(v3.0)

Section 1 of 3:  Recommended Photos/Videos/Reading

Global (in English) Greater China (in English) Greater China (in Chinese)
The Sunday Times' Snowden Story is Journalism at its worst Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
Sins of the THree Pashas
Edward Luttwak, LRB
Media Lessons from Snowden Reporting
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
Is the Western Media Balanced on Any Scale? Joe Emersberger, Telesur
What an NYPD Spy Copter Reveals About the FBI's Spy Planes Kim Zetter, WIRED
Who Needs Edward Snowden? Mattathias Schwarz, The New Yorker
A Partnership with China to Avoid World War George Soros, NYROB
Did China Really Say War With the United States is Inevitable?
Peter Lee, CounterPunch
Protest movements split in the new Hong Kong Jamie Kenny, The National
Finnegans Wake becomes best seller in China The Guardian
The Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, Reconsidered Peter Lee, CounterPoint

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

Section 2 of 3:  Brief comments

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

[Administrative Notice: Gone for three weeks. The frog gets out of the well to see the world, so to speak.]

(Sina.com.hk) July 3, 2015.

Almost every Hongkongers has been to Mong Kok, a fashion centre of Hong Kong. Due to high rents and shifts in consumption patterns, fewer Mong Kok malls now cater to small boutiques. In the last two years, King Wah Centre and Gala Place have both brought in large-sized chain stores to steady their rental incomes.

As you walk down Sai Yeung Choi Street South, there are three fashion malls: Gala Place, King Wah Centre and Mong Kok Centre where many people can buy at good prices. Two years ago, King Wah Centre got rid of the boutiques and rented out to the Sincere Department Store. Last month, Gala Place got rid of the small boutiques and rented out its lower three floors to transnational fashion store H&M.  According to information, the rental income soared 100% to HK$ 9 million per month. Since the average H&M items sells for $300, they will have to sell 1,000 items per day in order to pay the rent without counting wages and other operational expenses.

Mong Kok Centre is still holding firm. But more renters are leaving than renting. Last month, about 20 renters declined to renew and closed. So there was the rare sight of empty stalls in the mall. Even though the owners are reducing rents, there were no takers. Things are worse now than during the SARS period.

In recently years, the rents at these malls have gone to over $100 per square feet per month, even as much as $300 per square feet per month. The typical rent is at least $25,000 per month. The boutiques sell items typically at less than $100, so they find it hard to afford the high rents.

For the owners, their renters can only take so much rental increases. Furthermore, it is hard to manage a large number of boutiques. This is what motivates the malls to change the business model and increase rental income. When King Wah Centre rented out to Sincere, the rent was $6.5 million per month, which is almost 200% more than renting to a large number of boutiques.

The demise of the fashion malls was also affected by the change in consumption patters. Those boutiques that offer cheap prices are facing competition from online shops. More Fast Fashion retailers are showing up, and they offer better quality and prices than the boutiques together with post-sales servicing. This is why Gala Place is bringing in H&M to replace the boutiques.

Internet comments:

- Nobody wants to go to Mong Kok anymore. They only have dispensaries, electronics stores, jewelry stores, etc. What people really want are the small take-out restaurants that sell egg waffles, curry fish balls and beef entrails. You can't find them in Mong Kok anymore.

- Dear keyboard warrior, when was the last time that went to Mong Kok? Just go to Dundas Street (between Fa Yuen Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South), Sin Tat Plaza (Argyle Street), Mong Kok Road (by the Goldfish Market), Newport Cinema (Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street), Bute Street (between Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Goldfish Market). You have to be blind not to see the egg waffles, curry fish balls, beef entrails, fried chicken, grilled satay skewers ...

- It is one thing to have the Bird Market, the Flower Market and the Goldfish Market in Mong Kok, being those unique places in Hong Kong with a high concentration of specialty stores. But there is nothing special about curry fish balls etc because you can get them anywhere (Tsuen Wan, Causeway Bay, Siu San Wan, Sheung Wan, wherever). There is no point in turning Mong Kok into a place with 500 fish ball/beef entrails stalls.

- The demise of Mong Kok Centre came about for two major reasons. The first reason is Occupy Mong Kok. When regular customers found it inconvenient to come, it becomes a habit not to come. The second reason is Chinese Communist oppression in the form of Taobao, because you can find everything you need quicker, cheaper and more convenience over there.

- Who would want to go there to shop when a bunch of Yellow Ribbon Zombies yell "I want genuine universal suffrage" every night? Why would a business want to rent a space there?

- Temple Street is quintessentially local. Do you see hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers flocking there every night? Please do not kid yourself that Hongkongers really want only localism! For reference, see HKTV -- people can talk the talk, but they have to actually walk the walk.

- Yes, the Localists said that Hong Kong needs to build up an agricultural industry in order to become self-sufficient and therefore Hongkongers should move out to North East New Territories to grow organic vegetables. That's all talk and no action.

- If there is a huge demand for the products sold in the several hundred boutiques in Mong Kok Centre, that mall would be hundreds of thousands of customers spending hundreds of millions of dollars every day. But there are too few customers to even allow the boutiques to cover rent. If you want to place the blame, it goes to people who won't shop there. And it is their right to shop or not shop.

- The reason why business is falling in Mong Kok is that there are large shopping malls everywhere else. There is less need to go to Mong Kok.
- If there is no need to to go Mong Kok, then why does Hong Kong Indigenous/Hong Kong Localism/Civic Passion want to drive the mainland tourists away from Mong Kok. What do they care if the place has only dispensaries and jewelry stores if they don't go there?

- Mong Kok is not even the Central Business District. The Central Business District of Hong Kong is in Admiralty/Central. The commercial rents are the highest in Hong Kong because of the demand from multinational companies. Following the logic of the Localists, they should be out there chasing the foreigner companies away to make way for low-rent curry fish ball stalls and light manufacturing factories (like those who make plastic Christmas trees).

- Nostalgic about the bygone days on Nathan Road? When I was young, there were rattan furniture stores, coffin stores, joss paper goods stores, paper kite stores, etc. Are these businesses viable today? Besides it's all talk and no action anyway, because no young person would ever work in these places.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

On Sai Yeung Choi Street South, someone wrote the letters RBS (or RB?) on the side of a Hong Kong Police van. The police obtained the surveillance video from a store and replayed the entire action. In this 26-second video, two foreigners in white and black clothes respectively stood in front of an electronics store and looked around. When they saw that no one was paying attention, the foreigner in black went up to write the letters while the foreigner in white filmed the action with his mobile phone. The two men then left in a hurry. At 8pm that evening, the police arrested two Australians, a 23-year-old named Colk and a 22-year-old named Adamson.

According to the information, this police van was parked outside the Bank Centre at the intersection of Nelson Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South. It was going to serve as the command centre for the Songkran (water splashing) festival that the Localists announced. This was no ordinary Songkran because people on the Internet were suggesting using abrasives to attack people, and the police took these threats seriously.

Internet comments:

- I don't know what "RB" stands for. I do know that in Chinese, "SB" stands for "stupid cunts."
- A less common usage of "RB" in Chinese is to "fuck a cunt." Were those Aussies horny?

- What is "RBS" or "RB?"? The Australians have last names Colk and Adamson which do not contain the letters R or B. Google search says that the most commonly cited RBS for Australia is the Royal Bank of Scotland. Of all the things that I want to scratch on a police van, the "Royal Bank of Scotland" is not one of those.
- Could RB be short for "rubbish"?

- This shows that Hong Kong is a surveillance society where people can't even have the privacy when they write graffiti on police vans. I think I'll immigrate to Australia as soon as possible, because they have freedom and democracy.
- Sai Yeung Choi Street South is probably the densest surveillance spot in the universe due to the acid attacks.

(EJinsight) June 29, 2015.

Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming has called on Hong Kong people to join the July 1 protest to demand a relaunch of the political reform process after lawmakers vetoed the Beijing-backed proposal for the 2017 chief executive election, Apple Daily reported on Monday. Lee said a huge turnout will exert pressure on the government to restart the process. Echoing Lees call, Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said the public should participate in the march to show Beijing that Hong Kong people will not give up their fight for genuine universal suffrage.

According to the Civil Human Rights Front, around 100,000 people are expected to turn up for the march.

Lee said fighting for genuine universal suffrage has been the theme of each years July 1 march. With that objective yet to be achieved, people should come out on Wednesday to pursue the fight, he said. Lee noted that there are still two years before 2017, giving the government enough time to table another political reform proposal that would either ignore election framework issued by the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee on Aug. 31, 2014, or at least offer a higher degree of democracy.

Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said the July 1 march, aside from seeking to restart the electoral reform process, will also raise other issues, including high property prices and the overloading of the public health system.

Executive Council convenor Lam Woon-kwong said on Sunday he does not see any chance for the the electoral reform process to be restarted within the foreseeable future.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015.

This year the Civil Human Rights Front have set the theme as "Build a democratic Hong Kong, take back the future of our city." The sub-themes include amending the Basic Law and other items. They applied to the police for a 100,000-strong march. However, the consensus is that the turnout will much lower than in recent years and no group has declared Occupy Central II, the police will be marshaling only 3,000 police officers (which is 1/3 of the force amassed for the Legislative Council vote on the constitutional reform proposal."

Since the Civil Human Rights Front is known to deliberately slow down the march, this time the police will clear the way for the lead car so that there can be no excuse. Furthermore, because hot weather is expected, the police will arrange for the marchers to start even before 3pm if the soccer fields are 85% filled already.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015.

Certain Localists have declared that they will hold "water splashing festivals" in Mong Kok, Tuen Mun, Hung Hom and Sha Tin in order to defend Localism. As of noon today, almost 100 people said that they will participate. One netizen suggested: "The dispensaries sell disinfectants which will combust spontaneously when mixed with glyceride oil." Another netizen corrected him: "Spontaneous combustion is too fast. Mustard seeds are better because you don't feel anything at first but 12 hours later your skin will burn."

The police said that they are concerned, because the designated areas are crowded with people. The police remind people to obey the law and look after their personal safety.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

The Civil Human Rights Front planned to start the march at 3pm, but they did not start until 330pm. It is not known whether this has to do with the sparse attendance. The marchers occupied less than one soccer field.

(SCMP) Marchers thin at Victoria Park as July 1 pro-democracy protest kicks off. July 1, 2015.

The annual July 1 march kicked off at Victoria Park at 3pm, with demonstrators set to march on the Hong Kong government headquarters though some pro-democracy activists have predicted a lower turnout.

The Civil Human Rights Front, the organiser of the pro-democracy march, held a rally at Victoria Park in Causeway Bay at 2pm but crowds only filled about one and a half soccer pitches.

With 10 minutes to go till kick-off, the soccer fields near the Causeway Bay entrance to the park were either empty or only filled with a few people including the march organisers, dozens of Falun Gong practitioners and journalists. More people were filing in through the Tin Hau entrance of the park. The crowd began filtering out of the park at about 3.25pm. By 4.30pm, police had reopened Causeway Road, the first part of the march route, to traffic.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2015.

July 1st size estimates

2009: Civil Human Rights Front 76,000; Hong Kong Police 28,000
2010: Civil Human Rights Front 52,000; Hong Kong Police 20,000
2011: Civil Human Rights Front 218,000; Hong Kong Police 54,000
2012: Civil Human Rights Front 400,000; Hong Kong Police 63,000
2013: Civil Human Rights Front 430,000; Hong Kong Police 66,000
2014: Civil Human Rights Front 510,000; Hong Kong Police 98,600
2015: Civil Human Rights Front 48,000; Hong Kong Police 19,650

For 2015, the Hong Kong Police estimated about 6,240 persons started out from Victoria Park. At 3pm, two soccer fields were half-occupied. Therefore the organizers delayed the start and appealed to those who want to join in the middle to come down to Victoria Park to make the starting crowd more presentable.

(Commercial Radio) July 1, 2015.

Hong Kong University Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science professor Paul Yip conducted research along the route and estimated that between 18,000 and 22,000 marched.

(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme) July 1st, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme estimated that 28,000 persons marched.

(SCMP) Protest fatigue and lack of clear goal blamed for slump in July 1 rally turnout. July 1, 2015.

The turnout for the July 1 rally for democracy yesterday plunged to the lowest since 2008, with observers and marchers blaming protest fatigue and the lack of an obvious goal after the rejection of the government's electoral reform package.

The Civil Human Rights Front, the organiser of the annual pro-democracy march, last night put the turnout at 48,000, compared with last year's 510,000. Police said the number of marchers peaked at a mere 19,650, compared with 98,600 last year. The University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme put the turnout at around 28,000, compared with 162,000 last year. Professor Paul Yip Siu-fai, an HKU statistician, estimated around 20,000 people took part in the march.

Front convenor Daisy Chan Sin-ying admitted the turnout was lower than expected. "After the vote on the reform package, there is no burning issue so people may not feel any urgency to protest," she said. But she disagreed it meant people had given up on the fight for democracy or considered the march useless. She also dismissed suggestions that the low turnout indicated a lack of public support for their call for an amendment to the Basic Law.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, attributed it to post-Occupy fatigue and the lack of urgent political issues. "A growing number of protesters also believe the city should no longer stick to peaceful protests in achieving democracy in the wake of the Occupy sit-ins," Choy said.

(Post 852) July 1st, 2015.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced the crowd size for the 2015 July 1st march was 48,000, which is a lot less than the 510,000 for 2014. When you see that apart from the Falun Gong, only soccer fields 4, 5 and 6 have people standing there, you knew this was happening.

The two main themes of the Civil Human Rights Front this year were: "Build democracy in Hong Kong" and "Take back the future of our city." The five slogans were "CY Leung resign," "hold the black police responsible," "rescind the public security rules and regulations", "eliminate the nomination committee" and "amend the Basic Law."

I was not standing at the head of the procession, so I don't know what was happening there. But in the middle and back of the procession, I heard a few isolated "CY Leung resign" but I never heard the other slogans. So the Civil Human Rights Front had a problem this year with publicizing things.

Actually not only the participants but the political parties and groups did not care much about the slogans of the march. Frankly, they were more interested in exhibiting their own products and propaganda.

Last year, the Occupy Movement was the main theme of the July 1st march. Even if the political parties have different positions, they can only react to the Occupy Movement in their own style. So there was a clear theme. But this year the slogans don't have a leading theme. Furthermore, "Amend the Basic Law" and "Build a democratic Hong Kong" are not positions that all political parties and groups concur with.

With respect to the street booths, there were many more local organizations. This is in response to the call for micro-level cultivation in the post-Occupy era. But it is noteworthy that while the Occupy Central with Love and Peace booth caught a lot of attention, it is less so this year. Also, the Federation of Students are less prominent now that half the universities have withdrawn.

Even the pro-establishment booths that were meant to counter the march were non-descriptive.

After the Umbrella Movement and the veto of the constitutional reform bill, it is natural that the number of marchers should fall due to the lack of issues. The carnivalization of the march is not a big problem. When an issue arises, there will be a carnival again. The political parties and social groups need support, and they cannot be criticized for soliciting donations on July 1st.

But the Civil Human Rights Front was even more disappointing than the fall in numbers or the Carnivalization. Given what was happening in the afternoon, there shouldn't be any statements about "hopefully the number of participants will match the same level as last year." They were also open about "amending the Basic Law." Also it was unnecessary to "feel astonishment" that someone would hold a Hong Kong independence flag and promote Hong Kong independence at a time when Localism is so widespread.

(SCMP) Critics have harsh words for Hong Kong's democracy march and rally. July 2, 2015.

While thousands flocked to Victoria Park yesterday to participate in the annual pro-democracy rally and march, there was no shortage of harsh words from their opponents. Some dismissed it as "pointless". Others said they were fed up with the seemingly endless protests of the past year and wanted harmony.

The Civil Human Rights Front, which organised the event, was banking on public discontent with the government after last year's Occupy protests to turn it into another massive anti-government display. The Occupy protesters took over roads in Mong Kok, Admiralty and Causeway Bay to press Beijing to give Hong Kong what they considered "genuine universal suffrage".

Nothing was achieved, though, and the campaign, characterised by violent conflicts between supporters, opponents and police, ended after 79 days.

Yesterday morning in Taikoo Shing, Loren Lau, a 50-year-old administrative officer, said she was not interested in joining the marchers because "they are too extreme". She dismissed the young activists as "spoiled children" who only offered criticism but no solutions. "Democracy doesn't mean you want your way only," she said.

In Central, waiter Edwin Chung Long-win, 20, said his father forced him to join the July 1 rallies in the past, but he did not support the activists' demands and feared the march could degenerate into violence. "Their idea of freedom isn't mine. The 'umbrella movement' was only propaganda. [The protesters] damaged public property and fought with police officers," Chung said.

Accountant Susan Chan, 33, of Causeway Bay, had also marched in the past but said she was fed up with the "pan-democrats' anti-everything attitude" and decided not to take part this year. "I don't quite follow the pan-democrats' logic. When the government allows all people one man, one vote, they say no and reject the political reform. Now they come out and say they will fight for democracy for us," Chan said. "Hong Kong people would have been able to elect our chief executive but for the pan-democrats."

The political reform proposed by the government was voted down 28-8 in the Legislative Council last month after 31 pro-establishment lawmakers walked out in a failed attempt to delay the vote. Without the support of the 27 pan-democrats, the reform package could not get the two-thirds majority in the legislature required for it to pass anyway.

Secondary school teacher William Li, 54, said he did not think protests were effective in pressuring the government. "I have joined several marches after the Occupy movement and the turnout was so low. People seem to have turned to more radical action, like storming the Legislative Council." Li was once a regular at the July 1 marches but decided to stay at home this year.

High school pupil Dominic Wan, 18, chose to spend the day shopping. "We don't have anything to complain about. I'm not too fond of this Occupy thing. I don't believe it's good for Hong Kong. [They] annoy a lot of people. I think Hong Kong is good as it is. I think we depend on China."

Restaurant manager Michael Lee, 45, said: "What I want is a more peaceful Hong Kong. Since the Occupy movement, I have been feeling a sense of insecurity. The city is not as safe as it was before."

(SCMP) We dont want Hong Kong independence: July 1 march organisers refuse to side with localists. July 2, 2015.

The organisers of yesterdays annual Hong Kong pro-democracy rally have distanced themselves from localists advocating independence from China for the city.

Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convener of the Civil Human Rights Front which organised the march, said the group did not think that Hong Kong should seek independence. The front actually does not hold such a view [on Hong Kong independence], she said during an RTHK talk show today.

She said the group, in demanding to amend the Basic Law to solve the citys constitutional and livelihood issues, was a move that followed the one country, two systems framework. The Basic Law gives Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy except for military and diplomatic matters ... The problem is only that the central government is not implementing what is stated in the Basic Law, she said. It is not that there is an urgent need for Hong Kong to seek independence.

Chan made the remarks after a handful of localists joined yesterdays rally, standing in front of the organisers big banner and leading the marchers at one point. The localists brandished the colonial-era Hong Kong flag, a symbol now seen as advocating independence.

She said the front was shocked by the localists action and its stalwarts argued with them in asking that they refrain from trying to lead the march.

Videos:

(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19e0-5TmGRc Victoria Park  crowd
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLeVyJxnYK4 The head of the procession
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7QnQt0J7EQ Falun Gong banner demanding the prosecution of Jiang Zemin

(Bastille Post) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pud-TZ9m9qg

(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ygh0qGqo1w Quarreling between opposite camps

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg7T9HlLHXA Police surrounded the Scholarism station.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRgSs8mcO0 News report

(Passion TImes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1lLMMH-2_k Civic Passion screaming at pro-establishment people

Internet comments:

- Low attendance this year? I am going to bring out the beer and peanuts, and watch how the Yellow Ribbons tell me where the silver lining in the cloud is. Some candidates:

--- They are saving their energy to beat up the police dogs tonight in Mong Kok

--- They are holding acid/water splashing festivals elsewhere (Mong Kok, Sha Tin, etc)

--- July 1st (Wednesday) is only a public holiday and most people have to work

--- It's okay as long as they keep sending the donation checks in. Yon don't have to go to a wedding banquet, but your present must arrive.

--- They are waiting for Lau Wong-fat to show up before they start.

--- They only gave away 300 free-shirts. But that proves the people did not come out here for freebies today.

--- The Chinese Communists re-opened Lai Yuen Amusement Park and drew away the missing people.

--- The world is small small small small

--- Audrey Eu said that fewer people came out because people are no longer worried about the constitutional reform proposal being passed in the Legislative Council.

--- (Oriental Daily) Occupy Central founder Benny Tai said that the number of marchers this year exceeded his expectations. Therefore, you can put aside any idea of low attendance this year. Thank you.
- When there are numerous marchers, Benny Tai said that it is great. When there are very few marchers, Benny Tai says that it is great. Things are always great for Benny Tai.

--- When the June 4th attendance was lower than expected, they said that people were saving themselves for the big show on July 1st. When the July 1st attendance was lower than expected, they said that people were still fatigued from Occupy Central/constitutional reform. What will be the excuse for the next big event, namely the District Council elections in November?

--- Wait, they are predicting a 1.2 million turnout for the anniversary of September 28 when the Hong Kong Police used tear gas against demonstrators. That would be before the November elections.

--- Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau says that there have been too many large assemblies such as the June 4th march and the June 4th candlelight vigil, and so citizens are fatigued. She expressed concern that citizens may come down from heat stroke. Aha, so we now find out that the June 4th events occurred for the first time in 2015, or else all previous ones were held in cool weather.

- Former Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that the low number does not mean that the democratic forces have vanished. It only proves that "when the need arises, there will be resistance." He explained that the citizens do not have any sense of urgency to march because the government's constitutional reform proposal has been vetoed.
- Is Chow trying to say that the citizens really wanted urgently not to have one-person-one-vote and now they are very content with the outcome?

- Former Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that he had expected a big drop in the number of marchers. He said that democratic movements necessarily go through peaks and troughs. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that the movement is dead when the numbers are low and that there can't be 500,000 every year.

- The mainland official media criticized the slogan of "Amend the Basic Law" as being radical but also as pointless as the demand to move the exchange rate to one Hong Kong dollar for 100 American dollars.

...

- It is also possible that the organizers may refuse to release a number, saying that the only important thing is the marchers today represent the will of the people of Hong Kong. They can persuade the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme from releasing their data in return for a sizeable donation. But they can't stop the Hong Kong Police from issuing a crowd estimate, which becomes the one and only official estimate.

- A soccer field can easily accommodate 100,000 persons: Camp Nou.
- Can they beat the 85,000 at the Sha Tin Racecourse on the third day of the Lunar New Year? (Apple Daily)
- Can they beat the number for the new Lai Yuen Amusement Park? That's 10,000 in the first three hours.
- Can they beat the number for those who lined up to get tickets for July 1st Open Day at the People's Liberation Army barracks in Shek Kong? That's 18,000. Another 12,000 went to the PLA base at Stonecutters Island.
- Can they beat the number for the Ikea's Midnight Madness Sale at MegaBox in Kowloon Bay? (see photo)

- The police said that they have 3,000 officers on duty. Are there more police officers than marchers?
- Stupid! The 3,000 police officers are on the ground and therefore they are counted among the marchers. What the number that the organizers make up, you make sure to subtract 3,000 from it.
- And Falun Gong pays 1,000 people to march. So you make sure to subtract another 1,000.
- And there must be 1,000 so-called photojournalists. So you make sure to subtract another 1,000.
- And there are 3,000 Filipina maids demanding a pay raise to $4,500 per month. So you make sure to subtract another 3,000. (Note: If they are demanding a pay raise for themselves, then they cannot be fighting for democracy. A public referendum among Hong Kong voters would only lower their wages!)

- Well, when they filled six soccer fields on June 4th, they claimed 500,000 persons. Now they have only 1-1/2 fields, so that is still 500,000 x 1.5 / 6 = 125,000. This is more than the 100,000 that they predicted at first. Things have never been better.

- When they started out, the police counted 6,420 persons. Somehow another 48,000 - 6,420 = 41,580 joined in later. Well, what is the point of assembling and setting out when practically everybody shows up later?

- The police said that 6,420 started out from Victoria Park. These are the traditional pan-democrats who assembled there by habit. This is a much lower number than in previous year and suggests that this base has eroded severely. The first reason is Occupy Central, which ended after 79 days with absolutely nothing gained. The second reason is the constitutional reform, where the veto now means that there is no chance for universal suffrage in at least ten years. Given these reasons, what would anyone want the pan-democrats to continue to lead the way?

The police said that the peak number was 19,650. The additional people joined after the start, entering at places such as the Goose Neck Bridge. These are the pro-democracy people who will not listen to the Civil Human Rights Front anymore. They have all sorts of other issues and demands, from environmental protection to gay marriage to burn victims to autistic individuals. They tend to be more single-issue-oriented and they don't have affinity for the Civil Human Rights Front's main issues (amending the Basic Law?). How can these people form a cohesive opposition force? That's a good question that the leaders in the backroom (Jimmy Lai, Joseph Zen, Anson Chan, Martin Lee) will have to figure out.

- How hard is it to cover six soccer fields anyway? Everybody just bring the biggest beach umbrella that you can find.

- What will the Apple Daily headline be for tomorrow? Even they can't say "500,000 marched for democracy." More likely, it will be "Marchers faint from heat stroke, CY Leung doesn't care whether citizens live or die."

- Blast from the past from Li Yi in Apple Daily, January 2, 2010: Although only 30,000 persons marched in the street, there were probably several million more who quietly carry hope and conscience in their hearts. So there you have the virtual headline: Millions marched for democracy!
- Yes, I agree that there were millions in the streets today (note: I didn't say that millions marched in the streets today).

- (Oriental Daily) Best story of the day: Former Hong Kong Chief Secretary Anson Chan came with Hong Kong 2020 research director Lee Wing-tat and others to march. As usual, she said "Bye bye" to Lee Wing-tat at the intersection of Hennessey Road and Queens Road East and left. She tried to hail a taxi with no success. So she walked into a nearby coffee shop and drank a fruit juice. She stayed for 15 minutes and left by taxi afterwards.

- Some bitch was on television declaring that public opinion as evidenced by the demonstration today clearly favors an immediate re-start of the five-step process for constitutional reform and amending the Basic Law. You have to be a politician in order to lie like a dog.

- (RTHK) Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan said afterwards that their organization is only responsible for organizing the event in which citizens participate out of their own personal beliefs. As such, she is not accountable for the turnout at the event.
- Ah, yes, but aren't these guys very much into this "accountability" thing? Anything happens, and they say "XXX must apologize and resign." When they are in the line of fire, all of a sudden they can claim zero responsibility.
- (RTHK) Daisy Chan said earlier that the number of marchers this year should be able to match the same level as last year (for which the Civil Human Rights Front claimed 510,000). Why is anyone listening to her?

Left pane: 2014
Right panel: 2015
- Daisy Chan is absolutely the worst person ever to lead the Civil Human Rights Front. Her problem is that she can't remember what she said before and those gaping self-contradictions are shocking. For example, she once explained away a low event attendance because people have to work. And that was on a Sunday. This time, she says July 1st is a public holiday when people have to work. What is a public holiday then? By the General Holidays Ordinance, this means a day which shall be kept as a holiday by all banks, educational establishments, public offices and Government departments. Yes, some people have to work (police, firemen, transportation, etc), but they do that year-round because they provide essential services.

- (Oriental Daily, Oriental Daily)

The numbers game really doesn't matter. The real game is the donations. The organizers Civil Human Rights Front went down from $438,000 last year down to $248,000 this year. The League of Social Democrats took a major hit this year, going down from $930,000 last year to $350,000, probably because chairman Leung Kwok-hung said that he turned down a $100 million offer to switch his vote and therefore his party coffers must be flushed with cash already. People Power went from $420,000 to $210,000. Scholarism went from $1,310,000 last year to $540,000 this year but the impact is unknown since their finances are not disclosed. The Democratic Party took a hit too, going from $200,000 down $160,000. The Labour Party went from $180,000 to $110,000. The Neo-democrats went from $134,000 to $100,000. Civic Party actually gained a little bit, from $415,000 to $435,000.

But the real winners of the day are the flesh-peddlers (you don't even know what they stand for, but so what?).

- Self-contrarian: Civil Passion's Wong Yeung-tat once said: "Fuck every donation-soliciting organization!" On this day, he was out there begging for alms too.

- (Metro Radio)

With respect to the people carrying the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence jumping into the head of the procession, Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan said that it was not idea. She emphasized that the Civil Human Rights Front does not agree with the idea of Hong Kong independence.

- (VJmedia) I joined the Localists' kidnapping of the head of the procession this time. The results were very good. The Civil Human Rights Front wanted to chase us away but they failed. In the end, they called the remnants of the Federation of Students to raise their flags alongside of us the whole way. It was a very funny scene LOL.

- The slogan "CY Leung must resign" has been around forever in various forms. For as long as I remember, they have seen saying "XXX must resign" every single year, where XXX is the Chief Executive at the time. If you repeat this often enough, it will lose its edge.

- (SCMP) Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung also believed the lack of a clear theme was the "key reason" for the low numbers. "All the student bodies, civil societies and political parties were unable to come up with a clear framework for the next democratic movement," he said. "We have to admit our own limitations and find out shortcomings in the existing strategies and theories." One of the event's themes was to amend the Basic Law, but Wong said discussions in the past few months were only a start and no consensus had been reached as to how to achieve that goal.

Short-term implication: To those who marched today, you've wasted your time.

Long-term implication: We have no idea of what we are doing.

Thanks for making it very clear.

(Occupy Central with Love and Peace)

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.

 

2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.

 

3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.

 

4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.

 

5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/?route=occupy/eng_detail&eng_id=28#sthash.ggO8I1xq.dpuf

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.

 

2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.

 

3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.

 

4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.

 

5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/?route=occupy/eng_detail&eng_id=28#sthash.ggO8I1xq.dpuf

Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violent means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.

2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.

3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.

4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury ...

(The Standard)  Occupy Central is action based on risky thinking. By Lai Tung Kwok. June 12, 2014.

Here are some of the cases that have come before the court. Compare these against the Occupy Central with Love and Peace rules on non-violent protest.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

19-year-old maintenance worker Au Yik-kit was charged with spraying a 3-meter-by-3-meter red-colored circle on Hennessey Road in Causeway Bay. The police asked him to remove the paint but he refused. Therefore the police arrested him and charged him with criminal destruction of property. Au is implicated in the Sheung Shui warehouse case in which he is charged with attempted arson, loitering and possessing restricted weapons.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Three young men heeded an Internet call for action. 19-year-old unemployed man Au Yik-kit said that he was the lookout. He was charged with possession of an assault weapon and loitering. He denied these charges.

According to a New Territories North District Police Tactical Unit officer, he was working the night shift and encountered the defendant at San Fung Road, Shek Wu Hui. The police officer found the defendant has two switchblades in his pockets. The defendant claimed that he owed $8,500 in debt and was afraid of being beaten up. Therefore he carried the knives for self-defense. The police officer then found matches, igniter, maps and other items in another pocket. The police arrested the defendant. The case was taken over by the Criminal Investigation Department who searched the defendant's home and found iron crowbars, shovels, axes, etc.

(Oriental Daily) May 1, 2015.

27-year-old truck delivery man Leung Chi-heng was charged with disorderly conduct in public on the night of October 17 in Mong Kong. He was charged leading the chant "Kill the cops" and also throwing a metal barricade that almost injured two policemen. The defense presented two policemen who described what happened. Leung declared that he ever did such. He said that it was chaotic that night, and the police arrested the wrong person.

(Oriental Daily) June 26, 2015.  27-year-old unemployed man Leung Chi-hang was charged with disorderly conduct in public on October 17 in Mong Kok. The police testified that he hurled insults at the police, said he "wanted to beat the cops to death" and threw a metal barricade at the police. He was found guilty as charged. However, the defense said that they have located a Cable TV video which shows Leung doing something but not throwing any metal barricade. However Cable TV claimed freedom of press and will not provide the video unless there is a court warrant.

(Ming Pao) May 19, 2015.

28-year-old transportation worker Tang Tak-chuen was accused of interfering with police operations. On October 27, he was accused of taking away the police baton of female police officer Wai Ching. According to Wai, she was crossing the flower trough on the meridian of Nathan Road to go to the southbound lane when Tang suddenly approached her, grabber her baton and ran away. She yelled and cased Tang. Tang ran for about 6 meters when several other police officers arrived to arrest him.

The defense pointed out that Wai testified that she wrapped the nylon cord on the baton twice around her wrist and therefore it was impossible to take it from her, especially there was no sign of injury on her wrist. The defense claimed that Wai jumped down from the flower trough and clubbed Tang on the head with a blow coming down. Then she clubbed Tang again on the neck. Because she used too much force, the club fell out of her hand onto the ground. Then she slandered Tang for taking away her baton.

The defense then claimed that several male police officers kicked and punched Tang, handcuffed him tightly to cause injuries on his hand. The medical report showed that there were red spots on Tang's scalp and wrists. The defense wanted to know the police guidelines on the use of baton, but the magistrate ruled that this was not germane to this trial.

(Wen Wei Po) July 4, 2015. After listening to the closing statements from both sides, the magistrate deemed that the two police witnesses were reliable and trustworthy whereas the defendant's testimony was not credible. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant guilty. The defendant said afterwards that he expected this verdict.

(Sing Tao) May 26, 2015.

23-year-old Golden Forum user Tam Hiu-fung posted last October to incite others to join the illegal assemblies of Occupy Central. He wrote things such as "If you are a man, you should revive Mong Kok" and "The MTR is the lifeline of Hong Kong so we have not messed with it. Since the government wants to continue to fool around, let's go all the way!" Earlier Tam had pleaded guilty to one charge of dishonest use of a computer.

The magistrate pointed out that it was very irresponsible for the defendant to make those statements on the Internet, because people might actually take action as a result. The magistrate asked: "Is this constructive and helpful for Hong Kong?" The magistrate sentenced the defendant to 100 hours of community service.

(Oriental Daily) May 11, 2015.

23-year-old BBQ meat restaurant waiter Tam Hiu-fung used his iPhone to post messages on the Golden Forum last October 17. He incited others to join an illegal assembly, "Three stages of the weekend counter-offensive: Take Mong Kok for the fifth time; take Lung Wo Road for the sixth time; occupy Central during the day." He also wrote: "If we cannot re-take Mong Kok, then we'll purchase tickets and enter the MTR to wait for the train." The police came across these posts made by the individual known as Lee Siu-ming, tracked down the IP address and arrested Tam at the waiters' dormitory.

(New York Times) October 28, 2015.

At 6:49 a.m. on Oct. 17, not long after the police completed a predawn operation to clear a volatile protest camp in Hong Kongs densely populated Mong Kok neighborhood, someone posted a call to action on a popular online forum, urging residents to retake the streets.

Tonight, if youre a man, lets revive Mong Kok, a user calling himself Li Siu-ming wrote on the HKGolden website. If there are no other options, we will have to blockade the railway station, paralyze the MTR, he added, referring to the citys subway system.

There was little to distinguish his posts from others online about the pro-democracy demonstrations that have disrupted Hong Kong for more than a month. But the next day, the police demanded user data related to his messages, according to HKGoldens manager.

Several hours later, officers arrested a 23-year-old man at his home, saying he had incited others on an online forum to join the unlawful assembly in Mong Kok, to charge at police and to paralyze the railways. In announcing the arrest, a police spokesman, Hui Chun-tak, made a sweeping assertion: It is a crime in Hong Kong to post messages calling on people to attend the protests.

I stress, inciting others to commit criminal acts on the Internet is illegal, he said.

The warning, along with a refusal to disclose more information about the case, has heightened fear that the authorities in this former British colony have begun to police the Internet using methods more often associated with the security forces in mainland China, where web censorship is routine and a crackdown on online dissent has been underway for more than a year.

The police have declined to provide the exact language that prompted the arrest or to confirm any link to the messages posted on the HKGolden forum. But Joe Lam, the sites chief executive, said officers had demanded that he provide them with the Internet Protocol addresses and messages associated with the Li Siu-ming account.

In addition to the call to paralyze the subway system if necessary, the user urged protesters to force the police to use force when retaking the Mong Kok site. After protesters succeeded in re-establishing the camp, he got back online and suggested at 1:57 a.m. on Oct. 18 that they charge Lung Wo, referring to a street outside the Hong Kong governments office secured by the police.

But the next day, he reported that officers had come to his home and arrested him for messages supporting the protesters. I just got home after giving a statement, he wrote. So gloomy. Technology Crime Division. Be careful.

The police have identified the suspect only by his surname, Tam, and said he had been released on bail pending an investigation. Mr. Tam initially sought the help of a group of lawyers and volunteers associated with the protest organizers; they said his full name was Tam Hiu-fung.

In a private message on the HKGolden site, the person using the account declined to comment but confirmed his name was Tam Hiu-fung. I dont want to go into details about my background. Its not important, he said when reached by telephone. Im an ordinary Hong Kong youngster. I just want to do something for Hong Kong.

It is unclear what drew the police to Mr. Tam. The pro-democracy movement has relied heavily on social media and messaging apps to organize and mobilize protesters, and statements urging people to turn out for the demonstrations or even to confront the police are rife on local websites, as well as on Facebook and Twitter.

Messages advocating violence are less common but can be found among both protesters and those who support the government, raising the question of selective prosecution.

Open fire and kill those animals. Watching it makes my blood boil, one Facebook user opposed to the protests wrote on Oct. 16, commenting on a video of a clash between demonstrators and the police.

(Oriental Daily) June 11, 2015.

20-year-old man Leung Chi-wai was charged with assaulting a police officer on November 25 in the Occupy Mong Kok area. According to the police officer Choi Hong-kai, he heard the defendant Leung yelled "Charge!" and then charged at the police line. Leung then fell on the ground when he ran into other police officers. Leung started struggling on the ground. Choi went up to subdue him and got kicked twice. Eventually Choi subdued Leung.

Upon cross-examination, the defense pointed out that Leung was wearing a helmet and goggles at the time but Choi said he did not. Furthermore, the defendant claimed to be tackled by policemen, hit with batons and cursed out with obscene language, but Choi said it did not happen. The defense then played a video. Choi agreed that the video was taken at the scene. The video showed a man being tackled onto the ground by the police. Choi agreed that the man wore the same clothes as the defendant at the time of arrest. However, Choi was not sure about the time when the video was taken.

(Sing Tao) June 11, 2015. The defense played two videos. One was provided by a Golden Forum user and another one was found on YouTube. In those videos, a man in blue jeans and camouflaged top was suddenly dragged out of the crowd by plainclothes policemen. Someone yelled: "Fuck your mother! Wearing a helmet? Hold him!" At three to four policemen rushed up to subdue this man. When asked whether this was the defendant, the witness Choi said "very similar." The defense said that the situation that day was that the defendant was not leading any charge, but he was suddenly pulled out by the police, hit a couple of times on his legs and then subdued. Choi said that he did not see such thing.

The defendant Leung Chi-wai said that he was demonstrating in Mong Kok. At Shan Tung Street, he was pushed by the crowd to the front row and suddenly plainclothes policemen pulled his helmet, pushed him on the ground and subdued him. He said that he did not kick any policeman. After viewing the two videos, Leung said that he was the individual who was subdued in the video. He said that he did not see Choi in these videos.

(Oriental Daily) June 30, 2015. The magistrate said that the policeman's testimony was not credible. First Choi testified that he saw the defendant saw him approaching and kicked him. However, Choi was unsure whether there was eye contact. Furthermore, there was discrepancies between the video and the testimony. Therefore, the magistrate ordered the defendant discharged as not guilty.

(Wen Wei Po) June 12, 2015.

On October 17 during the illegal Occupy Mong Kok period, the police was enforcing crowd control at the intersection of Shan Tung Street and Nathan Road. 26-year-old part-time interior decorations worker Cheung Hon-wei suddenly gave a big shout, charged at a police van, jumped up to take a flying kick at the van door. Two scratch marks were made on the van door. The police subdued Cheung and charged him with criminal destruction of property. At the trial, the defendant said that he had no idea why he kicked the police van. He apologized to the police and said, "I am making a public apology to the police. I deeply regret (what I did)." Cheung was allowed to post a 15-month good behavior bond for $2,000. He also has to repay the police $480 for the car repair work. 

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

22-year-old musician Marco Lee was accused of assaulting a police officer on Lung Wo Road, Admiralty on October 18 last year. Two police officers testified. One of the officers was hit by a water bottle while the other officer observed the defendant throw that bottle. Because there were large numbers of demonstrators and photojournalists filming, there was no chance that the two officers corroborated on the evidence.

The defense pleaded that the defendant attends church and volunteers to teach in prison. Furthermore, the defendant is not a violent person and did something unusual this time out of political fervor. The magistrate said that the court must send a message to the public that police will be protected while on duty. Therefore, the magistrate sentenced the defendant to four weeks in prison. He is currently out on $500 bail pending appeal.

(Apple Daily) June 5, 2015. After being found guilty, Marco Lee explained that he and his girl friend joined the demonstration. At the time, the police had forced the demonstrators off Lung Wo Road. Amidst the chaos, he was suddenly grabbed from behind by policemen. Two police officers came up and pushed him down on the ground. He said that he was hit in the leg by a hard object. "One of the policeman knelt on my chest five to six times." He found it hard to breathe and could not fight back. About five policemen surrounded him. He was handcuffed and taken over to Government Headquarters. A plainclothes policeman dragged him by the handcuff and told him to hurry. His forearm was injured as a result. He said that the doctor at the hospital told him that he had a broken bone. However, the medical report indicated only that he had scratch marks on his left shoulder. The defendant said that the police used violence on him to release anger. Prior to that there had been many instances of police assaulting demonstrators. The defendant was frightened by the police that day.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2015. The magistrate said that on October 18, demonstrators attempt to break through the police line and occupy Lung Wo Road. Sergeant Fong Wai-kay was hit in the back by a hard object. Another police officer Hui Hing-sing observed the defendant Marco Lee tossed the water bottle and therefore went to make the arrest. Lee kicked Hui in excitement. Other police officers came and helped to subdue Lee.

The defense claimed that the police made false charges against Lee in anger. But the magistrate said that the testimony of the two officers could not have been improvised at the scene. Also, Lee's claimed injuries did not match the medical report. When Lee was subdued, he asked the police whether he was arrested. This is not a reasonable reaction for an innocent person. Therefore, the magistrate said that the defendant was not honest and trustworthy and therefore he rejected his testimony. The prison sentence was imposed because the defendant showed no remorse for his deed.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2015.

32-year-old courier delivery man Man Chi-wai was charged with obstructing the police. He was standing on the electricity transformer station in Tamar Park and he refused to follow police instructions to leave on October 15.

Man claimed that he wears eyeglasses for his "900 degree myopia." On that day, he wore a surgical mask and he climbed on of the electricity transform station in order to get a clearer picture. He did not chant any slogans and he did not display any banners. At around 2am, a policeman told him to come down to be arrested. Because the transformer station was pretty tall, he could not come down immediately. He asked the policeman to help him, but was turned down. Eventually he came down and two policemen dragged him to the wall. He was asked to face the wall, raise his hand, lower his hands, squat down and then lie face down on the ground. Several policemen then punched and kicked him. The police then tied his hands up with plastic bands and took him into an unmarked car. The police cursed him out with foul language. He was then taken down to the police station. He insisted that he did not obstruct the police.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2015.

19-year-old Yu Wai-lun joined Civic Passion and Hong Kong Indigenous Democratic Front in the anti-parallel trader demonstration in Yuen Long on March 1. At around 6pm, Yu put on an armored glove and punched police officer Lee multiple times. Lee arrested Yu immediately. Later, Lee underwent medical exam and was shown to have sustained injuries on his left arm, shoulders, upper back, groin and lower leg. The police also found body armor and knee guards in Yu's backpack.

The magistrate said: "Have young lads like you been watching too many movies and cartoons? Were  you going to put the armor and become a martyr?"

The defendant Yu had just completed his DGSE exam. He pleaded guilty to one charge of assaulting a police officer. He bowed to the police officer Lee and said: "Sorry for causing bodily harm to you. I promise that I won't do this again."

The defense lawyer said that Yu is the only son of the family. Yu has just completed his DGSE exam and plans to attend university. Yu does not belong to any political party and he has reflected on his actions. He promises not to participate in any such action in the future. Yu really wants to attend his graduation ceremony. Furthermore, he serves as a swimming coach at an international school and therefore wants to be bailed out.

(Oriental Daily) June 29, 2015.

16-year-old student Fung Chi-ho was charged with assaulting a police officer on March 1 in Yuen Long. At the time, there was a demonstration against parallel traders. Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officer Lee Wang-tat was in plainclothes with a police vest dispersing the crowd out the McDonald's. Lee claimed that the defendant pushed the door from the inside, hitting him thrice on the elbow. The defendant also cursed him out as a "Police dog." Lee said that he had explained to the defendant that "the police are working, please do not push anymore." However, the defendant did not stop. Therefore he believed that the defendant was intentionally pushing the door at him and he made the arrest accordingly.

(Wen Wei Po) The defendant denied the charges. He said that he was in Yuen Long that day because he is "interested in current affairs" and wanted to understand better. He also wanted to offer "spiritual support." At the time, the police used pepper spray at the crowd, which carried him inside the restaurant. Then he saw some people with raised batons outside the restaurant so he wanted to go out and "understand" things more. But when he pushed the door, it hit someone.

Fung said that he is hearing impaired and requires a hearing aid which he was not wearing at the time. He said that he could hear what the policeman was saying. He took one step back and the police rushed up to knock him down and handcuff him. That was when he realized that those people were policemen. He also denied calling police officer Lee Wang-tat a "police dog."

The defense lawyer said that when Fung first pushed the door, the angle reached only 70 degrees and he did not make it out of the restaurant. Therefore, Lee's testimony is suspect. It was also said that Lee was in plainclothes and the defendant may not have seen the word Police on the vest from that angle. Therefore, Fung accidentally opened a door that hit Lee and there was no deliberate intention to assault the policeman.

(Sing Pao) June 30, 2015.

27-year-old Eric Poon (nickname "Hexagonal wrench") has been arrested by the police. Poon is suspected of having accosted a girl under the age of 16 and offered to show her some paintings. Then he kissed her against her will. The girl lodged a complaint with the police.

(Wen Wei Po) July 1, 2015.


Eric Poon showing his form with spitting, cursing and making obscene gestures

On June 11, a fourteen-year-old girl was molested by a man under the pretext of showing her some paintings. Her mother learned what happened and filed a police complaint on June 25. According to the court records, a man with the same name (Poon Won-tong) was found guilty of raping/molesting a 14-year-old girl in Tuen Mun in June 2006 on three separate occasions (in a parking garage platform, a restroom for handicapped persons in a recreational area and in a parking garage stairwell). At the time, the defense claimed that the defendant had previously sustained an injury to his brain and therefore he has sub-normal intelligence.

(The Sun) July 14, 2007. A 14-year-old runaway girl was raped/molested thrice by a young man named Poon Won-tong on three occasions, once on a table tennis table for the public in Shan King Estate parking garage, once in a public restroom for physically handicapped persons in Yeung King leisure park and once in the stairwell of the Shan King Estate parking garage. On the first occasion, the defendant tied up the girl and raped her on top of the table tennis table. On the third occasion, the man forced the girl to commit fellatio. On one occasion, there was a under-aged male who watched the rape while fondling the girl. The defense claims that the defendant is mentally retarded due to brain damage.

(Apple Daily) July 14, 2007. According to the defense lawyer, the defendant dropped out of secondary school Form 3. His parents got divorced last year. Last October, the defendant was taken to mainland China to live with his maternal uncle to learn interior decoration. After the police contacted his father over this case, the father went to mainland China and took the defendant back to Hong Kong to turn himself in to the police. According to the prosecution, the defendant and the victim agreed to run away on June 6. On the same day, he took her to the platform in the Shan King Estate parking garage and asked for sexual intercourse. She refused. He used a towel to tie her hands up and carried her onto the table tennis table to rape her. Afterwards, the defendant took her into the public restroom for physically handicapped persons in the Yeung King Road leisure park. At the time, a 14-year-old boy asked to be allowed to watch. So the defendant removed the victim's clothes, used a towel to tie her hands up and raped her. On the same day, the defendant woke the victim up in the parking garage stairwell and forced her to engage in fellatio.

Video: Eric Poon and Ng Ting Pong expounding on the finer points of democracy in Occupy Mong Kok area.

Video: Eric Poon looking for a one-to-one fight at the Mong Kok Public Library.
0:55 Poon: You shut up!  Leave!
1:05 The other man who is a head shorter than Poon: Leave? How can I leave? You are blocking my way!
1:07 Poon: Leave! Fuck your mother! Are you scared? Let's have a one-to-one fight!

Video: Eric Poon has a confrontation with a Hong Kong Broadband salesman outside Hollywood Plaza on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok

Video: Eric Poon using a megaphone to scream obscenities

Video: Eric Poon bullies a woman as he slaps her hard in the head. When others tried to get him to stop, he said: "Shut up! It's family business!" The woman said: "I really did not borrow any money." But Poon said: "No? You stole my money until there's only 24 dollars left." A person came up to intercede but Poon pointed two fingers at him and said: "None of your business. It's a personal matter." Although there were many Yellow Umbrellas around, nobody stopped Poon until he left himself.

(Wen Wei Po) June 30, 2015.

Three men and one woman were charged with interfering with police duties in Yuen Long on March 1. According to Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po, he observed four individuals dashing onto the roadway, including the 14-year-old male student, 20-year-old Kwong, 22-year-old Poon and 30-year-old clerk Ng. So he went up to stop them. The first defendant charged him on his left chest with the shoulder. Chan said that Kwong also tussled with him while Ng used her chest to bump into Chan and then scream "Police sexual molestation."

The defense claimed that the medical report did not reveal any injuries on Chan's left chest. However, Chan insisted that he sustained an injury which was not found during the exam. The defense also said that Chan's hand touched Ng's left breast and that caused her to scream "Sexual molestation." Kwong went up to grab Chan's hand to free the woman so he did not interfere with police duty.

Police sergeant Hung Kwok-kay said that Poon pushed him and tried to pull an arrested man away. But the defense said that Poon did not know that Hung was a policeman and he was just trying to separate two people in a fight.

(Oriental Daily) Chan testified that he saw the 13-year-old student, Kwong and Ng rushing onto the roadway. He intercepted them and asked them to return to the sidewalk. Ng said: "What?" Chan thought that she couldn't hear clearly so he repeated his request. The 13-year-old student rammed his Chan's left chest near the police ID with the shoulder while saying, "What is not permitted?"

Chan said that he wanted to grab the 13-year-old's hand to arrest. But Kwong came up and shoved both of his hands away. Chan and Kwong tussled, such that Chan was spun around 180 degrees. At that time, an unknown person hit Chan on his head and left forehead. Then Ng thrust her breast at Chan and screamed "Police sexual molestation!" Someone else echoed "Police sexual molestation." Objects were thrown. Chan fell onto the ground and someone kicked him on the back. Chan got up and arrested the 13-year-old. At the hospital, Chan was found to have sustained injuries on his right hand and left lower back.

(Apple Daily) According to Chief inspector Chan Ka-po, Ng had blood all over her face because she started to bleed in the nose when she fell down and then she used her hand to smear blood all over her face.

(Oriental Daily) July 2, 2015. 30-year-old shipping clerk Ng testified in court today. She said that she and her 20-year-old boyfriend Kwong went out to Yuen Long to demonstrate on March 1. During the time, Kwong wanted to take out a water bottle and drink bottle. The police instructed the crowd to advance and she lost track of Kwong. She was pushed by the crowd towards the scene of the clash. She said that the male Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po stuck his face close to her forehead, grabbed her by the left shoulder strap of her backpack and touched her left breast. She got afraid and screamed "Sexual molestation" while Chan said: "Arrest her! Arrest her!"

Kwong appeared and also yelled "Sexual molestation!" While Kwong and Chan tussled, the police used pepper spray and pulled her and Kwong away. When they went back to find the mobile phone which was dropped, a policeman tackled Kwong by the neck, while she was shoved by someone from behind and fell on the ground. When she got up, she was bleeding in the mouth and nose. At the hospital, she was found to have suffered a broken nose. She does not know whether a policeman pushed her or not.

Under cross-examination by her lawyer, she said that she listened to the legal advice of her volunteer lawyers and have so far not lodged a complaint against Chief Inspector Chan for sexual molestation. So far she has only told the Complaints Against Police Organisation about being pushed onto the ground by a policeman.

The other defendant 22-year-old Poon Tsz-heng said that he is presently a third-year Accounting student at City University. At the time, he had just left from a friend's residence and he was not part of the anti-parallel traders demonstration. He did not see the ID badge on policeman Hung Kwok-kay. He thought that Hung was arguing and fighting with another man over the parallel trading and therefore used his hands to separate the two parties.

dbc news video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9xWwltW6Y8

(Oriental Daily) July 3, 2015.

Last November, police superintendent Franklin Chu took part in the Solar Peak operation to deal with the Occupy demonstrators. From November 28 through December 1, he received a large number of harassment calls on his mobile telephone and home telephone. He lodged a complaint to the police. The police checked the calls with the telecommunications service providers and tracked down two individual callers.

28-year-old male moneychanger store owner's son Kwong Kai-hong made 37 calls on December 1, including 14 calls within one hour to the home telephone of Franklin Chu. On Kwong's telephone, Chu's number was entered on the contact list as "Spasm Chu."  22-year-old university female student Poon Sheung-yin made 30 calls within three days. Both individuals had attempted to use the "133" prefix to conceal their own caller ID's.

The defense said that the two defendants are first-time offenders and do not realize that it is a crime to make harassing telephone calls, which were "unwise" and "stupid." The defense also said that the two defendants learned from the Internet that this superintendent had clubbed demonstrators and they got "over-enthusiastic" and used the Internet forum information on Chu to call the superintendent and "tell him that he was wrong."

The magistrate disagreed with the defense's explanation. "No matter how noble the motives were, it is wrong to do this." Furthermore, the calls to Chu's home are deeply annoying to his entire family.


Defendant Kwong Kai-hong


Defendant Poon Sheung-yin

(SCMP) July 4, 2015.

A man and a woman admitted making dozens of telephone calls over four days last year to harass a police officer who was shown on television news beating an Occupy movement supporter, a court heard yesterday.

Kwong Kai-hong, 28, and Esther Poon Sheung-yin, 21, each pleaded guilty to two counts of making persistent phone calls to then Sha Tin divisional commander Franklin Chu King-wai, who took part in the "Solarpeak" operation during the Occupy sit-ins in Mong Kok last year.

Chu received one anonymous call after another on his residential landline and mobile phone between November 28 and December 1, Tsuen Wan Court heard. No caller identity was displayed for most of the calls.

"The frequency of the telephone calls was annoying to [Chu] and he reported the case to the police," prosecutor Kalina Wong Suk-lan told Magistrate Rita So Ka-yin.

Local media reported that Chu retired after the footage capturing his action against Occupy supporters went viral on the web. Poon found Chu's phone numbers in a post on the HKGolden.com forum, the court heard.

According to records on Kwong's mobile phone, 14 calls were made to Chu's residential landline and 23 to his cellphone on November 28 and 29. Police arrested Kwong and seized his phone on December 22, Wong said. The officers found Chu's numbers saved as a contact under the name of "Chu King-luen".

Poon made 19 calls to Chu's residential landline and 11 calls to his mobile phone between November 28 and December 1. She admitted to police under caution that she rang Chu more than 10 times with a view to "punishing and harassing" him, Wong said.

In mitigation, the pair said they cared about what happened in Hong Kong and had committed the crimes on impulse.

So said that regardless of what they saw in the television footage and however noble their motive, the way they handled the matter was inappropriate. The magistrate said they should instead have raised any concerns they had with the relevant authorities.  She adjourned sentencing to July 17, pending probation and background reports.

(SCMP) Police use pepper spray as Hong Kong protesters clash with 'pro-China' group in Mong Kok. June 29, 2015.

Police arrested five people and used pepper spray to try to disperse violent clashes in Mong Kok last night as localist demonstrators protested against a group of people singing in Putonghua, creating a fraught situation that quickly spun out of control when rival pro-Beijing demonstrators clashed with the localists. Four men and one woman aged between 23 and 55 were arrested, police said, and one police officer was reported injured. Dozens of anti-mainlander demonstrators targeted the musicians, who regularly assemble in the pedestrian area of Sai Yeung Choi Street South, accusing them of causing a nuisance.

"Localist" has become an umbrella term for radical groups defined by an anti-mainland sentiment and a desire to resist Beijing's influence over the city.

As word of the protest spread, rivals from patriotic groups arrived, and soon heated verbal arguments broke out, later escalating into physical clashes. Scores of police officers had been standing ready for the protest by the localists, who had announced their intentions in advance. When the two sides began to clash, police deployed metallic barricades as partitions to try to keep them apart.

The situation took a particularly violent turn when officers removed a man from the crowd and carried him into a police vehicle at about 8pm. Localist protesters surrounded the police vehicle on Nathan Road, and officers fired pepper spray at them, hitting several.

The two sides later returned to Sai Yeung Choi Street, where angry verbal exchanges continued for about an hour, followed by chases on foot and physical struggles. Workers from some shops on the street shut their metal gates, apparently to prevent damage.

The chases and fights later spilled into nearby Mong Kok Road, where officers were seen using pepper spray again. A man with his face covered with blood was spotted leaving the scene with the assistance of a woman.

Police were seen helping some apparent participants of the melee into a taxi, angering the localist protesters, who accused them of releasing the perpetrators of crimes. As of 12.50am, about dozens of the localist protesters gathered outside Mong Kok Police Station and called for the release of their fellow protestors taken away by the police. 

(Oriental Daily with video) June 28, 2015 20:07

Almost one hundred demonstrators demanded that the Chinese middle-aged women stop singing and dancing on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. They said that the Chinese middle-aged women's "country music" and "Red songs" are sung in "bandit language" (=putonghua) and represents a form of cultural cleansing that destroys respectability.

The demonstrators emphasized that they are gathering peacefully, but several dozen of them rushed at the Chinese middle-aged women and rained obscene curses upon them. Several dozen uniformed police officers were present to maintain order and separate the sides.

Love Hong Kong Action founder Anna Chan showed up around 8pm, raised a Chinese national five-star flag, smiled and said nothing. The demonstrators heaped obscenities, but she declined to respond. The police set up a ring of iron barricades around her.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 20:56.

Several dozen Localist demonstrators held a demonstrators against the middle-aged Chinese female dancers on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok districts. There were multiple clashes, with people bleeding. At around 9pm, Caring Hong Kong Power member Anna Chan counter-demonstrated and the Localists rushed at her as she left. The police used batons to control the crowd. Many demonstrators and counter-demonstrators fell to blows. The police dispersed everybody. One man surrounded by the Localists was bleeding in the neck, and the police took him away.

When the fights broke out, the jewelry stores, movie houses, eyeglass stores and commercial plazas all lowered their gates. There were five Chinese middle-aged song/dance booths and at least two of them packed up and left early.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 21:35.

At around 8pm, the police applied pepper spray on Sai Yeung Choi Street South the first time in order to stop the clashes. At around 830pm near the Canton Road Market, the police applied pepper spray the second time. Many were sprayed, including reporters.

The demonstrators extended their battle front from Sai Yeung Choi Street South to the Canton Street Market, which was closed at this hour. The demonstrators chased and assaulted citizens. A woman was punched by the demonstrators. Another middle-aged man who was bleeding in the neck tried to use a water bucket to defend himself. A man in white clothing was hit in the back of the head when he complained about the demonstrators.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 22:33

A man was hit by the demonstrators until he was bleeding in the neck. The demonstrators accused this man of committing assault and demanded that the police arrest him. The police declined. So several dozen demonstrators trailed this man all the way to Tai Kok Tsui until the man asked the police to take him down to the police station. About thirty or so demonstrators gathered outside the police station.

(Oriental Daily) June 28, 2015 23:58

The police arrested four men and one woman and will charge them with assaulting police officers, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct in public and common assault. More than 30 Localist demonstrators are gathered outside the police station to demand the release of those arrested.

(Wen Wei Po) June 29, 2015.

A number of radical groups were present, including the Hong Kong Indigenous Democratic Front, the Hong Kong Localism Power, Valiant Frontier, Local Ideology, Civic Passion, DLLM Orchid, City-State and so on. However, the participants appeared to be only the foot soldiers in these organizations and the big bosses were absent. Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai made an appearance earlier at a forum on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, but left before the demonstration. So the participants were dashing around like "headless flies" without any purposeful organization. One of them said: "The big bosses are hiding. They said that they are valiant, but they are actually very scared. They are only using us as cannon fodder."

(Wen Wei Po) June 29, 2015.

The demonstrators from the Hong Kong Indigneous Democratic Front, Hong Kong Localism Power, Valiant Frontier and other organizations showed up in Sai Yeung Choi Street South at around 730pm. They said that they wanted to demonstrate in a  "peaceful, rational and non-violent" manner. But in truth they want to put a stop to all putonghua singing there. They also said that non-Local culture must not be introduced into Hong Kong or else Local culture will be exterminated.

Love Hong Kong Action convener Anna Chan and Righteous Civil Squadron convener Ah Man came to wave the flags of the Chinese nation and the Hong Kong SAR region. Anna Chan said that Hong Kong is a part of the People's Republic of China. If the Localists are dissatisfied, they can leave this Special Administrative Region of China and go elsewhere. Someone else said that if the Localists forbids anything other than speaking in Cantonese or English, they should charge into the numerous Korean and Japanese restaurants on this street because their customers are always greeted in Korean and Japanese.

The police set up a human wall to separate the two sides. When Chan and Ah Man left an hour later, there was a large-scale clash. They fought from Soy Street to Shan Tung Street down Sai Yeung Choi Street South. A large number of police came and arrested two persons.

But the Localists would not quit. Captain America with his British flag shouted: "There are too many police here. Let us go over to the other side and start all over again." So he and those who followed his call returned to Sai Yeung Choi Street South to provoke the street performers. They even surrounded an electronics chain store and forced the employees to lower the gates on the claim that "someone was stealing something."

And someone said that he was assaulted by somebody. So the battle line was extended to the intersection of Mong Kok Road and Tong Mei Road. A small number of persons even tried to charge onto Nathan Road and start another "Occupy". Several dozen persons followed a police car to the Mong Kok Police Station and demanded that the police release the arrestees.

(TIME) Hong Kong Clashes Reveal Anti-Beijing Anger as City Nears Anniversary of Reunification. June 29, 2015.

Street scuffles between pro-and anti-Beijing factions broke out in Hong Kong Sunday night local time and one of the citys most prominent pro-democracy figures was set upon in the street in an apparently unrelated attack. The violence underscores raw tensions in Chinas most open metropolis, just three days ahead of the 18th anniversary of the citys return to Chinese sovereignty.

Trouble began when so-called localist groups many members of which argue for Hong Kongs independence from China staged a rally in the densely crowded Mong Kok district of central Kowloon to protest the presence of mainland Chinese street musicians. The performance of Mandarin-language songs in a Cantonese-speaking, working-class area like Mong Kok is regarded by many localists as culturally and politically provocative.

Violent clashes broke out when pro-China groups showed up to counter the localists, with rival groups chasing each other through streets crowded with shoppers and tourists, forcing retail outlets to pull down their shutters. Police say five protesters, four men and one woman, were arrested. No injury figures have been released, but police used pepper spray to subdue protesters and local media published photos of at least one bloodied pro-China protester being led from the scene.

Simon Sin, one of the leaders of Hong Kong Localism Power, accuses police of not doing enough to protect localist demonstrators. The police protected the people who were attacking us. They didnt protect us. We got hurt yesterday, Sin tells TIME.

(EJinsight) Police slammed over handling of assault on Mong Kok protester. June 30, 2015.

Hong Kong police are under fire over their handling of an assault by a pro-Beijing demonstrator on a localist protester during an anti-China rally in Mong Kok on Sunday night.

A protester, who gave his name as Sunny, said he saw his friend being attacked by a group of nine people in the street. The victim, surnamed Leung, was punched several times and dragged before he managed to escape, Sunny was quoted as saying by Apple Daily. Camera footage shows a man being pursued by two people after police separated them. Also, news photos show injuries to Leungs back. However, the officers made no arrests in the incident, angering protesters.

They were demonstrating against street singing and dancing by a group of women suspected to be mainlanders. Things began to get out of hand when pro-Beijing supporters showed up and exchanged taunts with the localists. The heckling escalated into clashes, with the police moving in, armed with truncheons and pepper spray.

Apple Daily is reporting that suspected triads were among a group that instigated the violence. They were earlier seen with pro-Beijing groups led by I Care Action.  Sources said troublemakers might have been hired to provoke the localists into a fight, hoping they will be detained and forced to miss a planned July 1 rally.

[Comment: Bizarre reporting here: "They were demonstrating against street singing and dancing by a group of women suspected to be mainlanders." (emphasis added). As far as is known, "being a mainlander" is not a crime in Hong Kong, in the sense of "suspected to have stolen the vehicle" or "suspected to have robbed the bank." According to the 2011 Census,  32.1% of the overall population in Hong Kong was born in mainland China/Macao/Taiwan. So this statement cannot be made as if this is normally acceptable. The reporter should find a source to say so and even find another source to present an opposite point of view. For example, Mr. X (no first name please) of Y organization said that they were demonstrating against women suspected to be mainlanders but senior barrister A says that those women are exercising their freedoms of speech/assembly.]

(SCMP) Why Hong Kong localism has no future. Alex Lo. June 30, 2015.

Hong Kong has no future unless it can figure out a way to coexist with the mainland. That is why the radical rejectionism of so-called localists is a dead end. It's especially tragic that many localists are young people, whose future might be considerably brightened if they were willing to explore new opportunities created by the economic rise of China, and learn mainland culture and language. Alas, disappointed by their poor local prospects, yet unable or unwilling to look for opportunities elsewhere, they are stuck in Hong Kong.

And raised by a strong sense of entitlement and a false feeling of superiority over mainlanders while being basically ignorant of the outside world, they idealise our city that in reality has no real moral, intellectual or spiritual substance. In virtually all endeavours of human value, in the arts and sciences, in cultural tradition and history, in business daring and artistic creativity, it's to mainland China you need to turn, not tiny Hong Kong.

We do have our advantages: our freedoms are real, despite our lack of democracy; and our level of public corruption is considerably lower than that on the mainland. These are worth preserving and fighting for. But both freedom and corruptibility are relative. And our fight to preserve our uniqueness and advantages does not, and should not, equate to anti-mainland sentiments and actions.

The average mainland urbanite is much freer and materially better off than any time in the last century and a half. The Communist Party's anti-corruption drive remains a work in progress. But we should never underestimate the party's ability to renew itself and adapt to new circumstances. A richer and freer China will just speed ahead of Hong Kong.

The oft-cited warning about Hong Kong becoming "just another Chinese city" betrays our own arrogance and ignorance. Many leading mainland cities have a depth and human interest our own city simply cannot match. Like it or not, our future, good or bad, is China. Even if you idolise the West, remember that most Westerners have no real interest in Hong Kong by itself except as a passageway or transit point to the mainland.

Hong Kong either gets on that unstoppable bandwagon that is China or it will just get left behind.

Videos

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUguIM29uI Women sing while demonstrators chant obscenities. Anna Chan shows up at 7:00.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAK_kOOChJI Fighting at 4:20. An arrest is made.
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCAHJo5up8Q The police won't arrest the alleged attacker

(Apple Daily) http://hk.dv.nextmedia.com/actionnews/hit/20150629/19201886/20073437?_ga=1.242723777.218432039.1397350956 Lots of fighting.

(Ming Pao) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeF0nBoJo-4 Masked demonstrators assaulting citizens (e.g. flying kicks at 0:39 and 1:14). This is the video that the pan-democrats, Benny Tai, Joseph Zen, Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, the Professional Teachers Union, the Civil Human Rights Front, the Federation of Students and Scholarism will claim ignorance about because they made sure that they never watch it.

(Cable News) http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=461033

(NOW news) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=141230 Demonstrators attacking citizens.

(SocRED) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7pqY4Gd8WQ The police escort the Love Hong Kong Action and Righteous Civil Squadron persons away
(SoCREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2k9gkJ8yvc Police action (arrest, witness statements)
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vll3Y8U-Ok8 Police carry a man away while fighting a scrum of photojournalists.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwce4PGn4Tw Following the police closely at the Mong Kok fruit market
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6OH0U6ngeo Mong Kok Fruit Market action

(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEIhoAGY9LY Localists forced the police to take assault suspect down to the police station
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9XVq_TPGdk Pushing and shoving, followed by pepper spray
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZRVojbO4UM Police escort alleged attacker to leave

(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkqWpbE1a1Q Boxing matches broke out.

Internet comments:

- Mr. Ko showed up today to sing. He said that he was born in Hong Kong and has been living here for more than fifty years. He has no political inclinations. In the last five years, he and his friends became interested in singing putongua on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. But after tonight he is angry at the Localists for preventing him from singing.

- Recognize this man! He is a Hong Kong traitor. We need to find out everything about him -- his name, his family, his home address, his telephone number(s), his workplace, etc. And then we will make him regret that he ever sung songs in putonghua.

- (Lau Sai-leung at The Stand News)

The Chinese middle-aged women entered politics during the anti-North East New Territories Development protests. After Occupy Central started, they showed up in Tseung Kwun O to stop Apple Daily from sending out its printed newspapers. During the constitutional reform period, they showed up to support the government. These Chinese middle-aged women are a political tool. They are definitely imported from the mainland and not authentically local. The mainland is using the Chongqing model with these women. Bo Xilai was the first to recognize the political potential of the plaza middle-aged women, and he promoted Red Songs to use against corruption. Bo used a Cultural Revolution approach to demonstrate his power. During that time, Red Songs were even sung at the Hong Kong Town Hall concert hall. These Chinese middle-aged women are not engaged in the leisure activities of ignorant womankind. They represent the resurrection of Cultural Revolution politics. The people of Hong Kong will not tolerate them.

The mainland Chinese middle-aged women grew up during the Cultural Revolution. They were born between the mid-1950's and 1966. When they were in primary and secondary school, they struggled against their teachers in a nationwide effort. Their dream was to be inspected at Tiananmen Square by Chairman Mao. They are uneducated and uncultured, but they understand politics. The people of Hong Kong have seen through this mass stupidity of the Cultural Revolution. Back then, many people took the risk of swimming across Dapeng Bay to seek new lives in Hong Kong. These people left the mass stupidity behind and changed the fates of their children.

It is normal reaction for the people of Hong Kong to reject the Red plaza dancing of these Chinese middle-aged women, especially in public spaces. Why are local bands allowed to perform but these middle-aged women are not? The people of Hong Kong knows the difference -- these middle-aged women sing Red songs and dance the Plaza dance, and they are allied with the digiterati, the triad gangs and the country squires when they show up en masse.

- I understand how the Localists have the inalienable right and the sacred duty to beat up any mainlander that they come across, but the newspaper is reporting that the Localists were chasing and assaulting "citizens" all the way from the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall into the Canton Road Fruit Market. Are they "valiant resisting" and "civilly disobeying" regular citizens now?

- I completely understand why the demonstrators are forced to protest. The placard held by this Chinese middle-aged Localist woman reads (in English): "Chinese Style Street Dancing is Bad Taste."

The woman was arrested merely for jumping into the middle of Nathan Road to block vehicular traffic. The fact that she was dressed in bad taste is not germane to the core issue here.

- I completely understand this. This man hit a Localist. Therefore this man is bleeding from a big gash in his neck. Therefore the police must arrest him or else the Localists will lay siege to the Mong Kok Police Station.

- On television, I heard the demonstrators yell: "This is Hong Kong. We only speak Cantonese here. No other language is allowed." I hope this message gets through loud and clear to the international community (Americans, Europeans, Filipinos, Australians/Kiwis, Canadians, Indonesians, Taiwanese, Japanese, Koreans, etc) -- YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE. IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN HONG KONG, YOU MUST SPEAK ONLY CANTONESE.
- Every evening I pass through the Mong Kok East train station on my way home. There is always a middle-aged man playing a guitar and singing English-language soft rock songs (such as As Tears Go By, Five Hundred Miles, etc). Can the Localists please tell him that this is Hong Kong and no other language besides Cantonese is allowed?
- Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city. Cosmopolitan means: "Free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world." That is why all languages other than Cantonese shall be banned.

- June 28 2015 23:16 discussion forum comment. "Hong Kong people unite to oust all mainlanders. Support the Localists!"
- Look at the timeline. The action is still thick out there, and you support the Localists by pounding on your keyboard. Why don't you get out there and occupy the Mong Kok Police Station, requisition the guns and ammunition and actually start a revolution?

- In Apple Daily's report (no link will be provided because so that they won't profit from the hits), it said that the Localists drove the Chinese middle-aged women away whereupon the Blue Ribbons assaulted the Localists. That choice of language clearly show that Apple Daily is "fair and balanced" just like Fox News.

Have you been brainwashed by me yet?
Poisoned Fruit Daily
Say FUCK to the Poisoned Fruit

- Who is a Localist anyway? Here are some choices:
--- Someone whose ancestors were already in Hong Kong before 1898 and now has Ting Uk land rights in the New Territories
--- Someone whose parents were both born in Hong Kong
--- Someone who has at least one parent born in Hong Kong
--- Someone whose parents are Hong Kong permanent residents (but not necessarily born here)
--- Someone who has at least one parent who is a Hong Kong permanent resident (but not necessarily born here)
--- Someone who was born in a Hong Kong hospital (but his parents need not be)
--- Someone who was born in Hong Kong but not in a hospital (but his parents need not be born in Hong Kong)
--- Someone who was not born in Hong Kong but has become a Hong Kong permanent resident after living here for seven years or more
--- Someone who is here on a one-way visa but has stayed here for seven years in order to become a Hong Kong permanent resident
--- Someone who agrees with everything that Mr. Ho (no first name  please) of the Hong Kong Localism Power says.
If you come up with some rules, you will find it interesting that many of the loudest Localists aren't so Local after all.

- What are they REALLY protesting about?

It can't be because these singers/dancers make too much noise. On Sunday evening, the whole Sai Yeung Choi Street South is filled with performance artists.

  • Here are some foreigners dancing to Chim Chim Cheree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-dbsTmw9_M.

  • Here is another band with guitars and drums singing Sha la la la la in English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQn_qw3X1lc.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGSXMBqpiLI Here is People Power member Tam Tak-chi using the megaphone to yell things such as: "If the masked men tell you to assault someone, you should push him out to fight first!" "What happens after you beat someone up? What does universal suffrage happen after you finish beating people up?" "Don't underestimate the housewives, women, children and senior citizens in the Shopping Revolution. The anti-nuclear power protests in Japan were powered by housewives, moms, grandpas and grandmas".

It can't be because those people from a trash culture are playing trash music in putonghua:

It can't be because those people are taking over public space. Here is the lobby of the HSBC building filled with Filipina maids on a Sunday. The Localists have never complained.

For here is a large Sai Yeung Choi Street South crowd listening to a local band singing in English. No complaints either.

The real reason is given in Hong Kong Localism Power's call for action: "When Hong Kong Localism Power was holding its forum on Sai Yeung Street South pedestrian street last week, the Mong Kok Middle-aged Women Group increased their volume and overwhelmed our discussion. Therefore, we are starting an anti-locust movement to express our dissatisfaction with the Middle-aged Women Group!"

Get it!? This is just another gangland turf struggle. All other assertions are chaff counter-measures.

- If people seem to be confused about what is allowed and what is not allowed on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian area, then it is urgent now to form a Localist committee so that they can decide for us. All those who want to perform on the street must pay a small fee for a limited-time stamp of approval. You have a nice leg, and you wouldn't want it broken, do you?
- Video: Monty Python skit of mafia blackmailing the British army https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZKUozrBl4
- This is a huge racket, because Localist committees will also be needed to decide on:
--- Events held at the Hong Kong Town Hall/Hong Kong Cultural Centre
--- Movies exhibited at the Hong Kong International Film Festival
--- Books sold at Joint Publishing/Commercial Press/Chung Hwa bookstores
--- Stores rented out in all shopping malls
--- Advertisements on radio/television
--- Academic appointments at the eight universities in Hong Kong
--- Hiring at all companies listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange
...

- Chronicle of a court trial outcome foretold


Defendant: "I was getting a headache at home. So I left my Lei Muk Shue home and went down to Mong Kok to buy an aspirin. I walked by the said location and the police arrested me without cause."
Magistrate: $300 fine or 120 days of community service or unconditional release.

- By stopping the Chinese middle-aged women from singing and dancing in a public area, the Localists have violated the following articles of the Basic Law:

Article 27
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

[The subjects were not allowed to express themselves through singing/dancing; not allowed to assemble in a public area]

Article 28
The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

[The subjects were subjected to deprivation or restriction of the freedom of person.]

Article 31
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of emigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region. Unless restrained by law, holders of valid travel documents shall be free to leave the Region without special authorization.

[The subjects were not allowed to move around at will.]

Article 34
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom to engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities.

[The subjects were not allowed to engage in artistic creation (singing and dancing) and were in fact told that their activities are 'trash'.]

If you ask the senior barristers of the Civic Party/Democratic Party to comment on this state of things, they will surely respond: "I don't have enough information on these events. I'll get back to you later if and when I find out more." Since they won't try to find out more, they won't ever have to comment.

- (Hong Kong Equal Opportunities Commission) Race Discrimination Ordinance

The RDO is an anti-discrimination law enacted in July 2008 to protect people against discrimination, harassment and vilification on the ground of their race. Under the RDO, it is unlawful to discriminate, harass or vilify a person on the ground of his/her race. The RDO has come into operation since 10 July 2009.

According to RDO, race in relation to a person means the race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin of the person. Racial group means a group of persons identified by reference to race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. References to a persons racial group refer to any racial group into which the person falls.

If a person engages in an unwelcome, abusive, insulting or offensive behavior because of another persons or his/her near relatives race, which makes him feel threatened, humiliated or embarrassed then it is racial harassment. Racial harassment can be in any formphysical, visual, verbal or non-verbaland even a single incident may constitute racial harassment. It also occurs if a person creates a racially hostile environment for another person because of his/her or his/her near relatives race. Racial harassment is unlawful under the law. Example: Engaging in name calling, which people of certain racial groups may find offensive or impolite, or using a disparaging or offensive tone when communicating with people on the ground of their race could be racial harassment.

Racial harassment is an activity in public which incites hatred, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person because of his/her race. Any racist incitement involving threat of physical harm to persons or their property or premises is considered serious vilification and is liable for fine to a maximum of $100,000 and imprisonment for a maximum of two years

- Why is so big deal about these street fights? Here is something that just happened the day before when several dozen South Asian refugees fought in Yuen Long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqioXwhREs. And these are the people who are causing chaos in Hong Kong, not the Chinese female middle-aged singers/dancers. Why don't the Localists do something about the South Asian refugees?

- Twitter photo of the Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers:

- Twitter photo of protest message against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Trash songs, trash music, go back to the mainland!

- Twitter photo of protest against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Chinese bitches!

- Twitter photo of protest against Chinese female middle-aged street singers/dancers: Chinese Style Street Dancing is Nuisance. Chinese old ugly prostitutes. (P.S. Michael Tanner must be irritated at the Union Jack flags)

- A new word is introduced into the English language:

- (Oriental Daily) Global thinker/leader Joshua Wong was was suffering from a severe case of attention-deficiency on this night until 12:30am when he and his girlfriend Tiffany Chin were assaulted by a man and a woman near a McDonald's on Ivy Street, Tai Kok Tsui district. The man grabbed Wong by the neck and punched his face. Chin picked up the camera and tried to film, but the man pushed her down and dragged her on the ground by her hair. He tried to kick Wong again. The man and the woman then fled. Wong called the police who took him down to Kwong Wah Hospital for an examination.

- "As quiet as a mouse" - that's Joshua Wong if you ask him whether he supports assaulting Chinese middle-aged female singers/dancers in the pedestrian area.
- When he doesn't need the police, he calls them "police dogs." When he needs the police, he calls them "police uncles."
- While Wong was getting punched in the face, Chin did not immediately try to stop the man or call the police. Instead she took out her phone to start filming. Terrific sense of priority here.
- When Joshua Wong was arrested in Mong Kok previously, he claimed that the police squeezed his scrotum really hard. That is why he is reluctant to deal with them again.
- Joshua Wong asked the attacker: "Why?" The man replied: "I don't need any excuse to beat you up." Here is the big problem. Wong should not be asking the man that question. He should be asking: "What did I do to get assaulted?" That's where the solution lies.
- On July 1st, we need to march and demonstrate against the organized violence directed against our students. P.S. Don't forget to donate lots of money.
- This is yet another CIA false flag operation. The goal is to boost attendance and donations at the July 1st march.
- This was just so predictable. They've already tossed petrol bombs at Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's home, hired a hit man to kill him with some bullets but no gun, tossed pig entrails at Jimmy Lai, etc. There aren't too many unplayed variations left.
- You write: "Hong Kong has become an awful place, in which people with different political opinions are violently attacked." I completely agree with you. Yes, it was really awful that the Chinese female middle-aged singers/dancers were violently attacked today.
- Derivative art or violent threat?

- Derivative art - A spoof of plaza dancing in the style of Wong Kar-wai's The Grandmaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFAxMKVkId0

- "One Country Two Systems" was introduced in order to make sure that Hong Kong can retain its established system with a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after the 1997 handover. On one hand, some people don't want to see it become One County One System. Thus the Localists don't want to see mainland culture such as plaza dancing creep into Hong Kong. On the other hand, some people want to see it become One Country One System. Thus the Localists want to see popular culture such as plaza dancing be banned in Hong Kong just like on the mainland (see The Wall Street Journal: Will China Ban the Dancing Grannies?).
- Variation on a saying of Sigmund Freud: The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the Localist's soul, is 'What does a Localist want?'

- (HKG Pao) Recently the government proposed to rebuild the Sai Lau Kok Garden in Tsuen Wan. However, People Power legislator Chan Wai-yip said that the rebuilt site would become a plaza for middle-aged women to sing/dance.
By this logic, we should not build any highways because the Yellow Ribbons will occupy it, and we should not designate any pedestrian malls because the Shopping Revolutionaries will take over? Pro-establishment said that are hundreds of thousands of "middle-aged women of Chinese descent" in Hong Kong and they have their right to use public space as they see fit (including singing and dancing together). Also, it was pointed out that Chan Wai-yip's wife fits the characterization of "Chinese middle-aged woman."

Hong Kong Localism Power Facebook June 21, 2015.

"Chase away the barbarians, give us back our Hong Kong"

When Hong Kong Localism Power was holding its forum on Sai Yeung Street South pedestrian street, the Mong Kok Middle-aged Women Group increased their volume and overwhelmed our discussion. Therefore, we are starting an anti-locust movement to express our dissatisfaction with the Middle-aged Women Group!

As of today, Hong Kong Localism Power will undertake a series of actions against the Mong Kong Middle-aged Bandit Women Singing Group in order to restore our genuine Hong Kong, to restore our Sai Yeung Choi Street South with its original thick local flavor. We will purge all Chinese barbarian culture, we will refuse to listen to bandit music, we will refuse to watch these old ladies dance. Please pay attention to our page!

Wan Chin's Facebook

The Localists have their own character in beating back the Middle-Aged Dancing Group. Raise a placard that says: "Ugly women doing old dances (homonym for "fuck the mother"), mainlanders applaud." Just walk over there and display it silently. Then you say that you a mainlander and enjoy seeing equality because everybody can become a dancer. If they disagree that they are ugly, you say: "I only said that ugly women can dance. Dancing is a human right. You are so pretty, so you should keep on dancing."

Internet comments:

- It is astonishing that the fake localists would switch from valiant discussions about throwing petrol bombs at oppose to opposing female middle-aged street singers/dancers in less than one month.

- DLLM! The fucking Yellow Ribbons occupied Sai Yeung Choi Street South for almost 80 days. During that time, they were using megaphones to deliver speeches from morning through the night. The local residents couldn't get any sleep and started to throw stuff out of their windows down onto the street at them. I do not recall seeing Hong Kong Localism Power coming out to valiantly protect the rights of those local residents.

- The last time I went to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, I saw the Hong Kong Localism Power booth. It was Sunday afternoon. There were all two of them. One of them manned the booth while the other spoke on the megaphone. The man on the megaphone was very worked up in describing their awesome achievements in the anti-parallel trader demonstrators. I stood and watched for about five minutes. Nobody else stopped at all. The man was just screaming into thin air.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny8E9AqqdIY Video of Mr. Bean trying to do the plaza dance.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdtVIHQEJZs Video of Chinese national plaza dancing championships

- https://www.facebook.com/498203090239831/posts/864265626981691 Video of the Mong Kok plaza dancing that Hong Kong Localism Power is going to put a stop to by beating the dancers up.

- (Southern Metropolis Daily) May 15, 2015. At a time when mainland residents are become less enthusiastic about plaza dancing, Hong Kong is quietly seeing a burst of plaza dancing in its parks, recreational areas and plazas. While the theme song for mainland plaza dancing is <Little Apple>, in Hong Kong the preferred song is <Can't afford to get hurt>.  On an early summer morning, a dozen or so middle-aged women began dancing in the Mong Kok Road recreational area. They lined up in three rows, they kicked their legs and waved their hands. Their motions were simple. They repeated the same song again and again. They stopped at 1030am. They told our reporter that they live in the neighborhood. They don't know each other too well, but they get together just for the dancing. "We are bored. Dancing gives us the change to exercise our bodies. At 7pm, some people also come here to dance before heading home to make dinner."

Chinese University of Hong Kong anthropologist Wang Qianni said, "In a globalized world, women everywhere seemed to pursue the same things. In developed countries such as England, senior citizens like to do modern sequence dancing and the English people respect their actions. In China, plaza dancing becomes the butt of jokes. Maybe this tells us that we should re-think tolerance in modern Chinese society." She also said: "Maybe it is not a question of middle-aged women's plaza dancing intruding into private space, but rather the issue is whether private space is intruding upon the public space of senior citizens. Urban designers should think about the demand of space as reflected in plaza dancing, as well as to come up with ideas about how to consider the needs of women and senior citizens."

- The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: Event Announcement

Eradicate poor-quality culture
2015 June 28
Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok
7:30pm
Hong Kong Indigeneous/Hong Kong Localism Power/Valiant Frontier
- Looks like the Hong Kong City-State valiant warriors are going out there to beat up some middle-aged women! That's called 'picking on someone your own size'.
- If love means never having to say that you're sorry, then democracy means never saying that someone else's culture is inferior and must be eradicated.

(SCMP) Last remaining tents cleared from Hong Kongs Occupy spillover camp outside Legco. June 24, 2015.

The last remaining pro-democracy protesters tents in front of Hong Kongs Legislative Council building were cleared this morning. Representatives from the Lands Department read an ultimatum, saying that anything left in the public areas in front of Legco could be removed, and that the government reserved the right to prosecute what it calls illegal occupiers. 

The clearance went smoothly, except for one Putonghua-speaking, middle-aged man  who seemed reluctant to leave. After talking to reporters and representatives from the Lands Department, he was taken away by two police officers to an unmarked white van, which left the area. 

Ellen Leung, a protester aged in her 30s, said she had been here intermittently since last year during the Occupy protests. The freelance marketing worker said that for the past few days, protesters had been gathering their remaining supplies, such as blankets, and getting them cleaned before donating them to charity. She said she was sad when the government cleared the Occupy camps last December after 79 days of protests, but this time she feels different because the governments political reform proposal was voted down by Legco last week. As least we achieved something when the political reform package didnt pass, Leung says. Now well continue our protests in the upcoming [District Council] elections.

Video:

(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdMY0BM9aLI

Internet comments:

- Who is this "Putonghua-speaking, middle-aged man who seemed reluctant to leave"?
(Oriental Daily) The mainlander Wang Deng-yao who has overstayed his visit visa argued for a while before he was finally taken away by the police.

- When 12-year-old mainlander Siu Yau-wai was reported to have overstayed, the Valiant Front called for valiant demonstrations to have him deported immediately (see #247). Let's see whether the Valiant Front will hold valiant demonstrators to have Wang Deng-yao deported immediately. Helpful advice: Don't hold your breath.

- Ah, I remember Wang Deng-yao (see #218). The Oriental Daily photo does not show the state of his teeth. I wonder how many are left after today?

- (TVB) Wang Deng-yao argues with a Lands Department worker, who said: "This stuff now belongs to the government. This no longer belongs to you. Do you understand?" Wang Deng-yao argued back: "I am facing the prospect of becoming a street beggar. What can I do? What have I done wrong? What is wrong? Tell me. Don't take any action."
This is the end of the conversation. Before that, Wang Deng-yao had demanded more time. The worker told him that he was given three days' notice. Wang said: "I am especially dissatisfied because this government is treating me in an inhumane way ... "

- Question: Is panhandling criminalized in Hong Kong?
Answer: Who cares about any law? All I know is that there are beggars everywhere (in Mong Kok, Causeway Bay, etc).
- CA 228 Section 26A Punishment of persons begging alms:

Any person who wanders abroad, or places himself or herself in any public place, street or waterway to beg or gather alms, or causes or procures or encourages any child or children so to do, commits an offence and is liable on conviction-

        (a) for a first or second offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 1 month; and
        (b) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

- Some other prior arrests for Wang Deng-yao:
(SCMP) December 12, 2014. A Beijing resident shouted "Down with the Communist Party!" before he was carried away. Wang Dengyao, 55, said he had also taken part in the 1989 Tiananmen Square student movement, and had entered the city this week to "find out about the real situation in Hong Kong".
(CUHK) December 15, 2014. Wang Deng-yao and other arrested protesters in Causeway Bay have been released. His visa is due to expire today, so the police have asked him to leave tonight.
Take care, good luck and thank you, Mr Wang.
(EJinsight) April 28, 2015.
The arrests came after nearly 100 people staged a demonstration, blocking three south-bound traffic lanes on Nathan Road outside the Sino Centre, Apple Daily reported. Among the arrested was Wang Deng-yao, who is said to have taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijings Tiananmen Square 25 years ago.
So why hasn't he been convicted/deported?
- Wang Deng-yao has probably procured a Civic Party senior barrister to file a petition for political asylum and now can stay on while his petition is being considered.
- More precisely, Wang Deng-yao said that he lost his mainland ID and his application for a replacement was not approved. He applied for political asylum to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee but was turned down. His only choice now is to go to Thailand, but he does not own any valid travel document. Therefore, he is stuck in Hong Kong for now. He cannot work but he also cannot be deported. He can't find work because anyone who hires him is guilty of hiring an illegal worker.

- (Oriental Daily) Benny Mok was at the scene holding a banner and a yellow umbrella. He said that he has stayed for 250 days and he will miss the place. He said that it was unjust to clear the site, because the demonstrators have the right to demonstrate at the East Wing of Government Headquarters. Mok said that Tim Mei Village represents civil society in this new era and that this suppression will not succeed. As to being accused of blocking the street, Mok said that the demonstrators were not allowed neither to enter Civic Plaza to express their demands nor stay overnight at the Legislative Council demonstration area. Therefore, they should be allowed the trivial right to sleep in the street. He said that he will be back, although he won't be staying over.

- (EJinsight) November 12, 2014.

Former government surveyor Benny Mok has decided to end his hunger strike, after spending 40 days outside the government headquarters, Apple Daily reported Wednesday. The 51-year-old Mr. Hungry said he would not hesitate to go on another hunger strike, if the government makes defamatory remarks on the student protesters or clears out the protest sites by force. I could also try preparing food for those who are staying at the protest sites, he said. Mok, who is suffering from diabetes, said he has lost 30 pounds over the last 40 days as he only relied on saline solution for nourishment. However, his conditions have improved.

- Here is a photo of Benny Mok on day 20 of his hunger strike:

Peace, brother!

- (TVB) Demonstrator Mr. Yuan said: "I'm going to miss this place and the relationships that I have formed with the people here. I am going to sit here to watch them remove their stuff. I worry whether they have left valuables behind. Some people did not come back to pick up their valuables. We are leaving. Naturally, next month, someone else is coming back to build a camp again."

- This Mr. Yuan is incoherent. He has no idea what he is saying.

- Some people did not come back to pick up their valuables? This means that their tents were not occupied. So this was a tent city where no one is staying at?

- I'll be back.

- (Oriental Daily) Photos of things that will be thrown away by the Lands Department workers. Who brought this over?

Q1. Are you disappointed that the universal suffrage proposal was vetoed?
52%: Yes
38%: No
6%: Hard to say
4%: No opinion

Q2. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on the prospects of democratic development in Hong Kong?
27%: Yes, for the better
46%: Yes, for the worse
15%: No change
10%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q3. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on governance in Hong Kong?
19%: Yes, for the better
48%: Yes, for the worse
14%: No change
10%: Hard to say
9%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that the veto of the universal suffrage proposal has an impact on the relationship between the central government and Hong Kong?
10%: Yes, for the better
52%: Yes, for the worse
23%: No change
14%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q5. In the long term, do you the veto of the universal suffrage proposal is a good or bad thing for Hong Kong?
29%: Good thing
63%: Bad thing
5%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q6. Who do you think is the biggest loser when the universal suffrage proposal was vetoed?
9%: Central government
17%: Pan-democrats
50%: The people of Hong Kong
12%: The Hong Kong SAR government
6%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
1%: No losers
6%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q7. Who do you think bears the most responsibility for the veto of the universal suffrage proposal?
15%: Central government
56%: Pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
14%: The Hong Kong SAR government
5%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
4%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q8. Do you think the Hong Kong SAR government should focus on the constitutional reform or economic/livelihood issues in the remaining time of its term?
15%: Constitutional reform
74%: Economic/livelihood issues
4%: Other issues
2%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

Q9. Some people are advocating to repay the pan-democrats for their veto of the universal suffrage proposal by voting against them in the upcoming elections?
62%: Agree
19%: Disagree
12%: Hard to say
7%: No opinion

(Ming Pao via ltaaa.com)

Every year, the eight universities in Hong Kong actively recruit top mainland students. This year, they are less attractive than before. According to Hong Kong Polytechnic University, they had 3500 applicants last year but only 2300 this year for a drop of 34%. Lingnan University reports that they had 928 applicants last year, but only 556 this year for a drop of 40%.

According to Joshua Mok at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, the drop in mainland applicants may be attributed to parents getting concerned about the safety of their children over those anti-mainland visitor actions. Also, the Hong Kong dollar is relatively strong against the Japanese Yen and the Euro, which makes other places in the world more attractive.

According to the Department of Education, thee were 6630 mainland undergraduates during the 2014/2015 academic year. They account for 71% of all non-local students. There were 71,500 local students. In graduate school, 69% of the student come from the mainland.

Joshua Mok said that every school wants to have more non-local students in order to create a diversified environment. Schools also value research ability. However, few local students want to enter graduate programs. Those who do prefer overseas institutes because of the foreign experience. Therefore, the schools end up with a majority of mainland graduate students.

Occupy Central founder and Chinese University of Hong Kong Department of Sociology associate professor Chan Kin-man said that if mainland students are concerned about their personal safety because of the Umbrella Movement, then this shows that mainlanders lack information due to government censorship. This has made China "the only country in the world that has a negative perception of the Umbrella Movement." Chan said that he himself as been invited by many universities around the world (such as the United States, Australia, etc) and everywhere students welcomed him and praised the Hong Kong students for the Umbrella Movement.

Chan regrets that fewer mainland students will be coming, because it is a loss for them to be trapped in an information-deprived country. If they could come to Hong Kong, they can bring the Hong Kong advantage back home and advance development there. Meanwhile Hong Kong students can benefit from the exchange.

Chinese University of Hong Kong Local Society convener Ventus Lau hopes that the university will accept fewer mainland students now that there are fewer applicants. Those freed slots can be given to local students. "I am not opposed to internationalizing the university, but right now it is sino-fication disguised as internationalization." Lau said that he thinks the current allocation of dormitory space and scholarships are basically fair. But since many scholarships are awarded based upon academic performance, Hong Kong students fare less well against the elite mainland students. He says that the university expenses are covered by public funds and therefore those resources should be given to local students. The university had better deal with this problem or else campus conflicts are going to become more heated.

Basic Facts (University Grants Committee)

Students Enrolment (Headcount) by Place of Origin (2013/14) City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Baptist University Lingnan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Hong Kong Institute of Education The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The University of Hong Kong
Local:
Mainland China:
Other parts of Asia:
Rest of the World:
TOTAL
11289
1294
332
89
13004
6156
852
26
17
7051
2424
180
24
17
2645
15625
2636
371
111
18743
7589
259
15
2
7865
15402
1552
259
80
17293
7688
1738
598
122
10146
13952
2863
870
203
17888

Internet comments:

- Chan Kin-man says that China is the only country in the world that has a negative perception of the Umbrella Movement. Hong Kong is a part of China.

Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme (November 19, 2014)

Q6. Should the Occupy Movement continue or stop?

13.8%: Continue
79.2%: Stop

However, Chan Kin-man's Occupy Central won't stop until he can get democracy for Hong Kong. As an associate professor in sociology, Chan has taught us a lesson that democracy means disregarding the opinions of an absolute majority.

- Chan Kin-man also takes a monolithic view towards things, and that explains why Occupy Central failed. He thinks that there is one and only one way of looking at things. If you don't look at it his way, then you must be brainwashed or something. He thinks that Occupy Central is correct, so he disregards all dissent. To date, he has no understanding why 79.2% of the people of Hong Kong want the Occupy Movement to go away.

- Frankly speaking, if they want to learn advanced science and technology, they should go to the United States or Europe. In Hong Kong, they won't be able to learn much and they will be treated like trash. What is the point? Young men, go west!

- If  you go to the United States and Europe, you will have to speak English. That is at least useful for you in the future. If you go to Hong Kong, you will have to speak Cantonese. What is the purpose? It will be completely useless unless you plan to stay there.

- The Ming Pao article has the title "Heart of Glass". According to the Urban Dictionary, Adj. describing someone who falls in love easily, usually with someone who ends up not feeling the same. Someone who experiences a lot of broken hearts.

- When many mainland students come to Hong Kong, you complain that they are depriving Hongkongers of their rightful resources such as dormitory space and scholarships. They also won't allow mainlanders to run for Student Union positions. So now the mainland students are not coming anymore. What do you do? You criticize them for not knowing any better.
The bottom line is that you want mainlander students to come to Hong Kong in order for you to treat them like dirt so that you can feel superior.

- With fewer mainland applicants, there will indeed be more dormitory space and scholarships freed up. To fill up those spaces, you will have to lower your admission requirements for your local students. Once admitted, these students cannot be allowed to fail out just because they can't keep up. If you don't think that they are good enough, you shouldn't have admitted them. Therefore, you must lower your standards and give easy grades. Your university will suffer in reputation. None of this should surprise you.
Alternately, you can accept a smaller student body adhering to your existing standards. You can shelve your expansion plans and even fire some redundant lecturers/tutors. Or you can keep the lecturers/tutors and run small class sizes.

- It is even less safe to study in the United States with the racial violence. But more mainlanders are flocking over there. Why? At least Americans don't boo the Chinese national anthem.

- Civic Passion's valiant tactics are working great. Let us hope that we will exterminate all locusts eventually.

- Does that mean no more 'Sex on Hong Kong Street' videos?

- Let me tell you why mainland students are not coming: Job Search. If you graduate now and have a University of Hong Kong Class of 2015 diploma, nobody is going to hire you!

- Only Hong Kong would be so stupid as to have 69% of graduates students coming from the mainland!
- Is that so? Here is the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP): Foreign students make up the majority of enrollments in U.S. graduate programs in many STEM fields, accounting for 70.3 percent of all full-time graduate students in electrical engineering, 63.2 percent in computer science, 60.4 percent in industrial engineering, and more than 50 percent in chemical, materials and mechanical engineering, as well as in economics (a non-STEM field).

- The reason why the United States welcome international students: (Daily Caller) Our economy stands to benefit immensely from the jobs created by skilled foreign workers. In fact, immigrants are responsible for creating more than 40 percent of the current Fortune 500 companies. Just consider AT&T, eBay, Google, SanDisk, Sun, Qualcomm and Yahoo, all of which were founded by immigrants.
- Hong Kong gets those mainland students but they can't really keep the good ones who are finding Shenzhen to be a happier environment for entrepreneurship.

(SCMP) How Beijing's liaison office is flexing its muscles again in Hong Kong affairs. June 20, 2015.

A sudden flurry of meetings and telephone calls at Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong shortly after the pro-establishment camp's botched legislative ballot on Thursday underscores again the increasing assertiveness of mainland officials in local political reform.

Beijing loyalists either got a pat on the back or had to explain themselves - depending on whether they were responsible for the historic Legislative Council vote recording the lowest ever support among all three post-handover reform proposals from the government.

Just 25 minutes after the outcome was sealed, senior officials of the Sai Wan office called Liberal Party leader Vincent Fang Kang at about 1pm, praising the party's five lawmakers for having done a good job by staying in the chamber to cast their votes, the Liberals' honorary chairman James Tien Pei-chun said.

Independent lawmaker Lam Tai-fai, of the industrial sector, also said he received a similar call, from liaison office deputy director Yin Xiaojing. Yin thanked Lam for backing the package, the lawmaker said.

On Thursday, the ill-fated blueprint for electing the city's chief executive by "one man, one vote" in 2017 was blocked by 28 votes to eight, following a surprise last-minute walkout by 31 pro-establishment legislators that they later said was meant to delay the ballot by 15 minutes. Their bungle reduced the much-anticipated showdown between pan-democrats and Beijing loyalists in Legco to a farce - and made the defeat of the government's proposal, though expected, all the more embarrassing.

Three hours later, Business and Professionals Alliance chairman Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen visited the liaison office with several party colleagues for a hastily arranged session to tell "a deputy director" what had happened.

Then yesterday morning, independent lawmaker Ng Leung-sing turned up in Sai Wan as well, followed by pro-establishment ally Abraham Razack of the alliance. Both had also taken part in the walkout. "I have regular dialogue with the liaison office," Ng said. "Of course it was unavoidable for us to discuss what happened on Thursday."

The liaison office's prompt contacts with pro-establishment lawmakers in the wake of the debacle speak volumes about the high profile it adopts over Hong Kong's electoral reform.

It was understood the office had considered, as its top priority, ensuring all 42 Beijing loyalists in Legco would back the reform. "That was why they spared no effort in lobbying medical-sector legislator Dr Leung Ka-lau to support the package," a government-friendly lawmaker said on condition of anonymity.

In the first few years after 1997, Beijing had adopted a low-key approach as it was confident the city could run itself. Senior officials from the liaison office were barely visible at public functions.

But that "non-interference" policy ended with a 500,000-strong march on July 1, 2003, against the launch of national security laws. The following year, Beijing asserted its power to decide the city's political system via interpretation of the Basic Law.

Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said the recent meetings at the liaison office were strong proof that the office had violated Article 22 of the Basic Law, which stated no mainland departments should interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs.

(The Stand News) June 21, 2015.

At the City Forum today, Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the pro-establishment legislators lined up to explain their failure to vote to the China Liaison Office. This fact deserves attention because the legislators swore allegiance to the Basic Law in their oath of office and Basic Law Article 22 bars the central government from interfering in Hong Kong. When the pro-establishment legislators go to explain their "accountability" to the China Liaison Office, they are destroying the Basic Law.

Basic Facts:

The oath of office for the members of the Legislative Council:

I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

Basic Law Article 14:

The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for the maintenance of public order in the Region.

Military forces stationed by the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defence shall not interfere in the local affairs of the Region. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief.

In addition to abiding by national laws, members of the garrison shall abide by the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Expenditure for the garrison shall be borne by the Central People's Government.

Basic Law Article 22:

No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.

Internet comments:

- You may be confused about this:

(Wen Wei Po) On one hand, pan-democrat legislator Frederick Fung said on radio that from the end of last year to now, he has made multiple contacts with the American and British consulates. "Since Christmas, the British Consul-General has come to see me five times and the American Consul-General has met with me three times. So you can see that they are not lackadaisical. There were also European consul-generals, American congressmen and British parliamentarians." Fung said that the western nations thought that the government's proposal was acceptable.

Hong Kong does not have anything like the Logan Act, which is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. Therefore, Fung can file as many reports as he likes to the American, British and Canadian governments.

On the other hand, Hong Kong legislators (and even Hong Kong citizens in general) are not allowed to speak to anyone from the China Liaison Office or, for that matter, any Chinese government official.

The very simple explanation is based upon Basic Law Article 22 which applies only to the Chinese. There is no comparable law in Hong Kong for Americans, British, Eskimos, etc.

As an example, this Jiangxi province government major industries joint investment promotion meeting on May 28, 2015 for Hong Kong group investors is in violation of Basic Law Article 22, but the Hong Kong Communist government won't enforce that law.

- In like manner, you can see the American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington visiting Hong Kong harbor.

But you will probably never see the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning in Hong Kong during your lifetime.

While the Basic Law does not forbid Liaoning from visiting Hong Kong, many pro-democracy activists are bound to say that they will be fearful if this were to take place. Out of fear of this type of reaction, Liaoning will be kept out of Hong Kong.

(EJinsight) May 7, 2015.

After Chinese University of Hong Kong graduates voiced their concern about a proposed visit by Peoples Liberation Army troops to the campus, the university suspended the visit at the last minute. CUHK and the PLA apparently agreed on the suspension.

The move is consistent with the principle that the role of Chinas army in Hong Kong shouldnt go beyond the defense of the city, as provided in the Basic Law. Article 14 states: Military forces stationed by the Central Peoples Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defense shall not interfere in the local affairs of the Region.

Last month, the Postgraduate Student Association of CUHK, which is heavily dominated by students from mainland China, invited members to join a May 8 event described in the email invitations as a Peoples Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison and CUHK students fellowship activity. It said dozens of PLA soldiers would visit the campus, attend classes and have lunch with vice chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu. Then off they would go to play basketball with CUHK students. However, the event was kept a secret from most of the local students, and even the CUHK student union did not know about it.

Theres no doubt that the PLA entering a university campus is a sensitive issue, even after Hong Kong has been under Chinese rule for almost 18 years. The campus is a wellspring of the success of Hong Kong. Freedom of expression and academic freedom prevail there, and students and scholars can conduct their studies and research without any external interference. Students from everywhere, including those from the mainland, enjoy the same rights at CUHK.

On the other hand, the PLA, which serves the interests of the Communist Party of China, has the responsibility to maintain the nations sovereignty in all aspects. A visit by the PLA to the campus, even if a friendly one, would understandably trigger fears of pressure being brought to bear on academic freedom, even if only on a psychological level.

Thats why 163 CUHK graduates backed an online petition titled No PLA on the Campus. While the response wasnt great, at least it drew the universitys attention to the issue and led to the suspension of the visit. The university said the suspension was due to some students misunderstanding the purpose of the event, and thus the visit would fail to achieve its original purpose.

- I would be surprised to be surprised. It is of no surprise that a senior barrister would stand up for an apparent violation of the law. It is also of no surprise that this senior barrister refused to denounce the 79-day illegal Occupy Central.

- In 2010, the Democratic Party stepped inside the China Liaison Office to trade their votes in return for increasing 10 more Legco seats of five directly elected geographical constituencies and five directly elected Super District Councilors.

(Ming Pao) June 21, 2015.

After the government's constitutional reform proposal failed to be passed by the Legislative Council, the Civil Human Rights Front, Scholarism and others are proposing to amend the Basic Law. Civil Human Rights Front convener Johnson Yeung Ching-yin wants to redefine the power relationship between Hong Kong and the central government. However, the Democratic Party and the Labour Party thinks that amendments of the Basic Law should be restricted solely to Article 45 on universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive including the elimination of the nomination committee and Article 68 on universal suffrage for the Legislative Council including the elimination of the functional constituencies.

Previously, the pan-democrats have reached agreement on Basic Law amendments with the Federation of Students/Scholarism during the discussions on the resignation of Legislative Council(s) to force a de facto referendum. This was going to one theme of the referendum. Meanwhile the Civil Human Rights Front have also listed Basic Law amendment as one of the theme's in this year's July 1st march.

(SCMP) Pan-democratic heavyweights warn of risks in revising Hong Kong's Basic Law. June 8, 2015.

A fresh dilemma is looming for mainstream pan-democrats as their allies from civil rights groups advocate an amendment to the Basic Law as a new direction in the pursuit of genuine universal suffrage when the present debate on reform ends.

Trying to revise the city's mini-constitution is too time-consuming, if not downright dangerous, according to pan-democrats including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing. The law in question is Article 45, which stipulates only a nominating committee can name chief executive candidates when universal suffrage is introduced.

The idea of amending it became the talk of the town after leaders of the student unions of four universities burned a copy of the Basic Law last week, during an annual candlelight vigil at Victoria Park commemorating the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Lau noted the students' frustration over stagnating democratic development. But modifying the law was fraught with danger as it would open the way for Beijing to tighten constitutional provisions that had protected Hongkongers' rights and freedom, she warned yesterday. "[I] do not oppose any discussion but we must be very careful in dealing with the matter, which is full of traps," she said.

At the burning of the book on Thursday, the student leaders argued Article 45 served only the interests of Beijing and tycoons. Following the move, almost 30 disparate pro-democracy groups yesterday kicked off marches across the city against the government's reform plan for the 2017 chief executive election, which they said failed to offer voters a genuine choice of hopefuls.

The tertiary students' action was akin to "dropping a bombshell", Civil Human Rights Front convenor Daisy Chan Sin-ying said. Nevertheless, she said, they had floated a new idea that deserved more debate after the legislature, as expected, voted down the government's offer of "sham universal suffrage" this month.

The Federation of Students, the city's oldest and the most politically active pupil group, also backed amending Article 45. But key pan-democratic politicians echoed Lau's reservations about the idea.

Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, who convenes an informal grouping of 23 pan-democratic lawmakers, said effecting changes to the Basic Law was not their top priority now. "What we want to do is to get the central government to honour its promises, delivered to Hong Kong since the 1980s and enshrined in the Basic Law," he said. His party colleague Eu pointed out an amendment would take a very long time and was not necessary to achieve universal suffrage. Burning the Basic Law book might give the public the impression the students opposed the "one country, two systems" principle although they might not mean it, she said.

Basic Facts:

Basic Law Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Plus Instrument 3 and Instrument 4.

Basic Law Article 68

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election.

The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

The specific method for forming the Legislative Council and its procedures for voting on bills and motions are prescribed in Annex II: Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Voting Procedures. Plus Instrument 5 and Instrument 6.

Basic Law Article 158

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

Internet comments:

- "Previously, the pan-democrats have reached agreement on Basic Law amendments with the Federation of Students/Scholarism ..." The Federation of Students are down to four out of eight universities, and Scholarism has no base support (it is a secondary-school organization with at most 100 members led by people who are no longer in secondary school). Why are their backroom agreements relevant to the people of Hong Kong and their interests?

- How do you amend Basic Law Article 45 and Article 68? You follow Basic Law Article 158 on amendments, which says that you need (1) the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the National People's Congress; (2) the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Legislative Council; (3) the consent of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Strategizing means defining the ways by which these three parties can be persuaded to agree with your demands. Let me suggest that marching on July 1st to chant slogans such as "End one-party rule!" and "Down with the Communist Party!" isn't a winning formula.

- Basic Law Articles 45 and 68 cannot be amended without first amending Basic Law Article 158. I propose the following revision to Basic Law Article 158.

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the people of Hong Kong.

Amendment proposals are accepted with a minimum of 10,000 signatures from Hong Kong permanent residents. Such proposals shall be voted upon in a public referendum to be conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme.

Any amendment that has more support than opposition shall be submitted to the National People's Congress Standing Committee which shall automatically approve it. The amendment shall not be rejected because it contravenes the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

- Of course, you were surely joking when you said that the referendum shall be held by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. You can vote as many times as you want on the Internet with computer-generated random Hong Kong ID numbers.

- The results of the 6.22 Civil Referedum conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme:

If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices, LegCo should veto it.

87.8%: LegCo should veto
7.6%: LegCo should not veto
3.9%: Abstention
0.7%: Did not vote
0.1%<: Blank vote
0.1%<: Invalid vote
0.1%<: Refused to vote

Total number of votes: 792,808

 (SCMP) June 16, 2015.

... The latest HKU-POP poll - funded and commissioned by Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei-chun with a "supersize" pool of respondents of 5,000 plus - covers both. Forty-eight per cent supported the proposal, while 38 per cent opposed it. When asked which button lawmakers should press, 51 per cent supported Legco passing the bill, against 37 per cent who disapproved.

The Civil Referendum organized by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme ended up drawing only supporters but not opponents of limited proposals. It did not reflect the opinions of the population as a whole.

- If you don't trust the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, then the government Registration and Electoral Office can hold the referendum for registered electors. They have the detailed voter information which they can verify.
- Yes, it only costs $100+ million each time. Why don't we take that money and split it among the people? A common saying about parent-child relationship in Hong Kong is: "It would have been better if I gave birth to a piece of BBQ pork instead of you!" $100 million divided by 7 million is about $15 per person and that is enough to buy a piece of BBQ pork.
- Of course, we can run an omnibus referendum containing multiple proposals (see, for example, California ballot proposition).

- You are now trapped in an infinite loop.
In order to amend Articles 45 and 68, you need to amend Article 158.
In order to amend Article 158, you need to amend Article 158.
Well, you're stuck.
Is there any way to challenge Article 158? You can file a petition for a judicial review by the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. But with respect to any matter concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, that Court shall seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (see Basic Law Article 158). So you are back to where you were.

(SCMP) Hong Kong reform package rejected as pro-Beijing camp walk out in 'miscommunication'  June 19, 2015.

Hong Kong's legislature yesterday blocked the government's electoral reform plan as a historic showdown between pan-democrats and Beijing loyalists became a farce when the latter camp's bungled walkout meant that only eight lawmakers voted for the plan.

There was utter confusion among the government's allies when 31 of them left the chamber in the mistaken belief the ballot would be adjourned while they waited for rural kingpin Lau Wong-fat, who was stuck in traffic on his way to cast his vote.

The resulting fiasco ended two years of debate and months of bickering on how Hong Kong could elect its chief executive by "one man, one vote" in 2017.

All 27 pan-democratic lawmakers kept their vow to vote no, and pro-establishment medical sector representative Dr Leung Ka-lau added a 28th vote. That would have been enough to deny the proposal the two-thirds majority it needed. But the pro-establishment camp's plan to blame pan-democrats for the failure of reform was severely undermined, as the walkout left just eight yes votes and a clear majority against the package.

The eight who voted yes were the five Liberal Party lawmakers, the Federation of Trade Unions' Chan Yuen-han, and independents Lam Tai-fai and Chan Kin-por. Legco President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing and labour representative Poon Siu-ping were present but did not vote.

(SCMP) June 19, 2015.

A commentary published in the Peoples Daily today said pan-democratic lawmakers should take the full responsibility for obstructing democratic development in Hong Kong. The opposition lawmakers perverse act of voting down the electoral reform proposal went against mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong. It exposes their true colours of opposing democracy while chanting slogans fighting for democracy, the Communist Partys mouthpiece said.

The opposition is actually opposing one country, two systems and the Basic Law. The biggest political issue in the 18 years since the handover is some people in Hong Kong dont accept the fact that China has resumed Hong Kongs sovereignty, the commentary said.

The commentary said the pan-democrats were actually struggling with the central government for the power to govern Hong Kong through the rejection of the reform package, adding that they were attempting to turn the city into an independent political entity.

The newspaper said the central government would continue to implement one country, two systems unswervingly and support Hong Kong to achieve the ultimate goal of universal suffrage.

(The Stand News)

- The government's constitutional reform proposal was voted down by a majority of 28 votes NAY to 8 votes AYE. But many pro-establishment newspapers handled the outcome in a deliberately low-keyed manner. Sing Tao and Headline News, both from the Sing Tao Group, used the headline "Vote tallying outside the Legislative Council" for their report that they canvassed the pro-establishment legislators and all 42 of them supported the government's proposal.

Internet comments:


- "Hurrah! We finally made 5 million voters lose one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive!"

- Here is the summary: The pan-democrats vetoed a bill that has the support of the people of Hong Kong so that future Chief Executives will continue to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee for the foreseeable future.

- (Discuss.com.hk) June 18, 2015.

When  you read the newspaper reports today, you might think that the Chinese Communists suffered a huge loss. But here is my scorecard for the day:

Pan-democrats: Huge loss
Central government: Huge victory
Pro-establishment camp: Small victory
Localists: All for nothing.
Foreign forces: Huge loss

How so?

(1) 1,200 election committee continues to elect a pro-China Chief Executive in 2017
(2) Functional constituencies continue in Legislative Council to provide a pro-China majority
(3) CY Leung stands an excellent chance of being re-elected
(4) Pan-democrats vetoed one-person-one-vote and now own the onus
(5) Radical elements ready to instigate trouble after the vote had nothing to rage about
(6) USA/UK/EU failed to disrupt Hong Kong social order and profit from short-selling the Hong Kong/Chinese stock markets

This was an awesome performance by the Chinese Communists. Everything worked according to their script. This was the outcome that they wanted, and the pan-democrats obliged them. And the Localists became collateral damage too.

- Immediately after the fiasco at the Legislative Council came a flood of reports from 'informed Beijing sources' that many heads (at the Politburo (Zhang Dejiang), State Council, National People's Congress (Li Fei), China Liaison Office (Zhang Xiaoming), CY Leung, the political reform trio of Carrie Lam, Rimsky Yuen and Raymond Tam, Legco president Jasper Tsang, the eight who were present to vote AYE, various political parties (Liberal Party, DAB), etc) will roll because Xi Jinping/Li Keqiang/Zhang Dejiang/Zhang Xiaoming/CY Leung are pounding on their desks in rabid anger. These reports are not credible because the sources are all anonymous. Worse yet, they are made out as if they are highly placed sources.

Here is the dilemma: If you don't have a highly placed source, then that information is suspect because the source is not in a position to know state secrets. If you claim to have a highly placed source, then that information is suspect because such a source is likely to be selling state secrets to foreign forces for big money instead of leaking it to a credibility-deficient tabloid newspaper/website in Hong Kong/USA (e.g. Boxun, Apple Daily).

These are good sources of entertainment (like Bo Xilai paying Zhang Ziyi $700 million to sleep with him), but not good sources of information.

- (Bastille Post) The road to democracy. June 19, 2015.

It is a fact that the constitutional reform would not have passed even without that odd happening. Nothing was going to change that.

The 27 pan-democrats plus the Medical sector's Leung Ka-lau voted NAY to veto the bill. Then they said to immediately re-start the 5-step process for constitutional reform. How do they go about doing this? Do they put a knife at the throat of the Hong Kong SAR government by threatening to filibuster and obstruct everything so that the central government must yield unconditionally to their demands? And if the pan-democrats offer a bill based upon civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates, are they going to get a 2/3 majority in the Legislative Council to pass that bill?

When the pan-democrats first talked about Occupy Central to pressure the central government/Hong Kong SAR government, the National People's Congress Standing Committee immediately responded with the August 31st resolution. According to information, the draft resolution began with with "With respect to the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive election by universal suffrage in 2017 ..." In the final version, "in 2017" was excised. This means that the August 31st resolution will be valid not just for 2017 but also for any future constitutional reforms until as such time when it has been field-tested. People compared this to eating a baked cake. If you don't want to eat it now, it can be put away. When you want to eat later, the cake will be reheated in a microwave and brought out for you. It is the same old cake. If you want to eat a new cake, you will have eat the old one first. The cake will not be thrown out until it has been tasted. Such is the wish of the central government.

The pan-democrats want to bend the central government according to their will. Are they powerful enough? The pan-democrats are playing "all-in show hand" poker with the central government all the time. The central government is not obliged to play along. This time, the central government played a card that turned out to have greater public support than not. Even the foreign forces want the pan-democrats to take the offer. But the pan-democrats tossed the card away. This is only going to make the central government even less willing to implement democracy in Hong Kong.

In the history of the world, democratic development comes from either bloody revolution or compromise/concession. In Hong Kong, conditions do not exist for a revolution. If Hongkongers don't have the wisdom to make compromises and concessions, nothing will come out of this.

- (TVB) Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the veto of the constitutional reform proposal is a message to the central government about the demand for genuine universal suffrage. He called on the Hong Kong SAR government to re-start the constitutional reform as soon as possible.

What is "as soon as possible"?

5-Step Process of Constitutional Development:

  1. The Chief Executive to make a report to the National People's Congress Standing Committee as to whether there is a need to amend the two electoral methods
  2. A determination to be made by the NPCSC as to whether the electoral methods need to be amended
  3. The resolutions on the amendments to be introduced by the HKSAR, Government to the LegCo, and be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo,
  4. Consent to be given by the CE to the motions endorsed by the LegCo, and
  5. The relevant bill to be reported by the CE to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

So the first step is to find a Chief Executive who is willing to make a report to the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The current Chief Executive CY Leung has stated that he has no intention of doing anything about constitutional reform for the rest of his term. His term runs out in 2017.

In 2017, a new Chief Executive will be elected by a 1,200-person election committee. CY Leung has not indicated whether he will run again or not. If he runs and is re-elected, then he probably won't touch constitutional reform. His second term ends in 2012. If he does not run or if he run but is not re-elected, another Chief Executive may or may not want to touch constitutional reform. Why not? If on one hand, the pan-democrats won't budge because civil nomination is a sine qua non for them and, on the other hand, the National People's Congress Standing Committee insists that its August 31st has no expiry date and won't be amended until field-tested, then it is a waste of everybody's time and effort to go through the five steps. It will be the 2015 vote all over again.

It is said that there may be a chance that the new Chief Executive elected in 2022 may re-start the constitutional reform. That is a 'maybe'. That Chief Executive can save some time and effort for everybody by asking the pan-democrats up front: "Do you accept the NPCSC's August 31st framework?" If not, he/she should stop immediately. The funds (for printing pamphlets, holding town hall meetings, etc) can be better spent (such as payout to senior citizens).

- It is not true that there is no end in sight.

At the latest, all this will be resolved in 2047 when One Country Two Systems expires and One Country One System takes over. Then Hong Kong will follow whatever they've got in China at that time. That much is certain.

But the end could be even earlier, perhaps in a couple of years. Occupy Central founder and Chinese University of Hong Kong associate professor Chan Kin-man has said that China may collapse really soon and that Hong Kong will get the opportunity to become independent. So the end may be very close! If we can keep our faith, join hands and pray together, God will deliver us from evil.

- Yet another way is for the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to hold yet another public referendum to vote on civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates. If the public approves, then this becomes the law of the land.
- Been there, did that. Robert Chung can get 700,000 signatures to support civil nomination, and Robert Chow gets 1.8 million signatures to support the government's proposal with the 1,200-person nomination committee.
- 'The law of the land' (=Basic Law) does not contain any mention of binding referendum results. You are masturbating again ...
- Of course, if the referendum results are not in your favor, you should immediately repudiate them and say that your own conscience is more important than majority opinion. Meanwhile if the referendum results are in your favor, you should immediately say that they must be respected.

- Alan Leong suggests that the Hong Kong SAR government and the central government have the constitutional duty to implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive. The vetoed proposal follows Basic Law Article 45 and Annex I, which Leong rejects. So the governments have discharged their constitutional duty but Leong and friends refused.
Meanwhile, the Hong Kong SAR government also tried to introduce Basic Law Article 23 legislation because they have the constitutional duty to do so. Leong and friends also vetoed that.
So what Alan Leong is really saying that the Hong Kong SAR government and the central government have the constitutional duty to do whatever he says PERIOD. I hope this is sufficiently clear.

- According to the radical elements, if Basic Law Article 45/Annex I are standing in the way, then an amendment is in order to permit civil nomination.
According to the same radical elements, the Chinese Communist Party is illegitimate and therefore one-party rule must end!
So why do the radical elements want the illegitimate Chinese Communist Party to amend the Basic Law for them?

- Amazingly, Alan Leong did not get to the main point. Or perhaps he did but TVB did not air it. Here is that usual main point: "The road to democracy is long and hard, but we will continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong should continue to vote for us so that we can continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW. And, most important of all, don't forget to donate money to us so that we can continue to fight for FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE and RULE OF LAW.

- Now you're really talking. The heart of the matter is that pan-democrats do not want FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY and UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. If these things actually arrive, the pan-democrats will become redundant. If they are not needed to RESIST and FIGHT, they lose their $90,770 monthly salary plus donations. Revolutionaries need permanent revolutions or else they may be forced to become working persons.
- In like manner, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China cannot really permit June 4th to be vindicated, because they wouldn't know what to do with themselves anymore.
- In this case, the pan-democrats, the pro-establishment camp and the central government don't want one-person-one-vote and prefer to remain the same place and they staged a slapstick comedy for your entertainment.
- Unfortunately, the pan-democrats did not know beforehand. If so, five of them could have voted AYE so that the final vote was 23 NAY versus 13 AYE, and the bill failed to pass because the 34 others failed to come in and vote AYE.

- Alan Leong also called for the government to repair the social rifts. WTF! What has done more to cause social rifts than Occupy Central? And here is Alan Leong being led away at the end of Occupy Central.

- Here is the new and improved five-step constitutional reform process:
Step 1: Pan-democrats Occupy Central again
Step 2: Pan-democrats run nightly Shopping Revolutions in Mong Kok again
Step 3: Pan-democrats raise the specter of Hong Kong independence (by attacking mainland toursts, etc) again
Step 4: Pan-democrats destroy Hong Kong's economy again
Step 5: Pan-democrats veto the next constitutional reform proposal again

- Dialogue
Pan-democrats: I want genuine universal suffrage!
Central government: The August 31st resolution still stands.
Pan-democrats: I want the five-step constitutional reform process to re-start!
Central government: The August 31st resolution still stands
Pan-democrats: We call upon all the citizens to pour into the streets and Occupy Central again!
Citizens: DLLM! Are you done yet?

- (Bastille Post) On RTHK, Occupy Central founder Benny Tai said that over the past two years, 800,000 people have participated in the civil referendum and Central was occupied for 79 days. While it may seem that nothing was gained, many Hongkongers are now awakened and they will not sit there and wait for handouts from the authorities. But Benny Tai did not offer any concrete strategy to fight for democracy.
Benny Tai is offering an optimistic fantasy. When Benny Tai and company brought out Occupy Central, they said that if we follow his formula to paralyze Central for two days and then surrender ourselves en masse to flood the police stations, the central government will give up and we will have democracy. Nothing like that happened. So why would you pay heed to more Benny Tai predictions?

- (Bastille Post) Two little pigs.

A completely stupid thing happened at the Legislative Council as the pro-establishment legislators made an elementary mistake and failed to cast their votes. This incident drew attention completely towards that mistake. Many pan-democrats were delighted about the constitutional reform proposal that received the lowest support rate in Legco history. Some are saying: "You are not afraid of having wolves as enemies; you should be afraid of having pigs as your allies."

But the pan-democrats were just as piggish in their strategy to fight for democracy for Hong Kong. When the National People's Congress Standing Committee made its August 31st resolution, the pan-democrats proclaimed this is be "sham universal suffrage." But even the foreign forces such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union were telling them to take the deal. Supposedly, the central government was uncertain just how much influence the foreign forces have on the pan-democrats. If they are influential, they should be able to get five pan-democrats to vote for the proposal. In the end, the foreign forces could not make any pan-democrat switch positions.

In retrospect, why did the foreign forces support the constitutional reform proposal? You could say that the United Kingdom wanted to do business with China, but the United States did not have to do so. Clearly, they knew that even if the nomination process is restrictive, the Chief Executive will ultimately be elected by 5 million voters. This would have been a milestone in the development of democracy in Hong Kong. No matter who is running for Chief Executive, that person can no longer go against public opinion. This implies a qualitative change in Hong Kong democracy. Although the proposal is flawed, it is very positive. That is why the foreign forces wanted the pan-democrats to pocket the offer.

However, none of the pan-democratic political parties wanted to take the fall. So that was how this proposal got vetoed. They failed to see how the central government was handing out the right to elect in exchange for stability. Therefore, the pan-democrats were as stupid as pigs in their strategizing. It took two unmatchable pigs to bring the curtains down on constitutional reform.

What happens next? The pro-establishment camp is obviously still crying over the debacle. But the pan-democrats should not be smiling. There is no clear way for them to force the central government to re-start the five-step process. Therefore the first consequence of the veto is that the development of democracy in Hong Kong is now completely stalled. For the next 5  years, perhaps even 10 years, the central government won't be willing to re-start constitutional reform.

- (HKG Pao) How to overturn the NPCSC's August 31st resolution? By Shih Wing-ching. June 19, 2015.

... According to the pan-democrats, the August 31st resolution is unconstitutional. That is their view, because the National People's Congress Standing Committee does not look at it this way. According to western parliamentary practice, the pan-democrats should lobby the NPCSC about the reasons and persuade them to see it the pan-democrats' way. Thus, the NPCSC may reverse its decision at their next meeting.

But the pan-democrats are not doing that, because they think that the Communists control the rubber-stamp NPCSC and lobbying won't be effective.

If that is the case, the pan-democrats must lobby the central government leaders. Unfortunately, the pan-democrats also think that contacting the Chinese Communists is proof of betrayal of the democracy cause. They don't dare to hold secret discussions with the Chinese Communist officials because they are afraid of being accused of striking secret deals or being bought. Therefore, when they meet with the Chinese Communist officials, it is always as a group such that they can monitor each other as well as establish their own innocence.

Such meetings become occasions in which both parties re-iterate their positions with no opportunity to probe each other or try for compromise. Nothing significant can come from these meetings.

The indications are that the pan-democrats have no intention of lobbying the Chinese Communists. They are more interested in calling the people of Hong Kong to join their resistance campaign and stop the Communists from carrying out their plans for governance in Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, these resistance movements cannot shake the determination of the Chinese Communists to exercise their sovereign rule. The Occupy Central movement gathered formidable support and the citizens paid a high cost. But it could not change the NPCSC resolution. To a certain extent, the August 31st resolution is the response of the Chinese Communists to the Occupy Central movement. Therefore, a few more civil disobedience campaigns will only make the NPCSC impose even more restrictions on Hong Kong.

Under the existing laws, the right to interpret and amend the Basic Law lies with the National People's Congress Standing Committee. When the NPCSC makes an evaluation, they will consider national factors in addition to Hong Kong factors. When the pan-democrats run resistance, they cannot just look at Hong Kong factors and ignore the NPCSC's national concerns. Otherwise, Hongkongers will pay high costs without gaining anything. Politicians must not care solely about political correctness while ignoring practical feasibility.

- What do the "foreign forces" have to say after the vote?

(Telegraph) Hong Kong rejects Beijing-backed political reform package. June 19, 2015.

The UK was "disappointed" at Hong Kong's failure to reform their system, said Hugo Swire, the Foreign Office minister of state. "We continue to believe that a transition to universal suffrage is the best way to guarantee Hong Kongs stability and prosperity, and is in everyones interest," he said. "We hope that a constructive dialogue on future reforms can be established, reflecting the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and in accordance with the Basic Law."

Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in Washington that the US believed "the legitimacy of the chief executive will be greatly enhanced if the chief executive is selected through universal suffrage".

(SCMP) US plans to raise Hong Kong electoral reform at talks with top Chinese officials. June 20, 2015.

Scott Robinson, spokesman for the US consulate in Hong Kong, said the US government encouraged the Hong Kong government, Beijing and the people of Hong Kong to continue to work together towards the goal of achieving universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of Hongkongers.

"We believe the legitimacy of the chief executive would be greatly enhanced if the chief executive were selected through universal suffrage and if Hong Kong's residents had a meaningful choice of candidates," he said.

"We greatly value our relationship with Hong Kong and have a deep and abiding interest in its stability and prosperity. Hong Kong's open society, rule of law and free market are based on principles Americans and the people of Hong Kong share."

(EJinsight) Chris Patten: Hong Kong will have democracy eventually. June 19, 2015.

Hong Kong will eventually have democracy, former governor Chris Patten says, a day after legislators resoundingly rebuffed Beijing by voting down its preferred selection method for the next chief executive.

Patten, Hong Kongs last colonial leader, told Apple Daily that Thursdays defeat of the 2017 election reform package marked a critical moment but does not mean the fight for democracy is in a dead knot.

Maintaining an open economy under rule of law will surely lead to political consequences, he said. For a free city like Hong Kong that is rich in both software and hardware infrastructure, what it now lacks is only the capability to elect its own leader and such a situation will definitely not last forever, he said.

Patten rejected accusations Britain is responsible for social and political divisions in Hong Kong, saying Beijing and some Hong Kong politicians are to blame. He said China is bound by treaty commitments under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the basis of the change of sovereignty.

Patten refused to comment directly on the election bill, saying you all know my views on democracy. Asked how Britain can help Hong Kong fight for democracy, he said the British government should talk about core values.

Patten has been critical of Londons stance that Hong Kong people should accept the electoral reform proposal in its present form and gradually improve on it.

What they have to say is vacuous, but it is what they didn't say (or cannot bring themselves to say) that is interesting.

  • They can't say that the people of Hong Kong were suppressed because they know that the support levels were higher than oppose levels in the public opinion polls.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats were wrong to reject a progressive step.

  • They can't say that the central government refused to grant democracy to Hong Kong.

  • They can't say that the central government must now craft a new bill according to the pan-democrats' specifications.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats should now filibuster livelihood-related bills to force the Hong Kong SAR government's hand.

  • They can't say that the pan-democrats should proceed with Occupy Central II until the Hong Kong SAR government cries uncle.

- (VJmedia) June 19, 2015.


Apple Daily roster of who voted which way

June 18 2015 is a historical moment for Hong Kong, because the 2017 Chief Executive election bill was vetoed at the Legislative Council. This outcome carried no suspense because the positions of the various legislators have been known for months already. Surprisingly, there was an anti-climax with 28 NAY votes versus only 8 AYE votes. Sometimes "you cannot help but laugh" (to quote the famous saying of CY Leung).

Because of this farce, the media, Facebook and whatsapp groups are making fun of the pro-establishment camp.

But what happens after the laughing? What then?

The political storm will quickly die off. But this is just the calm before the next political storm. The government says that they will go back to focus on livelihood issues. But who is going to believe that? When the 2017 Chief Executive election method is vetoed, the plans are being immediately launched for the 2017 Chief Executive election which will be held using the old rules. In 2017, the Chief Executive will be elected by a 1,200-person election committee. So the potential candidates are immediately sizing up this committee. For example, the incumbent CY Leung will definitely be active if he wants re-election. The pan-democrats had better not under-estimate their opponents.

In 2012, Leung "conned" his way to become Chief Executive. This is unlikely to work in 2017 because he is a known commodity now. The central government won't be fooled again. They won't allow candidates to fight each other openly and then pick the winner at the end. They will pick their candidate up front and then the election committee will vote for that candidate. Therefore it will be hard for the other potential candidates to obtain committee support.

The pan-democrats will be on the outside looking in at the Chief Executive election. However, they can do battle in the District Council and Legislative Council elections. But they will be facing an unprecedented uphill battle. This time, they are not running against Communist agents. They will be running against the Communists themselves with more "Chinese" voters. Over the years, the pan-democrats have seen diminishing voters and resources whereas the Communists have increased both voters and resources. Within the pan-democrats, the Democratic Party are dying and other political parties cannot attract votes. Some young people have gained reputation through Occupy Central, but they won't be able to run in elections without the help of large numbers of precinct captains.

- What is for certain is that in the District Council and Legislative Council elections, there will be a large number of 'colorless' candidates who say that they are coming out to serve the people and they have no political positions. In truth, they have very firm political positions but they can't make open declarations for fear of automatically losing votes. So your best bet is to vote for someone with a loud and clear political position, because you will at least know what you are getting.

- The 2016 Legislative Council elections are important. If the pan-democrats lose enough seats so that they become less than 1/3, the 2017 Chief Executive will have the votes to pass a constitutional reform based upon the NPCSC's August 31st framework.

- There are two schools of thoughts about the legislative council elections.

According to one school of thought, the pan-democrats will win in a landslide. Evidence:

(TVB) TVB commissioned the Lingnan University Public Governance Programme to interview 1,115 adult Hong Kong permanent residents on June 9-12.

Q3. If the constitutional reform fails to pass, who is responsible? (Multiple choices allowed)
42.8%: The HKSAR government
36.7%: The central govenrment
18.0%: The pro-establishment camp
39.2%: The pro-democracy camp

According to another school of thought, the pan-democrats will lose in a landslide. Evidence:

 (Hong Kong Research Association) 2,268 adults were interviewed by automated telephone system on June 5-12.

Q8. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is the most responsible?
16%: The central government
51%: The pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
18%: The HKSAR government
2%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
8%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

What is your pick?

- Conspiracy theory: Shortly before the voting, it became known that there would be enough pan-democrats switching to pass the bill. Why? Because if the bill was vetoed, the whole constitutional reform  issue goes away for at least a decade. But if the bill was passed, there would be an immediate riot outside the Legislative Council, the pan-democrats can start Occupy Central II and this becomes the central issue of the 2015 District Council elections, the 2016 Legislative Council elections and the 2017 Chief Executive election. Thus, the pan-democrats win everything. Once the pro-establishment camp realized that, they walked out. There were 36 legislators left. They would have needed 16 more pan-democrats to join the 8 pro-establishment legislators. There was not enough time to organize. And the designated pan-democrat switchers ended up voting NAY because the plan had failed.

Internet comments:

- Golden saying: "If you can betray your own country China, you surely can betray Great Britain one fine day. Please go away. Thank you." Here is my nomination for the new Hong Kong City-State national anthem: O, Perfidia!
- Not so much about the logical inference on treason, but it is the part about "Please go away. Thank you." The Brits are just so polite (=cruel irony).

- Diamond saying: "Lack of self-respect and low self-esteem." Please see Hong Kong vs. Bhutan. This is the answer to the question: What kind of people boo their own national anthem and feel great about it?

- The independence movement was forced into existence. On one hand, these people insist that they are not Chinese. On the other hand, the British want nothing to do with them. So they have no choice except to found a new free and independent Hong Kong City-State.
- So you mean to say that Michael Tanner is actually giving a push to the Hong Kong independence movement?
- I totally understand what you saying. On one hand, they couldn't be Chinese persons. On the other hand, they couldn't become British poodles. So they have no choice except to become Hong Kong pigs.

- It is clear that Michael Tanner is a fictional character created by Chinese Communist propagandists. True Brits love freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law. After all, the Brits led by their great leader Tony Blair brought freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Look how happy the Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans are with their newfound freedom and democracy. Soon the Brits will bring freedom and democracy to Syria and then Iran.
- Michael Tanner is very real -- see his comments at The Guardian.

- Michael Tanner is actually saying what plenty of Hongkongers are very perplexed by. Okay, so a group of people want to become an independent nation. We understand that. We have seen America, India, Pakistan, Mexico, Venezuela and so on go through the process. But we have never seen anywhere in history any such nation taking the path of wanting a return to its former colonial master who will then give permission to become independent.

- Hong Kong independence mantra:
Oh beloved Great Britain, we were, are and will always be part of you!
Do not forsake me, my darling!

- Chinese Colonists GET OUT!
(because we prefer the British colonists)

- A Concise History of Hong Kong (2007) by John M. Carroll.

Despite their status and wealth, the members of the Chinese bourgeoisie, like all Chinese in Hong Kong, continued to face racial discrimination in every turn. Racial segregation was enforced both legally and informally. In 1901 a group of Europeans petitioned the colonial government for a separate school for Europeans, arguing that integrated education harmed the morality and character of European children. Although one Chinese resident complained to the local press that "to exclude from certain schools means to go against the law of nature and to aggravate the hatred between Chinese and foreigner" and Secretary for the Colonies Chamberlain condemned the proposal, it enjoyed great support among European parents and the colonial government ... Chinese were barred from the Hong Kong Club and the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and in some hotels Chinese guests could stay only in certain rooms or could not stay overnight.

A particular example of this government-enforced racial divide was Victoria Peak, the exclusive hill district on Hong Kong Island where no Chinese, except for the servants, cooks, houseboys, and drivers working for Europeans, were to live. In 1902 this residential segregation became law when the Colonial Office allowed the Peak to be used solely by residents approved by the governor. Subsequent ordinances passed in 1904 and 1918 explicitly barred Chinese and Eurasians from living on the Peak. As in India and other British colonies, Europeans in Hong Kong worried that close contact with Chinese posed serious physiological and moral risks. Most Europeans in Hong Kong believed that the fate of the colony depended on the health of its European population. Amid the fears of increased contact with Chinese and rising economic competition from the Chinese bourgeoisie, these restriction movements were attempts to preserve the status and social structure of the elite European community of Hong Kong.

- Why do I call you a bastard?
Your paternal grandfather is Chinese.
Your paternal grandmother is Chinese.
Your maternal grandfather is Chinese.
Your maternal grandmother is Chinese.
Your father is Chinese.
Your mother is Chinese.
But you insist that you are not Chinese.
Therefore you are a bastard.
Quod erat demonstrandum/
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι.

- 'Tis time to switch flags.

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal?
64.1%: Yes
27.5%: No
5.2%: Hard to say
3.2%: No opinion

Q2. How confident are you that the Legislative Council will pass the proposal?
17.7%: Confident
62.2%: No confident
16.9%: Hard to say
3.2%: No opinion

Q3. If the Legislative Council fails to pass the proposal, will you vote again for those Legislative Councilors who voted NO this time?
20.8%: Yes
60.3%: No

(Wen Wei Po) Hong Kong Island Federation interviewed 3,557 citizens from mid-May to June 11.

Q1. Do you agree that the election of the Chief Executive should follow the Basic Law and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee?
71.0%: Agree
23.4%: Disagree
5.6%: Neither agree nor disagree/no opinion

Q2. Do you want to have one-person-one-vote?
93.3%: Yes
3.0%: No
3.7%: Neither/no opinion

Q3. Do you think constitutional reform should proceed gradually rather than remain in the same place?
70.3%: Yes
18.7%: No
11.0%: Neither/no opinion

Q4. If the government's proposal is vetoed and citizens won't have one-person-one-vote, then those legislators who voted NO should be held responsible.
67.2% Yes
20.3%: No
12.5%: Neither/no opinion

(HKG Pao) Silent Majority HK commissioned the Hong  Kong Public Opinion Research Centre to interview 901 adult Hong Kong citizens by telephone on June 8-11.

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass/veto the constitutional reform proposal according to majority opinion?
83%: Yes
11%: No

Q2. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass or veto the proposal?
60%: Yes, so that there is one-person-one-vote in 2017
33%: No, so that the 1200-person election committee will continue as is

Q3. Should the pan-democrats vote together according to their previous agreement?
29%: Yes
60%: No, they should vote according to their own wishes now

Q4. If the constitutional reform is vetoed now, when will the five-step reform process occur again?
11%: Before 2017 (during CY Leung's term)
35%: 2017-2012 (during the term of the next Chief Executive)
33%: After 2012

Q5. Will you vote any candidate who vetoed the constitutional reform proposal this time?
35%: Yes
50%: No

(TVB) TVB commissioned the Lingnan University Public Governance Programme to interview 1,115 adult Hong Kong permanent residents on June 9-12.

Q1. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass or veto the government's constitutional reform proposal?
46.7%: Yes
44.8%: No
8.2%: Don't know

Q2. Do you accept the constitutional reform proposal?
34.6%: Yes
43.9%: No
18.8%: Half-half

Q3. If the constitutional reform fails to pass, who is responsible? (Multiple choices allowed)
42.8%: The HKSAR government
36.7%: The central government
18.0%: The pro-establishment camp
39.2%: The pro-democracy camp

Q4a. Would you vote for a legislator who vote against the proposal? (Among those who want the proposal to pass)
25%: Yes
75%: No

Q4b. Would you vote for a legislator who voted for the proposal? (Among those who don't want the proposal to pass)
19%: Yes
81%: No

(SCMP) Surveys reveal only one thing - the public is evenly split on 2017 political reform. June 16, 2015.

The local government began the reform process vowing to win over the public. The use of polling was to be its key strategy to convince sceptics, but it has found itself confronting divisive and sometimes disappointing results.

According to the rolling poll by three universities, opposition and support for the proposal has been neck and neck, although in the University of Hong Kong's latest survey released yesterday, 51 per cent of people called for Legco to approve the bill.

Still, few expect any of the 70 lawmakers to base their final decision on such public sentiment.

First, public sentiment seems to matter less than the convictions of the lawmakers, analysts say. As one pro-democracy lawmaker said on condition of anonymity: "Even if the universities' poll say there's more support than disapproval, we can't vote yes - that's not in line with what we have been asking for all along."

Second, the poll results at the core reflect the status quo of a deeply divided society. Even most polls commissioned by Beijing loyalists show at best a support rate of 60 per cent. After factoring in the margin of error and the response rate, the level of support is unremarkable.

But these findings also differ from the latest releases by the tri-university polls - regarded as one of the most authoritative - which show that opposition had briefly overtaken support, reaching what the pan-democratic lawmakers cheerfully describe as a "golden crossing". Some 43.4 per cent said they did not back the proposal, compared with 41.6 per cent supporting it, in the poll conducted between June 4 and June 8 by HKU, Chinese University and Polytechnic University. However, the level of support again surpassed opposition in the most updated figure, released on a daily basis.

On Friday, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying raised eyebrows when he responded to the findings by saying one should pay attention to whether the pollsters exhibited "strong political inclination" and how professional they had been. He added that the public should compare different polls as questions were asked differently.

A day later, he found at least one survey useful. He drew the media's attention to an HKU poll in collaboration with RTHK which found that 50 per cent of respondents said Legco should pass the reforms, against 33 per cent who said otherwise.

Like Leung, pro-establishment politicians argue there is a difference between asking whether one approves of the proposal and whether Legco should pass it.

The latest HKU poll - funded and commissioned by Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei-chun with a "supersize" pool of respondents of 5,000 plus - covers both. Forty-eight per cent supported the proposal, while 38 per cent opposed it. When asked which button lawmakers should press, 51 per cent supported Legco passing the bill, against 37 per cent who disapproved.

The latter finding is in line with previous surveys conducted by pro-establishment groups that asked whether Legco should approve it: there would be more support than opposition with a support rate of above 50 per cent.

Take a mid-May poll conducted by the Hong Kong Policy Research Institute commissioned by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Beijing-loyalist party with the most lawmakers. Some 61.9 per cent of 1,070 respondents chose the first option, against 32 per cent who opted for the second.

But the way the questions were drafted was a "classic example of leading questions", said Dr Fu King-wa, an expert in statistical journalism at HKU. In the poll, the DAB asked respondents: "Do you think the Legislative Council should: (1) pass the proposal, in order to allow universal suffrage of the chief executive by one person one vote, or (2) vote down the proposal, at the expense of the political system stepping on the same ground in 2017?" Fu says: "It is too negative to include such terms as 'at the expense of' and 'stepping on the same ground' for a professional poll."

In a poll by the New People's Party in April and May, 51.3 per cent supported the proposal. The poll was conducted on the street by the party itself - a party with only two Legco seats. Fu says the problem with a poll like this is the willingness of passers-by who do not support the party to be surveyed. Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee admitted the poll was not "weighted" and not citywide. "Poll findings are a matter of trust at the end of the day," Ip said as she unveiled her findings. Fu stressed the importance of "weighting" a poll, a technique to adjust answers to account for over- and underrepresented groups according to census statistics.

Also on the pro-Beijing side, a more consistent monthly poll conducted by the Hong Kong Research Association found 60 per cent support for Legco to pass the plan over time. In its conclusion for the latest release yesterday, the association, a favourite pollster of pro-Beijing groups and parties, does not hide its political inclination and "appeals to pan-democratic lawmakers to consider supporting the proposal".

Professor Ma Ngok, a political scientist at Chinese University, says the joint-universities poll is the only credible, non-commercial one and if lawmakers were to make a decision based on a poll, this ought to be it. "Without a majority support, a government cannot claim that it is a reasonable policy," Ma says.

After the vote, all eyes will be on whether the pan-democrats will suffer in the District Council elections this year and the Legco election next should they vote down the proposal and, in a way, disenfranchise the public. But Ma doubts this will happen, given such an evenly divided public. "The original plan for the government was to blame the pan-democrats. I'd say that no longer works," Ma says.

(The Standard) June 16, 2015.

A local radical group advocating independence for the SAR is allegedly involved in the bombing plot. At least one of the nine arrested over the plot admitted to being from the National Independent Party.

The suspect is apparently a key member of the group, whose Facebook page was set up in January. The page was deleted last night, but archived webpage records show that in a post on June 1, the group, in poor English, stated: "Warning: the reform package was passed on June 17, Hongkongers must be prepared that there would be casualties on that day. Legislative Council will be another ruin as in Ukraine."

In another post on January 19, the group compared the independence movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The banner of the group said "Liberty, not communism, is the most contagious force in the world."

The group's stance was detailed in another post on May 13. "We are devoted to combining the pro-independence groups in Taiwan and Hong Kong into a cross-territory force," it stated.

The group supported localism groups HK Indigenous and Civic Passion. It also saluted Undergrad, a University of Hong Kong student union publication criticized by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in his policy address for "advocating independence."

Members of the group joined anti- parallel trading protests, and planned to oppose construction of the third airport runway, and passing of the political reform proposal "using any means," it stated.

The group had 219 "likes" before yesterday. It surged to 335 "likes" before the page was closed down.

A former construction worker, Cheng Wai-shing, was one of the people arrested in the alleged bombing conspiracy. Cheng. 29, was arrested after participating in anti- parallel trading protests in Yuen Long. He was banned from going there. After being injured in a traffic accident, he became a cleaner.

Cheng allegedly owns a motorcycle found outside the ATV studio in Ho Chung. He also owns a private car and a lorry. His social media account says he is enthusiastic about social movements, likes riding motorbikes and plays war games. He has uploaded several pictures of himself holding long guns.

Another suspect is a 20-year-old Eurasian who lives in Costa Bello in Hong Kin Road with his family: his businessman father, his mother and younger brother. It is understood he just returned from studying overseas a month ago.

(Cable TV) June 15, 2015.

According to information, some of the arrestees admitted that they were members of the National Independent Party. The police have been paying attention to this organization for over a month. On June 1st, the website of the National Independent Party contained a warning that if the constitutional reform proposal is passed by the Legislative Council on June 17th, then "the people of Hong Kong should be psychologically prepared to suffer casualties that day" and "the Legislative Council will become another Ukrainian ruin."

The National Independent Party website also contains videos of demonstrations in other countries, saying that "these are the resistance standards" and "our warriors should be prepared at all times."

The National Independent Party say that they never boast about their accomplishments or fame, and they will continue to stay invisible while conducting revolutionary activities. They said that they were present in the various anti-parallel trader actions and they got "results." Their next targets will be the Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport and the June constitutional reform. They will do everything possible to stop these things.

The National Independent Party say that buying new weaponry will stop the demonstrators, because the authorities will become BBQ meat just like elsewhere in the world.

The National Independent Party Facebook was established in January this year. So far more than 200 people have given Likes. In May, the National Independent Party announced that they will work towards joining the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence movements to form a new independence force.


Last update on June 11: Remember everyone who comes out to act should wear surgical masks! Why? What is the reasonable excuse? MERS!

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

List of suspects
1: Cheng, male, 29-years-old, construction worker
2: Chan, male, 34-years-old, unemployed
3: Pang, male, 22-year-old, technician
4: Man, male, 23-year-old, unemployed
5: Woo, male, 21-years-old, unemployed
6: Chan, female 29-years-old, purchasing agent
7: Hui, female, 21-years-old, Open University student
8: Woo, female, 30-years-old, Jockey Club EduYoung College teacher
9: Fung, female, 25-years-old, client service representative
10: Chan, 58-year-old, businessman (father of female Chan and arrested at Lo Wu border control point)


Suspect Cheng, also known as "Hong Kong bin Laden"

(Apple Daily) June 15, 2015.

Cheng and Chan are the core members of the National Independent Party. They were arrested during the Occupy Yuen Long demonstration for carrying a box cutter and a switchblade respectively, as well as using pepper oil spray. The two are out on bail while the investigation continues.

Cheng is known to friends as the "Hong Kong bin Laden" and he lives in a Sheung Shui villa with his girlfriend Woo. He used to be a construction worker but hasn't work due to a leg injury sustained from an auto accident. Cheng loves to play music and war games. On June 11, he posted a photo of himself holding an AK47.

Chan graduated from Polytechnic University and he loves model guns. He has posted war games photos of himself and friends. He claimed to have been in the French Foreign Legion. In 2010, Chan was found guilty of possession of explosive materials and sentenced to 240 hours of community service.

Pang lives with his Italian father, his Chinese mother and a younger brother in Sai Kung's Costa Bello. He graduated from university in England last year. He participated in the Umbrella Movement, and was pushed to the ground by the police during the Mong Kok clearance. On his Facebook, he said that he cares about democracy, but he does not agree with a completely peaceful resistance.

(Oriental Daily) March 3, 2015.

33-year-old unemployed man Chan and 29-year-old construction worker Cheng were arrested with 19-year-old student Kwan. The three of them were found carrying a switchblade, a box cutter, a 30cm long rubber truncheon, a lighter and several homemade pepper oil sprayers. The police searched Chan's home and found three homemade police batons (including electrical wires).

Muscular Cheng also supports the Occupy Movement. His Facebook icon is a yellow ribbon. According to information, Cheng is a fan of guns and motorcycles. He has a photo of himself on a motorcycle as the front page of his Facebook. He is a member of motorcycle Facebook groups and frequently go riding with friends. He adores Jerry Miculek, the Greatest Shooter of All Time. He is known to his friends as "the Hong Kong version of bin Laden" and "the King of Robbers."


Chan with singer Denise Ho

According to information, Chan graduated from Polytechnic University and has worked as a lifeguard and a swimming coach. He loves model guns. On his Facebook, he posted photos of himself and friends in war games. Chan supports Occupy Movement, and his Facebook icon is the Shopping Revolution. He has worked as an emergency aid worker at the Occupy Mong Kok zone. He has a photo of himself wearing an emergency worker uniform, together with helmet and goggles. He said that this was the ultimate equipment for an equipment freak.

In 2010, Chan was convicted of possessing restricted explosives and sentenced to 240 hours of community service. Chan who had served in the French Foreign Legion did not have the opportunity to use his fluent French in court. The magistrate said that Chan made him "very uneasy because it was hard to render a verdict." In that case, Chan converted a smoke bomb into a rocket and tested in a Mong Kok back lane in June 2009. He was arrested by police patrolmen. In his apartment, the police found materials related to rockets. Chan said that he wanted to test the theories on rockets and therefore he manufactured a rocket "for fun."

(SCMP) Hong Kong bomb plot a conspiracy to smear us, localists claim, ahead of reform vote. June 16, 2015.

Hong Kong localists have distanced themselves from radicals arrested for an alleged bomb plot, as they raised claims that the plan was a conspiracy to smear them before the Legislative Council votes on the governments electoral reform package.

Jon Ho, spokesman for Hong Kong Localism Power, told a Commercial Radio programme today his group had no connection to 10 members of the National Independent Party arrested for allegedly plotting to set off bombs to cause mayhem and bloodshed. Ho also questioned if the party was a genuine localist group, citing suspicious features of material belonging to the group seized by police officers. Localist groups would not mention umbrellas and yellow ribbons, Ho said, referring to items carrying logos of the key icons of last years Occupy movement.

Some paraphernalia also carried the name of the League of Social Democrats. Ho said that it was impossible to link League of Social Democrats lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung to localist groups as he insisted he was Chinese a standpoint that was entirely different from that of localists. Some localists said online they had never heard of the group and knew no one in it. Hong Kong Indigenous spokesman Ray Wong Toi-yeung said: Ive never heard of them. Absolutely not.

Meanwhile, a Facebook user raised several points of suspicion, based on observations of the evidence police showed to the press. The user found a slogan that read: Kick out the snake feasts-vegetarian feasts-rice dumplings-cakes, on some seized leaflets shown by police. The items are usually used to refer to pro-establishment political groups, as they were known to offer them as gifts to draw support. But the user said: Why did rice dumplings come before cakes [in the slogan]? Hongkongers would not make mistakes like this, referring to the more common sequence of snake feasts, vegetarian feasts, cakes and rice dumplings.

Another Facebook user said: A [real] localist group would definitely not describe themselves as national., while another said: Which nation are you talking about? Why does a nation need to be independent when its already a nation?

(memehk) Stephen Siu. June 16, 2015.

There are four possibilities about these National Independent Party guys.

Possibility #1: They were framed. They never did anything like this, but the police planted the evidence. These people are innocent valiant warriors. They went to the ATV studio to chat, but the police planted the explosives, guns and banners. I think this is impossible to do in Hong Kong. If these people suddenly come up with proof that they could not have been at the scene, etc, it would be a major disaster for the police. It is one thing to frame one person, but framing ten persons at the same time is almost impossible to carry out.

Possibility #2: The police directed the whole operation. These ten people are mercenaries hired by the police to do this. If so, what is the purpose? It would to smear. But to smear whom? The pan-democrats have disavowed them already. Therefore they will be smearing the Localist movement. But nobody in the Localist movement has heard of them. So who are they smearing?

Many commentators are opting for this possibility. I consider this to be preposterous. Among these ten individuals, several of them have been active for a long time. There was a couple who were arrested in Yuen Long. Another one is a Student Frontier member working alongside Cheng Kam-moon. If they are really police informants, they would be undercover for a long period of time gathering information on big-shots such as Raymond Wong, Wong Yeung-tat, Wan Chin, etc. Now that they are arrested, they can only testify against each other and then they will be sentenced to 10 years or more in prison. In The Godfather, a famous saying was that they won't touch heroin because the jail term is long and "people would break and they start to talk." This is a stupid plan. How can anyone believe these arrestees are police informants? If the police does this, they only need two to three informants and they want to be able to have the evidence to convict all the Localist leaders.

Possibility #3: The police have informers around them, but the informers are not among the ten arrestees. The informers knew what they were up to, and they may have even incited them to do these things. Such an informer will come into suspicion from the arrestees because he hasn't been arrested too. This informer will show up as a witness for the prosecution and then his identity will be concealed.

Possibility #4: Ever since the Umbrella Movement, all the radical elements are under police surveillance. These people came to the notice of the police earlier, and the police have been following them for the past three months. The arrests were made after they tested the bombs. This is the most likely scenario. Some people are saying that they detect flaws, such as the choice of terms appear to be non-Localist. That is risible. Do you have to take the SAT test and proper Chinese-language usage in order to become a Localist? These are stupid people and there is no limit to how stupid they can be. When they get their day in court, the Internet will find out all about them. Then we will know whether they can be police informants or not.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

There is a new statement that supposedly comes from the National Independent Party. It says that the nine arrestees are members of their organization, which has suffered an unprecedented blow. However, "the revolution will not stop." The NIP acknowledges that that their members used TATP to make bombs in order "to achieve the greatest effect with the least amount of resources." The goal is to charge at the Legislative Council during the debate/vote on the constitutional reform  proposal.

The statement also says that the National Independent Party wants to achieve independence for Hong Kong, which is a nation capable of being independent. They also criticized other localist parties for immediately disavowing the National Independent Party or not even acknowledging that it exists. They said that some of their members are also members of other localists organizations with whom they have previously exchanged intelligence.

(Bastille Post) June 16, 2015.

A Facebook user named Yim Tat-ming claimed that the National Independent Party's Facebook page was posted from the IP address of the One Country Two Systems Research Centre which is led by Executive Council member Cheung Chi-kong. This became proof that the whole thing must be a false flag operation.

Once the media started calling, the One Country Two Systems Research Centre asked their technical support to verify that this was not true. Shortly afterwards Yim Tat-ming posted: "The post on source of the National Independent Party has been deleted, including from my status this morning. I apologize for any convenience caused by the rumor." According to information, the One Country Two Systems Research Centre has filed a police report.

(EJinsight) National Independent Party: Terror group or political bogeyman?  June 16, 2015.

News that police seized explosives and arrested members of a shadowy group following a raid on an abandoned building in Sai Kung certainly perked things up at the start of the week. The suspects were described as members of a political group called National Independent Party, whose goal, as the name implies, is to gain independence for Hong Kong. 

It is supposedly a radical group who will not hesitate to employ violence to achieve its ends. In fact, police said they seized from the group maps showing the locations of Admiralty and Wan Chai as well as a dynamite depot in Ma On Shan. They were allegedly plotting to sow terror and chaos in the city as the Legislative Council deliberates and votes on the governments political reform proposal this week.

This is indeed unsettling. Not since police officers manhandled unarmed activists and attacked them with tear gas and pepper spray in last years Occupy protests has violence figured in recent political activities.

But what is worrisome is that the authorities have branded this group as a localist, thereby lumping it together with other activist groups which have no intention of employing violence in their pursuit of genuine autonomy for Hong Kong.

In fact, none of the pro-democracy groups knew about the National Independent Party until it was divulged by the authorities. A check with its Facebook fan page showed that it has around 120 likes since the account was opened in January.

After the raid on the former ATV studio on Ho Chung Road, police officials held an on-site press conference to elaborate on the nature of the group, based on the evidence they have gathered.

Police said they found leaflets saying Chun Ying, go to hell and Black police die with their families. These slogans are quite strange for members of localist political groups. In the first place, they never call Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying by his first name. They just call him 689″, which refers to the number of votes he got from the election committee to win the post in 2012. As far as we know, only pro-Beijing publications such as Sing Tao Daily call him Chun-ying in their news reports.

Another bizarre word found in the groups leaflets is reunification to describe the citys return to Chinese rule in 1997. This is a word used by authorities in Beijing, not by known radical political groups in Hong Kong.

Another leaflet found on the site says: Please vote for Umbrella Localists. Now, localist groups have distanced themselves from the Umbrella Movement as early as the first few weeks of the protests since they believe the campaign wont achieve anything. They certainly dont want to be described as Umbrella Localists. In fact, the name of the group  National Independent Party  does not reflect the goal of genuine localist groups.

Localist groups want to focus their struggle on achieving genuine autonomy for Hong Kong. This means they want to reduce the importance of China in the citys political, social and cultural life. They want Hong Kong to have its unique status, instead of being a mere administrative region of China.

As to be expected, pro-democracy groups immediately clarified that they had nothing to do with the National Independent Party or its officers and members, or with its alleged plans to attack Legco later this week.

Hong Kong Localism Power and People Power stressed that they do not condone violence. Police said localist activists are making bombs, but I am not sure if its real or not, Jon Ho of Hong Kong Localism Power was quoted as saying. We have nothing to do with that. People Powers Tam Tak-chi added: People Power did not do that. Our group does not believe in violence.

So who are the people behind the National Independent Party? It is becoming clear that this shadowy group is besmirching the image of localist political groups. It is being used to portray localists as violent groups that intend to sow chaos and disorder in the city to pursue their agenda.

And who would benefit if localist activists are portrayed as violent radicals? Certainly not the localists and other pro-democracy activists, certainly not their cause of achieving genuine universal suffrage and true autonomy for Hong Kong. Its the enemies of pro-democracy groups that will gain from this atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is being created in the city.

As Legco prepares to vote for the governments political reform package, we hope everyone will maintain sobriety and allow reason to prevail in the deliberations. But if violence breaks out outside the Legco complex, the authorities can easily put the blame on the localists and pan-democrats  thanks to the National Independent Party.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2015.

The six defendants were Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wei-shing, Rizzy Pennelli, Woo Kai-fu, Man Ting-lock and Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam, ages 21 to 34. They were charged illegally and maliciously manufacturing explosive devices to cause explosions which may damage lives and property.

According to the prosecutor, the police conducted surveillance on May 27 and found the first, second, fourth and fifth defendant entering into the building and supposedly testing explosives that created light. On June 14, the police observed the second and third defendant entering into the building, staying for more than half an hour and creating some smoke. The police arrested those two and found 7 kilograms of chemicals and five liters of liquid materials. The first and fourth defendants were arrested in Wanchai. The fifth and sixth defendants were arrested in their residences.

The first 34-year-old first defendant Chan Yiu-shing is unemployed and lives with his parents. His parents are willing to provide $5,000 bail. Chan complains of being beaten by the police.

The second defendant Cheng Wai-shing is a construction worker. Cheng complains of being beaten by the police.

The third defendant Rizzy Pennelli lives with his family and says that the police lack strong evidence and therefore he should be allowed to be bailed out. Pennelli complains of being beaten by the police.

The first five defendants were not allowed bail, because the magistrate says that the charges were serious and he was sure why these individuals are in possess these restricted materials.

The sixth defendant Sarene Chan Cheuk-lam said that she only obliged someone's request to purchase something and therefore she was allowed to be bailed out on $20,000. She also complains about being intimidated by the police.

(Apple Daily) June 17, 2015.

An editor of the National Independent Party Facebook group contacted our reporter and told us that the party "exists only in name" with loose organization. He said that he saw a network security discussion at the Hong Kong Golden Forum and joined. "At the time, the name was something like China-Hong Kong-Taiwan Chinese People Democracy Discussion Group. Someone complained that the name was too long, so it was changed to National Independent Party."

He guessed that someone in the group went and formed their own action group. "Sometimes the page is updated without my knowledge." He said that he has never met with any other member. Most of the photos are of Taiwanese girls or umbrella designs. "There is no evidence that the arrestees are party members." He said that there may be some police informers in there. "We screen, but all you have to do is state your political beliefs and send a photo of your ID. How can you screen out someone who intends to become a mole?"

He said that he has never seen the pamphlets that the police exhibited. "The worst part is that they don't know their history because they think that the million person march came after the June 4th massacre."

As an editor, he said: "I have thought about the police coming to search my home. But I have nothing there. There is nothing that they can hold me to ... I was nervous for a while, because I had to decide whether or not to delete all my adult videos."

Internet comments:

- The National Independent Party? Our normal understanding is that some region of a nation wants to become independent. For example, Scotland from the United Kingdom; Catalunya from Spain. But what is a National Independent Party? Does mean that the whole nation wants to be independent of the whole nation?

- If you go to Free Dictionary and type in "National Independence", you are re-directed to "Self-determination" which means (1) determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will; (2) Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence.

- Most of the 238 Facebook followers are said to be political news reporters, who wanted to have access in the event that something happens. They now have had the chance, but the Facebook page has been removed since.

- (RTHK) According to Hong Kong Indigenous, the National Independent Party is a sham localist group. The evidence as seen in the police photos:

- The NIP says "handover of Hong Kong" whereas authentic localists say "transfer of sovereignty";
- The NIP says "Chun Ying" whereas authentic localists say "689";
- The NIP says to kick away "snake meals/vegetarian meals/glutinous rice wraps/cake" (which is the nickname of a pro-establishment Wen Wei Po forum user) whereas the rest of the world says "snake meals/vegetarian meals/cake/glutinous rice wraps";
- The NIP says "Umbrella Localism" whereas authentic localists don't want any association with any umbrellas because that movement is a sissy non-violent pantomime;
- The NIP says "national independence" whereas authentic localists hate the Association to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China for wanting "to build a democratic China".
All in all, this is very suspicious. Therefore pro-democracy Hongkongers should remain united together and not be divided by the evil Communists.

- 沒事就兄弟,出事就契弟 When things runs smoothly, we are brothers. When trouble comes, I don't know the bastard.
- They used to explain the schisms (Hong Kong Priority, Hong Kong Indigenous, Hong Kong Localism Power, Hong Kong Localist Democracy Front, etc) away by saying that "there is no need to have the same slogans as long as we have the same goals." But today, they suddenly declared that there are standard linguistic codes in order to become certified as authentic Localists. This is quite embarrassing.

- Video: The People's Front in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

- Yes, the National Independent Party don't act like authentic Localists (see, for example, Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat showing up in a boxing ring and getting shellacked) who are all talk and no action.

- (Sing Pao) On that evening, the individuals set off a bomb on the roof of the ATV studio for testing purposes. Smoke could be seen. When the police arrested the individuals, one of them resisted and shouted: "I am going to kill you all ... I hate you ... Long live democracy!"

- In the United States of America, these terrorists would be subjected to waterboarding (which is merely enhanced interrogation and not torture).

Q1. Do you think the government proposal for universal suffrage is more, less or the same as the current system?
71%: More
10%: Less
12%: The same
5%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q2. DO  you think that Legislative Council should pass the government's proposal?
64%: Yes
26%: No
7%: Hard to say/don't care
3%: No opinion

Q3. When a legislator holds a position on constitutional reform that is different from the majority preference, do you think the legislator should follow majority opinion?
78%: Yes
11%: No
6%: Hard to say/don't care
5%: No opinion

Q4. Are you confident that the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal will be passed by the Legislative Council?
9%: A lot of confidence
9%: Some confidence
36%: Not a lot of confidence
31%: No confidence
11%: Hard to say
4%: No opinion

Q5. Do you think that the pan-democrat legislators can get an even more democratic Chief Executive election system by vetoing this proposal?
18%: Yes
72%: No
8%: Hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q6. If there is no universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive election, how many years later will it come?
9%: 5 years
20%: 10 years
16%: 15 years
14%: 20 years or more
34%: Hard to say
7%: No opinion

Q7. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is the biggest loser?
10%: The central government
18%: The pan-democrats
51%: The people of Hong Kong
12%: The HKSAR government
3%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
3%: No losers
1%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q8. If the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, who is most responsible?
16%: The central government
51%: The pan-democrats
3%: The people of Hong Kong
18%: The HKSAR government
2%: The pro-establishment camp
1%: Others
8%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q10. If the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform proposal, will you vote for any pan-democrats who vetoed the bill the next time?
20%: Yes
61%: No
13%: Undecided
6%: No opinion

(Wikipedia) Yeung Kwong

Born in 1926, Yeung became a member of the Hong Kong Tramways Workers Union in 1948 and led strikes by Hong Kong Tramway's fare conductors the following year.  He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), the largest pro-Communist labour union in Hong Kong, from 1962 to 1980, and then its president between 1980 and 1988. From 1973 to 1987, he was a local deputy to the National People's Congress.  During the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots, which was inspired by the mainland China's Cultural Revolution and escalated from a labour dispute at a plastic-flower factory in San Po Kong, Yeung served as director of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Committee for Anti-Hong Kong British Persecution Struggle. Thousands were injured and 51 died, 15 of whom were killed in bombings planted by the Leftists. Nominated by the FTU, then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal, the highest honour in Hong Kong, to Yeung for his "outstanding contribution to the labour movement and labour welfare in Hong Kong and for his dedicated community service" in 2001. In the morning of 16 May 2015, Yeung died at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin after he underwent a heart operation last year.

(The Standard) June 15, 2015.

There were demonstrations at the funeral of Yeung Kwong, former president of the Federation of Trade Unions. Just before 10am, Hong Kong Indigenous protesters marched from Hung Hom MTR station to the funeral home, chanting slogans. They accused Yeung of being responsible for the violence during the deadly riots 48 years ago. FTU president Lam Suk-yee delivered an eulogy at the service. Yeung was director of the Anti-British Struggle Committee at the time of the riots, which saw 51 people killed and thousands injured. He was controversially awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal in 2001.

(EJinsight) June 15, 2015.

A spokesman for the political group Hong Kong Indigenous offered an apology to the family of former communist labor leader Yeung Kwong after holding a protest at the latters funeral on Sunday.

Ray Wong Toi-yeung said his group did not mean to offend Yeungs family and relatives but staged the protest to assail the government for heaping praises on the late unionist who led the 1967 leftist riots that killed scores of Hong Kong people, Ming Pao Daily reported on Monday.

In Sundays protest, activists brought pineapples to symbolize home-made bombs used by rioters in 1967 and mock at Yeungs memory for his role in the turmoil. Wong also uncorked a bottle of champagne to mark Yeungs death.

Those who attended the funeral were Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, and former secretary for justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie. When CY Leung walked out of the funeral home, several protesters attempted to climb over the barricades but were stopped by police officers.

Paying tribute to Yeung, current HKFTU chief Lam Shuk-yee said Yeung was instrumental in introducing water supply from Dongjiang River in Guangdong to Hong Kong in the 1960s and exemplified bravery in leading the protests in 1967 to fight for better benefits for the working class.

Hong Kong Indigenous was one of the groups that joined the pro-democracy Occupy Movement last year and the protests against mainland parallel traders earlier this year.

Videos:

(Resistance Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RbTdZxyX_k
(Resistance Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM3dP3LneEU Opening the champagne bottle and chanting "Yeung Kwong go to hell!"

(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7jeIoji-I CY Leung and Zhang Xiao-ming leave the funeral home.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK5GMAgDsI4

(Ming Pao) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73AS5spUU-c
(0:58) Lam Suk-yee: We all respect our predecessor. He dedicated his life towards the workers' lives and to defend their rights. Therefore we respect him. This funeral is not the place for political arguments. We hope that everybody can respect others, respect the deceased. There are other occasions for demonstrations and protests. Thank you.
(1:37) Reporter: How are people being disrespectful? Can you be more specific?
(1:39) Lam Suk-yee: I am still saying that this is a funeral service and not a political squabble. I hope that people can respect his family and his colleagues.

Internet comments:

- The leftist riots took place in 1967, which is 48 years ago. Practically none of these demonstrators were born yet. Some of their fathers weren't even born yet. It doesn't mean that they can't have a point of view on that piece of history, but they should be more substantive than just chanting "Down with the Communists" and "Yeung Kwong, go to hell!"
- At least when the angry Chinese patriots rant about the Yasukuni war shrine, they try to tie it to concerns about the rise of Japanese militarism.

- If the localists want to demonstrate/protest against CY Leung and Zhang Xiaoming, there are plenty of opportunities. The reason why they choose the funeral service of Yeung Kwong was precisely because this is going to offend a lot of traditionally minded Hongkongers. That's fine. But bizarrely Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong issued an apology afterwards. They intended to offend and they got what they want. Why retreat after the damage was done?

- "Ray Wong Toi-yeung said his group did not mean to offend Yeungs family and relatives but staged the protest to assail the government for heaping praises on the late unionist who led the 1967 leftist riots that killed scores of Hong Kong people, Ming Pao Daily reported on Monday." In what conceivable way could Ray Wong think that opening champagne and chanting "Yeung Kwong go to hell" wouldn't be offending Yeung's family and relatives. What was he thinking?
- Most likely, he didn't imagine any such until he went home and his parents and grandparents gave him hell and then it dawned on him that some regular people may get very upset over this type of behavior.

- The 1967 Leftist Riots was the original Hong Kong indigenous resistance movement against a foreign colonial power. The Hong Kong Indigenous said that Yeung Kwong was responsible for the murder of dozens of Hongkongers during those riots. Look at the list of casualties carefully: How many were "beaten/shot to death by police"?
The Yellow Ribbons talk about how evil and brutal the Hong Kong Police are. Look at these descriptions from 1967 about the Hong Kong Royal Police:

Chan Kwong-sang, a student barber, beaten to death by riot police at Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Area.
Tsui Tin Por, a worker of Mechanics Division Public Works Department, beaten to death at Wong Tai Sin Police Station after arrest.
Lai Chung, a worker of Towngas, shot by police in a raid, then killed by drowning.
Tsang Ming, a worker to Towngas, shot by beaten to death by police in a raid ...

- In the morning, the Localists demonstrated against a bomb-maker. In the evening, they went and built their own bombs (see #271).

(EJinsight) June 16, 2015.

Police have seized some explosives and arrested nine people after a raid on an abandoned former ATV film studio in Sai Kung, Radio Television Hong Kong reported Monday. Among the arrested, four were women while the rest were male, according to the report. All the detained were said to be in the 21 to 34 age group. They included a student, a teaching assistant and some unemployed persons. Police suspect some of them may be linked to a local radical group. The arrests came as lawmakers prepare to vote on the governments controversial political reform bill this week.  

The vacant former ATV studio on Ho Chung Road, where the explosives were seized, has been sealed by the police since Sunday night after inspectors from the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau found explosive devices there, Ming Pao Daily reported. The police bomb squad and firefighters were called to the site. Police say they believe the building was being used to make and test the explosive devices.

Meanwhile, Apple Daily reported that inspectors took away evidence at about 7:45 am on Monday. Among the things they picked up were an air rifle, three bullet clips and an electronic scale. Inspectors also found two bottles, one containing a deep-brown fluid and another containing a transparent fluid as well as some white powder in plastic bags, according to the report. The studio, where security guards were stationed during daytime, used to be a main site for ATV to film its TV dramas before being abandoned many years ago.

(SCMP) June 16, 2015.

Nine radical activists were arrested in Hong Kong this morning after police found powerful explosives they suspect were intended to be detonated before the Legislative Council debates the governments political reform package this week. The highly unstable explosives, known as TATP, were seized at the vacant former ATV studio in Sai Kung in the early hours of this morning by the police bomb squad, which carried out a controlled explosion at the site.

The discovery was swiftly followed by the arrest of five men and four women from Hong Kong, aged 21 to 34, in a series of raids across the city by the forces elite Organised Crime and Triad Bureau. The suspects include a post-secondary student, a teaching assistant, a construction worker, a technician, and three unemployed people, a police source said.

The nine suspects are core members of a localist radical group, which had discussed launching a bomb attack online, according to the source. Some of them were picked up in the vacant studio [in Sai Kung] when they allegedly tried to make home-made bombs and tested the power of the devices, the source said.

Chemical substances which could be used to make explosives were also confiscated together with air guns in some of the suspects homes during the raids, the source added. It is understood the explosive seized in the raids is triacetone triperoxide also known as TATP which has been used in deadly terrorist attacks around the world, including in Israel and the London bombings on July 7, 2005 in which 52 people died and more than 700 were injured.

The source failed to say how many explosives or chemical substances had been seized in the operation but said they were very powerful and could cause fatalities if detonated. One test tube of the material is powerful enough to "blow a car into pieces", the source said.

The discovery of the explosives was made when officers raided the ATV studio off Ho Chung Road in Sai Kung. Bomb disposal officers were called in to destroy the material in a controlled explosion at the scene. Police also seized an air rifle and equipment allegedly used in the manufacture of explosives at the studio. A motorcycle found at the site was impounded. More arrests are expected as the investigation is continuing, another police source said.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

The police found large amount of explosive materials at the abandoned ATV film studio in Ho Chung Village, Sai Kung district last night. There were many bags containing nitrate. Explosive experts came and remove the suspicious materials and also detonated some of the materials at the location.

When nitrate is mixed with sulphur and carbon ingredients, it becomes a powerful explosive material. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik used ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) to build the bomb that killed 8 persons in Oslo.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Nine indigenous/localist/nativist activists were arrested on suspicion of bomb-making. According to information, the target of their action was the constitutional reform and they wanted to use the bombs to set off fear. The abandoned ATV was used as a bomb factory as well as testing ground. Those arrested included students, workers and a teaching assistant.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

After daybreak, the police searched the site thoroughly. The explosive materials were found on the roof of the old ATV studio and on the persons of the arrested individuals. The police also conducted searches and made arrests elsewhere in Hong Kong. So far at least five males and four females have been arrested.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

The police arrested nine individuals who were testing bombs at the time. The police also impounded a motorcycle. The owner of this motorcycle had previously been arrested in the Occupy Yuen Long anti-parallel trader demonstration for possession of pepper oil and a switchblade.

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015.

Our reporter called up the "Father of Hong Kong independence" Wan Chin for comments. When he learned that some Localists have been arrested for bomb-making/testing and adapting guns, he hung up the phone.

Our reporter also called up North District Parallel Trade Concern Group convener Leung Kam-sing. He said that the case is still under investigation so that it is not clear that Localists were manufacturing bombs. He said that that there is no need for large-scale demonstrations given that the constitutional reform is almost certain to be vetoed.

Polytechnic University tutor and Civic Passion member Cheng Chung-tai said that it is not confirmed yet that Localists were involved. "At this time, you can say whatever group that you wish!" He said that Civic Passion has no plans to organizer resistance during the Legco vote.

Population Policy Concern Group convener Roy Tam said that the Sai Kung affair has nothing to do with the moderate Localists, and he has no information that any of his members have been arrested.

(HKG Pao) June 15, 2015.

The police operation at the bomb-making factory was the top news story at most news organizations except for two.

At Apple Daily, the headline story was "Soccer king Woo Kwok-hung passes away." If you hit the arrow at the bottom right of the photo, you will get to the story about "Explosive materials at old ATV studio." Isn't this deliberate low-profile handling to conceal news on the Localists?

At Ming Pao (nicknamed Apple Daily's supplement), the top news story of the day was the Consumer Council warning people that they may get skin rash from mosquito repellant. The second news story is about young North Koreans fleeing to South Korea. The third news story was the "bomb factory." Does Ming Pao think that mosquitoes and North Koreans are more threatening than bombs?

So what are we supposed to think? Do these newspapers support Localism/Hong Kong Independence? Do they approve of violent radical action? Or does their management have something else in mind?

(Oriental Daily) July 15, 2015.

Based upon information, the police went to an abandoned quarry in Ma On Shan and removed certain explosive materials (including sulfur, thinner, etc). According to experts, sulfur mixed with thinner will create an obnoxious fume.

(Oriental Daily) July 15, 2015.

According to the police, they searched the Sai Kung home of one suspect and found three bottles containing about two liters of TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide).

Internet comments:

- All this evolved from the original operation known as Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Now we have a 13-year-old girl running away from home to join the Occupy movement and people making bombs to deliver more love and peace to the people. Great job!

- Who do you think the bombs will be directed at? Where will they be set off?
Police Headquarters Wanchai against the police?
Government Headquarters against public servants?
Government House against the Chief Executive?
Legislative Council against the demonstrators and the Tim Mei Village residents?
The High Court against the judges, magistrates and lawyers?
China Liaison Office against the Chinese Communists?
People's Liberation Army barracks against the occupying force?
Causeway Bay Sogo against the civilian population?
Victoria Park on July 1st against the demonstration marchers?
Jimmy Lai's front lawn?
...

- How did the police bust this case? Most of the suspects were arrested at the scene, so this does not seem random.
Either some neighbor called the police about the explosive sounds that were coming from the unused ATV studio at night, or else the operation was penetrated by a police informer/undercover officer who waited to collect enough evidence.
- (Apple Daily) The police had information on this group of individuals before. Three weeks ago, the police already placed surveillance cameras and equipment at the location. They decided to make the arrests last night.

- In the morning, the Localists went out to the funeral parlor in Hung Hom to demonstrate against the late Yeung Kwong, who was the leader of the movement to lay bombs around Hong Kong in 1967. In the evening, they went back to the abandoned ATV studio to build and test bombs.

- Apple Daily and Ming Pao's editorial decisions take time, because their headline stories are based upon one-reporter-one-vote. It takes a while to contact all the reporters and tally their votes.
- You are not allowed to express any skepticism about Apple Daily/Ming Pao's placements, because the Journalists Association will say that this is interfering with editorial independence.

- Localists? Is a V mask evidence? Is a stack of League of Social Democrats pamphlets evidence?

- (Commercial Radio) One individual was arrested in his Costa Bello (Sai Kung) home where police found a pamphlet entitled: "You win the war of verbal abuse but you lose your morality -- is that worth it?" under the name of the League of Social Democrats. Previously, the organization had already issued a notice that this pamphlet did not come from them.

- The denial was made by League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung. Who is going to believe him after the $100 million lie?

- This is a case in which all keyboard warriors should be wary about "following the preceding vehicle too closely." Much of the information so far is unofficial, so you should not be over-confident and over-interpret.

- Supplementary information:

(Oriental Daily) The police investigation began after the National Independent Party's Facebook talked about casualties at the Legislative Council building which will be turned into rubble. The police trailed the individuals for some time. On this evening, the police observed two men entering the abandoned ATV studio and tested explosives on the roof, releasing a puff of smoke. The police took action and apprehended the two individuals. They found seven kilograms of nitrate, five liters of liquid and some combination of the two. There were also detonators on the ground. The police thought that the mixture was volatile and therefore detonated it in situ. Meanwhile, other police officers went to a Sai Kung villa and found three liters of TATP. Based upon the testimony of the two arrestees, the police arrested three men and four women, all of whom were related to the National Independent Party. Later the police arrested a 58-year-old man at the Lo Wu border crossing. He is a businessman suspected of purchasing chemicals on behalf of his daughter.

(Apple Daily) The Police's Crime Investigation Division received the case from the Security Bureau and began to trail the target individuals. They observed that these people were using the old ATV studio as base and storing dangerous materials, chemicals and guns over there. Yesterday evening, the police observed that two men bought some chemicals and went by motorcycle to the ATV studio. Then they test-detonated on the roof. The police deemed the moment to be right and rushed in to arrest the two. At the same time, police officers in the Organized Crime Unit arrested the remaining individuals all over Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily) The police found maps that indicated a number of targets in Wanchai and Admiralty and an "explosive warehouse." The location of the warehouse is the abandoned mine in Ma On Shan. The police went out there and found a certain amount of chemicals and thinner that can be used to make bombs.

(The Standard) 'Life goes on if vote fails. June 12, 2015.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor says she is cautiously optimistic on Hong Kong's prospects post-reform. But she again insisted that it will be a step backward if the Legislative Council does not pass the bill next week. Lam said she did not expect the pan-democrats to continue their noncooperative movement in a large-scale manner.

She said Legco's Public Works Subcommittee has stepped up passage of several government applications for funding of public works projects and pan-democratic lawmakers should know that citizens would be angered if they continued to be noncooperative. Even if reform is voted down, the central government is unlikely to view pan-democrats as parties that they cannot communicate with, she said. The government will continue to foster closer communication with the young generation to make them know their opinions are valued by the government, she said.

In an interview with Sing Tao Daily, sister publication of The Standard, Lam said that if political reform is voted down, all efforts spent previously on setting the timeframe and roadmap on the implementation of universal suffrage would be lost. "It's not only that no progress will be made [on political reform] but it's also a step backward," she said.

Lam said some pan-democratic lawmakers had privately asked her why she still insisted on promoting the government's reform proposal even if reform is not good enough. But Lam stressed that she truly believes that the government's reform proposal "is worth recommending" to the public.

She expressed hopes the proposal can be passed. Lam added the government will not set up a platform to discuss political reform if the bill is voted down. "It is meaningless," said Lam, adding that setting up a platform might not help forge consensus.

She said it will be difficult for the next chief executive to initiate the political reform process. If reform is voted down, the chief executive will still be elected by 1,200 Election Committee members in 2017, she said.

She questioned how the public can pressure the chief executive to initiate a new five-step procedure on political reform.  Lam said that if the chief executive is elected by some five million voters via "one person one vote" in 2017, candidates in the election need to express their stance on universal suffrage.

(Speakout HK) June 13, 2015.

The Hong Kong Medical Association announced the results of its third poll of membership opinions on the constitutional reform. Out of 6,659 filled questionnaires, 47.4% supported the constitutional reform proposal and 49.7% opposed. The remaining persons gave no opinion. The response rate was 43.8%, which is very high for mail surveys. This shows that the subject was important to its members, and we should respect the results.

These polls shows that neither side holds an overwhelming majority. That is something that everybody can agree upon.

In less than a week, the vote will take place. At this time, the pan-democrats are very firm on their intention to veto the proposal. At least two-thirds of the legislative council (47 out of 70 legislators) must approve any constitutional reform, and the 27 pan-democrats are adamant that they will veto. There does not appear any chance for change.

The pan-democrats want to veto the proposal and then start all over again. But is their next step viable? They have so far never given a substantive response.

The pan-democrats may say that they have offered many "recommendations" and "proposals" already. Frankly, how many of these fall within the Basic Law framework? (For example, the pan-demcorats' sine qua non civil nomination is not consistent with Basic Law Annex I). When they had the opportunity to meet with the central government officials, they always stipulate up front that the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee must be rescinded. So what concessions do they expect go get out of the central government?

Even if the pan-democrats can come up with a constitutional reform proposal that all 27 of their legislators can accept, can they get enough another 20 votes to reach 47? So even if they restart the five-step process, an even larger number of legislators may vote down their proposal.

In medicine, you treat an ailment with the right medicine. Since public opinion polls show the present proposal has the support of one half or more of the people, it is better to find some reasonable and legal fine-tuning to obtain more support. That is the most pragmatic approach. But universal suffrage in 2017 now seems impossible.

Dear pan-democrat fans, you want to reject the proposed one-person-one-vote system but you can't come up with any feasible proposal. This is like abandoning the patient just when he seems to be on the way to recovery.

A doctor must provide a viable treatment for a patient. Similarly, pan-democrats must provide a viable treatment for the public, instead of just rejecting the existing proposal and press the NO button to veto after shouting a few slogans about freedom and democracy.

Instead of deciding which button to press, the pan-democrats should worry about explaining what their next steps are for the purpose of realizing universal suffrage. And they need to give up any impractical ideas.

(TVB) On The Record: Interview of Albert Ho by Kenneth Ng. June 13, 2015.

(0:01) Ho: The August 31st resolution has to be vetoed first. That is very clear. That's because the August 31st resolution was made because of CY Leung's report that began the constitutional reform process. The veto would mean that this constitutional reform process is over. Therefore the August 31st resolution no longer exists. The next time, there will be a new report. A new decision. Therefore, I feel that we must veto first.

(0:20) Ng: That is your understanding.

(0:22) Ho: Yes.

(0:23) Ng: The central government has a different understanding. When the times comes, who makes the decision? Do you decide? Or does the central government decide? That is very clear.

(0:28) I can only use legal logic. I can only use legal reasoning.

(0:32) How can you say legal logic? Does the central government have to take their case to the High Court?

(0:37) Then that's it. We can only speak of reason. If you want to do this by force, you lose public support.

Internet comment:

- The central government has spoken: The August 31st framework has not yet been implemented, and therefore it will not be modified until after experience is gathered after implementation.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (June 1, 2015)

The electoral reform framework set out by the country's top legislature on Aug 31, 2014 will remain in effect beyond 2017, a senior Beijing official told Hong Kong lawmakers on Sunday.

Li Fei, deputy secretary-general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) and chairman of the HKSAR Basic Law Committee, set the record straight on the top legislature's power when he talked to Legislative Council members at a meeting in Shenzhen.

Opposition members in LegCo have demanded the revision of the NPCSC's Aug 31 decision, or they would veto the government's reform blueprint when it is tabled at the chamber in about two weeks' time. The package requires two-thirds majority to pass into law.

Li reminded the Hong Kong lawmakers that the resolution adopted last August does not specify an expiry date and it will remain in effect for Chief Executive elections after 2017. There is no possibility for the top legislature to revise the decision without even putting it into practice, he said.

So why is Albert Ho still in denial?

- If the August 31st framework does not have an expiry date, we can just sit and wait until 2047 when One Country Two Systems expire and then we will have one-person-one-vote under the unexpirable August 31st framework. Is this the Grand Plan?

- Kenneth Ng took Albert Ho apart, just like how he took Alex Chow apart.  Albert Ho tried to argue that vetoing the proposed bill means that the August 31st resolution is vetoed as well to create a blank blackboard once more. Kenneth Ng gave his now famous skeptical response ("That's your understanding but ...") while trying to hold back his laughter. Albert Ho probably has no idea what he was saying anyway.

- Albert Ho: "If you want to do this by force, you lose public support." This is hilarious. When the public opinion was against them, they said that they will only vote according to their own conscience irrespective of what the people want. But now on the Road to Damascus, they are suddenly seeing the light of public opinion.

- The five-step process of constitutional development:

In accordance with the Basic Law and the Interpretation of the NPCSC in 2004, the procedures for amending the methods for the selection of the CE and for the formation of the LegCo (also known as "5-Step Process of Constitutional Development") are as follows:

  1. The CE to make a report to the NPCSC as to whether there is a need to amend the two electoral methods,
  2. a determination to be made by the NPCSC as to whether the electoral methods need to be amended,
  3. the resolutions on the amendments to be introduced by the HKSAR Government to the LegCo, and be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo,
  4. consent to be given by the CE to the motions endorsed by the LegCo, and
  5. the relevant bill to be reported by the CE to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

Steps 1, 3 and 4 are taken by the Chief Executive, who will continued to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee until as such time when one-person-one-vote is realized. CY Leung will probably be re-elected. Why should he oblige the pan-democrats when he knows that it will be fruitless?

Steps 2 and 5 are taken by the National People's Congress Standing Committee? They came up with the August 31st framework and they want to observe it in action before considering any amendment. Why should they oblige the pan-democrats?

During Step 3, the HKSAR Government will hold public consultations. If the pan-democrats signal that they have the numbers to veto anything fits the August 31st framework, then the process might as well as stop without wasting more time and energy.

Alternately, if the pan-democrats signal that they have the numbers to veto anything except unrestricted civil nomination, then the process might as well as stop because this is not permitted under Basic Law Annex I.

(SCMP) Hong Kong protesters march to Legislative Council to urge no vote on political reform. June 14, 2015.

Several thousand pro-democracy supporters marched from Victoria Park to the Legislative Council complex in Admiralty today, to protest against the governments electoral reform proposal as lawmakers are set to debate and vote on the controversial package later this week. But the turnout fell short of march organisers expectations. They put the number of marchers at 3,500, well short of their original estimate of 50,000. Police said 3,140 took part in the rally at its peak.

... Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan said he was confident that pan-democratic lawmakers would vote down the proposal. We will definitely vote down the proposal, Lee said at the rally. Lee said: We will not storm [Legco]. That is because if we do, lawmakers wont be able to vote. We dont want to stall. Once it is voted down, we need to come out again fighting for genuine universal suffrage.

Internet comments:

- (INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwf4hiqSIXg Video of Civil Human Rights Front march
- (INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOY43wCjQpk Video of demonstrators chanting "Down with the Communist Party" at pro-Communist supporters
- (dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FN9aLlTw0w Video of Civil Human Rights Front march

- Lee Cheuk-yan said: "Once it is voted down, we need to come out again fighting for genuine universal suffrage." What does that mean? More marches on Sunday afternoons with several thousand marchers (note: numbers are padded up as usual)? This is a dead end. They've been doing this shtick for decades with nothing to show.

- To "come out again fighting" means two things (1) keep marching on one Sunday every three months; and (2) keep donating money to the pan-democrats. It is mostly about the second part.

- When 1,000,000 people come out to march against something or the other, the big number proves that the issue has mass support. When 3,000 people come out to march, the small number still proves that the issue has mass support. Here is the statement of the day:

(SCMP) It might have to do with the recent reverse in public opinion [according to surveys conducted by universities]. People now feel more confident that the proposal will be voted down, Sam Yip Kam-lung of the Citizens Against Pseudo-Universal Suffrage Campaign formed by various pan-democratic groups, told journalists after the march.

As if that is not proof enough,

People might have decided to save their energies for later, he said.

- (Commercial Radio) Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the number of marchers today exceeded their expectations. He said that the government must respect the fact that so many people still showed up in hot weather as well as the certainty that the bill will be vetoed.

I recommend viewing the Argument Clinic segment of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

- Just when I thought I was going to miss Ting Hai after the last episode of The Greed of Man ran on Friday, I now find a more than adequate replacement in Alan Leong.

- The standard ratio of Civil Human Rights Front-to-police crowd estimate ratio is typically 3-to-1. On this day, it was only 3500-to-3140. Why are the CHRF so restrained today? And the demonstrators were dismissed half an hour ahead of schedule. Their hearts are not in this anymore.

- Civil Human Rights Front planned for 50,000 people for June 14 but only 3,500 (according to them) showed up. But let's look ahead at the rest of their predictions:

(The Standard) May 19, 2015. Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan Sin-ying said an application has been submitted to book the Legco car park for protests for June 14-18 and June 21-25. She said the front expects about 100,000 protesters to surround the complex.

(Oriental Daily) June 15, 2015. On this evening, the meeting began at 7pm. There were about 100 persons. The number gradually increased to 300 by 9pm.  (Note: that number includes the resporters)

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2015. On this evening, the meeting was attended b about 200 persons. League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung and Scholarism convener Joshua Wong were present. Wong proposed for the people to amend the Basic Law themselves, as if that's possible.

[Basic Law Article 159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong. ]

(True Brothers of Democracy blog) June 13, 2015.

On the evening of June 12, Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat and Cheng Chung-tai met with Hong Kong Indigenous Front's Ray Wong and Cheng Kan-moon to discuss the action plan before the vote on the constitutional reform. Wong Yeung-tat said that all participants must be prepared to be arrested and jailed. This is the time for Hong Kong "to use force to resist the tyrants." Anyone who opposes the use of violence is a capitulationist and therefore an enemy of Civic Passion. "We must carry out at least three world-shaking events this year" so that Hong Kong independence can become a hot international topic. This time, the pan-democrats are providing a platform and therefore there has to be a big battle with the police. Apart from being psychologically prepared, all combatants should wear protective equipment, surgical masks, helmets, goggles and even full-body armor. Some of them will carry wooden shields.

Wong Yeung-tat said that the Hong Kong Police's Special Tactical Squad was the main force during the clearance of Occupy Central and caused Civic Passion to suffer. Therefore, revenge shall be made this time. This action will not only involve attacks on police officers, but chaos should be created at the scene. The main methods include hitting with rods and poles, spraying women's self-defense pepper spray and other chemical sprays and tossing bottles containing inflammable liquid at the law enforcement agents and the crowd. Amidst the chaos, an assault on the Legislative Council will be made.

Ray Wong and Cheng Kam-moon said that the current stock of materiels will be enough to guarantee that all participants have helmets and goggles. The front-line chargers will have full-body armor, the second-line chargers will have half-body armor. On June 15 and 16, Civic Passion will be readying the glass bottles and gasoline in the Tim Mei Avenue tent city. A four-man action team will quickly assemble the petrol bombs when the time comes.

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) I am here today to show my support for the pan-democrats. They need to vote down the proposal, said 55-year-old protester Stephen Au. "If anyone attempts to storm [the Legislative Council], I wont follow them. I dont support such radical actions.

That would make Stephen Au a "Hong Kong pig" in the eyes of the Valiant Warriors of the Hong Kong City-State.

(Bastille Post) June 16, 2015.

There is a classification of the pan-democrats into four groups on the basis of two dimensions. One dimension is political ideas, which are either radical or moderate. The other dimension is action tendencies, which are either idealistic or pragmatic.

The first type of democrats are the radical idealists. They are not only idealists, but they will take radical action. Examples are the suspects arrested at the Sai Kung bomb factory. These people participated in Occupy Central and the anti-parallel traders protests. They are now moving into more radical actions that will inflict casualties in order to force the authorities to yield. This group is small in numbers, but their actions can have huge consequences on society.

The second type of democrats are the moderate idealists. They have ideas but they seldom act. Most of the pan-democrat supporters are of this type. I have spoke to many young people. They want to see the constitutional reform vetoed. They don't think the proposal is sufficiently democratic and so they want it vetoed. As to what happens next after the veto or how to fight successfully for democracy, these are not issues that they contemplate about. They won't think about it. They think something is bad and they oppose it. That's all.

The third type of democrats are the radical pragmatists. They are radical but they are also pragmatic. The leaders of the pan-democrat political parties fall into this type. Among the pan-democrats, it used to be that the only radicals were the League of Social Democrats and People Power. But now they are leading the mainstream political parties such as the Democratic Party and Civic Party. The latter have absorbed the lesson of the Democratic Party reaching a compromise with the central government in 2007, with the conclusion that any pan-democrat party that cuts a deal with the central government on the constitutional reform will be punished in the next elections. Therefore they won't be caught and lose Legco seats. They even wish other parties would compromise so that they can take over those seats as well as enter the Chief Executive election.

The fourth type of democrats are the moderate pragmatists. The most noteworthy ones are Civic Party's Ronny Tong and the Democratic Party's Nelson Wong. Based upon the overall consideration of the democracy project as a whole, they prefer a compromise bill. They want to take a first step and then amend it later, because democracy will never take off otherwise.

At this final moment of the constitutional reform process, the central government's position is said to be contained in nine words: 不調整、不讓步、不放棄.  Point #1: No adjustments to the proposal whatsoever. They won't tinker with turning the corporate votes into individual votes, because they think that's useless. Point #2: No concessions whatsoever. They will not promise that this proposal is for the moment because it will be changed later. If they made such a promise, the pan-democrats will press on with the next question: How will it be changed? That'll lead to even greater arguments. Point #3: They won't give up until it is over.

So the central government's position is that they want the bill to pass, but they won't be too upset if it isn't passed. The central government played an imperfect card and waited to see if the pan-democrats will follow. But the democrats are without leadership and cannot only follow the radicals. This means that the democracy movement is reaching a dead end. After the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, they will end up with nothing. There is nothing on the horizon that will restart the five-step constitutional reform process and give Hong Kong another shot at universal suffrage. So this is how the people of Hong Kong lost their right to use one-person-one-vote to elect their Chief Executive.

There is no future for a democracy movement that has no leadership.

(SCMP) Hong Kong pan-democrats face a quandary over their next move in political reform battle. June 17, 2015.

Over the next few days, the battle lines at the Legislative Council are firm, immoveable and well-rehearsed. It is D-day for the vote on whether Hong Kong will choose its chief executive in 2017 by a citywide election between up to three pre-vetted candidates.

Pan-democrats, whose votes are critical to ensuring the two-thirds majority necessary to carry through this political reform bill, have said they will reject it. And even as observers wonder who will be the winners and losers in such an outcome, many are also eyeing another battleground - the streets - and asking whether or not there will be a return of Occupy.

But both the leaders of the Occupy movement and those spearheading the night rally outside the Legislative Council this week say the street protest that lasted for 79 days last year will not have a sequel. Instead, they say, they are eyeing the polling stations as their next political battlefield. They emphasise the importance of engaging in discourse in the next stage of the fight for democracy.

A repeat of last year's mass sit-ins is unlikely because there has been no indication that any pan-democrats will change their minds on voting against the government's reform proposal, says Occupy co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man. More importantly, Chan says, people are fed-up with protests after the 79-day sit-in failed to change Beijing's strict reform framework.

The group calling itself the Citizens Against Pseudo-Universal Suffrage Campaign has been stationed outside the Legislative Council building since Sunday and plans to stay until lawmakers vote. It has drawn a crowd of some 300 every night - far fewer than the 50,000 expected by the organisers.

"Young people don't think rallies or demonstrations are of much use any more. Civil society has to find ways to pull these people together again. It's a tough question," Chan says. Chan remains the most active among the three Occupy Central co-founders after the civil disobedience movement ended in December. The aged Reverend Chu Yiu-ming says Occupy was his last battle and the next generation should take over. The other co-founder, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, has been devoting his time to writing newspaper columns on politics and a book on Occupy.

Chan notes that young people have become more interested in satire rather than physical action. "Look at the Legco hearings on reform and those online videos and you'll find them enjoying themselves - and they do have an audience," says Chan, a Chinese University sociology professor.

He is referring to recent Legco hearings where youngsters made use of their three-minute air time to mock officials or pro-establishment lawmakers. The recordings were circulated widely on Facebook. The online platform TV Most, which mimics officials' acts via short films and songs, is also getting popular, he notes.

The other major Occupy leader, the Federation of Students, has taken a back seat this time. Weakened by a disaffiliation campaign after Occupy, it now represents student unions of just four universities, down from the previous eight. The federation's secretary general, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, says his group will participate in the rally "to stay united and pave the way for the next mass campaign".

Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, which is co-organising the Legco rally, insists peaceful assemblies still have a place in the overall agenda. "Not many people can shoulder the consequences of civil disobedience. A peaceful, lawful assembly is still the platform that can bring together the maximum amount of energy," the 27-year-old legislative assistant says.

The front, working with several new groups that formed in the aftermath of Occupy, has adjusted its approach to mass rallies, Chan says. They now play less music - which has been snubbed by youngsters who think singing is self-indulgent - and are starting to engage in more in-depth discussions before and after marches. Looking ahead, Chan Kin-man says the next battlefield will not be in the streets but rather the district council elections in November and the Legislative Council polls next year. He himself is training five Occupy volunteers to run for office.

Pan-democrats, he says, should come up with issues other than politics in the district council elections to attract voters with aspirations demonstrated at the Occupy protest sites, such as environmental protection.

"The Legco poll will be even more important because Beijing officials told voters to 'punish' pan-democrats who vote against the reform package. Pan-democrats must strive to keep their critical minority in the chamber," he says.

The past few months have also seen new players taking the stage. One of them is Kevin Yam Kin-fung, who made headlines last year when he led a campaign that ousted former Law Society president Ambrose Lam San-keung. Lam's controversial support of a Beijing white paper was deemed a threat to the city's judicial independence. Yam, convenor of the Progressive Lawyers Group, has been working with 11 other new professional groups in weekend street campaigns, explaining to people why the government package should be rejected. After this week, it will be important to focus on "solid matters", Yam says. Political reform will remain a concern, but the professional groups will also get involved in other public policy debates.

Even as the groups around Occupy find new ways to further their agenda, the pan-democrats who backed them are now at their own political crossroads.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, says moderate pan-democrats are in a no-win situation in a polarised political landscape. "They risk losing the backing of hardcore supporters from the pan-democratic camp if they vote for the proposal. But they might also disappoint some middle-of-the-road supporters if they vote down the package," he says. "At the end of the day, they can only decide their voting preference in accordance with the principles they have been espousing."

(The Stand News) June 14, 2015.  https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E6%B8%AF%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%91%E7%A0%94-%E4%BA%94%E6%88%90%E4%BA%BA%E8%AA%8D%E7%82%BA%E5%BE%9E%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%95%B4%E9%AB%94%E8%80%83%E6%85%AE-%E6%87%89%E6%94%AF%E6%8C%81%E7%AB%8B%E6%B3%95%E6%9C%83%E9%80%9A%E9%81%8E%E6%94%BF%E6%94%B9/

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme cooperated with RTHK to interview 1,004 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adult residents on June 8-9.

From the viewpoint of society as a whole, 50% of the respondents said that they support the Legislative Council passing the constitutional reform proposal while 33% opposed.

From the viewpoint of themselves as individuals, 49% of the respondents support while 39% oppose.

The rolling poll conducted by the three universities (HKU, CUHK and Poly) (see #232) asks the respondents directly whether they support or oppose the constitutional reform proposal. This other HKU-POP askes the respondents to consider separately from the social and personal viewpoints.

Internet comments:

- How do you reconcile those poll results?

From society's viewpoint on June 8-9, 50% support and 33% oppose (source HKU-POP)
From individual's viewpoint on June 8-9, 49% support and 39% oppose (source HKU-POP)
But overall on June 4-8, 42% support and 43% oppose (source HKU-POP/CUHK/Poly U)

What can people possibly be thinking about?


Robert Chung, HKU-POP director

(Ming Pao, Sing Tao) June 16, 2015.

Liberal Party's James Tien commissioned Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 5,043 persons on June 5-14.

Q1. Do you support or oppose the Legislative Council to pass the constitutional reform proposal?
51%: Support
37%: Oppose

Q2. Do you support or oppose the constitutional reform proposal?
48%: Support
38%: Oppose

(Wikipedia) Bhutan: a landlocked country in South Asia at the eastern end of the Himalayas. It is bordered on the north by China and to the south, east and west by India. The 2012 population was estimated to be 742,737 (165th in the world).

(Oriental Daily)

In 1982, Bhutan played its first international soccer match and lost 1:3 to Nepal. In 2000, they lost 0:20 to Kuwait for its biggest lost in history. In 2002, number 202 ranked Bhutan won its first international match against lowest-ranked Monserrat by 4:0. This was made into a documentary <he Other Final> for an event other than the Brazil-Germany FIFA World Cup final.

In 2015, Bhutan was ranked number 209 when it played Sri Lanka in the first round of the FIFA World Cup in Colombo on March 12. To everyone's surprise, Bhutan won by 1:0. After the victory, the team set off to KFC to celebrate. Bhutan also won the return match 2:1 in Thimphu on March 17.

Frankly, Bhutan has a population of just over 700,000. Its people like soccer much and it has no professional soccer players. Therefore the conditions are not favorable to the development of the sport of soccer.

In the second qualifying round of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Asia Group C has these teams: Bhutan, China, Hong Kong, Maldives and Qatar.

For these matches, the China Football Association designed a series of posters about their opponents.


Do not underestimate any opponent
After the match is over, some of them will return to operate an airplane, duang!
Against a team like this, better be careful!
China-Bhutan
Away: 2015 June 16
Home: 2015 November 12


Do not underestimate any opponent
According to their manager, they want to beat and China and take second place in the group
Against a coy team like this, better be careful
China-Maldives
Away: 2015 September 8
Home: 2016 March 24


Do not underestimate any opponent
As everybody knows, they have many naturalized reinforcements
Against a deep-pocketed team like this, better be careful!
China-Qatar
Away: 2015 October 8
Home: 2016 March 29


Do not underestimate any opponent
The has black skin, yellow skin and white skin people
Against a diversified team like this, better be careful!
China-Hong Kong (China)
Home: 2015 September 3
Away: 2015 November 17

Video: China Football Association promotional film

(SCMP) Left Field: China FA's odd posters of World Cup opponents backfire. June 13, 2015.

Let's hope China make it to the 2018 World Cup or else the Chinese Football Association will have a lot of egg on their face. The CFA mandarins put their foot right in their mouths last week when releasing a wacky campaign of posters heralding their qualifying group matches against Hong Kong, Bhutan, Maldives and Qatar. The campaign, apparently meant to be light-hearted, took a dig at each opponent in a not-so-subtle way.

The Hong Kong poster focused on skin colour, with Chinese fans warned not to underestimate "Hong Kong's black skin, yellow skin, white skin".


England-born Jaimes McKee, Ghana-born Christian Anna, mainland-born Bai He and Hong Kong-born Chan Man-fai show unity.

It gets more bizarre. The Bhutan poster focused on the captain who is a pilot, saying "after the game someone from their team will go back to fly a plane".

The dig at Qatar was on their squad of "naturalised reinforcements", warning fans to be prepared playing against this "wealthy" side.

The Maldives were labelled "proud" and "arrogant" simply because the team's coach said he was confident they would beat China.

But the poster that took the cake was the racist slant on Hong Kong's mixed team. Half of the 22-strong squad are made up of naturalised players such as Christian Annan (born in Ghana), Jaimes McKee (England) and Festus Baise (Nigeria). There are also five players from the mainland.

They have all earned the right to play for Hong Kong after living here for seven or more years, becoming permanent residents and applying for an SAR passport. Their skin colour might be different, but they are all united in playing for Hong Kong.

If anything, China's attempts seemed only to fire up the Hong Kong fans, who packed out Mong Kok Stadium for their match against Bhutan - and booed the China national anthem.

China have qualified for only one World Cup, in 2002, when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the showpiece. As hosts, Japan and Korea were given automatic berths, making it easier for China to grab one of the places given to Asia. It will not be easy this time around as the last few occasions of qualifying have proven. Asia is given 4.5 slots at the World Cup - four teams qualify directly with the fifth team going into a play-off against a team from another confederation.

World Cup qualifying has already begun in Asia. A total of 12 smaller teams took part in the first round with the top six progressing into the second round where the likes of Hong Kong and China are playing. These six, plus another 34 teams, have been drawn into eight groups of five. And as fate would have it, China drew Hong Kong again.

The eight group winners plus the four best runners-up will advance to the third round. These 12 teams will be divided into two groups of six to play home-and-away matches. The top two teams from each of these groups will book their berth at the 2018 World Cup with the two third-placed teams entering a play-off, home-and-away, to decide who will advance to the inter-confederation play-off.

The road is long and hard for China. Despite being the top-ranked side in the group - 79 in the Fifa rankings - they must get past Qatar (97th) in their preliminary group, notwithstanding the fact that Hong Kong (164) could also prove to be a banana skin owing to the weight of history. Mainlanders remember all too well the night of shame at the Workers Stadium in Beijing in 1985 when disgruntled fans rioted after goals from Cheung Chi-tak and Ku Kam-fai gave Hong Kong a 2-1 victory, knocking China out of the World Cup picture.

The real test will come if China progress to the next stage of qualifying. But the poster campaign shows they are nervous and already looking for excuses.

Hong Kong will meet China away in Shenzhen on September 3 before hosting them in the return tie at Hong Kong Stadium on November 17. One thing is certain in the mind of Hong Kong Football Association chief executive Mark Sutcliffe - this campaign will be a catalyst for a full house at So Kon Po.

"This is a bizarre campaign. Still, it seems to be generating a lot of media noise and that's great for promoting the matches," Sutcliffe said. He believed the whole "skin-colour" theme was meant tongue-in-cheek and the CFA was not being racist.

Let's hope that is the case.

(EJinsight) When politics transcend sports. June 12, 2015.

Did a group of Hong Kong fans go over the line when they booed the Chinese national anthem during a football match? The answer is yes, judging by the fierce reaction on Chinas social media.

Mainland netizens are calling Hongkongers traitors and British lap dogs, among other choice words.Whether or not they are justified to blame the whole of Hong Kong for the actions of several thousand football fans is not nearly as controversial as what prompted the behavior.

Apparently, the booing was spontaneous, with about 6,000 Hongkongers rising in unison and mocking the national anthem for its duration. The incident happened on Thursday when the Hong Kong side was introduced for its World Cup qualifier against Bhutan.

This is worth noting because Hong Kong hosts China in November after playing the mainland side in Beijing in September.

Perhaps no one expects another embarrassment to China but it could happen because this is not remotely about sports, where such provocative displays are frowned upon, but about worsening cross-border relations.

(SCMP) China soccer fans furious as thousands of Hong Kong supporters boo national anthem. June 12, 2015.

Hong Kong and Chinas World Cup qualifying match-ups look set to be even more heated affairs after mainland netizens reacted angrily to footage of a packed Mong Kok stadium booing the national anthem before Thursday nights 7-0 win over Bhutan. Given the political situation in the SAR, the games in Shenzhen in September and Hong Kong in November between big brother and little brother were already set to be the stage for fierce rivalry.

A 6,300-strong full house many suggested fans were motivated to attend by that poster watched Hong Kong thrash the Himalayan minnows in the opening group C match, some displaying banners such as HK till I die and Hong Kong Power.

But judging from online reaction, fans on the mainland who watched the game on CCTV were far from impressed to hear the majority of the crowd boo the March of the Volunteers before the game. While the crowd remained silent and respectful for the Bhutan anthem, they erupted in jeers and boos  for Chinas.

Mainland reporters who went to Hong Kong to cover the match as preparation for China v Bhutan on Tuesday were astonished at the fans reaction, and many netizens reacted angrily.

One fan from Guilin commented on Sina Sports, Hong Kong people gave an insult to the national anthem, team China must do a good job while another from Gansu recommended nothing less than immediate invasion, saying Hong Kong is nothing, just destroy it. Others blamed the Hong Kong education system, saying there were problems with Hong Kong education a decade ago and those born in the 1990s do not know anything about patriotism and never be thankful. Another comment from Guangdong simply said get out, Hong Kong separatists while another said  he looked forward to see team China beat Hong Kong 7-0.

On Weibo, the tone was much the same. "Even if you have no good feeling for the country, the country has done nothing bad so that you need to boo the national anthem. There should be a basic respect," wrote one commenter "If we are not from the same family, why should we move into the same house? It would be better we say goodbye to each other," said another. "Go ahead! so that our people can understand the real Hong Kong," said another.

Hong Kong face the Maldives on Tuesday, with the match already sold-out, then dont play again until the September 3 showdown against China. Hong Kong Football Association chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak was worried a similar situation may occur at Hong Kongs second qualifying match against Maldives at Mong Kok Stadium on Tuesday, but admitted it would be difficult to stop the fans.  We can only urge them not to do so, he said.

We should respect any national anthem, not just Chinas, said Leung. This is a basic requirement in a civil society. More importantly, we are in Hong Kong and this is part of China. The fans reaction to the national anthem is intolerable. I know there are people who dislike China but we were attending a sports event and should have  at least the sportsmanship of respecting others.

Two years ago, Hong Kong fans booed the Philippine national anthem and were accused of making racist and discriminatory comments. FIFA fined the HKFA 30,000 Swiss francs (HK$256,000).

Video: Hong Kong fans booing Chinese national anthem
Video: Hong Kong beat Bhutan by 7:0.

Internet comments:

- On November 17 2015, Hong Kong will be the home team against China. Eleven years ago on the same day, China was home to Hong Kong and won 7:0. Unfortunately, China failed to qualify by one goal due to goal differentials, and Kuwait advanced instead.

- Counter poster made by the Hong Kong Football Association:

Don't let other people look down on you
Our soccer team has black skin, yellow skin and white skin
The goal is the same to fight for Hong Kong
You are Hongkongers so you must give us support!
Hong Kong-China
Home: 2015 November 17
Away: 2015 September 3

- According to the Localists, FIFA lists the team as 'Hong Kong' and not 'Hong Kong (China)'. This means to them that FIFA accepts Hong Kong as a sovereign nation. Well, if so, then why is the national anthem of Hong Kong the same as the People's Republic of China national anthem?
- Hong Kong is as sovereign as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. FIFA has a special statute permitting "regions which have not gained independence" to apply for membership separately with the permission of their parent countries (emphasis added). Puerto Rico, Hong Kong and the Faroe Islands are all FIFA members under this regulation. This also helped FIFA to sidestep certain political issues by admitting Taiwan and Palestine as members without addressing the issue of whether they are independent nations.

- This match was broadcast on CCTV 5 in mainland China. What do you think that it does for the people of Hong Kong? Adoration? Admiration? Contempt? Disgust?
- Do you think that this will make the people of China more supportive of the "democratic aspirations" of the "people of Hong Kong"?

- What is so big deal about foreign-born players being on national teams? 78 out 736 players at the 2014 World Cup were foreign born.

- Why is it racist to say that the Hong Kong team is diversified and have people with different skin colors? This is a statement of fact. No value judgment is implied.

- What might happen when Hong Kong plays China later this year?
First game on September 3 in China: Will the Hong Kong team boo during the national anthem? Will the Hong Kong valiant warriors travel to China and open yellow umbrellas? Will Captain America show up and hoist the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence? Apparently, the mainland fans are already organizing to beat the crap of anyone who does any such.
Second game on November 17 in Hong Kong: Will Hong Kong Localism Power administer flying kicks to the bus carrying the Chinese national team? Will Joshua Wong cross his arms and turn his back on the national flag during the singing of the national anthem? Will Apple Daily distribute yellow umbrellas at the entrance for a mass photograph opportunity? Will the mainland fans boo the Hong Kong national anthem? Or will they play the national anthem just once with both flags flying?

- They already have the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence. Now they need a national anthem for the Hong Kong City-State. Quick, there must be a talented musician somewhere to do just this! This is your chance to become the Francis Scott Key of Hong Kong.
- Don't be lazy and tell me God Save The Queen will suffice.
- As the Hong Kong intellectual Chip Tsao says, when there is a superior item out there, there is no need to find an inferior substitute.
- The national anthem for the Hong Kong City-State is clearly going to be <Raise the Umbrella>. Here is Denise Ho's soulful rendition. This is absolutely the greatest song ever. The song itself is inspiration enough to create a new sovereign nation.
- I vote for Verdi's Va Pensiero. The song was intended for Italian patriots seeking to free it from foreign control. It has been proposed as the national anthem of Padania in the event that it secedes from Italy, which is therefore a similar situation with Hong Kong.
- Wrong! The official theme song for Occupy Central is Happy Birthday! Every time anyone sings the song anywhere in the world, they will be singing Hong Kong's national anthem.

- Is FIFA going to fine the Hong Kong Football Association because the home country fans booed their own national anthem? That's an interesting proposition. It is not an automatic NO, because the reason why FIFA imposes such fines is that they won't allow politics to get into football and this case is clearly political.

- Soccer brings out the worst in nationalism. This is a case of Chinese dogs vs. Hong Kong pigs. This is unsavory.

- So far I see no discussion of the problems in Hong Kong football.
Are you aware that once upon a time in the 1950's and 1960's, Hong Kong was a major power in Asian football? The best Hong Kong semi-pro local-born soccer players played for the Republic of China team, being Hong Kong citizens (of Chinese descent). The People's Republic of China was not yet a FIFA member. Another team of second-tier players represented Hong Kong, and that team includes some foreign-born amateur players as well as some Hongkongers who cannot represent a foreign country (e.g. Hong Kong police officers who pledge allegiance to the Queen of England). Then the whole setup collapsed in the 1970's as big corporate money came in and third- and fourth-tier foreign reinforcements arrived to dominate. Today the situation is as noted by the CFA poster: half of the Hong Kong team is imported (mostly from Europe, Africa and mainland China) and naturalized after seven years of residency. This is addictive because it insures some level of success but this is also unsustainable and even detrimental for homegrown Hong Kong football. Of all people, the Localist/Nativist/Indigenous movement must know that. This Hong Kong-China rivalry is obscuring the real  question: Where is Hong Kong football heading?

- Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ZMAhUy_8 Hong Kong versus Maldives on June 16, 2015. Was there booing of the Chinese national anthem? [Technically, it is easy to create booing. So there were 6,000 spectators but you record the film next to the 10 spectators who were booing. Of course, there was loud booing as recorded by your camera PERIOD]

Q1. Do you support or oppose the governments proposal on CE election of 2017?
56.8%: Support
33.8%: Oppose

This poll is based upon the three-university rolling poll. The survey question is identical, but the survey outcomes are different. That could due to design differences.

First of all, this poll is designed for people who are busy and work long hours. So the entire interview lasts one minute, unlike the long omnibus telephone interviews that the universities conduct.

Secondly, the three universities use home telephone numbers, which restricts the coverage. Hong Kong has the highest mobile telephone penetration in the world, so that many people no longer have home telephones. This poll uses randomly generated mobile phone numbers (prefixes 5, 6 and 9) and expands the coverage.

Here is one incident as reported by three different newspapers.

(Apple Daily)

Yesterday evening in Mong Kok district, a young woman was slashed in the neck. According to eyewitnesses, the male suspect held a 6-inch-long fruit knife and was ready to stab the female friend of the victim. He failed. There was an argument. The suspect punched the friend. When he tried to stab the friend again, he mistakenly stabbed the victim instead.

According to the police, the suspect is a 20-year-old man and the 21-year-old female friend of the victim is his girlfriend.  The female friend is a business student at City Univresity.

The male suspect is active on Facebook, as he kept forwarding funny videos from around the world. In 2014, he wrote: "I am thinking about the baby pig, ha ha." Soon after that, there was probably some emotional turmoil in his life. He wrote: "The wrong love is an inevitable medicine," "No energy left to love people," "short pain is better than long pain", etc.

(Oriental Daily)

A 20-year-old man recently left his direct sales job and hated his 31-year-old female co-worker named Wong for causing division between him and his 21-year-old City University student girlfriend.

At around 630pm, the male suspect learned that his girlfriend was out with the female co-worker in Mong Kok, so he brought two knives in order to set an ambush on Argyle Street. He took out a 5-inch-long fruit knife and attacked. Wong was slashed on the left side of her neck, and blood came gushing out. The male suspect stood there with blood on his hands and continued to play with his mobile phone. He was surrounded and subdued by heroic citizens and turned over to the police. The girlfriend was in shock.

According to eyewitnesses, the male suspect pulled out the knife and immediately attacked Wong without saying a word. Wong was slashed on the left neck. Fortunately an emergency aid worker passed by after work and immediately rushed over to stop the blood flow. Workers in a dispensary brought out bandage to help.

(Sing Tao)

A 20-year-old direct salesman named Ho felt that a female co-worker named Wong was targeting and stopping him from getting to know 21-year-old female co-worker named Tang. Furthermore, Wong was derailing everything he was doing at the company. Yesterday evening after leaving work, Wong, Tang and another female co-worker were walking around Mong Kok. So Ho followed the co-worker to Mong Kok. As they walked along Argyle Street down near Sai Yee Street, Ho took out a knife, rushed over and slashed the artery on Wong's left neck. Afterwards, he stood on the side and played with his mobile phone until he was arrested. With the massive bleeding, Wong was slowly fading away. Fortunately, a emergency aid worker passed by and stopped the bleeding. She was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment and she is in a serious condition.

Internet comments:

- In Hong Kong, reporters = fiction writers.

- In Hong Kong, a news report = 10% hearsay, 20% photos from Internet users, 70% imagination running wild.

- It's one thing to say that the truth = the sum total of the parts. But the parts are contradictory with each other. Somebody is wrong here. But who?
- Well, they all agree on the fact that a woman was slashed by a man. But that isn't much of a news story, is it?

- Hey, you better not make any criticism because that would be an assault on the inviolable freedom of press.

- A friend of mine works for a newspaper. He said that most of the time, the reporters don't know what happened. They just ask the reporters from other newspapers who seemed to know. But they can't report the identical thing, so they create or change some details. Reporters from competitive newspapers actually help each other (including sharing photographs) because today others want you to help them and tomorrow you may need help from them. Better to build good relationships than become a pariah.

- Dear Journalists Association, stop spending so much time on defending the freedom of press and start paying attention to professionalism and code of ethics.

- They can't even agree on the length of the knife, much less the personal histories of the principals.

- With newspapers like these, no wonder I keep losing money at the racetrack based upon their tips and information.
- Well what did you expect? There are 14 entrants in a horse race, and they have two dozen experts so that every horse in the race gets picked by someone or the other. So on the next day, they can tout how successful their experts were, because one or more of them picked the winner.

- You can't trust the newspapers, but you can trust the social media. Exclusive news: The male suspect has been ferreted out as a Yellow Ribbon!

- Lousy fiction writing. Here is my better version: The 31-year-old woman is a mainlander who has managed to entice the 21-year-old City University female student to quit the Umbrella Revolution and get a real job at an up-and-coming company. The 20-year-old man tried to infiltrate the company to win this pretty girl, but is obstructed and persecuted by the 31-year-old mainland locust in every which way. Therefore, he decided to get valiant and administer justice to the treacherous female mainland locust. Now isn't this story a lot more interesting, with the entire Mainland-Hong Kong conflict as the backdrop?

- No, the above piece of fiction is the Passion Times version. I have a better Apple Daily 'leftard' version: The 20-year-old man just immigrated from the mainland on a one-way-visa three years ago. Because he hardly spoke any Cantonese, he could not attend school and so he got a job as a janitor at a direct sales company. There, he fell in love with a 21-year-old City University female intern. However, the 31-year-old company female employee told him to stick to his job cleaning the toilets and stop bothering the other employees. So the man got upset and committed the dastardly act. Now isn't this a lot more interesting, with the entire evilness of mainlander as the backdrop?

- I don't care about any of this. I only want to send my best wishes to the slashing victim. May she recover well at the hospital.

(Apple Daily)

The rolling poll by the three universities showed that the support and oppose rates are both 42.8%. Thus, Beijing can no longer hope to use public opinion to force the pan-democrat legislators to switch their votes. According to an informed person, President Xi Jinping had called a stop to enticing the pan-democrat legislators because he wanted a rule-of-law. But as public opinion reversed on the constitutional reform, the targeted legislators are being approached again.

According to this informed person who quotes a legislator who does not want to divulge his identity, that legislator went to his club to swim and encountered a 'friend' whom he has not seen for a long time. During the conversation, that individual said that there is underground betting in Macau on whether the constitutional reform proposal will be passed. The individual suggested that the legislator make a bet on the passage. The legislator got wary and told that individual: "Please do not talk to me about this. I don't want to listen to this." Afterwards, he thought that this middleman did not run into him by accident, and that he probably used the underground betting as a pretext to get him to switch his vote in return for a big 'payout.' This informed source then cited his own sources that Beijing was reported to be offering $300 million dollars per vote. "As long as you are willing to press the button (and vote YES), you can pocket the money no matter whether the proposal is passed or not."

Our reporters spoke to many pan-democrats about this rumor of money offer. League of Social Democrats legislator Chan Wai-yip confirmed that he has heard about money being offered to switch votes. "Actually, someone was saying that three weeks ago already." Chan said that the central government's money offer was "very significant." He cited another legislator who said that a middleman representing the Chinese government making contact. "Some people said that the offer was $100 million. I don't know if that is truthful or just a joke." However, that other legislator claimed that the money offer was real.

Chan also said that various people have tested him out in the past two to three weeks. He frankly said that someone had indirectly made him an offer. "It is inconvenient for me to say too much. At the present stage, when the other side made are making various offers, it can be very attractive. It will be attractive to anyone in politics." But Chan said that he will veto the proposal, because it was wrong and would destroy democracy in Hong Kong.

According to People Power legislator Chan Chi-chuen, middlemen have tried to learn more about his position, but nobody has made him any offers. But he has heard some legislator claim that the central government "wants him to name his price, but it is not known whether that is a fact or a joke." Chan emphasized that he will veto the bill.

Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that nobody has made him any offer to pass the proposal. He said that he will veto unless the central government promises to make a huge turnaround on the proposal (such as promising to eliminate the functional constituencies in the legislative council).

Neighborhood Workers Service Council legislator Leung Yiu-chung, independent legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Health Services sector legislator Joseph Lee Lok-long, ADPL legislator Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Legal sector legislator Dennis Kwok Wing-hang and Information Technology sector legislator Charles Mok said nobody has made them any offers and that they will veto the proposal. Raymond Wong said: "I wouldn't reverse my vote even if an offer exists, but there is none." Charles Mok said, "If I wanted to switch votes, I would have done it already" and "not after public opinion has switched." Joseph Lee said that Health and Environment Department secretary Ko Wing-man has met with him to lobby for his vote, but Lee repeated that he will veto the proposal. Accountancy legislator Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong has not yet responded to our inquiries.

(Sing Tao)

League of Social Democrats legislator Chan Wai-yip said that two to three weeks ago a middleman offered more than $100 million to some pan-democrat legislators that he knows well to support the constitutional reform proposal. But Chan said that he will not go and make a denunciation at the ICAC, because it is hard to produce evidence for these allegations. For example, he has denounced the past two Chief Executives, but nothing has come out of it yet.

Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai: In mainland China, they are talking about the rule-or-law, so it is not credible that they want to buy votes. "Even if you hate the Communists, you shouldn't manufacture rumors against them."

Information Technology sector legislator Charles Mok: I haven't heard about these stories, and nobody has offered me anything. You can have my vote for free if you remove the August 31st framework (of the National People's Congress Standing Committee).

Accountancy sector legislator Kenneth Leung: The reason why such stories are being circulated now is to shake up the confidence of the pan-democrats. "Previously, they were talking about $100 million. Now they are talking about $300 million. Next week they may be talking about $600 million."

Civic Party legislator Claudia Mo: Anyone who switches their vote should commit suicide! The rumors about the central government offering money now is a systematic smear job so that people will think that the "pan-democrats carry price tags around their necks."

(SCMP) CY Leung laughs off report Beijing will offer pan-democrats HK$300m bribe to back reform. June 11, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying this morning laughed off reports suggesting Beijing could use as much as HK$300 million to bribe pan-democratic lawmakers to vote for the reform package to be scrutinised next week. Speaking in Chicago, Leung brushed aside the accusations as he said everyone could judge the report based on common sense.

(Bastille Post)

According to an authoritative source, this news story story is fiction without any shred of evidence. There is no $300 million offer. There isn't even a $30,000 offer. The fundamental reason is that the central government would never engage in any law-breaking activity. This source also said that the constitutional reform is a legal as well as political issue, and the central government never handles political matters in an unserious manner.

This authoritative source guesses that this story is making an appearance now for obvious reasons. First of all, this false information is designed to influence public opinion. Citizens may think that the central government is low-and-dirty in buying votes and therefore oppose the proposal. Secondly, it is designed to cement the pan-democrat votes, because anyone who switches vote now will be suspected to pocketing $300 million.

Internet comments:

- Where did the Apple Daily reporters learn their journalism? Which school failed to teach them the Five Ws:

The Five Ws, Five Ws and one H, or the Six Ws are questions whose answers are considered basic in information-gathering. They are often mentioned in journalism, research, and police investigations. They constitute a formula for getting the complete story on a subject. According to the principle of the Five Ws, a report can only be considered complete if it answers these questions:

  • Who did that?
  • What happened?
  • When did it take place?
  • Where did it take place?
  • Why did that happen?

Each question should have a factual answer facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete. Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

If this is a true story, it would be the single most important evidence so far of central government meddling in Hong Kong affairs. But now the story limps out in a whimper. Who? What? When? Where? Why? None of these questions are given answers.

- Finally someone came up with two and a half W's: (RTHK) June 13, 2015.

League of Social Democrats lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung says that "a middleman" offered to give him $100 million if he voted in support of the government's political reform proposal. He said he rejected the offer immediately and felt angry that there have been rumours he had been bribed. But he said he did not know whether the middleman is connected to the Beijing government.

New People's Party chairwoman Regina Ip said she doesn't believe Beijing would try to bribe any of the pan-democrats. The Liberal Party's James Tien, said he believed Mr Leung's allegation. However, he didn't think "the middleman" was sent by the Hong Kong government or Beijing.

Lawmakers will vote on the proposal on Wednesday. The pan-democrats are expected to veto the plan as they say it fails to meet international standards for democracy.

Leung said that someone offered him $100 million. That was what happened. He said that the offer was for him to switch his vote. That was why it happened. He said that he was offered, so that was half of the Who. But he didn't name the other party, only that he didn't know if this was a Beijing person. He did not say when. He did not say where.

James Tien said that he believed Mr Leung's allegation. However he didn't think "the middleman" was sent by the Hong Kong government or Beijing. So which other party goes around offering $100 million then?

- Leung Kwok-hung is worth $100 million? Maybe 100 million sperm cells.
- Leung Kwok-hung is the witness to a major crime, but he won't name the criminal. If Leung reports the case to the ICAC and the case is successfully prosecuted, it will be the greatest guarantee that the central government will never meddle in Hong Kong politics ever again. But Leung won't. Why?
- Because Leung Kwok-hung won't name names, it has to be assumed that he made it up.
- Leung Kwok-hung declined comment when emails by Mark Simon to Jimmy Lai indicated that $500,000 was sent to Leung. But now Leung is on radio talking about this other matter.
- Jimmy Lai paid Leung Kwok-hung $500,000 previously for his votes, so now he turns down $100 million?
- How much did Jimmy Lai pay Leung Kwok-hung to go on radio and tell this story?
- If this actually took place, it would have been front page news on Apple Daily/Next Weekly for days already.
- Only four pan-democrat votes are needed, but Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Wai-yip and Raymond Wong are the least likely of bribery targets. Giving him $100 million is only going to allow him to fund more anti-Communist activities in Hong Kong.
- If the central government has $100 million to spend, it would have been far easier to sub-contract through multiple layers to arrange for an 'accident' to occur to Leung Kwok-hung and work on a more malleable replacement.

- I hereby increase my offer to $10 billion to Leung Kwok-hung. I put my joss paper money where my mouth is:

Vote AYE and this money shall be his.

- Who loses if the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal fails to pass? Here is the current thinking:
(1) the people of Hong Kong because the Chief Executive will be elected by 1200-person election committee again in 2017, CY Leung will most likely be re-elected and they won't get one-person-one-vote for at least another decade.
(2) the pan-democrat legislators because they can't explain why electing the Chief Executive by 1200-person election committee members is better than one-person-one-vote and they face re-election in 2016.
(3) the central government suffers a loss of face, but nothing else really.
(4) the Hong Kong SAR government suffers nothing really because it is just the go-between.
So why does the central government need to bribe anyone? They seemed to be better off with failure to pass the proposal.

- If the central government has such largesse, they would be offering multiples of $100 million to people like the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer.

- (Bastille Post)

I don't like to harp about what media colleagues have to say, but when I saw the headline news <Middleman offered $300 million to entice legislators to vote>, I couldn't restrain myself. $300 million? Are you stupid?

... Although the story seemed concrete, further reflection will lead you to conclude that it is very much untrue.

Firstly, the whole story contains no evidence. It quotes Chan Wai-yip who heard another legislator say something. Nobody knows who this other legislator is. Under the law, this is known as hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

Secondly, why should the central government pay $100 million to buy one vote? If it is willing to do everything possible to pass the bill, it would never be so firm and stubborn and allow the pan-democrats no room whatsoever to switch positions.

Thirdly, any legislator who accepts the bribe won't be able to enjoy it in Hong Kong. The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance applies to all public officials (including legislative councilors). It is a crime just for the wealth of a public official not being commensurate with the income. What can the legislator do with the $300 million? He can't deposit it in a bank. He can't use it in large amounts (e.g. buying apartments). He can only keep it under his bed. Or he can flee overseas to some place without an extradition treaty. So the conclusion is that nobody will make such an offer and nobody will take such an offer even if made.

... The more I think about it, the more crazy I thought this story was. I was naive enough to think that nobody could possibly believe this. But a friend told me that at the restaurant, many people were discussion this story. Some people denounced the central government while others said "It's great to be a legislator because you are made for life with one vote!" So many people believed the $300 million bribe story. When lies get repeated often enough, people start to believe it.

- According to Leung Kwok-hung, he said that this individual probably had a big boss behind him with the money. Leung told the individual that he didn't want to see him again. Leung definitely knows this individual, even the big boss. The relevant statue is Section 4 of the CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance:

The individual and his boss are both guilty of committing this offense. As an elected public servant, Leung Kwok-hung has the legal and moral responsibility of immediately denouncing these individuals to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for attempting to make the largest bribery in the entire history of Hong Kong.

- Leung Kwok-hung is a publicity hound. Right now he is doing the rounds on the talk shows about the Bribe of the Century. Of course, he knows that the publicity value would be a whole lot greater all around the world if he went to the ICAC and make the formal denunciation. For example, American politicians would be so jealous (see List of American politicians convicted of crimes) because none of them ever got any offer close to the now legendary $100 million. To the extent that Leung won't go to the ICAC, it means that he had no evidence.

- Ah, finally the truth comes out.

(Bastille Post) June 14, 2015.

Yesterday, Leung Kwok-hun claimed that someone approached him and offered him $100 million to support the constitutional reform bill. He said: "His boss wanted a vote, so he approached me. I told him that I don't want to see him again and I won't want to listen to what he has to say." He continued: "It is rumored that I took money and I am going to switch my vote! Let me tell you: Please have some integrity even if you have to lie!"

Today the South China Morning Post said that they contacted Leung Kwok-hung later and Leung told them that he made up the $100 million figure to attract media attention. At around noon, RTHK also reported that Leung admitted that the $100 million bribe was fictional.

During the RTHK interview, he said that he made up the dollar amount. But it was true that a middleman contacted him in February. There was no mention of any dollar amount. The middleman wanted him to come up with a money figure that will guarantee that he will never have to worry about money again.

According to RTHK, Leung explained that if he didn't use the $100 million figure, no media outlet would report what he said. Leung refused to be recorded during this interview.

- (dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYsaOCvKEE CY Leung, Leung Kwok-hung.

- So Leung Kwok-hung jerked the media around and then heaped scorn upon them ("They wouldn't report this if I didn't make up the $100 million figure. They're like that"). Where is the Hong Kong Journalists Association?

- The "If I didn't say _______, the media would never report it."
--- If I didn't say that 2,000 students were massacred on Tiananmen Square, the media would never report it.
--- If I didn't say that 530,000 persons marched on July 1st 2004, the media would never report it.
--- If I didn't say that 41% support and 43% oppose the 2017 Chief Executive election proposal, the media would never report it.
(...)

- am730 news story on "Pinnochio":

(Speakout HK)

Chief Executive Office information coordinator Andrew Fung Wai-kwong wrote to Apple Daily chief editor Chan Pui-man today about an editorial stating: "(Chief Executive) CY Leung also encouraged certain organizations to charge violently att peaceful Occupy students and citizens, causing many injuries." Fung said that the allegations were "extremely serious but also baseless." Therefore the editorial writer Lu Feng and Apple Daily should provide the facts and explain to the public how CY Leung encouraged which organizations to "violently charge at peaceful Occupy students and citizens, causing many injuries" where and when. Fung said that Leung reserves the right to pursue the matter.

Lu Fung responded: "He (CY Leung) did not condemn the attackers and did not take measures to effective eliminate those attacks. So he can be said to be tacitly encouraging them." In addition with respect to Leung reserving his rights, Lu said: "The risks in writing political commentary are higher than before. I am not the first and I am afraid that I won't be the last to be held accountable." He emphasized that he will treat this matter in normal fashion.

Chief Editor Chan Pui-man also responded: "Apple Daily is a platform for open expression. We welcome any individual, organization or government official to correct the contents in our newspaper. Lu Feng has provided an adequate response to information coordinator Fung. As for what Fung said about 'Mr. Leung reserving the right to pursue the matter,' we hope that the Chief Executive can explain specifically what he meant. We believe that the senior government officials who hold high powers should not be issuing threatening or seemingly threatening words or actions against news organizations and news workers. Otherwise this may affect the space for free speech in Hong Kong and its core values."

Chan recommended Fung read this verdict: "It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech."

Internet comments:

- I recommend Andrew Fung to read George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

- Theorem (according to Apple Daily): Any time that the Chief Executive does not condemn any crime or take measures to stop it from recurring, then he is tacitly encouraging it.

Let's apply the theorem to the Apple Daily news section on this day:

Item: Hong Kong fans booed national anthem in World Cup qualifying match against Bhutan. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 3-year-old crawled though window and fell to death from eighth floor. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: Korean woman used Facebook to spread MERS rumor because she didn't feel like going to work that day. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: Police set noon deadline to remove dangerous materials on Tim Mei Avenue. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 46% oppose August 31st framework if and when constitutional reform is re-started. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is encouraging it.

Item: Woman died from kidney failure after drinking Panadol-laced herbal tea. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

Item: 26-year-old female hygiene inspector commits suicide due to work-related pressures. Since CY Leung did not condemn this, he is tacitly encouraging it.

(NOW TV)

A  number of newsstands in Mong Kok posted notices today that they are not selling Next Weekly anymore. According to the Newsvendors Alliance, they receive their copies from Next Media at $16 per copy when the list price is $20. In Mong Kok, the convenience stores such as 7-Eleven and Circle K sell them at the cover prices, and some newsstands sell them at discount ($19 or even $18). However, the convenience store chain 759 is  now selling their copies at $14 per copy. At that price, there is no way for the newsstand to compete. Therefore, the newsstands are now on strike against Next Weekly.

(Apple Daily)

According to Next Weekly chief editor Lee Chi-ho, they have make no promotional agreements with 759. On the current issue of Next Weekly, they have only shipped several hundred copies to 759 which is getting it at a price higher than what the newsstands are paying. Lee said that 759 makes the decision on pricing, and that the boycott would have a huge impact on sales.

At 759, the list price for Next Weekly was $20. During the current sales period, there is a 30% discount so that the actual price is $14. If the buyer pays with MasterCard PayPass credit card, there is another 12% discount, so that the net price is only $12.30. According to Newsvendors Alliance chairman Mr. Liu, "If magazines can be sold at $12.30, our prospects will be dim. If we don't speak up now ... newsvendors cannot compete with these big capitalists." Liu said that thee are 400 newsstands all around Hong Kong and they are paying $16 per copy of Next Weekly. There is no way for them to compete against 759.

 (ETnet)

749 chairman Lam Wai-chun proclaimed that this was just a beautiful misunderstanding. He said that 759 was testing its delivery system and testing the selling of Next Weekly for three weeks at 20 stores. "There is no fixed price for Next Weekly, so he intended to sell at the cover price. But our company was running the 30% discount program, so it was also applied to the magazine. We have now set the price back to the original $20."

(Oriental Daily) June 9, 2015.

On the eve of the vote on the constitutional reform proposal, there is now a <Resistance Handbook> being circulated on the Internet. The handbook tells people that they "would rather be flying ashes than floating dust" and teaches people how to resist the police. According to information, the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police is very interested in the matter.

There are 24 pages in the handbook. Some "men in black" distributed copies of the handbook at the June 4th assembly in Hong Kong University. The handbook is also distributed on the Internet. The cover is based upon "V for Vendetta" and it says that in such times as these, "Valor is not an act of desperation, but a meaningful gamble." The handbook teaches people how to arm themselves and fend off police attacks.

(Speakout HK on YouTube)

0:05 According to information today, there are arsenals in the demonstration area outside the Legislative Council. There are large amounts of wood, nails and glass bottles. It is frightful to see so many tools.
0:16 A radical organization has uploaded a <Resistance Handbook>. They talk about bringing a coffin to the demonstration march, setting it on fire and tossing it at the police. They suggested using flag poles, bamboo rods and iron bars to charge the police, and also using ropes to pull down the iron barriers as well as toss fire bombs. Fire bombs, not water bombs. Wow, these guys are nuts. They want to cause casualties. What is the difference with ISIS?
0:46 Even Internet users are upset and cursed out the poster. "Administrator, please remember to take your medicine so that your mental impairment does not worsen." "People are getting rasher." "They are pushing the students out to die."
1:02 During Occupy Central, they carried shields with nails jutting out. This time, they may use glass bottles to make fire bombs to toss at the police. Isn't this the rise of terrorism? This is extremely dangerous to our society and our children as they grow up. Worse yet, some people tell young people to charge while they hide like turtles in their shells. We have to say NO to these terrorists for the sake of our children.

(YouTube) SocREC. A video tour of Tim Mei Avenue on June 10, 2015.

Internet comment:

- Publicity of the <Resistance Handbook> merely arouses curiosity. If you haven't seen it before, you want to see it now. Where can you find it? In Facebook, of course.

- The Handbook contains a quote by the Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten in 1996: "Hong Kong, it seems to me, has always lived by the author Jack London's credo:

I would rather be ashes than dust,
I would rather my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze,
Than it should be stifled in dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor,
With every atom of me in magnificent glow,
Than a sleepy and permanent planet."

- How much does this standard equipment (helmet, gas mask, headgear, shoulder pads, elbow pads, arm pad, gloves, anti-riot shield, shin guards, athletic shoes) cost?

- Looks terribly hot when its 33 degrees outside. You will be dropping dead from heat exhaustion within one hour.
- This was obviously written by a green novice who didn't even bother to read up on Protective Equipment in Gridiron Football. If he did, he would know that the single most important piece of equipment is: the jockstrap (=athletic supporter). Or maybe a woman wrote this handbook ...

- Oh, it isn't easy to be "valiant." First, you need to be physically fit. Fortunately, just seven minutes a day will make you fit to become a "valiant resister."

- I was wondering what they propose to do if they escalate the violence and the police eventually used guns. I had to laugh when I read the bottom line: "ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE OBSTACLES IN FRONT OF YOU, INCLUDING PEOPLE." You can't make that up.

- (Associated Press) What Dzhokhar Tsarnaev needed to learn to make explosives with a pressure cooker was at his fingertips in jihadist files on the Internet, according to a federal indictment accusing him of carrying out the bombings at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured dozens more. Before the attack, according to the indictment, he downloaded the summer 2010 issue of Inspire, an online English-language magazine published by al-Qaida. The issue detailed how to make bombs from pressure cookers, explosive powder extracted from fireworks, and lethal shrapnel.
- I was disappointed. I was expecting a bomb-making manual but this is nothing of the sort. Instead, they were teaching you what to do when the policeman in front of you is swinging a baton at you.

- The salt works scene from the movie <Gandhi>?
- I do my seven-minutes workout every day in order to prepare myself to be clubbed in the head by the police?  What's in it for me except for my subjective sense of moral superiority?

- There is even a YouTube propaganda video with ominous music: The people of Hong Kong, you have endured enough. To defend your own, you must resist valiantly. We fight to our death for our freedom. We will not be sandbags anymore. We will counter-attack. One man's efforts are tiny, but the efforts of a group of people will be enough to resist the authorities. Do not let our young generation fight alone.

Q1. Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal?
63.6%: Yes
29.6%: No
4.1%: Hard to say
2.7%: No opinion

Q2. How confident are you that the Legislative Council will pass the proposal?
26.5%: Confident
50.5%: No confident
20.9%: Hard to say
2.2%: No opinion

Q3. Do you think that failure to pass the proposal will have positive or negative consequences?
18.9%: Positive
51.6%: Negative
15.9%: No consequence
12.6%: Hard to say
1.0%: No opinion

Q4. If the Legislative Council fails to pass the proposal, will you vote again for those Legislative Councilors who voted NO this time?
23.5%: Yes
57.4%: No
13.1%: Undecided
6.0%: No opinion

Q5. Do you support the opposition's violent tactics in harassing government officials reaching out to local communities?
25.7%: Support
59.1%: Do not support
8.8%: Don't care
6.4%: No opinion.

(Wen Wei Po) The New Territories Association of Societies interviewed 828 Hong Kong citizens on June 1-9.

Q1. Do you want to have one-person-one-vote to elect the Chief Executive?
85.5%: Yes
3.6%: No

Q2. Do you think that the Chief Executive election must be based upon the Basic Law?
71.9%: Yes
20.2%: No

Q3. Do you think that the Hong Kong SAR government should make a proposal for Chief Executive election based upon the August 31st framework set by the National People's Congress Standing Committee?
63.0%:  Yes
30.1%: No

Q4. Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass the Chief Executive election proposal based upon the August 31 resolution of the NPCSC?
62.2%: Yes
30.7%: No
7.1%: No opinion

Question: Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election method?

Response May 12-16 2015 May 21-23 2015 May 28-30 2015 June 5-7 2015
Yes 51.3% 49.3% 47.5% 49.4%
No 40.1% 39.4% 38.2% 39.5%
Unaware of the proposal 3.1% 4.2% 4.7% 4.0%
No opinion/Hard to say/Refused to answer 5.6% 7.2% 9.8% 7.2%

Internet comments:

- Inevitably this poll will be compared to the Hong Kong University/Chinese University of Hong Kong/Polytechnic University rolling poll. Before you waste any more time, I will just tell you that the questions are different:

HKU/CUHK/PU asked: Do you support or oppose the governments proposal on Chief Executive election of 2017?

CUHK-IAPS asked: Do you think the Legislative Council should pass the proposal for the 2017 Chief Executive election method?

Some people don't like the government's proposal on Chief Executive election, but nevertheless think the Legislative Council should pass that proposal, because not passing it means continuing with the 1,200-person small-circle election committee in 2017 as well as no full universal suffrage for the Legislative Council in 2020.

- (Speakout HK)

For the first time, the support and oppose rates were equal in the three-university rolling polls yesterday. Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan cheered when he heard about it. He said that that the two numbers are in "golden convergence" and he is looking forward to the "golden crossover." Today's numbers indeed showed that oppose has passed support. But what is Lee Cheuk-yan so joyful about?

First, we should point out that the three-university rolling polls are asking: "Do you support or oppose the 2017 Chief Execution election proposal from the government?" Those who oppose the proposal may nevertheless want the Legislative Council to pass the proposal. Therefore, the numbers in the poll should not be interpreted as "oppose the passage of the bill." Today, Polytechnic University Centre for Social Policy Studies director Chung Kam-wah who is part of the three-university team said on radio that the poll results do not reflect whether the interviewees want to "pocket it first" or not.

But no matter whether more or fewer people support than oppose, everybody will be a loser if the bill fills to pass. There are no winners. So where does Lee Cheuk-yan's 'joy' come from? Chung Kan-wah said on radio today: "What joy can there be?"

Will Hong Kong get out of the doldrums after the constitutional reform is vetoed? Will the heated debates stop? Chief Executive CY Leung said that he will turn towards livelihood issues after the constitutional reform proposal is voted upon, but will the radicals stop? If the answer is no, then what is Lee Cheuk-yan cheering about?

Indeed, even if the constitutional reform proposal is vetoed, the sky won't fall down. But the prospect of continual political wrangling with no prospect for short-term or mid-term resolution should sadden every Hongkonger, not making them cheer. Of course, the exceptions are the politicians with ulterior motives.

(EJinsight) Police has worst public image among HK disciplinary forces: poll. June 11, 2015.

The police has the worst public image among all the citys disciplinary forces, according to a survey by the Public Opinion Program of the University of Hong Kong. The satisfaction rate of Hongkongers towards the police stood at 50 percent, marking a decline of 6 percentage points from a previous survey six months ago. Meanwhile, the dissatisfaction rate of locals towards the police was up 2 percentage points to 29 percent, in the survey which was conducted between May 29 and June 2. The net satisfaction rate the difference between the satisfaction rate and dissatisfaction rate towards the police force fell from 29 percent to 21 percent, which is the lowest figure since 1997. The figure decreased from 51 percent in late 2013 to 36 percent in mid-2014 and further dropped to 29 percent in late last year after the Occupy movement.

The latest survey results were based on responses from 1,038 people.

In terms of net satisfaction, the Fire Services Department recorded 92 percent, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison was at 34 percent, compared with 35 percent six months ago.

This is the first ever full-coverage survey, which shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kongs disciplinary forces are all above 75 percent, said Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, director of HKUs Public Opinion Programme.

In terms of net satisfaction rate, the Auxiliary Medical Service took the second rank after the Fire Services Department, with a figure of 81 percent. It was followed by the Government Flying Service (77 percent), the Immigration Department (73 percent), the Customs and Excise Department (64 percent), the Civil Aid Service (60 percent), the Correctional Services Department (57 percent) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (49 percent).

Comments:

You get the impression that the Hong Kong Police is the worst among the Hong Kong disciplinary forces. Furthermore they have gotten worse over time.

Let's look at some more data from the same Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme.

(HKU POP) Please rate on a scale of 0-100 your satisfaction with the Hong Kong Police Force as a disciplinary force. 0 stands for very dissatisfied, 100 stands for very satisfied, 50 stands for half-half. How would you rate it?

Date of survey  Total Sample   Satisfaction Rating   Standard Error 
  29/5-2/6/2015  1,038   61.0   1.1 
  25-28/11/2014  1,012   61.0   1.2 
  25-30/6/2014  1,009   62.3   0.9 
  29/11-3/12/2013  1,022   63.7   0.8 
  26/6-2/7/2013  1,008   66.4   0.8 
  4-12/12/2012  1,010   67.0   0.8 
  13-20/6/2012  1,001   63.0   0.9 

The latest satisfaction rating is 61.0 with a standard error of 1.1. The oldest satisfaction rating is 63.0 with a standard error of 0.9. The difference (63.0 - 61.0) = 2.0 has a standard error of SQRT (1.1*1.1 + 0.9*0.9) = 1.42. According to the Student's t-test, the difference is not statistically different. In other words, the Hong Kong Police is not rated any differently in 2015 than 3 years ago.

Now for a different question from the same HKU-POP.

(HKU POP) Are you satisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force? (Very positive/positive/half-half/negative/very negative/don't know/hard to say)

Date of survey  Positive   Half-half   Negative   Don't know/
Hard to say 
  29/5-2/6/2015  50.4%   19.2%   29.5%   1.0% 
  25-28/11/2014  56.1%   15.2%   27.0%   1.6% 
  25-30/6/2014  55.6%   23.8%   19.4%   1.2% 
  29/11-3/12/2013  64.3%   21.9%   13.2%   0.6% 
  26/6-2/7/2013  59.4%   24.8%   13.1%   2.8% 
  4-12/12/2012  66.0%   22.8%   9.0%   2.2% 
  13-20/6/2012  54.6%   29.0%   13.8%   2.6% 

For the same period as above, the difference (54.6 - 50.4) = 4.2% has a standard error of SQRT[(50.4*49.6/639 + 54.6*45.4/540) = 2.9. According to the Student's t-test, the difference is not statistically different. In other words, the positive rate towards the Hong Kong Police is not different in 2015 than 3 years ago.

Next, do you know the reason why the net satisfaction rate for the Hong Kong Police is dropping? The drop is due largely to the increase in negative satisfaction. I leave you with two propositions:
(1) People are dissatisfied with police brutality against pro-democracy demonstrators during the Occupy period.
(2) People are dissatisfied with police inaction to clear the Occupy sites and give the streets back to the citizens.
This poll yields zero information for you to choose between the two.


Speakout HK:
Filled with tents and sheds laden with hidden weapons
If the law enforcers continue to tolerate this
This is not called tolerance
This is called being useless

The most important rule in cross-examination of witnesses in court is: Never ask a question when you don't know the answer. In like manner, some polling organizations will never ask a question whose answer they may not like.

Apart from the disciplinary services, who else can you compare the Hong Kong Police with?

(HKU POP) Are you satisfied with the overall performance of the members of HKSAR Legislative Council?

Date of survey  Positive   Half-half   Negative  Don't know/
Hard to say
  14-28/12/2011  16.9%   28.0%   48.7%   6.4% 
  13-20/9/2011  12.5%   27.5%   54.1%   5.9% 
  23-29/6/2011  10.5%   32.6%   50.7%   6.2% 
  21-30/3/2011  13.2%   32.9%   50.9%   3.0% 
  17-22/12/2010  19.2%   31.8%   41.1%   7.8% 
  18-24/9/2010  20.8%   35.9%   37.2%   6.0% 
  18-22/6/2010  18.9%   23.4%   51.3%   6.4% 
  23-25/3/2010  18.3%   26.8%   49.4%   5.5% 
  14-17/12/2009  17.7%   30.4%   46.5%   5.5% 
  14-17/9/2009  21.0%   39.1%   34.4%   5.5% 
  16-21/6/2009  20.8%   37.5%   35.4%   6.2% 
  9-11/3/2009  20.9%   33.1%   39.9%   6.1% 
  16-18/12/2008  26.0%   31.7%   29.3%   13.1% 

Alas, HKU-POP no longer asks this question after 2011, because it really really really makes the Legislative Council look bad and dysfunctional. Compared to those clowns, the Hong Kong Police are absolute angels. The media says that the Police with a +29% net satisfaction rate is in the pits, but the Legislative Council has a -31% net satisfaction rate.

But you should not be too harsh on the Legislative Council, because what is happening here is a design feature. Hong Kong is a polarized society and the Legislative Council is nominally democratic. Therefore, the Legislative Council is necessarily polarized as well. When the vote goes one way, the other side throws a tantrum (=banana) for the evening television news. When the vote goes the other way, this side does the same and says that this is the darkest day in Hong Kong history (or something). If a compromise is reached, neither side will be happy as they all cry "Betrayal!" The people observe these actions and form their opinions. That's all.

What do people think about the media reporting on things like the public image of the Hong Kong Police?

(HKU POP) Do you think the news media in Hong Kong are responsible in their reporting?

13-16/4/2015

26.3%: Responsible
35.7%: Half-half
31.9%: Irresponsible

More importantly, what do people think about the university public opinion polling organizations? Alas, this question is never asked.  So we can only speculate about what the 70%+ who refused to participate are thinking.

This morning, an Internet media Facebook page posted a photo of Joshua Wong eating a bun in an MTR car. The subtitle was "Big expert liar Joshua Wong says one thing but does the opposite; he knowingly broke the law by eating in the MTR subway."

Later Joshua Wong wrote his own Facebook: "Sorry. I did eat in the MTR today. I have no evasions or excuses. When I am wrong, I am wrong. Joshua Wong publicly apologizes here. There will never be a next time."

Internet comments:


- Leadership qualities of Joshua Wong, #10 in Great World Leader List of Fortune magazine

- Isn't he on an indefinite glucose-enhanced hunger strike? Now he is eating a bun? To recuperate?

- The original Facebook version called Wong a "Big Expert Liar". How did he earn that reputation? He promised that Scholarism would be disbanded after the National Education issue, but they are still going around charging police lines and swindling donations. Also, he falls down at every demonstration and screams "Police brutality!"
- Oh, the version that I saw had the subtitle: "Strong Nation Man from Ap Lei Chau found eating food in MTR."
- Yes, the current Localist belief system contains the tenet: If you see someone defecating/urinating/eating in the MTR, then that person must be an uncivilized Strong Nation Locust.
- I am pretty sure that when this Strong Nation Man finishes eating and gets off, he is going to defecate/urinate on the platform immediately.
- Remember the famous Thick Toast mainland woman? She was subjected to an Internet lynching.

- After Wong finished eating, he apologized. According to Alex Chow, Wong has thus completed the rule-of-law process. So what more do you want?
- The rule-of-law process is not complete until Joshua Wong mails in his check for the $5,000 fine. (Wikipedia: According to the Mass Transit Railway By-Law, eating or drinking, and smoking are not allowed in the paid area of stations or in trains. Offenders will be fined up to HK$5000.)

- Because he was photographed, he had to apologize. If he hadn't been photographed, he would have just kept going and never be bothered by any pangs of conscience. This is rule of law (that is, when you break the law, you make sure that you are not seen).
- The photographer and his camera should be commended. If the photo was fuzzier, Wong would have tried to deny it.

- When Joshua Wong breaks the law, he gets away with an apology on Facebook. If the individual is a mainland boy, what do you think Hong Kong Localism Power's Mr. Ho will have to say?

- Apologize? Isn't he supposed to resign (from whatever positions he currently holds)? This is what he always demand of government officials.

- It was very wrong for the photographer to post it on Facebook. If there is a wrongful act, it should be reported to the MTR authorities. Posting it on Facebook is a serious violation of the right to privacy of Joshua Wong. He should be filing a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.


Here is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second." So what comes first? According to Joshua Wong, it is eating food.

- Rule of man and not rule of law. Top frames: Mainlander mother and son. Bottom frames: Joshua Wong.

- Civil disobedience: the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always defined as being nonviolent resistance.
Since the MTR By-law of forbidding food consumption is inhumane, cruel and unhealthy, it can be and it should be disobeyed.
- Famine Is A Crime: If widespread famine now only occurs after the deliberate acts of leadership create the conditions for starvation, what should be the international response? In a 2003 article in the American Journal of International Law, lawyer David Marcus argued that famine could constitute a crime against humanity. European Parliamentarians have set a precedent by recognizing the Ukrainian famine of 1932 in which Stalins government forced grain removals and forbade movement in a way that guaranteed widespread starvation as such. And most famines of the more recent past fit that description very well. That suggests it should become standard practice for the ICC to issue warrants for the arrest of leaders of regions or countries where mass starvation occurs.
Therefore the ICC should issue an arrest warrant for CY Leung for causing mass famine within the MTR.

More at Occupy Central Part 3.


Archives:

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

Google  
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com

        Blogroll   Press