(v4.0)

[This website collects certain news and commentary on Hong Kong politics, society and culture. English-news sources exist in abundance, such as South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Free Press, Reddit on Occupy Central, etc). This websites provides transcriptions/translations from Chinese-language sources, including both mainstream media (Hong Kong newspapers, television and radio) and social media (Facebook, YouTube, blogs, discussion forums).]

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2017.

German firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch has refused to sell MP5 submachine guns to the Hong Kong police force.

Several news outlets cited unnamed sources as saying that the police sought to buy the gun and its accessories at the start of this year, but the request was rejected. A police source told Ming Pao that Germany had recently banned firearms companies from selling to non-NATO countries, but the police were able to buy equipment from other EU states and the US.

Internet comments:

- Does it matter to the Hong Kong Police?

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2017.

Security Secretary John Lee refused to comment on the reports on Thursday afternoon. But he said there are many choices available in the market: The supply of firearms will not affect the operations of the law enforcement agencies.

We will not rely on a single type [of gun] or a single manufacturer. So in terms of our work, especially in counter-terrorism, it will not be affected, he said.

Asked if there will be any issue when switching equipment, Lee said: This is not the first time. Every law enforcement agency has its own experience in using and maintaining guns. Also there are some alternatives in the market. Thus, in every review we do, law enforcement agencies will procure new guns or look into new supplies, to ensure our operations are not affected.

Veteran lawmaker James To, who focuses on security, said the police will need time to train with new gear: After all they have used German [brands] for so long, trained for some time In the fight with terrorists, either they die or you die in a split second if you use new guns, training has to be done all over again.

- Duh! If the Hong Kong Police needs H&K MP4A4's, they have a reliable supplier on standby:

(TheFirearmBlog) Norinco NR08

No one remembers the day when China acquired from Heckler & Koch a license to manufacture an automatic rifle H & K MP5A4. However, in the Chinese domestic market and even in some export offers, a clone of the above model appeared the Norinco NR08. By the way, the novelty already has the first buyers the Philippines bought Norinco NR08 for the needs of law enforcement agencies at a price of $ 2,500. Surprisingly, the Chinese have chosen MP5 for cloning it is already being reproduced in Pakistan (POF) and Turkey (MKE) Equipment. In this case, the products are cheaper than the Chinese are asking for unlicensed copies. H & Ks attempt to sue the manufacturer failed the Norinco company belongs to the PRC government and is inviolable. Germany is not ready to go to a diplomatic scandal with China because of the illegal production of MP5.

James To told Ming Pao that around six to eight years ago, a German consul asked him about Hong Kongs Special Duties Unit procuring German submachine guns. He said the consul asked what the unit was and if they would crackdown on people, because EU members cannot sell guns to countries or regions who suppress their own people.

To said he replied the unit was the polices elite unit for dealing with violent criminals, and the unit does not use firearms for crackdowns.

He added that he did not know the reason for the ban on sales this time, but it may be related to the decline in human rights and right to peaceful assembly in Hong Kong.

- Everybody, especially James To, knows that the Hong Kong Police operates on the tactical philosophy known as "One Plus": they use a level of force that is always one higher than the opponents.

If the opponents charge, the police will use pepper spray.
If the opponents attack without arms, the police will use batons.
If the opponents attack with arms (bamboo poles, etc), the police will fire rubber bullets.
If the opponents attack with lethal arms (machetes, etc), the police will fire small arms.
If the opponents fire small arms, the police will fire shotguns and rifles.
If the opponents fire rifles, the police will fire submachine guns.
If the opponents fire submachine guns, the police will fire rocket-propelled grenades ...

So to get the Hong Kong Police to buy more MP5's, H&K needs to sell small arms to the Hong Kong rebels.

- Why is the German company Heckler & Koch getting a whitewash now for not selling to the Hong Kong Police because they are an ethical company which protects Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights? Here is what they want you to ignore:

(The Guardian) September 8, 2017.

Heckler & Koch, the German weapons manufacturer whose guns are estimated to have killed more than 2 million people since the company was founded in 1949, has quietly adopted the most ethical sales policy of any gunmaker in the world.

Over the past 65 years, Heckler & Koch guns have been licensed to among others Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Myanmar, from where they have made their way into conflicts in virtually every part of the world. There are an estimated 15 million of the firms G3 rifles in circulation alone, and it is estimated that one person gets killed by a Heckler & Koch bullet every 13 minutes.

The company has pledged no longer to sell arms into warzones or to countries that violate corruption and democracy standards, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, or any African countries.

Heckler & Koch sometimes called Germanys deadliest company by activists said it would now sell only to green countries, which it defined according to three criteria: membership of Nato or Nato-equivalent (Japan, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand); Transparency Internationals corruption perceptions index; and the Economist Intelligence Units democracy index.

- In 1984, Union Carbide killed at least 3,787 in Bhopal, India. That is considered the world's worst industrial disaster. But Union Carbide is not in H&K's league with 2 million kills. However, H&K is still far behind Big Tobacco with 100 million killed in 20th century and 1 billion in the 21st century.

- Do the NATO countries even allow H&K guns in? (see TheFirearmsBlog, H&K does not hate you: Import and Export Laws vs. the People, September 2, 2013)

- And H&K used to rail against the German government export restrictions with the argument: "If we don't make and sell these guns to all comers, someone else in the world will do so anyway. So we won't save any lives and we will only lose German jobs (in Oberndorf)."

Today, H&K is not necessarily giving up business. Instead, they have found one national market which is bigger than the rest of the world combined. So this globalized company is perfectly happy to move the jobs from Oberndorf Germany to Columbus, Georgia, USA. Now they don't have to be bothered with small buyers like the Hong Kong Police.

- If H&K won't sell to the Hong Kong Police, the latter won't have replacement parts and bullets. Assuming that they have no other weapon, their existing stock will run down. So when the Big Uprising occurs, the Hong Kong Police will have no firearms to use. Game over? Not quite. If that occurs, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will pick up the phone and ask for the intervention of the People's Liberation Army. That would be the real Game Over.

Hong Kong Legislative Council: Members' Biography

Hon Shiu Ka-chun

Constituency :

Education and professional qualifications :

Occupation :

(HKG Pao with video) November 2, 2017. Legislative Council session.

0:01 Chairman Andrew Leung: Legislator Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3).

0:04 Shiu Ka-chun: Chairperson!

0:05 Andrew Leung: What procedural question?

0:06 Shiu Ka-chun: You mispronounced my name. My name is Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1), not Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3).

0:07 Andrew Leung: I called out Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1). I called it. I did not call you Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3).

0:14 Shiu Ka-chun: You called me Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). I want to watch the video.

0:15 Andrew Leung: I called out Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1). If you don't get it, you can go and listen to it.

0:20 Shiu Ka-chun: I want to request to watch the video. I heard you call me Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3).

0:23 Andrew Leung: You can go out and ask to watch the video.

0:25 Shiu Ka-chun: Go out to where? May I ask, chairman?

0:27 Andrew Leung: You can just ask the Secretariat. Alright?

0:28 Shiu Ka-chun: Where is the secretariat? May I ask, chairman?

0:30 Andrew Leung: Do you have any questions about procedure?

0:32 Shiu Ka-chun: I want to ask how I can locate the Secretariat to watch the video?

0:37 Andrew Leung: This is not a question about procedure.

Internet comments:

- The Legislative Council is a zoo and the Legislative Councilors are monkeys putting on a circus show. What have these people really done for the people of Hong Kong?

- Andrew Leung clearly pronounced Shiu Ka-chun's name correctly, but the latter kept pestering Leung with irrelevant questions. When videos such as these get circulated all over the place, public opinion will accumulate towards the revision of the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council to cut off these types of antics.

- Knowingly or unknowingly, these pan-democratic legislators are fulfilling certain roles and functions.

Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching served to let the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpret Basic Law Article 104 and stop all future antics around the oath of office. A by-product was the ouster of a total of six pan-democratic legislators.

Cheung Chung-tai served to highlight the National Flag law and the introduction of a National Anthem law.

Shiu Ka-chun is now serving to empower the pro-establishment camp to revise the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council so as to cut off filibustering.

Afterwards, the search begins for designated stooges to enable (1) the enactment of Article 23 national security laws; etc.

- (YouTube) October 14, 2017. During Occupy Central, Shiu Ka-chiu addressed from the Grand Stage: "Tear gas has been fired at Lung Wo Road. That friend excitedly came over to inform us. Tear gas been fired. So those friends who want to offer support there, bring your towels ... wet towels ... goggles ... goggles must be brought."

- No such thing had happened. Shiu said that someone came and whispered in his ear, and he was merely repeating the information. Those who heeded his call rushed over, charged the police, got clobbered and some were arrested.

- (YouTube) Shiu Ka-chun at his oath of office at the Legislative Council. Everything was normal until 0:44 when he struck a tambourine several times and yelled: "Umbrella Movement may have failed but it has not dissipated. It will persist strongly. WE ARE BACK!"

- Shiu Ka-chun is a hero of the Umbrella Revolution. At the very beginning, he was presented by the Occupy Three Trio (Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming) as one of the ten supporters who were given the name 佔中十死士 (Ten Occupy Central warriors who are ready to die for the cause).

- Is he dead yet?

(Apple Daily) October 27, 2017.

Ho Loy, a volunteer for the Animal Life Guard Action Group, reported this morning that a certain restaurant on Kam Fai Path, Yuen Long district was slaughtering dogs and selling dog meat to the public. They cited residents who heard "the tragic cries of dogs being slaughtered almost every day." However, the restaurant was smart because they always cut off the head and claws." The volunteers have filed reports with the Hong Kong Police and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

A person who claimed to the daughter of the restaurant owner left a message at the Facebook of the volunteer and claimed that they were only selling black goat stew and accused Ho of defamation. "On account of your ignorance, our manager has to go and make statements at the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the police station for the investigation. He has to do this three times this week already, and he cannot conduct business meanwhile. Our losses have been huge."

Three photos of the restaurant are being circulated. One of them showed a grown-up dog sitting on a chair. Another showed a headless carcass (believed to be a dog) on a table. It looked very gruesome. After the initial post, the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook, posted an update: "The fifty-cent gangers are coming to work. They are trying to persuade people that the carcass is that of a lamb and not of a dog. Or the people of Hong Kong should regard this as a trivial manner. They mean to say that the people of Hong Kong should shut up, not harbor any doubts and conduct no investigation?" At 3pm, the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook updated at 3pm that they have given the photos to three animal experts to examine, and all three agreed that this was the carcass of a dog.

The Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook noted that if a restaurant is forthright in its business, it should not be afraid of any investigation. They called on Yuen Long restaurants to pay attention to the area around Kam Fai Path, especially looking for animal body parts such as heads and claws. If they hear animals crying, they should immediately hold a Facebook live broadcast.

In the afternoon, the daughter of the restaurant owner commented at the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook that the sound of dog barking comes from the dog kept by the laundry store next door and is completed unrelated to the restaurant. "You can criticize the taste and texture of our food. We listen to all opinions. But we completely reject any comments about things that we have never done."

Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) is a Hong Kong legislative councilor as well as a Yuen Long district councilor. He said that he received citizen complaints this morning and he has made inquiries with the police. His office has sent people to gather evidence at the scene. They have verified that the restaurant exists, but they haven't found any dogs. He said that the veracity of the photos has not yet been established. He said that now that winter is here, some people may be exercising their habit to eat dog meat for better health. "But this is too cruel and unacceptable."

The Hong Kong Police responded to Apple Daily and said that they have received a complaint that a Yuen Long restaurant was selling dog meat. Police officers have visited the scene and have asked the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to follow up. If a crime took place, they will enforce the law accordingly.

The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department responded that they have received complaints and have sent inspectors to the restaurant. The restaurant claimed that it was cooked lamb. The inspectors went into the kitchen and saw two pots of cooked meat.  The department has taken a sample of the meat for analysis. They will wait for the analysis results to decide what to do next.

The Society for Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals said that they have received complaints this morning and sent an inspector to the scene. The restaurant owner said that it was cooked lamb meat. The inspector went into the kitchen and found two pots of cooked beat. "Although it is not yet determined whether this was dog meat of not, the restaurant owner has shown us the invoice for black goat meat dated October 26, 2017." The society said that the inspector also looked around the neighborhood but did not find anything else. The society has show the Internet photos to a veterinarian who was unable to determine the kind of animal due to the absence of a head, limbs and internal organs.

(Ming Pao)  October 27, 2017.

Our newspaper interviewed the boss lady Mrs. Chan of the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant. She said that the restaurant had been accused of selling dog meat earlier in the year and they have clarified that it was goat meat. "We absolutely don't sell dog meat."

The so-called noise of "slaughtering dogs" is actually the barking of the pet dog Shiu Bing of the neighboring store. Mrs. Chan said that Shui Bing frequently comes over to pay. The Chan family owns a beagle named Bobby. "We love dogs too, so how can we butcher dogs?"

Why are they being accused of selling dog meat once more? Mrs. Chan does not know why. She does not know if she has offended someone.

(HK01) October 27, 2017.

Our newspaper interviewed the boss Mr. Chan Sei-kon. He complained that the carcass in the photo was that of a black-skinned goal from Hainan Island. When delivered, the head, limbs and internal organs have already been removed. Due to limited space, he cooked the lamb and put it on the roadside table to cool down. The sound of dog barking comes from the pet dog in the laundry store next door.

Mr. Chan said that he and his wife started this small restaurant three years ago. They work 16 hours and they barely eke out a living. Last year there was a similar complaint but business volume plunged.

(Wen Wei Po) October 31, 2017.

Roy Kwong's Facebook

"I have a beagle myself, so how can I slaughter dogs?" The boss Brother Kon smiled and said: "I only want to concentrate on being a chef."

Last Friday, a lot of Internet users sought our help to investigate a suspected dog meat restaurant. Many people wanted to know the truth, so we opened an investigation. Today, we met with Brother Kon to have dinner at his restaurant. Over the meal, we sensed that Brother Kon is a kind man.

Brother Kon said that he is a dog lover too. He does not mind being misunderstood by many Internet users as being a butcher of dogs: "Actually we all care." The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has taken away a sample and their report will be issued shortly. He said that this was the second time that such a misunderstanding has occurred. He smiled and said: "Fortunately we have a Legislative Councilor/District Councilor to help us determine the truth this time. I don't believe that there will be another misunderstanding ..."

Without verification, Roy Wong posted on Facebook that he and the police are investigating a Yuen Long restaurant for selling dog meat, and he wants everybody to help spread the news. Many Internet users went to curse this restaurant, causing the restaurant loss to go sleepless and to close the premise down for two days. Now more details have surfaced to suggest that the case was fictional. For two days, Roy Kwong stayed out of sight while his Facebook post stayed on.

Perhaps Roy Wong finally sensed the public outrage. So he has deleted his original post, went down to the restaurant and made a new post to completely reverse himself. Now he refers to the restaurant owner as Brother Kon instead of a butcher who was too cruel to describe. Throughout all this, there was no apology or even a mention of the harm that his original Facebook post had caused Brother Kon.

(Sing Tao Daily) November 7, 2017.

Yesterday the letter arrived from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to say that the lab analysis showed that the sample was goat meat. Today, Mr. Chan showed us the letter and thanked citizens for supporting him. 64-year-old Mr. Chan said that he has been vexed and lost 10 pounds over the past two weeks. He hopes that the rumormongers will stop. He said that people should tell the truth.

Mr. Chan thanked the citizens who drove from Aberdeen just to buy his lamb stew. He said that there is still human warmth left in Hong Kong. He will continue to prepare good food for the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Chan's daughter posted the FEHD letter on the restaurant's Facebook. Many Internet users who condemned Mr. Chan earlier came to say "Sorry" about their actions.

(TVB) Interview with Man Lok Restaurant owner Mr. Chan Sei-kon. "An old man was defamed without evidence, causing him great distress. So far the instigator has not said apologize, even though she claims to be defending the weak and vulnerable! ... What is the purpose of maligning a small neighborhood restaurant selling dog meat?"

(Wen Wei Po) November 8, 2017.

Previously, Local Actions member Ho Loy reported that the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant was selling dog meat in Yuen Long and Democratic Party member Roy Wong asked everybody to spread the news. On the day before yesterday, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department reported that their lab analysis showed that it was goat meat. Today, Internet users want Ho Loy and Roy Kwong to acknowledge their mistake and apologize to the restaurant owner. But experience tells us that the chance of that happening is ZILCH, because everybody knows that you cannot wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.

People who wanted to comment at the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook found that the comment function has been disabled. So they are left to howl in the wind.

Some Roy Kwong supporters continued a rearguard reaction. One of them said: "Roy never said that it was dog meat; he asked people to help to investigate." What!? Roy Kwong told everybody (1) that nothing has been confirmed yet; and (2) to join the investigation and (3) to spread the news everywhere. What everybody spread was that the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant is selling dog meat. Who was responsible for that?

Another Roy Kwong supporter said: "Before Roy Kwong did anything, Ho Loy was already telling people to spread the news. Why don't you go after her? Instead more than one hundred thousand people used hashtags to get Roy Kwong to take action. Once he did, you criticize him ... that's a bummer!" Indeed, Ho Loy was inexcusable for telling people to spread the news. But Roy Kwong is a Legislative Councilor who was elected with 490,000+ votes! The destructiveness of his Facebook post is far more than anything that Ho Loy can conceivably do! Who else should we blame for what happened? Shouldn't legislative councilors be very careful about what they do because of their tremendous influence?"

Internet user Johnny Chong drew an analogy: "First he said that he suspects you of raping a grandma. He says that he will be conducting an investigation. Meanwhile everybody should help spread the news that you raped a grandma. When things go awry, he comes over to put his arm around your shoulder for a photo-op. He says that you look like a nice guy, so you are unlikely to have raped the grandma ... only the Honorable Legislative Councilor Roy Kwong have such thick skin!"

Internet users urged the restaurant owner to take legal action against Ho Loy and Roy Wong for defamation.

(Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2017.

Legislative Councilor Claudia Mo posted on her Facebook the hashtags #The_truth_is_now_known, #Say_sorry_to_restaurant_owner, #Hope_he_understands_why_we_are_running_scared.

Internet user Aiden Chan: "After you defame someone, shouldn't you compensate their damages? It was your problem that you were running scare. In the absence of evidence, you told the public that they were selling dog meat. This is not running scared; this is defamation. How can a legislator malign someone without evidence and then claim to be running scared afterwards?"

Internet user Keyman Hor: "After you apologize to them, you should see how you can help them revive their fortunes! Do you know how hard it is to build a business that can feed the family? Do you know anything about poverty?"

Internet user Wong Ka Man: "Before the truth was known, you were leading the cyberbullying already? It is easy for you to point your finger at someone, but they are hapless and defenseless against the horde. Have you ever thought about their plight?"

Internet user Edmund Siu: "I know when Hong Kong began to have more people who respect animals and fewer and fewer people who respect other people ..." Henry Lee said: "Please don't make people misunderstand those who care about animals as if they will accuse people of slaughtering dogs all the time ..."

Naturally Claudia Mo manages to ignore all the criticisms that came with her post. Instead she continued to post her thoughts on the governance report and plenty of photos too.

(Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2017.

Now that the smoke has cleared and the truth is know, legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion chairman) posted on Facebook: "I did not want to resort to populism, so I waited to learn all the facts before deciding whether to follow up or not. I don't believe that one photo plus some text will allow me to tell whether it was a dog or a lamb. The restaurant is a small business. If I exercise my authority and pressure the government departments to crack down, I may be hurting innocent people. Therefore I was willing to put up with the initial criticisms against me for I won't cater to the taste and standards of the public."

This is obviously a dig at Roy Kwong and Claudia Mo. "I want to have face. I find it totally unacceptable to oppress small businesses, and then share the news as if nothing had happened. Or even going down to patronize them for a meal."

Internet user Roy Tsang quoted the very same Cheung Chung-tai: "This was unavoidable, because the public are idiots. They are not as smart as Civic Passion." Jeffrey Yeung added: "Fuck you, Worm Tai! Those who supported you are idiots too! You have no fucking right to criticize others!"

Ex-Civic Passion member Pierre Cheung pointed out that Civic Passion has done its share of defaming small businesses in the past. "Dear Chairman Cheung Chung-tai, your Civic Passion member Becky Mok was one of those who maligned Man Lok with selling dog meat. Even now she has not given up her defamation." This comment was 'disappeared' quickly.

Internet comments:

- Why should Ho Loy, Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo or Cheng Chung-tai apologize? Here is a classic phrase from a movie.

- The most precious thing in Hong Kong is Freedom of Speech/Expression. Ho Loy was exercising her freedom of speech/expression. If Mr. Chan sues Ho Loy for defamation and wins, it will be a huge blow to Freedom of Speech/Expression because it will create a climate of fear and loathing. If Mr. Chan loses a few days of business, then it is a price worth paying for.

- Maybe Mr. Chan feels that he has been defamed and the law should be on his side. But the central message from Occupy Central is this:


This is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second."

What comes first is whatever you need at the moment: Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights, Universal Suffrage with Civil Nomination, Animal Rights, Opioids, whatever.

In this case, there is a much more serious issue at stake than the reputation of a small restaurant in the middle of nowhere. We are talking about Freedom of Speech/Expression here. Mr. Chan needs to Shut The Fuck Off and not be exploited by the Hong Kong Communist Government in their relentless effort to take away our Freedom of Speech/Expression. To show our defiance, Ho Loy should repeat those accusations every day. The day that she is stopped is the day when we have lost our freedom.

- What is the point of Mr. Chan suing Ho Loy for defamation? Ho Loy lives off $6,000 a month in public welfare payment. Mr. Chan will not get a cent out of Ho Loy. He will only wind up losing his legal fees.

- I think that this is very unfair. Ho Loy lives off public welfare because her full-time job is social activist. She works on historical preservation (Star Ferry, Queen's Pier), environmental protection (Hong Kong International Airport expansion plan), urban planning (stopping the Central Market revitalization), education (her daughter's right not to attend public school), animal rights (the dog meat restaurant in Yuen Long), etc. These projects don't pay, so she needs the public welfare payments to support her. In addition, her indigent status allows her to obtain legal aid to file the related judicial reviews.

- Can Mr. Chan even sue Ho Loy since she is not using her real name? Ho Loy literally means "coming from where?" She does not want to remember where she comes from or what her real name is. Mr. Chan doesn't even know what the name of the defendant is.

(Wikipedia) 穿櫃桶底 In the past, the cashier puts all the money in a drawer. After the shop closes, the money is taking out of the drawer and taken to the bank. Money is proverbially stolen when someone opens a hole at the bottom of the cashier drawer through which money is dropped to the waiting hand. Today are many other methods to steal money from the company, so the term 穿櫃桶底 is now used to refer generically to crimes of defalcation/ embezzlement/misappropriation/peculation even though no cashier's drawer is involved.

(SCMP) November 9, 2017.

Hong Kongs youngest political party Demosisto, co-founded by student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, removed a core member from its standing committee on Thursday after he was found to have violated the groups financial rules.

Derek Lam Shun-hin, 24, also resigned from the party, which approved his application to withdraw from membership. No specific reason was revealed regarding Lams decision to quit.

Demosisto was founded last year with Wong and disqualified lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung as its leaders.

Lam was one of the eight standing committee members of the party and viewed as a core member after Law, the chairman, and Wong, its secretary general, were jailed in August over an unlawful assembly in the lead-up to the 2014 Occupy movement.

In a short statement posted on its Facebook page on Thursday afternoon, Demosisto said Lam had violated party rules on financial matters. But the party said it did not suffer any financial losses.

After an internal investigation, the party found Lam had violated the conduct for party members and removed Lam from his duty as a standing committee member immediately, the statement said.

It added that Lam then applied to quit the party and the move was approved.

From now on, Derek Lam Shun-hin is no longer a member of Demosisto and his acts have nothing to do with the organisation, the party said without elaborating on what Lam had done.

Sharing the statement on his own Facebook page, Lam said he owed the party too many apologies and thanks.

No matter what, today is the beginning of a new journey, he wrote.

The theology student from Chinese University could not be reached for comment.

Internet comments:


Greedy pig Derek Lam (spoof)

- (Wen Wei Po) November 10, 2017.

Derek Lam Shun-hin had "violated party rules on financial matters." This is going to be one of two things: (1) receiving outside donations personally without reporting it to the party; (2) using party financial resources without authorization. This is likely to have occurred while Nathan Law and Joshua Wong were in jail and left Demosisto leaderless. The only other recognizable name is Chow Ting, who does not have the stature to assert party leadership. If someone was taking advantage of this situation to profit personally, then his political morals are suspect and his political career is basically over.

Demosisto has been raked with financial problems even before its founding. Previously Joshua Wong had the student organization Scholarism with a hefty war chest raised from donations since 2012. But since Joshua Wong and other members were getting older, they shut down Scholarism and transferred the money to the political party Demosisto and a student organization. (#492: What Happened To My Money? (2016/03/21)) Since then, nobody has heard from that other student organization.

Meanwhile the money going to Demosisto is supposed to help pro-democracy activists who are in legal trouble. Of course, the first two priorities are Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong and chairman Nathan Law. So this is people helping themselves.

Demosisto always raises money from the public 365 days a year. At the important dates (for example, July 1st), they usually raise the large amount of donations among the political parties. Since Demosisto does not have a bank account, all the money is deposited into the personal accounts. And they never explain where all the money is going. When you run a black box operation with zero transparency and accountability, it is a temptation to enrich yourself.

- (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. November 10, 2017.

- The imagination runs wild with the statement that party rules on financial matters have been violated. The unexplained problem is so grave as to warrant immediate (dismissal from the standing committee) + (resignation from the party).

- Derek Lam must have done something to upset the Big Two (Joshua Wong and Nathan Law). Rather than an low-keyed exit with the standard excuse of needing to spend more time with the family, Demosisto told Lam that they will be taking the very public action of announcing the expulsion of Derek Lam from the standing committee due to financial irregularities. If Derek Lam wanted to stay, it would only be as an ordinary member who would not be allowed to speak for Demosisto. This forced Lam to resign.

- What? They were so upbeat a couple of weeks ago, but now they boot Derek Lam out of the party? There has to be something going on behind this party with the biggest halo.

- Power corrupts, money corrodes. The kids are fighting over power and money.

- As you expect, the principals made their Facebook statements and have collectively gone underground and refused to answer all telephone calls, emails and text messages.

- This is the Hong Kong definition of "shouldering political responsibility." In Cantonese, there is a saying 側側膊. Literally it means that when you have to carry a heavy load, you can try to slope your shoulder down so that the load drops off and you are free! According to the Cantonese dictionary, this term is used to mean (1) shirt responsibility; shift the blame; (2) to get around the rules or avoid responsibility without it being obvious to the observer.

The principals want to go underground for a few days. When they re-emerge, they will say that they have said everything that can be said about the old topic which is so pass already. Instead, they need to deal with the more urgent issue of Co-location (or whatever) because Hong Kong democracy is under imminent threat of extinction. Or something.

- They can't wait that long. (Oriental Daily) November 11, 2017. They have already floated the news that Agnes Chow Ting intends to run in the Hong Kong Island Legislative Council by-election for Nathan Law's vacated seat. Previously the rumor was that their candidate would be Nathan Law's girlfriend Tiffany Yuen Ka-wai.

- When Demosisto was founded, the big names were chairman Nathan Law, secretary-general Joshua Wong, deputy secretary-general Agnes Chow and vice-chairman Oscar Lai. This year at the annual Demosisto elections, Joshua Wong barely made the vote of confidence while Agnes Chow failed to be re-elected as vice secretary-general. Previously Oscar Lai had resigned from Demosisto. Ivan Lam ran for vice-chairman but failed to get enough votes. Joshua Wong and Nathan Law may be going to jail to complete their sentences. They have more cases coming from (such as Joshua Wong for the contempt of court case in Mong Kok). Demosisto is a deeply troubled organization.

- Yes, it is time to talk about Agnes Chow's hairdo again: (Wen Wei Po) June 4, 2016.  In the past, people have made fun of Agnes Chow's greasy hair. For this protest, Agnes Chow brought a professional photographer. The mission was highly successful because the ten or so photos on her Facebook drew a lot of attention. These photos managed to remove even any reflections under the noontime sun. The photos were taken the day before, and it took one day's professional handling before they got posted on her Facebook yesterday. For her effort, Agnes Chow got blasted by Internet users for insincerity and showboating.

- There is a Chinese saying 「共患難不能共富貴?」(We can only be friends in times of trouble, but not in good times). When we have next to nothing, we can share whatever we have; once we start having money, we can start squabbling over how to share the wealth. Do we agree on what are fair shares? Is anyone stealing from the till?

- Violation of party rules on financial matters? No financial losses were suffered? ... This can mean anything -- it can be outright embezzlement but paying back after being caught; it can be writing a check but jotting down an incorrect check number; it can be putting the donation money into his own personal banking account and forgetting to tell the treasurer (as was the case of Leung Kwok-hung); ... What is it that cannot be told publicly? Inquiring minds want to do but they will never tell.

- In Hong Kong, the most typical  "improper financial handling" situation is that the restaurant manager closes shop at night, takes the day's receipt out, rides the late night Turbo Jet to Macau, plays at the casino, takes the morning Turbo Jet back to Hong Kong, puts the money back in the safe and opens shop.

- Alternately, somebody just gave you a sure-win stock or horse tip and you "borrowed" the money from the company for a short time.

- (SCMP) After visiting New York with Wong in August this year, he wrote an article for The New York Times titled I wont make Jesus bow down to Xi Jinping, which earned him foreign attention.

- (Apple Daily) October 1, 2017. While the two big Demosisto honchos Nathan Law and Joshua Wong were stewing in jail, Derek Lam traveled to England. At an Europaeum forum on academic freedom in Oxford University (chaired by Oxford University chancellor and former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten), Derek Lam spoke on behalf of Joshua Wong. Lam declared that Hong Kong has become an authoritarian, even dictatorial, city. Young people there only wanted freedom of expression and democracy, but they are facing punishment and jail.

The other speaker was former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski. He said that the results are more important than great ideals. Today many western countries support the One China principle. If the people of Hong Kong reject Chinese sovereignty in Hong Kong, they will lose the support of these western democracies and thus set back the progress of democracy in Hong Kong. The Polish people learned only after many setbacks that the most radical elements among them were in fact deliberately instigated by the government.

- Does the financial problem of Derek Lam have to do with this trip to England? He may have used Demosisto money for the trip, got reimbursed by the sponsors but neglected to pay back Demosisto. When the question came up a month later, he had no plausible excuse.

- Or perhaps it was just jealousy at how Derek Lam became elevated from "gofer"/"hanger-on"/"bit player" to "Leader of the 'Umbrella Movement'" while the Big Two were in jail.

- (SCMP) Lam was charged over the Mong Kok clashes last year but walked free after prosecutors cited lack of evidence and withdrew the charge of rioting.

- What was more interesting is what happened afterwards, because it illustrates Derek Lam's financial management skills (=nil):

After the charges were withdrawn, Derek Lam filed for legal costs against the government.

(Weixin.qq) On May 10, Derek Lam appeared in court to file for $700 in legal costs covering transportation costs to the courthouse ($600) and photocopying ($100).

The magistrate noted that Lam's lawyer Alvin Yeung (Civic Party legislative councilor) had submitted bills in the previous court appearance for two trips (both from the Chinese University of Hong Kong to the Kowloon City Court House) (see map).

However on this day in court, Derek Lam himself submitted bills for two trips (both from Sai Wan to the Kowloon City Courthouse) totaling $600 (see map).

The magistrate expressed his skepticism. Derek Lam was sworn in as a witness and stated that his memory was faulty, and the most recent bill is the correct one. However, the magistrate pointed out that on the first trip, Lam had been transported from Sai Wan to the Kowloon City Court House by the police so that there cannot be any question of taxi charges! The defense then revised the transportation fees from $600 down to $450. The magistrate was incensed by the nonchalant attitude of the defense, and said that there was no way to tell which version was true (or maybe all the versions were lies!). The magistrate said that Lam's credibility is nil. In the end, the magistrate allowed only $190 in legal fees, covering photocopying charges and travel from/to Sai Wan by public transportation (either bus/mini-bus).

Afterwards, Derek Lam met the press and gave this statement (Oriental Daily):

(Verbatim translation) Actually I ... the magistrate also said ... that is, I am not credible ... or making false testimony ... I am also ... let me put it this way ... I am somewhat concerned that such a conclusion may come about. I think ... eh ... of course, I must admit that I made a mistake ... that is, I was not emotionally prepared ... that there is some discrepancy in the documents that were submitted ... I was in a situation of making a sworn testimony to testify ... actually, I believe ... that is, I gave sworn testimony in order to testify ... actually, I feel that this is completely different from making false testimony ... yes ... that's my conclusion ... actually, today ... today, I especially said that I took a taxi from Sai Wan to come here ... it was also around $150 ... $147 ... actually ... what I gave ... the figures that I gave my lawyer to hand in ... they are completely accurate. This is vastly different from giving false testimony ... the so-called intentional deception of the court ... of course, I need to admit that I do have a mistake in this ... the documents that were submitted the last time had not been rigorously prepared ... that was my problem.

(Associated Press) November 1, 2017.

Young Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong warned Wednesday that China's rise means human rights are in increasingly greater danger of being overshadowed globally by business interests.

He was responding to questions about his expectations for an upcoming Asian tour by U.S. President Donald Trump, who will visit China and four other countries.

The 21-year-old Wong, Hong Kong's most famous activist, is out on bail while he appeals a prison sentence related to his involvement in massive 2014 pro-democracy protests.

"Business interests override human rights," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It unfortunately seems to be a common trend in the world" under a rising China.

During Trump's Asian trip, he said there's likely to be "a lot of uncertainty. No one can expect what will suddenly be published on his Twitter." But he urged Trump to not let human rights lose out to commercial considerations, hinting that U.S. business interests could also someday be directly affected by China's rising clout.

As an example, he referred to the recent case of British human rights activist Benedict Rogers, who was barred from entering Hong Kong on what many suspect to be Beijing's request, and said it might happen again.

"The day may come for U.S. politicians to be blocked from entering Hong Kong and when politicians or businessmen from the U.S. might not be possible to enter such an international financial center, how can they keep silent on the erosion of Hong Kong autonomy?" he said.

Beijing promised to let Hong Kong maintain wide autonomy and civil liberties after its 1997 handover from Britain under the "one country, two systems" blueprint, but pro-democracy activists and lawmakers fear that China's Communist rulers are reneging on their pledge.

Wong urged the U.S. and other Western countries to pay closer attention to "how the China model threatens Asia-Pacific stability."

The China model is a reference to economic development without corresponding democratic reforms, as well as the name of a controversial booklet praising China's one-party rule that the Hong Kong government planned to distribute in 2012 to schools as part of "moral and national education." Wong helped lead protests that forced the government to shelve those plans.

Internet comments:

(TIME) How Chinas Economy Is Poised to Win the Future. By Ian Bremmer. November 2, 2017.

President Trump has plenty of work to do during his 10-day tour of Asia in November. In Japan and South Korea, he must reassure nervous allies that an America first foreign policy does not mean the U.S. has ceded regional dominance to China. In Vietnam and the Philippines, he has to communicate deep U.S. interest in balancing Chinas influence in Southeast Asia.

But the most important stop will be in Beijing, where Trump will meet President Xi Jinping for the first time since the Chinese leader heralded a new era in global politics at his pivotal party congress in October. Trump will try to project strength while calling for closer cooperation on North Korea and on resolving trade disputes. But he arrives at a moment when China, not the U.S., is the single most powerful actor in the global economy.

The Chinese authoritarian-capitalist model wasnt supposed to survive in a global free market, let alone thrive. As recently as five years ago, there was consensus that China would one day need fundamental political reform for the state to maintain its legitimacy and that China could not sustain its state capitalist system. Today Chinas political and economic system is better equipped and perhaps even more sustainable than the American model, which has dominated the international system since the end of World War II. While the U.S. economy remains the worlds largest, Chinas ability to use state-owned companies to boost the partys domestic and foreign influence ensures that the emerging giant is on track to surpass U.S. GDP in 2029, according to the Center for Economics and Business Research.

The U.S. is hardly irrelevant. The dollar remains the global reserve currency, an exorbitant privilege that will likely last for years to come. Wealthy Chinese continue to invest in U.S. real estate and send their kids to U.S. schools. But the pillars of U.S. powerits military alliances, its trade leadership and its willingness to promote Western political valuesare eroding.

At the same time, the leaders of other emerging powersnot just Russia but also democracies like India and Turkeyare following Chinas lead in building systems where government embraces commerce while tightening control over domestic politics, economic competition and control of information. This process has been in motion for many years, but China now has its strongest leader in decades, and the U.S. has its weakest. Americans and Europeans have always assumed that the long arc of human development bends toward liberal democracy. What if theyre wrong?

...

To argue that Chinas system is better able to withstand the shocks of todays world is not to claim that its better for those who live within it. Political repression and the lack of rule of law in China create injustice at every level of society. As local governments and companies in China struggle with debt, the states ability to bail them out is not inexhaustible. Despite its investments in new technologies, automation and machine learning will displace large numbers of Chinese workers over time, creating long-term risks of social unrest. But for the foreseeable future, China is likely to remain strong and stable. Its international presence will continue to grow, and it is not short of ambition. In October, Xi said it was time for China to take center stage in the world.

The China striding into that spotlight is not guaranteed to win the future. In this fragmenting world, no one government will have the international influence required to continue to set the political and economic rules that govern the global system. But if you had to bet on one country that is best positioned today to extend its influence with partners and rivals alike, you wouldnt be wise to back the U.S. The smart money would probably be on China.

- (Bastille Post) November 7, 2017.

Here is an interesting issue to ponder. Is a democratic system with balance of powers (executive, legislative and judicial, plus press) good at monitoring the government? Or is a highly-efficient dictatorial political party more effective at monitoring itself? So far, we have seen that Asian countries such as Thailand and the Philippines have implemented western democracy for decades without being able to root out corruption or bring about rapid economic development. Meanwhile China's self-correcting Communist Party is able to make huge progress in cleaning out corruption while leading the world to economic progress. Those who want to see China fail are going to be more and more disappointed.

- Donald Trump was elected by universal suffrage (without civil nomination and with Russian help). Here is what he has done or plans to do:

- (Washington Post) January 23, 2017. President Trumps cancellation Monday of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with Asia began recasting Americas role in the global economy, leaving an opening for other countries to flex their muscles. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations said: It leaves our allies and trading partners in the lurch. It does create strategic opportunities for China.

- (Fortune) November 3, 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a massive overhaul of the tax code and spending prioritiesand nothing short of a boon to the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It was just a week ago that House Republicans passed a budget proposal that paved the way for this tax cut plan. That budget included nearly $6 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other public services.

- (Rolling Stone) May 25, 2017. Twenty days after House Republicans voted on the American Health Care Act their plan to replace Obamacare the Congressional Budget Office finally finished assessing what the bill would do if enacted. According to the nonpartisan agency, 23 million fewer people would be insured in 10 years, the deficit would see a moderate reduction, individuals with preexisting conditions would lose coverage in certain states and the elderly poor would see massive increases in their health care costs.

- (VOX) September 29, 2017. During the campaign, Donald Trump made what seemed like an outlandish promise at the time. I will build a great, great wall on our Southern border and Ill have Mexico pay for that wall," he said in his announcement speech. Mexico already said it is not paying for the wall, and congressional Republicans havent been successful in passing funding either, but the Trump administrations plans to build the Southern border wall are already well underway.

- (The Guardian) November 9, 2017. Online aid forms that cant be filled out because theres no internet. Follow-up calls missed because cellphones cant get a signal. Federal officials who cant speak Spanish and leave families waiting for weeks. More than six weeks after Hurricane Maria, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) is still hobbled by the lack of electricity and reliable cell and internet service stopping Puerto Ricans from accessing assistance they desperately need.

- Every single theoretician of Hong Kong independence agrees that armed rebellion is out of the question here. Hong Kong has no army whereas the People's Liberation Army has more than 1 million soldiers ready to go to war. Instead we must bank our hopes on the Coming Collapse of China. When China collapses, it is going to break into a number of smaller independent entities (such as Greater Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan, Guangdong/Guangxi, Greater North East China, Hong Kong, etc). Benny Tai quotes unnamed scholars who forecast that China is going to collapse really really soon. But now Joshua Wong is talking about a "rising China" whose upward trajectory of ascendancy has no end in sight. There is no more Coming Collapse. So how is the theory of the path to Hong Kong independence going to be revised? We are waiting for our Global Thinkers to tell us ...

- Joshua Wong's political party "Demosistō aims to achieve democratic self-determination in Hong Kong. Through direct action, popular referenda, and non-violent means, we push for the citys political and economic autonomy from the oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and capitalist hegemony."

(SCMP) April 10, 2016.

In its manifesto, Demosisto stated it would hold a referendum in 10 years to let Hongkongers decide their own fate beyond 2047, when the principle of one country, two systems expires, and would adopt non-violent protest tactics.

Joshua Wong Chi-fung, former convenor of Scholarism who is now the new groups secretary, stopped short of backing independence, but stressed it should be one of the options listed in the plebiscite.

The university student also said Demosisto would spend considerable time in lobbying international organisations on what he called the citys right to self-determination.

There is no referendum law in Hong Kong. If they went ahead to hold a referendum for self-determination/independence, it would be unconstitutional (see Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1) and unlawful. Hong Kong would be put right in the same place that Catalonia found itself with no support from the United States and the European Union.

- Getting the support of Benedict Rogers, Chris Patten, the Dalai Lama, Rebiya Kadeer, Tsai Ing-wen and Shinzo Abe to support self-determination/independence is far from enough.

- Hong Kong wants self-determination. That is to say, Hong Kong matters are up to the people of Hong Kong to decide. Outsiders keep out!

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 7, 2017.

A group of United Nations experts urged Hong Kong to respect the human rights of three democracy activists.

We fear that if their sentences are upheld, this will have the effect of stifling the expression of dissenting opinions, the right to protest and the overall work of human rights defenders, Special Rapporteurs David Kaye and Michel Forst said in a joint statement issued from Geneva on Monday.

The international obligations that were recognized by the Hong Kong authorities require positive actions from the local Government to ensure a safe environment for members of civil society to express their opinions, to conduct peaceful demonstrations and to participate in public affairs, they said.

The experts also raised concerns that Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen had previously intervened in the case, to apply for a change and review of the mens original lighter sentences.

We call on the Hong Kong authorities to respect the independence of judicial powers and the rule of law, the experts said.

The experts also expressed concern that the prosecutions reflected a broader assault on fundamental rights in Hong Kong and a tightening of control over the region by mainland authorities.

The case against these three activists highlights the deterioration of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in China, particularly Hong Kong, they said.

- We call on this group of United Nations experts to "respect the independence of judicial powers and the rule of law" in Hong Kong. Their statement from Geneva on Monday highlights outside interference of judicial processes in Hong Kong.

- (Associated Press) "Business interests override human rights," Joshua Wong said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It unfortunately seems to be a common trend in the world" under a rising China. During Trump's Asian trip, he said there's likely to be "a lot of uncertainty. No one can expect what will suddenly be published on his Twitter." But he urged Trump to not let human rights lose out to commercial considerations, hinting that U.S. business interests could also someday be directly affected by China's rising clout.

- (CNBC) November 2, 2017.

Here are the 29 business leaders headed to China with Donald Trump:

  1. Mr. Seifollah Ghasemi, Chairman, President & CEO, Air Products
  2. Mr. Keith Meyer, President, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
  3. Governor Bill Walker, State of Alaska
  4. Mr. Donald Chen, President, Asia-Pacific, Archer Daniels Midland Company
  5. Mr. Daniel Revers, Managing Partner, Arclight Capital Partners, LLC
  6. Mr. Mitch Snyder, President & CEO, Bell Helicopter, Textron Inc.
  7. Mr. Kevin McAllister, President and Chief Executive Officer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, The Boeing Company
  8. Mr. Jack Fusco, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cheniere Energy, Inc.
  9. Mr. Timothy Tangredi, President & CEO, Dais Analytic Corporation
  10. Mr. Frederick Jones, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Delfin Midstream, LLC
  11. Mr. Andrew Liveris, Executive Chairman, DowDuPont
  12. Mr. Luka Erceg, President & CEO, Drylet, LLC
  13. Mr. David Messer, CEO, Freepoint Commodities LLC
  14. Mr. John Rice, President & CEO, GE Global Growth Organization
  15. Mr. Shane Tedjarati, President, High Global Growth, Honeywell
  16. Mr. Vance Hum, President and Chief Executive Officer, I.M. Systems Group, Inc.
  17. Mr. Theodore Walker, CEO, Worldwide Property & Casualty, Partner Reinsurance Company of the United States
  18. Mr. Steve Mollenkopf, CEO, Qualcomm, Inc.
  19. Mr. Nick Lisi, Executive Vice President , SAS
  20. Mr. Kevin Smith, CEO, SolarReserve
  21. Ms. Li Zhao, Country Representative, Stine Seed Company
  22. Mr. John Garrison, President & CEO, Terex Corporation
  23. Mr. Langtry Meyer, Founder & Chief Operating Officer, Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC
  24. Mr. Paul Doherty, President and CEO, The Digit Group, Inc.
  25. Mr. Gianluca Pettiti, President, Thermo Fisher Scientific
  26. Mr. Jim Miller, Chairman, U.S. Soybean Export Council
  27. Mr. Paul Koenig, CEO, Viroment
  28. Mr. Jose Emeterio Gutierrez Elso, President & CEO, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC
  29. Mr. Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs

-  Is Donald Trump bringing these people to China to discuss human rights? Is the Pope catholic?

- (Boeing) September 6, 2017. Boeing (NYSE: BA), China's leading provider of commercial airplanes, projects a demand for 7,240 new airplanes in the country over the next 20 years valued at nearly $1.1 trillion dollars.

If Trump/Boeing want to talk human rights in China, the contracts can go to Airbus. If Airbus also wants to talk human rights, China has its own Comac 919.

Is there any use to talk human rights with China? If you try, they will tell you not to interfere with their own internal affairs.

- (KTUU) September 27, 2017. The clock is running out fast on the latest of countless efforts to commercialize Alaska's massive natural gas reserves: the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation will be out of cash next year unless a large buyer is identified first, and policymakers grappling with a $2.5 billion budget gap are unlikely to throw more cash at the Alaska LNG Project ("AKLNG") without visible progress. Gov. Bill Walker championed the effort long before he assumed office three years ago and throughout his term has done his best to woo the biggest potential buyers. That is why the governor, yet again, finds himself in Asia this week.

So is Bill Walker going to talk human rights in China and then see AKLNG being shut down afterwards?

- Should Donald Trump be bringing instead Benedict Rogers plus the leaders of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International PEN, Committee to Protect Journalists, Falun Gong, China Labour Bulletin, etc?

- Associated Press) "The day may come for U.S. politicians to be blocked from entering Hong Kong and when politicians or businessmen from the U.S. might not be possible to enter such an international financial center, how can they keep silent on the erosion of Hong Kong autonomy?" Joshua Wong said.

- Look at how Joshua Wong constructed this sentence. He has no instance of a U.S. businessman not being allowed to enter such an international financial center. Therefore the first part of the sentence refers to the U.S. politicians and the second part smuggles in the businessmen alongside the politicians.

If a businessman wants to come to Hong Kong to do business, he won't be stopped. If a politician wants to come to Hong Kong to do politics, he just may not be admitted. For example, Benedict Rogers came to Hong Kong to start his NGO Hong Kong watch and he was refused entry because he posed a security threat. If Senator Marco Rubio wants to come to Hong Kong, he may be refused entry too for wanting to use the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to destabilize Hong Kong.

The pieces in the sentence -- (1) politicians; (2) businessmen; (3) international financial center; (4) Hong Kong autonomy -- don't go together at all. For example, why must U.S. politicians be guaranteed entry into international financial center everywhere?

- (The Guardian) November 3, 2017.

More than 50 prominent international authors have written a letter to Chinese president Xi Jinping urging him to free Liu Xia, the wife of deceased Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo.

The letter, signed by Chimamanda Adichie, Philip Roth, Margaret Atwood, Tom Stoppard and George Saunders, appealed to Xis conscience and sense of compassion to release Liu Xia, who has been under house arrest since 2010 despite never being accused of any crime.

The letter signed by 52 literally and theatre figures was organised by PEN America, a group that advocates for freedom of expression around the world. It was also signed by Teju Cole, Louise Erdrich, Michael Chabon, Chang-rae Lee and Stephen Sondheim. The group also opened the letter to signatures from the public.

On his upcoming visit to Beijing, we hope President Trump will voice the United States concern about the inhumane and unjustifiable detention of a poet who has been accused of no crime, said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America.

Trump will visit Beijing from November 8 to 9, but experts doubt he will raise the case of one of Chinas most prominent political prisoners.

- No response so far from Xi Jinping on this letter from 'more than 50 prominent international authors.' If Donald Trump does bring the subject up, he'll be told not to interfere with China's internal affairs.

- (The Guardian) The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming. November 3, 2017.

When UN climate negotiators meet for summit talks this month, there will be a new figure on the table: 3C.

Until now, global efforts such as the Paris climate agreement have tried to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. However, with latest projections pointing to an increase of 3.2C by 2100, these goals seem to be slipping out of reach.

One of the biggest resulting threats to cities around the world is sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of water at higher temperatures and melting ice sheets on the north and south poles.

Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be flooded at 3C of global warming.

8.4 million people in Hong Kong will be flooded. Other flooded cities include Alexandria (3.0 million), The Hague (2.5 million), Miami (2.7 million), Rio de Janeiro (1.8 million), Osaka (5.2 million) and Shanghai (17.5 million).

- What is the contribution of Donald Trump?

(Huffington Post) U.S. Alone in Climate Denial. November 7, 2017.

Syria took a break on Tuesday from its gruesome six-year civil war to announce plans to sign the Paris climate agreement, leaving the United States as the only country to reject the emissions-cutting deal.

The non-binding Paris accord, through which signatories pledge to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases over the coming decades, was brokered in 2015, when the annual conference was held in the French capital.

The deal was considered historic because it was the first climate agreement to include the U.S. ― the worlds biggest historic emitter, with by far the largest per-capita carbon footprint ― and China, which currently produces the most carbon pollution on a national level. The U.S. took a lead role in shaping the deal.

But President Donald Trump, who rejects scientists warnings about climate change, announced plans to withdraw from the pact in June, insisting developing nations received more benefits and the U.S. got none. In his announcement ― which, under the terms of the deal, fully cant go into effect until November 2020 ― Trump seemed to conflate the accord with a trade deal, demonstrating what was widely described as a poor understanding of how the Paris agreement actually works.

Like the playground bully that eventually loses all his friends, Donald Trump has isolated himself on the world stage, Joe Ware, a spokesman for the charity Christian Aid, said in a statement. When even Syria, with all its problems, can see the sense of a global climate agreement it really shows how ideologically wedded to climate denialism the US Republican Party has become.

(YouTube) (DBC) Police Superintendent Frankly Chu King-wai hit a pedestrian on the back of the neck with a baton
(YouTube) (Apple Daily)

(SCMP) November 6, 2017.

A retired senior police officer on Monday denied striking a bystander with a baton during Hong Kongs 2014 Occupy protests and said he was merely exercising his lawful powers to disperse an unruly crowd.

Frankly Chu, 57, broke his silence with a handwritten English police statement that was revealed at Eastern Court, where the former superintendent is facing one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He denies the charge, saying he never intended to hurt anyone.

I am devastated with the decision to charge me after more than 35 years of loyal and dedicated service, the officer said in the statement, which he wrote upon his arrest on March 27. This predicament is very saddening.

The act for which I am charged ... was a conscious decision I made as a senior officer in good faith, and I honestly and genuinely believed that reasonable force was needed to disperse the unruly crowd, of which the alleged victim was believed to be an active member. I will vigorously defend myself and clear my name in the court of law, which I have absolute trust in.

On Monday, Chu arrived at court backed by members of the Alliance in Support of Our Police Force. He was seen taking notes and going through documents as Daniel Marash SC opened the prosecution case against him.

It was alleged the former Sha Tin divisional commander struck Osman Cheng Chung-hang on the back of the neck with a baton on November 26, 2014. Officers were exercising crowd control outside Shanghai Commercial Bank on Nathan Road in Mong Kok at the time.

On Monday, Chu arrived at court backed by members of the Alliance in Support of Our Police Force. He was seen taking notes and going through documents as Daniel Marash SC opened the prosecution case against him.

It was alleged the former Sha Tin divisional commander struck Osman Cheng Chung-hang on the back of the neck with a baton on November 26, 2014. Officers were exercising crowd control outside Shanghai Commercial Bank on Nathan Road in Mong Kok at the time.

As I saw police appearing on my right, I felt my right shin kicked, he testified.

Cheng further recalled being hit by a police baton on his right elbow and the back of his neck, despite obeying instructions to walk on and telling officers he was only passing by. He did not see who it was that struck the blows.

I felt someone hit me. I pressed that spot and I felt slightly dizzy, he said, while pointing to his neck, which drew laughter from the gallery.

The court heard Cheng went to a doctor two days later in Sha Tin, who identified three injuries, including a horizontal, linear injury on the left of his neck. He was granted one days sick leave.

I was in pain, Cheng said, when asked why he went to the doctor. I could not turn [my neck] to the right ... I had to turn with my whole body.

The baton measured 59cm by 2.5cm, and weighed 350 grams.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel Peter Pannu, Cheng said he was supported the Occupy movement and had spent the night at the Admiralty site for more than half of the protest.

He also admitted sharing his experience on Instagram, with one of the captions reading: Hongkongers would always rise again, you take Queens Road, I will take Lung Wo Road until you listen.

Cheng reported the attack to police on November 29, 2014, after learning the officers identity from newspaper reports and social media. Chu was arrested more than two years later on March 27 this year.

There was no dispute over identity.

The case against Chu hinges on whether the baton blow constituted reasonable use of force and whether Chu had honestly and genuinely believed it to be so.

The officer claimed: I was purely exercising my lawful powers under the Public Order Ordinance and Criminal Procedure Ordinance in the execution of my lawful and obligatory duties under the Police Force Ordinance laws of the Hong Kong special administrative region.

He said the force he used was proportionate and reasonable as he had to disperse an unruly and riotous crowd and prevent crimes, as well as protect himself and his subordinates who were exposed to harm.

It was [necessary] to take action given that we were outnumbered and the crowd was violent and we did not have any other viable tactical options, Chu said. I had no intention of harming anyone.

News footage played in court showed a loud and chaotic scene in which officers were trying to disperse a crowd walking in front of the bank.

Some officers in the five videos shown were seen hitting the crowd with their batons, while others were pushing people forward with their hands and circular shields.

Go, go, several people are heard shouting.

Among those hit by the baton was Cheng, who was seen immediately touching his neck while shielding a woman with his other hand.

One video then cuts to an angry Cheng, who shouts with a curse: I was just passing by, I was just passing by.

The defence is expected to challenge the videos, as Chu argued in his statement they did not truly capture the violent moments before he dealt the blow.

The trial continues before Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai.

(The Stand News) November 6, 2017.

[9:15] Frankly Chu arrives in court.

[9:30] Court begins.

[9:45] The charge is read out. 57-year-old Frankly Chu is accused with assaulting Osman Cheng on the night of November 26, 2014 outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank, 666 Nathan Road, Mong Kok. Chu pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three news videos (from Ming Pao, DBC and Apple Daily respectively) as well as a police baton.

[10:07] The prosecution presented the statement that Chu made to the police under caution. Chu said that he had acted lawfully based upon the need to stop crime and that there was no other alternative. He pointed out that the demonstrators attempted to charge the police cordon, so it was necessary to use appropriate force. Chu said that he had no political motive. His only purpose was to exercise his lawful duty to restore peace and order.

[10:20] The Ming Pao video was played in court. The video showed people gathering in Mong Kok, with some of them charging onto Nathan Road. The police raised the red warning flag. Some people dashed across the street and were dispersed by the baton-wielding police officers.

[10:24] The DBC video was played. Outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank, a white-shirted policeman believed to be Franklin Chu hit the waist of one person and the shoulder of another person with his baton.

[10:27] The Apple Daily video was played. Many police officers chased people back onto the sidewalk. They also dispersed the crowd outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. The person believed to be Osman Cheng said: "Pok gaai, I was just passing by." The video showed a white-shirted police officer believed to be Frankly Chu hitting people with his baton.

A TVB news video from the next day was played. The video showed demonstrators gathering and shouting at the police. The police raised the red warning flag. The police subdued some demonstrators on the ground and chased the people back onto the sidewalk.

[10:47] The prosecution summoned 28-year-old Osman Cheng to satisfy. Marketing specialist Osman Cheng said that he was in Tsuen Wan at 10:30pm on the night of November 26, 2014. He took the MTR to Mong Kok. He knew that the clearance of Mong Kok took place the day before and he was concerned about the safety of his female friend Ms. Ma who was by herself in Mong Kok.

At the time, Facebook was reporting people gathering in Mong Kok. Cheng was supposed to go to Admiralty. But when he learned that Ms. Ma was in Mong Kok, he told her that it was vey dangerous and so he got off in Mong Kok to accompany Ms. Ma. He arranged to meet her at the Mong Kok Bank Centre exit.

The court saw the map that Cheng provided. He said that he met Ms. Ma at the Body Shop on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. Then they walked past the jeans store Apple Shop, crossed Argyle Street and turned west and stopped at the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Because they saw people gathering at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road, they stopped for 3 to 5 minutes out of curiosity.

What were they doing there? Cheng said that Ma wanted to know what was going on, and Cheng merely kept her company.

[11:28] Osman Cheng said that he and Ms. Ma heard some noise and then at least 20 people rushed towards them. He told Ms. Ma: "We have to leave. Leave quickly." Cheng and Ma turned east and left. At the time, they did not notice the police.

As they left, a crowd headed towards. There was not much space to move, so they stood near the wall of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Less than a minute late, they saw the police chasing the crowd. That is, the police appeared on their right. The crowd dispersed after the police arrived.

[11:50] Cheng said that when the police appeared on his right, he got kicked on the right shin by the police. In addition, he was hit on his right elbow. Before being hit, he told the police: "I am just a passerby."

Was the right shin the first injury? Cheng said that the first two injuries occurred close in time, so he is not sure. He was hit from behind and from his right while he was looking in front. So he did not see what happened.

Cheng said that when he reached the ATM machine at Shanghai Commercial Bank, he was hit by someone on his neck. How hard? He said that it was between "powerful and moderate." Where was he hit? He pointed to the right side of the back of his neck. What hit him? He said a baton. How did he react? He said: "I felt someone hit me. I put my hand on my neck. I felt a bit dizzy." But Cheng continued to walk.

[12:21] Cheng said that a reporter asked him what happened. He said: "I only remember that I said angrily 'I was just passing by.'" Did he look back? He said that he turned around to look when his elbow was hit, but there were too many people around. When his neck got hit, he did not turn around because he felt dizzy. He took Ms. Ma eastbound down Argyle Street, crossed Sai Yeung Choi South and tried to take her away as quickly. When they reached Broadway, they split up. Cheng said that he wanted to go back to the Shanghai Commecial Bank to find the police officers who hit him.

How can he find the police officers who he did not see hit him? Cheng said that he knew that the police officer who hit his elbow wore a blue shirt. He was unsuccessful. So he decided to follow his original plan to go to Admiralty. Someone saw that he looked hurt, and bought him iced coffee from the 7/11 store. He showed his neck and elbow injuries to them. After about 15 minutes, the people left. Cheng then proceeded to Admiralty. Why? Cheng said that he meets with the demonstrators in Admiralty every night.

[12:50] Cheng testified that he went to work the next day. He did not see the doctor that day. He went to see a doctor in Shatin the next day because he felt pain whenever he turned his neck to the right. The doctor took photos of his injures. Later his friend asked the doctor for the photos.

[12:53] The prosecution presented the photos. There was no dispute. Cheng said that there was only swelling but no discoloration on the neck. He agreed that the photo did not reveal any injury.

[14:30] Cheng identified another photo as showing the reddish injury on his elbow. Cheng believed that it was caused by a police extensible baton.

The prosecution presented the doctor's report. Cheng said that the neck injury lasted for a month. He told the doctor that he could not move his neck. After applying anti-inflammation medication, he was able to move normally after one month.

Cheng said that he lodged a complaint on November 29, 2014 at the Wanchai Police Station about his three injuries. He said that he learned the names of the police officers who hit him from the newspapers. Cheng said that he got legal advice and was given videos from Ming Pao, Apple Daily and DBC. He confirmed that the videos reflected what was happening at the time.

[15:10] The prosecution played the DBC video. Cheng confirmed that he was the person in the white shirt and the female on his left is his friend Ms. Ma. At the time, he said: "Don't hit me. I am just passing by." The prosecution asked Cheng whether he did anything that would cause the police to hit him. He said no. As for his shin injury, Cheng admitted that the videos do not show how it came about.

With respect to the video of a white-shirted policeman hitting a person on the neck, Cheng confirmed that it was his left hand holding his head. Did he disobey any police instruction? Cheung said: "I did not disobey."

The Apple Daily video was played. Cheng was heard to say: "Pok gaai, I am just passing by." Did the videos reflect what happened? Cheng agreed.

[15:27] During cross-examination, the defense asked for certain details from Cheng, such as his place of birth. Was he born in China? Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai interjected: "China or Hong Kong, part of China?"

Cheng said that he was born in Shanghai and attended primary school in Hong Kong. He was a degree in creative media and was a Social Media Copywriter in Kwun Tong at the time. At the time, he was taking part in Walk In The Dark in Tsuen Wan as a team-building exercise. Was he an activist or supporter of Occupy Central? Cheng said "supporter." So he is not a radical (without implying any criticism)? Yes.

The defense presented Instagram information and asked Cheng whether he was the person in the photos. One of the photos was annotated: "The place i belong to the fade (fate) I fight for 23rd night." Was this the 23rd night of Occupy Central? Cheng said that he spent the night in the Occupy Central tents in Admiralty at least half of the 79 nights. The defense showed another text: "Hong Kong will never die. If you take Admiralty Road, I will take Lung Wo Road until you hear my demands." Cheng said that it was not as strong as it sounds now. "Right now, 'take' seems to imply violence."

The defense asked whether Cheng agreed with the expansion of Occupy Central to Mong Kok in October. "Take the fight to mong kok"? Did he and his group moved to Mong Kok? Cheng said no.

The defense asked Cheng asked whether he knew that the police attempted to remove the barricades at the intersection between Argyle Street and Nathan Road on October 17, 18 and 19? Cheng said that he does not remember.

Cheng wrote "conflict, but we win finally" and "Mong Kok, Hong Kong." Does this represent his recollection and opinion of what happened? Cheng said yes.

Was there a conflict with the police on October 18? Cheng said no. Did the police clear Mong Kok on October 18, but it was re-occupied on October 18? Cheng said that the defense can look up the news report. "This is a matter of fact, right?"

What is this 'conflict' as in "conflict, but we win finally"? Cheng said that this was the conflict between the government and the people. Do you mean the conflict that was caused by the clearance? Cheng said that it referred to the overall movement. The magistrate asked: "This is one-person-one-vote universal suffrage"? Cheng said yes.

On October 18, some people re-occupied those streets. Was Cheng one of those people? Cheng said no.

"We win finally" means that the demonstrators defeated the police and retook the streets? Cheng said no.

[14:30] The case will continue tomorrow at 9:30.

(Apple Daily) November 6, 2017.

Senior counsel Peter Pannu cross-examined witness Osman Cheng. He began by asking whether Cheng regarded himself as an activist or supporter of Occupy Central. Cheng said the latter. The defense t hen  produced a large number number of Cheng's Instagram posts. Cheng was asked to read the sentence: 「趕住收去,去打XX啲差佬」("I am in a hurry to get off work. I am going to assault the fucking cops.") The magistrate stopped the question and asked why it was relevant to the case. The defense explained that it raises the suspicion that Cheng was an extremist who was there to provoke a clash and that Cheng is untrustworthy in that he may be faking the injury for political gains. Finally the magistrate permitted the question but asked Cheng not to read it aloud because the sentence contained an obscenity.

(The Stand News) November 7, 2017.

[9:40] Osman Cheng continues to be cross-examined. Cheng's Instagram post contains the terms "Mong Kok, Hong Kong" and "the 59th night." The 59th night of Occupy Central is October 25. On that day, Cheng's Instagram contained "Veteran policeman 9041, I will fucking remember you for fucking kicking me", "I am okay and back in Admiralty; thanks to the First Aid in Admiralty for their help; 9041, I will fucking remember you!" and "Photo: showing the bandage on the shin position."

The defense asked Cheng whether a court injunction had been issued on November 25, 2014 and that he was in Mong Kok. Cheng said that he should based on the Instagram records. The defense wondered why he only remembers after the defense produced the Instagram information.

Cheng said that this happened three years ago and he cannot be sure on which days he was in Mong Kok. "I have to check social media to remind myself."

Cheng said that he had to go to work on November 25. So he must have gone to Mong Kok after work. He does not remember where police officer #9041 assaulted him and he did not file a police report either. Why not? Many people have filed police report but it was all wasted efforts. The November 26th incident involving Frankly Chu had a lot of video evidence, so he decided to file a police report then. He did not file until he had the evidence.

Cheng admitted that he did not inform his lawyer about being assaulted by police office #9041. He said that he did not obtain the service of the lawyer at the time.

[10:00] The defense questioned Cheng about his shin injury. Cheng said that he limped around but things got better after he put ice on the injury. He said that the situation was better overnight and therefore he did not tell the doctor when he sought help for his injuries.

The defense questioned whether he used his prior injury to malign the police officers who were clearing Mong Kong on the next day. Cheng completely rejected this assertion.

The defense said that Cheng told the police that his shin injury was very painful. He limped around for two days and the pain was there after four days. But according to the news video from that night, Cheng showed no sign of limping. Cheng agreed. He said that he was not limping yet a minute after being kicked. He said: "Everybody has been injured before. The pain does not appear immediately."

The defense said that Cheng told the police that he began to limp when he reached New Town Mall (corner of Argyle Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South). Cheng said that he does not remember when he began to limp, but he was limping by the time that he reached Crocodile Shirt/Broadway (on Sai Yeung Street South).

The defense questioned whether Cheng was making up an explanation as to why he was not limping in the video. Cheng asked the defense lawyer whether he knew the distance between the Shanghai Commercial Bank and Arg yle Street. The magistrate interrupted and said that a witness is not allowed to pose a direct question to the defense lawyer.

[10:49] The defense questioned Cheng about his route that night. Photos of the locations were shown. Why did Cheng meet up with Rose Ma at the Body Shop and then walked northwards along Sai Yeung Choi Street South? Why didn't they turn left to go to Wai Fung Plaza and then cross the street to the Shanghai Commercial Bank? Cheng said that he was walking with Ms. Ma and did not know why she chose this particular route. He thought that it was too crowded to walk over to the Wai Fung Plaza.

The defense said that there was a large group of people who share the common purpose of wanting to occupy the roadway. They went over to the Shanghai Commercial Bank because there was no space over at the Wai Fung Plaza. Cheng disagreed.

The defense questioned why the two did not use the MTR underpass. Cheng said that Ms. Ma was already above ground. When he called, she said to meet up at the Body Shop without telling him where they were going. So he did not use the MTR underpass.

[11:15] The defense said that Cheng claimed yesterday The that there were not a lot of people on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. However, the police videos showed that there were a lot of people at 8:43pm on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. The magistrate interrupted and said that the incident occurred after 10:00pm and Cheng was not at the scene at 8:43pm.

The police video showed that between 8:47pm and 8:51pm, a lot of people were on the street shouting slogans and taking photos. A number of shops lowered their gates. The defense asked Cheng whether this was what he saw when he arrived at about 10:00pm. Cheng said that he did not walk in that direction. When Cheng got out of the MTR station, the section of Sai Yeung Choi Street South between Nelson Street and Shan Tung Street was only 1/3 to 1/4 full.

A TVB news video was played, showing that people were still gathered around Sai Yeung Choi Street and Soy Street at around midnight.

[12:15] The defense asked Cheng to confirm that a certain Instagram post was made by his female friend Rose Ma. Cheng said that he does not know. The magistrate said that the post was not made by Cheng and is therefore hearsay evidence. The defense said that the post proves that it was a lie for Cheng to say that he went to Mong Kok because of a telephone call from Rose Ma. The defense said that Rose Ma did not call him, but he ran into Rose Ma in Mong Kok by chance. Cheng said that he totally disagreed.

The defense said that the police wanted to find Rose Ma and asked Cheng for the contact information but Cheng refused. Cheng acknowledged that this was true but denied that he refused to provide the information because he was afraid that Rose Ma might expose his lie.

[12:45] The defense asked Cheng to confirm that he posted on Instagram on November 26, 2014: "Finished with work. Let me hurry down to Mong Kok and fucking beat up the police." Cheng confirmed it. He explained that he only wanted to calm himself down, because he was just beaten by the police. "I wanted to do something for diversion, not to focus on my anger."

The defense said that many citizens were involved in assaulting police officers on November 25 and 26? Was Cheng one of them? The magistrate informed the witness that he does not need to answer this question because it implies criminal culpability. Cheng said later that he did not assault or otherwise make physical contact so as to injure police officers.

The defense asked Cheng to clarify just where people were rousing trouble. Cheng said that it was near New Town Mall. The defense asked exactly how long he stayed before he turned around. Was there anyone in front of the bank when it happened? Cheng said that there were not a lot of people, not as many as shown in the videos. He said that these were citizens who wanted to know what was happening.

The defense presented an Apple Daily video said to be unedited. There were people crossing the street outside Wai Fung Plaza. The time elapsed between this video and Cheng getting hit was only 38 seconds.

[14:30] The defense played the rest of the Apple Daily video. The video showed Cheng telling the reporter twice that "I was just passing by." The defense asked Cheng to point out the exact spot where he was hit. Previously the witness said that he was unable to turn his head to the right after being hit. The video showed that when Cheng said "Pok gaai", he turned his head to the right. Cheng said that it was because he moved his entire body.

The defense said that Cheng said that he had limited ability to move his head leftwards, rightwards, upwards and downwards. Yesterday in court he said that he had limited ability to turn leftwards for about a month. But in his statement to the police, he said ten days. So which is the truth? Cheng said that he had most trouble with turning rightwards and he had limited ability to move leftwards (but not as seriously). He may have mixed up right and left.

The defense said that Cheng does not seem too sure what his neck mobility. In court, he said that he could not turn to the right; in his statement, he said that he could not turn rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards? Are you confused about your neck mobility? Cheng said that this was indeed weird, so he guessed that the police officer must have mixed up right and left when writing down his statement.

The defense said that the second police statement said that there were restrictions rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards. When did this start? How long did it last? Cheng said that it began after he was hit and lasted 10 days. But this was not what he testified in court.

The defense said that in Cheng's first police statement (taken down by another sergeant), he felt being hit by a hard object on the left of the back of his neck. The defense asked Cheng whether this sergeant made the same error (flipping right and left) as the other police officer.

After all this, was Cheng hit on the left of the back of his head, or the left of the back of his neck, or the right of the back of his neck? Cheng said that the back of the head and the back of the neck are almost the same body part. As for left versus right, it has been three years so he may have been wrong in his court testimony yesterday. The two police statements were taken close to the time of the incident, and the medical report also said left-hand-side. So his memory may have been fault yesterday.

Cheng said that he had limited mobility rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards for ten days. Afterwards, his right side still hurt. Three years now, "You ask me how long it lasted. I would answer that it lasted one month."

At the time, a police officer wanted to examine his injury and take photos. Cheng refused. Cheng explained that a friend at a Solicitor's Officer told him that this was not necessary. Therefore he refused.

[15:24] The defense asked Cheng whether he was aware that there were clearance actions in Mong Kok the night before. Cheng said that he knew that this was going to happen on November 26, and that was why he went looking for Ms. Ma because he was afraid of another Occupy. Are  you saying that you afraid? Or worried? Cheng explained that he was worried about Ms. Ma.

The defense said that if Cheng is worried about Ms. Ma, then why did they head towards the most troublesome intersection? Cheng disagreed. You stayed at the Shanghai Commercial Bank for three minutes and you had plenty of time to leave. Agree? Cheng said that it was normal for people to be rowdy. When the crowd charged over, I went with them.

The crowd was trying to go from Wai Fung Plaza across Argyle Street to the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Actually, that section of the street had been blocked off by a police cordon. So what were they waiting around there for? Cheng said that it was only for three minutes. "Less than five minutes. Not enough for a cigarette."

The defense said that the police used megaphone to inform the crowd that it was dangerous and people should leave. Cheng denied that this happened. The defense said that there was ample warning from the police that some sections are unsafe and people should leave. Cheng denied that this happened. Cheng said that he tried to cross Argyle Street to Wai Fung Plaza, but the police blocked the way. He said that a lot can happen in three minutes. For example, he can find out about what was happening and exchange information with other people. However, he does not now remember just what he actually did during the two to three minutes.

[15:40] The defense said that the video showed Cheng leaned forward towards a police officer. Cheng asked to view the video again. The DBC video was played and paused at the moment when Cheng leaned forward. The defense asked whether the police officer might sense aggression. Cheng disagreed and said that he only wanted to ask the police officer not to hit him.

The defense presented a screen capture and claimed that the police baton did not hit Cheng on the back of the head, neck or shoulder. Does Cheng agree? He disagreed. The defense showed a photo from Oriental Daily and said the police baton only touched the center of the shoulder blades and not the neck. Cheng disagreed.

The defense asked whether Cheng went back to look for the police officer who hit him after seeing Ms. Ma off. Cheng said that he left Ms. Ma at Broadway and went back to look for that police officer. "I saw some uniformed police officers. I asked them: 'Do you hit people at will? Do you hit everybody?' He said that it was not a long argument because nobody bothered to respond. He left when he could not find the police officer who hit him.

The defense said that Frankly Chu stayed at that corner until he came off duty in the early morning. Does Cheng agree? He disagreed. He said that the uniformed police officers had sealed off the road and he could not find Frankly Chu.

The defense said that Cheng testified that someone gave him treatment at a first aid station at Exit D2 of the MTR station. In truth, there was no first aid station there. Cheng said that a certain group (not the government) had set up a first aid station. When the workers saw him, they asked him what happened. Cheng explained that he saw these people had all the first aid equipment and therefore he characterized them as a "first aid station."

The defense said that Cheng went to see doctor for treatment and the doctor took some photos of his injuries. Cheng does not know how many photos were taken in total. The defense asked Cheng: "Do you agree that these four photos do not show your face?" Cheng agreed.

The defense said that the person in these photos could be anyone? Do you agree? Cheng disagreed.

[16:04] The defense said that the force applied was not "between powerful and moderate" as Cheng testified. Cheng said: "This is highly subjective. I don't know how to respond to you." The defense said that a serious injury would occur with "powerful to moderate force." The baton made contact with the back between the shoulder blades. Cheng disagreed.

The defense said that Cheng heard the uproar and stayed at the bank for three minutes because he wanted to resist or block the police clearance. Cheng disagreed.

The defense asked Cheng whether he agrees that he has placed inside a large crowd whereupon the police have no way to distinguish between radical demonstrators who want to charge the police cordon and the self-proclaimed passersby. Cheng said that he should not have to think about this. The defense wondered if Cheng willingly exposed himself to danger when the police begin clearance. Cheng disagreed.

The defense asked Cheng is he exaggerated the pain and severity of his injuries. Cheng disagreed.

The defense asked Cheng whether his anger at PC #9041 from the day before caused him to exaggerate his own case on November 26 in order to take revenge against the police. Cheng disagreed.

[16:30] The prosecution began the redirect examination. Why did Cheng refuse to provide information on his companion Rose Ma? Cheng explained that that her boyfriend did not know she was in Mong Kok and she did not want to get involved in the case. Therefore she asked him not to provide her contact information to the police.

The prosecution asked why Cheng stood outside the bank for two to three minutes when the crowd began the uproad. Cheng said that the police prevented him from crossing over to Wai Fung Plaza. At the same time, they were curious and wanted to know why the police sealed off the road.

The prosecutor said that after Cheng got hit, he said that he would take Ms. Ma away and then come back to see who hit him. But the video showed that Cheng did not turn his head around after he got hit. So how would he know who hit him? Cheng explained that he recognized the blue-shirted policeman who hit him. Besides, he saw Frankly Chu hit other persons in front of him.

The prosecutor asked whether he and Ms. Ma received police orders to leave. Cheng said no. He said that he saw the police hitting people with batons like as if they were herding sheep. So he went in that direction like the people in front of him. The prosecutor asked if he was following the crowd. Cheng said that it was a natural response to follow whoever who was pushing him.

(The Stand News) November 8, 2017.

[9:50] The prosecution summoned Dr. Alfred Yuen Hui-chiu to testify. Yuen confirmed that he examined Osman Cheng on November 28, 2014, two days after the incident. On December 1, Yuen wrote down a medical report based upon his notes and his recollection. Yuen recalled that Cheng came to see him at his office around 2pm on November 28, 2014. Cheng claimed that he was assaulted on November 26, 2015. Yuen described Cheng to be in good condition overall. Yuen found three wounds. The first one was some bruising about 2 centimeters in diameter on the right elbow. The second was some sideway swelling about 4 centimeters long on the left neck near the hairline. The third was on the right shin.

Yuen confirmed that he used his mobile phone to take photos of Cheng's injuries.

Four photos were presented in court. The prosecutor asked the witness to confirm that these photos were of the injuries on Osman Cheng. Yuen thought that there he only took three photos which he stored on his computer. Later he gave the photos to Cheng upon request and printed them out.

Yuen said that Cheng did not say who assaulted him, nor where it happened. He only remembered Cheng saying that he was assaulted.

[10:27] The DBC video was played in court. The video showed what happened outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank on that night. The prosecutor asked if the action in the video can cause the injuries that were found on Cheng.

Yuen said that the spot that the defendant's baton landed was different from what he saw.

The video was played again. The prosecutor asked Yuen where the baton landed. Yuen said that it was hard to tell from the video just where the blow landed.

The prosecutor brought out a baton and asked Yuen to see if the injure could have been caused by the baton in the manner shown in the video.

Yuen was unsure, because Frankly Chu's downward action was different from the sideway swelling. The prosecutor said that Yuen's report only said that there was a swelling/pain on the soft tissue on the neck without stating the direction. So why does he say that the swelling is sideways?

Yuen said that the magistrate had just asked whether it was downwards or sideways. Yuen looked at the photo and saw that it was sideways.

[10:45] Under cross-examination, Yuen said that Osman Cheng did not appear to be uncomfortable or in pain that day. Cheng moved around normally. However, Yuen does not remember if Cheng told him that he was assaulted by the police. The defense said that Yuen checked that Cheng was able to move his neck upwards, downwards, leftwards and rightwards normally without pain. Yuen agreed.

The defense asked about the laceration injury  on the right shin. Yuen corrected the defense and said that it was an abrasion and not laceration. There was a scab but no open wound. Yuen pressed down on the position. Cheng did not complain of any pain.

The defense said that Cheng told the police on January 21, 2016 about the shin injury. Given that a scab had formed, the injury must have taken place more than two days ago. Yuen confirmed that his persona experience that it would have been even longer ago.

The magistrate asked Yuen if he can say that it occurred earlier than November 26? Yuen said: "If you ask me, I would say so."

The defense said that Yuen testified that Cheng did not complain about any pains. Yuen said that he does not know if a patient feels pain. However, the patient did not tell him about any pains. He said that the examination took only 10 minutes. So he may not be able to ask too many things.

Yuen said that he recommended the patient to go to an emergency room. Previously, he had seen many such injuries at the emergency room and most patients would go to the emergency room instead of a private clinic. The magistrate asked Yuen whether he thought emergency rooms are more rigorous and neutral than private clinics. Yuen said that he himself is rigorous, but other people may think that emergency rooms are more rigorous.

The defense said that Yuen said many times that the injuries were very mild. In theory, there is no need for a doctor's note. However, Cheng insisted on getting a doctor's note to excuse him from work. Yuen said that he does not know why.

[11:01] The defense lawyer then took out a police baton and banged it on a desk. The principal magistrate criticized the defense lawyer. The defense lawyer apologized and said that he wanted to know if a blow of that strength would have caused more serious injuries than he saw. Yuen agreed.

The defense lawyer said that Cheng went to see Yuen two days after being injured. Is there enough time for the injuries to get better? Yuen said that if the injuries were mild and slightly reddish, then it is possible. But if the blow was of moderate to powerful strength, it would not be possible.

[11:04] The prosecution had no questions for the re-direct examination. Yuen's testimony is done.

[14:30] The defense made an interim summation. The victim Osman Cheng incorrectly testified about the location of his injury. Initially Cheng blamed the police officer who took his statement. Then he admitted that his memory must have been faulty. The injury on Osman Cheng was sideways but the blow was struck downwards. The magistrate asked about Cheng's reaction to the blow. The defense said that Cheng tried to shield his head out of fear.

The defense said that Cheng went to see a doctor two days later and did not mention any neck pains. This was at odds with his court testimony that the pain lasted one month. This showed that Cheng was untrustworthy or exaggerated his injury.

The prosecution said that there are two witnesses to the injuries (Cheng and Yuen). The photos and videos showed that the defendant wielded his baton powerfully, even though the video could not pinpoint the exact location of contact. Two days later, the doctor can still observe the injury signs which were therefore non-trivial. While the doctor said that the defendant did not mention any pain, the doctor does not know if there was no pain.

The magistrate ruled that the evidence exists for the case. If the magistrate ruled to the contrary, the case would be dismissed immediately. But since the evidence exists, the hearing will continue with the defense presenting their evidence.

[15:09] Frankly Chu was questioned by his lawyer first. Chu said that he joined the Hong Kong Royal Police on September 24, 1979. In March 1984, he was promoted to inspector. In 2006, he was promoted to superintendent. He retired effectively on July 23, 2015. He was with the Hong Kong Police for more than 35 years, mostly with the uniformed forces.

In the 1980's, armed robberies occurred frequently. At the time, Chu was with the Police Tactical Unit. In the 1990's, there were a lot of riots involving Vietnamese refugees. In 2003 and 2004, he worked with the July 1st demonstration marches. In 2014, he was the commander during the July 1st demonstration march. At the 2005 WTO conference, he was involved with security in the operation wing. The last large-scale public event that he took part in was the 79 day Occupy Central movement.

Chu said that he was on duty on November 25 and 26, 2014. During his career, he spent about nine years in the Police Tactical Unit. He has only worked as a trainer. In his last four years as superintendent, he was responsible for training and improvements of how the PTU handles public events.

Chu said that the training included the use of CS tear gas. The court interpreter initially translated this as "poisonous gas." Chu clarified that this gas was not poisonous; it was non-lethal and not poisonous.

The defense lawyer pointed out that tear gas had been used in September. The magistrate interrupted to say that this point was irrelevant. The defense lawyer said that the point was the tactic could not used again after September 28. Chu said that there was no clear order as such, but tear gas was not considered in all the action plans.

The defense lawyer asked Chu about Operation Solar Peak. The magistrate interrupted again to say that this point was irrelevant. So the defense lawyer went on to ask about what happened on the failure of the clearance on October 17, 18 and 19, 2014.

Chu said that the action took place between October 13 and 17, in Mong Kok as well as Causeway Bay. The main purpose was barricade removal. In Central, the police were able to open up Admiralty for traffic. On October 13, Jardine Street in Causeway Bay was re-oped for tram traffic.

On October 17, the police cleared the northbound lane of Nathan Road in Mong Kok. But someone called for more people to come down to occupy the roadway in Mong Kok using violence.

He remembered that when the cars began to go through Nathan Road, the spectators applauded. That night, 9,000 people were gathered in Mong Kok. This was the largest crowd in Mong Kok during the entire Occupy movement. These people charged the police cordon and clashed violently with the police. They successfully took back the street.

Chu remembered that when he was on duty there a couple of days later, many citizens asked him: "Why did you open the road and then let them back?" Chu said that the Police was very tolerant and backed away from what the laws say. He asked to rephrase his statement by saying that there were many clashes, provocations and fights each day. The main objective of the police was not to let them occupy more streets and to restore public order if necessary.

[15:45] The defense lawyer then asked about what happened on November 25. Chu said that the Chiu Luan Minibus Company had obtained a court injunction to clear the west bound lanes on Tung Hoi Street and Argyle Street with the help of the bailiffs. Before he went to work, he watched the news and learned that the clearance ran into difficulty in the morning. Several hundred people were gathered there to hinder the bailiffs and other workers. Finally the bailiffs requested police assistance at 2pm.

Chu and other commanders received a briefing. They were told about what happened over the past 24 hours, especially about the progress of the clearance effort. At the time, several thousand people were gathered in Mong Kok already. These people said that they were there to defend the areas that were supposed to be cleared on November 26.

Chu said that he was on duty between 7pm November 25 and 7am November 26. The atmosphere was highly charged and unstable. Crowds were gathered at various locations, occupying the streets or defending streets that have already been occupied. The crowds made many attempts to take over the streets again. Many of these people were masked.

Although Chu was in Argyle Street, the police were actually running back and forth. The crowds across them wore masks, helmets and protective gear and armed with homemade shields and other tools. The police issued various warnings through the public media and at the scene, but the warnings were ineffective. The police had to resort to the use of force to restore public order.

The defense lawyers asked Chu if he knew how many police officers were injured and how many people were arrested. Chu gave the numbers. Chu asked about the disturbance during the clearance on the morning of November 25. Certain persons including a man named Wong were arrested. Chu agreed. The magistrate interrupted to say that there are many people in Hong Kong named Wong.

[16:19] The magistrate said that everybody knows what happened that night in Mong Kok. Therefore the defense lawyer should proceed to question Chu about the case instead of repeating admitted facts. The defense lawyer said that he wanted to establish that the defendant is truthworthy.

[16:42] Chu said that he began workd at 3pm on November 26. A briefing took place at 7pm, mainly about what happened over the past 24 hours including the chaos on the night of November 25.

Chu said that after the clearance allowed traffic to run normally on Nathan Road southbound and northbound as well as east-west on Argyle Street. This was the first time in 60 days. He emphasized that the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street was very important, because east-west traffic will be paralyzed if this intersection is taken over. Chu's duty that night was to defend this intersection.

Chu said that his understanding was that this intersection must not be occupied under any circumstance, otherwise it will be a re-play of what happened over the past 60 days in Mong Kok. After the briefing, Chu went to debrief his subordinates.

The police were equipped with helmets and guns that night. Sergeants and higher ranks have guns, extensible batons and pepper spray devices, plus a police baton. Chu said that this other baton is not riot gear.

Chu said that the police baton is only issued to members of the first echelon and selected members of the second echelon. The use of this police baton require additional training of new tactics.

The defense lawyer asked Chu to demonstrate. Chu said that it won't be necessary. Chu said that the baton tactic is used against a crowd of people who have their hands raised but pressing forward to the police cordon. The usage of the police baton depends on the knowledge, confidence and ability of the user.

Chu said that the briefing said that more people will show up than the night before, and they are coming with the identical goal of re-occupying the streets.

The court is in recess. Frankly Chu will resume his testimony tomorrow morning.

(The Stand News) November 9, 2017.

[9:43] Frankly Chu continued his testimony. He recalled that he arrived at the scene at 745pm. At the time, thousands of people were gathered in Mong Kok, mainly on Sai Yeung Choi Street South between Shan Tung Street and Dundas Street. Chu heard on police radio that the police had issued many warnings against those who want to dash out and retake Nathan Road by force. There had been many clashes and the police had to use force to restore order.

Chu emphasized that this was "force in accordance." The police and the crowd were engaged in the seesaw battle. The police issued warnings to the crowd that they were in an unlawful assembly, but the crowd completely ignored them.

Chu said that the police used megaphones to tell people that Mong Kok was unsafe and therefore they should leave. They also raised the red and orange warning flags to warn people not to cross police cordons. He said that innumerable number of warnings were issued that night all over Mong Kok.

Chu followed orders from the command center and brought his company twice to provide support on Sai Yeung Choi Street. The disturbances continued all night. Apart from the main body of the crowd, there were also smaller groups causing trouble elsewhere in Mong Kok.

[10:12] Why did the police have to seal off the pedestrian crossing just before the mob rushed over from Wai Fung Plaza to the Shanghai Commercial Bank? Chu said that the commander in a crowd control situation must monitor the crowd. On that night, the crowd was "hostile." They had a common purpose and can be loosely called an "organized crowd" because each one of them is influenced by what others are doing.

Were there pedestrians? Chu said that many people were spectators at first. But they may suddenly jump in to join the attack the next second. "Therefore, in our eyes or my judgment, they are one single group. They are inseparable." Chu said that that this was not just his own personal opinion; it is crowd psychology and management as taught at the Police Tactical Unit.

Chu said that most pedestrians will not stay for more than one minute in an area of disturbance, not to say 5 or 10 minutes.

Chu said that through public media, social media, news reporting and live warnings, "everybody knew that there could be a disturbance at any second. Normal people should not be hanging around Mong Kok."

The magistrate said that even if the police have warned people, there will always be some people who ignore the warnings. For example, television and radio will tell people not to go by the ocean under a Number 8 typhoon signal, but there will always be some people who go.

Chu agreed. He said that some people will go surfing during a typhoon and face risks. It was the same in Mong Kok. If they knew that there might be disturbances and they still went, they are placing themselves in the middle of the situation. If the police take action and they are caught in the middle, then it is unavoidable.

[10:28] How would Chu handle Argyle Street residents? Chu said that if he can confirm that someone is a resident nearby and needs to cross the police cordon, he will let them go through.

Chu at around 10pm on November 26, the intersection between Nathan Road and Argyle Street was sealed off. Chu said that the main crowd on Sai Yeung Street South was pushing towards Argyle Street. Chu arrived at Argyle Street around 9pm with a large force sealing off Sai Yeung Choi Street South leading to Argyle Street. However, pedestrians were allowed to cross the street.

Between 9pm and 10pm, hundreds of pedestrians  up to cross Nathan Road between Wai Fung Plaza and the HSBC Bank. Every time that the pedestrian signal changed from red to green, hundreds of people crossed back and forth. During the process, many of them bent down to tie their shoe laces, dropped their coins and looked for them, or simply stood still and refused to walk. Chu said that the number of such pedestrians made it impossible for the cars to go through.

Chu said that these people were concentrated on the Nathan Road pedestrian crossing between Wai Fung Plaza and the HSBC Bank. The situation with the Argyle Street pedestrian crossing between Wai Fung Plaza and the Shanghai Commercial Bank was less severe because the road distance was less. Overall, vehicular traffic was being impeded by such antics. The crowd was trying to deliberately cause obstructions and thus retake the streets. At first, the police advised them to move on. Then the police had to push them. Finally the police had to restrict the number of people who can cross each time.

[11:12] Chu said that the police informed people that there are alternate routes to cross Nathan Road. Prior to the road closure, the crowd was screaming obscenities and chanting slogans. But they did not charge at the police. An hour later, the crowd began to get more excited.

The defense lawyer asked Chu if the crowd was "aggressive"? The magistrate said that this was a leading question. Chu said that in police lingo, the crowd was in a state of "passive aggression."

Chu said that the police was facing three groups of people at 1030pm. The first group was the large crowd on Argyle Street. The second group was on Nathan Road around Wai Fung Plaza. The third group was outside the HSBC Bank. At the time, the police reminded these people that they can use the MTR underground tunnel to cross Nathan Road, but the crowd did not budge.

Chu pointed out that these three groups got more and more excited. Some of them tried to push their way onto the roadway but the police blocked them. During the process, some police officers took out their police baton to restore order. Chu said that the police used "check drill" or "posturing." The magistrate asked whether they really made contact with the police batons. Chu said that some contact can happen during the "check drill".

The magistrate said that her question was clear, "Apart from check drill and posturing, did any police hit anyone with police batons?" Chu said that he didn't see any, but he cannot see the entire field.

At the time, people were gathering outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Compared to the other three groups, this group was not as excited. At around 1030pm, the three main groups suddenly roared. So the police focused their attention on these three groups.

At 1020pm, Chu was at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street facing the crowd outside Wai Fung Plaza. He said that there were 300 to 400 people outside the Wai Fung Plaza. At 1030pm, a subordinate ran over quickly, tapped him and told him that things have gone "awry" outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank.

A TVB news video was played in court. It showed the police forcing the people outside the Wai Fung Plaza onto the pedestrian sidewalk next to the Shanghai Commercial Bank. The defense produced screen captures from the TVB video.

[12:33] Chu said that when his subordinate tapped him, he was at the location in the TVB photo. He turned around to look at the Shanghai Commercial Bank and was surprised to find many people gathered over there.

[14:30] Chu said that when they go over to the other side, the police cordon was almost broken through through already. Already some police officers were swinging their batons. The magistrate asked: "Did they use batons without your order?" Chu said that the correct statement is to say that they spontaneously used their police batons. The magistrate: "You didn't tell them?" Chu said yes. Chu said that he believes that the police were concerned about their personal safety given that they were facing off several hundred people. Furthermore the people pressing in the front were more aggressive. Chu also took out his baton in preparation. The crowd was in a state of "active aggression" and the police baton is the only possible response.

Chu said that the first tactical consideration is to disperse the crowd in the front. In this situation, there are only two kinds of forces at the next level. The first option was pepper spray. But this was a tight situation with the possibility of cross-contamination using pepper spray. At the time, they were not equipped with large-sized pepper spray devices. If cross-contamination occurs, many people will require immediately treatment and this would be contrary to their original intent of dispersing the crowd. Another reason is that the past experience is that pepper spray must be used in conjunction with police baton.

The second option is to use hard empty-hand tactics, including kneeing and elbowing. These soft tactics are pressure point tactics. But faced with such a large crowd, the police clearly cannot use empty-hand tactics.

The magistrate said that the witness seemed to have mentioned all the police tactics. "Are we taking a class?" She went back and asked if some officers in the company took out their police batons without received orders.

Chu corrected her that this was not just his company. After assessing the situation, he immediately decided that the crowd must be dispersed by force. These participants (especially those who engaged in physically charging) have engaged in disorderly conduct under the Public Order Ordinance and interfered with the police in their line of duty. The persons present may be in an unlawful gathering that was clearly disrupting public order. Therefore he decided to exercise the authority under Pubilc Order Ordinance s17(2)(a) to disperse the crowd.

[Public Order Ordinance s17(2)(a): Any police officer of or above the rank of inspector may prevent the holding of, stop, disperse or vary the place or route of any public gathering.]

[15:00] Chu said that s17(2)(a0 gave him the authority to disperse the public gathering. However the authority to use force comes from Public Order Ordinance s17(3)(a).

[Public Order Ordiance s17(3)(a): For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsections (2), respectively, a police officer and a police officer of or above the rank of inspector may give or issue such orders as he may consider necessary or expedient, and such police officer and any other police officer may (a) use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent the holding of, stop or disperse, as the case may be, the public meeting, public procession, public gathering or other meeting, gathering or procession;]

Before making that decision, Chu said that he sincerely believed that there was no way to disperse the gathering without the use of force. Therefore he is exercising the use of necessary force under Public Order Ordinance s45 ("Without prejudice to any other powers conferred by this Ordinance, any police officer may use such force as may be necessary (a) to prevent the commission or continuance of any offence under this Ordinance; (b) to arrest any person committing or reasonably suspected of being about to commit or of having committed any offence under this Ordinance; or (c)t o overcome any resistance to the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this Ordinance.") to prevent the commission of a crime.

It was very noisy at the time. Chu had to shout others "Disperse them! Disperse them!" in two directions, one towards Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Argyle Street and the other towards Nathan Road northbound. Chu said that he was pushing the crowd to move as well as tell the front line colleagues to push the crowd towards Sai Yeung Choi Street South.

The Apple Daily video was played. The police pushed a crowd from the Wai Fung Plaza sidewalk towards the Shanghai Commercial Bank sidewalk, and the white-shirted Chu hitting Osman Cheng on the shoulder/neck. Cheng told the reporter: "I was just passing by." The defense lawyers said that Chu applied force to at least four people in this video, including Osman Cheng. Why?

Chu said that he was in the very front in order to make sure that the other police officers would go where he wanted them to. As the commander, he must continuously monitor the momentum and rhythm of the action.

Chu said that he pushed the main crowd over to New Town Mall, turned back and saw the first group of four Chinese males. These were the last of the group. Chu said that he had to maintain the momentum of the process, but these people were unwilling to go and disobeyed the police orders.

[15:30] The defense lawyer asked why Chu applied force against these four people. With respect to person #1, Chu said that "I hit him on the backpack." The magistrate played the Apple Daily video again to be sure.

Chu said that he also hit the second person on the backpack. The person gave no reaction whatsoever. Chu said that he was only posturing, "so that I can pressure them to leave quickly."

The magistrate said that someone squatted down as if to protect himself. Chu agreed.

Chu said that the third person was the black-shirted person. This person was first pushed by a plainclothes police officer, then pushed ahead by the shield of another police officer and finally hit on the waist by Chu's baton.

Chu said that the the third three Chinese males were walking slowly, almost stopping. The black-shirted man resisted his colleagues. "'Resisting' does not mean fighting back. It means non-compliance. His was a very aggressive non-compliance. At the time, I felt that I had to use force to reinforce that message."

Chu said that although it was necessary to use force because the black-shirted man was non-compliant, the baton made very contact with him. The action was fast, but the force was very slight.

[15:44] The DBC video was played in court. Osman Cheng was seen to be struck. Chu said that when his police baton "touched" the black-shirted person, he stood there for a short while to see those three persons leave. Then he turned to face the last group. As soon as he turned around, he saw the fourth Chinese male (Osman Cheng) made an aggressive move towards the police officers.

Chu said that the sudden rightwards lean-forward by Osman Cheng is an aggressive action based upon his expression and body language. Chu felt that he was provoking the police. It was a non-compliance. Therefore Chu decided to use force.

The defense lawyer handed the police baton to Chu and asked him to describe the momentum and force of the blow. Chu said that his position allowed him only to strike from top down, because there were people next to him. Chu said that he knows that the police baton is hard and can cause injuries if struck hard. "Even though the blow seemed to be very fast, the force was actually restrained."

The magistrate asked Chu to describe the magnitude of the force. Chu said "moderate."

The magistrate asked Chu whether he agrees with Chu hit Cheng because Cheng did not follow police orders and made an aggressive move towards a colleague? Chu agreed. Chu emphasized that the force was applied to the back, because hitting the neck intentionally "would be a lethal force to me."

Chu said that he will never hit a person on the neck because he will be tried in the High Court and never able to retire.

[15:55] The defense lawyer asked if Chu regretted what happened, having to retire three weeks later. Chu said that if he knew that he would have to sit here and defend himself over the so-called assault when he was only carrying out his duties, "I would rather let them occupy the road if they want. Perhaps I could apply to the Police not to take part in Operation Solar Peak because I was only several months away from retirement."

He said that this was an "assault" according to the newspapers which have many reporters and cameras in the streets of Mong Kok.

The defense lawyer said that he is obliged to ask Chu if he is politically neutral. Chu said that one has to be political neutral on duty. "I don't hate any Occupy Movement person. When I am on duty, I am only concerned about my actions, the laws and the protection of social order." Chu said that during the dispersion of the crowd, he and other participants were very restrained in their use of force.

[15:57] The defense lawyer showed some documents to Chu. Chu said that the police operated under the "plus one principle." He explained that the police always use one level higher of force than the other side.

The defense lawyer asked Chu whether he noted that the document said that a police officer must take action based upon his own judgment and bear responsibility for so doing.

The defense lawyer asked Chu whether he had anything more to add. The magistrate said: "You are the Senior Counsel." Senior Counsel Peter Pannu responded: "I sometimes ask him for his opinion. He is a person who deserves to be respected."

Frankly Chu's direct testimony is complete.

The court is in recess. Hearing resumes tomorrow at 930am.

(The Stand News) November 10, 2017.

[9:35] Cross-examination of Frankly Chu began.

The prosecutor asked if Frankly Chu was told that he has to prevent Argyle Street from being re-occupied in order to uphold the court injunction. Chu agreed.

The prosecutor said that there were two court injunctions that were granted to the Chiu Luen Minibus, the Hong Kong Taxi Chamber of Commerce and the Taxi Workers Association for the purpose of allowing buses and taxis to access the roads in the area. The court injunction mentioned "carriage", which refers to the roads. Chu agreed.

Chu admitted that he did not read the court injunction on November 26. He had only read it afterwards. But Chu said that this does not mean that he does not know what is within the court injunction, because the newspapers have reported it in detail.

The prosecutor said that therefore Chu had to keep the vehicular roadways open but not the pedestrian sidewalks. Chu replied: "Of course I understand." The magistrate asked him for confirmation and Chu agreed. The prosecutor said that Osman Cheng was therefore not violating the court injunction by standing on the pedestrian sidewalk. Chu said that he agrees in part. However, Chu was exercising his authority not because Cheng violated the court injunction. It is true that if the crowd re-occupied the street, they would be violating the court injunction. But on that night the crowd was engaged in disorderly conduct plus the other crimes that Chu mentioned previously: unlawful assembly; obstruction of officials in the line of duty; obstruction of police officers in the line of duty. Chu is exercising his authority to prevent crime from occurring or stop ongoing crime.

The prosecutor asked Chu again to confirm that Osman Cheng was on the pedestrian sidewalk and did not violate the court injunction. Chu said that he has already said that he agreed.

[9:59] The prosecutor said that Cheng was walking in his direction because police officers were directing or chasing the crowd towards New Town Mall. The prosecutor asked if Chu knew Cheng before. Chu said: "I don't know him. I have never seen him before."

The magistrate asked Chu if he knew Osman Cheng was a pedestrian, resident or demonstrator. Chu said no, but asked to be allowed to elaborate.

Chu said that when the decision was made to disperse the crowd by force under the Public Order Ordinance, the basis was s17(4) which temporarily closes down a street from public access and s17(9) which allows the use of force to do so.

[s17(4) If a police officer of or above the rank of inspector has reason to believe that a public meeting or public procession is likely to take place or form in any public place in contravention of section 7 or 13, he may cause access to that public place and to any other public place adjacent thereto to be barred and to be closed to the public or to any person or class of persons for such time as may be necessary to prevent the public meeting or public procession taking place.

s17(6) Any police officer may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent any person from entering or remaining in any public place to which access has been closed to him under this section.]

The magistrate asked to clarify that the use of force is intended to either not let people come back in or to make them leave. The magistrate also asked Chu to clarify which road. Chu said that it was the road outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. "In my eyes, they are the same group of people. I didn't have the time to ask if he was a pedestrian or if he was just passing by. The entire dispersal was one process."

The prosecutor said that Chu is citing many different sections of ordinances. Did he consider these ordinances before he wielded his baton that night? Or did he start thinking about them in order to rationalize his action that night? Chu said that if they didn't charge at the police, there would be no need to think about them.

The magistrate asked Chu to respond to the questin. Chu said that when the police teach the tactics to disperse crowds, they always include the legal basis of the action. Therefore those ideas are embedded in his brain, such that there is no need to look them up afterwards.

The prosecutor said that Chu has an overall knowledge of the law, but there was no particular article or section in his mind when he swung his baton. Chu said that he did not understand the question. The magistrate repeated the question. Chu said that things happened so quickly that there was no time to think about this or that. "If I said so, I would be lying to you."

[10:10]

The prosecutor said that when Chu first spotted Cheng, does he agree that the condition of Cheng did not fit the profile of a demonstrator: goggle, shield, helmet or weapon. Chu disagreed and said that the prosecutor was describing a militant demonstrator. Just because Cheng did not have the equipment did not mean that he was not a demonstrator. Besides, the authority that Chu was exercising was not directed at demonstrators. Instead, there was a crowd at the time. "In my view, they are a group. I can possibly ask each of them: Can you please tell me if you are a member of the group?"

The prosecutor asked Chu if he regarded Cheng as a member of the demonstrators. The magistrate said that Chu means that there was not time to ask every person because things happened so fast. Chu regarded every person as a demonstrator. But it was possible to tell afterwards from the video just who was a genuine passerby.

The prosecutor changed the question. Did Chu regard Cheng as a demonstrator under the circumstances at the time?

Chu disagreed. "I have said many times already. This is not about protestors. I regard him as part of the mob. " The magistrate asked for an explanation of "part of the mob." Chu said that these were the same group of people as those who charged the police cordon.

The magistrate said that the video showed some people charging towards the direction of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. So how much time elapsed between the police officers heading towards the Shanghai Commercial Bank and Chu using the baton on Cheng? Chu said not more than 30 seconds. "That dispersal action took place very quickly. Or you can say that it was very effective." The prosecutor said that Cheng testified that he was not part of the group who crossed the road to charge at the police. Chu asked: "How can I tell the difference?"

The prosecutor said that there is no objective basis to suppose that Cheng is a member of those who crossed the street. Chu disagreed. He said, "It takes some time for so many people to gather. He had every opportunity to leave. I said yesterday when the police take action and he is caught in the middle, then I am sorry to say that I cannot control that."

Chu said that when he turned around to look at the direction of the Shanghai Commercial Bank, a large group of people were charging at the police cordon. "How was I supposed to know which are pedestrians?"

[10:33] The prosecutor asked Chu where the people outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank came from? Chu did not understand what the prosecutor meant. He said that the prosecutor probably did not understand what was going on. The prosecutor demanded Chu to answer the question: Where did the people outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank come from? Chu said: "How do I know?" Chu said that when he looked over there, the crowd was already there.

Chu said that there were not a lot of people over there at first, and that is why he didn't pay attention to them. At the time, the crowd were charging the Nathan Road section outside Wai Fung Plaza.

The prosecutor asked how much time elapsed between Chu reaching the sidewalk and then seeing Osman Cheng. Chu estimated that he saw Cheng 90 seconds later. By that time, most of the people on the sidewalk outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank had been dispersed. Cheng was among the last people who were directed towards New Town Mall. Chu emphasized that Cheng was "driven" to move by the police and not on his own.

The prosecutor asked Chu that even if Cheng wanted to leave in the direction of New Town Mall after the crowd got rowdy, it wouldn't be easy because there were too many people before Cheng. Chu agreed, but he emphasized that he used force not because Cheng refused to leave.

The prosecutor asked Chu in detail about how he applied the baton on the three other persons. Chu said that he hit the backpacks of the first two Chinese males because he wanted them to move faster. The method is called "posturing." The third Chinese male disobeyed and resisted, so Chu used force.

The prosecutor said that Chu testified yesterday that the action against the first two Chinese males was "wiping", going from left to right in the direction of New Town Mall. Does that mean that he wants them to move in the direction of New Town Mall? Chu agreed.

The prosecutor said that the action against the third Chinese male ran in the opposite direction from right to left. Why the difference? Chu said that he applied force on the third Chinese male not to make him leave but to make him comply. "Afterwards, didn't he leave in the same direction? He did not go in the opposite direction." The magistrate repeated the question and asked Chu to explain.

Chu said that the action took place in a chaotic situation. "The prosecutor paused the video and asked me: Why did you do this? Why did you do that? I can't answer it. I only know that I thought that it was necessary at the time for me to apply force on him to compel compliance." The magistrate repeated the prosecutor's question. Chu said that he cannot say. "But the effect was that he moved on. He wasn't injured. I believe." The magistrate asked Chu if he is unable to give an explanation. Chu said: "At that moment, I was only concerned about the strength that I applied ..." The magistrate asked Chu to answer the question. Chu said that he cannot answer. The magistrate asked whether it was instinctive. At first, Chu said yes but corrected himself. "I was calculating the strength ..." The magistrate said that the question was about the direction. Chu said that it was instinctive.

[11:17] The prosecutor said that the third Chinese male was following police order when he was hit. That is, he continued to walk in the direction as ordered by the police. Was there any need to apply force to him?

The magistrate said that Chu can choose whether to answer this question or not, because it may create criminal or other liabilities for Chu.

Chu choise to answer. He said, "Using force is a split second decision. I believe that I had to use appropriate force at the time in order to enhance the compliance message. Once he complied, my force was immediately stopped."

The prosecutor asked Chu whether his action arose out of anger? Chu disagreed.

Chu admitted that he did not issue verbal warning to the three Chinese males before he used the baton. But the crowd should know that they have to comply because the police was using force already.

Chu explained that the police push forward by saying "Walk! Walk! Walk!" while waving their batons. He and other police officers used their batons to apply force to non-compliant persons. He believed that everybody at the scene knows that force will be used against them if they didn't comply. "In those chaotic conditions, you cannot issue a warning to every person every time. Warnings depend on circumstances. We will do it if we can." Chu said that they were not in a one-to-one relationship. You cannot tell the person, "If you don't obey, I will strike you once; if you still don't obey, I will strike you a second time." It was not that kind of situation.

[11:28] The DBC video was played in court. The prosecutor asked Chu to pay attention to Cheng's actions. Chu said that Cheng's actions did not show that he was disobeying any police action. Chu disagreed.

Chu said that he had testified yesterday that he saw Cheng make a very aggressive move to challenge a police officer. At the time, Chu thought that Cheng was non-compliance. Chu was not even aware that there was a woman next to Cheng. "I made an instantaneous decision." Chu said that it was just over a second between Cheng's action and his own action. "Why did you expect me to think about?"

Chu said that he did not notice that another police officer had hit Cheng on the elbow just before Cheng reached Chu. Chu admitted that the video showed Chu pushed aside his colleague in order to go up and hit Cheng. The prosecutor asked Chu whether he noticed if that other police officer had his baton out. Chu said: "I didn't notice. It was my decision. I don't know if he felt any need or whether he paid any attention."

[11:40] The prosecutor asked Frankly Chu to read out the police guidelines about how the police should exercise a high degree of self-restraint and not use force except for legally acceptable purposes. Circumstances permitting, warning should be issued. Furthermore, the least amount of force should be used, and force should cease once the goal has been achieved.

Chu said that the entire action followed these guidelines.

The prosecutor asked whether Chu followed the guidelines when he hit Cheng from behind when Cheng was leaving.

Chu said that the process should be looked at in the full context. Yesterday chu said that using the police baton was the only method of achieving the goal with the least force. The prosecutor should not use what happened in that one second to explain the entire situation. Chu added that the aggressive move by Cheng and the baton blow should be regarded as one continuous action.

[11:50] Frankly Chu said that police baton training includes the identification of body parts which are medically save, such as larger muscle bodies such as the outside thigh, the front thigh, underneath the stomach, forearm and shin. As for the neck, Chu said that it may be lethal. But the back does not contain nerve points.

[12:25] The prosecutor asked Chu whether he thought that there was a chance that Cheng might be injured as a result of the baton blow? Chu said, on the contrary, he was thinking about how to injure Cheng. "Therefore my force was restrained."

The magistrate asked Chu whether he wanted to inflict minimal hard with his baton. Chu agreed and explained that the police trainers have shown a method to cause pain without necessarily causing an injury. He illustrated by using his left hand as an object which he struck with his right hand. "You hit down and you don't pull back immediately. The kinetic force gets distributed across the body. This is how I can achieve the effect." Chu said that the purpose of using force is first of all to restore public order and secondly to make sure that the law is obeyed.

The prosecutor asked Chu whether he hit Cheng because he was angry and didn't care about the consequences. Chu disagreed.

The prosecutor asked Chu if he did not sincerely believe that he had to use his police baton that way. Chu disagreed.

The prosecutor asked Chu if he made up Cheng making an aggressive move towards a police officer and disobeying orders after the fact? Chu disagreed.

The cross-examination by the prosecution is complete.

[12:30] Frankly Chu is under re-direct examination by his lawyer.

According to the photos, MTR exits D1 and D2 were open at the time. Can Osman Cheng leave via these exits? The prosecutor interrupted to say that the defense is leading the witness. The magistrate pointed out that the prosecutor had said that Osman Cheng was trapped within the crowd and unable to leave. Chu said that the MTR station and the underground tunnels were open. At the time, the police called on people to use the tunnels to leave.

The photos also showed people hiding in the ATM area of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Chu said: "These people were innocent. They did not participate in the demonstration. They didn't have to leave."

The defense asked Chu about the use-of-force continuum. As far as the police baton is concerned, the degree of force depends on the training and skills of the user? Chu agreed.

The defense asked whether the police baton can cause lethal harm, or cause minimal harm, or cause no harm at all? Chu agreed. He said that he believed that Cheng made an aggressive move towards a police officer.

The defense said that Osman Cheng claimed that he turned his head to tell the police officer that he is a passerby. Did Chu hear him say so? Chu said that he did not hear it because it was so noisy. Most of the time, he heard the police yelling: "Leave! Leave immediately!" Chu said that his judgment was based upon Cheng's action and expression. During the dispersal, most other people did not act like Cheng.

Frankly Chu has completed his testimony.

Internet comments:

- Here are some videos taken in Mong Kok on the night of November 26, 2017.  This was what Frankly Chu was responding to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ-_IUYC8K0 (~10:25pm 11/25/2014 at Shan Tung Street)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZXU7G-35-k (~ 12:44am 11/26/2014 at Shan Tung Street)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNNsulrIF7E (~2:57am 11/26/2014 at Shan Tung Street)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRMk-u85xTk&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmqIOvQznWo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j4VTYDeemU 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61WWC2VoVJY (11/26/2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oZZ_G4_hHg  (8:35pm 11/26/2014)

- The fair-and-balanced department of justice in Hong Kong

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 27, 2017.

Retired police officer Frankly Chu King-wai has been arrested and charged with assault for allegedly hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. A police spokesperson confirmed on Monday evening that a 57-year-old man has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The arrest took place more than two years after the alleged assault took place. A number of videos taken on November 26, 2014 appear to show pedestrians being hit with a baton without prior warning as part of the police operation to disperse crowds that had gathered in Mong Kok. A police press release read: Police reiterate that no illegal acts by any police officers shall be tolerated. If any individual police officer is suspected of committing illegal acts, the Police will definitely conduct investigations in a fair and impartial manner.

Also on Monday, nine leaders of the Occupy protests were arrested for their roles in the movement. They are facing the common law charge of public nuisance, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

In another high-profile Occupy assault case, seven police officers were sentenced to two years in prison last month for assaulting activist Ken Tsang. Tsang was also jailed for five weeks for pouring liquid over other police officers on the night when he was assaulted. He is currently serving his time in prison.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 7, 2015.

The internal police investigation report to the Department of Justice for legal advice concluded that Chu did not commit any criminal offence for the following reasons: (i) an appropriate extent of physical force was required that night; (ii) Chu was on duty; and (iii) Chu did not target any specific individuals.

If the media reports are accurate, Hong Kong residents should be very alarmed. Those who exercise powers of coercion in the name of the law must always be accountable for their actions. Closing ranks to defend the indefensible undermines the very core values of Hong Kong and erodes public confidence in the ability of Hong Kong police to serve and protect.

As a matter of law, those three reasons, individually or collectively, do not constitute a good defence to a criminal allegation of assault. Here is why:

First, when a police officer applies any physical force, it must be for a lawful purpose. Examples include effecting an arrest, entering a premise, searching a person or preventing a breach of peace. Such powers cannot be lawfully exercised without genuinely reasonable suspicion.

On the night of the incident, Cheng had never been arrested for any crime nor suspected of breaching the peace. A video clearly shows that he was being cooperative and moving in the direction as instructed by police.

Secondly, the mere fact of a police officer being on duty is not an excuse for unlawful use of force. For example, a strip search in a police station is unlawful if there is no justification for such intrusion. The video does not show why Cheng was specifically targeted. He was not confrontational nor a participant of any illegal activity.

Thirdly, the law does not require an assailant to have a specific target in mind before the mental element of a criminal offence is established. To say so is absurd. Take the example of random mass stabbings: The law only requires proof of recklessness to establish the requisite intent.

In other words, the court will consider whether Chu was aware that he struck or would strike any person by acting as he did; whether he was aware of this risk; and whether it was unreasonable for a person of his age, experience and personal characteristic to take such a risk.

Properly analysed, perhaps the police investigation reports conclusion that Chu a former commander for the Sha Tin Division did not commit any criminal assault makes complete sense if one believes that Chus age, mental awareness and experience is equivalent to that of a young child.

- (OftenPartisan.co.uk) Who Is Peter Pannu?

Peter Lakhbir Singh Pannu, to give him his full name, is 48 years old, and unlike the rest of the BCFC board, a British citizen. Hes a qualified barrister and an ex-HK police officer, who served for fifteen years on the force in Hong Kong. Many people know that whilst he was serving as a police officer he faced criminal prosecution for accepting a bribe from the Triads; something he was found not guilty of. What people arent so aware of is that Pannu in fact faced three separate trials whilst he was on the HK police force and was acquitted of all three.

Peter Pannu joined the Hong Kong police force in February 1985 at the age of 21, and rose to the rank of Senior Inspector and head of the Kowloon City Anti-Triad squad. However Mr Pannu was suspended on full pay in January 1993 for a period of seven years whilst claims of him taking a HK$10,000 bribe from Triad boss Andely Chan Yiu-Hing were investigated. Claims were made that Mr Pannu, along with colleague Senior Inspector David Khosa (who headed another Anti-Triad unit) were given HK$10,000 each at a dinner given at Fishermans Wharf in Wan Chai, in January 1993 to help protect the tiger of Wan Chai from police prosecution. Unfortunately for the prosecutors, their case fell apart in court due to lack of witnesses; Andely Chan was murdered in November 1993 during the Macau Grand Prix and of the two witnesses who reported the incident one disappeared before he could testify in court.

I think its worth noting here that Andely Chan was the boss of the Sun Yee On triad syndicate which didnt have any connections with gaming in Macau but rather made their money via prostitution rackets in Tsim Sha Tsui. Its also worth noting that the Hong Kong authorities twice tried to make charges of bribery stick against Peter Pannu; once straight after the incident was supposed to have happened, and then again after Andely Chan was murdered and the witnesses Liu Chun-Yip and Leung Ting-Fong felt safe to talk. On neither occasion were they successful and indeed the authorities came out with much criticism for the money spent on the investigation and their own procedures.

Pannu also faced charges of criminal intimidation and assault in separate cases whilst suspended for the bribery claims. In January 1995 Mr Pannu was acquitted of criminal intimidating staff at a restaurant when the prosecution offered no evidence; and in July 1995 Mr Pannu was acquitted of charges of assault after conflicting and contradictory evidence was given by the prosecution witnesses. Again, its worth noting that the assault charges only came about due to an internal investigation two years after they happened at the time of the incident nobody complained to the police.

There have been allegations that Mr Pannu was the victim of jealousy and racism because of his Indian heritage. Its also interesting that there have been many police links to the witnesses who have stood for the prosecution in the assault case; there is a saying that if you fling enough mud some of it will stick and you have to wonder who was flinging the mud in this instance.

Whilst Mr Pannu was suspended from the police force he didnt spend his time at home watching the Hong Kong version of Jeremy Kyle or This Morning instead he used the time to study for a law degree and qualify as a barrister the profession he joined after leaving the HK police force in 2000. Mr Pannu worked as a barrister for various clients, including defending a sauna manager until the October 2009 takeover of Birmingham City by Carson Yeung.

- (RTHK) June 10, 2017.

At a pre-trial hearing on Friday, Chus counsel Peter Pannu said it was lucky the trial was being heard by a magistrate and not a jury unless you are yellow. The colour was a symbol of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement.

Kwok said the counsel should withdraw what he said immediately.

Whether it is to describe a piece of evidence or to describe the prosecutor, it is highly inappropriate because the courts, as we all known, will only rule on issues legal issues, factual issues based on the law and the evidence of that case, and will not have any political considerations whatsoever, Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok, who represents the legal sector in the Legislative Council said.

- (SCMP) June 9, 2017.

Chus counsel Peter Pannu said provisions in the Public Order Ordinance stipulated that any person who uses force necessary for any purpose in accordance with the ordinance shall not be liable in criminal proceedings even if such use of force kills a person.

Pannu, a former police officer who went on to become a barrister, argued such wordings suggested the courts had no jurisdiction to try his client.

He cited another clause stating that no person acting in good faith under the ordinances provision shall be held liable for any acts in the exercise of his duty, or for public safety, or the defence of Hong Kong.

This means the defendant is not liable to be found guilty ... as long as the defendant is acting in good faith, Pannu told magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan at the West Kowloon Court.

Prosecutors, led by assistant director of public prosecutions Ned Lai Ka-yee, did not respond.

The immunity clauses in the ordinance originated from its earlier form in the Peace Preservation Ordinance enacted in 1886. Pannu claimed that since then there had been no officer prosecuted over police power exercised in good faith under situations of public order.

Among other issues, the defence is also seeking the prosecutions agreement on a chronology of events from the start to the end of the protests. Pannu argued this would help the court understand Chus mindset and role in preventing protesters like his alleged victim, Osman Cheng Chung-hang, from reoccupying the streets.

[Cheng] is lucky hes not even arrested for contempt of the injunction, Pannu said, referring to a court order for clearance of blockages at the protest site.

The defendant is part of the contingent company responsible for a clearance attempt, Pannu said.

But Lai said that was not relevant to the alleged offence on the night of November 26, 2014 and pointed out that police were only authorised to assist bailiffs in the clearance, and the bailiffs were not enforcing the injunction that night.

Also in dispute is the use of videos as evidence, as Pannu expressed concern that the court might be influenced by extremely sarcastic and contemptuous voice-overs. While there will be no jury and the magistrate assured that only visuals would be relied upon, Pannu said prosecutors were still obliged to avoid using prejudicial materials.

Unless [the prosecutor] is yellow too, he said, referring to the symbolic colour of the civil disobedience movement.

The defendant is part of the contingent company responsible for a clearance attempt, Pannu said.

But Lai said that was not relevant to the alleged offence on the night of November 26, 2014 and pointed out that police were only authorised to assist bailiffs in the clearance, and the bailiffs were not enforcing the injunction that night.

Also in dispute is the use of videos as evidence, as Pannu expressed concern that the court might be influenced by extremely sarcastic and contemptuous voice-overs. While there will be no jury and the magistrate assured that only visuals would be relied upon, Pannu said prosecutors were still obliged to avoid using prejudicial materials.

Unless [the prosecutor] is yellow too, he said, referring to the symbolic colour of the civil disobedience movement.

The magistrate replied: No, no, no, you dont say these things in court.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu has employed yet another rare tactic to stall a debate on the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement, by requesting that media and the public leave the Legislative Council.

Most democrats had spoken during the non-binding motion debate by Thursday, using almost all available methods to continue their filibuster against the government.

However, Chu cited the Rules of Procedure 88(1), which states that a lawmaker can without prior notice request that members of the press and public withdraw from the LegCo.

After suspending the meeting for around ten minutes, the LegCo President Andrew Leung said he had to allow Chu to speak. As Chu began explaining his motion, Leung suspended the meeting for another ten minutes, saying he had to look into whether Chus motive was impure, since he did not explain why he had proposed the motion.

After the meeting was resumed, Leung stopped Chu from speaking, but allowed the debate on requesting media and public to leave.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Gary Chan, a convener for the camp, said Chus move was a hideous attempt to stall the meeting. He said it may be akin to another effort by Chu last week to postpone the debate for a day. At the time, Chu raised an unusual motion to suggest that the LegCo should not move a banking bill debate to its internal committees and should instead complete the debate in one meeting.

Pro-democracy lawmakers voted down the motion in response, but it was effective in delaying the debate. [Pro-democracy lawmakers] may not agree with Chus motion, but they must have been some collusion with each other to stall the debate, Chan said.

Pro-democracy camp convener Charles Mok said the camp indeed reached a basic consensus in using the rule.

Chu said the pro-democracy camp will use all means to defend the Legislative Council. He said his move was, in fact, inspired by the pro-Beijing camps suggestions to amend the Rules of Procedures. The camp proposed amending all rules that did not require prior notice, handing the power to approve motions to the LegCo president.

This is a calling for me [to use it], he said.

But Chu said he did not agree with rule 88(1) itself, and it should be abolished to protect press freedom: This will likely be the first time and the last time for using it, he said.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Michael Luk called Chus motion crazy.

They would even break their principle of openness to delay the meeting, Luk said.

The pro-Beijing camp said the incident provided another proof that the Rules of Procedures must be amended to avoid abuses.

Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung said Chus motion was totally unbelievable and unacceptable and the move had never been used before: I cannot imagine members of the public and the media being asked to leave Some lawmakers are abusing the Rules of Procedures. It must be condemned.

Internet comments:

- (Hong Kong Legislative Council Rules of Procedure)

88. Withdrawal of Members of the Press and of the Public

 
  (1) At a meeting of the Council, a committee of the whole Council, a committee or a subcommittee a Member may without notice at any time rise and move that members of the press and of the public do withdraw, specifying whether the withdrawal is to be for the remainder of that day's meeting or during the consideration of certain business. The President, Chairman or chairman shall forthwith propose the question thereon and the Council, committee of the whole Council, committee or subcommittee shall dispose of it before proceeding further with the business which was before it when the motion was moved.

- (Oriental Daily) November 4, 2017.

In order to block Co-location, a certain pro-self-determination politician pulled off two unusual procedural gimmicks. His supporters applauded him for this great feat. What is so great about it? Isn't it the same as the rural auntie's bag of tricks? First, she cries; next, she curses; finally, she pretends to kill herself by hanging.

The pro-establishment camp constitutes a majority with the Legislative Council. If the matter is put to a vote, there is no doubt that it will be passed. Therefore the opposition camp is doing everything possible to delay the vote. As Benny Tai said, the Co-location proposal will pass but they will make sure that they exact a hefty price from the pro-establishment camp during the process.

Actually, the pro-establishment camp doesn't have to pay any price. It is Hong Kong and its tax payers who will have to pay the price. If Co-location is killed off, the High Speed Rail system becomes a piece of junk after having spent $80 billion to build it. In addition, Hong Kong will be shut out of the High Speed Rail system in China and thus lose economic benefits.

The opposition camp also held demonstrators outside the Legislative Council. But there were very few participants. This showed that the reckless filibustering does not have popular support. The "Hong Kong people in peril under Co-location" banner outside is hilarious, because the only known case is that of Lam Tsz-kin (#775) who was arrested for providing false information to the police (#778).

Hong Kong people are not idiots. Every day, several hundred thousand people cross the border to go from Hong Kong into mainland China. How many of them are in peril? How many of them are afraid of mainland law enforcement agents? Yes, some people in Hong Kong are very afraid. Although they don't dare to go to mainland China themselves, they want to strip other Hong Kong people of the right to take the High Speed Rail to mainland China.

The Legislative Council has already spent many hours on the non-binding Co-location motion. Of these hours, fewer than ten were spent on substantive debate. Most of the time, they were squabbling over procedural issues. This shows that the rules of procedure are being severely abused, and it is now a priority to amend those rules.

- (SCMP) Pan-dems exposed again as they take rail checkpoint bait. By Alex Lo. November 4, 2017.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor may be more Machiavellian than we thought. When the chief executive announced she would seek the approval of the Legislative Council for a non-binding motion on a joint checkpoint at the upcoming express rail terminus in West Kowloon, she said it was to provide a platform for the opposition to air their views.

Her supporters had feared it would just provide another opportunity for the pan-democrats to grandstand.

As it turned out, the opposition did more than that; it filibustered, delayed and stalled with every Legco tactic well known and obscure to try to kill the motion. They went for the nuclear option on what is essentially a meaningless motion. They took the bait.

What should or could they have done? Everyone knows the pan-democrats are down in their ranks after six of them were disqualified from Legco. But while they didnt have the numbers to vote down the motion, they could still vote against it. They could then argue, legitimately, that Lam and her friends in Legco had no respect for the minority view on the controversial rail plan and just wanted to shove it down peoples throats. And it would have been convincing.

Note that its a non-binding motion. Approved or not, the government still has to go through the so-called three-step process: agreement with the relevant mainland authorities; authorisation from the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee; and final approval by Legco. The last step is the real battle for the opposition. Everything else is just foreplay.

But they took a big sharp knife to what was no more than a playground fight. Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, an independent anti-government lawmaker, even started a debate to kick reporters and members of the public out of Legco just to stall Lams motion!

No doubt such efforts appeal to their base. But for the public, pan-democrats have shown, once again, sense and reason are secondary to their fanatical obsession to oppose the government; that they are happy to bring Legco to a standstill and ignore normal business just to score a pointless victory.

Most surveys show the majority of the public either supports, or is indifferent to, the governments joint checkpoint plan.

The pan-dems are doubling down on an opposition that demonstrably has no widespread support, using tactics that work against the public interest.

- (Hong Kong News Executives' Association) November 2, 2017.

The Hong Kong News Executives' Association expressed deep regrets over Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion during today's Legislative Council meeting to ask the press and the public leave the Legislative Council. We believe that Legislative Council meetings should held in the open, and that they motion has seriously damaged freedom of speech and news gathering for the press. This is a serious blow to a core Hong Kong value.

The Hong Kong News Executives' Association finds it hard to imagine that a popularly elected legislator would bring up the motion. Legislators should treasure and defend Hong Kong core values as well as defend the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of publication guaranteed to Hong Kong residents under Basic Law Article 27. They should do their best to make sure that Legislative Council meetings are help in an open and transparent manner, and condemn any action that damages the freedom of press and news gathering in Hong Kong.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 4, 2017.

The Hong Kong Federation of Journalists has strongly condemned Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion to ask the press leave the Legislative Council. This motion has seriously damaged a core value of Hong Kong and interfered with the freedom of press. It is also against public opinion because it wants to deprive the public of their right to know.

- (Hong Kong Economic Times) November 2, 2017.

Hong Kong Journalists Association Chris Yeung Kin-hing expressed regret at Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion. He believed that arguments between the government and the legislators should not affect the media's right to gather news. He believed that Chu, who came out of the media, will realize that this motion has damaged freedom of press.

- "Expressed regret"? By comparison, their colleagues at the Hong Kong Federation of Journalists and the Hong Kong News Executives' Association issued "strong condemnations." After receiving much scorn about their wishy-washy effort, the Hong Kong Journalists Association upgraded its response to "deep regrets" but still not up to the level of "strong condemnation."

Hong Kong Journalists Association, November 2, 2017.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association expressed deep regrets about Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion about asking the press to leave the Legislative Council.

The Hong Kong Journalists believes that the motion, if passed, would seriously damage the public's right to know and interfere with the media watching over the government and the legislators. When the Legislative Council discusses important social issues, it should be done openly.

Our association understands that Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick indicates that he does not support the motion and that he brought up the motion as a means to negotiation. Yet our Association emphasizes that the freedom of press and the public's right to know should not become chips in political struggles.

Hong Kong Journalists Association
November 2, 2017

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 6, 2017. The Hong Kong Journalists Association is torn between two forces. On one hand, public opinion is on the side of protecting freedom of press and the public's right to know. On the other hand, some members of the Hong Kong Journalists Association opposed to even saying "regret" because it helps the pro-establishment camp. In order to stop Co-location, they are even willing to "castrate themselves."

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 6, 2017. Over the past twelve months, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has issued about 12 "condemnations."

For example, when the Hong Kong Economic Journal terminated Joseph Lian's column, the Hong Kong Journalists Association issued a strong condemnation. HKJA chairperson Sham  Yee-lan characterized the matter as "self-castration."

As another example, Nathan Law was surrounded at the Hong Kong International Airport by demonstrators earlier this year after he liaised with pro-independence movements in Taiwan. The Hong Kong Journalists Association immediately issued an angry condemnation to "protect the right to gather news and respect freedom of press."

Are they really fair? But if you pay careful attention, the Hong Kong Journalists Association may seem to take the moral high ground. In reality, they hold double standards. For example, when Jimmy Lai threatened an Oriental Daily reporter, they did not even issue a "concerned" statement much less a "condemnation." When a statement of condemnation purposed to be from the HKJA appeared on the Internet, they rushed out to deny that it came from them.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association is merely a modern-age eunuch. When their Master want to come out, they jump up and down and scream about the oppression of Freedom of Press; when their Master want them to stay put, they suddenly become deaf, blind and dumb.

There are more than 10,000 media workers in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journalists Association has 547 members, including students and public relations workers. Why does the Hong Kong Journalists Association always claim that they are speaking for all journalists. I am saying aloud: "Sorry, you don't represent me!"

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 3, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu said the pro-democracy camp must use all means necessary to resist a situation where freedom is being stripped away.

On Thursday, in a last-ditch attempt to stall the debate on the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement, Chu cited the Rules of Procedure 88 (1) to demand an unprecedented debate to request the media and public to leave the Legislative Council chamber. The Pro-Beijing camp criticised his move as hideous.

Both the Hong Kong Journalists Association and the Hong Kong News Executives Association said they were disappointed by Chus move, and that LegCo meetings should be held in public. Chu had said it would be his first and the last time to use the rule, as he wished to abolish it for harming press freedom. Although it has never been used in Hong Kong, British MPs have used a similar rule to stall meetings as a kind of filibustering.

Following the chaotic premature adjournment of the meeting on Thursday, partly caused by his move, Chu said he understood the concerns from the two associations. I hope they can consider, from a wider perspective, the stripping of freedom from the legislature and from the public. They are equally worthy of concern, or more concern should be raised about them, Chu said on a RTHK radio programme on Friday.

- Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's approach is entirely consistent with the theory and praxis of Occupy Central.

Step 1. Define an objective.

In the case of Occupy Central, the objective was this universal standard of "one-person-one-vote via civil nomination." It is somewhat inconvenient that this "universal standard" is not implemented in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, etc. But you stick to this "genuine universal suffrage" all the way through without any possibility of compromise.

In the case of Co-location, the objective is to scrap the $80+ billion Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail.

Step 2. There is nothing that you can do to Chairman Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang, the Chinese Communist Party, the Politburo, the National People's Congress, the Chinese Communist Political Consultative Conference, the China Liaison Office, the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive, the Hong Kong SAR Executive Council or the pro-establishment legislators to make them fulfill your objective. Therefore you take action directed at the innocent and powerless bystander -- the people of Hong Kong.

In the case of Occupy Central, you block off the streets of Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. You stop people and cars from going in and out of the area.

In the case of Co-location, you propose to cut off freedom of press from the press and the right to know from the public.

Step 3. There is a public outcry from those who are affected. You direct the rage against the establishment.

In the case of Occupy Central, you say that none of this would happen if the government implemented "genuine universal suffrage." Therefore everybody should blame the government for what is happening.

In the case of Co-location, you tell the press and the public that none of this would happen if the government scrap Co-location. Therefore the press should blame the government for taking away the freedom of press and the people should blame the government for taking away their right to know.

Step 4. The government was infinitely patient and let things roll until public opinion was completely on their side.

In the case of Occupy Central, the government waited 79 days before clearing the occupied sites. By that time, 90% of the population wanted the occupiers gone and their leaders arrested and prosecuted.

In the case of Co-location, this is what happens two days afterwards:

- (Economic Times) November 3, 2017.

Yesterday during the debate over the Co-location proposal, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick motioned for the press and the public be removed from the Legislative Council in his effort to stall for time. Was his action appropriate?

8%: Appropriate
91%: Inappropriate
1%: No opinion

(701 votes as of 2:00pm November 4, 2017)

The pro-establishment camp should let the filibustering go on indefinitely for a few more weeks over this non-binding motion, and then 99% of the people will want them to amend the Legislative Council Rules of Procedure to cut off all filibustering.

- (Bastille Post) November 4, 2017.

Facebook of Ng Wing-fai (Democratic Party member)

Eddie Chu Hoi Dick is my friend. But yesterday Chu made three serious mistakes during the filibustering. Of course, the pan-democrats support him because we are in the same camp. But I wish Chu and the pan-democrats reflect on this matter.

At the first level, the mistake was to make enemies of the press by ousting them and the members of the press. The pan-democrats want to win over the the press and the public, not to oust them;

At the second level, this is against the principle that modern contemporary legislative entities should be as open to monitoring as possible. Most governments and legislative entities subject themselves to monitoring by society. Even an authoritarian figure as Chiang Ching-kuo and the Legislative Yuan at that time would not have done this. I don't know if Chiang Kai-shek's Legislative Yuan expelled reporters at the time. If not, then the first instance would have to be dated to the early days of the Republic of China or even the Qing dynasty;

At the third level, Chu proclaimed that this was the first and also the last time that such a motion was made. If it happened a first time, it can happen a second time. The second time may come from a radical pro-Communist legislator. When that happens, the pan-democratic legislators may have to use force to stop the expulsion. I hope that nobody does this. But there is no guarantee given the ignorance of politicians.

- (Speakout HK) November 4, 2017.

The opposition is using every possible means to stop the passage of the Co-location motion. On the day before yesterday, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick invoked a hitherto unused procedural rule to motion the remove of the press and the public from the Legislative Council. This was a vulgar striptease which showed that the opposition has no principles, no strategies and no vision.

Firstly, they showed that they regarded the media as a propaganda tool which can be summoned or dismissed at will. When they need the media to publicize their ideas or attack their enemies, they want the reporters to become their mouthpieces. When they want the reporters to be their stage prop for filibustering, they want to oust the reporters and the members of the public from the Legislative Council. The media is the Four Estate of the people. They have the responsibility to monitor the government and the legislative council, especially on the issue of Co-location which affects the public interest. How can they just direct the media to come and go as they please?

Secondly, political leaders need to appeal by morality in order to unite everyone. But the opposition legislators are stupid enough to betray their most valuable asset so readily. This was short-sighted.

Thirdly, as popularly elected legislators, they even want to oust the members of the public from the legislative council. This is biting the hand that feeds them and shows that they consider the public to be mere tools to seize power. Once they enter the Legislative Council, they will get rid of the public. The people are not their masters; they are slaves.

Finally, they were stupid enough to push themselves to the edge of the cliff. The government can push ahead and the pro-establishment legislators have plenty of reasons to amend the rules of procedure ...

Q12. Do you agree that the Hong Kong section of the High Speed Rail should implement Co-location of Immigration, Customs and Quarantine services?
54%: Agree
35%: Disagree
7%: Don't know/hard to say
4%: No opinion


Concede land for co-location, Hongkongers in peril
Date: November 1, 2017 (Wednesday)
Location: Tim Mei Road outside the Legislative Council Building
Guests: Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Lau Chi-hung, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Tam Tak-chi, Audrey Eu, Hon Lin-shan, Yung Lok-hing, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Ho Kai-ming, Chow Wai-hung Ng Men-yee, pro-democracy legislative councilors (list is being updated)
Fully supported by D100 with live broadcast

(Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017.

This is the third evening assembly called by the Co-Location Concern Group. The meeting commenced at 6pm. Civic Party legislative councilor Kwok Ka-ki said that the pan-democrats do not have the numbers in the Legislative Council to win a vote, so he wants everybody to come out and protest against the Co-Location proposal. Ex-legislator Leung Kwok-hung recalled that 10,000 persons surrounded the Legislative Council to oppose the High Speed Rail. Today there are only several dozen or hundred persons left to oppose Co-location. He said that this is a huge setback.

Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor and Occupy Central trio member Benny Tai was present too. He expects the Co-location proposal to be passed by the Legislative Council, but he said that "they will have to pay a higher price even if they win."

At the peak, there were just over 200 persons at the assembly.

(HKG Pao) November 2, 2017. According to the official Yellow Media newspaper Apple Daily, "as many as 100 people" attended the assembly. Co-location Concern Group convener Tanya Chan said that they won't be holding any more assemblies.

Related link: Mass Demonstrations Against Co-Location

Internet comments:

- 38% of Hong Kong adults opposes Co-location. That would be just over 2 million adults. How come only 200 showed up to demonstrate outside the Legislative Council? What happened to the rest?

- (Sing Tao Daily http://sina.com.hk/news/article/20171028/1/9/4/%E5%9C%98%E9%AB%94%E6%97%BA%E8%A7%92%E8%BE%A6%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E5%85%AC%E8%81%BD%E6%9C%83-%E9%99%B3%E6%B7%91%E8%8E%8A%E4%BF%83%E6%B8%AF%E5%BA%9C%E9%80%B2%E8%A1%8C%E8%AB%AE%E8%A9%A2-8062709.html ) October 28, 2017. The Co-location Concern Group held a public hearing in the Mong Kok pedestrian mall. Co-location Concern Group convener Tanya Chan said that if the government genuine respects public opinion, then public consultation should be held. Neo-democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai said that the government's co-location proposal is unacceptable. He said that the High Speed Rail is the most expensive railway at $90 billion. Furthermore, Co-location violates the Basic Law, destroys One Country Two Systems and contravenes procedural justice. He says that it is reasonable for legislators to try to stop the non-binding resolution at the Legislative Council.

About 30 to 40 citizens took part.

- (YouTube) Once upon a time in January 2000, a number of students marched from Sheung Shui to Central in order to implore the Legislative Council not to pass funding for the White Elephant Project known as Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail. They marched slowly, taking 26 slow steps and then kneeling down to kowtow.

Where have these young people gone? Why are they not back now?

Well, the Co-location Concern Group came up with the alternate proposal of Co-location in Futian/Shenzhen North with the West Kowloon Station being turned into a shopping mall with a revenue stream coming from rent payments by the name brand stores. That is not going to draw any interest from these young people who don't want yet another shopping mall. To attract these young people, the Co-location Concern Group should propose to level the already constructed West Kowloon Station for farmland on which to grow organic vegetables.

- The title of the three rallies so far includes "Hongkoners in peril." This is supposed to strike fear. But what is there to fear about? There is the fear that in mainland China, a Hongkonger can easily be arrested, tortured and murdered by the Commies. If you believe that, you should not go to mainland China at all and the High Speed Rail (like the Intercity Rail, the cross-border long-distance buses, the border posts, the airline flights to mainland China, etc) should mean nothing to you. Meanwhile more than 300,000 persons per day travel between Hong Kong and mainland China each day. How many of them have been arrested, tortured and murdered by the Commies?

(Wen Wei Po) November 2, 2107. How scary is mainland China? Here is legislative councilor Andrew Wan Siu-kin (Democratic Party) organizing a 4-day Christmas trip to Yellow Mountain (Anhui province) while traveling on the High Speed Rail (bus from Hong Kong to Shenzhen North station to take the G1602 8:52-16:53 to Huangshan and G1061 11:25-19:39 from Huangshan to Shenzhen North followed by bus to Hong Kong). Now wouldn't it be nicer if the travelers can just embark/disembark in Kowloon West?

Background RTHK vs TVB - Part 1 (2017/07/04)

(Communications Authority) Press Release, October 2017.

The CA considered a complaint case against Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB")'s pre-emption of the television programme "Headliner" (頭條新聞) of Radio Television Hong Kong, which was originally scheduled for broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB on 30 June 2017.  The CA decided that TVB should be strongly advised to observe more closely the direction issued by the CA pursuant to Condition 19.1(b) of TVB's domestic free television programme service licence.  Details of the case are at Appendix.

(TVB) Must-carry RTHK programmes should stop. October 30, 2017.

The Communications Authority (CA) today decided that Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) had breached the CAs direction in relation to the pre-emption of RTHK programme Headliner without approval on 30 June. A TVB spokesman said the CAs decision showed complete disregard for the circumstances under which the RTHK programme was rescheduled to give way to a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping in Hong Kong for the 20th Anniversary of HKSAR.

It was the first visit to Hong Kong by Xi Jinping in his capacity as the President of the Peoples Republic of China. Isnt the Presidents first speech in Hong Kong more significant than the weekly Headliner, which is not even a news programme? the spokesman said.

Mandatory carriage of RTHK programmes adversely affects TVBs programming and rescheduling flexibility. RTHK, which now has three digital terrestrial TV channels and two analogue TV channels, has no reason to continue to occupy TVBs precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.

(SCMP) October 31, 2017.

Hong Kongs largest television station TVB breached the terms of its licence when it abruptly pulled off air a programme that poked fun at Xi Jinping and replaced it with less controversial footage of the Chinese president and a feng shui show, the citys broadcasting and telecoms regulator ruled on Monday.

The Communications Authority strongly advised TVB to observe more closely the conditions of its free-to-air licence, after receiving 406 complaints about what it did on June 30, when the president was in the city to mark the 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs return to Chinese rule.

The episode of the current affairs programme Headliner that was pulled off air also made repeated references to the imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.

It was produced by the citys public service broadcaster RTHK, which complained that it was notified of the cancellation only eight minutes before the programme was due to air on TVBs Jade channel.

But a TVB spokesman on Monday stoutly defended its decision and slammed the mandatory regulation for the station to broadcast RTHK programmes.

In a statement, the spokesman said the authoritys decision showed complete disregard for the circumstances.

It was the first visit to Hong Kong by Xi Jinping in his capacity as the President of the Peoples Republic of China.

Isnt the presidents first speech in Hong Kong more significant than the weekly Headliner, which is not even a news programme?

The spokesman added that the requirement for TVB to carry RTHK programmes adversely affects the stations programming and scheduling activities.

[There is] no reason to continue to occupy TVBs precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.

RTHK hit back with a statement of its own, saying it respected the authoritys advice and hoped TVB would honour the conditions of its free-to-air licence, which requires its Chinese channel to run two hours worth of RTHK programmes each week.

Headliner was supposed to air on TVB Jade from 6pm to 6.30pm on June 30, but was replaced with footage of Xi meeting people from various sectors of society and a feng shui show.

The 12-minute recording of Xi had aired on the TVB news channel earlier at about 5.10pm.

The Communications Authority added that there were complaints that the feng shui programme was pre-recorded and there was no urgency to screen it, and that the sudden change breached licensing conditions, as changes to programming cannot be made without prior notice. The complaints also included concerns that dropping the programme amounted to self-censorship.

The regulator also said that TVBs licence terms included broadcasting RTHK programmes at certain times, and that it should apply in writing to the regulator if it needed to make alternative arrangements.

(Communications Authority) Response to Media Enquiries on the CAs Decision on the Complaint Case Against TVBs Pre-emption of RTHKs Programme Headliner. November 6, 2017.

In response to media enquiries relating to the Communications Authority ("CA")'s decision on the complaint case against Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB")'s pre-emption of the television programme "Headliner" of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), the spokesperson for the Office of the Communications Authority said today (6 November 2017) :

The CA respects the editorial independence of TVB and appreciates that TVB needs to make proper programme rescheduling having regard to actual circumstances.

However, it was incumbent upon TVB to comply with the licence conditions and the requirements under the established mechanism.  In other words, if there is a need for TVB to reschedule a RTHK programme, it should submit an application to the CA beforehand (or even afterwards). The requirement and arrangement has all long been in place.  As a matter of fact, the CA did approve similar applications from TVB in the past.  If TVB made an application to the CA for the rescheduling of the RTHK programme concerned that day, the CA would, as always, handle the application as soon as possible according to the established mechanism and TVB should be able to avoid breaching the relevant requirements.  In fact, the reason for the CA to issue strong advice to TVB in respect of the complaints this time was precisely because TVB had failed to follow the established practices and to comply with the relevant procedures.

(TVB) November 7, 2017.

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau said: "As a provider of free over-the-air television service, TVB does not pay any usage fees to the government for using the frequencies. Therefore the user of the frequencies must satisfy the public interests. Under such circumstances, the condition in the licensing mechanism should be obeyed. In the long run, we can take a look at the situation and make a full review of the television broadcasting license. But right now it should continued to be done this way."

The TVB spokesperson said that the government is saying that TVB does not pay any usage fees. This is "incomprehensible and incredible." TVB pays almost $20 million in usage fees per year. In addition, the commercial value of the government-mandated programs is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

TVB re-emphasized that the speech of Chairman Xi Jinping was an important breaking item. They could not apply beforehand. Afterwards, they sent written explanations to the Communications Authority which are similar to applications, but they were not accepted.

TVB pointed out that when they applied for a license renewal, they did not know that RTHK would have 5 digital/analogue channels of its own. It is incomprehensible as to why TVB should continue to be compelled to air RTHK programs until the mid-term review four years from now.

Internet comments:

To TVB Group Chief Executive Officer  Mr. Mark Lee Po-on:

As a Hong Kong citizen, my heart became stone-cold after I read TVB's rebuttal of the Communications Authority  yesterday.

A publicly listed company is using the Cultural Revolution-style rhetoric of Junius Ho to engage in sophistry?

"Isn't the visit by the state chairman more important than programme X?"

This is a variation of "My father and mother are not as dear to me as Chairman Mao." TVB can fill in any title for X. If you oppose TVB, you are opposing Chairman Xi! If you oppose TVB, you are opposing Chairman Mao! If you oppose TVB, you are opposing the rise of the People's Republic of China!

Perhaps I should calm myself down and ask you a question.

Was the logic of "Xi Jinping's speech is more important than any programme" completely decided by you Mr. Mark Lee Po-on alone? Or did you consult the opinions of all the television viewers of Hong Kong?

It would be far more acceptable if TVB were willing to issue a statement such as: "This is Chairman Xi Jinping's first visit to Hong Kong. Our station want to promote China-Hong Kong harmony as well as make a good impression on the Central Government. That is why we made programme changes. This is a one-time-only move ..."

But we never expected TVB would try to intimidate the Communications Authority and the citizens of Hong Kong, and deliberately spread this kind of Cultural Revolution-style struggle talk. Your state of mind is deplorable!

Mr. Mark Lee Po-on, please solemnly watch 2 hours of Xi Jinping's speech in Hong Kong before you make love each time.

- What can the Communications Authority do about TVB's recalcitrant attitude?

They can impose a fine.

If the fine is $50,000, then this is a drop in the bucket against the $4.21 billion in revenue and $500 million in net profit.

If the fine is $50 million, then TVB will seek a judicial review and win handily based upon Common Law precedents.

They can take away TVB's broadcast license. That would be taking away the principal entertainment for the people of Hong Kong with no replacement for its place.

Meanwhile the Communications Authority does not address TVB's claim that the mandatory regulation to broadcast RTHK programmes is anachronistic. What can they say about the law of the land? If it is in the books, then the Communications Authority will have to abide by it.

If the law has to be changed, somebody other than the Communications Authority will have to do it. Right now, that somebody (Executive Council/Legislative Council) is waiting patiently for RTHK/Communications Authority to overreach (for example, taking away TVB's license).

- (SCMP) October 17, 2017. Plans to find a new home for Hong Kongs public broadcaster appeared to hit a snag on Tuesday after the commerce minister cast doubt on a move to share a building with other government departments. Three years ago, a HK$6.1 billion (US$781 million) proposal to build a new headquarters in Tseung Kwan O for the broadcaster was vetoed by the Legcos public works committee. Most pro-establishment lawmakers had opposed the plan, citing its high cost.

Opposition lawmakers on Tuesday were doubtful of the future of RTHK, saying that it was not a priority of the government. The government couldnt care less about RTHK, Claudia Mo Man-ching, an independent legislator, said. It is not a mouthpiece for the government as [authorities] hoped it would be, nor a genuine public broadcaster considering the political pressure its faced. She said the government had taken a back seat in the development of the broadcaster, adding that she was not hopeful a new building was on the horizon.

- Dead man walking.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) October 31, 2017.

TVB has axed its broadcasts of two English-language programmes The Pulse and The Works both produced by public broadcaster RTHK.

The current affairs programme The Pulse and arts programme The Works used to be broadcast on TVB Pearl at 8:30am on Saturdays and 7pm on Tuesdays respectively. They will still be shown on RTHKs own channels, including digital terrestrial station RTHK 31.

The change occurred in October as TVB also decided to cancel time slots for seven other RTHK shows. Current guidelines require TVB to broadcast 2.5 hours of RTHK programming per week.

RTHKs program staff union chairwoman Gladys Chiu said that despite the requirements TVB has some flexibility to choose what to broadcast. She said TVB had been broadcasting more than the required hours, and she expected the time allocated to RTHK programming will become closer to the minimum required. My observation is that [TVB] will gradually take back the time slots, she told HKFP.

The recent cancellation of time slots for seven Chinese programmes on TVB included four regular programmes. Two were on the Chinese-language TVB Jade channel, including Pentaprism and the LegCo Review New Lawmakers, both were five-minute current affairs programmes. Two others, Police Report a five-minute English version of the Chinese-language programme with the same title and News Review, were broadcast on English-language TVB Pearl.

The three others programmes were irregular shows including Transformers, The Making of Healers, and West Kowloon Cultural District in the Making 2017.

When TVB renewed its licence with the government in 2015, the Communications Authority allowed it to choose from a wider range of time slots to broadcast RTHK programming.

Before the renewal, TVB had to broadcast RTHK programmes during the so-called golden hours from 7pm to 7:30pm between Monday and Friday on Chinese-language TVB Jade. But after the renewal, TVB can broadcast 30 minutes of programmes as early as 6pm, which has a lower viewer penetration. Headliner was moved from the 7pm slot to 6pm in September last year.

- (HKG Pao) By Robert Chow. November 1, 2017.

I only have one question for RTHK.

Suppose that RTHK was scheduled to air Headliner at 6pm. Chairman Xi Jinping has just delivered a speech in his first visit to Hong Kong. Would RTHK pull Headliner and air the speech instead?

I assert that all past and present RTHK heads and Directors of Broadcastin --Leung Ka-wing, Roy Tang Yun-kwong, Franklin Wong Wah-kay, Chu Pui-hing, Cheung Man Yee and even C.S. Wilkinson -- will do exactly the same.

- (Silent Majority HK) October 31, 2017.

Only in Hong Kong do we see the absurdity of a government-funded broadcasting organization which specializes in attacking the government. The good thing is that TVB has struck back forcefully at the most vulnerable point of RTHK: RTHK, which now has three digital terrestrial TV channels and two analogue TV channels, has no reason to continue to occupy TVBs precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.

RTHK spends $1 billion of taxpayers' money annually, and yet its 713 public servants are unable to come up with quality programs for the people of Hong Kong. Instead, it has only managed to spread dissension and cause chaos. In the commercial world, RTHK would have been closed down based upon its output.

- (Headline Daily) The Parasitic Monster. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 2, 2017.

Supermarket slotting fees are expensive because space is limited and products are many. If a supermarket lets you assume a prime spot without charging you money, shouldn't you be grateful?

But now someone is lodging a complaint against the supermarket for doing so.

That someone is RTHK and the supermarket is TVB.

TVB holds over-the-air television channels and pays its own money to produce or purcahse programs, make advertising sales and expand revenue sources. It has more than 4,000 employees and a minute lost is money foregone. If a program does not fare well in the ratings, it will be cut irrespective of who stars in it. Lower ratings means fewer advertisements which means less revenue. Such is the business world.

Similarly at the supermarket, rent and salaries are expensive. If you can't earn money, you are going to have to shut down. This are the rules of the game, and nobody is going to sympathize with you. However, those who live off government handouts will never understand these rules.

On June 30, TVB decided to re-broadcast a section of Xin Jinping's speech in Hong Kong by pulling RTHK's programme Headliner. RTHK screamed bloody murder about being oppressed. The Communications Authority acted as an accessory and issued a strong advisory to TVB.

So here you have a free prime space over the long-term to sell preserved bean curds at the supermarket. But today the supermarket had just brought in some fresh fruits and wanted to sell them while they are fresh. So they moved aside your preserved bean curds temporarily. So you throw a fit! The problem is that you actually have three of your own preserved bean curd specialty stores within blocks of this supermarket.

The licensing requirement for TVB to air RTHK programmes is anachronistic. TVB was willing to carry out its social responsibilities because RTHK did not have any television frequencies. After ATV went out of business, its frequencies were transferred to RTHK. Today RTHK has three stations: 31, 32 and 33. They operate with government funding, they don't have to sell advertisements and they are not under any commercial pressure. So why do they still want to be parasites off TVB?

In May this year, China Central Television (CCTV-1) began airing on RTHK's channel 33. In less than six months, CCTV-1 is surpassing RTHK's flagship channel 31 in terms of ratings. Most of the channel 31 programmes have zero ratings. Headliner ranges between 0 and 0.2. CCTV-1 has as high as 0.9. Everybody can see that TVB is living off TVB because this is the only way it can survive. Without TVB's benevolence, it has nearly zero value.

So what is the truth here? Is RTHK useless? Or is it being oppressed? This is clear for all to see.

- (HKG Pao) November 4, 2017.

It was unreasonable for the government to force TVB to transmit RTHK programmes, especially since RTHK has five television channels of its own. Everybody knows that. Even the diehard supporters of RTHK cannot come up any powerful reasons. Their argument is that the licensing requirements must be observed, rightly or wrongly so.

I learned from reliable sources that TVB had strong demanded the stoppage of the RTHK broadcasts during the licensing renewal process in 2015. But the government did not want any trouble and insisted that the requirements be kept the same as before. After TVB made repeated protestations, the government said that, in the spirit of contracts, the issue can be discussed when the license is up for renewal in 2021.

Is the contract unbreachable? Not necessarily.

I studied the details of the contract between TVB and the Communications Authority. Actually, TVB is being asked to broadcast at least 90 minutes per week of "programmes or materials supplied by the Government." These so-called programmes or materials do not necessarily come from RTHK.

In recent years, RTHK programmes come under criticism because they have become like oppositional media without explaining government policies. If the government allocates the 90 minutes of air time to other departments such as the News Office, it may be better promote its work. The "government programmes" can also include public organizations.

For example, TVB can show a programme from the Tourism Bureau to explain what the scheduled events of the season are. Or the Consumer Council can present a comparison of de-humidifiers in terms of electricity consumption, or show how a $130 moisturizing facial cream is superior to $2,700 one. Aren't these better than the very vulgar Headliner.

Background: The National Independent Party (2016/06/15) and The Bomb Factory (2016/06/15)

(Oriental Daily) September 19, 2017.

The prosecution began by summoning constable Cheung Ka-kit to testify. Cheung said that at 11:14pm on May 27, 2015, he observed the five defendants came out of the Kwong Wing Building to go to the McDonald's restaurant on Tong Mi Road. They stayed there for a while. At 12:44am on May 28, 2015, the five returned to the entrance of the Kwong Wing Building. Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing went in on his own and came back out with a box in hand five minutes later.

At 1:03am, defendants #1, 4 and 5 took the Sai Kung minibus from Dundas Street. Cheung took the bus with them. The three got off on Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung village.

(Oriental Daily) September 20, 2017.

Constable Chan Pak-ning testified that at 1:02am, he saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing taking defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli by motorcycle from Soy Street to Kam Lum Street in Mong Kok. In addition, defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing, defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu and defendant #5 Man Ting-lok were walking from Soy Street to Kam Lum Street.

During cross-examination, Chan admitted that he received six photos of target persons (three men and three women) and defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu was not one of them. Chan said that Wu was wearing glasses at the time, but the defense said that Wu has never worn glasses. Chan denied that he made a mistake.

Constable Ng Chung-on testified that she saw defendants #3, #4 and #5 come out of Ka Sing Building on Min Street, Jordan district at 9:55pm on May 27, 2015. The three entered the Jordan MTR station to take the subway to Mong Kok. The three chatted at Grand Plaza and then went to the Kwong Wing Building on Shan Tung Street.

At 1:50pm on May 28, Ng observed defendants #1, #4 and #5 got off a minibus at Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung Road. Defendant #1 carried a grey plastic box. They walked towards the ATV studio building and entered by climbing the wall.

(Oriental Daily) September 21, 2017.

Constable Ng Chung-on testified that she saw Chan Yiu-shing, Wu Kai-fu and Man Ting-lok got on a mini-bus. She got on a private car to follow them. She was notified by walkie-talkie that the three had gotten off on Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung. So she got out of the car near a bus stop and followed the three. She was about 15 to 20 meters away. She stood under a tree near the Che Kung Temple and watched the three climb a short wall to enter the ATV studio. She stood there and watched.

At around 2:10am, she heard the sound of motor ("tse" ... "tse" ...) but she did not what caused the sound. She said that it was very quiet and therefore she can hear that sound very clearly.

At around 2:42am, she saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing climbing over the wall and coming out. He hung around and spoke on telephone. She was about 15 to 20 meters away from Cheng. Two minutes later, Cheng left on motorcycle.

(The Standard) September 21, 2017.

Three of five people accused of making explosives were spotted climbing over fences with a gray plastic box to an abandoned television studio where police later found chemicals capable of making bombs, the High Court heard yesterday.

The three were among six people targeted for monitoring by the police's Criminal Intelligence Bureau, according to officer Ng Chung-on and her colleagues Chan Pak-ning and Cheung Ka-kit.

Chan Yiu-shing, 34, Cheng Wai- shing, 29, Pennelli Rizzy, 21, Wu Kai- fu, 21, and Man Ting-lock, 23, are accused of making explosives at an abandoned ATV studio in Sai Kung. They have pleaded not guilty.

Officers Ng, Chan and Cheung told the court they attended a briefing on May 27, 2015, during which they were given photographs of six surveillance targets - four men and two women. Wu was not among the targets.

During the follow-up operation on the same day, Cheung saw Rizzy coming out of Fashion Centre in Lai Chi Kok after which constable Chan followed Rizzy who took the MTR to Jordan at 7pm.

At 1am on the following day, Chan spotted Cheng riding a motorcycle along Soy Street with Rizzy. Ng later saw Rizzy, Wu and Man coming from the Ka Sing Building, Jordan. The trio took the MTR to the Grand Plaza in Mong Kok where they had a brief chat before heading to the Kwong Wing Building.

Chan, Wu and Man later took a minibus to Ho Chung in Sai Kung, and climbed over fences to enter the former ATV television studio. Ng recalled Chan was holding a gray plastic box at the time.

Upon questioning, neither officer Chan nor Cheung could say how they were able to find their targets so quickly.

"Don't you think you were rather lucky to be able to quickly locate the targets on the same day you received the assignment," the defense asked Cheung. "I don't know," he responded.

Constable Chan could not recall whether or not defendant Chan was holding a gray plastic box at the time and denied a suggestion that monitoring the targets was his main job. "I was mostly responsible for tailing them and reporting any abnormalities," he said. However, he said he should have noticed if Chan had a box with him.

All five accused are charged with one count of conspiracy to make explosives. Chan, Cheng and Rizzy are charged with possessing explosives.

The prosecutor said police saw sparks and smoke coming from the site. The chemicals seized - acid, hydrogen peroxide and acetone - can produce a powerful explosive named TATP, the court heard. Goggles, gloves, electronic scales, and laptops were also found in the building.

(Oriental Daily) September 26, 2017.

Under cross-examination, constable Ng Chung-on said that she was looking at the wall at the time and did not notice any flashing lights from the building.

Ng admitted that she did not mention the fact that defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing carried a plastic box to the scene. But Ng thought that the information in the report was sufficient, because that fact was later mentioned in the statement which is more complete. The defense suggested to Ng that Chan did not bring a plastic box that day. Ng denied this. The defense questioned whether the police officers had conspired together to come up with a uniform description of the plastic box and its dimensions. Ng denited this.

The prosecution summoned constable Lam Kai-lun, who began tailing Chan Yiu-shing, Wu Kai-fu and Man Ting-lok since 2am on May 28. He observed the three climbed a short wall and entered the old ATV studio building. Lam watched them from about 50 meters. At 2:17am and 2:26am, Lam observed yellowish-whitish flashing lights and grey-white smoke thrice from top floor and roof of the building. At 2:44am, he observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing come out of the bushes, spoke on the telephone and left by motorcycle.

Under cross-examination, Lam admitted that he did not hear any sound of motors. He did not write down in his report and statement that Chan Yiu-shing carried a plastic box. But Lam said that he did see Chan with the plastic box. Lam explained that a colleague had called in that fact by radio, so there was no need for him to repeat the same. However, he was negligent in his statement.

The defense said that Lam made it up. Lam said "Yes" at first, but changed his mind two seconds later and explained that he had misunderstand the defense's statement.

(Oriental Daily) September 25, 2017.

Under cross-examination, the defense said that constable Lam Kai-lun's reports and initial statement did not say that there was grey-white smoke coming out of the ATV studio. The initial reports only mentioned flashing lights. The second statement mentioned grey-white smoke. Furthermore Lam said that the three defendants scaled over a wired fence as opposed to a short wall. Therefore the defense accused Lam of fabricating to please his superiors.

Lam explained that he can only give a brief description over the radio. The colleague who transcribed his report does not know all the details. When Lam read the initial statement, he was merely concerned that this was what he saw. Ultimately it was to Lam to write down the full statement. His supervisor told him that there was insufficient details, so he wrote a more detailed report. As for scaling a wired fence, Lam thinks that the police officer who wrote it was wrong because Lam saw a short fence.

The prosecution summoned police officer Liu Hon-yin. He said that he was posted about 250 meters away from the ATV studio building on the morning of June 14, 2015. He was watching via long-distance binoculars. Nobody was seen until after 6pm. At around 6:09pm, he saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-ching taking defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli there by motorcycle. Cheng took out plastic bags and a pump with a transparent red tube from his backpack and the motorcycle seat. Together the two climbed a short wall and entered the studio.

(Oriental Daily) September 27, 2017.

Police officer Liu Hon-yin testified he observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli scaled a short wall to enter the ATV studio building. About six minutes later, the two appeared on the roof. But Liu was 250 meters away, so he can only see the upper part of their bodies.

Liu said that he cannot disclose his exact location, but he can say that he was an altitude of about four to five storeys high in a building. The defense doubted Liu can see them. Liu said that he was observing through binoculars and could see their faces.

The prosecutor summoned police sergeant Shi Woon-keun. Shi said that after seeing Cheng and Pennelli enter, he and two other colleagues followed them. He checked that there was no one else on the ground floor. He went to the roof after being told by radio that the two were on the roof.

Shi observed the two from behind the water tower at a distance of about 30 meters. Cheng was seated upon a light-colored plastic case while Pennelli was seated on the ground. Therew as a silver box and two beer bottles next to them. Cheng used a spoon to put certain substances into a silver shaker to stir. Pennelli put on clothes, took out a funnel, used the funnel to pour some white powdery substances into the beer bottles. The two packed up and left with the plastic case and beer bottles.

When Shi saw the two leave, he went down another stairwell. He heard a colleague say that there was smoke rising from the top floor. Then he heard someone in the corridor say: "Police! Don't leave!" He rushed out and saw his colleagues trying to arrest Cheng and Pennelli. Shi went up to help subdue Cheng. He found a bag of silver powder, a bag of red powder, a pair of goggles and a pair of gloves in Cheng's backpack and fannypack.

Under cross-examination, the defense said that Cheng and Pennelli never went up to the roof. Therefore what Shi described simply did not happen. Shi denied this. The defense also said that there were many other items on the roof, including metal cans and war games equipment. Furthermore, when the police made the arrests, there was a man in camouflage and straw over his head rushing by. Shi admitted that there were many items but not war games equipment. Neither Shi nor any of his colleagues saw any person in camouflage running by.

(Oriental Daily) September 27, 2017.

Senior constable Lee Sek-hing said that on June 14, he and his colleague Shi Woon-kuen arrived at the roof of the ATV studio. At the time, Shi was already observing from next to the water tower.

Lee said that his principal duty was to protect and support Shi. Lee observed two men talking about 40 meters away. One of them was seated on a light-colored plastic case. He recognized the man later as defendant #2 Cheung Wai-shing. But he could not see what the two men were doing. Lee said that the two then went down the stairs. Lee and Shi left. There were no other persons on the roof.

Lee said that he was later tasked with searching the building. He found a hole in a room on the ground floor. The plastic case that Cheng sat upon on the roof was there. Because Lee knew that the case involves explosive materials, he pried open the plastic case to check for explosives. He saw many plastic bags and paper cups. Some of the plastic bags contained white and black powders.

The defense said that Lee made a mistaken identification of Cheng Wai-shing. Lee denied this to be the case.

(Oriental Daily) Sepbemer 27, 2017.

Under cross-examination, senior constable Lee Sek-hing admitted that he was not assigned to look over the evidence. Normally, important evidence requires the officer in charge of evidence to take photos. Lee explained that he thought the plastic case was merely used by Cheng Wai-shing to sit upon. When he found out that there was evidence inside the case, he immediately summoned the officer in charge of evidence. Lee admitted that the photos taken showed the plastic case in a different location from where he found it. However, Lee said that he did not move the plastic case himself.

The defense said that Lee had amended his testimony six months later. Lee explained: "I am not writing a novel. There was no reason for me to write down all the details." He said that his supervisor told him that the details must be included, so he made the additions.

The defense said that the amendment was intended to tie the two defendants to the plastic case. The defense said that Lee never went up the roof, so he must have made up seeing the two defendants on the roof. Lee denied this, and said that this case made a strong impression on him.

(Oriental Daily) September 28, 2017.

Police officer Cheung Chi-hung testified that at around 6pm on June 14, 2015, he and constable Wong Kai-wing were posted outside the ATV studio. He observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing bringing defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli over by motorcycle. The two men climbed a short wall to enter the studio. Cheung and Wong followed them about 10 to 15 meters behind.

Cheung said that he followed them into a long corridor and then lost sight of them. So Cheung and his colleague hid in a rood next to the women's restroom. At about 643pm, he heard the voices of the two men. At about 725pm, Cheung received instructions by radio to arrest the two individuals. When they stepped out the room, they saw the two men coming at them. Cheung said: "Police! Don't go!" The two men turned around and tried to run, but they were subdued and arrested on suspicion of possession of explosive materials.

Under cross-examination, Cheung said that he did not notice any war game materials or BB gun pellets. Pennelli's lawyer said that his client saw a man in camouflage dress with his head covered by straw running by. Cheung said that he did not see this.

Police officer Wong Kai-wing said that he arrested defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli. He said that Pennelli tried to escape when he spotted Wong. Ultimately Wong caught Pennelli after a struggle. The defense said that Pennelli had raised his hands to surrender but the police tackled and cuffed him, even breaking his backpack. Wong denied that this was the case. Wong said that Pennelli was taken down onto the ground because he struggled.

Police officer Chan Chun-fung said that he searched Pennelli's backpack afterwards. He found a pack of white powder and a pack of silver powder. There was a pair of scissors, wooden chopsticks, a funnel, an electronic scale and matches.

Police officer Pang Long-yan said that he was observing the studio building from 50 meters away. At around 725pm, he observed white smoke rising from the top floor window on the left. The smoke was about a window's length in diameter and rose to four storeys high.

(Oriental Daily) September 29, 2017

The prosecution summoned Criminal Intelligence Department constable Ng Wing-sun to test ify. Ng said that he was assigned to search the ATV building at 7pm on June 14, 2015. There was nobody else present other than the two defendants and other police officers. On the roof, Ng discovered a 10-inch-long red-colored round tube-like object with metal connectors at both ends. The metal connectors were hooked to a blue object. Ng suspected that this might be an explosive device. So he called for help. At around 11pm, the Explosives Handling Tream members came and told Ng to leave the vicinity in case of explosion. Ng left and did not return until 5am.

The prosecution then summoned police officer Wong Kai-wai who testified that he found certain materials including a plastic box. He said that he also found a McDonald's cup with white powder and liquid-like substance in the water container in the men's restroom on the ground level. He suspected explosives and therefore called for help. The Explosives Handling Team came and ordered Wong to leave the vicinity. Afterwards Wong was told that that the cut has been destroyed by fire. Afterwards Wong waited for the Fingerprints Team to arrive. He found out that there were no fingerprints on the materials, including the plastic case.

The prosecution then summoned police officer Yeung Lap-wai who found the evidence on defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli. The defense said that Yeung demanded Pennelli to yield the passcode for his mobile phone. When Pennelli acted as if he doesn't understand Cantonese, Yeung and several colleagues assaulted the hooded Pennelli. This happened four times, with each beating lasting about one minute. Afterwards, the medical examiner found Pennelli had injuries on his ear, neck and shoulders.

Yeung denied asking Pennelli about the case or assaulting him. Yeung said that he did not see any bleeding in Pennelli's ears. Yeung said that he was there solely to look over the evidence. The defense said that a police officer spread Pennelli's thighs apart and made fun of his "small" penis. The police also told Pennelli that they have arrested his girlfriend Hui Ka-ki who will be a witness for the prosecution. Yeung denied that this ever took place.

(Oriental Daily) October 16, 2017)

The prosecutor summoned police constable Yau Shu-ming to testify. Yau arrested defendant #5 Man Ting-lock and told Man that he and eight other persons (four men and four women) were suspected of manufacturing and possessing restricted explosives. Man said that he only knew defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli and his girlfriend Hui Ka-ki through online gaming.

In July 2014, Man got to know a man named Woo Yat-sun over the online game Transformice. In September 2014, Woo introduced Man to Hui Kai-kei. Afterwards, Hui invited Man three times by phone to join an anti-government organization. Man refused the first two times, but agreed reluctantly the third time. Hui told him to attend a meeting of the National Independent Party.

Man said that this was an anti-social, anti-government organization in which Hui is a member. Man attended the meeting in January 2015. Hui and her boyfriend Rizzi Pennelli took him to a band room in the Hung Kwong Shopping Arcade in Mongkok district. He said that they talked about how to cause chaos in society. About ten persons were in attendance, but he only remembered defendants #1 and #2, and OI. He said that he does not remember their full names, just the nicknames.

Man said that Rizzi Pennelli talked about how to create chaos with smoke bombs. The party members used the Wickr app to communicate with each other. He said that the party meets once every one to two weeks. The party has about 20 to 30 members. There is no chairman or headquarters. Man said that Pennelli mentioned attempting to manufacture smoke bombs in March 2015 without success. Pennelli declared success in May 2015, with 8 to 10 smoke bombs. Pennelli said that they will use at the Government Headquarters when the constitutional reform bill was being voted upon at the Legislative Council on June 17-19, 2015. Pennelli also said that he wanted to cause chaos by throwing smoke bombs at the police as well as digging up bricks to throw at the police.

Man said that he had gone down twice to the old ATV studio in Ho Chung to seek ghosts. He said that he went with other friends who were not National Independent Party members.

Man said that Pennelli told him to a course in the Theory and Practice of Electronics in April 2015. He attended ten classes, but Pennelli never told him the reason.

The prosecution then played a second video interview with Man Ting-lock made more than 10 hours after the first one. Man said that he remembered that Chris is defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing and "An Shing" is defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing. He said that when someone mentioned in the National Independent Party meeting about finding a place to experiment with smoke bombs, Man proposed the abandoned ATV studio.

Man said that he went with Chan, Cheng and other members twice to the ATV studio. He remembers that one was on May 27 but he can't remember the other date. Man said that he knew that they were mixing potassium nitrate, sugar and AB glue. He said that he had seen Cheng and Chan mix the three ingredients to make a smoke bomb.

(Oriental Daily) October 17, 2017.

The prosecutor continued to play the video interview with defendant #5 Man Ting-lock. Man said that on May 27, 2015, he and defendant #1 (Chris Chan Yiu-shing), defendant #2 (Cheng Wei-shing) and another person were at the old studio in Hon Chung. Chan and Cheng mixed three kinds of materials (potassium nitrate, sugar and AB glue) into a McDonald's cup. The bottom of the cup was lit with a lighter. A red light and thick white smoke appeared for 30 to 60 seconds. Man said that they spend about 6 hours there that day.

Man spoke about the National Independent Party. He said that the party convener was 20-something-year-old Louis whom he met at the first meeting. Man said that a middle-aged man named Ryan was the treasurer who collects $100 per member each month. Man had paid twice. On the third occasion, Man wanted to drop out. Besides he didn't have the money on him anyway. So Ryan told him to pay next time.

Man said that the party has a scientific research group which specializes on researching chemical weapons. Man only knows about the researching and manufacturing of smoke bombs, and does not know how anything else. Man said that defendants #1, #2, #3 and OI are members of that group. He said that the party has a special hand sign and slogan, which were demonstrated in meetings but never used publicly. In the video, Man demonstrated how to extend his right hand from his chest outwards and yelling "Resist valiantly!"

The prosecutor then showed the video of how the police re-enacted the crime scene at the Ho Chung studio.

(Oriental Daily) October 18, 2017.

Organized Crime Triad Bureau constable Yau Shu-ming was asked by the defense whether there was a "secret conversation" prior to defendant #5 Man Ting-lock giving a video statement. Specifically, it was alleged that Yau shut the door and used foul language to tell Man: "If you took part in bomb-making, you must admit it." Man denied so doing. Yau pulled Man's hair and said: "You still deny it!" A colleague of Yau slapped Man and cursed him out. Man then said: "It was not a bomb ... but I will say whatever you want me to say."

The defense said that Yau took out a piece of paper on which were written the questions that will be used in the video interview. Yau taught Man how to answer the questions. Yau said: "It is no help even if you maintain silence, because you can't deny it when the other defendants admit it." Yau denied that this ever happened.

The defense said that Yau and three other constables took Man to another police station to make a second video interview. Yau showed photos of the plastic boxes to Man, who said that he has never seen them before. Yau said: "How can you not have seen it? Your fingerprints have been found on them. You can't deny this." Yau then cursed Man out and elbowed Man on his chest. So Man admitted that he had seen the boxes. Yau showed a piece of paper on which the questions for the video interview were written and taught Man how to answer. Yau denied that this ever happened.

The defense said that in the first video interview, Man said that he had been to the ATV studio twice before to look for ghosts, but he did not remember the dates or the companions. In the second video interview, he remembered the dates and the companions being the co-defendants. Did Yau find it odd? Did he follow up? Yau said that there was nothing surprising about remembering some things that you couldn't remember before.

(Oriental Daily) October 20, 2017.

Today, the prosecution summoned Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau to testify. Lai said that he and his supervisor went to the ATV studio in Ho Chung to inspect the suspected explosives. Later his supervisor ordered Lai to proceed to the home of defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli at 2am on June 15.

Lai found acetone, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, potassium nitrate, sugar and five fluorescent light tube heads next to Pennelli's bed. Lai cleared all other persons from the scene, donned protective gear and checked the materials. Lai found that there was no immediate danger. He therefore ordered other police officers to take the materials back to the laboratory.

(Oriental Daily) October 23, 2017.

Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau was asked about the test results on six types of explosives found in Rizzy Pennelli's home. After finding the flurescent light tube, Lai discovered that there were electric wires inside. Once connected to battery, the light tube emitted heat. Further testing showed that the setup can be used as a "hot wire" to set of an explosive. Lai said that these light tubes have been modified and are not otherwise available in the streets.

Lai said that the acetone, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, potassium nitrate and sugar can be used for oxidation to cause dynamite to explode. In particular, mixing potassium nitrate with sugar will yield a fireworks effect. Lai said that the coffee machine in Pennelli's room can be used to ground the sugar down into fine powder to be mixed with the potassium nitrate for even better fireworks effect.

Lai's report indicated that these ingredients can be used to produce TATP. But certain other ingredients are required, and these were not found in Pennelli's home. Thus, there is no evidence that Pennelli manufactured any TATP himself.

Lai found a notebook with the words "Redneck Rocket," "scientific progress," "remote control," "next to the pool," "Cartoon Avenue of the Stars," "8:30-10:30", etc.

(Oriental Daily) October 23, 2017.

Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau said that there is no consensus among experts about just what constitutes a fireworks effect. Lai admitted that he did not consult the Explosives Ordinance when he wrote his report.

The defense questioned how Lai conduct his testing. For example, Lai had not used the batteries found in Rizzy Pennelli's home but used brand new batteries to connect to the fluorescent light tube instead in order to ignite black powder. Since there was no black powder in Penenelli's home, this test proves nothing.

Lai admitted that he chose the testing method himself and that there was no black powder in Pennelli's home. Before he chose  his method, he sought approval from his supervisor. The purpose of the test was to check if the equipment can produce a fireworks effect, and most bomb-makers would have done it this way.

(Oriental Daily) October 24, 2017.

The five defendants are Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wei-shing, Rizzy Pennelli, Woo Kai-fu and Man Ting-lock. Today, the prosecutor questioned Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau about whether his opinion on the potential impact of 28 grams of TATP was influenced by the charge. Lai said that his opinion was based solely upon the quantity that he was told out. Lai admitted that he had not found any TATP-based products. Lai also agreed that aluminum powder and potassium nitrate have other legal uses apart from making explosives.

(Oriental Daily) October 26, 2017.

Inspector Wong Chun-yip was cross-examined by defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli's lawyer. The police held a press conference and released inaccurate information? Wong disagreed. The lawyer said that the police produced guns found at the scene and told the reporters that the chemicals found at the scene were ingredients to make TATP explosives.

The lawyer pointed out that the so-called guns were plastic toys used in war games and that the police never found any TATP at the scene. So nobody was killed/injured and the only property damage came as a result of the police exploding a small device at the scene.

Wong Chun-yip said that he does not remember whether he was at the press conference. The police found the guns but they did not have time to test them yet. Therefore the police did not realize that these were toy guns. Wong agreed that the police did not find any TATP, but they did find some chemicals that can be turned into TATP.

The lawyer said that Wong attended the press conference, but he is now forgetting because he realized that the police released inaccurate information that was very unfair to the defendants. Wong disagreed.

(Oriental Daily) October 30, 2017.

Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing said that they will not summon any witness and they won't testify themselves either. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli chose to testify for himself.

Pennelli said that he had completed studies in England for an aerospace engineering baccalaureate. He returned to Hong Kong in September 2014 and took part in Occupy Central working at a supply station. He was introduced to a Whatsapp group. In October 2014, he contact a man named Danny Cole (Chinese name Choi Chi-heng) and met with Choi in November 2014. The prosecutor had admitted that this case was based upon information from a police informer. However, the prosecutor did not identify that informer. Pennelli believes that Choi is the police informer.

Pennelli said that Choi is an active member of the Whatsapp group. Choi introduced Pennelli to many other people, including Hui Ka-ki (Pennelli's girlfriend at the time of his arrest), defendant #5 Man Ting-lok and a man named Louis. Through Louis, Pennelli joined a Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan Political Information Network Exchange group. This group was tied to the National Independent Party in March 2015. But Pennelli did not say what that tie was nor did he admit that he was a member of the National Independent Party.

Pennelli said that the group had social functions, sometimes playing music in band rooms. He said that Louis also introduced members to bring gold bars and electronic parts to Japan to earn money to make films for the group. Group members were also able to travel to Japan for free. Pennelli had done it himself. The group record also showed that the members took part in the Tuen Mun anti-parallel traders demonstration. Pennelli admitted that he was at the scene of the demonstration, but said that he was there to visit friends and not to demonstrate.

Pennelli said that Choi came to his house three times in December 2014. On the first time on December 12, Choi came to play music and Pennelli let Choi use his computer to locate musical scores. Afterwards the police found out that the computer had been used to search for websites that teach people how to build smoke bombs. On the third time on December 31, Choi claimed to know magic tricks and asked Pennelli to take a freeze pack from the Occupy Central supply station. He mixed it with sugar and explained that the freeze pack contained potassium nitrate which becomes rocket fuel when mixed with sugar. Choi also mentioned that Pennelli should study the very cute TATP, but Pennelli ignored that. A few days before the arrest, Choi asked Pennelli directly to make smoke bombs but Pennelli refused.

After the police arrested Pennelli, they found large amounts of acetone in Pennelli's home. Pennelli explained that the acetone was purchased as fuel for Choi's toy cars. Pennelli said that Choi told him that the 100-meter straight road outside the Pennelli home was good for toy cars. So Pennelli bought the acetone as fuel. But until the arrest, Choi had not brought toy cars over to try.

On the night of June 14, Pennelli said that he wanted to try welding with defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing. He said that in April 2015, Cheung told him that he wanted to build an iron roof on his rooftop and needed Pennelli's help. For the sake of environmental conservation, Pennelli decided to investigate how to manufacture aluminum flake at home instead of buying it. This can be done by mixing aluminum with oxidized iron particles made with potassium nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, a coating machine and a homemade vacuum steamer. On the night of June 14, Pennlli and Cheng went to experiment at the ATV studio in Ho Chung. They heated the aluminum flake until it gave out light, and then pressed an iron board until it was welded onto the metal frame. But when they left, they were surrounded and arrested by more than a dozen police officers.

Pennelli said that Choi recommended the ATV studio to him as the site for experimentation. On June 9 (five days before the arrest), Pennelli had met with Choi in a park in Jordan district when they discussed the experiment. At the time, Hui Kai-ki, defendant #4 Woo Kai-fu and defendant #5 Man Tink-lok were also present. Pennelli said that there were a number of triad-looking men with blonde dyed hair and tattoos in the park. Two policemen entered the park without looking at the men and checked the ID's of Pennelli and company. He heard the police ask Choi: "You look familiar. How come you show up here?"

(Sing Tao Daily http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/551508-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF-%E4%BA%9E%E8%A6%96%E8%A0%94%E6%B6%8C%E7%89%87%E5%BB%A0%E7%88%86%E7%82%B8%E5%93%81%E6%A1%88+%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%EF%BC%9A%E5%86%92%E7%99%BD%E7%85%99%E5%BE%8C%E8%AD%A6%E5%AF%9F%E8%A1%9D%E5%87%BA ) October 30, 2017.

Rizzy Pennelli said that Danny Cole asked him to manufacture smoke bombs one to two weeks before the arrest. Pennelli had no interest whatsoever. The police found a sticker in Pennelli's home with the word TATP written on it. Pennelli explained that Danny Cole told him that this is "cute stuff" and told him to research it. So Pennelli wrote it down. Pennelli said: "I think that he was more interested than I was."

Pennelli said that defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing wanted to weld an iron cover for his roof. At first, Pennelli wanted to manufacture his own thermite. But Cheng couldn't wait and went out to purchase commercial thermite. Pennelli said that he has never tried welding with thermite himself and was worried about causing a fire. So he asked Danny Cole whether there was any place for which there is no worry about causing a fire. Danny Cole suggested the abandoned ATV studio in Ho Chung.

Pennelli and Pang went to the ATV studio. Cheng placed the thermite on the metal frame and heated it. He also placed an iron plate on top of the thermite. There was light and whitish smoke for 30 to 40 seconds. As Pennelli and Cheng packed up to leave, Pennelli saw a person downstairs in the open area. They made eye contract. Shortly afterwards, a group of men charged in and said: "Police! Don't leave!" Pennelli said that he immediately raised his hands and said: "Cool it! Cool it!" A number of policemen came over and held him. They placed a hood over his head, handcuffed him and removed his backpack.

Pennelli was kept there for about 30 minutes. The police asked him to provide the access code to his mobile phone. He refused. The police hit him in the ears, stomach and private parts. They put their knees on his neck, causing breathing difficulty. They said: "This is your final chance to become state's witness. If you cooperate, we will spare you." They asked: "Who is the mastermind behind the scene?" Pennelli did not answer because he didn't know what the police mean. And they continued to beat him.

At midnight, the police took Pennelli back to his home. Two hours later, a bomb removal expert arrived. Everybody was cleared out. Pennelli was allowed back at 7am. Pennelli said that he had applied to become a police inspector and also at the ICAC. The police officer found the application letters in his computer and were astonished: "Huh?"

(Oriental Daily) October 31, 2017.

Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli said that the police informer Danny Cole (Choi Chi-heng) asked him to manufacture twelve smoke bombs. Pennelli replied: "You're crazy" and ignored the request. Pennelli said that he does not agree with this method of protest.

Pennelli said that he met regularly with Choi, who came to Pennelli's residence to demonstrate a ninja vanishing act. Choi used ice packs to produce a large amount of smoke but Choi did not vanish. Pennelli said that the chemicals that the police found in his backpack and home have legitimate uses; for example, potassium nitrate is used to manufacture ice packs.

Pennelli said that he is not a member of the National Independent Party. In fact, he is not sure what the National Independent Party is about. He said that he first encountered defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing at the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan group meeting on December 17, 2014. The attendees were people interested in political issues in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. They discussed the Sunflower movement in Taiwan and the Occupy movement in Hong Kong.

Pennelli explained that he and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing went to the home of defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing on May 27, 2015. Chan said that he will demonstrate an electrolysis experiment which can be used in welding.

(Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017.

Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli testified that he was a volunteer at a supply station during Occupy Central. He was introduced to a Whatsapp group which included a man named Choi Chi-heng. Choi introduced Pennelli to defendant #5 Man Ting-lok and a man named Louis who is the founder of the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan Political Information Network Exchange. Pennelli said that this was a Facebook group. At the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan meetings, he got to know the other defendants. Louis said that Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan is tied to the National Independent Party.

Pennelli said that Choi send him a text message in early June 2015 to ask him to manufacture 12 smoke bombs. Choi said that these were to be used at demonstrators. Pennelli replied: "Crazy!" and ignored Choi. Pennelli said that Choi mentioned 617. Pennelli understood this to be June 17 when the Legislative Council votes on the constitutional reform bill. Pennelli said that this text message no longer resides on his telephone because the app automatically removes the records. Pennelli believes that Choi is a police informer.

(Oriental Daily) November 2, 2017.

Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli testified that the text found in his mobile phone was downloaded from a Facebook group. So it would be unfair for Pennelli to be held responsible for what others wrote.

The prosecutor said that Pennelli used a mixer to ground down sugar to mix with potassium nitrate to create smoke bombs. Pennelli denied it. Pennelli said that when the police searched his home, they intentionally did not take the iron oxide. He said that one police officer picked up the plastic box containing the iron oxide and said: "This guy is breeding ants?" Pennelli said that he did not understand why the police officer thought so.

The prosecutor read out the contents of the stickers in Rizzy Pennelli's notebook. There were terms suc as "electronic detonator," "modify the rocket" and "remote control." Pennelli said that the police informer Choi Chi-heng told him to search for the relevant information. Choi said that the electronic detonator is the trigger.

The prosecutor said that Pennelli's mobile phone contained texts about modifying model cars: "Take off the left engine and install the electronic detonator." Another text mentioned: "Plan 1: Set fire to the trash bin. Plan 2: We must make either a color bomb or a smoke bomb tomorrow. Who is going to help?" The prosecutor said that Pennelli kept these texts in order to manufacture TATP, smoke bombs and detonators. Pennelli denied this.

(Oriental Daily) November 3, 2017.

According to Rizzy Pennelli's mother Tang Mei-yi, she had worked at the Italian Consulate for more than 20 years. On the night of June 14, 2015, the police brought Rizzy Pennelli to their Sai Kung home. At the time, Rizzy Pennelli had injuries on his head and neck. The police searched the home. Bomb removal experts came afterwards.

Tang said that a senior police officer told her that they found TATP materials at the home. Later a younger police officer tried to get her to persuade Rizzy Pennelli to "admit it" because the penalty for such a big crime will be at least 7 years. But Tang said that she does not believe that her son would do that sort of thing.

Defendant #4 and #5 chose not to testify themselves. They did not summon any witness.

At this point, the court has finished hearing the evidence.

(Oriental Daily) November 9, 2017.

At summation, the prosecution said that it was necessary to prove that the five defendants actually manufactured bombs. It is only necessary to prove that they had the raw materials that can cause explosions. The prosecution said that the defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu both went to the ATV studio, and the police observed light and white smoke coming out. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli's mobile phone had information about how to build a smoke bomb from those raw materials. Pennelli said that a police informr asked him to manufacture a smoke bomb, but the prosecutor said that this man showed Pennelli how to make a smoke bomb so there was no need for him to ask Pennelli to do it for him. Defendant #5 Man Ting-lok admitted on video that they made about 10 smoke bombs at the ATV studio.

Chan Yiu-sing's lawyer said that the defendants are entitled to legally own those chemicals and they have legal uses. Furthermore the plastic box found may have been left there by persons other than Chan. Furthermore, the contents of that box were completely different from whatever chemicals found by the police in Chan's home. Therefore, there is no evidence that Chan took part in the manufacturing of explosives.

(Oriental Daily) November 10, 2017.

Chan Yiu-shing's lawyer said that the police officer told police radio that he saw flashing lights on the first floor. Several months later, the police officer added that he saw smoke. However, the defendant claimed to be testing smoke bombs in the men's room on the ground floor. That location is sealed tight, so light and smoke cannot be seen. Clearly the police testimony is suspect.

Chan's lawyer said that there were some photos of smoke-emitting burning materials in Chan's computers. But the photos do not mean anything, because nobody knows who took them who knows where and when. As for the list of TATP materials in Chan's computer, it means nothing either.

As possession of explosive materials, Chan's lawyer said that defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli testified that he was helping defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing to weld an iron roof and Chan knew how to manufacture thermite. So Chan got the materials in order to teach Cheung how to weld. Even if the jury does not buy this, the fact is that the materials were found on the corridor outside Chan's unit so that they may be placed there by other persons unknown. Furthermore, the expert said that the amount was too small to manufacture explosives. Therefore Chan should get the benefit of doubt.

Cheng Wai-shing's lawyer said that the prosecution expert witnesses have no expertise in the relevant chemicals. Under cross-examination, they said that they didn't know and weren't sure. Therefore these people are of no help to the jury.

Rizzy Pennelli's lawyer asked the jury not to hold prejudice against social activists such as his client who worked as an Occupy Central volunteer. The lawyer said that the prosecution tried to scare the citizenry by invoking the National Independent Party with materials that can be used to manufacture TATP explosives. But the prosecution could not produce any evidence of manufactured TATP, and therefore switched to charging them with manufacturing smoke bombs. Defendant #5 Man Ting-lok claimed that they have made 10 or 8 smoke bombs. But in the end the police found nothing. The lawyer also questioned why the police did not arrest everybody on May 28 when they were supposedly testing smoke bombs.

Wu Kai-fu's lawyers said that the police can only prove that Wu went with the other defendants to the abandoned ATV studio in the early morning of May 28. It was not known when Wu left. The police said that they observed flashes at 2am. But Man Ting-tok testified that they had to retrieve certain materials and the testing began at 5am. There is no direct evidence against Wu after that date.

(Oriental Daily) November 13, 2017.

Man Ting-lok'a lawyer said that although his client's interview with the police was videotaped, the jury needs to consider whether his client was telling the truth.

The lawyer said that the police officer told Man that "You said that  you have 10 ... 8 smoke bombs" but Man had never said so in the video. The police officer could not explain how he knew. Therefore the lawyer said that there must have been a prior conversation that was not videotaped.

In the other two video interviews,  at first Man could not remember either the date of the ATV studio visit or the other persons present. Then he remembered that it was May 28 which was consistent with what the police officer testified. The lawyer pointed out that the jury needs to consider why Man suddenly remembered these things.

The lawyer said that even if the jury does not agree that Man was coerced to make a video-taped confession after being beaten by the police, Man never admitted that he took part in the manufacture of explosives. Man only said that he heard and saw people manufacturing smoke bombs. That does not mean that the conspired himself to manufacture explosives. Even if Man joined the National Independent Party, it does not mean that he took part in this crime.

(Oriental Daily) November 14, 2017.

The judge gave instructions to the jury of five men and two women. The jury is to use commonsense to consider the evidence in the case and not be swayed by personal feelings or moral concepts. During the trial, the political positions and preferences of the defendants were mentioned, but the jury should not be influenced.

The judge said that certain other individuals were mentioned. The jury should ignore the reasons why those individuals did not appear in court.

The judge said that the relevant ordinance does not require whether explosives were actually manufactured. Instead it was sufficient that the materials can be used to manufacture explosives.

On the count of conspiracy, the actions were conducted in secrecy so that there may not be any other witnesses. The jury needs to be convinced that the defendants came to an agreement to manufacture explosive materials with the effect of fireworks and that they took concrete action. It does not matter when they joined in or backed out or whether they never produced anything. A conspiracy exists as soon as they reached an agreement.

On the count of possession of restricted explosives, the judge said that there are three factors: (1) the materials were in the possession of the defendants; (2) the materials were explosives or materials that can be used to manufacture explosives; (3) the defendants have no legitimate reasons to possess those material. The jury needs to consider the count separately for each defendant, because each defendant have his own explanation as to why possess the materials.

(Oriental Daily) November 16, 2017.

The jury of five men and two women began deliberations at 930am. More than six hours later, they came back with two questions to the judge.

The first question pertains to the restricted explosives. The judge explained that the decision consists of three factors. First of all, they must decide if the defendants possessed these so-called explosives. If so, they must decide whether these are indeed explosives. If so, they decide if the defendants has legitimate reasons to possess these explosives. A guilty verdict comes if all three factors hold.

The second question pertains to whether the uncontested expert reports can be relied upon to decide whether the defendants had legitimate reasons to possess the explosives. the judge said that the jury needs to decide on whether they trust those expert reports.

(Oriental Daily) November 17, 2017.

After a day and a half of deliberations, a jury of five men and two women came to a verdict. Defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli were found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture explosives while the other three defendants were found not guilty. Defendant #1 Chen Yiu-shing and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing were found guilty of possession of restricted explosives. Defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli was found guilty of two counts of possession of restricted explosives.

Defendants #4 Wu Kai-fu and #5 Man Ting-lok were released immediately.

Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing is 36 years old and unemployed at the time of his arrest. He has eight prior criminal records, including one for manufacturing explosives for which he was sentenced to community service. Defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing is 31 years old and unemployed at the time of arrest. He has another criminal record which was committed while on probation for this case (see The National Independent Party). Defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli is 24-years-old and unemployed at the time of the arrest. He has no prior criminal record.

More at Occupy Central Part 9


More at:

Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5 (401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)

Occupy Central Part 8 (701-800)
Occupy Central Part 9 (801-)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com