(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).]

(Oriental Daily with video) February 18, 2017.

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

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

Videos:

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

- Here are the media crowd counts:

NOW TV - "More than 200 people"

Commercial Radio: "Several hundred people"

Headline Daily: "Several hundred people"

Apple Daily: "One thousand persons"

- (Apple Daily) February 19, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Judiciary.gov.hk)

DCCC 980/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 980 OF 2015

____________

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

____________

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation

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

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

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

Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D. J. DUFTON) District Judge

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

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

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

[4] CACC 334/2007.

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

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

Internet comments:

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

- (Guide to Judicial Conduct)

Impartiality

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

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

The apparent bias test

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

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

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

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

Here is one of those cases:

(Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

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

According to the police officer Wong Chak-fai, the defendant came out of the crowd and threw a brick at Wong from ten meters away. The brick hit Wong on the left knee, causing bleeding. The defendant fled, but he was subdued by other police officers present at the scene. Under police caution, Chan admitted that he had come to support the demonstrators and picked up a brick to throw at the police.

In mitigation, the defense said that yesterday is Chan's birthday. On the evening of the Internet, Chan heard about the incident and went down to Mong Kok to offer support. He committed the crime in a moment of excitement. The defense said that Chan did not intend to engage in violence when he left home to head towards Mong Kok, and that Chan cannot control the others who were digging out the bricks from the pavement. The magistrate asked: "Can he control his own hand and feet, and their actions?" The defense concurred, and said that Chan is willing to accept the consequences.

The magistrate Heung Shuk-han ordered Chan Ho-man remanded in custody pending reports from the probation officer and the Detention Centre.

(Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

This morning magistrate Heung Shuk-han received a package today. When she opened it, she found a 5-inch box cutter inside. She immediately told the court to call the police.

(Metro Radio) January 9, 2017.

Magistrate Heung Shuk-han sentenced Chan Ho-man to an 18-month probation order. She said that the three weeks of pre-sentencing detention should constitute a profound lesson on the defendant who spent his 18th birthday behind bars.

The magistrate characterized the defendant as "having a volatile personality, easily influenced by others, immature thinking, lack of good judgment, weak in self-control, dim awareness of abiding by the law and directionless in life." Therefore she believes that he acted in a moment of rashness for which he should be held personally responsible. Since the defendant is repentant and has no prior records, an 18-month probation order with night curfews is appropriate. The magistrate said that the box cutter incident did not figure in her ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- (SCMP) June 7, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- (Wen Wei Po) February 18, 2017.

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

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

- Here is public perception:

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

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

- Here is how to see justice being done correctly:

Basic Law Article 48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ming Pao) February 17, 2017.

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2016.

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(The Standard) February 15, 2017.

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

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

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

The defendants did not give evidence or call any witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EJ Insight) February 16, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it is difficult to make both sides happy.

Internet comments:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

- More great marketing from Schick:

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

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

- DigDeeper Facebook

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

(SCMP) February 16, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A department spokesman said it would take suitable action.

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

- Clifton Ko Chi Sum's Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I can predict what Kevin Yam will do.

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

Yam response: I have not seen that statement before.

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

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

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

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

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

- Here is another case:

(Oriental Daily) July 30, 2015.

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

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

n. There are essentially two types of contempt:

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

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

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

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

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

Criticisms of judges and their verdict are not covered here.

- Cartoon: You are both for and against it.

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

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

(SCMP) November 10, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) January 6, 2015.

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

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

- Epimenides paradox:

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

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

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

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

Here is Anna Chan:

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

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


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

- Hong Kong Basic Law

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

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

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

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

- Thoughts on contempt of court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, it is so confusing!

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

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

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

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


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

- (SilentMajority.hk) February 15, 2017.

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

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

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

Chapman To Facebook


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

9UP News Facebook (note: spoof)

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

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

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

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

(PopVote)

Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017

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

  1. Civil Nomination Stage:

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

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

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

  2. Civil Referendum:

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

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

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

    (so on and so forth)

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

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

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


Results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Standard) February 14, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Cartoon of personal data thief

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

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

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

- (SpeakoutHK) February 14, 2017.

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

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

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

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

- (Bastille Post) February 15, 2017.

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

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

(SCMP) February 13, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 13, 2017.

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

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

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Ming Pao) February 16, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- What is Anthony Wong's understanding of copyright? A newspaper took a photo of an individual. Anthony Wong obtained permission from the newspaper to use that photo. Does that mean that the photo of the individual can be used in a promotional poster? If yes, this changes the entire cost structure of the notion of celebrity endorsement/sponsorship. It means that if I take a photo of Anthony Wong, I can use it to promote anything that I want without asking for his permission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isis Lee Facebook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kong Wai Sang Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kong Kwai Sang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Milhouse Chau B Facebook

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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


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


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

- League of Social Democrats policy platform in 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) February 10, 2017.

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

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

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

(SCMP) Feburary 10, 2017.

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

Internet comments:

Wen Wei Po cartoon

Deprivation of rights

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

(SCMP) August 30, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(HKG Pao) February 9, 2017.

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) February 10, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 10, 2017.

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

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

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

(Apple Daily) February 10, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 13, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) February 13, 2017.

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

(HKG Pao) February 14, 2017.

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

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

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

(Apple Daily) February 14, 2017.

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

(Oriental Daily) February 16, 2017.

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) February 16, 2017.

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) February 8, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want independence/self-determination, then it makes no sense to be petitioning Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. You don't acknowledge or trust their authority in this matter. So you have to petition the ex-sovereign (United Kingdom) and the most power nation in the history of mankind (United States). And because you need them for favors, you are going to avoid any criticism of them.

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

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

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

- Hong Kong Indigenous' Facebook

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 8, 2017.

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

- Did Leung and Yau complete their Oaths of Office?

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 12, 2016.

Kenneth Chen Wei-on, the top official of the Legislative Council Secretariat, rejected the oaths of incoming lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang, Yau Wai-ching, and Edward Yiu Chung-yim. All three added new phrases to their oaths. Chen questioned whether Leung and Yau understood their oaths, as they displayed a flag that read Hong Kong is not China potentially contradicting the oaths wording.

However, Baggio Leung insisted he and Yau have completed their oaths, and it was the responsibility of the LegCo secretariat to confirm them. Both Leung and Yau once read China as Chee-na. Yau referred to the Peoples Republic of China as the Peoples Refucking of Chee-na.

In response, Leung claimed that the different pronunciation of words in their oaths were because of their accents. He said he has an Ap Lei Chau accent.

According to the LegCos rules of procedures, no Member of the Council shall attend a meeting or vote therein until he has made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11). The Ordinance stipulates that the oaths of LegCo members should be taken at the first sitting of the session after a general election and before the election of the LegCo president which shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council.

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at Occupy Central Part 7


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+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com