(v3.0)

Section 1 of 3:  Recommended Photos/Videos/Reading

Global (in English) Greater China (in English) Greater China (in Chinese)
Nadja Paris NYROB
The History of 'Thug' Megan Garber, The Atlantic
No one compared Charlie Hebdo to the Nazis, and it's a logical sin to say so Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
Are Cell Phones Changing the Narrative on Police Shootings?  Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
Disremembered Charles Leadbeater, Aeon
TSA 'Behavior Detection' Program targeting undocumented immigrants, not terrorists Jana Winter, The Intercept
TSAs Secret Behavior Checklist to Spot Terrorists The Intercept
The Wonderfully Elusive Chinese Novel Perry Link, NYROB
New Zealand plotted hack on China with NSA
The Intercept
China: What the Uighurs See Ian Johnson, NYROB
Taiwan's Master Plan to Defeat China in a War J. Michael Cole, National Interest
Japan's Master Plan to Defeat China in a War Kyle Mizokami, National Interest
Metamorpolis: Q& A with Tim Franco  Roads and Kingdoms

《宋淇传奇》:是为君子 和而不流  新京報書評周刊
对话张爱玲(少帅)背后团队:为什么我们不做书城模式 Tech.163.com
宋家父子看「雨傘運動」 馮睎乾,蘋果日報
輕逸與深情讀《宋淇傳奇》郭梓祺
我讀《宋淇傳奇》  馮睎乾

Section 2 of 3:  Brief comments

[This is a collection of information on the Occupy Central movement/revolution (also known as the Umbrella movement/revolution) in Hong Kong. This is not comprehensive coverage by any means. Many perspectives are already available in abundance in English (see, for example, Reddit on Umbrella Revolution), so there is no need for me to duplicate them here. Instead, the focus here is on popular Chinese-language materials that are not otherwise available in English. Most of the information is gathered from mainstream media, social media (Facebook, YouTube, discussion forums (mainly Hong Kong Discussion Forum, Hong Kong Golden Forum, HKGalden, Uwants and Baby Kingdom), blogs and polling data). The YouTube/Facebook videos have people speaking in the Cantonese dialect and the discussion forums often use uniquely Hong Kong Internet language that is not even comprehensible to mainland Chinese citizens. My contribution is to compile and translate into English these otherwise unknown materials to provide a fuller view of the Occupy Central movement.]

(Oriental Daily) May 24, 2015.

The Democratic Party is severely divided over the constitutional reform. In January, veteran member Tik Chi-yuen said on radio that the pan-democrats should seriously consider the public opinion on "pocketing it first." The Democratic Party then expressed profound regret over Tik's remarks which do not represent the party's position. Another veteran member Lee Wing-tat accused Tik of angling for a government job.

More recently, another veteran member Nelson Wong Sing-chi wanted to start a signature campaign for "pocketing it first" under certain conditions. The Democratic Party froze his membership.

Yesterday, veteran member Law Chi-kwong said on radio that the political issues are clearly affecting the economy and people's livelihood. Therefore it is worrisome if the 2017 Chief Executive election method stays the same. He said that there no solution that is zero-risk for the central government while still being acceptable to the pan-democrats. But if we stay at the same place, then the prospects become even more respect. The world will change, Hong Kong and China will change, but we cannot "sit at the tree and wait for the rabbit." Therefore, Law called for a third solution that is acceptable to the majority of the Hong Kong people while still being acceptable to the central government and the pan-democrats.

Given that the Democratic Party has shut down dissenting voices in the past, Law said that he is looking for trouble for saying so. He knows that he is just picking up a brick and dropping it on his own foot. But he is fully prepared to deal the consequences.

What is "sit at the tree and wait for the rabbit"?

(Hujiang)

In the Spring and Autumn Period (772 to 446 BC), there was a farmer in the State of Song. In his field there was a tree stump and one day, when he was working in the field he saw a rabbit bump into the stump accidentally and broke its neck and died. The farmer was overjoyed at the unexpected gain. He thought, "How wonderful! Game comes by so easily! I'm tired of farming under the hot sun. I can make money from selling the rabbits."

Therefore the farmer threw his hoe back in the storeroom and sat beside the stump; indulging himself in the fantasy that other rabbits would come along and do the same thing. He waited and waited but no more rabbit came by. Many days passed before the farmer thought of his field again, by which time the field was overgrown with weeds.

YouTube cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_foxU9VBusQ

The government has made a proposal on reforming the Chief Executive election in 2017. The Legislative Council will vote on whether to pass the proposal or not. The pan-democrats hold 27 out of 70 seats in the Legislative Council. A two-thirds majority is required to pass an amendment to the Basic Law. If the pan-democrats votes against the proposal, it will not pass. If it is not passed, the Chief Executive will continue to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee in 2017. The government is calling the two choices: "pocket it first" versus "remain in the same spot."

The pan-democrats promise to take a united stand and veto the proposal. That's fine. They can do that. They don't even have to explain why "remain in the same spot" is better than "pocket it first." But they owe the people an explanation about how democracy will come about?

At the moment, the talk is about how a rejection of the proposal will make the central government come to the table with the only proposal accepable the pan-democrats (namely, civil nomination). This is like the farmer waiting at the tree stump -- if you wait, the rabbit will come. The farmer is completely oblivious to the behavioral patterns and psychological motives of rabbits. Rabbits don't have a history of running into tree stumps (or else they would have been eliminated by evolution) nor are they psychologically motivated to satisfy the needs of the lazy farmer. The central government is not known to make many concessions nor are they psychologically motivated to appease the pan-democrats. They are satisfied with continuing with the old Chief Executive election method indefinitely.

Which brings us to the matter of dog biscuits.  This goes back to the year 2004.

(SCMP) His tails between his legs, Raymond Wu apologises for calling Hongkongers dogs. February 20, 2004.

A Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress yesterday apologised for his 'inappropriate' remarks that Hong Kong people were like dogs that had been fed too many biscuits. Raymond Wu Wai-yung was trying to illustrate his point that Hong Kong people had lost their fighting spirit because the government had made concessions to people who took to the streets. But he admitted yesterday that he might have offended many members of the public.

Dr Wu, who is also a Hong Kong member of the Basic Law Committee, was speaking at a forum on constitutional development on Wednesday when he said the nature of people was similar to that of dogs, which could be trained to respond to a particular stimulus.

'A dog jumps higher because it knows it can get a biscuit by doing so,' he said. 'Hong Kong people have lost their fighting and entrepreneurial spirit. It's because they have been fed too many dog biscuits.' After bowing twice while apologising yesterday, Dr Wu said he had failed to keep in mind the fact that dogs have negative connotations in Chinese culture.

Activists belonging to the Anti-Tung Solidarity group, including Leung Kwok-hung, presented Dr Wu with a bag of dog biscuits and plastic bones outside the Miramar hotel where he held the press conference.

The relationship between rabbits and dog biscuits can be made clear through Classical Conditioning.

There are many methods of classical conditioning. The best known form is forward conditioning. In experiments, Pavlov rang a bell and then gave the dog food. After a few repetitions, the dog began to salivate to the bell. Pavlov called the bell the conditioned stimulus (CS) because its effects depend on its association with food. He called the food the unconditioned stimulus (US) because its effects did not depend on previous experience. During forward conditioning, the onset of CS precedes the onset of US in order signal that the US will follow.

In Raymond Wu's analogy, he was probably thinking about the government as the human experimenter and certain people as dogs. Through previous sessions, the human experimenter has rewarded the dog with a biscuit whenever it jumps up. Therefore, the dog knows that if it wants a biscuit, all it has to do is to jump high. So if the treasury runs a surplus, you praise the government and expect to receive a handout.

This is 2015. The roles are completely reversed. The Yellow Ribbons are the human experimenters and the government is the dog. Through previous sessions, the human experimenter has shown that whenever they are unhappy with something or the other, they will be obstructive/destructive (through non-violation marches/demonstrations, violent marches/demonstrations, Occupy tactics, Shopping Revolution, Legco filiebustering, etc). When the government accedes to their demands, they will stop those actions (that is, reward with a biscuit) for the moment until the next issue pops up.

With a roll of successful cases (such as the resignation of Chief Executive Tung Chee-wah after the 2004 July 1st march; the cessation of unlimited visits from Shenzhen residents after the Sheung Shui/Sha Tin/Tuen Mun/Yuen Long/Tai Po clashes;), the human experimenter has every confidence that this trick will continue to work.

That was until they come across a dog that is of a bigger and different species. This dog is much bigger than the human experimenter so threatening to beat the dog up is a laughable notion. The dog's taste for food are also different, and what the human experimenter is offering is not sufficiently enticing. So how do you make this dog jump?

See Vox: Hong Kong used to be 18 percent of China's GDP. Now it's 3 percent

What can Hong Kong threaten the world's other superpower with?

P.S. There is another Chinese saying about the standard tactics that a wife uses to get her way: 一哭二三上吊. First, you try weeping. Second, you try screaming and yelling. Third, you try threatening to commit suicide. The saying does not explain what happens if these tactics don't work. The answer is obvious: She goes to sleep and wakes up the next morning acting as if nothing happened last night ... until the next time.

(EJinsight) Woman charged over undocumented mainland boy. May 22, 2015.

A 67-year-old woman has been released on bail after a young mainland boy was found living in Hong Kong for nine years without identity documents. The woman, surnamed Chow, has been charged with inducing others to breach immigration rules, Ming Pao Daily reported Friday. Siu Yau-wai, 12, has been issued a temporary residence permit by immigration authorities. Siu was abandoned by his parents in 2006 when he was three years old, the report said.

Chow said she found Siu without a Chinese household registration certificate and arranged for him to come to Hong Kong to live with her, using documents obtained from a third party. She claimed Siu is her grandson. Chow surrendered to the police after seeking help from trade unionist Chan Yuen-han, fearing the child will be left with no one to care for him when she dies. She came to Hong Kong 20 years ago.

Legal experts said the Immigration Department has discretion to offer Siu right of abode. However, they said it must first investigate the matter to avoid setting a bad precedent. Immigration sources said DNA tests could be arranged to verify the biological relationship between Chow and Siu. A spokesman said any investigation will take several other factors into consideration. Details of the case will also have to be passed to mainland authorities, he said.

On Tuesday, Siu gave short answers during a press conference. He said he mainly stayed home and was taught by Chow how to write. He would hide in a washroom at the sight of a policeman.

Chow said the recent death of a teenage girl who was found to have no identity documents prompted her not to dwell on Sius situation. She said she is prepared to face the legal consequences of her actions.

Chan urged immigration authorities to wisely use their discretion, calling the plight of the woman and the boy a tragedy.

(SCMP) Abandoned boy, 12, divides opinion in bid for Hong Kong residency. May 23, 2015.

Hongkongers are split over the fate of a 12-year-old boy who has lived in their midst without official identification for nine years, with some calling for him to be allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons and others fearing the case may open the floodgates. NGOs say they have indeed seen more children in similar situations.

In the spotlight is Siu Yau-wai, who at age three was brought to Hong Kong by his grandmother Chow Siu-shuen from Shenzhen in 2006 using a two-way permit, allowing only a short visit, after his parents abandoned him on the mainland.

"There needs to be an investigation into whether his claims are real and honest. If they are, [the government] should not deport him," Billy Wong Wai-yuk, executive secretary of the Committee of Children's Rights, said yesterday. "We signed the [UN] Convention on the Rights of the Child We should view this from the child's standpoint and decide what is best for him."

Wong noted Yau-wai had nowhere to "return to", contrary to callers on a phone-in morning radio show who expressed fears allowing him to remain would encourage an influx of illegal migrants and overstayers.

The boy was given temporary papers on Thursday after going with his grandmother, 67, to the Immigration Department to turn themselves in. As of late last night, 56 per cent of respondents to an SCMP.com poll agreed with the department's decision.

(The Standard) Fate of illegally hidden boy in balance. May 22, 2015.

A 67-year-old grandmother was arrested yesterday when she turned herself in, saying she had illegally hidden her 12-year-old mainland- born grandson for nine years in Hong Kong.

A tearful Chow Siu-chuen said Siu Yau-wai was abandoned by his parents in Shenzhen shortly after his birth because they considered him bad luck. The boy has no Hong Kong identity card and has never been to school.

The case echoes that of an undocumented 15-year-old girl who plunged to her death from the family's Repulse Bay flat last month. The girl, as well as her 14-year-old sister, did not have a birth certificate or a Hong Kong ID card, and had never been to school.

Chow said her grandson was placed in a cardboard box and left on a street after the mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and the father was injured in an industrial accident. She said she "didn't have the heart" to let that happen so "I hired a woman to take care of him."

The woman backed out later on "so I took him here," Chow said. "I didn't want to leave him there alone. I didn't want him to die." She said she borrowed someone's hukou household registration permit to apply for a two-way permit. She said the boy is stateless, with no legal rights nor protection, as his birth was not registered in either the mainland or Hong Kong.

Chow added that for the past nine years, he had no formal education, nor could he see a doctor when he was sick, except for practitioners of Chinese medicine, which usually does not require identity documents.

At a press conference, Chow recalled the boy saying: "Grandma, I'd die with you if you pass away. I can't be of any use anyway. I don't have an identity. Even if others bully me, I can't tell anyone." The boy added: "I have to hide whenever I see the police. I'm afraid my grandmother and I would be arrested."

Later, the pair went to the Immigration Department office, where the boy was granted recognizance while the grandmother was arrested for aiding and abetting breach of condition of stay. She was later released. The case will be handled by the Investigation Division.

Federation of Trade Unions lawmaker Chan Yuen-han and Lau Kar- wah, a lawyer, are helping the pair. Lau said the boy may be deported but he hopes the government will let him stay. "This is a very special case, given that he has nobody to take care of him in the mainland," he said. Lau added that Chow turned herself in "because it is in the best interest of the boy."

The boy said he wants to go to school as he aspires to be an accountant and care for his grandmother. The Education Bureau said it will arrange for his school admission if the Immigration Department does not object.

(Sing Tao) May 23, 2015.

The Anti-Communistization/Anti-Colonization set up a special page to demand the Immigration Department send Siu Yau-wai back to China immediately, and more than 5,000 Internet users gave their support. Some Internet users said that if a 70-year-old man falsifying date-of-birth could be sent to jail, then the Siu's grandmother should also be prosecuted too.

The Hong Kong Indigenous Power also called for a siege of the Wong Tai Sin office of Legislative Councilor Chan Yuen-han, because she is openly supporting persons with Three No's to come to Hong Kong at will. The Three No persons are individuals whose father isn't a Hongkonger, whose mother is not a Hongkonger and they themselves are not born in Hong Kong. In response, Chan said that she will be meeting in the Legislative Council all day tomorrow and her office workers will deal with any situation in accordance with the circumstances. As for the controversy over the affair, she said that Hong Kong society will have its say. Chan also said that this was a special case in which the boy is innocent. Therefore she hopes the government can handle this matter in a humanitarian way.

(Oriental Daily) May 23, 2015.

Siu Yau-wai became an overnight celebrity, but his press conference photo reminded an Internet user named Patrick of a video of a fight last December. In the video, an individual who looks like Siu Yau-wai is having a quarrel with other children.

The video was posted on December 26 2014 onto the Internet under the title "When Takeshi Goda hits Nobita in Shun Lee Estate."


The characters Takeshi Goda and Nobita from the Japanese cartoon Doraemon

In the later part of the video, the individual who looks like Siu Yau-wai chased after a smaller boy, punching him from above several times, pushing him with both hands and shouting out "Fuck your mother!" at least twice. The victim said: "I am going to call the police and report you for assault." The individual who looks like Siu left upon hearing the threat to call the police.

From the video, Internet users noted that the individual in the video wore a similar watch as Siu at the press conference. Furthermore, the individual wore the uniform pants of a Shenzhen school and wondered if Siu was really not attending school.

Our reporter canvassed the Shun Lee Estate neighborhood. A neighbor said that the grandmother-grandson have been spotted around the shopping mall before, not as if the child was housebound, adding that the two are liars. Other children said that Siu is a local bully who hogs the Masked Superman game machine outside the convenience store.

(Apple Daily) May 22, 2015.

Legislative Councilor Chan Yuen-han said that she watched the video and then called Siu Yau-wai whether it was him in the video. Siu admitted: "I was the person." But Chan declined to say why Siu was fighting. She only said: "I felt very uncomfortable after I heard it."

Chan is aware of the negative criticisms on the Internet, but she thinks that the present priority is to make sure that Siu will grow up healthily both physically and mentally, and that means being happy in school. The earlier fight only shows that the grandmother made the right decision to turn themselves in and to fight for right of abode for the grandson. Chan said that Siu needs a normal life, and she hopes that society can shower more love and tolerance.

Videos:

(Apple Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42tRX452GFw News report including the Shun Lee estate fight.

(Ming Pao) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku7lGd547tA Ming Pao press conference, in which Chan Yuen-han escorts him to file the relevant paperwork.

(Crazy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il1Pudd2fpU Full 2:20 video. The fighting starts at 1:35.

Internet comments:

- Patrick Luk (of the Be Careful When You Drive forum)

(in translation)
Violent tendencies, foul language
Is our little friend Siu suitable to live here?
Today's newspaper reports about him receiving a temporary stay and performing for the interview
Are these all the facts?
I took this video. You are welcome to download and disseminate

- The video has been edited. There was a gap between the initial bantering and the fight. The little runt must have done something to provoke Siu. Then the aftermath of the fight has been edited out. That was the part when Nobita asked Doraemon to use his magic to vanquish Takeshi Goda.

- Siu Yau-wai has a future as a sumo wrestler because he is fat and aggressive. So he should be deported to Japan.

- It is nice of Chan to talk about the physical and mental well-being of Siu Yau-wai. How about the physical and mental well-being of the 7-year-old primary school classmates who have to put up with a Godzilla-sized bully? What about them?
- That is not true. Siu Yau-wai has been assessed to have achieved the equivalent of third-year primary school. Therefore, his classmates will be 9-year-olds. However, he is over-sized even among 12-year-olds.
- How does he achieve third-year equivalency when he is housebound according to his grandmother? This is just lies stacked upon more lies.
- The grandmother is said to be a high school graduate, and she was the one who taught him at home.
- That Siu Yau-wai is 12-years-old is completely based upon the assertion of the grandmother. That really remains to be seen after a thorough investigation.
- Someone at Galden Forum uploaded the photo of Siu onto Microsoft's face recognition program and determined 'it' to be a 23-year-old female.

- Hong Kong Golden Forum

(in translation) This fat boy claimed to have lived in Hong Kong for 9 years. He is lying. Last year, I bought a bottle of water from him at a newsstand in Longgong (Shenzhen). I remembered it because the bottle was as fake as the damned fat boy. I told him that the bottle was fake. He cursed me back. I am willing to bear witness. Everybody who comes down here claim to have lived here for decades. Fucking liars!

- There is an Internet saying: "Do not following the preceding car too closely, because you may run into an accident." This refers to being careful to comment before all the facts are known, because you may be caught looking foolish. Chan Yuen-han has just ran into the preceding car.
- This is normally the sort of dumb thing that the Civic Party would do. This time, Chan Yuen-han jumped the gun to her eternal regret.

Chan Yuen-han's office is plastered with sheets telling her to come to hell.

- The seeds of the backlash against Siu Yau-wai were sowed back in the 2001 case of Chong Fung-yuen whereupon Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong were ruled to have the right of abode regardless of the Hong Kong immigration status of their parents. That ruling lead to the fear mainland women would rush to give birth in Hong Kong. In an interview, Chong, by then 14 and a Form 1 student in Tuen Mun, described being affected by internet users' taunts of him as a "locust" and a "criminal".  Letting Siu in would open the door for hordes of imitators.

- In a way, this case reflects current politics. In the past, there are plenty of individual cases in which mainland children obtained residency out of humanitarian concerns. None of those cases drew attention. So it becomes strange to see the radical elements raise this present case as a rule-of-law issue. That is to say, if Siu Yau-wai is not entitled to right of abode under the law, then he must be expelled. That seems righteous and justifiable. But the fact is that in recent years, tens of thousands of South Asians and Africans have entered Hong Kong either illegally or legally but overstayed, and then petitioned successfully not to be expelled. Some of these people stayed only to work illegally or committed crimes. Why didn't the radical elements protest against those people? If they didn't realize, then they know now. Do you think that they will go and protests against South Asians and Africans tomorrow? Of course not. Under the current political climate, the target is the Chinese government and its people, not India, Pakistan, Senegal, Nigeria, Kenya or whatever.

- During moments like these, we need to talk about ... international standards! What else!?

(Wikepedia) DREAM Act

The DREAM Act (acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) is ... a multi-phase process for undocumented immigrants in the United States that would first grant conditional residency and upon meeting further qualifications, permanent residency.

Requirements for conditional resident status

  • person must have proof that they entered United States before the age of 16 and must have continuously lived in the country for at least 5 years
  • must have graduated from a United States high school or obtained a GED
  • person demonstrates good moral character
  • pass criminal background checks and reviews

After having obtained and held conditional resident status, permanent residency may be granted if the following requirements have been met in a period of six years.

Requirements for permanent residency

  • have attended an institution of higher learning or served in the United States military for at least 2 years and if discharged, have received an honorable discharge
  • pass another series of background checks
  • continue to demonstrate good moral character

If these requirements are not fulfilled the conditional resident will lose their legal status and be subject to deportation.

Good law? Unfortunately, the DREAM Act is just a fantasy written on a piece of paper, and it has failed to pass several times. Hong Kong legislator Chan Yuen-han should try to preach to the Americans about love and tolerance.

- Under these circumstances (1) Siu has no relatives in China and (2) he has resided in Hong Kong for more than 7 years already, I am not obverse to granting him permission to stay. However, I am seeing many suspicious indicators here:
(1) Although Siu has been in Hong Kong for 9 years, he chose to come out now in a high-profile manner at a politically sensitive moment;
(2) He gave a press conference wearing a t-shirt with the English words (EAT SLEEP RECYCLE) giving the impression that he is a wastrel;
(3) A video of him fighting conveniently gets circulated;
(4) He sought and obtained the assistance of Legislator Chan Yuen-han;
(5) A large number of new accounts were registered to voice opinion on his case.
So the whole thing looks like a carefully manufactured affair. Therefore I refuse to go along unless my suspicions are allayed.

- (Apple Daily) When Zhong Ruolin was three months old, her mother smuggled her into Hong Kong. In 1995, she entered school and was found to have been living in Hong Kong for eight years. She was arrested. On April 22, 1997, 30 members of the Royal Police Force, the Fire Department and the Social Welfare Department sent her and her mother back to mainland China. Zhong Ruolin did not resist, but she was crying. Her mother (who had over-stayed in Hong Kong) was emotionally distraught and placed under handcuffs. In January 1998, Zhong Ruolin received a one-way visa to re-united with her family in Hong Kong. However, identification-less children continue to enroll in Hong Kong schools. The Catholic Diocese even engaged in civil disobedience and continued to educate these students against government orders.

That was then, and this is now. Today all identification-less locusts must be expelled immediately less they contaminate the air and waste our resources.

- (Oriental Daily) May 23, 2015.

About 50 members of Hong Kong Indigenous Power and Civic Power went to protest at legislator Chan Yuen-han's office in Wong Tai Sin. Later they moved on to the Confucian Tai Shing Primary School nearby.

A young female student saw the flyers that were posted all over the front gate of her school, and started to cry. She told those present: "Why? Our school provides knowledge for new students. Why are they posting these sorts of things?" She did not know why the demonstrators were doing this.

(Apple Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xpd0a1L6Q&feature=youtu.be News report about how the Hong Kong Indigenous Power/Civic Passion demonstrators scared a little girl into tears.

Internet comments:

- I totally don't understand this. Why should this little girl be scared of a bunch of screaming masked men in front of the school entrance? Someone should explain to her that these good people will bring democracy to her, and she will live happily forever afterwards with them in charge of her life.

- Nice people that you wouldn't mind encounterin in a dark alley:

- Famous saying from foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam: "Hanging out the banner and laying down wreaths caused me a great deal of hurt. Parents and children were also hurt. What did I do that was so unforgivable? Why are they treating me in this manner?"

- Something is very wrong with this picture. Why is this little girl out here alone? Why were are her parents? They should be prosecuted for negligence. The Child Welfare Department must take custody of the little girl and send her to Po Leung Kuk immediately. Where are the school authorities? They should be prosecuted for failure of supervision in letting the little girl come out alone. We need to thank Hong Kong Indigenous/Civic Passion and the media for bringing this shocking case of child abuse to our attention.

- At any international school in Hong Kong, most of the children are Three No's: Father not born in Hong Kong, mother not born in Hong Kong and they themselves are not born in Hong Kong. Why don't Hong Kong Indigenous Power/Civic Passion go and bang on their front gates? Oh, they're white children ... never mind ... please go back to whatever you were doing before ... we'll leave with our tails between our legs ...

- Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat said that each demonstration site is a battleground where things happen (such as little girls crying) (see Occupy Tsuen Wan/Sheung Shui/Sha Tin/Tuen Mu/Whatever). So this is normal. Nothing to see here. Go back to whatever you were doing before.

- Why protest at the school? As school policy, the school is obliged to consider an applicant on the basis of factors such as availability of space, residency (e.g. permission from Immigration Department for temporary residence), mental/physical capacity, educational achievement, etc. Do you think school admission decisions should be influenced by whatever the 50 yahoos are screaming about outside the front gate?

- When newspaper columnists get attacked by their own newspaper, the yellow-stained Journalists Association go missing in action. So it is natural that when a school gets attacked, the yellow-stained Professional Teachers Union go missing in action. I could have told you that beforehand.

- A male passerby was annoyed by the slogan-chanting in the street, and so he got into a verbal argument with the Yellow Ribbon demonstrators. Guess what happened? The police came and escorted the man away. Disturbing the peace is a crime in Hong Kong. But the people who were disturbing the peace were allowed to continue, while the lone objector was removed. What is this society coming to?

- Lu Xun wrote: When the strong get angry, they rise against those are even stronger; when the weak get angry, they rise against those who are even weaker. Hong Kong Indigenous Power/Civic Passion got angry, and they rose up against a little girl.

- The urgent task of the day is to find the name of that little girl, who her parents are, where they live and work, what their phone numbers are, etc and then we will see that justice be served.

- (Oriental Daily) According to Hong Kong Indigenous Power spokesperson Mr. Ho, the video proved that someone instructed the little girl to speak louder and therefore he wondered if the whole thing was a staged act with a little girl shedding fake tears.

- (TVB) According to Hong Kong Indigenous Power spokesperson Mr. Ho, "I think those were fake tears. The eyes of many citizens are snow-clear. They can determine whether those tears were fake or real. Why does a small child love her school so much? I am perplexed why her initial reaction is to cry, and then give such a speech? I don't get it." He also emphasized that the demonstration was peaceful: "It was indeed peaceful. Certain Internet users posted some papers, but we didn't do it. Anyway, we didn't post any papers."


So who are these people?

- Putting up posters on the wall is not a crime against humanity. It is the exercise of freedom of expression.
- Putting up posters on the wall is a crime that is subject to a $1,500 fine in Hong Kong. There are similar local statutes all over the world. Please do not mislead people.

- The greatest leaderless mass movement of all times:

(Oriental Daily) May 22, 2015.

Yesterday around 430pm, four aides to Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-hi attempted to bring some items into the Legislative Council. The items included a two-meter-tall metal ladder, an electricity generator and two other carts carrying other items. The building security guards were concerned that the electricity generator may contain inflammable fuel and demanded the electricity generator be inspected. Kwok's four aides refused to cooperate and called Kwok Ka-hi. Kwok came down from his eighth floor office, told the security guards off and got his aides to move the items inside his office. Later security guards detected the strong smell of gasoline in the restroom and believed that someone had flushed the fuel down the toilet.

When Kwok was interviewed, he said that his aides had brought in a brand new electricity generator and that the security guards were harassing his aides. But he acknowledged that it is possible that the electricity generator may contain a small amount of fuel that was used for testing purposes. He accused people of magnifying this trivial matter. He said that if he was not allowed to bring gasoline into the Legislative Building, then all cars must also be banned from the parking garage.

Internet comments:

- Electricity generator? Kwok Ka-ki must be planning to occupy the Legislative Council from the inside and not from the outside. Many pan-democrats have threatened Occupy tactics if the 2017 Chief Executive reform bill should pass. If the Occupiers are brought into the Legislative Council building as guests of the pan-democratic legislators, they can erect barricades and set up booby-traps. If the police cut off electricity, they will have their own electricity/water/food supply. They are just so smart and valiant.

- If they won't let me carry gasoline onto the airplane, then all airplanes must also be banned from the airport because they carry lots of fuel.

- Electricity, water and food are not the biggest needs during a takeover. The most important thing is an Internet connection. What if the police cut off the Internet in the vicinity? No more posting of selfie photos onto Facebook! The occupiers will surrender within 24 hours.

- It is a violation of the privacy of the four aides of Kwok Ka-hi to have the close-circuit television screen capture published in the newspapers. A special Legco committee needs to be formed immediately to investigate how this leak occurs.
- If the legislators say that they were elected to supervise/monitor the government, then who is supervising/monitoring them? We the people, of course. And we have the right to know what they are up to, especially when it comes to possibly unlawful activities.

- Kwok Ka-ki is a medical doctor whose specialty is urology. Therefore he needs a backup electricity generator in his legislative council office in case the electricity fails during circumcision operations. Very important, that.

- What do the environmentalists have to say about flushing gasoline down the toilet? Will it help save the China white dolphins? Will it make the Red Forests grow back?

- I know why Kwok Ka-ki did this! He is using the electricity generator as the cover to smuggle gasoline in so that he can set himself on fire!

- Wait a minute! Kwok said that this was a brand new machine with no gasoline inside (other than some trace amounts used during testing). The more interesting question is: What is the purpose of an electricity generator without any fuel? This is like buying a mobile telephone and removing the battery as unnecessary.

- What kind of news reporters are these? Why don't they ask the most obvious question? ... "Legislator Kwok, what do you plan to use the electricity generator for?"

- "No matter what is the reason and background, the refusal to let security guards to check is unreasonable. The security guards have a duty to ensure the safety of everybody inside the building. Mr. Kwok's claim to not allow cars coming into the building is totally ridiculous. Flammable material inside a car park can burn the car and ignite the fuel inside cars. Who will stay in the car park forever after parking? As such, the risk to life is relatively low. However, an office block has lots of decoration which can support and spread the fire. The people there are heavily risked. Mr. Kwok, What is your profession? What is your duty being a Legco member? You should be well aware of the risk than the others."

- This dickhead Kwok Ka-ki made a stupid analogy between the office and the car park. You park your car inside a car park and not inside your office, just as you defecate in your bathroom and not in your dining room. But maybe you do ...

- This is not the first time that a pan-democratic legislator has done this sort of thing.
(The Sun) November 22, 2014. Recently Democratic Party legislator Wu Chi-wai spent more than $2,000 to purchase an electricity generator to use during events. He tested the equipment inside his office. Unfortunately, the machine generated a foul odor that spread across the floor, causing concerns that there was a fire. Wu Chi-wai offered no apologies and only said that the machine has been sent out for repairs.

- (Oriental Daily) May 23, 2015.

Polytechnic University Department of Mechanical Engineering engineer Lu Kok-keung said that bringing an electricity generator into the Legislative Council is not hazardous as such. However, gasoline is an inflammable liquid and the electrical generator should be kept faraway from any source of fire. If gasoline is poured down the toilet, any residue may turn into a fireball in the presence of a fire seed. Lu also found the act of flushing gasoline down the toilet to be incomprehensive. It is dangerous as environmentally unsound. "Just pour the gasoline into a can and put it into your car's gas tank."

As for pan-democratic legislators using an electricity generator in their offices, Lu said that this is very dangerous because the machine will generate enough carbon monoxide exhaust to kill someone within half an hour in a closed room.

Meanwhile Kwok Ka-ki is still upset by the invasion of the privacy of his aides. The Legislative Council secretariat distributed the screen capture of the CCTV video to members of the administrative/management committee which includes pro-establishment and pro-democracy legislators. Who leaked the screen capture? Besides, do legislators have privacy any more?

(Oriental Daily) May 22, 2015.

The Democratic Party held a special central committee meeting last evening, and voted 21-1 to freeze the membership of Nelson Wong who is advocating a signature campaign to support "pocket it first". The decision is effective immediate and will continue for six months. Wong becomes the first "frozen" party member in the history of the Democratic Party.

Wong said that he completely understands why Albert Ho Chun-yan made the motion, but he was sad about the vote. He never imagined that an attempting to set up a civil platform would hurt the party so much.

Wong said that he originally proposed to turn the company votes into individual votes as well as allowing the blank vote a veto vote. The central government has rejected these two ideas. Therefore, Wong won't be starting his signature campaign.

Wong said that he respects the party's decision, but he won't be resigning from the party. "My feelings for the Democratic Party have not died off." The Democratic Party will investigate Wong's case and decide whether to expel him or not.

Internet comments:

- The Democratic Party, the least democratic of all parties. If they can't even deal with their own party issues in a democratic manner, what should the voters trust them?
- The Democratic Party central committee took a vote with a result of 21-1. This was a very democratic process.

- They disciplined Nelson Wong because citizens may be unsure just where the Democratic Party stands. But haven't they been arguing for so many years that universal suffrage can take place because the citizens are smart and know how to tell right from wrong?

- Nelson Wong wants to find a way for the Democratic Party to reach out to the majority of the population, and he now faces expulsion. His executioner Albert Ho spends his meeting time in Legco on sexy photos. The good sleep badly and the bad sleep well.

- So what if Nelson Wong's party membership gets frozen? What's it to him? More importantly, will he get 5% off at Cafe de Coral as a result? If not, he shouldn't care.
- If he goes to Fairwood, a 10% surcharge will be tagged onto his bill.

- The Democratic Party has 788 members. Since that is more than the 689 Chief Executive election committee votes that CY Leung got, they are more representative and can therefore decide the democratic future of Hong Kong shall be continued Chief Executive election by 1,200 persons.

- The episode of the Eight-Nation Alliance showed that the Chinese people are best in the world with internal strife/internecine struggle, allowing a numerically inferior foreign force

- (The Free Dictionary) Party Discipline

Lenin emphasized that iron party discipline becomes particularly important in the period of the working class armed struggle to achieve power and defend and consolidate it. The Communist Party can successfully fulfill its role as leader of the toiling masses if strong, conscious party discipline prevails and if the partys directing center is an authoritative body that has broad powers and enjoys universal confidence among party members and the nonparty toiling masses.

...

The principles of party discipline of the CPSU are embodied in the Rules of the CPSU, which state: Ideological and organizational unity, the monolithic quality of the ranks of the party, and the elevated, conscious discipline of all Communists constitute an inviolable law in the life of the CPSU. Every manifestation of factionalism and cliquishness is incompatible with the Marxist-Leninist party spirit, with continued membership in the party (1971, p. 5). A party member is obligated to defend party unitythe chief prerequisite for party strength and powerin every way possible and to observe party arid state discipline. Those guilty of violating the Program and Rules of the party, party discipline, state discipline, or party morality must answer to the party. A Communist is an active, selfless fighter for the implementation of party and state decisions. For the party member, mere agreement with party resolutions is not enough: he is obligated to struggle and put these resolutions into practice.

- Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau characterized the Nelson Wong affair as an intra-party matter that does not concern the citizens. But what Nelson Wong brought up was something that the majority of the citizens want. Of course, Emily Lau doesn't care -- she only wants to impose the will of the Democratic Party on the people, just like what the dictatorial Communists do.

- (HKG Pao) The Democratic Party central committee voted 21-to-1 to suspend Nelson Wong's party membership. The interesting question is just who that lone dissenter was. Wong is not a member of the central committee, so he was not that person. Since the voting was anonymous, nobody knows for sure who that person is. One thing for sure was that it was not Albert Ho who made the motion to have the vote (unless he has split personality).

(Oriental daily) May 19, 2015.

During the Occupy period, a number of pan-democratic legislators have been inviting demonstrators to visit them as guests and use the conference rooms as bedrooms. Last month, Labor Party legislator Peter Cheung Kwok-che's assistant brought a demonstrator upstairs to use a supermarket cart to carry more than a dozen hot water bottles into the building to re-fill them. Labor Party legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan's assistant then escorted this demonstrator out of the building with the supermarket cart. The Legislative Council secretariat said that the two legislators are guilty of three things: allowing a visitor to roam around not in the company of a legislator; using Legco resources for unlawful purposes; allowing stolen property (namely, the supermarket handcart which is clearly marked with the name of the said supermarket) onto the premises.

Labor Party legislator Peter Cheung Kwok-che replied: "What is wrong with helping people out? They didn't come in and cause trouble." He did not think that the Legislative Council should be so miserly. He said that he will continue to bring people inside the Legco building. However he acknowledged that the secretariat "may be reasonable." Meanwhile Labor Party legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan admitted that she has received a warning letter from the secretariat, but declined to comments on the contents of that letter.

Internet comments:

- If I were pushing a supermarket shopping cart anywhere else (e.g. Hong Kong International Airport, Four Seasons Hotel, Hong Kong Cultural Centre, etc), I would be arrested immediately.

(Wen Wei Po) May 20, 2015.

At around 1pm while the pan-democratic legislators were busy filibustering, the fire alarm in the Legislative Council building went off. Chairman Jasper Tsang suspended the meeting as the legislators evacuated down to the lobby.

People Power legislator Chan Wai-yip said: "The heavens are helping me on the filibustering." At the time, Civic Party legislator Chan Ka-lok was saying to himself: "I must been making such a fiery speech that the alarm went off." Labor Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan told Chan: "You should have been shooting fire when you spoke, so that we have to be evacuated."

The firemen arrived four minutes later. They did not detect any sign of fire. The Legco session resumed at 150pm.

DAB legislator Steven Ho commented: "Where is 'Long Hair' Leung Kwok-hung? Did he sneak out to smoke and triggered off the alarm?"

In May 20143, a sofa inside Leung Kwok-hung's 10th floor office of the Legislative Council building caught fire. The smoke caused the automatic sprinkler system to turn on and put out the fire. A number of legislators' offices were soaked in water. The firemen came and found a lighter and ash try inside Leung's office. The police suspected that someone was smoking in violation of the no-smoking policy inside the Legislative Council building. At the time, Leung said that although he was a smoker, he would "absolutely not" smoke inside the building.

Internet comments:

- Setting off a fire alarm is a standard way to stop a meeting. The risk is that there are close-circuit television cameras everywhere in this building and you could be filmed. Another standard way is to call in a bomb threat. The risk is that the police may be able to trace the phone call. So you should use a anonymous phone card on a non-smart phone (i.e. no GPS function) and discard the card immediately afterwards.

- Why is smoking so dangerous? Imagine this scenario. Kwok Ka-ki's aides flushed gasoline down the toilet to destroy evidence. Leung Kwok-hung comes in to the restroom, smokes a cigarette and tosses the butt into the toilet. THE BIG BANG!!! (reference: 2014 Kaohsiung gas explosions)

(TVB News) May 19, 2015.

The government intends to present the constitutional reform bill to the Legislative Council before the summer break. Scholarism member Agnes Chow Ting said on the TVB English-language program Straight Talk that they will protest peaceable during the debate period. But if the bill is passed, then some people may destroy government property. She does not exclude the possibility of a second round of the Occupy movement.

Chow said: "I cannot make any guarantees, because I cannot control all those who participate in the demonstrations. But I can say that non-violence is more effective than violence in the quest for democracy, as in our participation in the civil disobedience movement. If someone goes and destroys businesses or private properties, then I don't think that is too reasonable. But if under some extreme circumstances wherein they cannot change the whole policy or reform the whole system and they go and destroy some government properties, I think that such action is sometimes reasonable.

Previously, the Civil Human Rights Front had said on the same program that they will call for the 100,000 persons to surround the Legislative Council building before and after the vote on the constitutional reform bill. Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Nathan Law also said that they will attack the Legislative Council building if the bill gets passed.

Internet comments:

- So what if they destroy more public property? They occupied for 79 days and they did not even gain one pubic hair out of it. And they won't get anything even they repeat this in an infinite loop. What can they do now?

- If you're so upset, then why not start with smashing your 60-inch television set at home? your rice cooker?  your Macbook? your iPhone6+? ...

- If I were the Hong Kong government, I would hold the police back and let the demonstrators burn the Legislative Council building down. For reference, see the Reichstag fire, an event that was pivotal in the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Such an event with give rise to a Law-and-Order Party. It's easy -- all one has to do is to dig up the old Spiro Agnew speeches.

- Agnes Chow wants the best of both worlds. On one hand, she uses the threat of violence to intimidate. On the other hand, she says that she does not condone such violence but sadly she cannot control the violent elements.

- Agnes Chow is imitating what extortionists say in movies. "If you don't fork over the money each month, then I cannot exclude the possibility that your store may be smashed." Her position is weakened considerably because it is also true that: " Even if you fork over the money each month, I still cannot exclude the possibility that your store may be smashed. That's because I cannot control everybody."

- In summary, if the Legislative Council passes the bill, then it becomes reasonable and justifiable to smash some government property. Why? Why are you asking why? Scholarism has spoken and you should just STFU.

- Why stop at smashing some government property? The taxpayers will pay for the repair work. That's all. You need more drastic actions to get your point across.

Occupy? Been there, did that, didn't work.
Hunger strike? Been there, did that, didn't work.
Lay siege to government buildings? Been there, did that, didn't work.

The remaining items in the standard toolbox are:

Hostage-taking (see Aldo Moro, Munich massacre)
Bombings (see 2013 Boston Marathon, 2013 Tiananmen Square, 2005 London, 1995 Oklahoma City, 1995 Tokyo sarin, 1983 Beirut, 1967 Hong Kong leftist riots)
Self-immolation (see Tibetans in China)
Assassination (see Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Lam Bun, Rajiv Gandhi)
Armed insurrection (see Xinhai Revolution)
Foreign intervention (see Vietnam War, Contras)

Take your pick. Good luck.

- Agnes Chow? Laying siege to the Legislative Council building? The last time around during Occupy Central, Agnes Chow resigned as Scholarism spokesperson because "the pressure was too much." Now she has popped up again to do television talk shows. But when the action starts again, she is going to say "the pressure is too much" and disappear again, leaving only the remaining fools to be clubbed by police batons.
- Agnes Chow disappeared during the first Occupy movement? I do not exclude the possibility that she may disappear during the second Occupy movement.
- "Something has come up suddenly, so I'll have to go now. Meanwhile you guys go ahead and charge the police without me. I'll be watching the live television coverage on my iPhone6+. You have my moral support. God bless you all!"
- Don't be so rough on Agnes Chow. Near the end of the first Occupy movement, she left in order to catch up on her university studies and study for the exams. For the second Occupy movement, she'll be on summer vacation and therefore can dedicate herself to being clubbed on the head by police batons as well as giving television interviews.

- Al Qaeda hijacked jetliners to ram the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Agnes Chow can only manage to fold paper airplanes to throw at the Legislative Council building. The rest of her standard-issue Yellow Ribbon tools are: drawing graffiti; waving umbrellas; pushing at the iron barricades; screaming at the police for being shameless; spitting at the police; throwing garbage onto the roads; indefinite relay hunger strike with each person participating four hours at a time; screaming "sexual molestation"!; ...

- "If under some extreme circumstances wherein they cannot change the whole policy or reform the whole system and they go and destroy some government properties, I think that such action is sometimes reasonable." So if I don't like some government policy, then it is reasonable for me to go out and destroy some government properties. Yes, I like that ...
- If I don't like what Wong Yeung-tat said, it is reasonable for me to smash the Civic Passion office.
- If I don't like what Agnes Chow said, it is reasonable for me to bash Joshua Wong's face in.
- If I don't like what Joshua Wong said, it is reasonable for me to re-arrange Agnes Chow's face.

- Hong Kong Federation of Students' Law37 threatens to attack the Legislative Council building if the bill gets passed?  Half of the student unions have voted to withdraw from the Federation already. Who can Law37 call on?

- When they attack the Legislative Council building this time, will Joshua Wong and other student leaders be hiding inside the building as guests, watching television coverage and eating instant noodles like last time?

- Hongkongers are frogs trapped at the bottom of a well. They cannot see past their noses. If they have grand vision, then they should know that if the bill is passed, it won't do much good to break some windows in the Legco building. Instead, they should march up to Zhongnanhai and fight the Chinese Communists themselves.

- I thought Chow Ting went to England. Is she back now?
- No, you are confusing Crystal Chow Ching with Agnes Chow Ting. Their names may be similar, but their looks and figures couldn't be more different.


Crystal Chow Ching


Agnes Chow Ting

Background: The Case of Wat Wing-yin.

(Ming Pao via Speakout HK) May 19, 2015. You should break up if you don't share your views. By Wat Wing-yin.

Yesterday, Ming Pao continued to hype up the case of the murdered dog-walking old man in Sha Tin. The front cover photo was titled "Mentally impaired persons stood out in the rain." The banner in the photo read: "Bullying the weak and vulnerable, the people are angry." Suddenly, I felt the same way.

I am a little woman. I have been writing newspaper columns for many years. I write what I want to write. I am not employed by anyone person or organization. That is because I am dissatisfied with plenty of things. That is because I write what I believe. That is because nobody else dares to say these things. Most of all, that is because the silent majority is accustomed to accept things. In these times, I write about the injustices and absurdities that I saw.

As a result, the attacks against me have never ceased. Even some media worker friends say that I am "a paid cultural prostitute." I did not 'unfriend' them and I have never tried to clarify things. In this world, we can no longer persuade each other. But I still have a question: How come your beliefs are called beliefs whereas my beliefs are just paid for?

Last week, my entire family received death threats. Someone even posted my home address onto Facebook. The bullying has turned into violence. When I say something that they don't like, they want to exterminate my whole family. Please tell me, where has our freedom of speech gone?

The Journalists Association and the politicians frequently speak on behalf of those whose freedom of expression is threatened. Over the past year, my essays have been subject to intimidation and threats, but those people have never said anything. So freedom of expression is in fact a special Yellow Ribbon privilege.

At the same time when I was attacked on the Internet, Ming Pao (where I write a column) chimed in and stirred trouble over the past several days while naming me.

I can see that our paths have diverged.

In 2012, then Ming Pao chief-editor Kevin Lau Chun-to invited me to join Ming Pao. He said that he wanted to bring out reforms. Their readers are getting old, and they needed to compete with Apple Daily to compete for young readers. I had no intention of being a hatchet man, so I declined the Mr. Lau's offer.

Today, Ming Pao looks like the shadow of Apple Daily. I can only say: I have no regrets in abandoning it.

Dear readers, I thank you for your constant support. I remember that you often write to say that you won't be reading Ming Pao if I wasn't there. I think that it is time. Just as we will use our votes to punish the political hacks, we should not forget to withhold our daily 7 dollars to punish the poisonous newspapers.

This is my last piece. I don't want to write anymore. I am ashamed to be on the Ming Pao team. That is all I have to say!

(Sina.com.hk) May 20, 2015.

According to information, Wat Wing-yin did not notify the Ming Pao management that she would stop writing her column. The Ming Pao management only found out when they read her column. But when the editors and reporters heard the news, there was "cheering and applauding." According to information, Ming Pao intends to invite Carmen Poon to replace Wat's column. Poon was an aide in CY Leung's Chief Executive election campaign, and Ming Pao wants to hire someone close to Wat's views.

Meanwhile, former chief editor Kevin Lau misunderstood what he told her in 2012 about turning Ming Pao into another Apple Daily.

Internet comments:

- The longer the Journalists Association maintain their deafening silence, the more Wat Wing-yin's assertion that freedom of expression is a special Yellow Ribbon privilege rings true.

- According to the Chinese University of Hong Kong Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, the public trust rankings of the major newspaper in Hong Kong are:

  1997 2001 2006 2009 2010 2013
SCMP 1 3 1 1 1 1
Economic Times 4 5 4 4 3 2
Ming Pao 2 1 2 2 2 3
The Standard 3 6 5 3 6 4
Economic Journal 6 2 3 6 4 5
Sing Tao 5 4 6 5 5 6
Headline Daily - - 11 8 7 7
Oriental Daily 7 11 9 11 9 8
AM 730 - - 12 9 10 9
...            
Apple Daily 9 14 14 14 15 17
...            
Sharp Daily - - - - - 21

Given that Apple Daily is dropping like a rock in public trust, Kevin Lau and Ming Pao will have to drop a whole lot faster to catch up.

- (Markerting Interactive) July 1, 2014.

Ming Paos chief editor Chun To Lau has been removed from his role and handed a new position in the publication. The newspaper released a statement saying the decision was made to cope with Ming Paos new business structure. Lau will take on important responsibilities in his new position and will continue to generate new business for the publication. It went on to say that Ming Paos chief editor spot has gone through several shuffles but its editorial policy will stay consistent.

Lau expressed on Ming Pao that he has no intention to leave the group and has already set himself about preparing to take on the new position. Reacting to Laus abrupt departure, Ming Pao editorial team is now working on a joint statement to express their shock and require for an explanation from the management team. Lau, the chief editor of Ming Pao since 2012, is reported to be succeeded by a journalist from Malaysia, according to Wei Ling Li, the host of Commercial Radio show The Tipping Point.

Speculation about his new role centred around coverage of the free-to-air TV licensing saga with HKTV. Since the licensing spat erupted on 15 October last year, Ming Pao led with the news for nine straight days. In total, the licensing saga occupied the newspapers headline for 15 days in a month.

Coincidently, a few days before Laus relocation, Ming Pao fell from second to third place in this years media credibility survey conducted by Chinese University. Out of 22 local print media, Ming Pao was edged out by Hong Kong Economic Times, which has gained number one spot in media credibility among Chinese newspapers.

Perry Mak, managing director and executive director of Hong Kong Economic Times, said: Each newspaper has her own stance and principle about how to allocate her editorial resources. Overall speaking, we believe Ming Pao strives for the benefit of readers and its best for her readers to judge.

We always put the benefits of Hong Kong people and sustainability of Hong Kong economy top of mind. As many HKET readers commented during our regular surveys, they favour reading HKET due to our unbiased news reports, he added.

Ivan Tong, editor-in-chief of The Standard, the English-language newspaper which closely ranked following Ming Pao as the forth this year, said it is normal for a overwhelming reports on the recent HKTV saga as it is the most talked-about topic. It is okay to report overwhelmingly on the topic that the public care most about, as long as the articles can maintain neutrality. Instead, he expressed concern over the declining public trust to the media in general. The study is a creditable one since 1997, but recently the trust in the media saw a big slip mainly due to the emerging internet news, which is known for its lack of accuracy, Tong said.

Tong added that Hong Kongers have a tendency to trust English-language publication over Chinese-language media, which may partly explain the high-ranking for both SCMP and The Standard. The full result on print media from the report: Public Evaluation on Media Credibility 2013.

1 South China Morning Post
2 Hong Kong Economic Times
3 Ming Pao
4 The Standard
5 Hong Kong Economic Journal
6 Singtao Daily
7 Headline Daily
8 Oriental Daily
9 Am730
10 House News
11 Sing Pao
12 Metro Daily
13 Hong Kong Daily News
14 Sky Post
15 Hong Kong Commercial Daily
16 The Sun (Hong Kong)
17 Apple Daily
18 New Evening Post
19 Wen Wei Po
20 Ta Kung Pao
21 Sharp Daily
22 Tin Tin Daily News*

(SCMP) January 3, 2014.

... There was worse news for Ming Pao, which had advertised itself as the city's most credible Chinese-language newspaper after finishing second to the Post in previous surveys. It slipped to third out of the 22 newspapers studied with a score of 6.74, just behind the 6.78 for the Economic Times, and will change its masthead slogan from today.

"The masthead is based on Chinese University's poll and also encapsulates the newspaper's belief and mission, and the goal we strive for every day," the newspaper said in a statement. "We will continue to remind ourselves to be professional in our reporting."

CREDIBILITY RANKINGS (2013):

Electronic Media
1 RTHK 6.99 points
2 Commercial Radio 6.48
3 Cable News 6.38
4 TVB 6.25
5 Now TV 6.14
6 Metro Radio 5.92
7 HKBN bbTV 5.74
8 ATV 4.74

Print Media
1 South China Morning Post 6.98
2 Hong Kong Economic Times 6.78
3 MingPao 6.74
4 The Standard 6.71
5 Hong Kong Economic Journal 6.46
6 Singtao Daily 6.42
7 Headline Daily 5.87
8 Oriental Daily 5.85
9 Am730 5.82
10 House News 5.76
11 SingPao 5.75
12 Metro Daily 5.71
13 Hong Kong Daily News 5.46
14 Sky Post 5.44
15 Hong Kong Commercial Daily 5.21
16 The Sun (Hong Kong) 5.15
17 Apple Daily 4.98
18 New Evening Post 4.94
19 Wen Wei Po 4.89
20 Ta Kung Pao 4.68
21 Sharp Daily 4.46

- Why would you trust Ming Pao any? For evidence, I cite the coverage of (A) the case of the murdered dog-walking old man and (B) the disruption of the student debate competition. The Ming Pao coverage is completely out of proportion.

- Who do you think jumps out to pile on Wat Wing-yin? Albert Cheng. He accused Wat of having the mentality of a slave. When Albert Cheng says something, the opposite is likely to be true:
--- He claimed that the Chinese Communists fired him from his radio host spot, then the Chinese Communists gives him a license to operate the dbc radio channel.
--- He claimed that he is unreconciliably opposed to the Chinese Communists, but he invited a whole bunch of National People's Congress delegates and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates to invest and join the board of directors of dbc.
--- He claimed to have been persecuted by the Chinese Communists, but the Chinese Communists awarded him a Golden Bauhinia Medal.

- Times have changed.
Once upon a time, schools were educational institutions. Nowadays, schools are diploma mills.
Once upon a time, teachers taught students. Nowadays, teachers are salespersons.
Once upon a time, journalists practiced journalism. Nowadays, journalists are fiction writers.
Once upon a time, legislators legislated laws. Nowadays, legislators filibuster the passage of laws.
Once upon a time, police arrested lawbreakers. Nowadays lawbreakers lay siege to police stations.

- Wat Wing-yin is popular because what she says is simple, direct and obvious. Here is a summary of her latest column in Sky Post:

Case#1: A little old lady sets up a food stall in front of a shuttered store. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors came and confiscated her vegetables because she is unlicensed.
Case#2: A friend's air conditioner dripped water onto the street. The Food and Environmental Hygiene inspector tracked down the source of the water puddle on the ground and issued him a fine.
Case #3: A friend erected a shed on his roof to grow vegetables. The Buildings Department came and ordered him to remove the illegal structure. All this protests and appeals were in vain.

These are common ways in which citizens cross government departments who enforce existing laws on food, environmental hygiene, buildings, etc.

So why do we have a village of illegal structures on Tim Mei Road? They pose hazards to environmental hygiene and personal safety. Why is it that every government department (from the police department, the food and environmental department, the environmental bureau, the food and health bureau, the department of health, the environmental protection department, the buildings department, the home affairs department, the transport and housing bureau, etc all said that this matter is not within their jurisdiction?

Why is the government so good is chasing after individual citizens for minor infractions, but so bad in pursuing an obvious case against some Democracy Hegemons?

- Je suis Chris Wat Wing-yin

(Apple Daily) May 22, 2015.

Today, the Ming Pao's Editorial Room Notes responded to Wat Wing-yin. They cited the case of an oyster whose taste depends on where it grew up. "A few drops of lemon drops cannot hide the stench. Indeed, we have no regrets in losing her."

(HKG Pao) May 23, 2015.

Yesterday  Chris Wat Wing-yin's husband and media veteran Lam Chiu-wing also announced that he is discontinuing his Ming Pao column. He wrote: "It is commonplace for an essay to draw criticisms due to differences in opinions. But this time there were death threats against the family ... Tam Tak-chi said that he is going to bring people around to surround my house, and say hello to the my three daughters ... Also some reporters are continuing to provoke, quote out of context, set fires everywhere." He said: "As public commentary becomes more vicious so that viciousness become normalized, it is appropriate that when a woman fights alone, a man should look after her back and proceed together." He also said that when some media come across a dissident view, they will make accusations of "for payment" and "cultural thugs".

(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2015.

At around 930pm, a group of Shopping Revolutionaries were gathered near the intersection of Shan Tung Street and Nathan Road. Another group of counter-Shopping Revolutionaries were present as well. Suddenly a 56-year-old man dashed onto the roadway. Patrolling police officers spotted this man, and took him back onto the sidewalk. Suddenly a 61-year-old man kicked this 56-year-old man from behind. The police arrested the 61-year-old man and took him back to the Mong Kok police station. They also sent the 56-year-old man for treatment at the hospital.

At around 1am, more than 50 persons surrounded the Mong Kok police station and demanded the release of the arrestee. The police lowered the station gates. During this time, someone began moving garbage cans onto the roadway to block traffic on Prince Edward Road West. The police came out and cleared the road.

At around 2:45pm, a 45-year-old man went by the intersection of Prince Edward Road West and Nathan Road. When he saw the road blocks, he complained to those responsible. Two men wearing surgical masks charged at him. The 45-year-old man turned and fled. He was chased by the two men at Number 33 Tai Nan Street, and attacked with hard objects. He sustained injuries on his head and elbow. The perpetrators were able to escape. The victim called the police who took him to the hospital for treatment.

(Cable TV) At 0:21 of this video, there is a clear shot of the woman in the black t-shirt moving a garbage can onto the roadway.  She is beaming a huge smile and really proud of her accomplishment of the day. Yes! Another huge triumph for democracy in Hong Kong!

(Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOwozeaxyA0 (TMHK) Banging on the metal gate at Mong Kok police station. Lots of people talking, impossible to make out most of what they are saying except for the occasional "Your mother's stinking cunt".

(Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7LIsFEE9F0 (TVB) People dumping garbage on the roadway, the police removing it, people putting it back, the police removing it, people running on the street ...

Internet comments:

- I read this at a discussion forum. I wasn't sure whether this was breaking news or an old story. But I am beginning to appreciate what Karl Marx said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

- The press coverage is biased. The report says "50 citizens." The correct characterization should be "50 troublemakers."

- 黑社會曬馬 = Triad gang in a show of force.

- On August 8, 2006, Sun Yee On boss Lee Tai-lung and more than 60 followers surrounded the Tsim Sha Tsui police station because he learned that the police was going to interview a witness to an earlier fight between Sun Yee On and Wo Shing Wo. The police arrested 64 persons that night. Back then the Hong Kong police will not tolerate any semblance of laying siege to a police station. Things are clearly different now, because 'pro-democracy activists' are more powerful and threatening than triad gangsters.

- Triad gangs usually have some "turf" (such as brothels, gambling dens, bars in which they sell illegal drugs, etc) where the police can cause trouble (e.g. hourly "inspections"). Therefore, it is like a formal dance in which the police and triad gangs have certain understandings about what is beyond the pale.
- The police and the shopping revolutionaries are also holding a formal dance with certain understandings. Thus, the shopping revolutionaries know that they can gather outside a police station but they must not attempt to storm inside. They know that can toss garbage cans onto the roadway, but must let the police remove the obstacles.

- Triads are at least useful to society because they provide consumption and employment. Shopping Revolutionaries are completely useless with no discernible contribution to society.

- Why should the police arrest these people, knowing full well that the magistrates will come up all sorts of fantastical excuses (e.g. ageism, autism, contrition, etc) to release the perps?

- The Hong Kong police do not match up to international standards. Do you see the Ferguson police station being surrounded?

(Speakout HK) By Fung Wai-kwong.

Hong Kong was ruled by Japan for three years eight months during WWII. Many Hongkongers joined the resistant movement (known as the East River Column). That was an indelible episode of history for our forebears as well as foreigners who were imprisoned in Hong Kong by the Japanese. This year on September 3rd, Hong Kong and mainland China want to have a holiday to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory in the War of Resistance against Japan. Is that so inappropriate? Chinese University of Hong Kong Political and Administrative Sciences senior lecturer Ivan Choi Chi-keung criticized this new holiday, but has he considered the historical significance for our forebears?

Don't Choi and others often say that we must never forget the history of June 4th? Doesn't the War of Resistance against Japan also count as history? Or does Mr. Choi defines history only in terms of whether it can be used to pillory the Central Government? In that case, this is the routine political attack that Choi uses against the Central Government.

Choi criticized that the Hong Kong government "purely wanted to cater to mainland political trends" and this is mainlandizing Hong Kong. But during the British colonial era, Hong Kong takes an official holiday the Queen's birthday (note: actually, the holiday does not even fall on her birthday but the given holiday (=the second Monday of June) was called the Queen's birthday). At the time, both Choi and I were active students and I did not recall Mr. Choi jumping out to condemn the anglicization of this British colony? But now that Hong Kong is returned to the motherland and the five-star flag rises, Mr. Choi finds it suddenly unacceptable. So does Mr. Choi have a favorite spot for Great Britain over China? Is this double standards?

To call September 3rd a political holiday hurts the feelings of the citizens who went through those three years eight months under Japanese rule. That is truly forgetting history. It is disrespectful to those who died and those who survived those years.

(Sky Post via Speakout HK) By Wat Wing-yin. May 15, 2015.

When even an extra holiday becomes a political matter, Hong Kong is sick beyond all hope.

The State Council announced recently that there will be a national holiday on September 3rd to commemorate the 70th anniversary of victory in the War of Resistance against Japan. The Hong Kong SAR government recommended to the Legislative Council that this day will also be a special holiday in Hong Kong. That means workers will get one extra holiday this year.

Everybody likes to have a holiday. Or so you think. Politicos have turned this issue into another political bomb. Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai said that he does not encourage such a "political holiday" if it is meant to be foster nationalism among citizens. League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that instead of September 3rd, he would rather prefer September 28th (when the Hong Kong police used tear gas). Reporters also conducted street interviews and managed to locate one young man who said: "Do not expect to use a holiday to inject nationalism by force!" Alright, he can go to work on September 3rd then. Nobody will stop him.

Having followed the news closely for the past several months, I have discerned a little piece of wisdom. This is clearly a firmly resolved faith, a firmly believed faith, an unmovable faith about genuine universal suffrage/civil nomination/self-determination ... for the sake of that faith, people are willing to offer their lives, sleep in the streets and cut classes in school. But as soon as there is a rumor, they get distressed. Oh,  you want to brainwash me? Oh, you want to have an exchange with me? Oh, you want to give me a holiday?

If your faith is so strong, then why are you afraid that someone might shake it up? If you think that you will be brainwashed if you take a holiday on September 3rd, then you surely have a problem with your head. Earlier the People's Liberation Army wanted to visit the Chinese University of Hong Kong campus. The students were scared to death. They just about shut the gates and called out the dogs. They made the university vice-chancellor promise that the PLA will never be allowed to take one step into the campus. They said that the PLA came for unification purposes. Alright, if that is the case, why don't you welcome them? Why don't you convince the PLA that you are right, so that they will take off their uniforms and join you to hang our banners down from Lion Rock? If you think that you have truth on your side, what are you afraid of? Unless ... unless you don't think that your beliefs can stand up to scrutiny.

Internet comments:

- Sin Chung-kai said that he felt that Beijing was following Russia, and Hong Kong was following Beijing. So this is more of a political holiday than a workers' holiday. Great! I am glad that Sin Chung-kai spelled out what is a good workers' holiday (Labor Day). Meanwhile we can go back and eliminate the Christmas holidays, because I feel that Hong Kong is following the United States and that would be even more political.
- While you are at it, let's get rid of religious holidays such as Buddha's birthday and Easter. We want genuinely apolitical holidays only. We accept civil nominations but we will always adhere to universal values/international standards.
- There is no holiday more mainlandized than the Lunar New Year. That should be canceled and replaced by something else that is thoroughly removed from any conceivable political significance ... eh, maybe the fourth Monday-Tuesday of the month of January (as long as it does not coincide with the Chinese New Year).

- Yes, that was clearly a political decision -- I mean, the Democratic Party's decision to oppose a holiday on September 3rd.

- Dear Sin Chung-kai, August 30th was a public holiday in Hong Kong until 1997. This holiday was known as Liberation Date to celebrate the handover of Hong Kong by the Japanese Imperial Army to the Royal Navy on August 30, 1945 (see Wikipedia). Did you consider that to be a political holiday used to brainwash Hongkongers about the heroics of the British Navy?

General Rensuke Isogai, Japanese commander-in-chief in Hong Kong

- December 26th 2015 is an official holiday in Hong Kong, being the first weekday after Christmas Day. On this day, Hongkongers will gather around to celebrate the formal surrender of Hong Kong by the British to the Japanese Imperial Army in 1941 at a signature ceremony at the Peninsula Hotel. It demarcates the beginning of the three years and eight months of occupation. Sin Chung-kai is completely fine with this, of course.

- During the British colonial era, the second Monday of June was a public holiday known as the Queen's birthday. After the handover in 1997, that day was replaced by July 1st, known as the HKSAR Establishment Day. Both days are clearly as politically significant as possible in their own times. But Sin Chung-kai cannot get rid of July 1st now, because that is the traditional day for the Civil Human Rights Front march. More importantly, that is the day of the year when the political parties can gather the largest amount of donations. We can't cancel that, can we?

- How about making June 4th a public holiday in Hong Kong? That should please Sin Chung-kai. But wait a minute, that would be a political holiday and we can't have that. Never mind. Go back to whatever you were doing before.

- If mainland China and Macau are having a national holiday, do you think Hongkongers should go to work as usual?

- Is this going to be a genuine public holiday or a false one? Do we have to pocket it first? Or do we pocket it forever. These are the key questions that must be answered first.

- Sin Chung-kai said that holidays must be proposed six to nine months ahead of time so that the public can make suitable arrangements. He said: "We need to balance these requirements against the public wish for holidays. At the same time, we need to consider whether this sort of thing should be encouraged."
- Fuck! The next time that the Observatory hoists a Number 8 typhoon signal, we need to have Sin Chung-kai's permission to go home because he doesn't want to encourage "this sort of thing."
- Sin Chung-kai does not want his Legco aides to take time off, because who is going to help him fight for genuine universal suffrage?  Every extra hour that they man their stations is another step closer to genuine universal suffrage.

- If Hong Kong is ever going to be an independent city-state, it is going to need the support of the United States and Japan. They think that as soon as they declare independence, United States and Japan will recognize the new nation and support its application of membership to the United Nation. Therefore, there is no way that the City-State localists/nativists are going to support an anti-Japan public holiday. If September 3rd is declared a national public holiday, the valiant localist warriors will come out and kick the suitcases of the tourists.

- Demographics of Hong Kong: Historical population data

1841: 7,450
1848: 24,000
1851: 33,000
1853: 39,017
1855: 72,000
1862: 123,511
1863: 124,850
1864: 121,498
1864: 125,504
1866: 114,098
1881: 160,402
1891: 221,441
1901: 283,989
1906: 326,961
1916: 530,000
1925: 725,000
1931: 849,800
1941: 1,600,000 (beginning of Japanese occupation)
1945: 500,000 (end of Japanese occupation)
1945: 600,000
1945: 750,000
1950: 2,200,000
1950: 2,360,000
1960: 3,000,000
1968: 3,927,000
1970: 3,995,400
1980: 5,109,812
1986: 5,495,488
1991: 5,674,114
1996: 6,412,937
2001: 6,864,346
2011: 7,071,576

 1,100,000 Hongkongers left Hong Kong during the Japanese occupation, for reasons such as oppression, economy, shortages, starvation, etc. Then there was a mass return of many who are today's Hong Kong senior citizens. Today, the media makes as if these senior citizens are already dead and the present/future belongs to young people. Here are the Hong Kong voter registration statistics:

18-20: 106,320
21-25: 257,295
26-30: 216,508
31-35: 248,118
36-40: 260,032
41-45: 280,690
46-50: 337,354
51-55: 427,616
56-60: 392,364
61-65: 312,604
66-70: 206,032
71 or above: 462,853
TOTAL: 3,507,786

(Apple Daily) May 16, 2015.  Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4qnmJhjot4 .

Foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam Wai-sze (she even has her own page at the South China Morning Post) said that she had resumed teaching after taking a six-month paid leave in the aftermath of the foul-mouthed incident. But the school's principal and supervisor summoned her frequently to tell her that her Facebook comments were mis-educating students. Recently, the school principal asked her to ban minors from reading the comments, or otherwise turn her Facebook into a private page.  Lam said that this was a violation of her freedom of speech. She has consulted a lawyer and sent a lawyer's letter to the school.

This morning, she wrote on her Facebook: "Sorry everybody!! I can't take this anymore. I want to die. Grandma, let me come and keep you company. I don't want this to happen ... I find it hard, they want me to die! Please seek justice for me. Goodbye!"

A few hours later, she wrote: "I just went to see the doctor. Even the doctor thought that the school went too far! With his encouragement, I have taken a sedative and I feel calmer now. I have asked my lawyer to deal with the harassment by the school. I want to say that the Chinese Communists have infiltrated various sectors, and the education field has turned into hell. It was 689 who nearly killed me. If this continues, I will have to seek political asylum."

Internet comments:

- This woman is batshit crazy. I would be deeply concerned if she is teaching my child. For further reference, see Alpais Lam's Husband Has Left Her.

- I agree with one part of her Facebook posts: the education field has turned into hell. That would be courtesy of nutty teachers like her.

- Never in the history of this discussion forum have so many commentators want one person DOA ASAP RIP.

- This fucking woman says FUCK to everything.
Because she is ugly, she says FUCK.
Because her husband left her, she says FUCK.
Because CY Leung won't resign, she says FUCK.
Because Li Ka-shing is not her dad, she says FUCK.
Because her students did not all get A's, she says FUCK.
Because Apple Daily gives her an interview, she says FUCK.
Because Oriental Daily does not give her an interview, she says FUCK.
Because her principal won't give her a huge salary raise, she says FUCK.
Because of no reason at all, she says FUCK.

- Alpais Lam said that she is under great psychological pressure. The parents whose elementary school children are taught by her are under even greater psychological pressure. Sooner of later, she will drive the parents crazy because they have to worry about their children being brainwashed by this member of the radical DLLM Orchid (= a homonym of "Fuck your mother's stinking rotten cunt" in Cantonese) group.

- Interesting. Does a teacher have unrestricted right to post anything she wants on her Facebook, given that she is an Internet celebrity who teaches at Pui Ling School of the Precious Blood in Fanling district?

- The principal and the supervisor at her school must be under the most psychological pressure. Every day, they must worry about what new paranoid stories Alpais Lam is posting onto her Facebook.
- The only way to cope with such a teacher is not to hire her in the first place. Once hired, she will be a scourge who cannot be fired because of freedom/democracy/human rights/democracy/universal values/rule of law.
- If the school principal disciplines Alpais Lam, the "Yellow Ribbon" Professional Teachers Union will step in and sue the school.

- It should be obvious that Alpais Lam is angling for yet another 6-month paid leave by faking mental illness.
- No, it should be obvious that Alpais Lam has a new book out just in time for the Hong Kong Book Fair in July. She needs the pre-launch publicity now.

- Reading more Alpais Lam news stories is driving me crazy! Why can't she just check into the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital like she should? If 689 (=Chief Executive CY Leung) spends his time persecuting her, where does he find the time to do anything else? It is more plausible for CY Leung to think that Alpais Lam and her fellow "Fuck Your Mother's Stinking Rotten Cunt" gangsters are persecuting him.

- Paranoid schizophrenia can be easily controlled if you take your medications according to the schedule. She must have skipped her medication to rave and rant like this.

"Hey! It's time to take your medication ..."

- I really look forward to reading the response from the United States State Department upon receiving Alpais Lam's application for political asylum. They didn't take kindly to the Marielitos who included many mental patients.
- The United States State Department will likely reject her application for immediate asylum, because her mission to make trouble in Hong Kong is not completely done yet.

- Some reader comments to Alpais Lam's Facebook  post:

Wan Chin: Please seek help at the American or Canadian consulates and leave Hong Kong.
???: This is not worth it.
???: No way!
???: Charge into the American consulate and demand political asylum.
???: Tell us directly whom you need taken care of?
???: Stand firm!!!
Wan Chin: What you are experiencing is very real political persecution by the Hong Kong Communists. The foreign consulates will accept your case.

- (Apple Daily) Alpais Lam is going to ask the Professional Teachers Union and retired Catholic archbishop Joseph Zen for help because school administrators have met with her more than 10 times over matters that she says are unrelated to teaching (namely, her extracurricular freedom of speech, demonstrations and Occupy Central). She considers these meetings to be very unreasonable. She knows that if she gives up or resigns, other teachers like her will be oppressed as well.
- Freedom of speech? Professional Teachers Union? If they help her, I want to know why they won't help the Baptists University vice-chancellor who was exercising his freedom of speech but told to shut up by the students.
- Interesting that she wants the help of the retired Joseph Zen instead of the current leader Bishop John Cardinal Tong Hon. Clearly, within any institution, people have different political positions.

The Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese has issued a joint petition to defend the dignity of mankind and oppose the fake universal suffrage.

We are a group of Catholic individuals and Catholic organizations. We believe that God created mankind so that they can live with dignity and participate in caring about the world and each other. Therefore we have the responsibility to build a broad-based and equal democratic system in which each citizens has the right to nominate, participate and vote. This the basic right that God has given to mankind. Yet the August 31st 2014 resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee has indefinitely postponed universal suffrage in Hong Kong. The recently proposed bill from the government is clearly false universal suffrage.

...

We urge the Hong Kong SAR government not to ignore the demands for universal suffrage by the people of Hong Kong. We urge:
1. All Legislative Councilors veto the constitutional reform proposal being offered by the government;
2. The National People's Congress Standing Committee rescind its August 31st resolution.

Internet comments:

- Coming from the Catholic Diocese, this raises two obvious questions that they should answer first:
1. Where the fuck were you guys when the British colonizers ruled Hong Kong in a completely undemocratic fashion?
2. Why the fuck don't you have one-person-one-vote to elect the Pope?

- Bishop John Cardinal Tong Hon did not get elected by the Hong Kong Catholics. He was parachuted here by appointment of the central government in Vatican.

- Before 1997, the Hong Kong citizens were sub-human, and therefore have no human rights or dignity.

- The United Kingdom does not have civil nomination for Prime Minister. Therefore, the British people have no human rights or dignity. Therefore, being the barbarians that they are, they can treat the colonized people as dogs as long as they have the gunships.

- I want to have one-person-one-vote to elect the Pope. I don't even need to have civil nomination of the papal candidates. I am simply offended at the idea that the Cardinal Conclave have reached a decision by sending out white smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney. Why would I trust the decision of some weed-smoking octogenarians?

- According to Wikipedia, there were 374,000 Hongkonger Catholics in August 2013. How many of these Catholics signed this joint petition? If not every one of them, then did the petitioners consult the rest? Could there be some Catholics who support the government's proposal? Or were they represented by the petitioners through executive fiat (Bishop John Cardinal Tong Hon or Pope Francis)?

- According to Wikipedia, there are 147,000 Filipino Catholics in Hong Kong. These people are ineligible to vote in the foreseeable future, even though many of them have lived here for a long time. Will the Catholic Church stand up for their dignity and human rights? And if the Catholic Church won't even help their faithful, how much faith can we have in it?

(Wen Wei Po) May 13, 2015.

Frame 1: Charge! I am an outstanding university student. I have good leadership skills, including causing trouble recently in Hong Kong.
Frame 2: Ha ha! As soon as I graduate, I want to get a job with a large company as befits my ability!
Frame 3: Manager: "Our business is not just in Hong Kong alone. Sometimes you have to go to the mainland and discuss business. Is that alright?" Because I was a troublemaker in Hong Kong, I can't go the mainland anymore ...
Frame 4: Please value your Home Return Permit!

Recently an Internet user posed on a discussion forum: "A certain transnational Hong Kong financial company is hiring new workers, and they have set the in-person interview in Shenzhen. The purpose was to check if the applicant has a valid Home Return Permit to enter the mainland. During the Occupy Central period, some young people have had their Home Return Permits canceled because they participated in the illegal Occupy actions. Many companies are unwilling to hire Occupy participants."

Internet comments:

- Occupy people don't need to get a job. They find it easier to go on the dole while other suckers work hard and pay taxes to support them.
- Occupy people don't have Home Return Permits because they don't want them. They know that they risk being brainwashed if they step on the mainland. So they don't.
- Not true. While some of the Occupy arrestees are unemployed, many others are lifeguards, delivery workers, janitors, waiters, dishwashers, cooks, sales assistants, aides to politicians, etc. Those others do not need Home Return Permits. At the very worst, they won't be able to sweep the graves of their ancestors.
- Occupy people are lower-level workers. Those who need to travel to mainland China to discuss business are senior corporate officers.

- Occupy people have a favorite saying: They are so poor that all they have left is money. Lots of it. They will never need to work for a living.
- There was just a news story about a 26-year-old university graduate now working as a dim sum assistant chef.

- Even when the company is completely based in Hong Kong, they are still reluctant to hire recent university graduates from Hong Kong. After all, other companies may send a mainlander representative over. If you have a bad attitude towards mainlanders, who knows if you start beating them up like you valiantly beat up the Tuen Mun Park grandpa? That would be disastrous.

- I would never hire an Occupy person. Next thing you know, they are going to demand the company CEO be elected on one-person-one-vote basis. If you don't agree, they will occupy your office. Ridiculous? Already the students are demanding universal suffrage for the university president/vice-chancellor even if the students are unqualified to evaluate academic credentials.
- The company pays me a monthly salary, so I won't demand one-person-one-vote for company CEO. If the government pays me the same monthly salary for doing nothing, I won't demand one-person-one-vote for Chief Executive either. Right now I am paying taxes to the government. Therefore I demand one-person-one-vote to make sure that my taxes pay for the right person's salary.

- Occupy people won't lack job offers. The Falun Gong is always hiring.
- Occupy people can also work for Apple Daily. Their reporters aren't allowed into mainland China. Therefore the job won't require a Home Return Permit.

- Which transnational finance companies are doing this? Give us some names, so that we will refuse to bank there. That should scare them back to their senses.
- Which transnational finance companies do not have business in China? Why would they have a Hong Kong branch office if they don't have mainland business dealings? They all do.

- Value your Home Return Permit ... unless you already have an American green card. In which case, you can get your American company to get you an American passport to enter mainland China.
- Eh ... even Americans can get blacklisted by the Chinese national security bureau. Do you think Wang Dan or Wu'er Kaixi can go back to China?

- The Home Return Permit is seductive and therefore dangerous. The best solution is to find a pair of scissors and cut it up.
- Easy for you to say. If you work for Ng Fung Hong, you will have to travel to mainland because your main business is meat products (poultry, pork, beef, etc). If you drive a delivery truck, you will have to travel to mainland regularly, perhaps even several times a day. Easy for you to say only because your current job does not require you to travel to the mainland. Other people aren't in your situation.


The "Goddess of Democracy" Mandy Tam Heung-man attempts to deliver a message to Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Yuet-ngor

(Headline Daily) May 16, 2015.

Yesterday Sing Pao News Group sponsored the grand final of the Hong Kong scholastic debate competition. Legislative Councilor "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung and members of the racial organization People Power charged into the hall and harassed the guests. They pushed and shoved while chanting slogans in order to disrupt the proceedings.

This debate competition has traditionally been an important event among secondary schools. These demonstrators showed no respect for the students, teachers and parents who were participating in this event. Our group deplores their actions.

(Sing Tao) May 16, 2015.

During the student debates, the government's Information Services Department director Joseph Nip Tak-kuen went up to deliver a speech. Nip began by saying: "Let those students present be ..." and then his voice was covered up by the shouting. Several seconds later he politely tried to persuade the demonstrators: "I believe that those friends who want to express their opinions have already expressed those opinions. I don't think that it is mutual respect to prevent other people from speaking ..." But the demonstrators continued to shout. Some demonstrators even tried to charge on stage, but they were stopped by security guards.

(Ta Kung Pao) May 16, 2015.

Paul Shieh Wing-tai, former chairman of the Senior Barristers Association, was also interrupted during his speech. Shieh said that this night was the most important night in the lives of some students, but the event has been hijacked by the demonstrators. He called for the debate team members and other students to clap their hands in order to take take their event. The students clapped their hands in respond. However the troublemakers were oblivious to the wishes of the students and continued to shout. One female demonstrator tried to charge on stage with yellow umbrella in hand. When the security guards blocked her, she took her shoes and socks off and deliberately fell down on the floor. There was chaos all around.

People Power's Tam Tak-chi said that they were forced to do this because "there is no other way of expressing their wishes." He said that the demonstrators did not interrupt any speech except when Carrie Lam presented the trophies. A student said: "They are free to express their demands, but they shouldn't interrupt other people's speeches."

Video: (dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkVuE5QzVzs to see how the event was made impossible by the shouting from the demonstrators.

Internet comments:

- Why should the students, parents and teachers be upset? Don't they know the Rules of Demonstration in Hong Kong? As soon as the media took enough videos and leave, the demonstrators will vanish. All the demonstrators want is 10 seconds on the television evening news. Without the media present, they have no motivation to work. This would be like the classic Zen koan If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

- If they can open up yellow umbrellas at their own university graduation ceremonies, they can surely disrupt a measly student debate competition. This grand final may be the most important event in the lives of the students, but that is nothing compared to the grand enterprise of democracy-building for 7 million persons in Hong Kong. By disrupting the event, democracy will be evermore closer. This was worth it.

- It turns out that Civic Party legislative councilor Alan Leong was one of the judges in the competition. He had reservations about the disruption: "I don't think that raising the umbrellas is big deal. But when it became impossible for the judges to explain their views or for the students to listen to those views, then this is out of hand." Leong said that the students should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their efforts.
- What is this about being able to enjoy the fruits of one's efforts? What about the small businesses that were affected by the Occupy Movement? Why weren't they allowed to enjoy the fruits of their efforts?

- People Power's Tam Tak-chi has a famous saying: "I see no need to apologize to the students."

- Government officials should take part in more of these types of events. The parents and teachers will think twice when they cast their ballots in the upcoming District Council and Legislative Council elections. The pan-democrats are going to bleed slowly to death with more incidents like this one.

- This debate competition is highly undemocratic anyway.
First of all, the student debaters were not elected by one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. Instead, they were selected by the teachers as being the best debaters in the school.
Secondly, the judges were not elected by one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. Instead, they were celebrities invited by the organizers.
Therefore, this was a false debate competition. We are better off without it.
We want a genuine debate competition, one with one-person-one-vote and civil nomination. If you won't let us have that, we'll block all traffic in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok until you yield. We also cannot exclude the possibility that some government property will be damaged, because we are unable to control the behavior of all persons.

- The Sing Tao Group belongs to Charles Ho, who is pro-establishment. Therefore any event hosted by the Sing Tao Group must be stopped in the name of freedom/democracy/universal values/human rights/rule of law.

- This Yellow Ribbon woman is well-skilled in the basics of demonstration in Hong Kong. Security guards are normally male. If any male security guard touches her, she is going to scream "Sexual assault!" So she will be allowed to lie on the floor as long as they can't find female police officers to remove her.

(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2015.

The Hong Kong Civil Education Foundation organized the event: "Go Hong Kong Dream Music Concert 2015 - The Awakening" held last night at Queen Elizabeth Stadium in Wanchai. Our newspaper received at least two complaints from parents. Ms. Lau said that she wanted to watch her son's choir sing. However, their programme lasted less than 20 minutes. Meanwhile other parts of the programme had singers raising yellow umbrellas singing "Let us raise umbrellas together" and chanting "I want genuine universal suffrage." There were also heavily political drama. She was disappointed that children were being used as political pawns. She felt deceived into donating indirectly for the foundation to organize this event.

This foundation has 15 consultants, including Democratic Party founder Martin Lee and Professional Teachers Union president Fung Wai-wah. Fung told our newspaper that he had no idea what was on last night's programme. He said that this event was similar to past activities, with the purpose of providing different programs that will awaken young people into becoming more concerned abut society.

Internet comments:

- This was a Yellow Ribbon event, so they talk about freedom of expression etc. If this was a Blue Ribbon event, they would have been screaming "Brainwashing!" or something like that.

- Another part of the programme could be foul-mouth teacher Alpais Lam teaching children how to tell their parents to go fuck themselves upon parental demands to do homework or eat vegetables.

- They fail to gauge how the sight of yellow umbrellas can upset a significant proportion of the Hong Kong population. After all, at the end of the Occupy Movement, 80% of the citizens wanted those Occupy people to go away.

- The pan-democrats think the more propaganda the better. In the present state of affairs, the more propaganda the greater the resentment. When people get annoyed with politics (of all forms), they won't come out to vote. And a low voter turnout works against the pan-democrats. Sometimes less is better.

- This music concert was a rousing success ... in arousing widespread resentment. Now that Oriental Daily is reporting this as news, and the discussion forums are opening multiple threads, this is a major PR coup for the other side.

- Did this variety show include the foul-mouth band who sang Fuck the Police at Lingnan University?

- If they put a bunch of people carrying yellow umbrellas on the concert poster, people would know what to expect. This was the actual poster:

In the background, the words "genuine universal suffrage" appear. Therefore, the organizers have declared that this was a Yellow Ribbon event. That parent was sloppy not to notice. She has nobody to blame but herself.

- The Professional Teacher Union always has plenty to say, but they have gone missing recently. They did not comment on the disruption of the student debate competition either.

(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2015.

Last evening at around 8pm, a 46-year-old woman named Chan was walking down Jardine Street in Causeway Bay when suddenly another woman poured a cup of feces on her. The attacker then fled, leaving behind the cup and a plastic bag.

According to eyewitness Mr. Chan, he heard someone shout "Oh!" Then he saw an individual in purple clothes cursed and walked away quickly. Then he spotted the victim who had feces on her hair and face. The victim told a female companion: "She is crazy!"

Mr. Chan went up to provide assistance. The victim went back to her shop to clean up. The police came, took down the information for a case of common assault.

According to information, the victim workers at the used handbag store ICON Lady. People Power chairwoman Erica Man said that the shop was owned by her friend and she also puts her own skincare products there for sale by consignment. Yuen said that she was appalled by this incident. "Anyone who does that must be punished."

Internet comments:

- Brand new tactic for the Shopping Revolutionaries?

- Do I know whether the perpetrator was Yellow or Blue Ribbon? I don't know, but that won't stop me from commenting as if I know. After all, this is the Internet and I don't have to be responsible about what I say. It is called freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of press. Get it?

- If this is directed against Erica Yuen, they could have dumped feces on her. Why dump it on the employee of the friend of Erica Yuen?

- I wonder what kind of shit this was. Why? Because I want genuine shit, not fake shit.

(SCMP) City University is latest to leave Hong Kong Federation of Students. May 8, 2015.

City University's student union has become the fourth union to vote to leave the Federation of Students, which played a leading role in last year's Occupy protests but which is now seeing its prominence wane.

The decision by CityU students, sealed in a ballot on Wednesday night, is the latest departure to hit the federation, the city's oldest and most politically influential student group, which has historically represented students at eight universities.

The poll outcome was a great setback, as the federation now could not rightly assert it "stood for the majority of students", its deputy secretary general, Alan Wong Ka-fai, said. "It is a reality that we must accept," he told RTHK yesterday.

The series of exits started with the University of Hong Kong's student union, which voted to leave the federation in February. Since then, Polytechnic and Baptist universities followed suit within a day of each other late last month. Their disaffiliations came in the aftermath of the 79-day Occupy protests, during which university students complained the federation acted too hastily and failed to consult them.

The CityU poll drew a turnout of 3,236, with 2,464 voting to break away, 527 voting to stay and 174 abstaining. A bag of ink found in one of the ballot boxes contaminated seven votes, which were later ruled invalid.

Chinese University, the University of Science and Technology and Shue Yan University are the remaining members along with Lingnan University, which voted in an earlier referendum to stay in the federation.

Wong said the federation would have to devote less time to social activism in the coming year and focus more on internal reform, as those who left cited the group's lack of transparency as one of their grievances.

But CityU student Tang Sheung-fung, who initiated the breakaway on campus, argued that student activists could be more effective outside the federation structure. "Now that the students need not belong to - and be hijacked by - any big student organisation I am sure they will be more devoted in the struggle" for democracy, he said.

(YouTube from the City University Broadcasting Channel)

The City University Student Union held a referendum on whether the union should withdraw from the Hong Kong Federation of Students. The results are:

Overall voting rate = 19.31%

Total number of votes = 3,290

Number of votes for = 2,464

Number of votes against = 527

Abstentions = 174

Null votes = 72

Upon opening the second ballot box, it was discovered that some ballots were covered with ink. The committee determined that the vote would be counted if the voter's choice was not covered up with ink.  The ink was deliberately put inside the ballot box by an unknown person. Seven ballots were nullified because the voters' choices were completely covered with ink.

(Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fhg_fHAG2Y INT News Channel)

(Hong Kong Federation of Students)

The democratic spirit is precious because it respects the will and freedom of all individuals, including protecting the rights of all persons to express their views without interference. During the City University referendum vote tallying, it was discovered that ink was placed into some ballot boxes and several ballots were covered with ink. This action destroys the spirit of respecting everybody's will in democracy. This is intolerable to all who want to fight for democracy. Our Federation strongly condemns those who are intentionally sabotaging the referendum process ...

(Wong On-yin's blog) May 12, 2015.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students is a 50-year-old shop. Last year, they initiated a student strike. On the day when the strike end, they charged into Government Headquarters and began an unprecedented Occupy Movement. This is the biggest resistance movement in Hong Kong history. As the leading organization, they should be receiving praises from the students. Au contraire, four of the eight universities have elected to withdraw from this old shop through referenda. They are not just punishing the Federation of Students, but they are also casting a no-confidence vote on the pan-democrats.

Even more scary is the prospect that the remaining four universities may also withdraw. As it stands, those four only represent 35% of all students and therefore no longer representative of all students. In these times, the Federation of Students and their alumni tried their best to stem the tide. The pan-democrats also cranked up their propaganda machine and various commentators offered their wisdom on the importance of the Federation of Students. But the tide was unstoppable and four universities fell like dominoes. The Federation of Students was like a political party which lost its powers overnight. Here, I predict subjectively speaking that the pan-democrats will meet the same fate in next year's Legislative Council elections and recede from the stage of history.

Behind the Federation of Students stands the shadow of the pan-democrats. When the students vote no to the Federation, they are also saying no to the pan-democrats. It is often said that the university is a mirror of society, and student politics is a mirror of social politics. When the students say no to the pan-democrats, it means that the people of Hong Kong will also say no. Communist monopoly in Hong Kong is inevitable, and the pan-democratic dream of political monopoly is illusionary because all that will be removed by the voters in one fell swoop. Once this is understood, all democracy-lovers must get prepared to find a way to replace the 30-year-old shop known as the pan-democrats.

The Federation of Students used pan-democratic methods to stem the referenda. The pan-democrats cooperate by spreading rumors in the usual immoral but effective manner. They claimed that the China Liaison Office is behind the scenes, that withdrawal would suit the China Liaison Office fine, that the Chinese Communists would be delighted if the referenda are successful, etc.

I have not done any research, but I am very familiar with these tactics which are never based up on evidence. Students in the same university should be able to have their judgment. The results are now clear. The funniest response is: What do I care if the Chinese Communists are delighted? If I don't like it, I have the right to vote under the democratic system. Students have their own ideas about the student leaders in the Umbrella Revolution. They will not adore their leaders just because of media hype. Many students manned the frontlines themselves. For example, in the November 30th escalation to lay siege to Government Headquarters, the students and other participants joined with no planning such that failure became inevitable.

Two things were glaring:

Firstly, the student movement celebrities were all eating instant noodles in Leung Kwok-hung's office inside the Legislative Council building and not joining the masses to face the dangers.

Secondly, I was there and I observed that the demonstrators will completely unarmed. They occupied Lung Wo Road only because the police withdrew. At 2am, the police retook Lung Wo Road with one round of baton charge. Between 230am and 730am, the police withdrew back to Government Headquarters. The remaining crowd stood around Government Headquarters unable to attack. Knowing that they have no chance of successfully besieging Government Headquarters, the student leaders waited five hours without calling a halt. In the end, there was another more serious round of bloodshed.

Why? In one interview, Alex chow indirectly admitted that he wanted the radical elements to see the hopelessness. In the end, the student leaders and the pan-democrats worked with the government to put an end to the occupation of Admiralty. No government official resigned and nothing was gained on the constitutional reform. Those students were not passive readers in a library. They participated in the events and paid with blood and sweat. They did not just watch television. Today, they are being generous by only seeking accountability from the student leaders who betrayed them.

If this is how the students think of the Federation of Students, then the citizens are angry that that the pan-democrats have been indecisive, ineffective and pretentious during the entire Umbrella Revolution. That level of discontent is very real on the Internet but not in the mainstream media which is controlled by the pan-democratic forces which will only promote the trivial protest actions of pan-democratic politicians.

The Chinese Communist feel good about themselves. They have no intention of making any concessions on constitutional reform. The pan-democrats spread rumors about how the Chinese Communists will do something or the other to pass the bill. But this is just a propaganda war between the Chinese Communists and the pan-democrats. The pan-democrats don't actually have any plans for resistance. They don't even dare to push the July 1st demonstration march before the Legco vote. The greatest accomplishment of the pan-democrats will be the vetoing of the constitutional reform bill. The attitude of the Chinese Communists is very clear on this: they don't give a damn!

Regardless of the packaging, citizens can clearly see how democracy has progressed under the leadership of the pan-democrats this year. The Localists are quickly rising and the younger generation are looking for "change." With the direct democratic system, the students have immediately punished the Hong Kong Federation of Students. The Hong Kong voters will have to wait for the 2016 District Council elections and the 2017 Legislative Council elections to have their say. It is inevitable that the citizens will punish the pan-democrats. The only question is by how much.

The pan-democratic politicians think that as long as they maintain their image and make no major mistakes under the representation system, they will be able to eke out several tens of thousands of votes and continue their erstwhile careers. The Hong Kong Student of Federation thinks that it has an illustrious history with many talented people, it will be able to scrape through the referenda with the support of the alumni. In the end, the Federation was routed. The situations are so similar.

(Wen Wei Po) May 15, 2015.

Previously, the City University Student Union Executive Committee aroused student discontent when they tried to suppress the Referendum to Withdraw from the Federation of Students. On the afternoon of May 15, 1,256 signatures were submitted to the City University Student Union Council to trigger a referendum on No Confidence Vote in the Student Union executive cabinet.

Internet comments:

- The Yellow Ribbons tell us all the time about how bad the Communists are. It turns out that their dirty tricks are 10 times ... no, 100 times worse than the Communists. With genuine universal suffrage like this ink-stained referendum, who needs democracy?

- I noticed that the vote-counter got his hands blackened by the ink. What is the Black Hand? According to Wikipedia, the Black Hand is a type of extortion racket. Typical Black Hand tactics involved sending a letter threatening bodily harm, kidnapping, arson, or murder. The letter demanded a specified amount of money to be delivered to a specific place. It was decorated with symbols like a smoking gun, hangman's noose, skull, or knife dripping with blood or piercing a human heart, and was in many instances signed with a hand, "held up in the universal gesture of warning", imprinted or drawn in thick black ink.
This is totally familiar to Hongkongers. For example, Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Law37 threatened to occupy the Legislative Council building and smash the windows/doors if the legislators should dare to pass the 2017 Chief Executive election bill.

- Genuine universal suffrage means that if you know that you are going to lose a vote, you will do everything possible to nullify the voting, including sabotage. Unfortunately, there is no international standards for punishment against these crimes.
- Only seven votes were spoiled this time. They need to work harder to develop a method to ruin all the ballots in the box.

- Some people have suggested to cast blank (white) votes as protest against the restrictive choice of candidates. Other people have already cast black votes to protest the voting itself. The difference is that the white vote is a lot cleaner than the ink-stained black vote.

- Electoral fraud or vote rigging is also an international standard. It comes with the package known as genuine universal suffrage.

- Someone tried to sabotage the referendum? It must be some student from the mainland, because everybody knows that they are poor-quality.
- "I suspect CHINESE STUDENT! Only they have no idea how election work."
- "
High chance of ethnic Chinese students with black natural hair, dark eyes and yellow skin tone!  Ethnic Chinese could be from China (including Hong Kong), Malaysia, Singapore or any other countries."
- "
Chinese student? Means everybody who voted?"

- I remember that the Student Union executive committee members pulled more dirty tricks. They got former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum to come down to canvas against the referendum issue. Meanwhile, they called in the security guards to remove those who try to rally support for the referendum issue. This is just the sort of dirty tricks that drew the recall campaign against them. If they get ousted, they have only themselves to blame.

- The referendum to oust the student union cabinet is essential, because their pernicious influence cannot be eliminated otherwise. For example, the Hong Kong University Student Union executives said that they will continue to attend Hong Kong Federation of Students meetings even after the students voted to withdraw. This is how they respect the will of the student body.
- It is highly likely that the recall referendum will succeed, since this current vote went approximately 5-to-1.

- (Apple Daily) May 7, 2015.

In the early hours today, the City University referendum to withdraw from the Hong Kong Federation of Students was passed. During the vote tallying, it was discovered that someone had tossed black ink into the ballet box to spoil the ballots. This was alleged to have been done by the opponents of the referendum goal.

Former Hong Kong University Student Union president Yvonne Leung wrote on her Facebook page about the ink-spoiled ballets: "I can guarantee that the ink was not poured by the Federation of Students." Veteran student activist and former League of Social Democrats chairman Andrew To replied: "Guarantee what? Why did you guarantee anything about the withdrawal of Hong Kong University from the Federation?" A commentator said: "Don't scold my Goddess!" Andrew To replied: "You're kidding! Goddess! Emily Lau must be the Goddess among the Goddesses! Fuck!" Then he said: "I wouldn't fuck Yvonne Leung even if she is offered to me."

The Stand News contacted Andrew To who denied that he was insulting womankind. He thought that the the attention is being misplaced. He said: "What if I was cursing out Alex Chow? What if I were homosexual?" He emphasized that he will not apologize to Yvonne Leung. "Why should I apologize? Why didn't she apologize to the students of Hong Kong University?"

The League of Social Democrats said on its Facebook page: "With respect to what our member Andrew To said, we made multiple inquiries today. After learning the details, we believe that Andrew To's speech was inappropriate. We do not agree with what he said."

- With respect to what Andrew To said, let me quote Lingnan University Student Union external affairs secretary Lee Tak-hung on the Fuck the Police controversy: "Freedom of speech exists on the school campus. It is a very important value which must not be lost on the school campus. This affair has caused Lingnan University to forever lose freedom of speech and expression."

(SCMP) May 14, 2015.

A pro-Beijing group, the Alliance for Peace and Democracy - which led the anti-Occupy Central movement campaign - has also been under fire. It claims to have gathered more than 360,000 signatures over the weekend in favour of the reform plan, but critics say those who signed did not have to provide proof of identity, meaning they could sign repeatedly or use fake names.

(Wen Wei Po) May 16, 2015.

According to the Alliance for Peace and Democracy, their "defend democracy, support constitutional reform, oppose filibustering, oppose violence" signature campaign has collected 767,737 signatures as of 7pm on Friday, the eighth day of the campaign. Spokesperson Robert Chow said that there should be no problem getting 1 million signatures in total after this weekend.

In addition, the alliance said that they handled 38,445 voter registration form. They had 24,859 volunteer-occasions and 3,978 booth-days.

(Wen Wei Po) May 15, 2015.

As the Alliance for Peace and Democracy signature campaign rolled on, their opponents used dirty tricks to disrupt.

On Sunday, DAB South District branch director Pang Sui-kay and other volunteers were working a street booth at Li Tung Estate. A Civic Passion member came up to them to harass them. Democratic Party South District district councilor Au Nok-hin was also present. The troublemakers left after five minutes. Later that afternoon, his volunteers found almost twenty posters in Li Tung Estate and Yu An Court. These posters were issued under the names of Pang Sui-kay and Lee Ka-ying for the DAB to pay volunteers to support the constitutional reform. The contact phone number was that for the DAB South District branch office. Pang said that the office has received three phone calls so far. He condemned those who faked these posters: "Even if you hold a different view on constitutional reform, there is no need to do this." At this time, Pang and Lee have filed police reports.

On Saturday, the Alliance said that someone holding a $500 bill approached their street booth in Kwai Ching and asked the volunteers whether this was a fake bill. Then this individual took out a mobile phone to take photos in order to fake a story. The Alliance condemned such methods as being "immature and pointless."

(Oriental Daily) May 16, 2015.

On this day, 20 plus members of "Occupy Central does not represent me"/"Loyalist Civil Regiment" faced off Civic Passion members first at the Tsim Sha Tsui clock towers. The groups met up again in Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall later. Regular demonstrators Captain America was present waving his British colonial dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

"Occupy Central does not represent me"/"Loyalist Civil Regiment" accused Civic Passion for disrupting social order in their violent anti-parallel traders demonstrations. Civic Passion said their opponents don't under constitutional reform and work only for pay.

(Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVYMVqA-lOs One side yelled "Shit-eating dogs" and the other side yelled "Bring down the Communists". Totally pointless activities, because you can't bring down the Communists by yelling in front of the clock tower in Tsim Sha Tsui, and because the other side won't eat shit just because you told them to.

(Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOmg_Yr9N1g  "Fairness, reason and democracy" on display.

(SCMP) Family blast police over handling of autistic man's arrest, detention. May 11, 2015.

The family of an autistic man wrongly accused of murder and subjected to the full media glare as he was taken away by police have slammed the force over the handling of his arrest.

The 30-year-old man was arrested on May 2 in connection with the killing of an elderly man in Sha Tin last month. His family say they told the police he had mental-health problems and required medication. But they claim the police pressed ahead.

Yesterday the man's older brother, surnamed Au, said: "I told the police that my younger brother is autistic and intellectually disabled, and that he must take medication according to a doctor's instruction. "The police did not arrange any medical staff to treat my brother. As a result, in the 50-hour-plus period he was detained from May 2 to 4, my brother did not take any medicine."

The younger brother was arrested on May 2 on suspicion of killing a 73-year-old man in a basketball court in Mei Lam Estate. It was a highly publicised arrest. It was made after the old man died in hospital on April 13 after an alleged assault by a younger man.

Police laid a holding charge against the autistic man with one count of manslaughter last Monday, saying the case would be mentioned at Sha Tin Court a day later. But hours later, just past midnight, the holding charge was dropped. The arrestee was later released because he had an alibi - he was staying in a Tuen Mun institute at the time of the assault.

Under police guidelines, arrestees who have pills on them should have their medical needs catered to, lawmaker Dr Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung said. He claimed officers used leading questions and failed to recognise his condition. "They asked him a lot of yes-no questions like 'did you go to the basketball court', 'did you see the elderly man' and 'did you push him' the problem is autistic people have the tendency to repeat what others say to them." The quiet release of the man after his public arrest was unfair and potentially dangerous to him, as he could be despised as a "killer" in the neighbourhood, Cheung added.

The family wants an apology and has called on the police to step up training on how to handle the intellectually disabled.

A police spokesman said that once evidence suggested the man was not at the crime scene, he was released on bail on Monday. When officers confirmed he was not there, he was released unconditionally on Thursday. He said arrested people who did not feel well could ask to go to hospital. However, the man in this case did not make a request.

(Headline News) From Now On, You Won't Err If You Don't Do Anything. By Wat Wing-yin. May 14, 2015.

In the case of the 70-year-old man who was murdered while walking a dog in Mei Lam Estate, Sha Tin, the police arrested a 30-year-old autistic man earlier but released him uncondtiionally after finding evidence that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime. The case was hyped up by politicians and the media as the first bomb for the new police commissioner to defuse. The case ended with an apology from the police.

I agree completely that when you make a mistake, you must own up. It is also fair enough for limelight-seeking politicians to hound you for false arrest and bullying the weak and vulnerable. Yet, this case also showed that the police have an effective system in which the arrestee was immediately released upon finding evidence that he was elsewhere at the time of the murder. This showed that the system can protect the innocent far better than those unfortunate people who rotted in American jails for decades before being cleared. We should be happy that people who got arrested falsely would suffer at most 72 hours.

The police are not gods. They sometimes make mistakes. For political reasons, politicians seize this opportunity to focus on this one mistake and attack. As a citizen, I am concerned whether the police investigators tried to find the murderer. Did they do everything possible to protect us?

When I read the newspapers, I saw this: "... the police investigated for 19 days and viewed 800 hours of Closed-Circuit Television videos in conjunction with testimony from local residents to lock in on the suspect ..."

It is not easy to watch 800 hours of CCTV videos. Even if you use fast-forward, it will take you four hundred hours. If the police were really making an arbitrary arrest, would they have to work so hard? They could have arrested all those who wore red clothes and black pants, and beat confessions out of them.

This case is being discussed by far too many rank amateurs. But when the senior officers have apologized, who is going to continue the investigation? The law enforcement officers had wanted to solve the murder case in order to render justice for the deceased old man. A mistake was made and then all the efforts were tossed away. Worse yet, the police were accused of making an arbitrary arrest. Henceforth, will the police dare to do anything? If they don't anything, they can't ever err. If the investigators did not watch the 800 hours of CCTV videos, they would not have seen the wrong person, they would not have made any arrests, the police commissioner would not be embarrassed ... if everybody does nothing, then nothing can go wrong and the police can stay above the fray.

Politicians, you are going to force the police to do nothing sooner or later. Then murderers will roam freely in the streets. This is the bright new tomorrow that you are seeking for every day.

(Ming Pao) What Is News? By Wat Wing-yin. May 16, 2015.

An old man was killed while walking a dog. Because the police arrested an autistic man by mistake, bloodthirsty politicians and media distorted this into a major case of authorities bullying the weak and vulnerable elements. Every day the newspapers carried heavy coverage because they have finally caught the police off balance. There will be a large demonstration by autistic persons this Sunday too.

Because I wrote a column on this case in Headline News, I was also swept up. I was attacked by a number of Yellow Ribbon websites with Internet bullying tactics, including vulgar language and death threats to my whole family. I am used to this. I am unafraid. I am only puzzled at why 700 words from one woman could draw such heavy attack. This is like the Internet video about the execution of a North Korean soldier who dared to talk back to Kim Jong-un.

My essay drew fire precisely because it was spot on. My friend told me that my hit rate was too high, because that essay was read by more than 700,000 persons. This is more than ten times the circulation of Ming Pao. To take advantage of me, or perhaps because Ming Pao is a Yellow Ribbon newspaper too, this self-proclaimed trustworthy newspaper joined in the parade. Yesterday Ming Pao ran an article titled "Wat Wing-yin rubbed salt into wound" with the sub-title "Wat Wing-yin declined to be interviewed" to emphasize my popularity.

As I said, I am used to this and I am unafraid. As a has-been celebrity, I wish the Ming Pao reporters, editors and managers think carefully about: What is news? Internet verbal wars are not news. That has nothing to do with the public, and nothing to do with the case. The Internet media like to take people's words out of context and make a case. This is inferior journalism. So why would a newspaper do the same? I have nothing to say. How would you follow up on the Sha Tin murder case? The apology from the police? The Internet quarrel? Does anyone at the newspaper know?

A reporter is supposed to report the facts, not to promote his own prejudices; to bring justice, not to change the focus. Has anyone mentioned the deceased person over the past few days? While the autistic person deserves sympathy for his sufferings, who is going to speak up for the deceased man? His story has completely vanished because he did not know how to play politics or find a politician to help him.

(Sky Post) The Worst Place on Earth to have a Revolution. By Wat Wing-yin. May 14, 2015.

I have always thought that the eyes of the people of bright-clear, so I always read the letters from the readers and I reply to them as best as I could. Different people have different ideas, and the collection becomes wisdom. On this day, a reader wrote me and I was impressed by the ending paragraph:

"We frequently want to compare ourselves with Singapore, but we don't seem to come up with any conclusions. Under the leadership of Lee Kuan-yew, Singapore has become a player in the chess game that is global (at least, Asian) politics. What about Hong Kong? Some people in Hong Kong want to be the chess pieces for certain players in the chess game that is global politics. Basically, they manage to do so. But shouldn't it be clear who is better? Some people in Hong Kong want to see the Chinese Communist regime collapse. But have they ever thought about whether nobody is safe in that event? If a new regime takes over, there can be only one result: No more Basic Law, no more one-country-two-systems. Will they let Hong Kong become independent? You are just fantasizing. In summary, Hong Kong is the worst place on earth to have a revolution. It is least necessary. Conditions do not allow for a revolution. I hope that the people of Hong Kong won't lost their direction."

On the worst place on earth to have a revolution, they tried to have one. We can all see what happened.

A successful revolution ends in regime change. That did not happen here. It proved that the revolution has failed. A failed revolution usually ends with corpses strewn everywhere. That did not happen here. It proved that the Hong Kong people are fortunate.

This is a place without natural resources, a place that is not self-sufficient. Yet its has managed to be prosperous and elegant. Apart from hard work, a little bit of luck is involved. We are more fortunate than Singapore, because we have a big backer behind us. Singapore is in the middle of a crocodile pond, and they worked hard for everything that they earned. Meanwhile in Hong Kong, people want to compare against Singapore. They even criticized them for being autocratic and undemocratic. I think that this is something like Li Ka-shing's son comparing himself against the son of Mr. Lee living in public housing estate in Ngau Tau Kok. The one who has everything provided for already will never understand how hard it is for the one whose every step is so hard.

(The Stand News) May 15, 2015.

Among the popular essays on social media must be the pro-establishment "From now on, you won't err if you don't do anything" by Wat Wing Yin. It is hard to imagine that a media worker who grew up and received education in Hong Kong could write such dog-farting trash to defend her masters. The further I read, the more disgusted I got.

Can the police not arrest the wrong persons? of course not. Sometimes, all the evidence point to one suspect and the police file charges. But it is not unusual for key new evidence to emerge to exonerate the suspect. Nobody would blame the police.

But clearly this case WAS NOT LIKE THIS.

We are not going after whether the police arrested the wrong person. Instead, the point was that the police was completely unprofessional in their investigation. Instead, it was up to the citizens of Hong Kong to sieve through the investigation process and see how an autistic person was unreasonably treated by the police. In other words, he was framed.

More crucial was the fact that the victim had strong evidence that he was not present at the scene. But the police ignored that evidence and filed charges against the victim. I find it incomprehensible about how Ms. Wat saw this as how the police "perfectly protected the victim." Instead I saw the police "hurting the victim without cause." And let us not get into Ms. Wat saying that at least the victim should be glad not to have to sit in jail for decades as in America. In Ms. Wat's eyes, anyone sent wrongly to jail should be glad as long as they spend less than several decades? If the real murderer goes free, will Ms. Wat feel very glad?

Today, Hong Kong society is rift apart by the pan-democrats and establishmentarians? No, instead I see a contest between civilization and barbarianism, a duel between logic and absurdity. The sayings and writings of Ms. Wat astonish all those who possess normal logic and civilized standards. You are free to be pro-Communists, but please exercise a little bit of intelligence and logic if you want to convince me. When I observe all the crazy talk and deeds from these pro-establishment people today, I fondly remember Henry Fok saying: "I support Tung." That was simple and clear.

(Speakout HK)

Internet comments:

- Someone is going to catch up with her daughters and exact retribution.

- She is a writer who prostitutes herself.

- This Wat Wing-yin has never had any character. She speaks more like a beast.

- Clearly this Wat woman is writing to make money. She is cold-blooded and conscience-free. Is she human?

- May her whole family get cancer!

- Don't get upset! This woman is just a mentally impaired person who can't tell black from white. We don't have to get angry over such people!
(Whatever her boss says, she will just repeat).

- This Wat woman has no idea how difficult it was for her mother to bring her up, all because she is mentally impaired.

(Speakout HK)

Renowned columnist Wat Wing-yin writes many essays on current affairs, and she is unafraid of challenging the so-called Hegemony of Democracy by pointing the evil that is wrought in the name of democracy. Recently, Wat Wing-yin wrote an essay in Headline News titled "From now on, you won't err if you don't do anything." She was immediately attacked by certain pro-democracy activists. Apart from obscene language, individual Internet users have directed venom against her entire family. Beyond personal attacks, they issued curses and threats.

In particular, Barry Ma who is the chairman of the notorious organization DLLM Orchid (which is a homonym for "Fuck Your Mother's Stinking Rotten Cunt" in Cantonese) wrote on his Facebook: "Lam Chiu-wing (the husband of Wat Wing-yin), Wat Ying-yin and her family of five should be exterminated. Exterminated! Not even a pet will be allowed to live!" According to information, Wat Wing-yin has decided to file a police report.

(Bastille Post)

Wat Wing-yin wrote an essay <From now on, you won't err if you don't do anything> on how the police handled the case of the mentally impaired man who was erroneously accused of committing a murder. She was subsequently attacked by radical pan-democrats. DLLM Orchid chairman Barry Ma wrote on his Facebook: "Lam Chiu-wing (the husband of Wat Wing-yin), Wat Ying-yin and her family of five should be exterminated. Exterminated! Not even a pet will be allowed to live!"

According to information, Wat Wing-yin has decided to file a police report.

Some pan-democrats have privately said that such talk is very bad, but they decline to make public criticisms.

I have checked with legal professionals. They said that this could be dangerous when someone actually acts on what appears to be exercise of freedom of speech. In the case of the Sheung Shui arson case, someone made a call for action on the Internet and other young people actually went and did it. If someone read about "extermination" and actually assaulted Wat Wing-yin or her family members, the person making the loose talk will be guilty of aiding and abetting the crime.

(HKG Pao) May 14, 2015.

I don't know when Hong Kong fell into Yellow Terror. Anything that differs from Yellow Ribbon viewpoints is drowned in invectives. If you don't want to succumb to the hegemony of the pan-democrats, if you want to push aside the Yellow Terror in front of you, then please join me to support Wat Wing-yin!

... In those reports, I did not see any plausible cause. Instead I only saw hostility, hatred and invectives. In truth, they were targeting Wat Wing-yin and not anything that she wrote. Because Wat Wing-yin's writings are very popular because they speak out what Hongkongers have in mind. She lets people see the other side which is different from the pan-democrats' viewpoint. This aggravates the Yellow Ribbons. Naturally, they will rise up to attack her. They want most of all to smear the police, silence all dissidents and reduce society to Yellow Ribbon opinions only. But clearly these are the most totalitarian even if they spout "democracy" all the time!

Yet democracy is not a "one-message hall". Society needs different voices. You may not agree with somebody's viewpoints, but you cannot use violence to bully them. At this moment, I must speak on behalf of Ms. Wat: You are right! I support you! Tens of thousands of readers are on your side. Please stand firm and speak up for Hong Kong!

(Speakout HK) May 18, 2015.

People Power's Tam Tak-chi wrote on his Facebook: "I have going to summon a bunch of parents with their children. We are going to Wat Wing'yin's home at the Sam Tung Uk Resite Village in Tsuen Wan. Candlelight vigil. We really love you. We are not threatening it. We are not disturbing it. We are just giving blessing to its three daughters. There is a monster mother." He also wrote: I am going to her home in Sam Tung Uk Reiste Village to give blessing to her whole family. That would show my sincerity."

According to information, Wat Wing-yin has three daughters who are still in school.

(EJinsight) What Chris Wat dropping her Ming Pao column means. May 20, 2015.

Ming Pao Daily celebrates its 56th anniversary Wednesday. Some of its readers found an early cause for celebration Tuesday when columnist Chris Wat Wing-yin, who holds relatively conservative political views, decided to drop her column in the newspaper.

Wat cited attacks by internet users who have opposing views. The media veteran, who was deputy chief editor of pro-democracy Next Magazine a decade ago, has become a pro-government loyalist in the past few years. The reaction to her latest comments on the bungled police arrest of an autistic man in a murder case was the last straw.

In a column published last week, Wat said the public shouldnt criticise the police so severely, as officers did a good job by protecting the suspect in a safe place. She was referring to his detention in a police station for 72 hours while being repeatedly questioned. And it had already emerged that police went ahead and charged the man even though they knew he had an alibi.

Hongkongers should praise the police for how well they treated him, Wat wrote. In other places, those who are arrested would face even worse treatment, she said.

Wats comments drew massive condemnation from internet users, who said she was cold-blooded about handicapped people and criticised her blind support for the police.

On Tuesday, she criticised Ming Pao for putting on its front page a report about demonstrators who urged the police to protect autistic and mentally handicapped people. Wat said that she, too, felt she needed protection. She said her views, which represented those of the silent majority, had failed to win the respect of readers.

Wat said she was uncomfortable because the personal safety of her family had been threatened by some internet users in recent days. Why should I need to suffer from such violence because I have a different opinion from yours? she wrote. In conclusion, she said she was ashamed to be a columnist for Ming Pao given its readers reaction to her columns.

She criticized the newspaper for losing its editorial independence and credibility and becoming a mass newspaper like Apple Daily. Wat said she hoped her supporters would follow her and drop their subscriptions to Ming Pao after she ceased writing her column.

Why did some readers celebrate Wats decision to drop her column? They reminded Hongkongers that Wat had criticized teacher Alpais Lam Wai-sze for her political stance, saying she had set herself up as an activist so that the school where she taught would face pressure from the public not to fire her. Wats comments at the time sparked massive criticism from Lams supporters.

There is no reason for newspaper editors to cancel any column because of the writers political stance. A newspaper must perform its public function as an open platform for the exchange of ideas and opinions by writers and readers. At Ming Pao, writers of different political persuasions speak up for their beliefs every day, without any issues.

In Wats case, it is quite clear that the writer failed to accommodate readers with different views, blaming the newspapers editorial direction instead. But Wat should realize that what the readers criticised about her was not her political stance or her pro-establishment views. The point is that her comments were not supported by facts.

Taking Lams case as an example, Wat criticized her for keeping her job safe by making herself out to be an outspoken teacher. In a column titled A Good Job last year, Wat said getting a good job is easy today just tell people you joined the Occupy Central protest, or criticized the chief executive and the government or joined the protests against them, and you have a pro-democracy shield. Even if you dont work hard, your boss will not dare to fire you, Wat wrote. Hong Kong readers are wise enough to judge the value of articles published in the newspapers.

The Wat case is a good lesson for writers: they should be prepared to face public scrutiny for their comments and think twice before they write them. They should also take responsibility for their opinions instead of blaming readers with opposite views for badmouthing them.

Ming Pao has been facing lots of pressure externally and internally while trying to strike a balance between the interests of readers and intangible political intervention from the north. Wats decision not to continue writing her column may be a tiny issue, but it reflects the difficulty the newspaper faces in maintaining its neutrality.

The proposal for 2017 Chief Execution election is controversial. This essay will address the issues in a Q&A format.

Question: What is this constitutional reform about?
Answer: Basically, it is letting the people get the vote. To a certain degree, this means handing governance back to the people and let democracy take a step forward in Hong Kong. Under the present system, a 1,200-person election committee from four sectors determine both the nomination and election of the Chief Executive. Under the proposed constitutional reform, this committee becomes the nomination committee with the right to nominate the Chief Executive candidates. Meanwhile, the right to vote is given to the 500+ million qualified voters. The 1,200-person nomination committee will go through two steps. In the first step, the committee recommends the nominees. In the second step, the candidates who get more than half of the committee votes become the candidates.  Two to three candidates will contest in the general election. The highest vote-getter will be winner, to be appointed by the Central Government. Currently, Hong  Kong citizens have the right to elect District Councilors and Legislative Councilors. The constitutional reform gives the additional right to elect the Chief Executive. Since the Hong Kong political system is based upon administrative leadership, the election of the Chief Executive is much more important than those for Legislative Councilors or District Councilors.

Question: Why is the constitutional reform a step forward for democracy in Hong Kong?
Answer: The core value of democracy is that the will of the people can be expressed and respected. The vote is the most effective tool to express the will of the people. This is a civilized, rational and peaceful way of expression. Through their votes, the people have their say. Without the right to vote, there is no democracy. While there are other ways for the people to express their will (e.g. speech, press, assembly, demonstrations), fewer people choose to do so than casting votes.

Question: What good does it do for citizens to have the right to elect the Chief Executive?
Answer: The Chief Executive will be responsible to whosoever elected him/her. When the Chief Executive is directly elected by voters (and not by the 1,200-person election committee), he will be directly responsible to the citizens of Hong Kong. "The voters shall be the boss." Those who have the right to vote (citizens) and he/she who is elected by those voters will have a master-servant relationship. When there are two or more candidates, the candidates must do everything possible to come up with a policy platform that can appeal to the voters. For the citizens, this is a beneficial kind of competition. Since the majority of the voters are middle-class and lower-class, the policy platform are likely to be more geared towards than when the voters are just the 1,200-person election committee. Such a Chief Executive is likely to be more understanding of social problems.

Question: Why are the pan-democrats staunchly opposed to the proposed constitutional reform?
Answer: We can use three choices (A, B or C) to illustrate the crux of the constitutional reform, with A being the best, C being the worst and B being between the two extremes. The existing Chief Executive election system (called "small-circle election" by the pan-democrats is a Type-C system. The pan-democrats hope to get a Type-A system (a genuine universal suffrage that meets international standards, no unreasonable restriction on the right to run for election and no screening of candidates). The government's proposal is a Type-B system.

Some pan-democrats think that B is worse than C and should not be accepted. Other pan-democrats think that B is better than C, but they still don't want B on the assumption that "if they pocket it now, they may have to pocket it forever." That is, if they accept B, they will never get A.

My opinion is that B is better than C because it more democratic. Once we upgrade the system from C to B, the pan-democrats can continue to strive towards A (including democratizing the Chief Executive nomination committee as well as the Legislative Council itself).

From the viewpoint of human historical experience and one-country-two-systems, this sort of gradualism is more feasible than the pan-democrats' "one step process" from C to A. Furthermore, if the pan-democrats want to abandon the immediately available B for the sake of the remote possibility of A, the result will be that the citizens will continue to endure C, which the pan-democrats describe as an extremely undemocratic system. Are the pan-democrats too high a price for the entire citizenry to pay? This price includes the continued stalling of governance, the paralysis of the Legislative Council due to filibustering, the slowdown of society and the downfall of Hong Kong.

Question: Why do some pan-democrats think that B is worse than C?
Answer: Their usual points of discussion are as follows:
(1) The candidates under Proposal B are "rotten apples" and "rotten oranges" who won't be welcomed by the citizens;
(2) The voters will be turned into "voting machines" to confer legitimacy to the officially anointed Chief Executive and give him an aura of popularity. Thus, this is a false universal suffrage.
On Point (1), I believe that this is stretching it too far. We still don't know how the nomination committee will work. So why imagine the worst? Why not begin with assuming that the apple and the orange are both delicious? Why not try to give the nomination committee a chance?
As for Point (2), my understanding that this high threshold was designed not because the Central Government wants to decide who the two or three candidates shall be. Instead, they only want to reduce the chance of those whom the Central Government do not want to appoint as Chief Executive because those people will regard fighting against the Central Government as their goal. Thus, the nomination committee is allowed to use the secret ballot to vote on the two to three candidates who will have both the trust of the Central Government as well as the support of the people of Hong Kong. I don't agree that this is creating a false popular support. In fact, such an assertion is disrespectful of the voter. Hong Kong is not North Korea. Hong Kong is a free and open society. After the citizens learn about the candidates, they can freely decide whom to vote for, or cast a blank vote, or decline to vote. Therefore the election results will let the world know about the genuine and free expression of the will of the people. That would be the true public opinion, no matter whether you want to call this election genuine or false universal suffrage.

Question: The pan-democrats believe that they were elected as representatives and they only need to vote in accordance with their own political beliefs and conscience without being persuaded by the majority opinion. Do you agree?
Answer: The right to vote for the Chief Executive is a basic civil right. It is an inviolable human right. The majority in society should not deprive the rights of minorities. A minority group (or those Legislative Councilors who represent them) should not be able to deprive the majority of their human rights. Currently, some public opinion polls show that about half the citizens want to be able to vote for the Chief Executive in 2017 in under the proposed constitutional reform. That is, 2.5 million out of 5 million qualified voters. The 27 pan-democratic Legislative Councilors will each one of them nullify the right of 90,000+ voters' right to vote. Does this match the notions of democracy and human rights? Those citizens who oppose the constitutional reform can abstain or cast null votes to express their discontent. They do not need to take away the votes of those who would like to be able to vote.

Question: Apart from the right to vote, is the right to be elected also a basic civil right?
Answer; Yes. The Central Government insists that the Chief Executive must "love China and Hong Kong" and therefore they want a higher threshold to restrict the candidates. The pan-democrats objected and are even willing to veto the proposal such that the citizens won't have the right to vote. Such is the predicament of democracy in Hong Kong under one-country-two-systems.

(am730 via Speakout HK) May 14, 2015. By Ko Ming-ya.

As the debate over constitutional reform heads towards a stalemate, I watched Civic Party's Kwok legislator Wing-hang said confidently on television that after the pan-democrats veto the constitutional reform bill, they will be able to apply pressure on the Central Government with a resounding majority victory in the 2016 Legislative Council elections. Thus, the Central Government will be forced to reconsider the August 31 National People's Congress Standing Committee resolution. Yet, an informed party said that this is wishful thinking that is quite impractical.

Kwok said: "If we veto the proposal now and if we can get even more seats in the 2016 Legislative Council, that would be a clear message from the citizens to the Central Government that we do not accept the August 31 resolution. Politically and legally, they will have to reconsider. In politics, you never say 'never'." Logically, this statement is problematic, because it sounds more campaign talk than practical analysis. Many public opinion polls have shown that more citizens support than oppose the constitutional reform proposal. If the pan-democrats run against public opinion and veto the bill, why would the citizens continue to support those legislators who refuse to listen to public opinion? Even if the gap between support and opposition is closing, it seemed fantasy to think that the pan-democrats can obtain an overwhelming majority in the Legislative Council.

The source also pointed out that Kwok and other pan-democrats have ignored a key point. The reason why constitutional reform is stuck now is that the Central Government and the pan-democrats lack mutual trust. In particular, the Central Government distrusts the radical elements and the pro-western elements within the pan-democratic camp. Out of concern for national security, the Central Government will not yield. Meanwhile the pan-democrats do not trust the government to genuinely allow universal suffrage, and they think that "pocket it now" means "pocket it forever" without any room for future improvement. If the two sides cannot build mutual trust now, how do you expect the Central Government to trust the pan-democrats more after the constitutional reform bill is vetoed? What can make the Central Government come up with a less restrictive framework?

Even if the pan-democrats win more Legco seats, will that create pressure on the Central Government? Will the Central Government restart the constitutional reform process? Will they retract the August 31st framework? Besides, more pressure will merely create more deadlock? Without mutual trust, it will be a re-run of the current situation, or even worse.

(Hong Kong Daily News via Speakout HK) May 14, 2015.

The pro-establishment camp is pushing hard for the constitutional reform. If the 2017 Chief Executive election should be done by one-person-one-vote, the pro-establishment camp would not be the most direct beneficiaries. Instead, the citizens will benefit the most. In other words, if the current 1,200-person election committee is retained, the pro-establishment camp should be able to hold onto their "turf". Furthermore, if the Legislative Council elections are held using the same system, those in the functional constituencies won't suffer at all. The only problem is that our society will be mired in endless quarrels.

But do the pan-democrats really want one-person-one-vote for Chief Executive? The answer is not clear. Those who claim that they oppose "Pocket it first" because they want genuine universal suffrage seemed irrational. "Pocket it first" should consolidate their political powers. But pan-democrats are pan-democrats because they oppose. If the 2017 Chief Executive is elected by one-person-one-vote, the winner will have the backing of several million votes. As a result, pan-democrats won't be able to call this person "689" or "small-circle election winner." That would be very unsatisfactory to pan-democrats. Instead, if the old election system is retained, those pan-democratic stakeholders can consolidate their existing powers and not be displaced by new powers. While they go around touting genuine universal suffrage, they clearly know there there is no such standards, they know that having the new is better than the old, and they know what people want. But they can't let that happen.

(Oriental Daily) May 16, 2015.

On this day, 20 plus members of "Occupy Central does not respresent me"/"Loyalist Civil Regiment" faced off Civic Passion members first at the Tsim Sha Tsui clock towers. The groups met up again in Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall later. Regular demonstrators Captain America was present waving his British colonial dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

"Occupy Central does not represent me"/"Loyalist Civil Regiment" accused Civic Passion for disrupting social order in their violent anti-parallel traders demonstrations. Civic Passion said their opponents don't under constitutional reform and work only for pay.

(The Nanfang) Hong Kongs Divided Pro-Democracy Camp Left With Few Options. By Suzanne Pepper. May 12, 2015.

The three Rs advice Retreat, Regroup, Return came from Apple Dailys Jimmy Lai Chee-ying midway through last years Umbrella/Occupy street blockades. The advice went unheeded, of course, and he sat it out with protesters until December when police finally hauled away the last remaining holdouts.

All things considered, he was right. It would have been better for their cause had demonstrators followed Lais advice when he gave it and staged an orderly forward-looking strategic retreat. Sympathetic observers generally agreed that the street sit-ins were an effective means of protest at first but then went on for too long, pursued unrealistic goals that could not be achieved by the means adopted, and allowed adversaries to gloat over the failure of Hong Kongs longest most dedicated campaign for democratic elections.

Beijing has yet to budge on any part of its restrictive August 31 (8.31) decision that precipitated the street occupations and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying probably never even thought once about resigning as protesters demanded. Even worse, say the concerned observers, Hong Kongs democracy movement is now fragmenting again into all the disparate pieces that came together suddenly last year on September 28 when the street sit-ins began. In fact, there are even more disparate pieces now than before.

Downcast and discouraged everyone surely is but the pessimism is premature. Hong Kongs democracy movement might be receding back into another period of irrelevance, as has happened many times before. This current phase is only the latest local agitation in a long sequence of abortive political reform efforts that extend back to the British colonys earliest days.

Or the movement might inadvertently be doing just what Jimmy Lai suggested, since the disarray is not random. The new line-ups are being driven by fears about premature compromise and capitulation and no one is willing to bet the fears are unfounded. Hence the disarray is also being driven in anticipation of the need for a renewed pushback against mounting pressures to accept Beijings design for Hong Kongs political future.

The movement is splitting and Beijing is trying  with some success  every means possible to exploit the divisions. Yet without them the movement would be even more likely to dissipate. It might still, but if anything comes of this struggle beyond what Beijing has so far been willing to offer, then much credit must go to the energy of the younger generation that is doing what it can to hold Hong Kongs aging pro-democracy veterans to their pledges.

Earlier this year Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok responded to questions during an informal gathering of sympathetic observers. Leung was last years University of Hong Kong student body president. She was also one of the student leaders who stepped into the void last September when Professor Benny Tais Occupy Central idea took off without him.

The older generation stood aside then and let students take the lead because they had come forward right after Beijing announced its 8.31 decision, when Benny Tai was blindsided by Beijings intransigence and seemed uncertain about going through with his carefully rehearsed street occupation protest. It had actually been planned to last only a few days. The police had also rehearsed their removal tactics, so the whole exercise was supposed to have been short-lived. One reason it wasnt was that the students were not alone.

They took the initiative at the head of a much larger grouping that had already been planning to follow Benny Tais lead. This is the Civil Human Rights Front that organizes the annual July First protest marches, a new tradition that began in 2003. All kinds of single-issue concern groups unite on that day around their one common cause as champions of Hong Kongs civil liberties. It is also a march were political parties and elected politicians take a back seat. They join but never in the lead. This custom has developed in deference to ever-present suspicions and accusations about politicians exploiting idealistic goals for opportunistic purposes.

The politicians were criticized by some last year for not playing a more direct leadership role in the occupy movement. The reasons derive from this endemic suspicious tradition and not necessarily from lack of courage.

Yvonne Leung retold the story about how the all-city student leaders realized after a month or so that it was time to de-occupy. But like Jimmy Lai, the students could not convince everyone else that it was time to go and, also like Jimmy Lai, they couldnt just walk away; a leaders retreat while the ground troops stayed behind on the street to face police clearing squads alone.

Those divisions are now reasserting themselves with some students and some others deciding to go their separate ways. The basic division remains, between radicals and moderates, for want of better words to describe them. Only this is not just a division between young and old or students and non-students, although it is both. But its also appearing among the students themselves as well as between and within different political groups and parties, more like a rebellion from below  between leaders and the rank-and-file  than anything else.

Most dramatic is the disarray within the all-city Hong Kong Federation of Students that played the lead role in Umbrella/Occupy. With over half a century of controversial history to its credit (the British thought it was a hotbed of pro-China pro-communist radicalism in the 1970s), the HKFS until recently represented students at all eight government-funded tertiary institutions here. Students at several universities have just held referendums to decide whether to go it alone or remain within the federation.

So far, four universities have voted to disaffiliate: the University of Hong Kong was first to go followed by Polytechnic University, Baptist, and City university. The latter voted on May 7. The Chinese Universitys referendum had to be aborted after supporters fumbled the preparatory signature campaign. They say theyll try again next semester. Of those voting, only one, Lingnan University, has remained within the federation.

Students say they have many grievances stemming from the 79-day Occupy protest, lesser complaints like lack of adequate consultation and disagreements over tactics. Leaders are undemocratic  being only indirectly elected by the various student bodies  didnt pay enough attention to the views of everyone else, and so on. But the more basic underlying reason seems to be the moderation of HKFS leaders themselves, allegedly too intent on trying to win official concessions, too fixated on the unprecedented student debate with officials in mid-October. Without follow-up plans for what to do next, they are too inclined to listen to the professional politicians. These were helping out behind the scenes, with logistics and office space in the Legislative Council building just adjacent to the main Harcourt Road tent-city encampment.

Of greater importance to the democracy movement as a whole, however, are two additional decisions that have just been made. On April 27, the remaining members of the HKFS  in deference to the new climate of dissent  decided that the federation will not be among the sponsors of this years annual June Fourth memorial vigil in Victoria Park.

The event commemorates Beijings 1989 crackdown on its own 1980s democracy movement and the HKFS has been among the sponsors every year since. Attendance has continued to grow, bolstered by increasing numbers of cross-border travelers and mainland students who want to experience an event that is banned everywhere else in China.

Last year was the first when the growing mood of antagonism among local activists toward mainland influence had a noticeable impact on June Fourth commemorative events. Dissenters held their own rally across town with several thousand attending police said 3,000, sponsors said 7,000. The basic theme was meant as a direct challenge to the mainstream Victoria Park event. It has always mourned the demise of the 1980s mainland democracy movement along with the violence in Tiananmen Square on June Fourth and has retained down with one-party dictatorship as a (more-or-less) constant slogan.

This year attendance at the counter-current rallies will be higher because the HKFS will be joining them rather than the Victoria Park event. We need not concern ourselves with democratizing the mainland and patriotic unification themes, say the dissidents. Protecting Hong Kong from the encroaching influence of mainland political ways and means should be our first priority. Ironically, Beijing might now see more to its liking among the Victoria Park crowd than the autonomy-first outliers who are vilified daily in the pro-mainland media as traitorous seekers of independence.

Finally, as if all that was not enough, the youngsters have just dealt another blow to the old guard. Young Joshua Wong Chi-fung, a freshman college student, was the hero of the 2011-12 anti-patriotic education protest and is now much more besides. He has just led his old middle-school student group, Scholarism, out of the informal coalition that was preparing to campaign for veteran Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho Chun-yan who is planning to resign his Legislative Council seat. Hos idea is to use the subsequent by-election as a protest referendum against the Hong Kong governments electoral reform bill based on Beijings 8.31 decision.

In a statement released on April 28, Scholarism said it had decided not to participate in the referendum campaign, which has been building into an extension of last years Umbrella/Occupy movement. The reason: Scholarism wanted to distance itself from the professional Legislative Council politicians some of whom now seem to be losing their nerve and not sufficiently determined in their vow to veto the governments electoral reform bill. The group decided to pull out in order to free itself from the constraints they anticipated within the by-election campaign. Key to the decision was a commitment they would have had to make about holding in abeyance all disagreements with the democratic camp.

The support coalition had initially included five political parties, plus Scholarism, and the HKFS. The latters participation is now also in doubt as is Albert Hos resignation project itself since it was counting on the students to provide a major source of enthusiasm and energy.

So the retreat and regrouping have now been accomplished. All that remains of Jimmy Lais three Rs advisory is the third part: return  the most difficult stage of all. The question is how to return and how best to use what little time remains in this long running debate.

The governments reform bill based on Beijings 8.31 decision will be voted up or down before the coming summer recess within the next two months. Consequently, attention is now focused on the simple up or down choices that must soon be made, on the publics opinion about those choices, and its impact on the 27 pro-democracy legislators vow to veto.

The governments saturation-style promotion campaign has moved into high gear and seems to be registering some success. Pan-democrats are on the defensive as they take up their street-corner positions with fliers and stump speeches. And listening to their talking points, it seems clear why they are not closing the sale with a winning argument.

A poll was commissioned by TVB in late April, soon after the Hong Kong government released its final version of the 2017 electoral reform plan based on Beijings restrictive 8.31 decision. Close to 51 percent of the 1,000+ people polled said pocket it. The results: 50.9 percent said pass the bill; 37.9 percent said veto it; 11 percent were undecided.

But when the respondents in the same poll were asked whether they actually liked the governments proposal, 35.5 percent said they did not; 35.3 percent said they did; and 25.1 percent were undecided. Seems like about 15 percent of the respondents would like some good reasons not to pass the bill but hadnt yet heard them.

A similar gap appeared in the first results of the three universities tracking poll that began in late April. This poll is being conducted by three universities with reliable polling reputations: the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University, and Polytechnic, with results announced every Tuesday. The first two announcements on April 28 and May 5, were virtually identical. The latter showed 47.6 percent in favor of passing the bill; 36.4 percent said veto.

Unfortunately for democracy movement campaigners, their closing summations seem weaker than their openers. Pro-democracy legislators know what their constituents can do to them if they backtrack now. The Democratic Partys experience after Albert Hos sudden compromise decision in 2010 over a minor Legislative Council electoral reform bill remains uppermost in everyones mind. As a result of that 2010 decision, many of its members quit the Democratic Party, voters punished its candidates in the 2012 Legislative Council elections, and Albert Ho later said the abuse he received all along the route of the July 1, 2010 protest march transformed it into the worst experience of his entire life.

With that experience in mind, pan-dem arguments now seem directed primarily at their own constituents in an effort to try and reassure them that last-minute deals will not be done. But to do that, campaigners are invoking arguments that are not likely to get very far with people on the margin who dont yet understand why the bill should not be accepted, even though they dont like it. The governments line that we know its not perfect, but its the best we could do under the circumstances and think how wonderful it will be to vote for your own Chief Executive, etc., etc. seems to be working.

In contrast, pan-dem legislators are invoking the hallowed argument about voting their conscience regardless of the opinion polls. Alternatively, pan-dem legislators are adopting a legalistic argument: since the Basic Law requires a two-thirds majority vote in Legco to pass the electoral reform bill, then a one-third public opinion poll reading will be sufficient to justify their veto.

The explanations that might have followed from the initial catchy pocket it forever 【戴一世】retort to the governments pocket it first 【戴住先】slogan are not being expanded and emphasized. Those explanations should be emphasizing Beijings insistence that 8.31 is as far as it has to go in meeting its Basic Law constitutional obligation for universal suffrage Hong Kong elections.

Such arguments should be asking why Beijing refuses to provide any other definitions for future, post-2017, elections beyond the vague Basic Law phraseology if there is a need. The Barristers have just returned from their biannual visit to Beijing where they seem to have inquired only about what if there is a need might mean, but not whether Beijing would ever allow a free-choice Chief Executive election here. If they have just fatalistically accepted that the latter is impossible, as some are now suggesting, then why isnt the public being let in on that secret?

Such explanations should also be spelling out in detail how easy it will be for Beijing to engineer a candidate line-up that will give current Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying a clear popular mandate. There can only be three candidates. If he is one and Regina Ip is the second, who might qualify to give pan-dems a chance, as loyalists are saying.

And such arguments should be pointing out that universal suffrage elections are common all over China today, all with same inbuilt Communist Party control mechanisms that are present in Beijings 8.31 decision for Hong Kongs Chief executive election in 2017. The voting public there is endorsing and giving credibility to the partys candidates. If that is the future Beijing is planning for Hong Kong, then maybe Hong Kong voters would like to know before they advise their legislators to pocket it first and worry about the consequences later.

Q1. Some people feel that they would rather the Legislative Council not pass the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal due to too many restrictions on candidacy. Other people feel that they want universal suffrage for Chief Executive election in spite of those restrictions. Whom do you agree with?
41.7%: Prefer not passed
50.8%: Prefer passed
4.7%: Neither
2.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q4.1. If the government's proposal is augmented by: "The National People's Congress Standing Committee promises that it may change the Chief Executive election method after 2017."
25.7%: Prefer not passed
62.9%: Prefer passed
4.7%: Neither
5.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.7%: Refused to answer

Q4.2. If the government's proposal is augmented by: "The group/corporate voters will be eliminated such that the nomination committee will only have individual voters."
15.8%: Prefer not passed
74.1%: Prefer passed
4.7%: Neither
4.7%: Don't know/no opinion
0.7%: Refused to answer

Q4.3. If the government's proposal is augmented by: "When the majority of votes do not go to any one of the Chief Executive candidates, the election shall be declared null and void."
19.5%: Prefer not passed
70.6%: Prefer passed
4.7%: Neither
4.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.7%: Refused to answer

Q5. Some people think that if the government's proposal is not passed, then the Chief Executive election in 2017 will be using the previous method (without universal suffrage). Other people think that if the proposal is not passed, the constitutional reform process can restart so that a more democratic election method can come about. Whom do you agree with?
43.8%: Agree with the former
39.8%: Agree with the latter
10.6%: Neither
5.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.0%: Refused to answer

Q6. Some people think that if the government's proposal is not passed, then the 2020 Legislative Council election method won't be changed either. Other people think that if the government's proposal is not passed, the constitutional reform process can restart so that a more democratic election method for the 2020 Legco election can come about. Whom do you agree with?
42.6%: Agree with the former
40.2%: Agree with the latter
9.5%: Neither
6.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.7%: Refused to answer

Q7. Some people think that even if persons of certain political persuasions are excluded, it is still meaningful to have one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive. Other people think that persons of certain political persuasions will be excluded as candidates and that would render the one-person-one-vote election of Chief Executive be meaningless. Whom do you agree with?
41.7%: Agree with the former
47.9%: Agree with the latter
6.0%: Neither
3.7%: Don't know/no opinion
0.7%: Refused to answer

Q8. What are the odds of the Legislative Council passing the government's proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election?
17.2%: Very high
31.0%: Very small
48.0%: Half/half
3.3%: Don't know/no opinion
0.5%: Refused to answer

Q9. Some people think that if universal suffrage is not realized for the 2017 Chief Executive election, Hong Kong will sustain huge damages in terms of politics, economy and society. Other people think if universal suffrage is not realized for the 2017 Chief Executive election, Hong Kong will continue operating as usual. Whom do you agree with?
32.7%: Agree with the former
58.4%: Agree with the latter
5.6%: Neither
3.2%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q10. If one-person-one-vote will be used to elect the Chief Executive in 2017, who would you like to see become the Chief Executive?
5.5%: Carrie Lam
3.6%: Audrey Eu
3.1%: CY Leung
3.1%: Jasper Tsang
2.2%: Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee
2.1%: Alan Leong
2.0%: Anthony Leung
1.6%: Henry Tang
1.6%: Anson Chan
1.6%: Leung Kwok-hung

Q11. In the upcoming Legislative Council, how important is the position of the candidate on the constitutional reform issue?
27.9%: Very important
42.0%: Important
15.7%: Half-half
8.0%: Unimportant
1.7%: Very unimportant
1.6%: Not applicable (e.g. not a voter; does not intend to vote)
2.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q12. Suppose that you are likely to vote for a certain Legco member but his vote on the government's proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election is the opposite of your wishes. Would you vote for him in the Legco election?
52.4%: Definitely not
38.7%: Not definitely not
3.4%: Not applicable (e.g. not a voter; does not intend to vote)
5.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q13. How would you characterized your political leaning?
23.5%: Pro-establishment
32.0%: Pan-democratic
41.2%: Neither
3.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Do you support or oppose the governments proposal on CE election of 2017?

調查日期
Survey date
 樣本人數
Total Sample 
 支持
Support 
 反對
Oppose 
 一半半/唔知/難講/不認識方案內容
Half-half / Dont know / Hard to say
/ Dont know about the proposal 
  支持淨值
Net support 
23-27/4/2015 1,167 46.7% 37.6% 15.8% 9.1%
24-28/4/2015 1,154 47.6% 36.7% 15.7% 10.8%
25-29/4/2015 1,147 49.5% 35.7% 14.8% 13.8%
26-30/4/2015 1,154 48.2% 36.8% 15.0% 11.4%
27/4-1/5/2015 1,163 47.6% 36.4% 16.0% 11.2%
28/4-2/5/2015 1,162 46.2% 38.0% 15.8% 8.2%
29/4-3/5/2015 1,147 45.2% 37.9% 16.9% 7.3%
30/4-4/5/2015 1,162 44.4% 39.1% 16.4% 5.3%
1-5/5/2015 1,150 43.7% 40.2% 16.1% 3.5%
2-6/5/2015 1,159 44.8% 38.7% 16.5% 6.1%
3-7/5/2015 1,157 42.5% 39.5% 18.0% 3.0%
4-8/5/2015 1,152 42.9% 39.8% 17.3% 3.1%
5-9/5/2015 1,130 42.3% 40.3% 17.3% 2.0%
6-10/5/2015 1,122 44.3% 38.8% 16.9% 5.5%
7-11/5/2015 1,106 43.7% 40.6% 15.7% 3.0%
8-12/5/2015 1,105 46.9% 37.9% 15.2% 9.0%
9-13/5/2015 1,116 46.8% 38.9% 14.3% 7.9%
10-14/5/2015 1,129 47.0% 38.9% 14.2% 8.1%
11-15/5/2015 1,140 45.8% 40.1% 14.1% 5.8%
12-16/5/2015 1,142 46.3% 39.0% 14.7% 7.3%
13-17/5/2015 1,142 44.2% 40.8% 14.9% 3.4%
14-18/5/2015 1,148 45.7% 39.1% 15.2% 6.5%

(Wen Wei Po) May 14, 2015.

The first problem with the Robert Chung poll is that the survey question sets a trap in order to elicit a response that would be satisfactory to the pan-democrats. According to information, during the design phase of the questionnaire, it was proposed that a number of survey questions be included in order to address the complexity of constitutional reform issue. However, Robert Chung insisted that there be one question only, and that this question has to be as simple as possible: "Do you support or oppose the government's proposal on Chief Executive election of 2017?"

This question seems to be simple, but it has been carefully planned and packaged by Robert Chung. Recently, many other organizations have been asking the question: "Do you support or oppose the passage of the government's proposal on Chief Executive election of 2017?" Their results showed that more people support the passage of the bill, because everybody knows that constitutional reform would be stuck otherwise. Therefore, even if many interviewees have reservations about the government's proposal, they would still support the passage of the bill in order to move ahead.

By careful design, Robert Chung omitted "the passage of" from his question. Recently, the five-day rolling average have dropped down to low as 42.3% "support" and 40.3% "oppose." So this is happening because Robert Chung's question skirts the issue about whether the Legislative Council should pass the bill or not, whether to "pocket it first" or "possibly not have anything at all for a long time."

One interviewee told our reporter that when he responded to Chung's question, he said that he was opposed to the proposal. If asked whether he wanted the Legislative Council to pass the bill, he would have said "Yes" with reluctance. However, the interview was terminated without any other question. Thus, by crafting the question slyly, Robert Chung has managed to depress "support passage of the bill" by 20%!

The second problem with the Robert Chung poll was that the survey sample is biased towards the opposition. When asked political preference, 25% to 29% said that there leaned towards the opposition, while 9% to 12% leaned towards the establishment. So while the telephone numbers were randomly selected, most pro-establishment citizens will not cooperate when they learned the identity of the caller. According to information about May 5-9, 14.6% of the persons refused the call initially (that is, they said that they did not have time at that moment but will take a call-back later, and then they did not pick up on the call-back) and 1.2% were selected but hung up the telephone midway.

(Apple Daily) May 13, 2015.

Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau said that the government is "being routed in a landslide." She said that the Hong Kong government should inform the Central Government that many citizens are not satisfied with the constitutional reform that is being imposed on them. She hopes to find a better solution that will relieve citizen discontent.

(The Stand) May 14, 2015.

According to Polytechnic University Centre for Social Policy Studies director Chung Kim-wah, 38% of citizens firmly support the constitutional reform while 34% are firmly opposed. These are the firm bases that can't be easily shaken loose. The remaining 20% have no opinion, but they are also the ones who can decide which side will be become the majority. Chung said that many of the 20% are pan-democrats who don't like the NPCSC's August 31st framework, but they are also more practical and can see that they will wind up with nothing if they reject the proposal. These are the people that the government is trying to win over.

Chung said that the current drop in support levels is due to former Chief Executive Tung Kin-wah, Executive Council member Fanny Law, Basic Law Committee deputy director Elsie Leung and others speaking out. For example, Tung said that anti-communists won't be allowed to become candidates, which states clearly that there is pre-screening. Meanwhile the pro-reform signature-gathering campaign is within expectations and therefore won't persuade those who have made up their minds. The government officials reaching out to local communities aren't persuasive enough through handshaking and photo-ops. Chung Kin-wah said: "Government officials going out can't only affect their own personal reputation without impacting public opinion."

Chung said that recent incidents may have temporarily affected support levels. But as the Legco vote nears, people will move towards "pocketing it first." Is there going to be a golden crossing point when opposition passes support? Chung said: "I cannot see this possibility." He said: "Unless, the Hong Kong government, Beijing or the pro-establishment camp make a gave error, this is unlikely to happen." Chung added: "If they government officials hold fewer press conferences, they will be able to pull away further."

(SCMP) Public opinion for and against 2017 electoral reform too close to call, survey shows. May 14, 2015.

Public opinion on the plans for electoral reform is effectively even as any difference in the rolling polls conducted by three of the city's universities falls within the latest survey's margin of error.

Of 1,130 Hongkongers questioned between May 5 and 9, those in favour of the government's blueprint stood at 42.3 per cent - the lowest since the poll was first conducted from April 23 to 27. Those opposing it reached a high of 40.3 per cent. The gap narrowed to 2 percentage points, while the margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In the first survey - conducted by the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University and Polytechnic University - the level of support was 46.7 per cent, with 37.6 per cent against. The gap of 9.1 percentage points widened to 13.8 points by late April. But that has narrowed since a controversial government blitz to promote the restrictive framework imposed by Beijing.

A pro-Beijing group, the Alliance for Peace and Democracy - which led the anti-Occupy Central movement campaign - has also been under fire. It claims to have gathered more than 360,000 signatures over the weekend in favour of the reform plan, but critics say those who signed did not have to provide proof of identity, meaning they could sign repeatedly or use fake names. "The more [pro-establishment groups] support the government, the more they are messing things up," said former civil service minister Joseph Wong Wing-ping. "People can see that it is just a rotten political show when volunteers are not verifying people's identity at all." Wong also pointed at the Federation of Hong Kong Guangxi Community Organisations, after three schools accused the group of putting a video of students praising the reform plan online without the pupils' consent.

(YouTube via Speakout HK)

Listener Mr. Yu: I actually support the democrats. The problem is this. The survey question should say: Do you support pocket the constitutional reform for now? I don't support this constitutional reform proposal. But some of my friends think that the proposal could be pocketed first. So you are depriving people like us.

Host: This current question does not address whether the Legislative Council should pass the constitutional reform proposal. Instead, they just ask the interviewees whether they support the proposal. This question precludes the choice of "pocket it first."

Chung Kam-wah: We want to know if citizens support this proposal. How the government or the officials or the legislative councilors look at these results is left up to their decision.

Comments:

The joint poll done by three universities is being  published as rolling averages. On each day, they interview about 230 or so persons but they don't publish daily results because the sample size is too small. Instead, they publish results on five-day rolling averages. Each five-day average is based upon 1,150 or so respondents, and this sample size is similar to those used in other Hong Kong polls and even American polls.

But you need to be careful about because the poll results are now being used comparatively. That is, comparing the latest five-day average (e.g. May 6-10) against the previous five-day average (e.g. May 5-9). When you make that kind of comparison, the sample size requires careful handling. First of all, this is not about comparing one sample of 1,150 cases against another independent sample of 1,150 cases. That is because the two samples overlap (that is, they share the four days May 6-9 in common).

Suppose the previous five-day average is based upon A1 = (D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5)/5 and the latest five-day average is based upon A2 = (D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 + D6)/5, where D1 = %support for Day 1, D2 = %support for Day 2, etc. Then the difference (A2 - A1) = (D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 + D6)/5 - (D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5)/5 = (D6 - D1) / 5.

So when HKU-POP reports that their 5-day average for May 5-9 is 42.3% and 5-day average for May 6-10 is 44.3%, they are only reporting that (D6 - D1)/5 = 44.3% - 42.3% = 2.0%. That is to say, (D6 - D1) = 10.0%, which means that the %support rate for May 10 is 10% higher than the %support rate for May 6. In summary, there was a large difference between two small samples that were taken 5 days apart.

This information is meaningless for a couple of reasons. Technically speaking, we have agreed at the outset that a daily sample of 220 is too small to be reported. The international standard sample size is 1,000 or so (if you can afford it, the more the better of course). So you shouldn't be looking at this. Content-wise, why should I pay attention to the difference between May 6 and May 10? If the daily sample were 1,000, I would rather pay attention to the difference between May 9 and May 10.

I am not saying that the three-university rolling polls are useless. If you look at the rolling averages in terms of trending, that is quite alright as in:

But if you want to compare two points in time, then the difference is not what you think it stands for. Unfortunately, this is how it is being used right now. The people who are running this operation is not telling you about this point. They may not be aware themselves because they are sociologists and not mathematical statisticians, or else they know it but won't tell you.

As for the Wen Wei Po criticism of the survey question, see #225. Right now different organizations are asking different questions, such that the differences could be due to differences in the question as well as differences in survey methodology. This could be easily resolved by having a single organization ask the different questions.

The first question is simply the HKU-POP question: Do you personally support or oppose the Chief Executive election proposal for 2017?

The other question could be: Would you prefer to see the Legislative Council pass the proposal so that we can have one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive in 2017? Or would you prefer to see the Legislative Council veto the proposal so that the Chief Executive will continue to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee in 2017?

As for the issue of differential response rates from political camps, here is the detailed information from the May 6-9 data:

27%: leaning towards pro-democracy
10%: leaning towards pro-establishment
44%: leaning towards middle-of-the-road
16%: No political preference/does not belong to any party
4%: Don't know/hard to say

In the 2010 District Council (second) Functional Constituency Election, the results were:

Albert Ho (Democratic Party): 228,840 votes (14.4%)
James To (Democratic Party): 316,468 votes (19.9%)
Pamela Peck (unaffiliated): 61,321 votes (3.9%)
Lau Kong Wah (DAB): 199,732 votes (12.5%)
Frederick Fung (ADPL): 262,172 votes (16.5%)
Starry Lee (DAB): 277,143 votes (17.4%)
Chan Yuen-han (FTU): 247,196 (15.5%)

The four pro-establishment candidates got 3.9% + 12.5% + 17.4% + 15.5% = 49.3% of the votes.

The three pro-democracy candidates got 14.4% + 19.9% + 16.5% = 50.8% of the votes.

If you believe the survey data in that 27% are pro-democracy, 10% are pro-establishment and the rest middle-of-the-road/independent, you will conclude that in 2010, the 63% middle-of-the-road/independent voters fell 39% pro-establishment and 24% pro-democracy.

If this is true, then the pan-democrats will be routed in the upcoming District Council/Legislative Council elections because the middle-of-the-road/independent voters will punish them for losing one-person-one-vote for Chief Executive election.

The CUHK May 5-9 data report contained information that stated the response rate was 69.2%. This is a very high response rate that everybody in the world will be jealous of. For example, in the United States, response rates are most likely in the 30%'s.

Upon further scrutiny of the details, this response rate is falsely inflated. The report said that 35,568 telephone numbers were dialed. These telephone numbers were classified into three types:

Ineligibles: including fax numbers; non-working numbers; call-forwarding; non-residential numbers; technical problems; ineligible respondents.

Unknowns: including busy signals; no pick-ups; recorded messages; password-protected; language barriers; no re-contact after an appointment was set up; telephone line problems; other problems.

Eligibles: Respondent refused; other family member refused; terminated midway; incomplete interviews; successful interview.

Among the 1,634 eligibles, 1,130 yielded successful interviews. Therefore the response was 1130 / 1634 = 69.2%.

This calculation is misleading because a large number of 16,079 eligibles are hidden in the unknowns, especially the 7,400 unanswered calls and the 5,195 cases in which the respondents said that they were busy, agreed to take a call-back later but did not pick up the telephone. If you assume 10% of these people are elibigles, the response rate would be 1130 / (1634 + 1608) = 34.8%. This is close to international standards.

P.S. The Polytechnic U May 5-9 data report lists the 5,195 cases as eligibles, which means that these people passed the screening during the initial contact. In that case, the response rate would be 1130 / 5260 = 21.5%. This is a lousy response rate that falls below international standards.

Reference: American Association for Public Opinion Research - Response Rates: An Overview.

Q. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the 2017 Chief Executive election bill?
61.3%: Yes (take a huge step forward)
30.6%: No (remain in same spot)

Q. Do you think the Legislative Council should vote according to the wishes of the majority?
72.0%: Yes
15.5%: No

Q. Will you vote for a political party that vetoes this bill?
27.4%: Yes
55.2%: No

Q. Will you vote for a legislative councilor who vetoes this bill?
28.8%: Yes
56.7%: No

Q. Will there be negative consequences for Hong Kong democracy if this bill is vetoed?
45.9%: Yes

Q. Will there be negative consequences for Hong Kong overall if this bill is vetoed?
48.1%: Yes

(Wen Wei Po) May 5, 2015.

The Hong Kong Civil Action interviewed by pone 1,493 persons at a response rate of 36%. Among the respondents, 25.4% said that they are in the opposition, 28.4% said that they support the establishment and 46.3% are middle-of-the-roaders.

Q. How much do you know about the government's announced plans for the 2017 Chief Executive election?
41.0%: Very knowledgeable
45.5%: Somewhat knowledgeable

Q. Do you support the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal?
46.2%: Yes
39.3%: No

Q. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass 2017 Chief Executive election bill?
55.2%: Yes
36.4%: No

Q. Do you agree with the statement "Pocket it now = Pocket it forever"?
42.7%: Agree
47.0%: Disagree

Q. Do you think that the central government will yield to the threat of veto by the pan-democrats?
7.2%: The central government will yield
64.4%: The central government will not yield

Q. If the opposition vetoes the 2017 Chief Executive election bill so that citizens won't have the chance of electing the Chief Executive, will this cause great harm to Hong Kong politics, economy, society, etc.
49.2%: Agree
19.8%: Half-half
33.4%: Disagree

Q. If the Legislative Council fails to pass the 2017 Chief Executive election bill, who responsibility will it be?
45.0%: The pan-democratic legislators
32.1%: The pro-establishment legislators

Q. For 2016 the Legislative Council elections, will political positions and attitudes be affecting election outcomes?
66.2%: A lot of influence
18.8%: No influence

Q. If the 2017 Chief Executive election bill fails to pass, will the central government re-start the electoral reform process?
28.6%: Yes

(Oriental Daily) May 5, 2015.

A number of public opinion polls have been released after the government made public its 2017 Chief Executive election proposal. Most of them showed that the support rate for the bill is around 50% and the opposition rate at over 30%. Some pan-democrats interpret the results as being evidence of solid support for opposing "pocketing it first."

However, government insiders explained that these many of these public opinions were only asking citizens whether they supported the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal. When other polling organizations ask citizens about whether the Legislative Council should pass the proposal, the support levels rise up close to 60%. As the time for the vote approaches, those support levels will surely rise to go past 60%.

By coincidence, the pro-establishment Hong  Kong Civic Action just announced its public opinion poll results yesterday. When asked whether they themselves support the current proposal, 46.2% said yes. But when asked whether the Legislative Council should pass the electoral reform bill, 55% said yes. This is consistent with the aforementioned reading by the government insiders.

Relevant link: Why Do Poll Numbers Differ By So Much?

(Oriental Daily) May 3, 2015.

There has always been questions about League of Social Democrats legislator "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung earning $90,770 per month from the Legislative Council while still living in public housing (which were intended for low-income people). Someone just posted a video in which a woman follows Leung home, criticizing him for taking up public housing space, accepting "dark money" and "being a canine thug." Leung replied to say, "Housewife, get lost!"

Video: (YouTube) American Long-haired Dog becomes Rat-in-the-street

0:04 (Woman) I am now following that damned piece of trash. I am following the canine thug. Hey, canine thug! Chinese traitor!
0:12 (Leung) Get lost, housewife!
0:13 (Woman) Yes, get lost! You live in public housing. A few hundred thousand. You make a few hundred thousand. You also accept "dark money."
0:20 (Leung) What several hundred thousand?
0:21 (Woman) You also accept "dark money." You are hogging a public housing unit. You also sleep in the streets. You talk big. At the Legislative Council, you talk big.
0:33 (Leung) You get lost!
0:34 (Woman) You eat banana!
0:35 (Leung) You should complain to the Housing Department. The Housing Department will investigate.
0:37 (Woman) You eat banana!
0:39 (Leung) Of course, you are used to eating it.
0:40 (Woman) Is the Housing Department your fraternity brother? You make so much money and yet they let you live there. Other people aren't allowed to live there just because their income is slightly over the limit. They can't get in.
0:48 (Leung) I think you are going to eat banana.
0:49 (Woman) They can't get in. You make more than one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand a month, and still you live in public housing. What do you get preferential treatment?
0:55 (Leung) The Housing Department will investigate.
0:56 (Woman) Yes. That's why I am asking.
0:57 (Leung) All you have to do is file a report.
0:58 (Woman) I want to ask you. I want to ask you.
0:59 (Leung) That is why. You are used to eating banana, housewife!
1:02 (Woman) I ... I ... I like to eat yellow bananas most of all. I like to eat  yellow bananas most of all.
1:10 (Leung) You don't have the money to eat bananas.
1:10 (Woman) Is that so? You eat shit!
1:13 (Leung0 You eat shit!
1:14 (Woman) You eat shit, you!
1:16 (Leung) I look at you and it is obvious that you eat bananas!
1:17 (Woman) Take a look at your damned face. You are going get a haircut in jail soon.
1:22 (Leung) You take a look at yourself ...
1:23 (Woman) Hey, it's time to go to jail and get a haircut.
1:25 (Leung) Don't worry about me. If I go to jail ...
1:26 (Woman) Yes, you get paid to go to jail. You get paid to go to jail.
1:34 (Leung) You are not even have money to eat bananas, housewife!
1:37 (Woman) Why do I have to eat bananas? I eat steak every day.
1:44 (Leung) You throw up when you look at your own face.
1:45 (Woman) That would be you.
1:46 (Leung) You go and eat bananas!
1:47 (Woman) That would be  you. Your shitty-man look. You are ruining Hong Kong's cityscape. Go quickly, quickly, to the incinerator and make yourself vanish.

Internet comments:

- The Housing Authority set limits on maximum income and net assets. The maximum monthly income is $10,100 for a one-person family. Leung Kwok-hung makes $90,770 per month. This is why people have questions about Leung's situation. It is up to Leung to explain. If you ask the Housing Authority, they will say that they do not discuss individual cases due to privacy laws.

- As for the net asset limit, it is $236,000 for one-person families. (EJinsight) Leung Kwok-hung received HK$500,000 from Jimmy Lai directed to him personally. Leung claimed that he accepted the money on behalf of League of Social Democrats for party expenses, not for personal use. But if it's used to pay his bar bills, then it was self-enrichment.

- How does Leung Kwok-hung get to keep his public housing unit? According to the Legislative Council, members make $90,770 per month in salary. In addition, for each year, each member is allocated $2,327,330 for office budget and $198,890 for entertainment/traveling. It is said that Leung donates his money to a foundation, so that his net income is under the limit for public housing purposes. If he needs to spend money (such as paying for bar bills), it comes from the Legco or foundation expense accounts. He is the only person authorized to spend the foundation's money. Everything is legal.

- Everything is legal? What if the whole world goes out and does the same to set up foundations. Then nobody will ever exceed the maximum levels for income and net assets.

- Just because it is legal does not make it right. By transferring his salary to a foundation, Leung is effectively using government resources to fund his politicking. Why should taxpayers subsidize him?

- Leung Kwok-hung's party expenses for entertainment:

- Leung Kwok-hung's party expenses for professional equipment:

- If this is a legal loophole, then why don't the Senior Barristers/Legislative Councilors of the Civic Party attack the government for allowing this loophole to persist? Who is being derelict in duty here?

- Leung Kwok-hung has been living in public housing for decades already. If you are so angry with him, then why don't you denounce him to the authorities? Scolding and harassing him in public won't accomplish anything.
- What irony! Let me repeat this: "CY Leung has been Chief Executive for year. If you are so angry with him, why don't you go through the process to remove him? Scolding and harassing him and other ministers in public won't accomplish anything." But somehow you won't buy this, right? That's because you are only interested in venting anger and you are not interested in solving any problems (because that would be too hard).

- Why are there not enough public housing to meet demand? It is because people like Leung Kwok-hung are hogging the space even if they don't need it.

- A reporter friend of mine assures me that Leung Kwok-hung donated two-thirds of his salary to grassroots people. Therefore I trust him.
- I rolled over laughing when I fucking saw the above comment!
- The reporter must be from Apple Daily. If you believe Apple Daily ten percent, both your eyes will go blind.

- This woman is heaping insults and borderline obscenities (e.g. "get lost") in public at another citizens. She has violated a number of laws already. She should be identified, arrested and prosecuted.
- If this woman is prosecuted, what should happen with the band singing Fuck The Police at Lingnan University?

- The behavior of the unidentified is being characterized as 潑婦罵街: "An ill-tempered shrew scolding in the street." If that qualifies as bad behavior, then how about Leung Kwok-hung throwing a banana at the Legislative Council (see YouTube)?

- If this woman is said to be harassing Leung Kwok-hung, then what can you say about the behavior of these reporters with respect to tycoon Joseph Lau (see YouTube)? Or how about a reporter sticking the microphone into Lau's face (see YouTube)?

(Oriental Daily with video) 12:50 May 3, 2015.

A group of pan-democratic legislators set out today to promote "Say No to fake universal suffrage" in a motorcade. The group set off from Tai Kok Tsui and visited street booths in Mong Kok, Sham Shui Po and Tsuen Wan. At the Mong Kok East train station, they passed out pamphlets to explain why the "pocket it first" solution is bad, and they used megaphones to promote their ideas. But very few people took the pamphlets. Even those who took the pamphlets just left quickly without further exchange.

There were about 20 to 30 uniformed police officers and several plainclothes police officers maintaining order at the scene.

(Oriental Daily) 18:32 May 3, 2015. (Oriental Daily) 19:00 May 3, 2015. (Oriental Daily) May 4, 2015.

The motorcade arrived at Mong Kok East MTR station at around 11am. Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan was filmed standing on the car seat and sticking half his body out of he sunroof while the car was still in motion. Since he did not wear his seatbelt, he was clearly violating a well-known traffic law on wearing seat belts at all time. In addition, Lee's vehicle stopped for about 20 seconds in a double-yellow-line zone where stopping is prohibited 24 hours a day. So this is another violation of the law. Lee was also using a megaphone, for which it is not certain whether he had the appropriate permit for public use.

On Facebook, Lee Cheuk-yan responded that they received a no-objection letter from the police for this motorcade which moved along at a slow pace. He saw no reason why he couldn't stand and speak through the sun roof. However, he said that he was prepared to be ticketed because he has no special privileges. Lee posted a photo of himself in the same unlawful position while the car was still on the road.

The relevant law is Road Traffic (Safety Equipment) Regulations 370F regulation 7B:

... no person shall ride as a passenger in a rear seat of a private car, taxi or public light bus on any road unless he is securely fastened to his seat by means of a seat belt, if any, provided for this seat.

... no person shall drive a private car on any road when there is a passenger in a rear seat who is not securely fastened to his seat by means of a seat belt, if any, provided for his seat.

... any person who contravenes the regulation commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $5000 and to imprisonment for 3 months.

(Oriental Daily) 15:12 May 3, 2015.

At Sham Shui Po, the pan-democrats got into many verbal arguments with passersby. When they first arrived, the street booth was close to a Jockey Club betting branch office and the punters inside were unhappy about the commotion created by the pan-democrats. So someone came outside, cursed them out and got into an argument with a pan-democratic supporter.

When the group reached Tsuen Wan, a man took a pamphlet from Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai, ripped it up immediately and wanted to give it back to Sin. Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki quickly took the torn pamphlet, stuffed it inside his trouser pocket and pretended nothing had happened. Then another men came and told them that they are obstructing other people. A pan-democratic volunteer asked the man: "Are you a DAB member?" The man left without responding.

Then a woman holding a bitter melon came by and told the group: "If we have to count on you people for democracy, we're dead!" (note: the word for 'melon' sounds the same as 'dead'). She also criticized the pan-democrats for obstructing universal suffrage.

Video transcription:

0:00 (Woman waving bitter melon) You people die! Die quickly!
0:07 (Volunteer) Did you recognize the right people?
0:09 (Woman) What? If we depend on you people for democracy, we're dead! I was food shopping. I happened to pass by. If we depend on you people, we're dead! If we depend on you for democracy, we won't have a future.

0:24 (A man rips up a pamphlet and gives it back) I give this back to you.

0:28 (An angry man in front of the Jockey Club betting branch holding a horse-racing sheet in this left hand and a cigarette in his right hand)

Videos:

Internet comments:

- By this time, the two sides are simply going through the motions. Everybody knows how it is going to end, but you still have to go through the motions as if you are still striving hard. With the population split 50%-60% for and 30%-40% against for a long while, you are not going to change many minds by reaching out to the local communities. You will only provide photo opportunities for some of your opponents to stage a show to vent their anger. This is true for both sides.

- That woman holding the bitter melon has a good sense of humor. Civic Party legislator Alan Leong Ka-kit goes by the nickname of "Bitter Melon Kit" because "bitter melon" sounds close to "Leong Ka" in Cantonese.

- Lee Cheuk-yan is 58-years-old, so he can't reasonably claim that he is unaware of the seatbelt law. The maximum fine is $5000, which is peanuts compared to his month legislator salary of $90,770 plus reimbursements to the tune of several million dollars. This reminds me of the case of the rich man who parks anywhere he wants because the $320 parking violation fine is just like a parking fee to him. The maximum jail time is 3 months, and that may cause a legislator to lose his job under Basic Law article 79 ("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"). However, the pan-democrats hold 27 out of 70 seats and can make sure that no such resolution is passed, because an important freedom fighter should not be ousted by political persecution over a trivial matter such as violating the seatbelt law, which applies only to little people.

- Lee Cheuk-yan broke all manners of traffic law. This confirms the pan-democrats' view that when it comes to matters of great right and wrong, the law comes second.

- Today the pan-democrats asked each of their critics: "Are you a DAB member?" as if the only people who might object to them must be a DAB member. The DAB only has 10,000 or so members. They can't be everywhere. These pan-democrats still don't understand why Occupy Central has done to their brand. Look at how Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau dressed in all-yellow today:

- Why can't you count on these people for democracy? This is summarized by a listing of those pan-democrats who have received political donations from media tycoon Jimmy Lai to the tune of $50 million totals.

- Oh, Claudia! This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUewYalCL8M is such a gem. Go see it yourself -- you can even turn the sound off because you can basically guess that this is just inane stuff. The point is to watch Claudia Mo Man-ching go through her contortions --- she winces, she makes faces, she pretends to wipe saliva off her face, she laughs, she pretends not to see the speaking person right in front of her, etc. And this is the same person who criticize government officials for not reaching out to real citizens. Her problem is that while she wants to reach out to citizens, she prefers them to be compliant supporters and not noisy dissidents.

(The Sun) May 2, 2015.

Under the double blow of the anti-mainland visitor actions and the devaluation of the yen/won, this Labor Day holiday is no longer the Golden Week of yore. Instead, mainland tourists are flocking to South Korea, Japan and Thailand. In past years, more people enter than leave Hong Kong. Yesterday, the Immigration Department said that 299,000 persons entering and 310,000 leaving as of 5pm.

In Mong Kok, the dispensaries and jewelry stores along Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Nathan Road were doing poorly. Only the cosmetics shops were still doing well. According to Mr. Lam who operates a dispensary on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, they used to order 20 cartons of infant milk formula a week, but now they sell half as much. So Mr. Lam is now branching into selling cosmetic products.

According to Mr. Hui who manages a jewerlry store on Nathan Road, the current business conditions are worse than that of the 2003 SARS period.

Meanwhile in Causeway Bay, the situation was just as grim. According to Mr. Tang who operates a dispensary on Percival Street, he used to make $60,000 a day selling infant milk formulae and ointments. Today, he just managed several thousand dollars. His total business volume is 30% compared to the same period last year. Although his landlord has reduced rent from $800,000 down to $600,000, he does not know if he can afford it.

Mainlanders are now heading towards Japan and South Korea in large numbers. In March this year, Japan issued tourist visas to 268,000 Chinese, a 50% increase over the same month last year. Meanwhile, mainland visitors to South Korea grew by 22% to reach a record high for the month of March. In addition, the devaluation of the euro has also attracted large numbers of high-spending mainlanders to go to Europe.

Internet comments:

- The organizers of the anti-parallel trader demonstrations are claiming credit for a more serene Hong Kong than suits their own tastes. They are right. When you go about beating up an old man playing music in a local park, the whole world pays attention. Nobody in the world would want to come to the World Capital of Kicking Suitcases, and be cursed out and beaten up.
- The photo seen around the world: Valiant warriors in action.

- They never set out to beat up an old man. In the manner of Ting Hai, they say that they were forced to beat up the old man for his own good.

- There are too many dispensaries in Hong Kong. Hongkongers aren't that sick, are they? See Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury in which he fights to decide whether the Chinese or the Japanese are the Sick Men of East Asia.

- The dispensaries and jewelry shops should all go out of business, for we don't need the stinking money of the mainland locusts. The displaced workers can go and grow organic vegetables in North East New Territories.

- You say that the dispensaries and jewelry shops are making unseemly/seedy profits off their trades, and therefore they deserve to go out of business. I just went out to purchase a can of hair spray gel for $30 from a Mong Kok dispensary. The same product is selling for $38 at Mannings and Watsons. Who is making unseemly/seedy profits?  Why don't you come up with some action plan to put Manning and Watsons out of business?

- What exactly does Hong Kong make that is so unique that tourists will flock from all over the world to buy?
Infant milk powder? Hong Kong does not have cow farms. Hong Kong imports infant milk powder from Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Japan, etc. Americans don't come to Hong Kong to buy infant milk formula.
Diapers? Hong Kong does not have any diaper-manufacturing factories. Hong Kong imports its diapers from the United States, Japan, etc.
Ricqles peppermint cure? That is a product of France. Hong Kong imports it and sells a lot to mainlanders. Germans don't come to Hong Kong to buy Ricqles.
Just wait a couple of years and the producers will ramp up to serve the mainland market directly and bypass Hong Kong as the intermediary. This is simply more economically efficient.

- Do you really go to dispensaries to buy medicine? I usually go there to buy oatmeal, shampoo, hand wash, body wash, razors, shaving cream, laundry detergent, plastic tablecloth, Horlicks malt milk drink, coffee, cotton swabs, toilet paper, candy, potato chips, ...

- Well, the argument is that Mong Kok and Causeway Bay are overcrowded by mainland tourists shopping at dispensaries and jewelry stores. Therefore, beating a few of them up would discourage them from coming and everything seems to be working according to plan.

- The next step is to move on to other overcrowded locations that overspecialize in a single product line -- such as Goldfish Street, Dried Seafood Street, Tonic Food Street, Bird Street, Flower Market, Athletic Shoes Street, Golden Arcade (computer-related products), Computer City, Sin Tat Plaza (for mobile phones), Women's Street for tourist trinkets, etc. The demonstrators can go down and beat up a few random patrons, and then nobody will go there. After we accomplish this, the next step is to export the method to Macau and teach them how to eradicate the casinos ...
- I just went out to Sham Shui Po. The streets were filled with people. I could barely inch my way through. So we need to eliminate the shopping arcades, food markets, restaurants and stalls in order to have peace and tranquility.

- There is a Chinese term: 損人利己 t. Google translates it as "selfish." Literally, it means "hurting others while benefiting oneself." The anti-parallel trader demonstrators do not like mainlanders (whether they are parallel traders, tourists, business people or immigrants), so they took action to reduce the number of mainland visitors. They are now happily benefiting. Meanwhile their actions have hurt the livelihoods of others (and their families). So there you have it. Of course, in the manner of Ting Hai, they will delude themselves into thinking that this is for the good of everybody, and if you demur, you are just an ingrate.

- The selfish person thinks: "Well, I don't work in the tourism and retail sectors, and nobody else in my family does. So I don't care if those people suffer." Have you heard of the multiplier effect? When the tourism and retail sectors are booming, more workers are hired and salaries/bonuses are raised. These workers spend more income, which becomes someone else's income, and son on.
Consider the case of an art movie house. When the economy is booming and people have lots of money in their wallets, they come out and watch art films. When the economy is in recession, many people lose their jobs or have their incomes reduced, they cut back on discretionary spending and stay home. So you shouldn't think that a shrinkage of the tourism and retail sectors won't affect you.

- What are you talking about? I was at Metro City Plaza (Tseung Kwun O) yesterday. It was packed full of people. Today I went to Citistore (Yuen Long). It was the same thing. I waited 20 minutes on line to make a purchase.

- Here is the irony. The anti-parallel trader demonstrators have managed to chase away tourists (both mainland and elsewhere), but kept the parallel traders who have to make a living and do not worry themselves about these pre-announced Sunday-only single-location demonstrators.

- The May 1st vacation is only three days long this year on the mainland, compared to the Golden Week (seven days) in past years. It should be no surprise that fewer mainlanders are traveling.

(Apple Daily) May 2, 2015.

Ma On Shan resident Henry has been paying attention to developments in his neighborhood. "There have been a lot more dispensaries and jewelry stores opening. I don't want this to become another Sha Tin new town." Recently, Henry has observed many mainlanders coming out to Ma On Shan. They stay at the newly opened hotel as well as the YMCA Wu Kai Sha Youth Village. Many residents are irritated, including the sight of almost one hundred mainlanders wading on the beach.

According to Facebook group Friends of Ma On Shan member Cathy, tourists checking into the YMCA Youth Village will increase pressure on local residents.

Internet comments:

- I completely sympathize with Cathy. The YMCA Youth Village should be open only to permanent Hong Kong residents at low rates (like $5 per night) with food, shower and karaoke provided. Of course, the place will be packed. But since these are civilized Hongkongers, Cathy will agree that it's alright.
- If the YMCA Youth Village is open only to permanent Hong Kong residents, some Hongkongers will give 'likes' on Facebook but they won't ever visit there. The place won't be financially viable. Therefore, we must get to the root of the problem -- the YMCA Youth Village will be open to all except mainlanders. That's it.
- YMCA Youth Village will have restrictions on who can come? I thought that they are the Young Men's Christian Association, and Christianity is universal brotherhood.

- When poor-quality mainlanders go on shopping sprees in Hong Kong, that is known as irritating the local populace.
When high-quality Hongkongers go on shopping sprees in Japan, that is known as trade.
When poor quality mainlanders go to Pak Nai to watch the sunset, that is known as irritating the local populace.
When high-quality Hongkongers go to Pai Nai to watch the sunset, that is known as enjoying nature.
When poor-quality mainlanders go to Wu Kai Sha to enjoy the beach, that is known as irritating the local populace.
When high-quality Hongkongers go to Wu Kai Sha to enjoy the beach, that is known as enjoying nature.

- There are many mainlanders in those private apartment complexes, mainly faculty members of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Science and Technology. There can't be that many parallel traders there, because the travel trip is too long and therefore cost-ineffective (Lowu to Sheung Shui to Chinese University of Hong Kong by train, then to Ma On Shan by bus; or Lowu to Sheung Shui to Tai Wai by train, switch to Ma On Shan line).

- As the Hong Kong City-State valiant warriors say, Ma On Shan residents must save themselves through their own efforts. If they kick a few suitcases, curse out everybody and beat up some old men, the message will go out and the visitors will stop coming.

(Sina.com.hk) April 23, 2015.

Jenny Bakery is a favorite with mainland tourists. Due to the entry restrictions applied to Shenzhen residents, business has suffered. Jenny Bakery says that it wants to re-discover its local customer base, but Internet users are skeptical and say that Jenny Bakery deserves to die. According to Next Weekly, Jenny Bakery founder has said that their regular customers have reduced purchases by 50% ever since the anti-parallel traders demonstrators began.

Internet comments:

- They treated Hongkongers like dirt before, and now they come kowtowing.
- They can go back and open stores in mainland China instead. I won't go there for sure. I won't die just because I don't eat cookies.
- I went there last year. The mainlanders were buying multiple boxes at a time. I wanted one box and they gave me a dirty look as if they don't seem to want my business.
- I have tasted it before. Butter flavor was too strong. Nothing distinguished that would make me eat it again.
- Maybe it is time for you to go back because there are no lines anymore (according to the news report). You can check if they still give dirty looks.

- They can sell chick biscuits instead, because that is quintessentially Hong Kong. But there is no way that they will ever have the same sales volume again. Hongkongers are great at giving verbal support to businesses, but they don't actually come out and put the money where their mouths are (see, for example, HKTV). When the shop goes out of business, they rush out immediate to take photos for memory's sake. And the the pan-democrat legislators will come out and complain that the government does not provide enough support to small- and medium-sized enterprises.

- High-quality Hongkongers only eat Kjeldsens Danish cookies.

- At Chung King Mansion, Jenny Bakery has a secret competitor upstairs. These other people send out workers to distribute flyers to mainlanders on the street to entice them to go upstairs and buy their imitation cookies. This is the type of sneaky action that Hongkongers are really good at too.

- Hongkongers don't like to wait on line. When they have to wait on line, they think the shop is disrespecting them. They expect to be served immediately. Remember Tiffany Chin?

- Here is the life cycle of a Hong Kong boutique:
(1) You start your business. Nobody knows you and you are losing money.
(2) You persist and you build a reputation. You get a lot of 'likes' on Facebook. But you are still losing money.
(3) You become famous in Hong Kong. The mainland visitors heard about you and flock over. Now you are making big money.
(4) Hongkongers become incensed at the mainland attention and boycott you. You are making just as much.
(5) The wave of raves is over, and you begin to lose money.
(6) You go out of business, and Hongkongers place you into their collective memories.
(7) What to do next? You go back to (1) to start a new business. You are a modern Hongkonger Sisyphus.

- Don't be silly. This story is sourced to Next Weekly, which employs fiction writers and not reporters. I just went by Jenny Bakery in Sheung Wan. There were twenty people in line. How many businesses wish they could have so many customers?

- (BBC) "The Heritage Foundation has ranked Hong Kong as the world's freest economy for the past 18 years."
But today, instead of letting the free market decide the fates of stores such as Jenny Bakery, some media are injecting politics to start mass movements that behave like the Boxers.

(The Sun) May 2, 2015.

Internet users proclaimed that they would be holding a May 1st 18-district shopping tour against parallel traders. More than 200 persons replied that they will participate. Yesterday our reporter went out to Trend Plaza and did not see many people. There were more than a dozen police offices on alert, but just a few Internet user-types strolling around. At Sha Tin New Town Plaza, the situation was similar. No demonstrators, and the mall traffic was less than the same time last year.

In Mong Kok, the Internet users said that they would watch a move there. At around 6pm, several demonstrators gathered to chant "I want genuine universal suffrage." Two of them waved the British colonial dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

However, the organizers of the May 1st 18-district shopping tour announced victory anyway. They said that they achieved the goals of publicity. In fact, they were actually counter-demonstrating against the Federation of Trade Unions on Hong Kong Island.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

The Federation of Trade Unions marched from Southorn Playground to Tamar Park to demand legislation for standard work hours, to stipulate the legally mandated public holidays, to reform the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme, etc. The Federation also arranged for Chief Secretary Carrie Lam to make an appeal for the Chief Executive electoral reform.

(Apple Daily) A dozen or so social activists gathered outside Southorn Playground and protested against the Federation of Trade Unions: "FTU is selling out the workers, they are stalling the Universal Retirement Protection." and "they are getting rid of the right to collective bargaining."  According to one social activist, the Federation of Trade Unions refused to support those legislators who are filibustering the government budget bill to force Universal Retirement Protection. Instead, FTU blindly support "white elephant projects" such as the High Speed Rail and the Northeast New Territories development project.

(SCMP) Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was accused yesterday of hijacking a rally organised by the city's biggest labour union to promote the government's political reform package. Chinese University political scientist Dr Ma Ngok said Lam's move showed how desperate the government was to win public support. Lam made the surprise appearance in the rally at Tamar Park after a Labour Day march by the Beijing-loyalist Federation of Trade Unions. The rally was originally scheduled to end after a police officer represented the government in receiving the federation's petition on labour rights. But the federation's president, Lam Shuk-yee, raised eyebrows when he announced that a government official was coming to "listen to the workers' political demands". The unionist and about 20 FTU lawmakers and leaders then braved the rain and chanted slogans for about 10 minutes calling for universal suffrage in 2017, before Carrie Lam arrived in her car and addressed the rally.

Referring to the government's reform package unveiled on April 22, Lam said: "Do not listen to those who said that the proposal is fake universal suffrage, because it is a real and competitive one It will give five million eligible voters a vote, and 'one man, one vote' means the chief executive and his cabinet will be closer to public opinion." The minister refused to say whether she initiated her publicity blitz or whether she was invited, but Lam Shuk-yee said the FTU had asked for an official to attend because some members hoped that the rally would not focus only on labour rights. FTU chairman Stanley Ng Chau-pei said Lam was just showing support for workers and responding to their demands.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions marched from Victoria Park to Government Headquarters to demand legislation for standard work hours, to oppose the importing of more outside laborers and to establish the Universal Retirement Protection. The organizers claimed that 3,400 persons marched while the police said that the peak count was 1,400. A number of regulars were present, including the Federation of Students, the Hang Seng Management College Student Union, etc. Also present was Captain America waving the British colonial dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

HKCTU secretary-general Lee Cheuk-yan denounced Hong Kong Chief Secretary Carrie Lam for hijacking the Federation of Trade Unions action earlier in the day to push the Chief Executive electoral reform. Lee said that it was infuriating that the FTU would allow itself to be hijacked. Lee implied that FTU chairman Ng Chau-pei is suffereing from a split personality.

Internet comments:

- Well, I am infuriated that the HKCTU would allow its demonstration march today be hijacked by Captain America's Hong Kong Independence flag. That was the only thing I saw on television. I think that HKCTU secretary-general Lee Cheuk-yan is suffering from a split personality, especially given that Lee Cheuk-yan is a leader of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China.

- Number padding shenanigans as usual. 3,400 claimed by the organizers versus 1,400 observed by the police, or a ratio of 3,400 / 1,400 = 242%.

- "I want a genuine trade union." Which one out there is a "genuine" trade union?

- Is Speakout HK a government propaganda tool?

- (Speakout HK) We used the Chief Executive's blog and Internet user tips to report on Leung's trip. So we were faster than other media. Is that a crime? Why do the opposition Internet media outlets want to hype this up? If you want to be even quicker than us, you should keep a closer watch on the Chief Executive's blog.

(YouTube)

Secretary for Food and Health was handing out pamphlets at the Upper Ngau Tau Kok Estate when a radical senior male citizen came up to him to criticize. He questioned how the 1,200 nomination committee came out, he repeated the same points and refused to let Ko speak. Ko tried to be polite, but the old man was more interested in putting on a show than a dialogue. He used the nicknames of "white-haired devil woman" and "pork sausage" to describe government officials. Ko was clearly upset and raised his volume: "First of all, I don't agree with these characterizations. That is insulting to certain individuals."

But the protestor continued: "You are trying to fool small children. Right now all of Hong Kong have been fooled. How did your 1,200 come about? How did you find them?" Ko responded: "You are not listening to what I say. You can ask your neighbors about how I talk to children. I ask every child to listen to me all the way. I tell the children that some people will agree and others will disagree. I tell the children to make their own analyses, then decide to approve or object using their own independent thinking." Then Ko said: "That's all" and turned around to leave.

Afterwards, Ko told the press that while he has encountered opponents who chant slogans or raise questions, there was still room for dialogue. But this particular individual was more extreme, and kept saying that the government is deceiving the people. There is room for dialogue. Ko admitted: "I can't always control my own emotions." He said that he will try to use reasoning to persuade citizens and he hopes the public will understand that he has emotions.

Internet comments:

- That uncle said nothing of substance beyond tossing in a few choice nicknames. I wonder who are the "white-haired devil woman" (Elsie Leung?) and the "pork sausage"? The uncle may be old, but his behavior is like 'elementary school chicks' who make up nicknames for people.

- The uncle makes a good point. Tell him to ask the pan-democrat legislators about why they want to veto the reform bill and stay with the 1,200-person election committee to choose the 2017 Chief Executive. Most of the pan-democratic legislators have ready-made nicknames already.

(BC Magazine) Occupy Prince Edward - Buildings Department Eviction Protest. May 1, 2015.

Occupy Prince Edward just started outside Pioneer Centre in protest at the Building Departments eviction of Tsuen Wan families from a sub-divided industrial unit two days ago. Theres lots of people showing up in support outside the Pioneer Centre Mall, passing sleeping mats and supplies through the cracks of locked doors to the protestors camped out on the ground floor. The building management have blocked the lift from stopping at the Buildings Department on the 18/F essentially trapping those protesting the evictions there, and also turned off the a/c to that floor.

Internet comments:

- Can't afford to buy an apartment in Hong Kong anymore? No problem. Time to rush out to rent a sub-divided industrial building unit in the outskirts. Then lodge an anonymous complaint with the Buildings Department about illegal usage of an industrial building for residential purposes. Then publicize the existence of those units with the collusion of the Apple Daily fiction writers. Then occupy the Buildings Department after the inevitable eviction. Then you get instantaneous allocation to public housing instead of waiting ten years like everybody else. Do this soon, because the industrial building prices will be soaring as soon as the precedent is set.

- This is an even better con to get public housing than faking domestic violence.

- On one hand, the pan-democrats criticize the government for offering insufficient public housing to meet demand, leading to high rents and prices. On the other hand, the pan-democrats stall government efforts to develop land for new housing. What are their motives? To fan discontent against the government.

- "I want genuine jumping the queue for public housing."
我要打尖上公屋

- A more humane solution would be to mimic what the British colonizers did to deal with the squatter towns by the hillsides. They make a registry of all local residents in the morning. Then they came at night to set fire to burn them down. Afterwards they re-settled the homeless refugees into resettlement buildings with 40 square feet for a family of five. And they can still pretend that they are so kind-hearted.

- At first, they camped out on the sidewalk in front of Pioneer Centre with their signature yellow umbrellas:

Then they found it too inhospitable (heat, rain, mosquitoes, noise). That is why they moved to the Buildings Department offices on the 18th floor. There they have air conditioning and restrooms. They know what's good for them.

- In the name of concern over subdivided industrial building units, the Yellow Ribbon zombies are occupying Prince Edward in order to deprive the right of others to use the pedestrian sidewalk between Bute Street and Nathan Road as a bargaining chip. It is so typically selfish of them to violate the rights of others in order to attain their own goals. If you complain, they will say: It's the government's fault!

 Why pick on Pioneer Centre? This is a commercial building with shops on the lower floors and offices on the upper floors. The Building Department is one of many rent-paying tenants. These petitioners, social workers and civilian reporters are occupying Pioneer Centre. While they could argue that the sidewalk is public space, or even the 18th floor Buildings Department is theirs to occupy, the fact is the ground lobby is private property.

And how are the shops going to open for business with the mob in the lobby? If the cops won't respond to their complaints, Pioneer Centre management should obtain a court injunction immediately.  Defiance of a court order is contempt of court, which carry more severe penalties.

- Looks like these occupiers are the same Shopping Revolutionaries. When are they going to hand out the money/drugs?
- The Subdivided Units Concern Group? It's the same group of anti-government people who play N roles. Sometimes they play pro-democracy activists; sometimes they play environmentalists; sometimes they play human rights activists; sometimes they play labor unionists. They play whatever roles according to the needs of that day.
- Why don't these non-tenant social activists take in these tenants into their own homes?

- (Buildings Department) How many exits did these people decide to avoid taking?
--- It is illegal in Hong Kong to use industrial buildings for residential purposes, so they should know not to rent a unit inside an industrial building.
--- The Buildings Department issued the order to the landlord to dismantle in 2012.
--- The Buildings Department sued the landlord a second time and obtained a verdict to dismantle on December 2014.
--- Since October 2014, the Buildings Departments social workers have reached out to the tenants and tell them that there was no choice but to dismantle.
--- The Buildings Department contacted the Social Welfare Department to see if the tenants meet conditions for special relief, but they do not.
--- On April 29, the Buildings Department began to seal off the units to be dismantled.
--- The tenants were offered temporary housing in Bo Tin (Tuen Mun), but they insisted that this was too far and they wanted some place closer to Tsuen Wan. How about the five-star Nina Tower Hotel in Tsuen Wan?

Instead, tenant Miss Yu said that if the government dismantles her home, then the government has the responsibility to place her. She insists that she is not trying to jump the queue. She says that she cannot afford to pay the outside rents of $10,000.

- The party most responsible for creating this mess is the landlord. But the tenants rushed over immediately to the Buildings Department office in Mong Kok instead. Somebody probably counseled them that while it was logical to go after the landlord, it was likely to be more effective to pressure the government. Specifically, the landlord may give you a month's rent back at most, but the government can give you permanent public housing.

- (Oriental Daily, May 4, 2015) Pioneer Centre turned off its central air conditioning system at 330am, and the hallway became hot and tepid. The staff advised the protestors to leave but they refused. The staff called the  police which eventually persuaded the protestors to leave. But the protestors promised to be back at 830am to speak to the Buildings Department director and others about relocation.

(Oriental Daily, May 4, 2015) The protestors held a press conference today to condemn the Buildings Department for their callousness and cruelty in shutting off the air conditioning system last night.

Well, that's swell. Pioneer Centre runs a central air conditioning system which is usually shut off during the night for conservation purposes. But these people demand air conditioning and lights for their selfish selves. The bill will be paid by the Buildings Department, obviously. Next thing you know, they want the Housing Department to cater three meals a day too.

- In commercial buildings, tenants get metered for air conditioning usage. That is, your rent entitles you to air conditioning from 7am to 7pm. If your company is running overtime tonight, you call the management and tell them what your extended hours are. They will charge you "per hour per area."

- Pioneer Centre cut off its air conditioning. I thought that the Occupy Central people are good at stealing electricity. So just get one of the master electricians to hook up the air conditioning.

- I was listening to the radio news report. These tenants are mostly mainlanders holding two-way visas for temporary stays. They cannot possibly expect to get preferential treatment for housing. This is wrong. This is very wrong.

(Oriental Daily) May 3, 2015.

For the first quarter of 2015, the top five container ports in the world are Shanghai, Singapore, Shenzhen, Ningbo and Hong Kong. Previously Hong Kong was in fourth place. For the first time, Ningbo has surpassed Hong Kong.

During the first quarter of 2015, Ningbo's volume went up 13% to 512.4 million TEUs. Meanwhile Hong Kong is the only top five container ports to experience a decline, going down 8.1% to 488.2 million TEUs. Monthly statistics showed that declines occurred in all three months.

Meanwhile, neighboring Shenzhen's volume went up. In the main Shenzhen port of Yantian, the volume went up 10.0% to 270.4 million TEUs, while the Shekou grew rapidly by 18% to 157.46 million TEUs.

Internet comments:

- Calling on Lee Cheuk-yan to come in and finish the job. Previously Lee had egged the dock workers at the Kwai Tsing Container Terminal to strike for 40 days. As a result, customers went to unload in Shenzhen instead. And now other customers are leaving for Shenzhen too. Lee Cheuk-yan is now organizing another round of labor strike to raise wages by 23%, and that should just about kill Hong Kong off as a container port.

- Hong Kong is going to be cahsed down by Qingdao, Tianjin, Dalian, Xiamen, Lianyngang, etc. Hong Kong is heading down while the others are rising up. This is going to happen sooner or later.

- Remember when they killed the Container Terminal 10? The reason was that the average throughput growth at Hong Kong would be about 1.5% until 2030. Therefore it was not economically viable to build Container Terminal 10. Well, now it turns out the average throughput is negative! They could therefore demolish the old container terminal to make way for public housing.

- If they had built Container Terminal 10 and they had no labor strikes or Occupy Central, Hong Kong might have continued to grow. Without the state-of-the-art Container Terminal 10, they are left with increasingly decrepit facilities that cannot compete with the new container terminals in mainland China.

- The Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport will probably end up as the same story. I recently saw a survey of Hong Kong citizens who say that the Third Runway shouldn't be built until it is needed. By the time you could see that it is needed, it will be too late already since you probably need a decade for construction. Such decisions are just not the forte of democracy, because of bounded rationality (= the idea that when individuals make decisions, their rationality is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the time available to make the decision."

In deliberative democracy, a group might want to discuss something first rather than just vote on it (e.g. contact a citizen by phone and ask: Do you support the construction of Container Terminal 10? The Third Runway? than simply vote on it is to less the effects of bounded rationality. But when the group consists of extremists who will never budge from their pre-established positions, discussion is futile.

- The whole business about the Hong Kong container port is doomed to begin with. Why does Hong Kong have to bring in 488.2 million TEUs per quarter. It is not for internal consumption. It is mostly for transshipment to destinations in mainland China. It is more expensive to use Hong Kong (because of labor costs) and it costs more time (because the cargo has to be moved by land through the border crossings). The only advantage is Hong Kong has simplified paperwork (namely, you can file the paperwork within 14 days after moving the cargo out in Hong Kong whereas in mainland China nothing gets moved until the paperwork is completed). Mostly, the fifth place that Hong Kong holds is due to the largesse of the Central Government. The golden age of the industry was in the 1980's and 1990's when China was opening up. But as mainland ports opened up, Hong Kong's dominance began to wane. Today, it is a sunset industry in Hong Kong. There won't be such an industry under an independent Hong Kong City-State.

- In America, workers have the right to engage in labor strikes in order to demand a fair salary. The recently ended West Coast dock workers' strike shaved 1% of Q1 GDP, but that's okay because the trade deficit also shrunk due to the undelivered imported goods sitting on the docks.
But under the authoritarian regime in Hong Kong, the government officials collude with the businessmen such as Li Ka-shing to oppress the workers. Then you have the fake trade unions (such as the Federation of Trade Unions) who want to eliminate the right for collective bargaining.
- Yes, I completely agree -- that's why "I want genuine universal suffrage."
- Yeah, I remember how well Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher treated striking workers.
- Li Ka-shing colluded with the government to shrink the size of his business? And Li is supposed to be the superman of the industry? You are not making any sense!
- Li Ka-shing couldn't care less about the Hong Kong container port, because he also owns the Shenzhen container port. All he is doing now is to move his business from troublesome Hong Kong to trouble-free Shenzhen. Why shouldn't he, as a businessman? You want to talk about patriotism for Hong Kong. He loves Hong Kong but Hong Kong (at least some Hongkongers) doesn't love him.
- New demand-supply laws in economics -- when business volume shrinks by 8.1%, wages go up by 23%. May your business blossom!

- The only reason why mainland container ports are faring so well is that they are copycats. They have no originality whatsoever.
- Copycats? Do you think Hong Kong invented container ports? In this world, you can move forward or fall behind. Stop whining.

- China has a population of 1.3 billion and Hong Kong has 7 million. Hong Kong is unable to handle so many mainlanders coming and going. That is why we have to restrict mainlanders to one visit or less per week. In like manner, Hong Kong is unable to handle so much container volume. Therefore each shipping companies shall also be restricted to one container or less per week. Hong Kong can return to be the sleepy fishing village it once was.

(YouTube)

... Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung went to Aberdeen to promote the political reform bill. They were handing out pamphlets at a Cafe de Coral when a kitchen worker came and shouted: "Mister, excuse us, we are carrying out business here." Yuen immediately replied: "I understand, I understand" and left.

Internet comment:

- I know Apple Daily is going to hype up on how unpopular the political reform bill is. Fine. But I have a question: When the shop owners went and told the Occupy people that they can't conduct business with the streets blocked, how did the occupiers respond? That is, did they say "I understand, I understand" and leave? Case study: The Crab Restaurant Owner

- In the Apple Daily video, the government officials patiently listened to dissenting opinions with smiles. They did not kick any suitcases or call names (such as "locusts").
- And since this is Apple Daily, they only collect dissenting opinions, never approving voices.

- Rimsky Yuen should have done what the Yellow Ribbons always do --- sing the happy birthday song!

- Why was the kitchen worker out there to speak to Yuen about the business situation? Where is the manager or assistant manager? One of them must be on duty at all times, and this is their responsibility. Why did a kitchen worker take over?

- Ha ha, the Food and Environment Department inspectors will be arriving shortly to conduct a very thorough inspection of this Cafe de Coral!

- This kitchen worker can show up late and leave early from now on. If the manager fires him, he can immediately call Apple Daily and claim political persecution.
- They would never dismiss him. Instead they will assign him to work at the Sai Kung branch. His daily commute time will be around three hours.  Even if he can't take it, he'll have to resign on his own.

- A kitchen worker at a Cafe de Coral branch does not actually do much cooking. All food is prepared at the factory. At the branch restaurant, the kitchen worker merely takes out the packaged food, sticks it into the microwave oven, press a button and takes it out to serve when ready.

- But was the kitchen workers really annoyed at Rimsky Yuen? Or the reporters? Or, most likely, the presence of Rimsky Yuen will draw protestors looking for media exposure. That's much more worrisome.

- This kitchen worker was very polite towards Rimsky Yuen. Remember the legendary case of the Maxim's BBQ chef (see YouTube). The female customer was making a stink about why her squid was not put served separately the BBQ pork as she requested. So our BBQ chef interceded while holding a chopper in his hand: "What the fuck is this to you?" "Are you stupid?" Missing was the bit about "I'll fucking beat you death" before the customer got her camera out. Interestingly, Internet opinion at the time was overwhelmingly on the side of the BBQ chef over the Kong girl. In the case of Cafe de Coral, the kitchen worker did not brandish a chopper.

Q1. How well do you know the government's reform proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election?
41%: Know very well
45%: Know somewhat
8%: Don't know much
5%: Not sure

Q2. Do you support the Chief Executive election method under the framework of the August 31st decision?
54%: Yes
30%: No
13%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q3. Do you agree that "pocket it first" equals "pocket it forever"?
40%: Agree
49%: Disagree
9%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that vetoing this proposal will held to gain an "even lower threshold"?
23%: Agree
60%: Disagree
       --- 48%: The central government will propose something similar next time
       --- 12%: The central government will propose an even more restrictive framework next time.

Q5. Do you think the current Hong Kong SAR government will restart the consultation process if this current proposal is vetoed?
19%: Yes
53%: No
25%: Hard to say
5%: Not sure

Q6. Some people are worried that if this current proposal is vetoed, then universal suffrage won't happen in 2022 or 2027.
45%: Agree
28%: Half-half
23%: Disagree
4%: Not sure

Q7. Do you agree that only by passing the current Chief Executive election proposal will universal suffrage in the Legislative Council be possible as well as a lower threshold?
48%: Agree
36%: Disagree
13%: Hard to say
3%: Not sure

Q8. Would you say that "one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive" is closer to popular opinion (than the current election method)?
43%: Agree
33%: Disagree
18%: Hard to say
6%: Not sure

Q9. Do you think that resistance will change the decision of the Central Government?
19%: Yes
63%: No
15%: Hard to say
3%: Not sure

Q10. How likely is the Legislative Council to pass the proposed Chief Executive election reform?
14%: Quite likely
49%: Half-half
33%: Not very likely
4%: Not sure

Here is an exegesis of some of the survey questions.

(Alliance for True Democracy via Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme)

Q1. Some people think that the "August 31st decision by the National People's Congress Standing Committee is equivalent to turning the 2017 Chief Executive election into false genuine suffrage." How much do you agree or disagree with this, on a scale of 0-10 (0 meaning 'disagree a lot', 10 means 'agree a lot' and 5 being half-half)?

0: 12%
1: 1%
2: 3%
3: 4%
4: 2%
5: 23%
6: 5%
7: 6%
8: 10%
9: 3%
10: 21%
Don't know/hard to say: 9%

Q1 results in grouped form

Disagree with statement (0-4): 23%
Half-half (5): 23%
Agree with statement (6-10): 45%
Don't know/hard to say: 9%

[Comment: This question is asking for a subjective opinion about what some unspecified people are thinking. The answer is recorded on a 0-10 scale, and the 'disagree' portion is the sum of those saying 0-4. If the question was posed as "Do you agree or disagree with the statement ...", the 'disagree' portion would surely be larger as some of the 23% in half-half will be siding with 'disagree.' Be as it may, you ask this question and you get this answer. You conclude that a lot of people don't like the August 31st NPCSC decision. Yes, but so what? There's a lot in life that you don't like -- not enough money; not enough time to do everything; not enough respect; ... The real questions are: What happens next? What can you do about it? If you don't have money, you can work harder and earn more, or buy a Mark 6 lottery ticket, or rob a bank, or beg your parents to increase your allowance, ...]

(SCMP via Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Should the Legislative Council pass the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage based on the NPC Standing Committee framework?

41.7%: Yes, pass
45.6%: No, reject
12.7%: Don't know/hard to say

[Comment: This question is straightforward enough: How should the Legislative Council vote? Pass or reject? And this is the answer that you get. It is what it is. The difference with the preceding question is that your own liking does not matter here. Indeed you may consider the proposal to be quite odious, but you are willing to hold your nose and 'pocket it first'. That is why the support levels rise up.]

(DAB via Wen Wei Po)

With respect to the proposed political reform that follows the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31st resolution on one-person, one-vote for the Chief Executive in 2017, would you like to see it passed, or would you prefer to keep the old method of 1,200-person election committee?

60.5%: Yes, pass
30.0%: No, reject
9.5%: Don't know/no opinion

[Comment: this question is the same as the preceding one, except that it points out that if the Legislative Council rejects the proposal, the 2017 Chief Executive will be elected by 1,200 election committee members instead of 5 million voters. That is to say, it reminds you of the consequences of 'rejection' that is not clear in a simple pass/reject type of question. This accounts for a large part of the differences in support levels for passing the political reform proposal.

It should not be surprising to find Chief Secretary Carrie Lam pounding on this point: (Ming Pao) Carrie Lam said that the choices are simple. Either you implement the Chief Executive universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law, or else you stay in the same spot (原地踏步). She said that it should be obvious how to choose between "making a huge step forward" (one-person-one-vote for 5 million voters) versus "remaining in the same spot" (1,200-person election committee).

It is just as unsurprising that the opponents pounding on the public opinion polls that says "reject" are in the majority without spelling out the consequences. They will simply not answer to the question: "What is it better to elect the Chief Executive nominated and voted upon by a 1,200-person election committee than to have the Chief Executive nominated by a 1,200-person nomination committee and voted upon by 5 million voters?"

In time, though, as the government propagandists pound more on the choice between "making a huge step forward" versus "remaining in the same spot," the public will be more informed about the consequences and the public opinion polls will shift more towards "pass" away from "reject" even if the survey question does not spell out the consequences.

Example: Government-sponsored television commercial: Do not miss the chance in 2017. "Once upon a time (in 1996), we could only watch on television. Once upon a time (in 2007), we have no say. Once upon a time (in 2012), this was only something among 1,200 persons. In 2017, 5 million people can participate in the choice! One-person-one-vote. Do not miss the chance!"

Another weapon in the government propaganda arsenal is to emphasize that if you don't pocket it now, you may never see any new proposal again. The counter-argument that "We firmly believe that the government will re-start the five-step process after the current proposal is vetoed" is wishful thinking. If you did get another proposal, it will be the same one as now.

Now you can argue that this is a false dichotomous choice and other possibilities exist. However, the immediate consequence of a rejection of the current proposal by the Legislative Council is that the 2017 Chief Executive election will move inexorably forward according to the existing procedures. This is in accordance with the existing laws. If you don't like it, you need to enact legislation to change those laws.

You may think that there is some vague possibility of more resistance actions (such as occupying the Legislative Council) in order to reboot the 5-step political reform process to get the proposal that you want. But you cannot ask a survey question such as: "Would you like the Legislative Council pass the proposal, or reject it so that we can occupy the Legislative Council for as long as necessary until the Hong Kong SAR/Central governments agree to restart the 5-step political reform process to give us genuine universal suffrage?" There are too many hypothetical assumptions behind this type of question.]

(NOW TV) April 28, 2015. NOW TV commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme/Chinese University of Hong Kong, School of Journalism and Communication, Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey/Polytechnic University, Department of Applied Social Sciences, Centre for Applied Social Sciences to interview 1,167 persons from April 23-27, 2015.

Support for the Chief Executive electoral reform proposal:
47%: Support
38%: Oppose
16%: Undecided

(NOW TV) April 29, 2015. The latest rolling poll by the three universities show:

Support for the Chief Executive electoral reform proposal:
48%: Support
37%: Oppose
16%: Undecided

507 persons were interviewed separately April 27-28 by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. If the Central Government/HKSAR Government promises to improve the Chief Executive election later, 66% said that they would support it, 24% opposed and 10% undecided.

(NOW TV) April 30, 2015. The latest rolling poll by the three universities show:

Support for the Chief Executive electoral reform proposal:
49%: Support
36%: Oppose
25%: Undecided

507 persons were interviewed separately April 27-28 by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. If the pan-democrats changed their minds and supported the political reform bill, 40% said that they would think worse of the pan-democrats, 49% the same and 12% the better.

We studied the results from 28 public opinion polls with a total sample size of 25,698 person-times. 8 of these did not indicate whether the sample was weighted to population distributions. 10 of these did not report a response rate. 5 of these did not disclose their wording of the questions.

In summary, the 60% support for the electoral proposal came from the Hong Kong Research Association, the New Forum and the New Territories Federation of Associations. These organizations have pro-establishment backgrounds. Meanwhile the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme (commissioned by the pan-democrat Alliance for True Democracy) and Polytechnic University Centre for Social Policies polls are most often less than 30% support. Note that the first set of polls has dichotomous answers (support or not support) while the second set of polls has trichotomous answers (support, half-half, not support).

In addition there is a difference between telling people that they can either "pocket it first" or "stay the same" gives an average of 14.67% higher support than telling people they can either "pocket it first" or "not."

Reference: (Wikipedia)

Q1. The Chief Executive election proposal says that a candidate must be nominated by at least 120 but not more than 240 of the 1200 nominating committee members. Can you accept this?
65%: Accept
25%: Do not accept
7%: Don't care
3%: No opinion

Q2. In the primary stage, the Chief Executive election proposal says that each nominating committee can vote for at least two of the candidates. The top three vote-getters will become official candidates. Can you accept that?
61%: Accept
33%: Do not accept
5%: Don't care
1%: No opinion

Q3. At the election stage, the Chief Executive election proposal says that the top vote-getter in a single round is the winner. Can you accept that?
62%: Accept
28%: Do not accept
6%: Don't care
4%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that the Chief Executive election proposal has more, less or the same elements of democracy than the present system?
69%: More
12%: Less
15%: The same
3%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q5. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass or reject the Chief Executive election proposal of the government?
63%: Pass
29%: Reject
5%: Hard to say/don't care
3%: No opinion

Q6. When Legislative Councilors hold positions that are contrary to majority popular opinion, do you think the they should vote according to majority opinion?
75%: Yes
13%: No
8%: Hard to say/don't care
4%: No opinion

Q7. How confident are you that the Legislative Council will pass the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal?
6%: Very confident
13%: Somewhat confident
35%: Slightly confident
30%: No confidence
11%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

Q8. Do you the pan-democratic legislatives will be able to get a better and more democratic Chief Executive election method by rejected the current proposal?
21%: Yes
69%: No
9%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

More at Occupy Central Part 3.


Archives:

Occupy Central Part 1, Occupy Central Part 2, Occupy Central Part 3
Brief Comments
Blog Posts

Google  
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com

        Blogroll   Press