most lurid predictions, of course. On the internet your mistakes can live forever. Readers who would like to hear the unmistakable voice of Mr Robert Chow Yung engaged in a piece of terrifying fiction can still find his short video “They can kill this city!” here:
After the tear gas extravaganza on the night of September 28, spontaneous non-Central occupations sprung up in several other places. Violent repression as a strategy was then discarded. The commissioner of police was muzzled; other top officials disappeared from view.
Occupations continued for three months, during which the legal scene was tranquil. The Mong Kok occupation was finally cleared at the end of November, at the behest of a rather unlikely paladin of legality, the minibus owners’ club. On December 3, 75 people who had at various times been involved in organising Occupy turned up at a police station and confessed. They were not arrested or indeed charged. Other Occupy sites were cleared later in the month and most of the occupiers went back to their day jobs.
The commissioner of police emerged from the teapot to say that 950 people had been arrested during the occupation, but as the cases emerged it became clear that they had been involved in scuffles of one kind or another. Actually occupying as such had not been treated as an offence.
This seems to have come as a surprise to the organisers, who had expressed willingness to be prosecuted for unlawful assembly. It is an offence in Hong Kong for more than three people to meet without the permission of the police. A charge of obstruction under the Summary Offences Ordinance was also considered a possibility.
But for more than two years… nothing. This could be considered controversial in itself.
Someone who is to be charged with a criminal offence is entitled to know in reasonable time what it is. He or she may wish to organise witnesses, collect evidence, go over his own recollections. If you are charged with an offence and it doesn’t come to trial for two years that is bad enough. If you have to wait two years to discover what the alleged offence actually is then that is even worse.
I do not know why it took the government so long to get round to the idea that organisers as such should be prosecuted. To wait so long and then wheel out an unexpected medieval relic charge, abandoned in other jurisdictions, may look legal but is it fair? The rule of law requires more than an indiscriminate and selective prosecution of people the government disapproves of, using whatever legal pretext comes to hand.
It will be interesting to see what comes of “causing public nuisance” as an offence in this context. Public nuisance is, at least to the lay person, a slippery concept. If you live in Happy Valley, a race meeting may be a public nuisance. People ringing you up and asking you to participate in surveys may be a public nuisance. People double parking in Central are indisputably a public nuisance, but all they get is a cheap ticket.
Some people certainly did not think Occupy was a nuisance at all. Two of my friends who work in Central thought the travel problems were more than compensated by the resulting clean air. Indeed we may wonder why, if the occupations were a serious public nuisance, the government did nothing about them for three months, leaving the eventual evictions to the private efforts of public transport interests.
Then we have the prospect of some people being charged with “conspiracy”.
This is difficult to understand, under the circumstances. Conspiracy is a useful concept if the miscreant is prevented from committing the fell deed he intended. If a protester is found in the basement of LegCo the night before a meeting with a pile of barrels of gunpowder we do not exonerate him on the grounds that he did not actually succeed in blowing the place up. But we cannot charge him with mass murder either. A charge of conspiracy catches the murderous but unfulfilled intention.
However in the case of Occupy the gunpowder did, as it were, explode. Central was occupied, so those who conspired to do it can presumably be charged with the actual deed.
No doubt all will become clearer when the cases come to trial.
In the meantime, we can note the further erosion of the rule of law as it is supposed to apply to the media. It is a serious offence, known technically as strict liability contempt, to write anything, once someone has been charged, which implies the innocence or guilt of the accused. This is particularly important when there is a possibility of trial by jury. The law assumes that judges do not read newspapers, but naturally future jurors do not yet know the fate that is in store for them.
The consequence of this is that in the old days you were not allowed to write “There seems to be at least some evidence that the nine charged had helped organise and incite people to protest. It was all captured on TV. Maybe they did it for what they thought was a noble cause…” Nor were we allowed to write such things as “If you do the crime, you do the time. If you call your crime civil disobedience, then plead guilty and accept the consequences. Maybe these fakes believe the law does not apply to those who paralyse streets and clash with police for 79 days.”
The first quote is from Alex Lo and the second from Michael Chugani. Both were published in the SCMPost. God knows what has been going on in the Chinese press. But I have a pretty good idea what has been going on about this matter in the Department of (ahem) Justice. Nothing.
[718] Birth Of A Nation (2017/03/27)
(The Stand News) March 26, 2017.
David Beckham came to Hong Kong to attend an event. Afterwards, he posted a video on Facebook/Instagram with the note "Great 48 hours in China." The reference to "China" angered many Hongkongers who left comments: "Hong Kong is not China," "This is Hong Kong not China", "If it's China, you're not able to access Facebook" and "If this Hong Kong, your small pet dog would have been someone's dinner." Meanwhile others responded in simplified character Chinese: "Hong Kong is Hong Kong (China)", "You can ever deny that Hong Kong belongs to China," "Hong Kong independence people get lost!"
Shortly afterwards, David Beckham changed the note to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong". On this trip, he visited Shanghai first and then China. But Hongkongers still challenge this solution because the video only showed Hong Kong scenes.
Internet comments:
- (Hong Kong Free Press) British ex-footballer David Beckham raised eyebrows on Saturday after he said he had enjoyed “a great 48 hours in China” in reference to his visit to Hong Kong.
David Beckham wore 115 caps playing for England. He never played for Great Britain, because there is no such thing as the Great Britain team. To describe David Beckham as a British footballer is a bit like ... describing Hong Kong goalie Yapp Hung-fai as a Chinese footballer.
- To say that "Hong Kong is not China" is a bit like ... saying "England is not Great Britian" or "David Beckham is English and not British."
- David Beckham is lucky, because his correction to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong" did not aggravate anyone. If he changed it to "Great 48 hours in Hong Kong," he would have aggravated the mainland Chinese people. He was lucky that he also visited Shanghai.
- When the poster for the movie Arrival placed Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor, there was a backlash from pro-independence/self-determination Hongkongers. When the movie company moved the entire background to Shanghai, Hongkongers promised a boycott. Eventually, the movie grossed US$198 million worldwide including US$15 million in China, but a mere US$1.1 million in Hong Kong. This showed the power of "Hong Kong is not China"!
- The impact of the so-called 'boycott' by Hongkongers is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. You have no way of knowing what the box receipts would have been without your 'boycott'.
- And you don't know by how much your boycott actually lifted ticket sales in mainland China with the free publicity!
(Passion Times) March 25, 2017.
At a Legislative Council Children Rights Committee hearing, female citizen Lo Yuen-kit made a statement (see video, video).
Thank you, chairman Cheung Chiu-hung for holding this hearing. First of all, I am somewhat disappointed that you are going to cast a blank ballot (at the Chief Executive election). Last night I went out to show my support for Mr. Tsang. He is a candidate who wants to eliminate the TSA. I hope that you will reconsider.
I am a single mother. My child is in Primary Six this year. He skipped class for two and a half months at one time. The social worker came and asked him why. He just cried loudly. Where does the pressure come from? People ask: "Why isn't your son going to school? Is it your problem?" I have reflected on my problems. But when I go to work, can the government take pity of grassroots like me? I don't want my son to be a flying man (that is, jumping off a building) some day.
Can you tell us that it costs money and resources to do education? Or is a conscience needed? I want to know why an ordinary school can have so many examinations, tests and dictations? So much copy homework. A primary school may have only one full-time social worker, one part-time social worker, no psychological counseling. Do cases have to be immediately followed up?
The reason why my son hasn't jumped off the building is because I have the support of the church. I am a psychosis patient. I have a social worker who is following up on my son's emotional problems. But do you want me to go on social welfare so that I can watch him every day? Have your reflected on what kind of next generation Hong Kong wants? How long will you oppress our young children?
Everybody may not think that Mr. Tsang is our best choice, but right now he is our only choice. I want you to know that it is very tough to be a young child in Hong Kong. I am very sorry that I choose to give birth to him.
I heard that certain elite schools tell their students to speak putonghua in Hong Kong. They will be penalized if they speak Cantonese. What is the matter with you? Are you sick?
Why would young children jump off the building at such a young age? To commit suicide. I have tried to commit suicide, but I really don't have the courage. Why are they so desperate? They would rather commit suicide than commit reality?
So when you say that Mrs. Lam becomes Chief Executive, I am even more worried. The focus should on the education of very young children. Mrs. Lam came out of an elite secondary school. Will brainwashing begin from kindergarten? My son will not be brainwashed by you people.
I am Yellow Ribbon, and he will be Yellow Ribbon. If Mrs. Tsang loses, I will immigrate. I will marry and move to Africa if I have to.
Finally, I must ask you to think through carefully. Actually, the young children are our future. No more mechanical form. Hong Kong does not need mechanical form.
You look at the television dramas. There is no more creativity whatsoever. Taiwan is better than Hong Kong. Really. Why do so many Hongkongers want to immigrate to Taiwan. Why is the quota being exceeded? Why don't you reflect on this? I thought that there was some hope with this Legislative Council.
Finally, I want to offer something from the Bible: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
Thank you.
Internet comments:
- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, you don't have to marry a Kenyan to get out of Hong Kong with your son. You can always go to to the US Consulate General at 26 Garden Road and ask for political asylum. Even Amos Yee got approved, so must you.
- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, Mr. Tsang has lost the election. Have you decided on which African country to immigrate to yet? Burkina Faso? Eritrea? Libya? Zimbabwe?
- According to Miss "Psychosis" Lo, Carrie Lam's original sin was to have attended the elite secondary school St Francis' Canossian College in Wanchai. Her savior is John Tsang, who attended the even more elite La Salle College in Kowloon City. What gives?
[717] Chief Executive Election Results (2017/03/26)
(GovHK Press Release) March 26, 2017.
The result of the voting for the Chief Executive Election today (March 26) is as follows:
Candidate Number of valid
votes obtained
--------- ---------------
John Tsang Chun-wah 365
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor 777
Woo Kwok-hing 21Internet comments:
- John Tsang is known to be HEA (lazy). So he gets to be HEA 365 days a year.
- Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes and thinks that it is BLACK JACK! Unfortunately the actual game is Three Card Baccarat and 2 face cards plus an ace is a 90%-chance losing hand.
- Carrie Lam is playing the slot machine, and three lucky sevens (777) is the casino grand jackpot!- In Cantonese, '88' is a homonym and short cut for "Bye Bye."
- '689' is the nickname of departing Chief Executive CY Leung because that was the number of votes he received.
- 88 + 689 (Bye bye, CY Leung) = 777 (Carrie Lam)- In Cantonese, '7' is a homonym for 'dick'. It was on December 2012 that legislative councilor Raymond Wong said that he will refer to CY Leung as '689'. That was the number of votes CY Leung got, but the greater meaning is that '689' means 'no 7' = ('no dick'). But along comes Carrie Lam with '777' (='three dicks').
- (Oriental Daily) May 1, 2017.
The Hong Kong Federation of Students refused to negotiate with Chief Executive CY Leung because Leung was only elected by 689 votes and does not represent the people of Hong Kong. Now Carrie Lam has 777 votes under the same voting system, so she is illegitimate as well.
But let us look at Hong Kong Federation of Students' own election. The open positions are secretary-general and deputy secretary-general.
Civil nomination of candidates? No such thing. The student bodies at the various universities were simply told about the results afterwards.
In this election, there was only one candidate for each position. Secretary-general candidate Lee Hin-long (CUHK) won his election with a vote of 7 "confidence", 1 "no confidence" and 2 "abstentions." Deputy secretary-general candidate Yuen Tak-chi (CUHK) won in a landslide of the ten voters all casting "confidence" votes.
- Lee Hin-long is a '7' ('dick').
- (SCMP) 777: A lesson in numerology for those who hate Hong Kong’s new leader Carrie Lam. By Yonden Lhatoo. March 30, 2017.
So, Hong Kong has a nickname for its newly elected leader, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. It’s “777” – stemming from the number of ballots she secured from a small circle of 1,194 voters.
Never ones to miss the slightest opportunity to play with phonetics and sexual innuendo, the sparkling wits about town have pounced on the number with absolute glee. The pronunciation of the word “seven” in Cantonese matches the slang for male genitalia.
Forget the fact that, at the end of the day, we’re still talking about a highly accomplished person of integrity, sincerity and dedication to public service, a top administrator in one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world. Forget about taking pride in the prospect of a woman leading Hong Kong for the first time in history. Let’s just wallow in the gutter of negativity and resort to vulgar name-calling.
The irony of it all is that, out in the wider world, beyond the limited scope of Cantonese semantics, the number seven is and has always been considered auspicious, lucky, mystical or magical.
A devout Catholic like Lam could welcome the nickname, given its religious connotations.
In the Judeo-Christian world, seven is a number that denotes perfection and completion. The Bible is loaded with references to it.
The Book of Genesis, for example, postulates that God rested on the seventh day after creating the universe – hence the Jewish tradition of observing the Sabbath on the last day of the week.
In Christianity, 777 is projected as the numerical representation of the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and the antithesis of 666, the devil’s number.
Other religions, too. The Koran has repeated references to seven heavens, and Muslim pilgrims in Mecca walk around the Kaaba seven times. When the Buddha was born, the story goes, he walked seven steps portending his achievement of the seven stages of enlightenment.
If religion is not your thing, the everyday occurrence of the number seven in a positive context should help you elevate your opinion of it. We all follow seven-day weeks. We marvel at the Seven Wonders of the World. There are seven colours in a rainbow, seven notes on a musical scale. And humans need an optimum seven hours of sleep a day. Still think it’s a dirty number to be sniggered at?
Back to Lam, Hong Kong’s reluctant “saviour”. Let’s not forget that she never wanted the chief executive’s job, but was simply not allowed to go gently into the night. The powers that be in Beijing decided she was the one they trusted the most and it had to be her in the hot seat, a torture trap that no one in their right mind would otherwise want.
When I spoke to her recently in a one-on-one interview, I found her to be very different from the aloof, elitist technocrat we had imagined her to be over the years. She was friendly, chatty, lucid and sincere. She came across as a person of conviction, but still willing to listen.
Maybe she’s been arrogant in the past and upset a bunch of administrative officers, the pillars of the civil service, but she’s clearly learning lessons in humility during her transformation from career bureaucrat to politician. Out of touch with the person on the street? Again, she’s learning, and we’re all teaching her the hard way, aren’t we, vulgar nicknames and all.
Hong Kong should seriously give her a chance. Let her prove what she can do for us, and let’s be realistic in our expectations. Until then, he that is without sin among us, let him cast the first stone at her.
For the rest of us, here’s a lovely thought: “If women ruled the world there would be no wars, just a bunch of angry countries not talking to each other.”
- Outside the Wanchai Convention Centre at 12:50 March 26, 2017 after Carrie Lam was declared the winner.
"Don't want Carrie Lam!"- Before the counting began, the ballots were randomly shuffled by the election workers so that there won't be clustering. The election workers then proceeded to sort the ballots into bins for the three candidates. Television channels assigned observers to count the number of ballots going into each bin. By the time 100 or so ballots were sorted, it was clear that Carrie Lam was leading John Tsang by a 2-to-1 ratio. The ratio stayed pretty constant. There were no runs for any candidate because the ballots were randomly shuffled beforehand. By the time that Carrie Lam went past the magical number of 601, it was over.
Of course, John Tsang fans were angry because their candidate who is the people's choice has lost the election. They are going to march in the streets.
Immediately? No.
This evening? No.
Next Sunday, because Hong Kong people only march on weekends with sufficient notice ahead of time? No.
When then? July 1st, 2017.
And it is March 26 today.
It is the core value of Hong Kong pigs to be whiny but docile. "I am outraged by what the boss did to me, but I will be back to work on time tomorrow morning ..."
- Once they saw that their favorite Mr. Pringle won't become Chief Executive, they suddenly woke up to say "I hate fake election" and "I want genuine universal suffrage".
If Mr. Pringle had actually won, how would they feel about this fake election? Will they think that the election was actually not fake (in the sense of one-person-one-vote where the only voter is Xi Jinping)?
- Before the results could be announced, a number of problematic ballots have to disposed of. For example, a ballot in which all three candidates were checked was ruled invalid because the intention of the voter was unclear. The biggest buzz on the Internet was this ballot in which a big "FUCK" was written in by hand. This ballot was ruled invalid because no candidates was checked and the intention of the voter was unclear.
- Damn! This voter should have checked one (and only one candidate). Then it becomes ambiguous as to whether the voter is voting for or hates that candidate, which will then lead to a prolonged debate about the intention. During the debate, the parents in front of the television sets can explain and even demonstrate what "fucking" is to their small children.
- "We want John Tsang!"
Live Apple Daily Facebook voting:
John Tsang: 17,582
Carrie Lam: 410
Woo Kwok Hing: 1,485
Blank ballots: 1,562- Pre-election advice to all Hong Kong pigs: Wake up tomorrow morning at 9am, bring your Hong Kong ID, proceed to your local polling station and cast your vote for John Tsang, the only hope left for Hong Kong. If you fail to do this, you will have to immigrate to the United States.
- The United States will probably reject you. But Zimbabwe will always welcome you.
- During the nomination phase, John Tsang received 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pro-democracy nominations. Woo Kwok Hing received 180 pro-establishment nominations. The total was 345 broken down into 40 pro-establishment and 305 pro-democracy.
During the election phase, John Tsang got 365 votes and Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes. The total for the two was 386 votes.
Democracy 300+ has 326 votes. This means that Tsang and Woo got about 70 pro-establishment votes out of about 870.
If Tsang and Woo want Carrie Lam to reflect on why she can't get any pro-democracy nominations, then they should reflect on they can't get more pro-establishment votes.
- (Bastille Post) John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing got 345 nominations including some from some pro-establishment electors such as James Tien (Liberal Party). Tsang and Woo then got 386 votes which is 41 more. These include people who didn't want to be known to nominate them, but voted for them with the secret ballots. Some of these may have even nominated Carrie Lam. Two members of the Financial Services sub-sector (Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim) nominated John Tsang but publicly announced that they will vote for Carrie Lam. So the actually number of hidden votes is 41 + 2 = 43. These 43 can be said to be the hardcore Henry Tang voters -- they opposed CY Leung and they continued to oppose Carrie Lam because she is supported by the Central Government.
- (Bastille Post) Carrie Lam had 580 nominations. In truth, another ironclad 200 votes were held back. There would be some pressure on Carrie Lam to be nominated by 780 but received fewer than that in the actual election. Carrie Lam received 777 votes. This was better than the 750 estimated by the Central Government. If you discount Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim, she received 775 out of 780, which means that she only lost 5 votes. So she was able to hold on to the votes from the Commercial/Industrial sector.
- What will be the new strategy for the pan-democrats? So far, they have learned:
If they boycott the election, they lose.
If they run a bona fide pro-democracy candidate, they lose.
If they package a pro-establishment figure as a pro-democracy hero, they lose.- In 2015, the strategy recommended by the United States and the United Kingdom was to accept the August 31st framework which includes nomination by the Election Committee and one-person-one-vote. The present system includes nomination and election by the Election Committee, which means that there are two barriers to overcome. You can get John Tsang nominated and you say that he is more popular than Carrie Lam. Unfortunately, you can't get the Election Committee to vote for him. If they had accepted the August 31st framework, they could have gotten the Election Committee to nominate him and then he wins the popular election.Instead, the pan-democrats said back then that they wanted civil nomination together with one-person-one-vote. Without that, they would rather have the present system. This is where we are.
- (SCMP) March 27, 2017.
In his concession speech on Sunday, John Tsang Chun-wah quipped that his chief executive election bid could have been another Barcelona – a reference to the Spanish team’s stunning comeback against Paris St-Germain in a recent Champions League football match (see video).
“I once thought perhaps I could turn the tables by the end of the match, just like Barcelona did in that epic game,” the former financial secretary said. “But the fact is, you might not be able to win for sure no matter how good your team played, even when you have support from fans and keep scoring.”
Tsang’s Barcelona analogy prompted questions on whether he found the game unfair.
“I lost because my opponent scored more than me ... There is foul play in every match,” he said.
Yet even he found “no reason to believe” the outcome stemmed from Beijing’s involvement. Tsang’s reticence to lay blame on any hidden hand can only heighten the sense of the risk involved in the undertaking of running for chief executive – to anyone contemplating pulling off another Barcelona in the future.
- (Oriental Daily) March 26, 2017. The League of Social Democrats said that their members climbed on top of the Lion Rock peak to hang a yellow "I want genuine universal suffrage" vertical banner.
- When you hang a banner, the Fire Services Department has to send firemen to climb up the mountain to remove it. It is not just a piece of decoration, because the banner may fall down onto busy Loong Cheong Roard below and cause traffic accidents. And the following happened this week on another rainy day:
(EJ Insight) March 23, 2017.
A senior fireman died after falling from a cliff while he and his team were attempting to rescue two stranded hikers in a country park in the New Territories on Wednesday. Principal firefighter Yau Siu-ming, 51, succumbed to his injuries after a fall during a rescue operation in Tiu Shau Ngam (吊手岩) in Ma On Shan Country Park, several newspapers reported. The accident took place at about 5 am as Yau was climbing a hill in a bid to reach two hikers who had apparently lost their way in the mountain ridge. As he was climbing, the firefighter slipped and fell 10 meters down to the bottom of the cliff. As the mountains are very steep, other firemen had to walk four kilometers to find Yau, who was lying unconscious on the ground, according to the reports. After a long struggle, they managed to reach him and move him to the Prince of Wales Hospital. The whole process took more than 10 hours, resulting in Yau making it to the hospital only at about 4 pm. Doctors pronounced him dead due to serious head injuries, causing immense sadness to Lau’s family, friends and colleagues.
- According to The Tai Mo Shan Woman (2016/01/25) theory of freedom, it is the freedom of the people of Hong Kong to hang banners wherever they want, and it is the duty of the firemen (who are very well-paid public servants) to remove the banners no matter what the conditions are.
- If a fireman should injure himself while removing the banner, it will be fault of the Central Government. Xi Jinping must reflect on what he had done to cause the injury.
- (Ming Pao) March 26, 2017.
Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung announced beforehand that they were casting blank ballots. Leung Kwok-hung said that the fact that Carrie Lam won by the so-called wide margin shows that the Chief Executive election system is "rotten."
Leung admitted that he misjudged the situation. He had worked under the belief that the Central Government secretly supported John Tsang so that he will win with 700+ pro-establishment votes plus 300+ pan-democratic votes to become the indomitable Chief Executive. Leung apologized formally for this misjudgment. He said that the people of Hong Kong has learned a lesson about the perfidiousness of the Chinese Communists. P.S. Leung called on all pro-democracy Hongkongers to show up next Sunday outside the China Liaison Office to protest the election of Carrie Lam.
When asked if there is any room for cooperation with Carrie Lam over the next five years, Leung said that it depends on how Carrie Lam reacts to the demonstration next week.
- Ultimately, there were 23 blank or invalid ballots. What's the difference if Carrie Lam wins by 777 versus either 365 or 388 for John Tsang?
- The people of Hong Kong learned yet another lesson about the idiocy of Leung Kwok-hung and company.
- Zeto Cheng's Facebook
The Chinese Communists had provided a wonderful opening for the radical pan-democrats (People Power, League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups) to breach, but they made the following fucking stupid missteps.
1. They misjudged the situation. They thought that John Tsang was surely anointed by the Chinese Communists to win. As a result, they made a whole string of missteps ...
2. They were unable to impede the progress of Carrie Lam, who was the candidate actually anointed by the Chinese Communists, on her path to victory. Instead, they made plenty of unnecessary attacks against the straw man known as Mr. Pringle.
3. Leung Kwok-hung even joined the small-circle election, completely ruining his own moral aura. If his participation was supposed to be merely strategic, then why can't the pan-democrats' support of John Tsang also be considered strategic?
4. After Leung Kwok-hung failed to gain nomination, Mr. Pringle began his public relations campaign to rally mainstream pan-democratic support. Many citizens wanted to show their opposition to Sai Wan (China Liaison Office) interference through supporting John Tsang. But many radical pan-democratic Key Opinion Leaders heaped scorn on them.
5. In the later stages of the election, everybody knew that John Tsang was doomed. Those dozen or so blank ballots will make no difference. These people did nothing whatsoever to derail Carrie Lam. Instead they acted like wise people who think everybody else is naive. Instead this made everyone else think that they want Carrie Lam to win. In the end, when everybody begged them to give every last vote to John Tsang, they started to talk about the importance of sticking to their principles. But didn't they ditch their own principles in order to try to enter the small-circle election already?
6. Now that Carrie Lam is elected and she is talking about reconciliation, the radicals say that it was the strategic support for John Tsang which pushed the Chinese Communists towards supporting Carrie Lam. Fuck you! At first, you said that John Tsang was the secret Chinese Communist mega-candidate, so how dare you turn around and accuse everybody else for supporting him? Did you think that you are always right?
7. During the election, the radicals had lousy judgment and strategies. Apart from going to the China Liaison Office to throw toilet paper, they had no other gimmick. Their action plans conflicted with each other. Worse yet, they have totally refused to accept any responsibility. Instead, they feel that that they are always correct and they are the only ones who can enlighten the ignorant masses. According to the radicals, if the people support Mr. Pringle, then they must be Hong Kong pigs. By comparison, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party were at least willing to put in an effort and share whatever glory/shame.
People Power/League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups have managed to offend the Yellow Ribbons this time. The payback will occur at the 2020 Legislative Council elections. Meanwhile, they can also forget about the crowdfunding campaign to support the DQ4 and the Legislative Council by-elections.
- Who is even a bigger loser than John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing? It's Ming Pao, the newspaper formerly rated Number 1 in Public Trust for many years.
In the Ming Pao live coverage of the Chief Executive election, someone posted a comment: ""林鄭柒娥柒少陣 Carrie Lam fuck Ngor should fuck around less often!" Use of obscenity is protected under the freedom of speech in Basic Law Article 27. Unfortunately, that person forgot to switch to his/her personal Facebook account, and so the post went out under the official account name of Ming Pao Real-time News. Do you think that a journalist can be working on fair and balanced news coverage as well as vent personal feelings on the side while still on the job to the point that he/she can't even remember where he/she is at any time?
As you might expect from such a public relations crisis, Ming Pao is taking the very high moral ground of refusing to comment. And so you see this is how they lost their Number 1 in Public Trust position.
- What is a rational elector supposed to do? Here are the raw data:
(Top left panel) Which candidates best fits the four critieria of the Central Government?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
38%: John Tsang
45%: Carrie Lam
4%: Woo Kwok Hing
(New Forum)
31%: John Tsang
46%: Carrie Lam
7%: Woo Kwok Hing(Top center panel) Which candidate does the Central Government trust most?
(DAB)
6%: John Tsang
83%: Carrie Lam
1%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
12%: John Tsang
84%: Carrie Lam
2%: Woo Kwok Hing(Top right panel) Which candidate does has the best ability for governance
(DAB)
37%: John Tsang
51%: Carrie Lam
3%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
39%: John Tsang
58%: Carrie Lam
3%: Woo Kwok Hing(Bottom panel) Which candidate do you support?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
36%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
11%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Economic Times/Sky Post)
30%: John Tsang
67%: Carrie Lam
2%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Women's Association)
35%: John Tsang
43%: Carrie Lam
12%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme)
57%: John Tsang
27%: Carrie Lam
10%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Democratic Party)
50%: John Tsang
24%: Carrie Lam
17%: Woo Kwok HingShould you vote for the most popular candidate? That would mean that actor Andy Lau would be a shoo-in if he runs. When Andy Lau was asked this hypothetical question, he had the patience and humility to point out that the Chief Executive needs to have certain job requirements (such as knowledge, experience and ability) which he does not have.
- If the people want to elect an unqualified person as their leader, they should have the right and freedom to do so.
- Of course, they reap what they sow. [Reference: Donald Trump.] And when things don't work out so rosily, they will blame evil external forces instead of their own poor judgment.
- (SCMP) To fool others, pan-dems are fooling themselves first. By Alex Lo. March 28, 2017.
Deception is a common survival strategy in nature as well as politics. What is less well-known is that self-deception, according to some sociobiologists, can also have adaptive value. This is especially true among humans living in an intensely competitive environment. We lie to ourselves in order to lie better to others. It’s those lies – more convincing because we believe them – that help achieve our hidden agendas.
Reading some of the websites, blogs and newsprints of anti-government groups on Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s election victory, you might think it’s the end of the world, or at least the beginning of the end:
“Even the Heavens are cursing with a foul mouth.”
“Western has its Mrs 777; the destruction continues” – a reference to the number of votes Lam received to secure her election.
“The spread of gonorrhoea has started” – a play on the Cantonese pronunciation of the sexually transmitted disease (Lam bang) with her Chinese name (Lam Cheng).
There are much more extreme examples, which are unprintable in a family newspaper. My favourite, however, is one by a Methodist preacher, who based a whole opinion piece on 777, in the Chinese-language Stand News. He is, of course, referring to Psalm 77:7, a rather depressing prayer. I will use a modern translation: “Will the Lord reject me forever? Will he not grant favours anymore?”
Presumably, the “me” is Hong Kong. The priest does counsel against despair, though, pointing out “the Lord will never give up on Hong Kong”. Well, I am no believer, but am glad to hear of the Lord’s good intention.
Lam may turn out to be the anti-Christ or a Mao-like dictator. But given her past career and the law of averages, it’s far more likely she will do a passable job, delivering mediocre results. That, alas, is the fate of most governments in free – or democratic – societies, including Hong Kong.
The diehard opposition, though, can’t sell that mundane reality about Lam but must prove that without their version of democracy as an unquestioned religion, Hong Kong cannot have a workable leadership or government. They prefer their self-fulfilling prophecy of inevitable doom if we don’t get to their democratic promised land any time soon.
And so they must deceive themselves – about the worst for Hong Kong – to make their case all the more convincing for others.
- (SCMP) Why would Beijing trust Carrie Lam but not John Tsang? By Tammy Tam. April 2, 2017.
One big question on many people’s minds, perhaps until today, is: why would Beijing trust Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to lead Hong Kong, but not the more popular John Tsang Chun-wah, who was the city’s No 3 official for nine years?
What is “trust” anyway? Literally, the Oxford Dictionary defines the word as a “firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something”.
However, when it comes to politics, especially in Hong Kong, it can be more complicated than that.During the campaign period, while Beijing stressed over and over that only Lam was its preferred choice, some questioned why not a single Beijing official ever openly came out to say Tsang was not to be trusted and for what reason.
At the same time, there was no lack of reports quoting sources listing various worries in Beijing’s mind. These included Tsang being seen as weaker than Lam in matters of principle such as curbing Hong Kong independence advocacy, and as too “close” to the pan-democrats, since many from the camp nominated and supported him.
Tsang’s camp insisted those sources of information on Beijing’s distrust were not “official” anyway. Adding to the confusion, Tsang and his supporters touted his handshakes with President Xi Jinping when he was serving as the city’s finance minister as evidence of Beijing’s trust. Their argument was, given that the two election arch-rivals were both top officials, if Beijing could trust Lam, why not Tsang? Now that the chief executive election is over, still there is no “official” explanation for Beijing’s reservations about Tsang.
But if what some of those “sources” said earlier could be of any reference, it was understood that one major consideration for Beijing’s ambiguity was to try not to push Tsang too much over to the opposition side.
Understandably, Beijing’s full trust in the city’s leader is vital, as that means more leeway for the chief executive to manoeuvre under the “one country, two systems” principle. In a sense, that is vital to ensure the continuation of Deng Xiaoping’s great model for governing the city. But, frankly speaking, there must be reflection on all sides to understand why there has been such a tricky situation over the concept of “trust”.
If Beijing’s “unofficial” input during the campaign period failed to convince Tsang and his supporters regarding the “trust” issue, those who pinned their last hopes on the possibility of President Xi turning the tables in favour of the popular underdog were apparently blinded by their own wishful thinking.
One who understands China’s politics should know it’s simply impossible for either the liaison office or anyone else to cross the line set by the Communist Party’s top leadership, the Politburo, headed by Xi.
So when Tsang was told by the liaison office or other officials in charge of Hong Kong affairs that he was not the chosen one, such a message carried weight.
Anyway, the election is over now, and there was no “miracle” featuring Tsang.
Over the past week, he has stayed away from the limelight and remained quiet. But what interaction he will have with Beijing in the near future can be very significant.
Only “sources” have been quoted so far, but there has been no “official” effort to discredit Tsang directly by any state leader or senior Beijing representative. That could pave the way to allow both sides flexibility to readjust their future relations – which would mean a lot for Lam’s pledge to “heal the social divide”. For if the popular Tsang turns to the opposition with his mass appeal, it will only make Lam’s unity mission more difficult, if not impossible.
Beijing may have once been unhappy with Tsang over his disobedience, and Tsang may have been upset about his rejection, but it’s now time to move on and rebuild that all-important trust.
- There is a lot for the people of Hong Kong to think about as a result of this election.
(Oriental Daily) March 27, 2017.
At 4am, a 42-year-old man named Lee and his 32-year-old girlfriend named Ngan were seated on a sofa in the roped area of The Landmark, Central District, Hong Kong Island. The security guard told the two to leave because the plaza was closed. They refused. The security guard summoned the police.
When the police came to investigate, the two refused to cooperate and they did not produce their Hong Kong ID's when asked. The man struck a policeman, causing an abdominal injury. The two were subdued and arrested on suspicion of obstructing police duty. As he was being brought into the police van, Lee was mumbling to himself. He also yelled at the reporter: "They think that I was there to cause trouble in the plaza. I actually went there to help Hong Kong. I want to help Hong Kong think about all its problems!"
- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 28, 2017.
U.S. congressmen have expressed concern at Beijing’s “interference” in Hong Kong’s elections and warned that the special status enjoyed by the semi-autonomous city under U.S. law may be reassessed if the situation deteriorates.
“Beijing’s clear interference in these elections is yet another example of a precipitous erosion in Hong Kong’s long-cherished autonomy,” senator Marco Rubio, who chairs the Chairs of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said in a statement on Monday, a day after the chief executive election.
Rubio criticised Sunday’s chief executive election, saying it failed to fulfill Hongkongers’ demands for universal suffrage and a truly representative government.
His co-chair, representative Christopher Smith, said Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam was “clearly Beijing’s favored candidate, just like her predecessors.” He warned that Beijing’s backing enjoyed by Lam would make it “exceedingly difficult” to tackle the erosions of Hong Kong’s autonomy and rule of law.
“If Hong Kong is to become just another mainland Chinese city under the new Chief Executive’s leadership, we will have to reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status under U.S. law,” Smith warned.
He added: “It is in everyone’s interests that Hong Kong remain a free and prosperous bridge between China and the West, but the city’s unique vitality and prosperity are rooted in its guaranteed freedoms.”
In his statement, Rubio also highlighted the recent police crackdown on leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. He urged Lam to work on political reforms that are consistent with Hongkongers’ democratic aspirations. “[They are] aspirations which animated the 2014 Umbrella Movement and which remain alive and well today,” he said.
- Chinese president Xi Jinping clearly and loudly interfered in this CE election. Xi shook hands for three seconds with John Tsang at the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou. John Tsang said that he was greatly encouraged by that handshake and decided to run for Chief Executive because Xi Jinping has anointed him. In March, CY Leung was appointed as vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Xi Jinping went over to congratulate him and spoke for about 40 seconds. John Tsang and his fans came back down to earth. It was very wrong and unchivalrous for Xi Jinping to give false hopes to John Tsang and then so cruelly deflate them.
- Zhang Dejiang was widely reported to have traveled to Shenzhen where he summoned electors to meet with him. Because the electors cast open ballots during the nomination phase, they had to do Zhang's bidding or else face retaliation to their businesses on mainland China. I know that not a single elector who was so pressured by Zhang Dejiang has been named, but that is the whole point: they were so scared that nobody dared to reveal themselves.
- China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming repeatedly met with electors and 'whipped' the Hong Kong delegation of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Hong Kong delegation of the Chinese People's Congress, the political parties (DAB, FTU, BPA, etc), the pro-establishment Legislative Councilors, the Heung Yee Kuk, the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association, the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, etc into voting unanimously for Carrie Lam.
I know that it is true that the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the Professional Teachers Union, etc also 'whipped' their members into voting for John Tsang, but it is different because their members knew that they are doing it for FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS A HIGH DEGREE OF AUTONOMY HONG KONG RULED BY HONG KONG PEOPLE, whereas the China Liaison Office was forcing their minions to support COMMUNISM CRONYISM ELITISM EXPLOITATION INJUSTICE ARTICLE 23 SMALL-CIRCLE_ELECTION ONE-COUNTRY-ONE-SYSTEM.
- Why don't the Americans try to stop voter suppression in the United States first before meddling in Hong Kong?
- This is all hot air from Marco Rubio and Christopher Smith. Why don't they get their Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed already? That would be a substantive step (to punish the people of Hong Kong for mainland Chinese interference).
- (Ming Pao) The pan-democrats betrayed the people of Hong Kong by vetoing constitutional reform. By Perry Lam. May 5, 2017.
The Chief Executive election is over. But a key question that nobody answered (or even asked) showed that Hong Kong politics is immature -- the commentators do not know how to pursue accountability and the politicians do not have to bear responsibility. The people are clueless about their own basic interests, and they willingly swallow the bitter fruits of betrayal.
That key question is: Does the Chief Executive result prove that the June 201 veto of the constitution reform by the pan-democrats prove that their decision was correct? If the answer is no, do the pan-democrats owe an apology to the people of Hong Kong? Or even an explanation.
The 1,194-person Election Committee elected Carrie Lam (as anointed by Beijing) as our Chief Executive. The pan-democrats continued to condemn her. The pan-democrats had fully supported the more popular John Tsang, and they characterized his loss as "trampling upon public opinion" and "betrayal of the people of Hong Kong." Isn't this a case of robbers calling to catch robbers? After all, who deprived the 5 million people of Hong Kong the right to elect their own Chief Executive? The Chief Executive election is clearly unfair, but the constitutional reform was going to be game changer. However, the pan-democrats said no to constitutional reform so that the election game continues to be unfair.
The pan-democrats explained previously that the veto was intended to force Beijing to propose an agreement that was better for the people of Hong Kong. This is unconvincing. The pan-democrats have tussled with Beijing for many years. How can they be so naive as to think that the Chinese Communist Party can be outmaneuvered on an issue as important as the Chief Executive? Such a strategic blunder is unthinkable to the point where one has to suspect that there must be other ulterior motives.
No matter whether this was misjudgment or ulterior motive, the decision of the pan-democrats made sure that the small-circle election game would continue, indirectly making sure that Carrie Lam gets elected and John Tsang loses. There can be no betrayal unless trust was there before.
In this sense, it was really the pan-democrats who betrayed the people of Hong Kong and not the oft-maligned Hong Kong SAR government.
Winston Churchill once said that betrayal is at the heart of politics. This is not entirely bitter and cynical. The United Kingdom and the United States have the world's most advanced and complete democratic systems, but their politics now are covered in doubts of betrayal. Donald Trump is in the White House because the masses think that they are taking revenge against the elite in the establishment. Ironically, his tax reforms and personnel appointments showed that Trump will mostly likely betray the trust of his most loyal followers, namely the white working class. As for Theresa May, she is an opportunist. Before the Brexit referendum, she fully supported REMAIN. After she became prime minister, she began to pitch the fantasy of "painless Brexit." We shall see whether she will defend or betray the interests of her people.
On the constitutional reform, did the pan-democrats betray the interests of the people of Hong Kong? After the Chief Executive election, the media inexplicable did not pursue this issue. Such are the Double Standards of the Fourth Estate in Hong Kong. On one hand, they use the most rigorous standards to go after the Chief Executive and the government, as in the case of the luggage of CY Leung's daughter. On the other hand, they selectively look the other way when the pan-democrats err.
The pan-democrats can oppose the Communists, they can oppose Beijing and they can even oppose the government. But they cannot oppose Hong Kong. This is not a smear of the pan-democrats. Reviewing their major decisions at key moments after the handover, there is no way not to have doubts about whether they know or consider the basic best interests of Hong Kong. Even if they are not malevolent and ill-intentioned, their actions are frequently counterproductive. Economist Milton Frieman said that policies must be judged by their results and not by the intentions of the policy makers. This should be the standard for evaluating the pan-democrats.
[716] The Final Sprint (2017/03/25) [Caveat emptor: An elector who publicly declares his/her preference may not vote the same way on his/her secret ballot]
(SCMP) March 25, 2017.
Two days before polling day, chief executive underdog John Tsang Chun-wah drew thousands of supporters to his rally in Central, as he battled a fresh round of criticism that he lacked Beijing’s trust.
Giving an emotional speech on an open-top bus at the end of the hour-long rally at Edinburgh Place on Friday night, Tsang said: “Most of you here don’t have votes, but still I yearn for your support. Without your support, how would there be any meaning even if I win all Election Committee votes?”
Tsang is expected to secure about 300 votes from pan-democrats on the 1,194-member Election Committee, which is dominated by pro-Beijing supporters. A candidate needs 601 votes to win in Sunday’s poll.
Police estimated the turnout to be 3,500. The live feed of the rally on Tsang’s Facebook page drew 449,000 views by midnight and some 18,700 comments.
Tsang was the first pro-establishment chief executive candidate to host an outdoor rally since his former boss, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, held one at Southorn Playground in Wan Chai in 2007.
Excited supporters chanted “John Tsang, elected!” and “Vote for No 1 if Hong Kong is to win!”
Internet comments:
- SCMP kept repeating that John Tsang is pro-establishment. But who is showing up at the rallies/ People with Yellow Umbrellas and banners saying "Support John Tsang, I want genuine universal suffrage." So who is the real John Tsang?
- And someone is holding up a red "Father of Democracy" banner!- Why do democrats want John Tsang as Chief Executive? (YouTube)
0:09 Alan Leong (Civic Party): The March 26 election is a duel between Sai Wan and the people of Hong Kong. It takes John Tsang to knock down Sai Wan.
0:30 John Tsang: The August 31st (resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee) is surely our starting point, the foundation of constitutional reform. [But this group of people who say that they will vote for you were completely against the August 31st resolution].
- (Oriental Daily) March 25, 2017
Spoof street banners directed against pan-democratic political parties:
Green: Democratic Party -- give up democracy, enact Article 23
Purple: Civic Party -- kneel down to the establishment, embrace 8.31- (Cable TV) John Tsang's biggest cheerleader James Tien predicts that Carrie Lam will win. Of the more than 200 nominations for Carrie Lam from the Commerce/Industry sector, Tien estimates that 50 to 100 will vote for John Tsang during the secret balloting. At present, they are not concerned about whether they will win or not. As for the the Liberal Party, ex-chairman James Tien said that they are pro-establishment, and therefore they support a pro-establishment Chief Executive.
- Why would the Commerce/Industry sector voters switch? James Tien said that they don't want a Chief Executive who has a popular mandate. Now I am confused here. Does the business community think that having a weak Chief Executive unable to implement/legislate anything will be good for their business? What kind of business are they in?
- Conscientious objectors?
Nathan Law (Demosisto): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: Support democratic self-determination, will not change his own democratic principles in response to fluctuating public opinionsChu Hoi Dick: Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will act in accordance with my beliefs even if nobody supports me ... We are fighting for the democratic powers of the people of Hong Kong. If we compromise even on this, we are democrats -- we are not public opinionists.Fernando Cheung (Labour Party): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: I act according to my principles ... public opinions should be respected sometimes, but principles are sometimes more important.Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will not change my preference in response to public opinion. I will not support small-circle elections.Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats): Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I am said it before: I will not vote, I will not nominate, I will not participate in small-circle elections.P.S. Lau Siu-lai has declared that she will cast a blank ballot to express her opposition to the August 31st framework and Basic Law Article 23 legislation.
P.P.S. Shiu Ka-chun said that he will cast a blank ballot to oppose the August 31st framework, to demand the restart of constitution reform and to establish a fair and just social welfare system. He said that he chose the final moment to make this announcement in order to reduce embarrassment.
- So there you have it -- according to Jimmy Lai, the six Communists moles within the pan-democratic legislative councilors have just outed themselves.
- (SocREC) March 22, 2017. At a press conference, John Tsang predicted that there will be a miracle on election day.
- Here is the scorecard. John Tsang will get about 310 or so of the 326 pan-democratic votes. During the nomination, he obtained 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pan-democratic nominations. He would have liked to have as many pro-establishment nominations as possible because he claims to be able to bridge the rift. Therefore 40 is his maximum. There is one known desertion. So he has to depend on secret ballots from hidden supporters. How many? Nobody knows and nobody can know. So don't believe anything out there.
But here are some scenarios:
- John Tsang ends up with 320 votes, which means that the Commerce/Industrial sub-sector has completely given up on him. As the saying goes, Tsang needs to go home and seriously reflect on what has happened.
- John Tsang ends up with 350 votes, which means that Tsang got the pan-dems plus the 40 pro-establishment electors who voted for him.
- John Tsang gets 400 votes, which means that there were 40 more hidden votes within the pro-establishment camp.
- John Tsang get 601 votes to win, which means that there were massive desertions within the pro-establishment camp. As the saying goes, Xi Jinping may fire Zhang Dejiang and put someone else in charge of Hong Kong affairs.
- (Cable TV) There is some suspense as to whether Woo Kwok Hing will get more than 10 votes. Woo was nominated with 180 pan-democratic votes. But most of those voters have announced that they will switch to vote for John Tsang. Woo said that his positions on issues such as constitutional reform, Basic Law Article 23 legislation and universal retirement protection are much closer to traditional pan-democratic positions than any other candidate. Woo said that if he gets fewer than 180 votes, then he will feel that he had been used. He said that politics is dirty. BWAAAAAHHHHHH!
- Woo Kwok Hing has at least one committed vote from social welfare sub-sector elector Chong Chan Yau, whose blindness has been cruelly made fun of by John Tsang's fans with sincere statements of fact.
- You seem to have lots of questions, don't you? That's because they won't let you read the script.
Look at the situation of the pan-democrats in past Chief Executive elections.
In 1996, shipping magnate Tung Chee-wah got 80% of the vote to defeat Chief Justice Yang Ti-liang and businessman Peter Woo.
In 2002, incumbent Tung Chee-wah was re-elected uncontested.
In 2007, pan-democrat Alan Leong (Civic Party) ran against incumbent Donald Tsang. Leong lost by 16%-84%.
In 2012, pan-democrat Albert Ho (Democratic Party) ran against two pro-establishment candidates, former Chief Secretary Henry Tang and former Executive Council convener CY Leung. Ho got only 7% of the votes.
From history, if the pan-democrats field a properly credentialed pro-democracy candidate (as in 2007 and 2012), they will lose badly. It is also more trouble than its worth. First of all, they cannot be seen to concede on their core positions (such as genuine universal suffrage with civil nomination; universal retirement protection; right of local approval of mainland Chinese immigrants; minimum wage; standard working hours; etc). Secondly, they will see their internal contradictions exposed (such as self-determination/independence; land supply/housing/environmentalism; etc).
If the pan-democrats boycott the election, then it will be business as usual (in 1996 and 2002) as the pro-establishment camp proceeds to elect a Chief Executive in accordance with the law. That must not be allowed to happen.
So in 2017, the pan-democrats came up with a new strategy -- they will support a pro-establishment candidate in the form of John Tsang. But John Tsang is not in this to win. That is not likely to happen. Instead, John Tsang is there to inflict maximum damage to the true pro-establishment candidate Carrie Lam. Now John Tsang may or may not realize that this is what he got into. But he willingly went along with it.
Since John Tsang had positioned himself as pro-establishment, how can one deal with all this defects? You simply pretend that you see nothing and you hear nothing.
John Tsang has accomplished nothing in his 30+ years in government service apart from the deeply troubled food truck? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang says that constitutional reform should start from the basis of the August 31st constitutional reform? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang says that Hong Kong should enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang says that he will work to get 60% of the people of Hong Kong into public housing but he has neither plan nor schedule? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang does not support universal retirement protection without asset/income limits? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang underestimated the budget surplus every year during his 9-year tenure as Financial Secretary? NO PROBLEM.
John Tsang says that the Occupy Movement destroyed rule-or-law and affected the economy? NO PROBLEM.
... and the list goes on ...
Do these issues matter to the pan-democrats? Of course, they matter. They matter a lot. They are the core democratic issues. But they do not matter during this election, because there is no expectation that John Tsang will be elected as Chief Executive. So if the guy huffs and puffs, let him do so if he thinks that he can get a few points in public opinion support.
Of course, you may well ask: But what if there was a Black Swan incident and John Tsang actually wins? It does not matter to the pan-democrats -- they will just turn on John Tsang to deliver on all the core democratic issues that John Tsang never agreed to. If John Tsang won't, they will filibuster, protest, Occupy Central, hold up yellow umbrellas, throw eggs, etc.
Does John Tsang know? Does he care? Of course, he knows because why else was the John Tsang for Chief Executive campaign run like this? If you really want to win the Chief Executive election and you know that the election is decided by 1,194 electors, you would be trying to do everything possible to work on those electors. Meet with them, talk to them, ask them what they care about and what they need, make promises to them, etc. Instead, you run a Facebook-based campaign that is designed to show that you are a likeable guy and you make no attempt to find or highlight policies that might appeal to those electors. In fact, you go out your way to insult electors (for example, saying that the 689 electors who voted for CY Leung five years ago should be ashamed). Regardless of the bravado, the John Tsang campaign was never run with the goal of winning the election.
The bonus in this strategy has been Woo Kwok Hing. The pan-democrats gave him enough nominations so that there were two 'pro-democracy' and one 'pro-establishment' nominees. Under the equal time principle, the election forums saw the two 'pro-democracy' guys beating up on the 'pro-establishment' woman. But as soon as the election forums finish, Woo Kwok Hing becomes the proverbial worn-out battery to be discarded.
- (Ming Pao) Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) said that the Principled Ones who will cast blank ballots and the Strategic Ones who will vote for John Tsang share the same goal. Leong said that he would be heartbroken if schisms occur.
Well, this is a statement that he doesn't give a rat's ass about John Tsang, because the guy is going to lose anyway. However, John Tsang is important to the extent that he serves to make a political point.
- The election was in fact decided by the nomination phase. If John Tsang was able to pull together 75 pro-establishment nominations in addition to 75 pro-democracy nominations, he would be the candidate to bridge the two opposing camps, with Carrie Lam being clearly pro-establishment and Woo Kwok Hing being clearly pro-democracy.
Better yet, if John Tsang can get 150 pro-establishment nominations, then the scent of victory appears. The situation becomes like Henry Tang and CY Leung five years ago, when either one was fine with the pro-establishment camp. So if the pro-establishment votes split 580 for Carrie Lam and 320 for John Tsang, then the final vote will be 320 + 300 = 620 for John Tsang, 580 for Carrie Lam and 10 for Woo Kwok Hing.
Unfortunately, John Tsang maxed out at 40 pro-establishment nominations.
- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook
"The election results are in. The greatest existential value for HEA Tsang was that he served as a tool for the opposition camp against the Central Government. They rallied for him not because they really supported him. They knew that HEA Tsang could not have won. Actually, they didn't want HEA Tsang to win either. Their goal is to oppose. On the last two days, HEA Tsang did not work on the Election Committee members. Instead, he kept building the image that that he had public support to lay down the grounds for further social rifts. On the day when HEA Tsang loses, it is best time and excuse for the opposition to attack the government ...
(HKG Pao) The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, with more than 100 electors said that its Central Executive Committee has agreed to support Carrie Lam for Chief Executive. The DAB believes that its members will vote according to the decision of its Central Executive Committee.
The FTU (Federation of Trade Unions) surveyed its member trade unions and found that more than 90% of them support Carrie Lam. The FTU has about 60 votes including 5 Legislative Councilors in the Election Committee.
Previously, Carrie Lam obtained 580 nominations from the electors without the full endorsement of DAB, FTU, the publication sub-sector (15 votes), the performing arts sub-sector (14 votes) and the Financial Services sub-sector (18 votes including 2 who nominated John Tsang). Unless there are mass desertions, this election is over, as everybody knows many weeks ago. The Hong Kong and Kowloon District Councils which are dominated by pro-establishment district councilors have 57 votes and the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association are also solidly for Carrie Lam. So the suspense is whether Carrie Lam will get more than 800 out of the 1,194 votes.
PolitHK Social Strategic invites you to the Hong Kong Reconnected street carnival 4pm-6pm March 26 to celebrate the election of Carrie Lam as Chief Executive.
[715] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/03/25) (HK01) The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme conducted telephone interviews from March 1 to March 24, 2017. Each day, 200 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adults residents are interviewed. Every day from March 6 to March 25, the rolling average of the five previous days are reported.
Question: If you can vote for Chief Executive tomorrow and you can vote for the following candidates, who would you vote for? (Read randomly rotated list)
Data Period #1 John Tsang #2 Carrie Lam #3 Woo Kwok Hing March 1-5 46% 34% 12% March 2-6 47% 33% 12% March 3-7 45% 35% 14% March 4-8 46% 35% 12% March 5-9 48% 34% 11% March 6-10 49% 34% 11% March 7-11 48% 34% 11% March 8-12 50% 31% 10% March 9-13 51% 32% 9% March 10-14 51% 33% 9% March 11-15 52% 33% 8% March 12-16 51% 34% 8% March 13-17 53% 34% 8% March 14-18 51% 34% 9% March 15-19 52% 33% 9% March 16-20 53% 32% 10% March 17-21 56% 30% 9% March 18-22 57% 27% 10% March 19-23 56% 28% 9% March 20-24 56% 29% 9%
[714] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/03/24) (Sing Tao) Sing Tao daily commissioned CSG Research Hong Kong to interview 615 Cantonese-speaking adult Hong Kong residents on March 20-22, 2017.
Q1. Which candidate is most familiar with how the government is run?
38.5%: John Tsang
57.7%: Carrie Lam
2.8%: Woo Kwok HingQ2. Which candidate is most trusted by the Central Government?
11.8%: John Tsang
83.9%: Carrie Lam
1.8%: Woo Kwok KingQ3. Which candidate is best able to get things done?
45.7%: John Tsang
45.7%: Carrie Lam
7.0%: Woo Kwok HingQ4. Who do you think will become the next Chief Executive in the end?
27.6%: John Tsang
67.8%: Carrie Lam
2.5%: Woo Kwok Hing
[713] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/03/24) (DAB) 780 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adult residents were interviewed by telephone March 16-20, 2017.
Q1. Among the three candidates, who has the better governance ability?
37.4%: John Tsang
50.8%: Carrie Lam
2.6%: Woo Kwok Hing
9.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinionQ2. Among the three candidates, who is better trusted by the Central Government?
5.9%: John Tsang
83.4%: Carrie Lam
0.5%: Woo Kwok Hing
10.2%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinionQ3. Among the three candidates, who is able to become the next Chief Executive?
45.3%: John Tsang
44.2%: Carrie Lam
3.0%: Woo Kwok Hing
1.2%: All are able
1.0%: None is able
5.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinionQ4. Who do you guess will become the next Chief Executive
20.6%: John Tsang
71.7%: Carrie Lam
0.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
7.1%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinionQ5. Which issue should the next Chief Executive give priority to?
39.4%: Land/housing
15.6%: Economic development
11.5%: Education
9.0%: Healthcare
8.4%: Restart constitutional reform
6.1%: Relieve poverty
5.0%: Retirement protection
2.2%: Labor benefits
0.6%: Other issues
2.3%: Don't know/no opinion
[712] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/03/23) (Lingnan University Public Governance Programme) 1,042 Hong Kong adult residents were interviewed by telephone on Mach 20-22, 2017.
Q1. Among the three candidates, who do you support most to become the next Chief Executive?
52.5%: John Tsang
25.1%: Carrie Lam
8.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
6.4%: None of the above
7.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answerQ2. Among the three candidates, who is most likely to be elected?
17.6%: John Tsang
68.8%: Carrie Lam
1.1%: Woo Kwok Hing
12.2%: Don't know/hard to say
0.3%: Refused to answer
[711] Uniting Hong Kong (2017/03/23)
(Bastille Post) By Lo Wing-hung. March 20, 2017.
Last night was the forum organized by the Chief Executive Election Committee. 90% of the questions came from pan-democratic electors and Carrie Lam fought back.
Many of my non-political friends watched briefly and switched channels. One reason was that it was bickering all the way. Furthermore, people were chanting slogans aloud downstage. My non-political thought that it was very rude and uncivilized, and they really disliked what was happening. Another reason was that most people want to listen to ideas and policies, such as how to increase the land supply in the face of high housing prices. But it was political bickering all the way. Nobody gave a damn about livelihood and economic issues. My friends were disappointed and switched channels.
The preponderance of questions come from the pan-democrats. The pro-establishment camp was disorganized, whereupon they don't seem to be able to mobilize unless they feel that their existence is under threat. By contrast, the pan-democrats were enthusiastic, not because they want to have a better Chief Executive but because they want to seize political power.
During the election, the candidates brought up catchy slogans. John Tsang said: "Trust, unity, hope" while Carrie Lam said "We Connect." Unity and Connect have similar means of harmony. But what I saw at the forum yesterday was mutual acrimony, social rifts and disappointment. I didn't see anything like unity or harmony. I don't see the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps willing to tolerate each other.
Perhaps you say that elections are supposed to be this way. Perhaps the pan-democrats will say that they are going after Carrie Lam only because CY Leung attacked them and Carrie Lam is CY 2.0. So as long as Carrie Lam is not elected, then Hong Kong will be united and harmonious. If John Tsang is elected, then Hong Kong will see unity and harmony; if Carrie Lam is elected, then Hong Kong will be disunited and unharmonious. Is that so?
Let me propose the opposite theory. It does not matter whether John Tsang or Carrie Lam gets elected, Hong Kong will be unharmonious. The source is not because of any difference or similarity between these two candidates; it is about the struggle for political power.
Carrie Lam and John Tsang were both Administrative Officers. Maybe one of them had a messy desk; maybe the other has more stuff on the desk. Maybe one of them works long hours; maybe the other prefers to work smart. These are matters of style, not matters of nature. By nature, both of them want to get along with the pan-democrats.
The pan-democrats define unity as friendliness with the pan-democratic political parties. Are Carrie Lam and John Tsang different from each other? At the Democratic Party anniversary party, Carrie Lam, John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing all showed up. CY Leung would never do that.
Perhaps party attendance is superficial. What about policies? Carrie Lam has greater appeal to the pan-democrats than John Tsang. Carrie Lam wants to allocate an additional $5 billion for education, which is what the Professional Teachers Union has been fighting for over the years. Carrie Lam wants government housing unit owners to be able to rent out their units without penalty. This was proposed by Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai in 2015. If she is so willing to adopt the policies from pan-democratic parties, isn't this the definition of unity and harmony?
But the mainstream pan-democrats refuse to accept Lam's olive branch. The Professional Teachers Union, the Civic Party and the Democratic Party are "all-in" for John Tsang.
The reason why the pan-democrats are adamant on voting for John Tsang is not because Carrie Lam refuses to listen to them or communicate with them. It is because the Central Government supports Carrie Lam. The pan-democrats will vote against anyone that is supported by the Central Government. Had the Central Government come out to support John Tsang, the pan-democrats would be voting for Carrie Lam.
The pan-democrats vote for the Chief Executive not on the basis of capability, ideas or communication. They want to know who the Central Government supports and then they vote the opponent. The pan-democrats and the Central Government are fighting for political power. If the pan-democrats acts this way, how can the Central Government ever talk about unity and harmony with them?
I am pessimistic about the political future of Hong Kong. When the Chief Executive takes over, he/she will be the representative of the Central Government in Hong Kong. It means that he/she will receive a million barbs from the pan-democrats. There will be fights over everything every day in Hong Kong. How can this ever be stopped?
(Bastille Post) Unity? Easier said than done. By Lo Wai-hung. March 22, 2017.
As expected, the pan-democratic electors will cast most of their votes for John Tsang. Irregardless of what their reasons are, the situation is clear: On one side, the pan-democrats support John Tsang; on the other side, the Central Government and the pro-establishment support Carrie Lam.
During the election period, John Tsang's best selling point is that he can increase unity and mend rifts. Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai said that John Tsang is "furthest away from Sai Wan and closest to the people of Hong Kong."
But here is the problem. Suppose that we don't care about capabilities of the candidates and we only care about whether they can mend social rifts. If the candidate supported by the pan-democrats is elected, will there be no more social rifts?
Based upon the various Legislative Council elections in the past, we see that about 55% support the pan-democrats (including both traditional and radical types) and 45% support the pro-establishment camp. In the current Chief Executive election, John Tsang and Carrie Lam are supported by approximately in those proportions. People seem to care less about capabilities than about lining up with their political sides; they care less about unity and healing than about political tendencies.
Logically speaking, social rifts won't decrease no matter who gets elected. If A gets elected, it means that B loses. It won't mend any social rifts. In order to mend social rifts, the pan-democrats and the Central Government which back the respective candidates must yield their rigid positions, make concessions and find a compromise proposal that both sides can accept. Such is the case with constitutional reform as with any other political issue.
I am extremely pessimistic about whether social rifts will be mended after the Chief Executive election. Neither the Central Government nor the pan-democrats are ready to make concessions to reach compromises.
For the pan-democrats, they are internally weak at this time because they have split into the traditional pan-democrats and the radicals. Overall, the pan-democrats have 55% support, but almost 20% have fallen into the hands of the radicals.
The radicals used to account for only a few percentage points. The 2014 Occupy Central movement radicalized many young people, so that the support for the radicals rose sharply at the expense of the traditional pan-democrats. On the eve of the 2014 Occupy Central, the pan-democrats knew that there were problems with the unlawful action but went away anyway. They ended losing a lot of their ground. In the 2016 September Legislative Council elections, many young traditional pan-democrats had to adopt radical positions in order to compete against the radicals.
The traditional pan-democrats are still the majority in the pro-democracy camp, but they do not have leadership position. If Carrie Lam is elected, she will find it ten times harder to reach a deal with them compared to 2010. The pan-democrats have adopted radical tendencies which will make it hard to reach a compromise with the Central Government.
For the Central Government, the Hu Jintao-Wen Jiabao era saw an economic boom. Due to the proliferation of credit and rapid growth, corruption abounded as tycoons colluded with government officials to monopolize the state economy. In 2012, Xi Jinping took over, made structural adjustments to the economy and went after corruption. The situation has improved since.
... In the face of internal and external pressures, the Central Government will take a hard line and continue on what it sees is the right course. The Hong Kong independence movement that arose out of the Occupy Central movement and its separatism theme is in violent clash with the Central Government's governance. It will be a lot harder to ask the Central Government to compromise with the pan-democrats as they did in 2011.
Political compromise means that each side has to take one step back, instead of making one side yield all the way to let the other side gain total victory. Since both sides are unwilling to make large concessions, it does not matter what the next Chief Executive (be it Carrie Lam or John Tsang) does. Unity? Better said than done.
(SCMP) Working against Lam could backfire for pan-dems. By Alex Lo. March 23, 2017.
All the opposition lawmakers who sit on the Election Committee have released a joint statement saying they oppose chief executive front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and that there is no mutual trust between the two sides.
So, assuming Lam wins on Sunday, the localists and pan-democrats have now declared they will not work with her. This is despite her offer of cooperation. Let’s say she had no intention to honour her pledge. Shouldn’t they at least test her first and expose her “bad faith” before taking the high road?
Trust is built – and peace is made – between enemies, not friends. It was the anti-government camp who started the ABC (Anyone but CY) campaign. They won, and Beijing decided not to shove Leung Chun-ying down Hong Kong’s throat for a second term. Secretly, most of the opposition members must have felt disappointed to lose such an easy target.
Now they have to work hard to build a case that Lam is another CY. It’s a complete mischaracterisation, and most of the old-hand democrats know it. Lam was on good terms with most of them throughout her civil service career – especially during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003-04 and when she was head of social welfare. It was only the ill-fated government political reform package that pitted her against them. Even before the central government published the so-called 831 position paper placing restrictions on universal suffrage in 2014, the two sides were on speaking terms.
By their civil service training and temperament, Lam is much closer to election rival John Tsang Chun-wah and former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen than Leung. But the pan-dems want to make her out to be a closet dictator. They clearly plan to stymie Lam at every turn, and from the start, just as they did with Leung.
But if Lam fails over the next five years, she will be the last moderate leader the central government is willing to tolerate in Hong Kong. Beijing will not magically go democratic on us; it will simply take a hardline stance towards a troublesome city that is being overtaken by its mainland rivals and one that can be sacrificed without too high a cost.
Oh, but what if John Tsang wins? Unlikely, but then the opposition will have to turn on him and make him out to be CY3.0.
[710] Mass Mobilization Calls (2017/03/22)
(The Stand News) 3/25 Dress Rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0. By Yeung Ke-cheong. March 22, 2017.
Yesterday the news on the Internet was that the gambling odds in mainland China and Macau have changed. In simple terms, the odds of Carrie Lam winning has increased even as John Tsang's odds are improving. I haven't looked at this in detail, because I think Carrie Lam's plans won't be affected even if she were to suddenly demand a vindication of June 4th or Hong Kong independence.
First of all, the opposition camps hopes that the Commercial sector electors will vote for John Tsang in the secret balloting. I don't think that the Commerce sector electors have individual wills. The only to change the election outcome is to have one particular person to declare what that vote should be. But if that person remains silent through election day, the Commerce sector electors will vote for Carrie Lam as ordered by Sai Wan (China Liaison Office).
Another hypothesis is that John Tsang was in fact the anointed candidate who has managed to trick the mainstream pan-democrats to back him. And when John Tsang becomes the Chief Executive to implement all the evil projects of the Chinese Communists, the pan-democrats will have no moral high ground to oppose. If this were true, Beijing should have immediately send signals to support John Tsang after Democracy 33+ said that 98% of them are voting for John Tsang. But so far this has not transpired. So I believe that there is no chance for John Tsang to reverse the odds.
Therefore, the most important thing now is now to debate whether we should support or not support this or that candidate in this small-circle election. Instead, we should think about the people of Hong Kong can resist after Carrie Lam gains control of the government apparatus.
...
The Civil Human Rights Front intends to hold an "anti-anointment" demonstration march on Saturday. But if only 60,000 persons participated in the Civil Referendum, it would be unrealistic to expect hundreds of thousands of people to participate in this demonstration march. Yet, even if only several thousand participate, as long as 1,000 of them are willing to block the roads and be arrested, it will be a powerful political blow. At present, the people of Hong Kong commonly harbor strong feelings against the election of Carrie Lam. But the post-Umbrella Revolution atmosphere makes it impossible to gather the popular will into large-scale resistance efforts. Yet I believe that it is still possible to find 1,000 persons can be found to block the roads with no fear of being prosecuted for unlawful assembly. If on the day when Carrie Lam is elected Chief Executive, a record 1,000 persons get arrested, it will show that she does not have the ability to unite society.
More importantly, it will be a preparation for the showdown on July 1st. On July 1st, the most senior representative Xi Jinping of the authoritarian regime will come to our city. The people of Hong Kong do not have to hold a long-term Occupy. All they have to do is to occupy all the major roads and highways on this one day, they will deal a huge blow against the authoritarian regime. Therefore if the people of Hong Kong can successfully instigate a 1,000-person Occupy movement this Saturday, it will be a rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0 on July 1st this year!
...
Internet comments:
- (TVB) The Civil Human Rights will hold a demonstration march from East Point Road in Causeway to the Wanchai Convention Centre at 5pm on Saturday. They will hold another demonstration march from the Wanchai Family Planning Association to the Wanchai Convention Centre at 930am on Sunday. The Civil Human Rights Front estimates that about 7,000 persons will participate. They said that they will not apply for a no-objection letter from the police, but they have notified the police of their plans.
The Civil Human Rights Front said that the demonstration will not obstruct the pro-democracy electors from voting. The Civil Human Rights Front also believes that voting for John Tsang does not imply supporting small-circle election.
- Bwahhh! My head is spinning -- participation in small-circle election does not imply support of small-circle election, just as registering to marry does not imply support of that marriage, just as working for a company does not imply that I am an employee of that company, just as taking baptism does not imply conversion to Catholicism, etc etc.
- (HKG Pao) The Civil Human Rights Front had estimated beforehand that 7,000 people will be in attendance. Cable TV News reported that about 800 took part on Saturday. Wen Wei Po reported 400-500 people. Afterwards the Civil Human Rights Front said 2,000 people participated, and that numbers don't matter anyway. I can kick the ball in any direction and it is going to be a goal because I will move the goalposts accordingly.
- (Speakout HK) On Sunday morning, about a couple of hundred people showed up for the Civil Human Rights Front march. When they got near the Wanchai Convention Centre, legislators Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen, Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick said that they wanted to enter and cast their votes and tried to lead the rest of the group to breach the police line. There was some jostling around as the police raised the Yellow Flag to warn them.
- I should add: "After the media had taken enough films for evening news, they stopped."
- Next Weekly has an exclusive story on Wednesday that Li Ka-shing has secretly met with John Tsang to "say that he will support him all the way." So is it entirely possible that John Tsang will in fact win in the first round? If so, will the 1,000 valiant warriors still want to block the roads and get arrested in the rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0?
- (Bastille Post) On Wednesday afternoon, the same Li Ka-shing met with the press to present the financial results for his companies. In response to a question about the Next Weekly report, Li said: "Many people said that I have met with a certain candidate. Actually, I have been meeting most frequently with the doctor." When the Apple Daily reporter asked a question, Li interrupted and said: "You better not make up more rumors. You said that I have been holding meetings with Mr. Tsang. Actually I have been visiting the doctor (for treatment of intestinal flu)."
Later on, Li Ka-shing said that although popular opinion is important, the ability to work with the Central Government is also very important. He emphasized repeatedly that he attaches a great deal of importance on the ability to cooperate with the Central Government, and he will vote for the candidate who can communicate with, work with and be trusted by the Central Government.
There should be no doubt given the vehement denial of the Next Weekly report and the repeated emphasis on gaining the trust of the Central Government that Li supports Carrie Lam.
- (SCMP) March 23, 2017. “In ancient Chinese mythology, there was a goddess who patched the sky with coloured stones. I believe that many things can be achieved through people’s efforts,” Li Ka-shing said, referring to the fable of Nu Wa.
Could John Tsang be the second coming of the female goddess Nu Wa?
- Amazingly even John Tsang joined in to say that he did not meet with Li Ka-shing. Should he have shut up and exploited the ambiguity?
- (SCMP) March 23, 2017. Li Ka-shing, who will turn 90 next year, became emotional at the press conference as he talked about the city’s waning competitiveness. “I love Hong Kong ... We used to be proud of Hong Kong but today our GDP growth has slowed down to around 2 per cent. Why can’t we do better?” he said. He went on to criticise pan-democrats for blocking the Beijing-decreed political reform proposal in 2015. “We could have had one person, one vote offered by the central government ... but that was sabotaged,” he said, adding the culprits were seldom blamed for that. Li later denied he had cried, saying he had flu.
- Why run Umbrella Revolution 2.0 if you don't know what went wrong with Umbrella Revolution 1.0? Of course, you can be a denialist and insist that everything went according to plan in Umbrella Revolution 1.0. But did you get your 'original intention' as in 'genuine universal suffrage' (in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination)? Even you have to admit that you didn't because you are still marching against small-circle election by 1,200 electors this weekend.
Why did Umbrella Revolution 1.0 fail? Until you can answer that question, you are going to running Umbrella 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 ad infinitum with the same non-result.
- Why did Umbrella Revolution 1.0 fail? Because it was hostage-taking and therefore lacked public support. Rather than challenge the Chief Executive or the Central Government directly, the Umbrella Revolutionaries blocked the streets and inconvenienced regular citizens from going about. This is like the Achille Lauro hijacking. You turn friends into foes.
- Yeung Ke-cheong is addressing his appeal for 1,000 fearless valiant occupiers to the students at the 14 universities and tertiary education institutions. This comes right after Hong Kong Univesity student Hui Ka-ki being sentenced to 3 years for participation in the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2016. The criminal record means that she will never be able to work as a lawyer, accountant, teacher, etc or even immigrate to certain countries. So that must be on the minds of any potential student participant in the 1,000-mass-arrest project of Yeung Ke-cheong.
- You say that you are only going to take part in a peaceful non-violent civil-disobedience sit-down? Well, if some guy in the rear throws a brick and hits the police superintendent on the head, all hell is going to break loose. You turn around to leave and you get tackled by the police. You are charged with rioting (note: you don't have to throw a brick yourself; you only have to be in a group in which someone breached the peace) and you get sentenced to three years in prison. There goes the entire futures of you and your family.
- As it turned out, there wasn't a 1,000-person turnout for Yeung Ke-cheong's mass-arrest project. Even Yeung Ke-cheong did not get himself arrested.
- Here is the praxis of Hong Kong independence:
"Hong Kong Independence" written on a bus stop time schedule display- By scrawling "Hong Kong independence" everywhere, Hong Kong shall become independent. Or something.
- Oh, is the fabled roadmap/timetable for Hong Kong independence? But this display only has the list of bus stops along the route and the frequency of arrival (once every 8 minutes during rush hour; once every 12 minutes during off-peak hours; etc).
(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,372 persons age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone March 13-20, 2017.
Q1. Which quality do you think the
next Chief Executive needs to have the most?
23%: Promote social harmony
22%: Firmly hold One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong
people, High Degree of Autonomy
17%: Trusted by the Central Government
12%: Relatively high public opinion support
15%: Has an excellent governing team
5%: Honesty and open-mindedness
2%: Clear concepts of governance
1%: Others
3%: No opinion
Q2. Which issue do you think the next
Chief Executive must deal with first?
27%: Relieve the housing problem
18%: Stimulate the Hong Kong economy
16%: Improve relationships between the executive and legislative
branches
13%: Resolve conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China
9%: Relieve the poverty problem
9%: Restart the consultation on constitutional reform
4%: Others
4%: No opinion
Q3. Which would you like to see
happen in the 2017 Chief Executive election?
56%: The person that I like the most wins
38%: The person that I dislike the most loses
3%: Don't know/hard to say
3%: No opinion
Q4. The Central Government stated the
next Chief Executive must satisfy four conditions: Love China, Love
Hong Kong/governance ability/trusted by the Central
Government/supported by the people of Hong Kong. Which candidate do
you think best fits these four conditions?
38%: John Tsang
45%: Carrie Lam
10%: Don't know/hard to say
3%: No opinion
Q5. Who do you think will most likely
become the next Chief Executive?
16%: John Tsang
73%: Carrie Lam
2%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: No opinion
Q6. If the Chief Executive election
were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will
you support?
36%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
11%: Woo Kwok Hing
12%: No opinion
Q7. Do you think the Chief Executive
election will end in a situation in which no candidate could obtain
more than 600 valid votes whereupon the election proceedings are
terminated?
2%: Definitely
5%: Most likely
45%: Most likley not
33%: Definitely not
12%: Don't know/hard to say
3%: No opinion
(SCMP) March 20, 2017.
The two front runners in Hong Kong’s leadership race shied away from stating their positions over vindication of the Tiananmen Square crackdown of 1989 as they were publicly grilled for the first time by members of the committee that will pick the city’s chief executive next Sunday.
Sunday night’s 2½ hour election debate saw testy exchanges between Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and John Tsang Chun-wah: Lam mocked Tsang for his “laid-back” working style, while the latter put her in the category of “politicians who think saying is achieving”.
The showdown at the AsiaWorld-Expo on Lantau Island between the two front runners and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was organised by a group of Election Committee members from across the political spectrum. Asked about Beijing’s crackdown on the student-led pro-democracy movement, which remains a highly contentious subject in the city, Tsang gave a meandering answer, saying “some time in the future we can see the issue being dealt with [by Beijing]”. Lam said the incident was “saddening”, adding: “History will have its judgment.”
Lam, the former No 2 official seen as Beijing’s preferred candidate, appeared to be restrained and respectful at first, but returned to the combative style she displayed in previous debates when she was asked to rate Tsang’s performance when they were both serving in the government.
Lam, also a former development minister, was dripping sarcasm as she recalled a meeting with Tsang when he was the financial secretary: “When I went to John’s office for a meeting, I saw that there was no file, no paper on his desk. I admired him much. My desk was always full of files and documents.”
Tsang retorted: “I always believe that, apart from working hard, we need to work smart. If she can take up all the tasks, she’s a good employee, not a leader.”
When it came to the issue of Hong Kong’s stalled political reform process, Lam reiterated that she had been sincere in resolving the deadlock during the Occupy protests of 2014. That was Woo’s chance to pounce: “Lam was the head of the government’s task force on political reform but she failed the exercise and that led to the Occupy protests. Restarting the process is not even in her manifesto.” “Some politicians would think saying is achieving,” Tsang added, referring to Lam’s undelivered promise to set up a multi-side platform for society to discuss democratic development.
Tsang, the popular underdog next to Lam, resorted to humour when taking a question from the floor about Lam’s refusal to travel to Tin Shui Wai to meet grassroots families because it was too far away. “Actually it wasn’t that far away, just some 30 minutes by car from Wan Chai,” he said. Lam said, “I am sorry that I could not go to Tin Shui Wai ... But I have proposals for the lower class.”
Tsang was forced to back down on the controversy over his perceived sympathy for those who launched personal attacks against actress Josephine Siao for supporting Lam. “Such cyberbullying is not acceptable. We have to respect others and we have to respect ourselves [when expressing views],” Tsang conceded.
Lam avoided repeating the gaffes that raised eyebrows in the last election debate, such as her offer to resign “if mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue” as chief executive.
The debate got off to a noisy start with a partisan audience. As Woo was about to make his opening remarks, four pro-democracy activists marched to the front of the stage, chanting,“We want genuine universal suffrage” and waving placards that read “Support civil nomination” and “We want universal pension”. They were quickly ushered away.
Some 507 of the 1,194 election committee members attended the forum. Among them, 189 members filed questions. Most of the 21 questions selected were from pan-democrats. The second part of the debate featured questions from the public. Organisers said they had received 1,326 questions from public.
In her closing remarks, Lam said: “Carrie Lam today is still Carrie Lam of yesterday. The difference is that she is now more humble.” And she said: “If I am elected, I will achieve the vision of the old and the young. Please vote for me next Sunday.”
Tsang said: “Five years on, the rift in the society has deepened, the government is not supported by the people, and governance is difficult.” “Hongkongers want to see a bit of change. They yearn for a change in the social atmosphere, which they won’t feel tiring or even suffocating,” he added.
Woo continued his attack on Lam in his final remarks, he said fake consultation had been Lam’s strength. And he criticised Tsang and Lam for passing the buck on this issue. “HK’s problem is not that it doesn’t have money, but that the person in charge does not have a heart,” he said.
(The Standard) March 19, 2017.
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pronounced last night "I am ready" to become chief executive - but bitter rival John Tsang Chun-wah mocked her saying she would be a "three-low" CE with low popularity, low energy and low legitimacy.
Lam, Tsang and the third contender in the CE race, Woo Kwok-hing, debated in the last election forum before next Sunday's poll of the 1,194-strong Election Committee in a two-and half- hour event organized by EC members at the AsiaWorld-Expo. But only 507 committee members attended. From the outset, the pan- democrats appeared to outnumber pro- establishment members, which was reflected in the questions fired at Lam.
In her opening speech, Lam said that what she called "malicious criticisms and unreasonable blaming" could not dampen her will in the race. "I am ready," she declared to both boos and applause.
Social welfare subsector elector Pang Lok-yan expressed regret at Lam missing a meeting with grassroot residents in Tin Shui Wai on Saturday. Lam apologized again, blaming "arrangement mistakes" for her absence - and mocked an unnamed former colleague for not visiting the community. "We demanded incumbent officials visit communities, and no police were arranged. However, an unorthodox colleague never participated in the visits or had contact with citizens," Lam said, implying it was former financial secretary Tsang. Woo said he went to Tin Shui Wai once he was invited, and said he never called police to protect him, "but wherever Lam goes, 100 or 200 [officers] surround her." Tsang also said he went to Tin Shui Wai on March 8. "The journey is not that long. It just took me half an hour to go there from Wan Chai." "Every time I visit the community I use the least number of police," Tsang said. "If there are too many officers, you can't listen to citizens."
Chik Nga-yin from the health services subsector interrogated Lam about the promises she made to the Federation of Students during the Occupy movement, especially the "multilateral platform" for different parties. "All of you know what happened to Admiralty after that," Lam said, drawing another round of boos. Woo said, as the leader of the three- person team on political reform, Lam's failure gave rise to Occupy. "Her platform said it would need to wait until the social environment was suitable for political reform. How can she? No one agrees with [Beijing's] August 31 framework." Tsang said : "There are many examples of Mrs Lam's policies that were left unfinished."
As examples, he cited tackling illegal structures on village houses and the reconstruction of the Avenue of Stars, as well as what he called the "black-box operation" of the Palace Museum at West Kowloon.
Elector Ng Kwok-yan from the higher education subsector brought up Lam's comment that she would resign if mainstream opinion was against her. Lam explained: "The chief executive has to listen to public opinion carefully, and turn the opinion into actual work." But Tsang countered: "It's unprecedented that a chief executive has a negative approval rating before she assumes office. We can foresee a CE with low popularity, low energy and low acceptance - three lows - leading a three-low- government. The next five years will be tough." Woo said that Lam's clarification of her "I will resign" the following day should teach her to speak carefully, saying: "If I were the judge, I would consider her a dishonest witness."
Lam used up all her allocated time to talk about how many of her old colleagues had joined her campaign office, but her strategy was criticized by medical subsector elector Kwong Po-yin. "You are just burning up all your time available so that you don't need to answer questions," Kwong said.
Elector Wilfred Wong Ying-wai said 507 people joined the forum but there was no breakdown on which camp they belonged to.
Internet comments:
- (Bastille Post) At the Election Committee forum, the three candidates John Tsang, Carrie Lam and Woo Kwok Hing were to answer questions from the Electors and the general public. Although I hoped that this would be better than the electronic media forum, with many policy issues such as the housing prices to be discussed, this turned out to be more like a low-quality quarrel.
Most of the Election Committee questions from pan-democrats that were deliberately politicized and targeted against Carrie Lam. When she answered, John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing took turns to tear at her.
Finally Catering sector elector Wong Kit-lung couldn't stand it and raised his question this way: "The mutual acrimony in this debate was unbearable to watch. Can Carrie Lam and John Tsang tell us how they appreciate and thank each other as former colleagues?"
Carrie Lam said that they both came from the same system and this election is a competition between gentleman/gentlewoman. She only wants to do her job and she will not manufacture a lot of rumors. Nevertheless there have been many rumors against her. She said that when she was the Secretary for Development, she reported to Financial Secretary John Tsang. When she went to meet with him in his office room, she found that there was nothing on his desk. She was jealous because she had to read many documents herself in preparation for her work.
John Tsang responded that, being a colleague of Carrie Lam for many years, he knows how she works. However, Lam does not know him. He wants to work hard and he also wants to work smart. He said that when Carrie Lam resigned, she said that she would apologize to any colleague who was unhappy about what she had done. "I understand why she should complain. Actually many people hold opinions against her. I have more than a dozen colleagues helping me in my election campaign. I don't think that she has any. A person needs to attract others to help you. You cannot do everything yourself. That would not be a leader."
Carrie Lam responded that it was unfair to her election campaign team for John Tsang to say that no government colleague would help her. She listed several former senior government officials who are helping her. She said that there was a dinner group of Administrative Officers at which both she and John Tsang were core members. But she did not want to create schism within this group, so she did not ask any of those people to help her.
John Tsang replied that Carrie Lam were naming retired senior government officials helping her, whereas he was talking about people who actually go into the local communities to help him.
After listening to this for a while, I feel that I really don't care about how who is helping who. Perhaps this is good for the electors who are mostly politician-types, but I would have preferred to hear them talk about things that citizens care about, such as housing prices.
- RTHK: John Tsang says to not just 'work hard' but to 'work smart.' One should frequently think about the smartest method to do something ... he said that a person who can do everything himself is a good employee, but he is not a good leader.
- Ko Chi-sum: A person who is smart but does not want to work hard is an underachieving 'slacker'; a person who cannot complete his job is not a good employee, much less a good leader.
-
21 questions were randomly selected from the Election Committee members.
19 came from pan-democratic electors
2 came from pro-establishment electors
This Election Committee members was either A Struggle Session Against Carrie Lam or A Rally Session For John Tsang
There was not even a remote hint of democracy, just the Hegemony of Democracy
The pan-democratic Election Committee members received the order from the boss to launch an all-out attack on Carrie Lam in order to cover up the inadequacies of John Tsang
#The questions were screened
#The questioners were pan-democratsThere were 21 questions, of which 19 came from pan-democratic electors
There are 326 pan-democrats out of 1,194 electors.
According to Vassar Stats, the probability of this happening (using an exact binomial model with n=21, k=19, p=326/1194) is 0.000000002232. Although this probability is even less likely than being attacked by a shark; hit by a comet or asteroid; struck by lightning; win a Powerball jackpot; injured by an exploding toilet seat ... still it is greater than zero and therefore it still might happen.- If this is not an accident, then it was by design. How so? (Ming Pao) March 21, 2017.
#1. The host Tse Chi-fung colluded with the pan-democrats to get them to fold the corner of their question forms for him to pick. Afterwards, the papers were checked and 80% of them have folded corners.
#2. Someone tampered with the question forms? The person in charge of collecting and watching over the question forms was pro-establishment Lam Suen-Mo.
#3. The electors didn't know how to fill out a question form? When the electors entered the conference room, they were reminded that they can fill out question forms -- only their names and sub-sectors are required, and the question itself does not have to written down. So they couldn't find it too hard to understand.
#4. The pan-democratic camp mobilized but the pro-establishment camp did not? This is not known.
#5. The pro-establishment camp supported Carrie Lam silently? The more active electors are from the professional and political sub-sectors, whereas Carrie Lam's mainstay is in the Commercial and Industrial sub-sectors where the tycoons don't like filling out forms.
#6. Is it possible to review the question forms later? Yes, they were locked in a safe afterwards. If the organizing committee wishes, they can review the question forms.
- This is the last of the Chief Executive election forums. Woo Kwok Hing has fulfilled his historical mission and can now fade away. The Civic Party, the Democratic Party and the Professional Teachers Union have announced that all their votes will go to John Tsang. Previously the Civic Party had nominated Woo Kwok Hing, but he is now discarded just like the piece of toilet paper that you flush away after wiping your arse.
What was his mission? It is counted by the minutes. If John Tsang and Carrie Lam were the only candidates, they would have shared equal time at the forums. With three candidates, they each have one-third of the time, except two of the 'pro-democracy' candidates are ganging up on the third 'pro-establishment' candidate. The number of minutes is now divided as 2:1.
The pan-democrats only had 327 votes on the Election Committee with 150 required for nomination. If they had 450 votes on hand, they would have nominated three candidates so that the number of minutes will be split as 3:1.
- (SCMP) Tsang’s performance won a clear lead of support over Lam, according to a poll. Some 62 per cent of 717 respondents told HKU’s public opinion programme that, if eligible to vote, they would vote for Tsang tomorrow after watching the debate, against 24 per cent for Lam.
- How can they conduct an instant poll so quickly? Let's check their methodology? (HKU POP) March 19, 2017.
There are two types of respondents, type 1 being citizens randomly selected by telephone survey during the forum, type 2 being citizens sampled before the forum and agreed to participate in the survey. Both types of citizens answered exactly the same questions, while the latter could choose to answer multiple times, in order to allow us analyse people’s response over different time periods.
Target population: Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or above who have listened or watched the CE Election forum
Sample size: 717 successful cases (type 1 sub-sample: 353; type 2 sub-sample: 364)
There are too many technical problems to enumerate here. As one example, when you make an appointment with a Type 2 respondent, you have effectively changed that person's behavior. Instead of going out to watch a movie or eat out, they stay home and watch the forum broadcast closely. As another example, you start calling Type 1 respondents when the forum starts at 7pm. At 7:01pm, you have reached the first respondent. Are you really going to ask for an opinion? But if you wait until the forum ends after some time after 9pm, it will be too late to start calling people.
- Here is an online poll at the Hong Kong Discussion Forum for the Electronic Media Forum held last week:
Whose performance were you most satisfied with?
39.8%: Carrie Lam
38.9%: John Tsang
16.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
4.3%: None of the above
(Based: 5,432 persons)This is just as useless as the HKU-POP poll. For further discussion of technical issues, see Pew Research Center.
- Here is an even more useless instant poll from pro-establishment HKG Pao.
|
Who had the best performance at the Chief Executive election forum?
John Tsang: 247 votes
Carrie Lam: 2351 votes
Woo Kwok Hing: 33 votes- Who do the Leon Lai fans think is the greatest singer on the planet? Leon Lai!
[707] Civil Referendum For Chief Executive (2017/03/20)
(Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.
A pro-democracy civil group has launched an unofficial referendum for the chief executive election to encourage electors to vote for candidates backed by the wider public. The public can vote using messaging app Telegram between Friday noon and March 19, or at three polling stations set up at universities on March 12 and 19. The project organised by the Citizens United in Action and led by law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting aims at attracting over a million participants.
Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate.
“There is a reason to look at the net support rate – we hope the new chief executive can mend the split in society,” said legal sector elector Eric Cheung Tat-ming. “If there is a candidate who, from a million voters, got 900,000 objection votes – I believe this message… may affect the central government or the pro-Beijing camp electors – they would have to think about it again.”
The poll also asks participants to answer if they support or oppose the existing model of electing the chief executive.
Cheung said if the number of participants was lower than a million, professionals from the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme and the Polytechnic University’s Centre for Social Policy Studies will analysis the result to see how representative the poll was.
In 2012, a similar poll attracted 200,000 “voters”. The most popular option was “abstention”, which beat all three candidates. In 2014, a poll on political reform proposals had 800,000 participants.
The current project is also seeking to crowdfund HK$1.5 million to cover costs. It had received 32 per cent of the goal as of Friday.
The three polling stations:
University of Hong Kong student union near Haking Wong Building: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Polytechnic University V109-111: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Chinese University Yasumoto International Academic Park: March 12 between 10:30am and 6pm(Hong Kong Free Press) March 14, 2017.
Frontline Tech Workers, a group of pro-democracy IT professionals, urged users not to use their number if it is used for confidential matters. Even if their number is not being used for confidential matters, the group urged users to temporarily suspend two-step verification when using the platform so that they would not need to give up their password. The group warned that if the system was being attacked, hackers may be able to obtain the verification codes and passwords for the Telegram accounts, and gain access to them. The system also did not automatically log users out of their Telegram sessions after they completed the nomination process. The function was added following criticism.
On Monday, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement saying that “there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives” for the collection of personal data. “It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest,” it read. “The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.”
In response, Citizens United in Action said in a statement: “Although we have confidence in the security of our system, to reduce confusion among members of the public, we will suspend the nomination collection on PopVote.” It said it will reopen the system only after the group contacts the commissioner to explain how they use collected data and understand the demands of the commissioner. The group apologised for any inconvenience caused.
(Hong Kong Free Press) March 13, 2017.
The Polytechnic University has banned the operation of a polling station for the unofficial leadership election civil referendum on its campus. Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a University of Hong Kong law professor and one of the organisers of the poll, said Polytechnic University staff told its student union that they had no right to borrow a venue for other organisations. He said they pressured students, saying that “there may be consequences.” Tai said the organiser decided to cancel the station in order to avoid more unnecessary pressure upon students.
Tai said the reason for barring the use of the venue was strange considering that the polling stations at the other two universities were booked by their student unions. He said in the past similar civil polls have been conducted at the university in a smooth manner: “Why is it problematic this time? The management of the Polytechnic University should explain.”
The university said the organisers did not notify the school ahead of the event and stated that the student union and its affiliates can only book venues for events serving the university’s students. It added that it has communicated with the Centre for Social Policy Studies, saying that outside organisations borrowing venues would only be approved if the events were related to teaching and research.
(Hong Kong Free Press) March 18, 2017.
Law professor Benny Tai appealed to the public on Friday to participate in the unofficial referendum on the chief executive election, two days before the campaign is scheduled to end. Over 42,000 people have joined the poll so far, according to the campaign’s polling website. Tai, one of the poll organisers, said earlier that the project aims at attracting over a million participants.
Tai said at a media session on Friday that the “low turnout” might be explained by a number of factors, such as the shutting of the polling station at the Polytechnic University. He said people might also be concerned about online security, after some tech experts alleged that the campaign’s previous online platform might have security loopholes. But Tai said the polling website is now safe to use.
Another reason for non-participation may be that some people do not support any of the candidates, Tai said. “But our poll allows people to indicate opposition against each candidate,” he said. “If many people oppose a candidate, that would show the candidate’s lack of a democratic basis. It would help society campaign against that person in the future.”
The professor said the polling exercise would also influence the voting decisions of some Election Committee members, who will be casting their ballots next Sunday. Among the 325 pro-democracy electors, 48 have promised to be bound by the unofficial referendum results and vote for the most popular candidate. The results will also serve as “key reference” to around 200 electors, Tai added.
“If a lot of people participate, maybe even pro-establishment electors will reference the figures,” he said. “The actual election is very competitive and the candidates could be just a dozen votes apart.” “But no matter what the turnout is,” Tai added, “we will keep mobilising society and using our collective creativity to promote the democracy movement, until we attain genuine universal suffrage.”
(SCMP) March 19, 2017.
Chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was backed by 91.9 per cent of the votes in a mock ballot for the city’s next leader, as those who do not have a say in the coming chief executive election got a last chance to cast their unofficial votes.
About 65,000 people had voted as the mock ballot closed on Sunday night, with 96.1 per cent of respondents also saying they opposed contender Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The number of votes was far short of the one million target set by organiser Citizens United in Action, led by Occupy Central founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting, since the exercise was launched on March 10.
Dr Chung Kim-wah, a political scientist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, believed the votes against front runner Carrie Lam would put pressure on the new administration. “There would be no honeymoon for the new government, if Lam gets elected.”
Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s privacy watchdog on Sunday again warned of a “security loophole” in the mock ballot system. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data said it had preliminarily established that the organiser, when collecting voters’ personal data, had breached information security practices, after consulting related computer security experts and other professional organisations. “[The office] has immediately asked the event organiser for an explanation,” the office said. “If [personal] information leaks, the organiser needs to be responsible for this.”
Internet comments:
- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. According to the Census and Statistics Department, the population of Hong Kong is 7,374,900. The 59,878 persons who voted in the Civil Referendum is 0.81% of the population. The pan-democrats took away the chance for one-person-one-vote, and now they want 0.81% to represent the 7.3 million. What kind of democracy is this? Who do you represent when you so decide?
In 2014, there was a spontaneously organized "Preserve Universal Suffrage, Oppose Occupy Central Grand Alliance" to gather signatures in the street. Over nine days, 1.82 million signatures were collected. This is the largest expression of public opinion in the history of Hong Kong, in which citizens wrote down their Hong Kong ID numbers and signed. The opposition scoffed and said the signatures were faked, unreliable, untrustworthy, and destined for the recycling bin.
By contrast, the 0.81% online voters are faceless entities who are making the Electors cast their votes for John Tsang. The opinion of the other 99.19% is irrelevant.
- (RTHK) 63,076 persons voted at the PopVote website, and another 1,829 voted at the street booths of March 18, 2017. The total number so far is 63,076 + 1,829 = 64,905. Missing is the number of physical votes on March 19, 2017.
Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. There are two summary statistics for the candidates.
(1) Support rate
92% support John Tsang
27% support Woo Kwok Hing
1.5% support Carrie Lam(2) Net support rate (= Support rate - Objection rate)
+87% net support John Tsang
-12% net support Woo Kwok Hing
-94% net support Carrie Lam(HKU POP) Final results of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum:
Off-site voting: 61,268 electronic votes minus 38 eliminated votes
Polling stations: 3,878 electronic votes minus 2 eliminated votes.
Grand total = 65,106 plus 86 paper ballots
(1) Support/oppose/abstention
#1. John Tsang: 91.9% support, 4.2% oppose, 3.9% abstention, net support = 91.8% - 4.2% = 87.7%
#2. Carrie Lam: 1.5% support, 96.4% oppose, 2.2% abstention, net support = 1.5% - 96.4% = -94.5%
#3. Woo Kwok Hing: 27.2% support, 39.9% oppose, 33.0% abstention, net support - 27.1% - 39.4% = 12.3%
(2) Do you support or oppose existing method of electing the Chief Executive?
2.2% support
94.3% oppose
3.5% abstain
Net support = 2.3% - 94.1% = -91.8%.- Question: If you hate it so much, why did you vote to keep it? Why didn't you vote for one-person-one-vote instead when offered to you? Li Ka-shing said that he wants to know who caused this to happen. Well, it's the 28 pan-democratic legislators who vetoed the constitutional reform bill. They are reaping what they sowed.
- Here is the "I am a genius" hindsight:
(#701 March 15, 2017) At this rate, PopVote will probably end up with something less than 100,000 votes with something like 98% approval for John Tsang, 30% approval for Woo Kwok-hing and less than 1% approval for Carrie Lam. Such results won't be accepted as legitimately reflecting the will of the people of Hong Kong.
- No, buddy, you were not perfect. You thought that non-Yellow Ribbons would never participate in this, which is why you estimated that Carrie Lam would get less than 1%. The actual number was 1.5%. There are Blue Ribbon fools who actually participated in this exercise because they wanted to help Carrie Lam!
- (RTHK) Even HKU-POP director Robert Chung agreed: "It is rare to see the net support rates of the two candidates differ by so much. Those who voted in the Civil Referendum were relatively opinionated, and do not necessarily represent the citizens as a whole."
- To show you how hard this was, that sort of consistent agreement don't even exist within many households! For example, the father supports Carrie Lam while the son supports John Tsang. What happened was the son voted for John Tsang at PopVote while the father completely ignored PopVote.
- Well, if Adolf Hitler were to come out of hiding in Brazil to run for election in Germany again, I bet that he will get better than a -94% net support rate!
- This is like holding the best singer voting among Leon Lai fans. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
- (RTHK) IT sector legislator councilor/elector Charles Mok said that the Civil Referendum has a certain degree of representativeness. He said that if you trust the results and the obvious trend and you consult the many other public opinion polls conducted by the universities, there is sufficient information to make a decision.
- Charles Mok is right. The 60,000 voters have a certain degree of representativeness -- namely, they represent themselves. So when an elector follows their preference, he/she is voting to represent the 60,000 (and fuck the rest of the population!).
- Historical information: (BBC) June 30, 2014.
A total of 792,808 voters took part in an unofficial referendum on universal suffrage in Hong Kong, organisers said. The 10-day poll was held by protest group Occupy Central. Campaigners want the public to be able to elect Hong Kong's leader, the chief executive. The Hong Kong government says the vote has no legal standing.
The voting, in polling stations or on the popvote.hk website, began on 20 June. The deadline was originally set for 22 June, but was later extended after what organisers claimed were several cyber attacks on the website. Popvote.hk was designed by the University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University to measure support for Occupy Central's campaign.
What did they do to drive the number of participants down from 800,000 to 65,000?
- I know the answer: "It is always somebody else's fault." In this case, there was White Terror-Voter Suppression-Hacker Attacks-Sunspot Solar Storms.
- How did Benny Tai come up with a goal of 1,000,000 votes this time? He thought that if he can get 800,000 in June 2014, then he should be able to get 1,000,000 this time. Democracy is on the march, freedom is on the rise, etc. His self-esteem makes him think that Occupy Central is wildly popular. It is not. 79 days of hell of earth and not a single accomplishment to show.
- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. On September 28, 2014, the opposition said that 200,000 persons came out to paralyze Admiralty. More than two years later, all they could do was to obtain 60,000+ signatures from faceless entities. What happened to the other 140,000 Yellow Ribbon diehards?
The Civil Referendum project needed to raise $1.5 million through crowdfunding. So far they have raised $600,000. That seems a lot until you realized that $600,000 divided by 60,000 is $10 per person. Brother, can you really not spare a ten-dollar coin?
- You really don't get it, do you? The purpose of this whole exercise was never to run a civil referendum either as a guidance for the Election Committee members or an expression of the popular will of the people of Hong Kong. It was this:
The true purpose is one of two things, or both things. Firstly, it was to get people to part with their money (to the tune of $1.5 million) in order to support getting the 1,000,000 votes. Secondly, it was to use the crowdfunding to launder money from the big-moneyed kind-hearted anonymous donor behind the black velvet curtain.
- Either they raised the $1.5 million or they didn't. If they did, how do they account for their inability to deliver anything close to the 1,000,000 votes? If they didn't, how do they close the deficit gap? Of course, you shouldn't lose any sleep over this, because the answer resides in the same black hole as Benny Tai's Occupy Central accounting ledger.
- If it costs $1.5 million to handle 1,000,000 votes, how much did it cost to handle 65,000 votes? Not as much. What happens to the leftover money? Benny Tai will 'pocket it temporarily' until the next big civil referendum project.
- They are blaming their inability to reach 1,000,000 on the usual suspects:
- The Central Government/China Liaison Office ordered their minions not to participate;
- The Polytechnic University administration banned the polling station from campus;
- DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks on the PopVote server;
- Political interference by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data;
- Unfounded rumors about the personal data being publicly available on the Internet;
- Popular despair at a rigged election;
- ...
- In defense of the validity of 65,000+ number of votes, Yellow Ribbons are saying that most public opinion polls have sample sizes of only about 1,000, whether in Hong Kong or the United States (see the Gallup polls). If 1,000 is good enough, then 65,000 must be better. Right?
Wrong! The Gallup samples are drawn from the population in a random manner such that they are representative. The PopVote voters are not a random sample from the population at large, because of self-selection bias: individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with non-probability sampling.
Meanwhile, the PopVote polling stations are subjected to selection bias, because the organizers chose three university campuses: Hong Kong University, Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When the Polytechnic University station was shut down, they used the Professional Teachers Union office. And on the last day, they used scattered locations manned by political parties (Democratic Party, Civic Party, etc). What sort of person is going to vote there? Why didn't they go to Golden Plaza (Sham Shiu Po) to sample other citizens? Pedestrian traffic is very dense over there too.
- I was at Tai Koo Shing on Sunday, and I saw this Civic Party legislator canvassing votes with the chant: "Vote here if you want to stop CY 2.0." What kind of people do you think will vote with a slogan like that? Their goal was never to obtain a representative sample.
- The oddest part is the role of the Democratic Party/Civic Party. On March 19, they manned a number of polling stations (see PopVote). But before the day was over and the results were published, the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and the Professional Teachers Union had already announced that they would cast all their votes for John Tsang. What was the point? Did they get a private preview of the results beforehand?
- It all loops back to the August 31st framework for constitutional reform.
Why do we have to resort to holding a civil referendum? Why can't we just have one-person-one-vote? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.
Why do not trust the election results? Because the Election Committee does not fairly and equally represent the people of Hong Kong. Why not? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.
- If we had enacted the August 31st framework, we would have one-person-one-vote. There wouldn't be any need for a civil referendum -- we can just go down to the polling stations and vote on March 26th.
- There are 3.8 million registered voters in Hong Kong. Even if all of them voted in this civil referendum, it would mean nothing because the pan-democrats decided once upon a time that the best thing was to let the 1,200-person Election Committee have the vote exclusively.
- "Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate."
Why did PopVote ask the survey question this way? Because the whole exercise was rigged to inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam.
Most election-related surveys would ask a question such as: "If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow and you have the right to vote, whom would you vote for? John Tsang, Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing or None-of-the-above (=abstain)? (Choose one answer only)".
The likely answer would be something like: John Tsang 43%, Carrie Lam 37%, Woo Kwok Hing 10%, Abstain 10%. This is not going to give a clear mandate for John Tsang.
However, it was noted that John Tsang supporters really hate Carrie Lam, because the main reason for supporting John Tsang was not because his policies were aligned with pan-democratic positions but because of "John Tsang is the Lesser Evil," "Stop CY 2.0," "Stop Social Rift 2.0," "Slap The Bitch Nurse Amah Down", etc. Meanwhile Carrie Lam supporters don't harbor many personal feelings against John Tsang.
So using "net support rate" as the metric will inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam. Of course, many people realized this either from the identities of those involved in the operation (Benny Tai, Eric Cheung, etc) or the choice of survey questions, so they refused to participate.
Everything worked in favor of the design, but they were too successful, to the point where the survey has zero credibility now. How can Carrie Lam have a 40% support rate in public opinion polls but end up with a negative 94% net support rate in PopVote?
- If you have an election system that is based upon net support rates, then you are encouraging hate-based election campaigns. Not only does a campaign need people to support the candidate, but they need people to hate all other candidates. So every time that you hold an election, the social divisions will become deeper. Of course, this may suit the political parties because a strong emotion such as hate drives people to part with the money in their pockets.
- (HKG Pao) March 19, 2017.
The gold standard for examining presidential job approval is (Gallup) "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [president's name] is handling his job as president?' (Gallup) Here are the approval rates from Harry S. Truman all the way through Donald Trump using the same question wording.
Do you think that they would ask the same question in Hong Kong? No. Instead they ask:
Please use a scale of 0-100 to rate your extent of support to the Chief Executive [name], with 0 indicating absolutely not supportive, 100 indicating absolutely supportive and 50 indicating half-half.
How would you rate the Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying?
____
Don't know him
Don't know
Refuse to answerThen the arithmetic average value is reported as the 'rating of the Chief Executive.'
What is the difference? There are very few people who give a rating of 100 to CY Leung but there are many more who give a rating of 0. So using arithmetic mean instead of "Approve/disapprove" will drive the number down to make CY Leung a miserable failure.
In the United States, it would have been the same thing with Barack Obama. Very few people would consider him to be the perfect president with a 100 score. Many more people will give a 0 score to this Black Muslim Kenya-born illegitimate president.
If you take the raw data from HKU-POP and recode the data as "rating of 0-49" = "disapprove" and "rating of 50-100" as "approve", you will find CY Leung has about the same approval levels as Barack Obama.
Using a numerical rating as the approval/disapproval metric is undemocratic. It allows the extremists to have greater impact on the outcome, whereas the simple YES/NO question gives everybody the same weight.
Can you imagine an election in which each person is handed one hundred ballots to cast in any proportion among the candidates? There is a reason why it is not done anywhere in the world -- except by HKU-POP.
- Hopefully this particular Civil Referendum will prove to be the ultimate referendum killer. Who dares to start yet another civil referendum with a multi-million-dollar crowdfunding goal to obtain useless results? How can you justify raising $1.5 million in order to gather 65,000 worthless signatures?
(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2017.
Beginning on Monday, the Hong Kong Police received threatening emails.
On March 13, the message was: I know that there may be a bomb anytime near a police station. IP host address: Texas, USA
On March 14, the message was: Be careful! There may be a bomb anytime near a police station, because the police are too bad. IP host address: Massachusetts, USA
On March 15, the message was: So the police was so fucking useless. They are turtles hiding inside their shells. Gutless. They are better off dead. They can't even solve one case. IP host address: Singapore
On March 16, the message was: There may be a bomb at some police station on Saturday. Because the police are so bad, they must receive a lesson.
According to an internal police whatsapp message, "Everybody has been notified by email that someone has claimed to place a bomb at a police station. No target was explicitly given. The PSUC members have been told to pay attention to suspicious objects and persons."
(Oriental Daily with video) March 18, 2017.
The Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau (CSTCB) took over the investigation of the email bombs threats. The Hong Kong Police clarified that the perpetrator was not using email; instead they were leaving messages at the electronic reporting service at the Hong Kong Police website.
Early morning today, the police arrested a 24-year-old woman named Wong at an apartment on Woosung Street, Yau Ma Ti district, Kowloon on suspicion of issuing bomb hoaxes. During the action, the police took away one mobile phone, one computer and one router. The police have not discovered any explosive equipment.
Internet comments:
- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 28 Bomb hoaxes
(1) Any person who—
(a) places any article or substance in any place whatever; or
(b )dispatches any article or substance by post, rail, sea, air or any other means whatever of sending things from one place to another,with the intention of inducing some other person to believe that it is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing him or any other person to believe that a bomb or other article, substance or thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) For a person to be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it shall not be necessary for him to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom he intends to induce the belief mentioned in those subsections.
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $150,000 and to imprisonment for 5 years.- Don't count on Ms. Wong being convicted. There was a precedent during Occupy Central -- when two people live in the same apartment, which one sent the email bomb threat? Because the prosecution had no conclusive proof one way or the other, the defendant got the benefit of doubt and was freed. Let us hope that Ms. Wong does not live by herself.
- Ms. Wong must think that she is a computer genius because she can use a proxy service to fake the IP host as Texas, Massachusetts or Singapore at will. Unfortunately, the police can order the proxy service provider to give them the real IP address and then order the Internet Service Provider to provide the exact physical geographical address. Given that the police found only one mobile phone, one computer and one router, Ms. Wong must be the sole user at that address. All in all, she is in deep trouble now.
- A real computer genius would have gone down to Apliu Street, Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon to buy a second-hand mobile phone and a prepaid phone card to be destroyed/discarded immediately after use in a back alley with no surveillance camera or in the toilet partition of a large shopping mall.
- I suspect that the first line of defense would be that some unknown hacker broke into her computer system and sent all those messages.
- According to Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous), we should not be thinking about Ms. Wong or what she did. Instead, we should be reflecting deeply on the faults of this government that are forcing people like Ms. Wong to take such desperate measures.
- According to unconfirmed rumors, Ms. Wong held a grudge about the police because of how they handled a case in which she was the victim.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 19, 2017. At around 7pm on Mrach 17, the police received information about a claim that bombs have been placed at Government Headquarters in Admiralty and the Sogo Department Store in Causeway Bay to be detonated at 930pm. The police dispatched officers to the locations and conducted searches. In order to avoid public panic, the bomb squads were not immediately dispatched. The police were unable to find anything.
- The police were negligent when they refused to send in the bomb squads. If the bombs actually exploded, what excuse will they have? They should have shut down Admiralty and Causeway Bay until after 930pm.
- The police should reflect on their regular conduct to see what they done to deserve bomb hoaxes. The intended victims should do so as well. While we know that the Hong Kong Communist Government is the target of valiant resistance, the role of Sogo has been underrated previously and merits re-evaluation. On one hand, Sogo is a magnet for mainland tourist shoppers, and its total destruction could deter mainlanders from coming to Hong Kong. On the other hand, Sogo is a famous Japanese department store. If the independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need Japanese military intervention to defend itself against China, we can't very well blow up their flagship landmark here.
- No, Japan's Sogo went bankrupt and the Sogo Department Store in Hong Kong is owned and operated by Lifestyle International headed by Thomas Lau. Trust me, you don't want to mess with the Lau brothers ...
Which quality is the most essential to the new Chief Executive?
23.7%: Promote social harmony
22.9%: Firmly adhere to One Country Two Systems/Hong Kong people govern Hong Kong/high degree of autonomy
18.3%: Trusted by the Central GovernmentWhat should the new Chief Executive focus on?
29.3%: Relieve housing problems
19.0%: Improve relationship between executive and legislative branches
18.7%: Stimulate Hong Kong's economyWhat are the women's issues that the Chief Executive should give priority to?
33.8%: Retirement protection
14.4%: Community support
11.3%: Family-friendly policiesWhat do you support as the next Chief Executive?
43.3%: Carrie Lam
35.2%: John Tsang
12.3%: Woo Kwok HingThe All-China Women's Federation Hong Kong Delegates Association has 22 electors spread in various sectors. They will wait for the other debates before making their voting decision.
Q1. How much attention have you been paying to the Chief Executive election on March 26, 2017?
44.3%: Very much
37.6%: Somewhat
12.2%: Not much
2.2%: Not at all
3.7%: Not sure/no opinionQ2a. Right now the nominees are Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing and John Tsang. Who do you support most to become the next Chief Executive?
41.3%: John Tsang
36.7%: Carrie Lam
13.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
4.6%: None of the above
4.1%: Not sure/no opinionQ2b. Why is the major reason that you support this candidate (see Q2a)?
John Tsang
10.6%: Able to perform
43.2%: Resolve social conflicts
5.0%: Supported by the Central Government
16.9%: Supported by more citizens
19.5%: Defend Hong Kong core values
3.2%: Other reasons
1.6%: Not sure/no opinionCarrie Lam
67.1%: Able to perform
6.3%: Resolve social conflicts
11.1%: Supported by the Central Government
7.2%: Supported by more citizens
5.8%: Defend Hong Kong core values
1.1%: Other reasons
1.5%: Not sure/no opinionWoo Kwok Hing
11.3%: Able to perform
31.9%: Resolve social conflicts
2.5%: Supported by the Central Government
4.6%: Supported by more citizens
44.1%: Defend Hong Kong core values
4.2%: Other reasons
1.3%: Not sure/no opinionQ3. Among the three candidates, who do you think best satisfy the four criteria brought out by the Central Government: "Love China/love Hong Kong; trusted by the Central Government; have ability to govern; supported by the people of Hong Kong"?
31.0%: John Tsang
45.8%: Carrie Lam
7.0%: Woo Kwok Hing
6.4%: None of the above
9.9%: Not sure/no opinionQ4. By your estimation, who has the best chance to become the next Chief Executive?
28.2%: John Tsang
56.0%: Carrie Lam
4.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
11.5%: Not sure/no opinionQ5. What do you think the next Chief Executive should focus on?
27.9%: Deal with land/housing problem
20.9%: Develop economy and innovative industries
16.9%: Improve governance ability
11.4%: Improve social welfare/labor protection
7.7%: Improve healthcare and education
6.3%: Restart constitutional reform
2.3%: None of the above
6.6%: Not sure/no opinion
John Tsang Chun-wah has widened his lead over arch-rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to more than 17 percentage points in the latest survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post.
Some 63 per cent of the 1,009 respondents interviewed from last Wednesday to Monday believed a less popular chief executive would face problems in governing Hong Kong. But about two-thirds recognised that Lam, the former chief secretary who is seen as Beijing’s preferred candidate, stood a higher chance of landing the top job in the March 26 election.
Polling in the third such survey by the Post began a week after the nomination period for the chief executive race closed on March 1.
Chinese University’s Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey found that 67 per cent of respondents regarded the housing affordability problem as the top priority for the city’s next leader, followed by 58.8 per cent who picked mending rifts in the community.
Tsang was backed by 46.6 per cent of respondents aged 18 or above, up from 42.5 per cent in the previous survey early last month. Some 29.5 per cent preferred Lam, up from 28.2 per cent. The former financial secretary’s lead over Lam widened from 14.3 percentage points last month to 17.1 percentage points. The third candidate, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, was backed by 10.1 per cent, compared with 8.7 per cent last month.
About 63 per cent of respondents believed that the governance of the next chief executive would be affected if he or she trailed another candidate in terms of popularity, while 26.2 per cent disagreed.
[Who do you think has the best chance of winning the election?
20.8%: John Tsang
66.6%: Carrie Lam
1.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
0.1%: Election nullified
9.6%: Don't know
1.0%: Refused to answer]
Q6. With respect to "promoting mutual understanding and respect between Hong Kong and and mainland China", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 28.7%
Carrie Lam: 46.5%
Woo Kwok Hing: 3.9%
None of the above: 9.7%
Don't know/no opinion: 10.8%
Refused to answer: 0.3%Q7. With respect to "improving the relationship between the executive and legislative branches", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 42.0%
Carrie Lam: 18.7%
Woo Kwok Hing: 18.5%
None of the above: 9.0%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.4%
Refused to answer: 0.3%Q8. With respect to "promoting economic prosperity", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 54.5%
Carrie Lam: 24.5%
Woo Kwok Hing: 2.7%
None of the above: 8.4%
Don't know/no opinion: 9.6%
Refused to answer: 0.3%Q9. With respect to "defending the core values of Hong Kong", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 32.3%
Carrie Lam: 25.8
Woo Kwok Hing: 21.3%
None of the above: 8.8%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.4%
Refused to answer: 0.4%Q10. With respect to "letting the grassroots share the results of economic progress", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 39.0%
Carrie Lam: 22.8%
Woo Kwok Hing: 13.2%
None of the above: 12.6%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.9%
Refused to answer: 0.5%Q11. The Central Government has set four requirements that the Chief Executive candidate should have. Which is the most important one? Or are all four equally important?
6.2%: Love Hong Kong/China
1.9%: The Central Government can trust
17.5%: Capable of governing
24.0%: Supported by the people of Hong Kong
46.7%: All four criteria are equally important
3.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answerQ12. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Love Hong Kong/China"? Average scores:
6.95: John Tsang
7.19: Carrie Lam
6.01: Woo Kwok HingQ13. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "The Central Government can trust"? Average scores:
5.92: John Tsang
8.13: Carrie Lam
4.33: Woo Kwok HingQ14. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Capable of governing"? Average scores:
6.61: John Tsang
6.26: Carrie Lam
5.01: Woo Kwok HingQ15. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Supported by the people of Hong Kong"? Average scores:
7.04: John Tsang
5.33: Carrie Lam
5.23: Woo Kwok HingQ17. If you have the right to vote in this Chief Executive election, who would you vote for?
43.9%: John Tsang
27.6%: Carrie Lam
12.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
8.6%: None of the above
5.9%: Don't know/no opinion
1.3%: Refused to answer
(SCMP) March 15, 2017.
The two front runners in the chief executive race traded blows over their records in office during the first televised debate in the contest on Tuesday night.
Former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah began by teasing arch-rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor about her nickname “CY 2.0” – the implication being she will continue in the divisive style of the outgoing chief executive, Leung Chun-ying.
The two-hour debate, hosted by seven electronic media outlets, began at 8pm, with opening remarks on the candidates’ policy platforms. This was followed by questions from journalists and members of the audience. But the highlight came when the three candidates directed their questions at one another.
Tsang, Lam and retired High Court judge Woo Kwok-hing pulled no punches as they tackled topics like political reform, ways to mend rifts in the community, economic development and soaring house prices.
“Do you know why you are called CY 2.0?” Tsang asked her. “Because CY 1.0 has decided not to run,” she replied. “Some people need a substitute to vent their grievances.”
“People do not fear CY 2.0 much, but they do fear society will continue to split 2.0 if you win,” Tsang said. He argued that political problems required political solutions – such as by relaunching the failed electoral reform process. Lam disagreed that political reform could solve all problems.
She emphasized her regular meetings with members of the public in recent years and queried why Tsang had not done so more often, saying it was probably because he was “busy writing things on his keyboard behind closed doors”.
She was surprised Tsang had so much time to gather so many “likes” on his blog during his time in government. “You [Tsang] have a good political assistant. If you don’t win the election, I welcome your assistant Julian Law Wing-chung into my team,” she said.
Responding to a question from the audience on her popularity once in the job, Lam said: “If mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue the job as chief executive, I’ll resign.”
Internet comments:
- (Bastille Post) March 14, 2017.
Overall, the debate forum was boring with no stunning revelations. There were no golden quotes like "You are lying!" during the CY Leung-Henry Tang debate last time. Unless you are a political junkie, it would be hard to watch all two hours of this.
Overall, the sense is that John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing ganged up on Carrie Lam. By comparison, Carrie Lam was restrained. She attacked John Tsang, but not as vigorously as John Tsang attacked her.
The golden quote from John Tsang were: "Carrie Lam is not CY 2.0; she is Social Rift 2.0." This phrase was clearly designed by the election campaign team beforehand and used by John Tsang according to the script.
During the two-minute "home field" segment in which the candidates ask each other questions, John Tsang lost his composure a little. During this segment, the candidate with the home field advantage has the right to speak first. While holding that advantage, John Tsang said: "I have the home field. Please shut off her microphone" to cut off Carrie Lam. The rules allowed him to do so. When Carrie Lam held the home field advantage, John Tsang replied but Carrie Lam rebutted him. John Tsang was upset and said: "You get to say everything. You are not letting me speak." Actually, Carrie Lam has the home field advantage and she is allowed to interject.
During the interactive segment, the candidates attacked each other's vulnerabilities. Carrie Lam asked John Tsang why he did nothing about a progressive tax structure for nine years but only brought it out when he is running for Chief Executive. John Tsang said that he has proposed it for many years. But due to outside conditions (such as British Prime Minister Theresa May reducing taxes after Brexit ...). At this point, Carrie Lam interjected and told him to return to the main point. She said that small- and middle-sized companies are in dire straits already and looking for tax relief.
Carrie Lam also asked why government departments were ordered to go 0-1-1 on their budgets even though there are huge budget surpluses every year. 0-1-1 means same budget in year 1, 1% reduction in year 2 and another 1% in year 3. John Tsang was almost unable to come up with an answer. He said that many government departments had unspent budgets. Carrie Lam listed the government departments which did not have enough money to spend. For example, the libraries almost had to close earlier in order to save money.
John Tsang counterattacked Carrie Lam by reminding her that she once said that she would resign if public opinion goes against her. He asked if she would withdraw from the Chief Executive race since she trails him in public opinion support. Lam said that different surveys use different methodologies and there is one survey that showed her 3% ahead. Tsang asked her: "Do you believe it?"
John Tsang then said that Carrie Lam gets a lot of ANGRY icons on her Facebook. Lam admitted that she is not as good on Facebook because she got a late start. She said that Tsang worked on getting LIKE's even while he was in government, whereas she didn't even have the time to get on the Internet. Carrie Lam said that she would try to hire John Tsang's administrative assistant if elected away because he is very good with Facebook.
Overall, Carrie Lam was well-composed except about the public opinion polls. Basically she gives the impression of being familiar with the issues. She is excellent in policy discussions. John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing sounded less substantive. But Tsang was definitely not HEA in attacking Lam, even giving the sense of being too angry.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. John Tsang asked Carrie Lam whether she has reflected on why she is being called CY 2.0. Lam laughed and said: "Because CY 1.0 is not running." When she attempted to explain further, John Tsang said that he has the home field and asked the organizers to shut off her microphone and not allow her to explain any further.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Carrie Lam asked John Tsang about the insufficient funding of the Hospital Authority, especially since Tsang had nothing to say about the demands from young doctors. Unfamiliar with the issue, John Tsang began to explain how he prepared his policy platform. "We worked very hard, and we were prepared to deal with healthcare issues ..." Lam asked him to respond directly to the demands of the doctors. John Tsang said grumpily: "Since you have the home field, you should answer that as well."
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. During the media questions section, the question was about the dissatisfaction of parents and students about the education system. Woo Kwok Hing said that he would eliminate the Primary 3 TSA to relieve pressure. John Tsang asked what would be used to gauge the achievement levels of students. Woo Kwok Hing said: "Does everything require testing? ... Do we need to have exams in kindergarten?"
- Indeed. While we are at it, let us get rid of the Barristers Qualification Examination too because it is so stressful to the exam-takers as well as their parents, spouses, siblings, children and domestic helpers.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. The three candidates were asked to speak on "Hong Kong independence." Carrie Lam said that a small number of Hongkongers hold those views for incomprehensible reasons. If elected, she would increase young people's knowledge of the nation. She does not think that Hong Kong independence ideas can spread in Hong Kong. John Tsang said that Hong Kong independence arose because of the poor governance of the current Hong Kong government. Carrie Lam agreed that we should reflect on whether deep structural issues are triggering emotional responses among a small group of people, but since John Tsang was also a member of the current Hong Kong government whose poor governance led to the rise of Hong Kong independence, "we should reflect on this together."
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Woo Kwok Hing brought up the Wang Chau affair. He asked why the number of public housing units was reduced after private consultations, and no records exist about those private consultations. Carrie Lam said that the Steering Committee on Land Supply was chaired by John Tsang at the time. John Tsang said that Chief Executive CY Leung had another special committee to make decisions that did not go through the Steering Committee. Carrie Lam said that the Steering Committee was even holding any meetings, implying that John Tsang was HEA at work.
Woo Kwok Hing pressed on to ask why no records exist about those private consultations. John Tsang said: "I don't know what Carrie has to say." Carrie Lam said that there is division of labor in the government and that she had no part in the matter. Woo said that Carrie Lam was the Chief Secretary, "and more than one person says 'you always agree with your boss'." Carrie Lam clarified that the "Financial Secretary does not report to the Chief Secretary." John Tsang said grumpily: "I am very glad that I did not report to the Chief Secretary."
- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Carrie Lam pointed out that people perceived that public service has deteriorated: "The streets are dirtier; waiting times to see specialists at public hospitals are longer." The reason was that all government departments are facing 0-1-1 budget curbs with no adjustment for inflation. John Tsang said that Carrie Lam misleads people all the time. Carrie Lam said: "How am I misleading people? It is all written down in black-and-white." John Tsang said that Carrie Lam concurred with the 0-1-1 proposal. Carrie Lam said that she successfully fought for 0-1-1 because it would have been 1-1-1 (that is, 1% reduction for all three years) if John Tsang got his way.
Woo Kwok Hing said that Hong Kong is in a good financial state, so why cut back on everything? John Tsang said that 0-1-1 is not budget cutback; instead he wanted the government departments to spend their money more efficiently. Besides the government departments have 4% to 5% unspent money anyway. Carrie Lam pointed out that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is spending 99% of its budget and so is the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. "The government is sitting on $900 billion in reserves, but the 170,000 public service workers have to endure such pressure. This is unfair to the public service workers and the citizens."
John Tsang attempted to misdirect by saying that the government is spending more than ever. In 2007 when John Tsang became Financial Secretary, the government spent HKD 200 billion. Today it is HKD 500 billion with double digit increases every year. Carrie Lam made fun of his rounding magic: the HKD 200 billion was actually HKD 230 billion, and the HKD 500 billion was actually HKD 460 billion. The increase was not 150%; it was 99%.
- (Headline Daily) March 15, 2017. John Tsang said that Carrie Lam said she would resign if mainstream public opinion runs against her. A recent study showed that she has 30% support and 45% oppose. "You are in negative territory even before you are elected. Will you consider withdrawing from the election race?"
Carrie Lam replied that she and her team have studied various public opinion polls. She said that one poll shows that she leads John Tsang by 3%. John Tsang said: "Do you believe in that poll?" Carrie Lam says that public opinion fluctuates: "Some people have high public opinion support when elected, but the support falls down quickly afterwards."
John Tsang then criticized Carrie Lam's Facebook performance. He said that "her ANGRY's are up to her nose" and questions if she "connects" with young people. Carrie Lam wondered why John Tsang has so much time on hand to work on getting Facebook LIKE's.
- (TVBS) Public Opinion support for Taiwan ex-president Ma Ying-jeou
(Pink: Dissatisfied; Dark Blue: Satisfied) Horizontal axis: Time(TVBS) Public opinion support for Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen
06/16/2016: 47% satisfied, 18% dissatisfied
08/25/2016: 39% satisfied, 33% dissatisfied
10/13/2016: 35% satisfied, 39% dissatisfied
11/20/2016: 26% satisfied, 46% dissatisfied
12/22/2016: 27% satisfied, 48% dissatisfied
01/19/2017: 28% satisfied, 47% dissatisfied(Gallup) Donald Trump Job Approval Rates
Why didn't these people resign? (The Guardian) South Korean president Park Geun-hye did not resign even at 4% public approval.
- Park Geun-hye's reasoning is similar to that of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. Even though they screwed up royally with theirs oaths of office, they kept talking about the fact that they were elected by 60,000 voters and their next four years should be decided only by those voters alone. So if Park Geun-hye won 51.6% of the votes in 2012, she is responsible to only those voters and not to the 93% who disapprove of her performance today (even most of the 51.6% are now part of the 93%).
- Facebook is first and foremost an echo chamber: An echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a defined system. Inside a figurative echo chamber, official sources often go unquestioned and different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.
You feel good if every one of your posts gets at least 10,000 LIKE's. You begin to think that you are wildly popular when in fact nobody outside the echo chamber pays any attention to you.
The creative part of John Tsang's Facebook-driven election campaign is to mobilize (possibly by paying people/companies one way or the other) a campaign against his rival's Facebook. Thus, there are thousands of ANGRY's on every Carrie Lam post.
But please remember that John Tsang does not have exclusive rights to the tactic. When will Carrie Lam wake up? When will there be a mobilization of anti-Tsang fans (possibly independent of Carrie Lam) that will dump tens of thousands of ANGRY's and nasty comments over at John Tsang's blog/Facebook/Instagram? When that time comes, John Tsang will change metrics and complain about White Terror too.
- Actually, things are very simple nowadays -- you can buy as many LIKE's as you wish over Taobao and eBay (or see Google buy facebook likes). Just state the number that you want, pay your money and it will be there.
- Note: Please make sure that you don't place the order yourself, or else it becomes a campaign expense item. It is a trivial amount, but some investigative journalist may make a news story out of it. Give cash to your sister-in-law to her secretary to her nephew to his secondary school classmate to her gardener to his mahjong friend to place the order.
- (NOW TV News) March 15, 2017. Who won?
NOW TV invited citizens to use their mobile phones to rate the three CE candidates. More than 10,000 citizens responded. More than 80% thought that John Tsang performed best. John Tsang must feel very good about having the support of the citizens of Hong Kong.- Candidate #1 is ignorant; candidate #2 is devious; candidate #3 is somnambulistic. On the whole, I would like to have "689" CY Leung back.
- Who cares about who won the debate? All I know is that Carrie Lam does not know how to use an Octopus card and she does not know where to buy toilet paper. How can she be a good Chief Executive when she can't even get the simple things in life right?
- You actually know how to use an Octopus card and you know where to buy toilet paper. You should be the Chief Executive instead of a keyboard warrior.
- Ko Chi Sum's Facebook
In the world of Facebook, feeling good is really awesome! On my birthday, I received a lot of cakes, flowers, kisses and hearts from pretty girls ... unfortunately, all this is virtual.
Reality is a completely different matter!
LIKE's cannot be eaten like food; in the middle of the night, I still have to look at what is inside the refrigerator ...- In the United States, you watch the presidential debates in order to pick your voting choice. In Hong Kong, you watch the Chief Executive debates in order to get angry at the pan-democrats for vetoing one-person-one-vote.
The pan-democrats succeeded to win for the people of Hong Kong the right to watch without the right to vote.- The rosy scenario had been that if John Tsang continues with surging public opinion support, the Xi Jinping Core of the Two Centrals will step in to override the Zhang Dejiang/CY Leung/China Liaison Office clique and anoint John Tsang as Chief Executive instead. The pan-democrats can declare a successful revolution through peaceful expression of the public will. That dream has now been dashed with Xi Jinping's 40-second handshake with newly elected Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference vice-chairman CY Leung.
John Tsang will lose the election, but he must do so with high public opinion support such that Carrie Lam will be delegitimized and crippled as Chief Executive. The pan-democrats are urging people to go to PopVote to participate in the Civil Referendum. To legitimize PopVote, the pan-democrats have set themselves two thresholds: (1) more than 1 million votes; (2) John Tsang has to beat Carrie Lam in net approval.
PopVote is supposed to be run from March 10, 2017 12:00 to March 19, 2017 24:00 on the Internet. As of March 15, 2017 12:00, the total number of votes is 33,825. The physical component of PopVote was held on March 12 2017 with a total of 1,094 votes.
At this rate, PopVote will probably end up with something less than 100,000 votes with something like 98% approval for John Tsang, 30% approval for Woo Kwok-hing and less than 1% approval for Carrie Lam. Such results won't be accepted as legitimately reflecting the will of the people of Hong Kong.
Without PopVote, there are only the public opinion polls left. There are several tracking polls, but they are asking different questions and therefore getting different results. Who would you vote for if voting takes place tomorrow? Who do you think will win? Do you approve or disapprove each of the candidates? Which of these candidates are most suitable for Chief Executive? most qualified to become Chief Executive? best able to be Chief Executive? On a scale of 0 to 100, how would you rate each of these candidates? ...
- Why is participation in PopVote faring so poorly? Benny Tai has a litany of reasons:
(1) Polytechnic University banned a voting booth on campus. But if the total number of votes at the other four voting booths was 1,094, Polytechnic University could have brought in a few hundred more at most.
(2) People think that Carrie Lam has the race in the bag already, so they are disheartened. Nothing that people do will make a difference anymore.
(3) People were concerned about the collection/loss of personal data, even though the so-called security holes have been plugged since.
...
- (HKG Pao) March 18, 2017. According to information, the Hong Kong ID numbers of the first 20 thousand PopVote voters are available for a fee from Pastebin.com. Is PopVote selling the data? Or did somebody hack PopVote for profit? Or did somebody pretend that they hacked PopVote to scare people away?
- (Crumsy News Facebook)
I did not imagine that I could watch the entire two hours of the Chief Executive election debate. It was solely due to the entertainment value of Judge Woo that I made it through, because he often drifted away or came up with irrelevant answers.
Frankly, Carrie Lam's thinking is more masculine than the two others who don't seem masculine. The two candidates nominated by the Yellow Ribbons are just filthy mud that can never rise up.
Woo Kwok Hing is unfamiliar with many of the issues. If he were to become Chief Executive, Hong Kong would be truly torn apart. However, the judges and lawyers will find plenty of work.
John Tsang's performance was just as expected: HEA. He was even unfamiliar with the policies which were underneath his purview. When he talked about the 0-1-1 government budget cutbacks, he was really trying to increase government efficiencies! It would be a miracle if he did not provoke public anger if he became Chief Executive; but of course he would be recovering/recuperating/rehabilitating himself and he won't give a damn about the rest of the people.
Carrie Lam was a star, but only because the other two candidates were wastrels.
- (Wan Chin Facebook)
John Tsang was asked about he plans to deal with the increasing number of outsiders coming to Hong Kong. John Tsang replied that the total population of Hong Kong has not increased because the local birth rate has not kept up with the replacement for the death rate. Besides, various sectors need to hire suitable workers. That was the answer. John Tsang is a Hong Kong traitor. His support for mainland Chinese immigrants to replenish the Hong Kong population is the same as the pan-democratic leftist retards. And Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai wants the pan-democratic electors to vote for John Tsang.
- Former People Power chairman Christopher Lau Gar-hung's Facebook
Well, everybody can continue to garner public opinion. But hand on my heart, Carrie Lam clearly won. And by a lot. Judge Woo is a joke.
John Tsang's stuttering is not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem was that he couldn't even deliver on substance. What he said was even more unreal than Carrie Lam. You say that your economics is so much better, but you couldn't show anything at all during that section. The important point is that it is not the case that he had plenty of points that he wanted to say but did not have the time due to the stuttering ... rather, he did not have any points to make.- Through the debate, Woo Kwok Hing seemed as if he just had an outbreak of dementia. He forgot the questions and he tossed out accusations without evidence. However, he insisted that he knows the Law. He addressed Carrie Lam as "Mrs. Cheng" when Cheng is her maiden name. He sounded like a old man who needs to be in bed by 9pm.
- Woo Kwok Hing said that Occupy Central was a lot of fun and he would have joined them if only he were 50 years younger. This is so cute! But why didn't someone ask him that, if elected Chief Executive, what (if anything) would he do about Occupy Central? Let them stay there indefinitely? Even join them to protest against himself? Give in to all their demands (only to be given more demands)?
- Afterwards, Woo Kwok Hing blamed his lousy performance on the air conditioner that kept blowing wind at him. So it was not the flu as some reporters surmised.
- Many people can use Facebook a lot better than John Tsang. Should they become Chief Executive instead? Why do we need to hold any real elections? The $1 billion spent on the Legislative Council elections could be saved if the winners are declared to be those with the highest number of Facebook LIKE's.
- Does the job of Chief Executive consist of making Facebook posts? Is the ultimate purpose in life to get more LIKE's?
- When I was in kindergarten, I remember that I wanted to collect as many "white rabbits" as possible. Once I collect enough, the teacher will give me a prize! After listening to John Tsang expound on Facebook tonight, I realized that running for Chief Executive is no different from collecting "white rabbits" in kindergarten! The only difference is that the "white rabbits" are now "Facebook LIKE's".
- May I summarize on behalf of John Tsang? Everything that happens in Hong Kong depends on what happens outside Hong Kong (US interest rates, Brexit, Marco Rubio, etc). Therefore there is nothing that the Chief Executive can do -- except to get more LIKE's on Facebook.
- (SCMP) Both top contenders in the chief executive race are cut from the same cloth. By Alex Lo. March 16, 2017.
John Tsang Chun-wah made much of his popularity in opinion polls and social media during his first televised debate with his two chief executive election rivals.
In truth, all but one major surveys have found him ahead of Beijing’s reported favourite, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. He shouldn’t let it go to his head, though, even if he wins the race over Lam.
A victory for Tsang is unlikely of course, but not impossible. But just as pan-democrats have put him on a pedestal today, they would round on him the minute he wins. Their support for him is but a ploy: If he wins, they can claim victory over Beijing. If he loses, they will say that’s typical of Beijing to defy the wishes of Hong Kong people. If the central government had preferred Tsang, the situation would have been reversed and Lam would have had the pan-dems’ votes.
Pan-democrats, of course, know that Tsang is not, and will never be, one of them. He is as likely to side with them and defy the central government as Lam or outgoing chief executive Leung Chun-ying, who has been rewarded by being made a state leader. As chief executive, Tsang might even be more subservient knowing he wasn’t Beijing’s choice and would need to prove his loyalty.
But since Beijing has given more than hints as to its favoured candidate, pan-dems are mobilising public opinion, quite successfully, to draw artificial differences between Lam and Tsang.
Tsang is the friendly, responsive mandarin while Lam is the female version of the dictatorial Leung, or what Tsang called during the debate “Leung 2.0”.
But both candidates are cut from the same cloth, after spending their entire careers in the civil service. They know how to run a civil service, but not necessarily a government or a quasi-city-state. Their idea of governing is to give a bit of resources and benefits to every major constituent, but neither is likely to commit to any long-overdue economic overhauls or political reforms.
Tsang would become less stingy as chief executive than when he was finance secretary – especially with spending on livelihood matters. Lam would have to learn about balancing the budget and placating the business elite.
Despite the vilification and caricatures, both are probably decent people. I just don’t know whether they make good leaders.
- (Wen Wei Po) March 16, 2017.
Financial Services sector elector Tang Sing-hing asked John Tsang: Since the Financial Sector is overseen by the Financial Secretary, is John Tsang satisfied with developments in the financial industry during his term? Is there any room for improvement? If John Tsang is elected Chief Executive, will he stop collecting taxes temporarily given that the government has reserves of $900 billion?
John Tsang said that there were shocks within his 9-1/2-year tenure, including the 2008 financial crisis. He did plenty of work in order to make the financial industry stable and growing, including accumulating surpluses. "I won't praise myself as such, but I believe that the people of Hong Kong will think that I have done my job. And I have not failed the trust of the Central Government in me."
The forum host asked: "Since you are very satisfied, does that mean that there is no room of improvement for the next five years if you are elected?" At this point, John Tsang became unhappy: "This is what you say. We always have room of improvement. This goes without saying. I don't know why you keep saying this sort of thing."
But he did not say that he will suspend tax collection temporarily. He said that large reserves are needed to maintain good credit agency ratings. Although the reserves are now more than $900 billion, certain sums are set aside for large projects such as 200 billion for the 10-year hospital plan and 100 billion for housing.
- (HKG Pao) March 16, 2017.
Each candidate had 60 seconds for summation. John Tsang's 60-second speech was odd. 20 seconds were spent in praise of his campaign team. By tradition, such a speech is made after the campaign and not during the campaign. Could it be that John Tsang has come to accept that he has lost already?
Another 20 seconds was about the discouragement that he has received during the campaign. But who did he have contact apart from his own campaign team and his fans? Those who discouraged him are said to be his buddies. Could he be musing about losing his supporters in the final days of a lost campaign?
The final ten seconds or so were given to "I will not give up", "I will hold on to the end" and "I won't disappoint everybody"? So far, he has had nothing but supporting voices on the media. Who is he trying to say this to?
Does this summation come from a confident candidate? No, it sounded more a wounded fencer trying to finish a match in which he is trailing 0-14.
Why did John Tsang feel that way? Here is a hint. The only way that John Tsang can win is to cobble up an unlikely coalition of pan-democrats and the commercial/industrial sector. The pan-democrats are in his pocket, but the commercial/industrial sector will depend on an open declaration from the 12 votes around Li Ka-shing.
The bad news is that Li Ka-shing's son Richard Li has given interviews to Wen Wei Po, Ming Pao and Hong Kong Economic Journal. The first is pro-China, the second is Yellow Ribbon and the third is owned by Richard Li himself. Richard Li said that he supports Carrie Lam as Chief Executive. Why? "A Chief Executive who is completely trusted by the Central Government will bring greater stability to the people." Is he worried about upsetting people? "In the democratic process, you either choose A or B."
Could Richard Li have given John Tsang a courtesy call before the debate to tell him about what is coming?
More in
Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part
4 (301-400)
Occupy
Central Part 5 (401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)
Occupy Central Part 8 (701-800)
Occupy Central Part 9 (801-)
