[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.]

(SCMP) June 24, 2016.

The killer blaze that burned out of control for four days at an industrial building in a densely packed Hong Kong neighbourhood was finally tamed on Friday night, as the citys security minister rejected concerns that the entire block could collapse.

The inferno at the Amoycan Industrial Centre in Ngau Tau Kok was brought under control at 7.38pm, more than 80 hours after it broke out on Tuesday, killing two firefighters over two days.

Thomas Cheung, 30, and Samuel Hui Chi-kit, 37, have been hailed as heroes, amid an outpouring of public support and sympathy. Two others were still in the hospital yesterday in a stable condition. The fire started at the SC Storage facility on Tuesday, making it the longest running blaze in the city in more than 20 years.

(SCMP) Ignore online rumours and get behind our firefighters, Hong Kong public urged. June 24, 2016.

Top Hong Kong officials and unionists on Friday urged the public to support the citys firefighters, saying hearsay and criticism of the strategies used in tackling an industrial building inferno had piled pressure on frontline officers.

While firefighters unions said the morale of the force was high, some frontline officers posed angry messages online questioning the decisions of their commanders and blasting inaccurate media reports.

A four-minute clip consisting of 11 short voice messages purportedly from firefighters circulating online blamed the top managements ignorance about the actual situation at the scene for the two deaths. One message claimed that under external pressure, senior firemen gave up the safer approach of fighting the blaze from the outside. Buildings [Department] told them the building could collapse, so they sent some dare-to-die corps up there, and the accident happened.

An executive committee member of the Fire Services Officers Association, Mak Kam-fai, said he understood the feelings and emotions of junior staff, but their morale was high. In real life it is not practical for the seniors to explain tactics to them fully, Mak said. Mak also said the frontline firefighters faced huge pressure from the challenge of dealing with the deadly blaze in complex circumstances, and from also the public. All the guessing, hearsay and rumours upset us and put pressure on us, he said. It is irresponsible for people and so-called experts to spread negative remarks and criticism, as they have absolutely no idea what the fire situation is like.

He said the firefighters were doing their best to put out the fire as quickly as possible. Some frontline colleagues who were supposed to be off after a full day there had also volunteered to return and do back-up work. Mak expressed sadness at the two fallen officers but said the public should not confuse their deaths with the firefighting strategy.

Some members of the public have criticised fire service management for sending officers inside the burning building even though no one was trapped. So we should just let the fire burn? he asked, adding that firefighters had to enter the core area to put out the blaze regardless of whether there were people inside or not.

Jerry Nip Yuen-fung, chairman of the Fire Services Department Staff General Association, said firefighters were angry at rumours that some of them were sent in when they were not ready. They have worked very hard in fighting the fire. Such groundless rumours should not be spread around, he said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 22, 2016.

A group of four pro-Beijing politicians have been criticised for attempting to take political advantage of a fire that claimed the life of a firefighter after they published a photo of themselves at the scene.

The four district councillors of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong posted the photo on Tuesday afternoon, showing them standing next to fire trucks at the Kowloon Bay fire scene.

Netizens slammed the councillors for hindering the firefighters work. Facebook users compared the image with a controversial photo of four Filipino police officers who posed next to a tour bus involved in the 2010 Manila hostage crisis which left eight Hongkongers dead.

One such post attracted more than 5,000 likes and 2,000 shares as of Wednesday afternoon.

Jack Cheung Ki-tang, one of the district councillors, even took to the page himself to counter the criticism.

It is normal for district councillors to be at the scene to understand the situation, and to take photos to report to citizens, he wrote. I believe those residents who read our Facebook pages would care about the situation.

Netizens went on to criticise Cheung, and other politicians in the photo, including Au Yeung Kwan-nok, Cheung Yiu-bun and Wilson Or Chong-shing. They said that they were not even part of the constituency that the fire occurred in.

Some commenters also said that, even if they were taking photos of the scene to report on the situation, it was unnecessary to include their faces.

Wilson Or Chong-shing, who is tipped to run for a Legislative Council seat in September, was the most active of the four on social media. Or posted nine Facebook posts after the fire started, including some saluting firefighters, and some photos showing him helping residents. But he did not post the controversial photo, and did not respond to the controversy on his page or other pages.

Tam Siu-cheuk, the DAB partys district councillor for the constituency where the Ngau Tau Kok blaze unfolded, defended his colleagues on social media. I am the district councillor for the constituency the roads were blocked and people could not go home, buses could not enter the estates, so why shouldnt we report on it? he asked. He added that the four in the photo had a responsibility to be at the scene in order to understand the incident before a meeting at the Kwun Tong district council on Wednesday to discuss it.

Peter Chan (Chinese University of Hong Kong student)

Those bastards normally have lots of time. They eat and then they sit around to wait to defecate. This time, they got what they deserved. But two deaths are too few. There are more than 9,000 Fire Department workers. Excluding the 2,000 who are emergency rescue, at least half of them should die (that is to say, 3,000 of them). Can you imagine what a waste of public funds to have 7,000 sit around, eat, play basketball, go to the gym, flirt with girls and fuck them?

- The man in the photo is a fireman who worked at the scene. His photo was stolen by someone to use in this post. It is pathetic that someone can do this, and it is worse that people should actually believe this.

Kiko Tsang (Civic Passion)
[Left photo: with Raymond Wong Yuk-man; Right photo: with Wong Yeung-tat]

Each day, somebody dies. It goes with the job. The Hong Kong pigs and moral prigs have forgotten about the facts of life when they ask.

Who is truly serving the People? You show!
The firemen used their lives to defend Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Public Security Bureau wield your batons to beat defenseless Hongkongers who want democracy.

Civic Party

We demand the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government cancel all celebratory events on July 1st.

Joshua Wong (Demosisto)

We strongly demand the Hong Kong government to cancel the reception to celebrate the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and donate the budget to the fund for families of deceased firemen. All government officials should cancel all official celebratory activities and not appear in their official capacity at any of the celebratory activities.

- Ask not what the HKSAR government has done for you. Ask what you have done for HKSAR.

- Although Demosisto was founded a short time ago, they are known to have raised several hundred thousands of dollars. How much have they contributed so far? Ten bottles of water! If you want to impress me, write out a cheque for $1,000,000.

- July 1st should be made a day of mourning for all of Hong Kong for the two heroic firemen. Therefore, we strongly demand the Civil Human Rights Front cancel their July 1st demonstration march out of respect for the heroes and their families. Of course, this means that all the pan-democratic political groups (including Civic Party and Demosisto) will miss out on the biggest fundraising event of the entire year. If you dare to demur, I will say: Have you no sense of decency?

- Alternately, the Civil Human Rights Front can redirect the theme of the July 1st demonstration march to commemorate the two heroic firemen. And all donations made to all organizations during the event will be handed over fully and completely to the wives of these heroic firemen. Thus, everybody will do everything that they can.

- Be careful! The pan-democrats have a habit of "keeping the money in their pockets temporarily." Auditors will have to be hired to watch the donation boxes.

- What is the use of hiring Benny Tai's auditor? The financial statement before the Occupy Central period (late 2014) hasn't even been done yet even though this is 2016 now.

- Well, but what about Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) promising that his people will dress in Black Bloc and take 'action' at the China Liaison Office on the night of July 1st? Ray Wong said that they are doing this because Lam Wing-kee has personally stated that he was kidnapped by the Chinese Communists. Right on, brother!

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 23, 2016.

A netizen who asked for donations on Facebook for a firefighter who died on Tuesday has been criticised for being a potential scammer. A person claiming to be the deceaseds cousin said that those who were using the incident to cheat people at this time should move away.

A fourth-alarm fire occurred at a mini-storage at Kowloon Bay on Tuesday and continued into Wednesday. Thomas Cheung, a 30-year-old senior station officer, died at the scene after being found unconscious inside the Amoycan Industrial Centre on Tuesday evening. The government has vowed that it will inspect all mini-storages after the fire claimed a life.

The netizen posted in a Facebook group saying that he only wanted to ask the kind people here if [they] could donate money. In the post, he said that he knew the family and would hand the money to them. He then provided an account and asked people to spread the word.

However, he mistook one of the Chinese characters of the deceased firefighters name for another in his post. The two characters are pronounced the same in Cantonese. Someone claiming to be the firefighters cousin commented saying you are scamming whats your problem? She also said that if you want to donate, I can give you the familys account.

According to Apple Daily, the post was later deleted and the poster said I hope everybody will forgive me.

For the 2016 Appropriation Bill draft, Legislative Council members introduced certain amendments. Here is a revisit of the list:

Amendment #64 (motion introduced by Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation for the Fire Department by $5,198,792,000 (the reduction is about equal to the entire operational budget of the Fire Department).

Amendment #65 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $173,597,000 (the reduction is about equal to the budget of the Fire Department for machinery, vehicles and equipment).


Amendment #71 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $76,952,000 (the reduction is about equal to the budget of the Fire Department for small machinery, vehicles and equipment).

Amendment #72 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $148,257,000 (the reduction is about equal to the entire budget of the Fire Department for ambulances).

When just asked about those amendments to cut funds from the Fire Department now, Leung Kwok-hung said that the Fire Department budget should not be cut without good reason. He didn't blink or blush.


After a fireman died in the Ngau Tau Kok fire, Oscar Lai (Demosisto) tried to find ammunition for his Kowloon East Legislative Council election campaign. He posted on Facebook:

According to the Fire Department, there are 650 industrial buildings older than 30 years of which 120 are in the Kwun Tong area. In 2007 Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance, all buildings built before 1987 had to be upgraded in terms of firefighting equipment, but not the industrial buildings older than 30 years. In fact, tragedies have occurred before. In March 2010, one fireman was killed and three more were injured in a Cheung Sha Wan industrial building fire; in 2007, seven firemen were injured in a Tsuen Wan factory fire. ... Isn't it government indifference that killed our heroes?

Hundreds of critical comments poured in, such as "Oscar Lai, you political thug! You only know how to blame the government but you never offer a single constructive idea!" "You go eat shit, you only know how to exploit a situation!" Oscar Lai immediately deleted this post and replaced it with the Demosisto "Salute to the firemen"!

- Oscar Lai is either too stupid or too deceptive about the two cases that he cited to support his presentation. In the 2007 Tsuen Wan fire, the factory had a sprinkler system installed, but it did not function. The fireman was killed by a flash burn. In the 2010 Cheung Sha Wan fire, the ceiling and the shelves collapsed on the fireman. The causes of death in this new incident will be determined by the court of inquest. It is no wonder that Oscar Lai has drawn the ire of citizens.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 23, 2016. Oscar Lai replaced his Facebook post with another post saying that his Kowloon East election campaign team had just learned that the Lam Tin Community Centre was opened for those who are displaced by the Ngau Tau Kok fire. He even provided instructions on how to proceed from Tak Po (Kowloon Bay) by foot to Lam Tin.

-From Tak Po through the Choi Ying Estate pedestrian bridge to Kai Tin Community Centre? That would be four MTR stations! Does anyone over at Demosisto know how to read a map?

- Oscar "Magnet Man" Lai chose to run in the Kowloon East district. But he has not done his homework about local geography. Besides, there is a closer community center in Kwun Tong.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 24, 2016. First, Agnes Chow Ting posted on Facebook:

I bought a batch of bottled water in Kowloon Bay and took it over to Amoycan Industrial Centre.

Please, everybody should give a little bit to do something for others.

P.S. It is very close between the Kowloon Bay MTR and the scene of the incident. It is absolutely not hard for any individual to bring ten or so bottles by foot. Please, everybody.

Joshua Wong immediately shared that post.

But Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) countered: "Will all political hacks not call on citizens to head towards the scene at Amoycan Industrial Centre! Do not go to deliver bottled water or watch the fire. No! You are going to interfere with the mission of the firemen. Besides it is dangerous because of the heavy smoke. Residents are telling me that the smoke carries a heavy plastic smell and causes dry throats. Please spread this information around." Other Internet users pointed out that the Fire Department has plenty of materiels already.

Agnes Chow then amended her post with this addition: "But please do not interfere with the work of the firemen and do not stay to watch." And then she added: "It is enough to leave the water behind the police line."

But Internet users said that Agnes Chow must think the firemen are beggars.

Finally Demosisto issued its statement: "The Kowloon Bay fire is still not under control. There are cracks on the outer wall of the building. Citizens should avoid going to the scene."

Demosisto did not know when to stop. On Facebook, today they issued "Four questions that the government must answer:

- The fire has not been put out yet. A few firemen are still in critical condition. Why are you demanding the government to answer your questions? Why do they have to answer you here and now? Who do you think you are? Apart from opposing the government on everything and telling people to donate money to you all the time, what have you contributed to society?

- It is Demosisto which must answer questions from the citizens. Here is one question for a starter: Why did Agnes Chow tell citizens to go to the scene when there is the danger of a building collapse as well as toxic smoke inhalation?

- And here is another question: Why is Agnes Chow encouraging citizens to give presents to members of the Disciplinary Forces in violation of the well-known code of conduct?

- Here is the Oscar "Magnet Man" Lai: It has now been proven wrong to maintain physical condition by playing ball at the fire station when there is no fire. I hope that everybody support me to enter the Legislative Council and reform the Fire Department.

But wait ...

Oscar Lai Man Lok:
Earlier today (June 25) there was a screen capture that pretended to be me giving my opinion on training methods for firemen. I solemnly clarify that I have never said anything like that. I know that I am not a professional, and therefore I hold no opinion about training methods at the Fire Department.

At this time, the firemen are still fighting the fire at the industrial building. Some person with ulterior motive deliberately framed me and disrupt the flow of regular information. This is disgusting. Rumors stop with wise people. I issue this statement for clarification.

(Photoblog.hk) June 24, 2016.

- This photo is clear evidence that the Hong Kong Communist government is suppressing freedom of press. This photo showed clearly that the emergency workers in neon orange jackets were interfering with democracy-loving photojournalists who were trying to satisfy the people's right to know. The Hong Kong Journalists Association will surely bring the case to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

- When one photojournalist takes photos at a disaster site, he is said to be courageous. When 100 photojournalists take photos at a disaster site, they are interfering with rescue operations.

- The contrast between the "courageous fireman who was injured in the line of duty" versus "the photojournalists who used every means possible to get some photos" is obvious. This is Hero vs. Villain. Today, nobody believes that photojournalists will make way for an ambulance to pass through. In Hong Kong, when a small number of photojournalists cross the line, there is no effective system to restrain them (because of FREEDOM OF PRESS). Therefore common folks are angry at all of them.


(SCMP) June 20, 2016.

There was chaos and violence at Chinese Universitys council meeting on Monday, as students urged the governing council members to set up a governance review panel.

Physical conflict erupted among students, some protesters from outside the university and security guards, as about 50 students and other protesters tried to storm the meeting venue at Bank of America Tower in Admiralty at around 5pm.

During the chaos, a security guard suffered an injury to his right eye which drew blood.

Students at the university have been demanding the council review the current governance system where the chief executive becomes the chancellor by default and has the power to appoint members. Critics said such a system would expose the university to political interference, thus threatening academic freedom.

University vice-chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu and council chairman Leung Nai-pang later promised protesters that the council would discuss setting up the panel at the meeting, before the chaos calmed down.

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong council was holding a meeting at the CUHK Educational Centre at Bank of America Tower when fifty people charged into the meeting area. Security guards blocked the intruders and there was pushing and shoving. One security guard was bleeding in the face, and some students claimed to be injured. Among the intruders were some who were not CUHK students, such as "Four-eyed brother" Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) who will be running in the Legco election and Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen. Some of these intruders wore black face masks, black hoods and even black veils.

CUHK Student Union president Ernie Chow presented four demands to the CUHK Council chairman Norman Leung and CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung: (1) establish a panel to study the law by which the Chief Executive becomes the chancellor automatically with a clear time table; (2) the CUHK Council should have student and teacher representatives; (3) reduce the number of council members who are appointed directly by the Chief Executive; (4) CUHK Student Union representatives should be able to attend council meetings before the reforms take place.

Norman Leung said that the Council will discuss these demands, but Leung and Sung cannot promise anything because it all depends on the opinions of the full council. The students let the two go. Shortly afterwards, another round of clashes started because somebody said that the council members were leaving. The students immediately rushed to block the back door. Then somebody said that it was not true, and the students calmed down again.

Legislative Councilor Helena Wong (Democratic Party) said that the council had previously voted not to form a panel because of the lack of a social consensus on the issue. Today's meeting agenda does not include the demands today. Wong said that while she understands that the students are concerned about the university ordinance, demands should be expressed peacefully.

CUHK SU president Ernie Chow said that the action today was pre-planned along with the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He said that the university ordinance is not solely a CUHK issue, but it affects all students and all of society. Chow said that physical clashes were inevitable during the tense situation, and he believes that both sides did not harbor evil intent.

Legislative councilor Tommy Cheung left around 6pm. He was surrounded by about 20 students and other individuals who chased outside the Bank of America Tower. They stopped Cheung from getting into his car, accusing him of illegal parking. Eventually Cheung left on foot.

At around 7pm, three more council members left including deputy vice-chancellor Fanny Cheung. The intruders blockaded the corridor once more. At around 715pm, School of Business Administration dean Chan Ka-lok wanted to leave but was blocked. So he went back into the meeting room.


Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/637893936378509/

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/5767d07d6db28c7564dc345b/

Now TV http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=183137

Cable TV https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/501911086672940/

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/566867336851879/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1016365941732102/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1016608498374513/

Resistance Live Media

Internet comments:

- Do you think that these are Chinese University of Hong Kong students? Or Civic Passion reporters?

- The Buddhists believe in karma. In this case, the relevant Chinese phrase is 姑息養奸 (to tolerate is to nurture an evildoer). Joseph Sung tolerated all the shenanigans before and he is reaping the harvest today.

- Example of toleration of evil: The Chinese University of Hong Kong security guard was cut around his eye. CUHK refused to called the police. They only called an ambulance to take the security guard to the hospital where he received five stitches.

- Did the security guard agree? Or did CUHK 'agreed' him?

- (Oriental Daily) The Hong Kong Security Guards and Property Management Workers Association said that there has been more than 30 incidents in which demonstrators caused physical clashes. This year, there has been four incidents including Hong Kong University students charging at the council meeting and now the Chinese University of Hong Kong students charging at their council meeting. Whenever that happens, the personal safety of the security guards is at risk. The Association demanded that the government and insurance companies review how they can protect the security guards. They urged the government to prosecute the attackers and arrange for police presence.

- I keeled over in laughter when I read in (Wen Wei Po) that the students stopped council members from leaving because they don't want the meeting to be called off due to lack of quorum. Ha ha ha. What has been happening at the Legislative Council over the past several years? Is it true that Legislative Council members can be prevented to leave by force?

The students also said that council members cannot leave the council meeting because they have to attend to personal business. Ha ha ha. Would you care to check out absenteeism at the Legislative and District Councils?

- (SCMP) Universities are allowing radical students to get off scot-free even when they resort to violence. By Alex Lo. June 22, 2016.

A group of students and outside protesters wearing intimidating black masks gatecrashed a meeting of the Chinese Universitys governing council.

They caused mayhem, resulting in the injury of a security guard. Instead of calling the police and reprimanding the students by name, council members invited two of them to the meeting. Even then, the intimidation didnt stop. They were protesting against the law that automatically makes the chief executive the head of Hong Kongs public universities.

The university did issue a statement condemning the violence, but only in the most general terms. Well, we all know violence is not a good thing. But how about chasing, naming and punishing those responsible? Probably not.

One of the protesters said violence was unavoidable but refused to take any responsibility. The universitys student union president, Ernie Chow Shue-fung, one of the two student representatives invited to the council meeting, said: When the situation has reached such an intense stage, some physical conflict is unavoidable.

Tell that to the injured guard and his family that it was for a good cause. One thing we do know about administrators at our top universities well, not top anymore according to some recent international rankings is that they are generally spineless when it comes to dealing with radical students.

Similar chaos had broken out during protests at meetings of the University of Hong Kongs council in the past year. Former HKU council member and student union president Billy Fung Jing-en had helped lay siege to them. Reprimand or at least a warning letter? Not a chance at HKU.

The University of Chicago this month almost refused an undergraduate degree to protest leader and student body president Tyler Kissinger for helping to occupy a university building. For his action, he was hauled before a disciplinary committee that accused him of premeditated and dishonest behaviour and contributing to an unsafe situation in the building.

He, too, was protesting for worthy causes like boycotting investments in fossil fuels, paying university workers a minimum wage of US$15 an hour and ending racist policing on campus. Ultimately, he got off scot-free but was at least taught a lesson that things you do have consequences, even if its for a good cause.

Reprimand our student leaders? No, that would be political persecution.

- Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 23, 2016.

... On the next day, the student representative was asked on radio why they used violence. The answer was that they have to exercise the public's right to violence in order to fight the System's violence.

Excuse me, I have lived and studied for many years and I only learned the terms "public's right to violence" and "the System's violence" in recent years. But I prefer to characterize them as "word play."

When you injured somebody, you have injured someone. If you apologize, I may still give you some respect as an upright, honest person. But now you did it and you don't want to admit it, so you package it as an act of justice. This is a disgrace to the brand Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The incident took place at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Education Centre inside the Bank of America Tower in Admiralty. At the time, teaching classes were being held in the other rooms. A foreigner teacher was upset at being disrupted and he came out to the corridor and told the troublemakers not to disturbs. Unexpectedly, these university students who had just been screaming and yelling at the council members suddenly shut up. They were tongue-tied and only knew to stutter out one English word: "Sorry."

This makes me wonder if the solution is to hire more foreigners to become police officers, security guards, spokespersons and mediators. As soon as these thugs see a foreigner with red hair and green eyes, they get intimidated. When the foreigners start speaking in English, the thugs will immediately raise up their hands to surrender.

If there aren't enough white people, then there are plenty of South Asians who have rushed over to Hong Kong in recent years. As long as they speak English, they will have the best weapon against the thugs. If that isn't enough, you can hire the tall, strong black men looking for work outside Chungking Mansion. When there are black men wearing police uniforms, the thugs can't chant "Black cops" because the black men will charge them with racial discrimination at the Equal Opportunities Commission.

I look forward to seeing this.

- (Headline News) If I were the injured CUHK security guard. By Poon Lai-king. June 23, 2016.

If I were the injured CUHK security guard, I would ask Vice-chancellor Joseph Sung why he didn't call the police? Aren't you the doctor who risked his own life to save others during the SARS period? Aren't you our Hero of Asia? You saw that the CUHK students and the masked men in black clothes surround the meeting venue, scream and yell. In order to maintain order, I got cut in the corner of my eye, blood poured out and I went to the hospital to get five stitches. The university called an ambulance, but they did not call the police.

I am a lowly security guard. In order to protect the reputation of your university, you did not consider calling the police. You were not willing to see justice done for me. Actually, you should call the police not for my sake but for the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When my attacker is not brought to justice and punished, you are tolerating violence and it will be worse next time.

I had hoped that someday my son would become a CUHK student. But right now I am ashamed of the actions of those students.

CUHK Student Union president Ernie Chow was interviewed. He said that he was blockading the place that day. If he didn't get his answer, he would prevent the council members from leaving. That is imprisonment. When the security guard got injured, he refused to apologize and he refused to show any concern. He said that the security guard could have been injured by his colleagues. Besides the security guards used improper violence themselves. He refused to take any responsibility.

As the vice-chancellor, this would have been a great chance in education. What is respect? What is peace? What is reason? What is responsibility? But a university that is supposed to be in education hid behind a feeble statement. The students who led the way will not be punished as they should be.

Worse yet, society is tired and numbed by the continual show of students acting as thugs who assault, imprison and curse out people. Reporters don't even follow up.

The university and the students are cowards. As a lowly security guard, I was not only hurt in the eye but I am broken-hearted.

(Oriental Daily) June 13, 2016.

Yesterday at around 240pm, five men who looked like mainlanders appeared near the home of Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai Chi-ying. Four of the men are between 40 to 50 years old and another man 20 to 30 years old. The younger man wore a neon yellow wind jacket and held a blue foldable umbrella in his hand.

The five men proceeded from the bottom of the hill up the hill. Four of them walked up to Number 87, which is right across the home of Jimmy Lai. The fifth man walked up to Number 81. One of the four men used a camera to film Jimmy Lai's home as well as St. George's Court next door. Then they stood around the entrance to Lai's home. After about one minute, the four men walked down the hill and left.

At around 430pm, three of these men were observed in Tseung Kwan O filming exterior of the Apple Daily building? So who were these men? Why were so interested in filming Jimmy Lai's home and office? So far, nobody has the answer.

Neither Jimmy Lai nor his neighbors called the police. Most citizens would call the police if they find suspicious characters wandering around. But Jimmy Lai didn't. About 30 minutes later, sme Next Media reporter showed up at Jimmy Lai's home.

Internet comments:

- Derivative spoof: Who are those guys? The Hong Kong Police, or the Independent Commission Against Corruption, or a certain bureau/department in a certain Strong Nation?

- (Oriental Daily) Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai has previously been characterized as the "black hand" behind the illegal Occupy Movement. Yesterday five mysterious men filmed outside his home and office for unexplained reasons. They had crew cuts, they carried sling bags and they wore striped t-shirts, all of which are telltale signs of mainland agents.

The situation in Hong Kong is getting out of control, and Jimmy Lai is the biggest reason. Beijing is beginning to lose its patience. If economic punishment doesn't work, then law enforcement may be the only solution. Earlier a state leader had said: "Nobody is above the law. No lawbreaker can find excuse to evade the long arm of the law." Unfortunately the Hong Kong government has not been able to enforce the law. On one hand, the Justice Department has failed to prosecute Jimmy Lai and others. On the other hand, the courts have repeatedly failed to punish Occupy Movement lawbreakers. Under such circumstances, the five mysterious men outside Jimmy Lai's home may be a warning: If the Hong Kong government won't enforce the law, the bureau/department of the Strong Nation will come to Hong Kong and enforce the law. Before you know it, Jimmy Lai may become the next Lee Bo "who used his own method to go back to mainland China to cooperate with the investigation of the authorities."

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2016.

After the court verdict on Bawang vs. Next Magazine, about 10 Bawang employees dressed in black and another 20 members of the "Support Bawang Concern Group demonstrated outside the Next Media building in Tseung Kwan O. They held banners on "Hooligan media lose public trust," "Down with Chinese traitor Jimmy Lai, give us back out national corporation," "Six years of slander finally cleared, give us justice and clear our names." Very soon, Next Media sent out reporters to film and ask: "Are you being paid?" The Concern Group members retorted: "You have no conscience. How dare you say that we are being paid?" There was a quarrel. Next Media summoned the police to keep order. The protest continued for about 40 minutes and then the demonstrators left.

At 335pm, the demonstrators showed up outside Jimmy Lai's home in Kadoorie Avenue. In addition to the aforementioned banners, they added: "Down with Chinese traitor Lai XX!" and "Evil Next Media is media gangster!" The police were also present. The demonstrators left around 445pm. One of the demonstrators bore a resemblance to one of the five men who were here several days ago. When asked, this demonstrator only identified himself as a Bawang employee. The Bawang International Group was asked about the demonstrators, but they said that they won't comment on the spontaneous actions of certain employees.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

At around noon, about 10 persons from the Justice Alliance demonstrated outside the Next Media building. They threw darts at the figure of Jimmy Lai and chanted "Down with Jimmy Lai, down with Apple Daily, down with bad media." According to Justice Alliance convener Leticia Lee, Jimmy Lai is the enemy of Hong Kong, because he libeled Bawang, persecuted public servants, conspired with the United States, gave secret donations to Legislators, incited Occupy Central, etc. "We want to cleanse Hong Kong from the mud of Jimmy Lai and keep media clean."

At around 4pm, a group of investors who claimed to have purchased Bawang share protested outside Jimmy Lai's home. They chanted "We support the Bawang Group, we want our money back."

At around 1230pm, Jimmy Lai left home for the Sai Kung Yacht Club. He declined to speak to the reporters waiting for him there.

Jimmy Lai's bodyguard prevented reporters from exercising their freedom of press.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

At around 2pm, a dozen people demonstrated outside Jimmy Lai's home in Kadoorie Hill. They  carried banners that said: "Down with Chinese traitor Lai XX." These members of the "Support Bawang Concern Group" shouted slogans such as "Evil Next Media is media gangster." Thirty minutes later, another dozen or so more people showed up.

One of these demonstrators said that he was an investor in Bawang Group stocks. After Next Magazine published its libelous story on Bawang, the stock price plunged and he lost tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore he was there to demand justice from Jimmy Lai. The protest lasted until around 3pm before the demonstrators left. The police watched from the side.




(Oriental Daily) June 18, 2016.

At around 320pm, two men drove a white van to Kadoorie Avenue and walked up to Jimmy Lai's home to case the situation. About one minute later, they drove up and tossed two bottles containing fruit juice at the gate. The plastic wrap on the gate as damaged, and some fruit juice was spilled on the gate. The perpetrators left in the car. The security guard called his supervisor who came and called the police. The Police is listing this as a case of criminal damage of property. Police detectives came and gathered evidence, which includes a plastic bag and bottle caps left outside singer Kelly Chan's home, which is right across the street from Jimmy Lai's home.

(Oriental Daily) June 21, 2016.

At around 1050am, more than 20 young persons in their 20's arrived in a white tourist bus to protest outside Jimmy Lai's home. Some of these people wore surgical masks and sunglasses. They held banners that said: "Apple Daily's inaccurate reports misled citizens and damaged Hong Kong's reputation," "The shame of Hong Kong newspapers hurt Hong Kong and its good people." They used megaphones to chant slogans such as: "Inaccurate reporting, fictional news" and "Evil media cause trouble in Hong Kong, corrupting young people." The police were summoned. A protestor was questioned by the police, but he said that they were "spontaneously organized" to protest inaccurate reporting by Next Media. The demonstrators continued to change slogans. At 1135am, they left in the same bus.

At 4pm, the same group of protestors plus several middle-aged men and women arrived at the scene. They unfurled banners and chanted slogans. They left by tourist bus about 20 minutes later.

(Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016.

At 3pm, 45 members from the Hong Kong Travel Agency Owners Association, the Hong Kong Tourism Industry Workers Association and the Justice Alliance protested outside Next Media building in Tseung Kwan O. They said that Next Media has promoted the anti-parallel protests, smeared Hong Kong and destroyed the tourism industry, such that the industry has lost $10 billion already.

The demonstrators unfurled banners about "Chinese traitors," "eradicate the cancerous poisoned Apple Daily cells," "eradicate poisonous media," "Poisonous Apple Daily is the most shameless," etc. They chanted slogans such as "Eradicate the number one bad egg," "Insult our country, deceive our citizens," etc. The demonstrators placed a photo of Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai on the ground and tossed eggs and apples at it.

(Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016.

At around 3pm, more than 30 members of Justice Alliance and Peace Forum showed up with banners and placards outside Jimmy Lai's home. At around 320pm, they were joined by more than 20 tourism industry workers. The more than 60 people chanted slogans until 4pm.

Justice Alliance convener Leticia Lee said that she was here because Next Media had published the private photos of her and her family members. Loyal Militia member Man Shek said that he was there because Next Media had sent an undercover reporter to his beauty salon in order to smear his business. "The report was 10% true and 90% false. The only thing true was the photo of the worker."

Video: https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1017453364956693/


(Oriental Daily) June 24, 2016.

In Next Magazine, Jimmy Lai wrote that he was driving down the hill with his wife when the sky turned dark. His wife said that it was going to rain soon and suggested turning back. Back at home, Jimmy Lai took the cup of coffee from his wife and suddenly told her: "I'm going to retire." He used the weather as an analogy: "The cloudy sky reflected my mood. The fatigue is like a cloud hanging over my head. I want to turn back." He said that his wife was not surprised. "I am going to retire smoothly."

(Oriental Daily) June 24, 2016.

About 20 people showed up at noon outside Jimmy Lai's home. They carried placards that said: "Dark money harms society, libel hurts businesses." They demand that the Justice Department punish those who are involved in the dark money affair. The police watched on the side. The group left at around 1pm. Meanwhile Jimmy Lai couldn't less as he went to the Sai Kung Yacht Club to take a cruise with a foreigner.

(Oriental Daily) June 25, 2016.

At 1030am, more than 20 demonstrators marched up to outside Jimmy Lai's home. They chanted: "Jimmy Lai is shameless," "He caused trouble to Hong Kong and its people," "He is a sinner for eternity", etc. Some of these demonstrators claimed to be investors who bought Bawang shares. Others said that they came spontaneously after reading about Jimmy Lai's secret donations. The demonstrators showed various cartoons of Jimmy Lai. They placed a photo of Jimmy Lai on he ground and stomped on it. They stayed for about 10 minutes and then they left.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 16, 2016.

Recently returned bookseller Lam Wing-kee has said that he was only allowed to return to Hong Kong from China if he agreed to travel back with a hard drive full of evidence from his book store. Lam the founder of Causeway Bay Books, which sells political gossip titles banned in China returned to the city on Tuesday. He was due to return to China on Thursday but held a surprise press conference at the legislature with lawmaker Albert Ho instead to expose what really happened during his eight month detention. Lam Wing-kee.

The hard drive demanded by the Chinese authorities contained sales records from the bookstore. Lam said that Lee Bo, another bookseller who returned to Hong Kong in March, copied a hard drive of customer records. Lam was asked to look through the records to identify customers.

The records include some 600 people, mostly mainlanders, and some 4,000 book titles.

I was afraid my readers would be affected, that they would think Hong Kong people or I sold them out, he said. But I did not do so Now they were doing something even worse asking me to bring them a hard drive as evidence.

He said he was accompanied back to Hong Kong by two men. One was surnamed Chen a chief and another surnamed Shi. They separated after crossing the border as they could not be seen near him. He added that Shi treated him kindly but was not allowed to speak to him.

Lam said that he could not read any information when he was in the mainland, and that he felt touched when he returned to Hong Kong and read that 6,000 supporters had marched for the release of the booksellers in January.

I watched videos on my phone for two days, he said. I dont know these 6,000 people they spoke out for the five of us, our small bookstore I am thankful.

He said he was supposed to return to the mainland on Thursday and hand over the hard drive to a central special unit. However, after seeing the support from Hongkongers, he hesitated at the Kowloon Tong MTR station en route to the border.

He said he spoke out after coming back because he was less burdened in that his family was not on the mainland. He said he had dinner with his sister and a phone conversation with his son upon returning to Hong Kong.

Lam said that, on the day he was accosted on the mainland last October, he was originally planning to visit his girlfriend, who he met after living away from his family. She was also detained on the mainland as she had helped him with sending banned books into China. She was released on bail.

I am sorry for my girlfriend, he said. But I dont consider this a personal matter anymore, rather a matter for the whole of society Hong Kong people were forced without any way out. He said it was unacceptable that his colleague Lee Bo was kidnapped from Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has rule of law I am not afraid for my personal safety, and I do not plan to go to the mainland again, he said. This is the red line for Hong Kong people Hong Kong people will not give in to the powerful regime.

Regarding the booksellers that returned to Hong Kong and went to the mainland again, he said he hoped the Chinese government would treat them well. Just like God treats human beings well I only hope for that, he said.

Five booksellers from the Causeway Bay store went missing from Thailand, China and Hong Kong last year. The whereabouts of Swedish national Gui Minhai are still unknown. The UK and the US governments, and the European Union, have expressed concern over the issue.

Lam founded and operated the banned book store before it was purchased by Mighty Current in 2014. He last used his computer at the shop on October 23 and was reported missing by his wife on November 5. He called his wife the next day to say he was safe, following media reports of his disappearance. He was confirmed to be in China on February 4 this year.

Lam stood accused of being involved in illegal activities on the mainland. Chinese authorities said that criminal compulsory measures were imposed upon him and he was under investigation.

(SCMP) June 16, 2016.

A bookseller who went missing for nearly eight months and only returned to Hong Kong from the mainland this week described on Thursday his harrowing detention at a border crossing and sustained efforts by authorities there to extract information from him.

Lam Wing-kee also stated during a 70-minute press briefing that fellow bookseller Lee Po told him he had been taken away from Hong Kong contrary to Lees contention after his release on March 24 that he had entered and left the mainland voluntarily.

The Hongkonger said mainland police detained him on October 24 while he was visiting Shenzhen and offered to release him if he could hand over a Causeway Bay Books hard drive listing readers who had bought books from his business, and that they had asked him to return to the mainland on Thursday with it. I did not return, he said before a packed briefing room at the Legislative Council complex. Of course, I dared not return.

Lam said he thought the authorities were more concerned about who wrote the books that were sold at the Causeway Bay establishment than who purchased them. I suspect they wanted to know who wrote them, he said. But I dont know the authors. I only sell the books. And as many people know, the contents are not always reliable.

He claimed he had been kept alone in a room measuring about 200 or 300 sq ft for five months following his detention. He added he had lost sleep the last two nights since returning to Hong Kong.

Lam said he was taken from Shenzhen to Ningbo in Zhejiang province by train, one day after he was intercepted at Lo Wu Control Point in the New Territories. I was handcuffed and my eyes were covered, he said. It took about 13 or 14 hours. I noticed I was taken to Ningbo, because I glimpsed the station when we got off the train.

Recalling his detention, he said: I was afraid, feeling helpless. I didnt know what would happen or if there would be a trial. I was alone. I couldnt believe this could have happened to me, he continued. It was very surreal I hoped it was only a dream.

During November, December, January, February, and March, for five months, I was detained in a 200 or 300 sq ft room, he added. For 24 hours, six groups of people took turns watching me. I was allowed no outside communication, no lawyer.

Lam said he was detained for questioning in a large compound a 45-minute car ride away from the station. He also claimed he was not told what offence he had committed until after he was taken to Ningbo. He said he believed the officers detaining him were not from the national security council.

As for his confession on mainland TV in February. It was a show, and I accepted it, he said. They gave me the script. I had to follow the script. If I did not follow it strictly, they would ask for a retake.

On Lees earlier claim that he went to the mainland voluntarily, Lam said: Obviously, it was exactly the same situation in which I was forced to make a televised confession.

He said he was not told what offence he had committed until after he was taken to Ningbo. He said he believed the officers detaining him were not from the national security council.

Lam, one of five individuals associated with Causeway Bay Books who went missing over a three-month period from October last year, was accompanied by Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan at the partys office in Legco.

Upon his return to Hong Kong, Lam asked local police to drop their probe into his missing person case. He also told them he did not need help from the authorities, according to a government statement issued on Tuesday.

Police stated Lam declined to give further details.

The request to abandon investigative efforts mirrored the approach taken by Lams three Hong Kong associates who returned home before him, despite unanswered questions about the circumstances of their disappearances and concerns that they had been kidnapped by mainland agents acting beyond their jurisdiction.

(SCMP) June 17, 2016.

Q: Did the Hong Kong government give you any protection at all?
: No

Q: Is there anything you want to say to Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying? He kept saying that he has been following up on the cases of you and the others.
I have nothing to say to him. He cant do anything, so what is there to say?

A: I was very afraid. I was alone. I didnt know how they would deal with me. I didnt know whether there would be a trial. At the time, I couldnt believe this could happen to me. It was very surreal. I thought I was in another world and even hoped my situation was a dream and not reality. As a Hongkonger, I am a free man. I did not commit any crimes but I was locked up for no reason for five months.

Q: After this incident, is there anything you would like to say to Hongkongers?
I hope Hongkongers will say no to an authoritarian regime.

Q: Do you think that in the circumstances Hong Kong finds itself, we can really say no to an authoritarian regime?
I can do it, so why cant you?

Q: Have you thought what might happen to Hong Kongs freedom if you didnt come and speak out today?
If I didnt come out to say anything, freedom of speech and publication in Hong Kong would continue to be attacked. I dont want to see this happen.

Q: How was the interview on Phoenix TV conducted?
I dont know about the others. But for me there was a director, a script.

Q: Which parts (of the script) were contrary to your true beliefs ?
They said I had committed crimes, thats already against what I thought. I dont think I committed any crimes.

Q: During the interview, you admitted the books were all made up and expressed regret, are these not your words?
These are the things they made me say. They wanted me to admit them. I couldnt not admit them.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Full, complete transcript of returned bookseller Lam Wing-kees press conference and Q&A

Last October 24th, when I crossed the Shenzhen border to visit my girlfriend in Dongguan, I was detained by Shenzhen police.

So when I was detained, I asked them what crimes had I committed. I kept asking for an entire day, and nobody was able to answer me. I recalled that when I crossed the border, the gate closed. I was trapped at the crossing, and then two officers pointed and then a few more customs officers came. I dont know if this counts as detainment.

They took me to a corner on the left, and they probably recognised me. And then there were a few people, I remember there were at least 11 people, they took me away to examine [me], and then [we went] to the Shenzhen police station, where they confiscated my identification documents.

At that time I went after them and asked what crimes I had committed. All along nobody answered me so I could only sit inside the police station, the place where I was detained, until it was nighttime. There, someone who asked me Your surname is Lam, right?

My ID and everything had been taken away when I was crossing the border, so I was in the police station that night. I was in the criminals chair. I sat there and I could not sleep, but of course there was food provided for me to eat. Around 7 oclock, very early [in the morning], the people from the police station and some who took me away gave me breakfast to eat. [Then] I remember I sat in a car and was headed to the North of China, heading in that direction.

As they were taking me away, they handcuffed me. I wore an eye mask and they gave me a baseball cap almost covering me entirely, and I sat on the train, and sometimes I sneaked a peek [to see] just what crimes had I committed and where was I going. I sat on the train for a total of 13 to 14 hours and then later on I found that they had taken me to some place in Ningbo I saw that when we got off.

[After] getting off the train, they took me to a large compound which was about 45 minutes away by car. They took me to one of the rooms on maybe the second floor, and they searched me, and that night I also asked them what crimes I had committed, and still no one could answer me. And then the next day, around the afternoon, someone came and did a news piece with me and at that time they did not tell me what crimes I had committed.

They detained me, they only gave me two pieces of paper and asked me to sign my name.

On one piece of paper, there were two conditions one is that I promise to give up my rights to contact my family, the other is to promise not to hire a lawyer.

Under these conditions, in reality I did not have any ways to find anyone who could give me any suggestions. I was alone so I could only sign the paper because the situation was that I could not refuse to sign the paper, so They started asking me my position at the bookstore, and if I was previously the owner of that bookstore. It is the Causeway Bay Bookstore.

They also asked me why I continuously helped mainlanders send books [into the mainland], where I had made my profits from at the bookstore, what made me sell [the bookstore] to the publisher Mighty Current, what relationship did I have with Mighty Current before that. And of course we are a legitimate bookstore according to Hong Kong law, running a typical small bookstore for Hong Kong is legal.

At first they said because in Hong Kong I brought or sent some banned books into the mainland that I had broken their law and they said that books published in Hong Kong are basically not allowed  to be sent or brought into the mainland, and that counts as an illegal activity. Then they said that they might prosecute me afterwards because I had broken their law by sending books from 2013 till 2015. Before that I had also brought some books across the border.

One time I was discovered by them, and they verbally warned me, detaining me for a few hours.

They also said that me bringing books [into the mainland] broke laws of the Chinese government. After that time I no longer dared to bring books and switched [my] thinking.

Some readers like to read. Hong Kong is a free [place] where you can read and publish and I thought that on one hand it was a necessity [of running the bookstore], on the other hand it also satisfies mainland readers and situations they want to understand.

So I helped them send books from Hong Kong. My situation is legal in Hong Kong and did not violate any Hong Kong laws so I did not understand why my sending books from Hong Kong had violated their laws. If they think I had broken Chinese law they can, in Hong Kong, go through criminal prosecution or the court to prosecute me because there is such a space and such condition.

Why did the Chinese government when I was crossing the border say nothing and suddenly detained me? Of course in this process they did not give me any difficulties, they gave me food to eat there was a doctor for me to see, there was a place for me to sleep. But from October 24th, apart from one night in Shenzhen [I sat] on a train to go to Ningbo, November December January February March, five months I was in a room of around 200-300 square feet. 24 hours.

Two in a group, six groups of people took turns monitoring me in the 24 hours. Took away all my freedoms.

I want to ask whether this detainment is necessary before they charged me. They beautified it and said that it was monitored living. I didnt even [have the chance to] do anything wrong. I could only look up into the sky. I could not hire a lawyer. I was not allowed to call my family.

I didnt know that such a big and strong Chinese government could do [this] to a bookstore. To think that it has violated Chinese laws, that it can treat people like that.

I want to invite relevant departments in the Chinese government to give me an explanation, because this incident is not just a personal matter or a matter of Causeway Bay Books. It is a matter of Hongkongers rights, the freedom to read anything.

You say One Country, Two Systems. Please regarding Hong Kongs freedoms my personal experience, as well as my colleagues, did the Chinese government violate One Country, Two Systems? We dont need to do anything to make a fuss. We just need to watch.

Justice is in our hearts. That is why I had come out [to speak] through Albert Ho, to meet with Hong Kong and world media, saying what I want to say.

After March, they let me go to Shaoguan. Shaoguan was better but I could not leave a certain area in Shaoguan. They rented a room for me to live long term, to intend for me to live long term from around April, because they released me in March. I lived there until now, June. The time there was more relaxing and the let me read freely.

They arranged accommodations for me and they successfully requested that Mighty Current, as a compensation for dismissal, pay me HK$100,000 [to cover my] living expenses. This is what they did to take care of us and this was what let me solve daily problems while I was staying there, a sort of compensation for us. But this, personally, I was not the one requesting this. The only thing I hoped to request was freedom.

Until just now, the day before yesterday, because I had always requested to come back to Hong Kong to meet with my family and my teacher, we talked for a very long time before they agreed [to let me go]. But they had a condition. They requested that I take the hard disk with records of those who we sent books to in the past and bring it back to them as evidence.

When they had interrogated me before, I did not think that they would do this. From what I remember, [they asked] Lee Bo to copy [information from] a hard disk for them in Hong Kong and they showed me the information on a computer. They asked me to identify who had ordered books and what relations I had with them.

I knew that they will investigate those readers according to the information. Why I am speaking about this here is because I didnt want to risk it. The thing I am scared of is that my readers will be affected and that they will think that we Hongkongers, or me, betrayed them. But I did not do that.

At first I thought that telling [the guards] directly, they will have the information but not the physical object. But I didnt expect that they will find someone to copy it from Hong Kong. Now its getting so bad that they are asking me to get the hard drive for them as evidence for court.

When I had come over [to Hong Kong], they did not let me go alone. There as a director surnamed Chen and then there was a Mr Shi. Mr Shi was very nice to me. He looked after me and for this I am personally very grateful towards him. He had always looked after me. But policy wise many things were not up to him.

I have a girlfriend because I met her after I separated from my wife. I hope that this is made clear I met her after I separated from my wife. She is still in the mainland now. Because I had asked her to help me send some books, meaning that it also involves her, that she is also seen as having violated Chinese law and is in the same situation as me. She is now on bail and awaiting trial and is living in the mainland.

I have a few colleagues who are in Hong Kong who have to go back to the mainland, for example, Lee Bo and Lui Por. Cheung Chi-ping is in the mainland. I hope that the Chinese government will not, because of this incident [my press conference], cause trouble for my friends and colleagues. I hope that the Chinese government will treat them kindly just like how God treats people kindly. I can only hope that it is like that.

In the two days since I came back to Hong Kong, I actually almost did not sleep at all. Because I didnt have information in the mainland, I completely did not understand what happened because of this incident [of the missing booksellers]. I looked up information for two days, news for two days. I am very touched, especially because of the 6,000 protesters who went on the streets. These 6,000 people are all Hongkongers and I do not know them. They can do this for the five of us, a small publisher, a bookstore, to speak out for us and voice their support.

I am very grateful because of these five people, compared to them, I have less [connections in the mainland]. At least my family is not in the mainland, only my girlfriend. I feel sorry for this girlfriend of mine, but I thought about the fact that this matter is no longer my own. It matters to the entire society, Hong Kong society, and everybodys demands for freedom.

The Chinese government has left Hong Kong people with nowhere else to retreat to. This is the bottom line. Especially since Lee Bo was kidnapped. This is something we cant acceptcrossing the border and enforcing the law. If you say this is One Country, Two Systems what problems does this have? I dont want to go into it.

I reiterate, this evidence here is I was willing. Ive thought about this carefully. Hong Kong is a place of rule of law and there is still a protection of rights. Im not worried about my personal safety here. I also do not plan to go to the mainland in the future.

I only want to convey one message here. Hong Kong people there are a lot of Hong Kong reporters here were all pretty much in the same boat. Myself, or my colleagues at the bookstore, lost our freedom. This will happen to all of you in the future. This is for sure. If nobody speaks out, if I, the one of five with the smallest burden, doesnt speak out, there is no salvation for Hong Kong.

I will do everything I can. Everything I can. I had to muster a lot of courage. I thought about it all night for two nights, until I could half make sense of it. and tell everyone, and tell everyone in the world. If we dont consider this my personal matter Hong Kong people have a baseline. Hong Kong people will not submit to authority.

Ho: There are a lot of people here. Ill pick people to ask questions.

Mr. Lam, can you say who arrested you and did they tell you clearly, at the end, what crime you committed, and was national security involved? And was Gui Minhais video the same situation as yours, made voluntarily?

When they caught me in Shenzhen, they didnt tell me what crime I had committed.

And now?

When I reached Ningbo and they were interrogating me, thats when someone told me I had broken the business law.

Because of the books?

The books. It was also because I was in Hong Kong sending books to the mainland for readers. You asked who they were? They never told me, up until now. But I heard. They werent national security, and they werent police.

The military?

Not military either. They were the Central Special Unit. On this, Iexcept for hearing it during the Cultural Revolution, I dont know. If you say Central Special Unit or whatever if they can use this Central Special Unit, I think we should all think about what Central Special Unit means. Im really not sure.

Were you the only one in Ningbo, or were the others in Ningbo as well? Also did you see the others afterwards?

No. I only knew that the others were in Ningbo as well.

You knew the others were in Ningbo. Did you have tea together? There were reports that said you drank tea together.

Drinking tea together was arranged by them. They took us to a place called Shenzhen Kylin Villa and at the time, Lee Bo gaveeveryone, all three of usthe HK$100,000 to us as a severance fee. It was to cover our living expenses to stay in the mainland.

Do you think the Hong Kong government, in saving people

Im not aware of anyone that the Hong Kong government has saved.

Everyone else has already been let go. Why were you released so late?

Was it because you wouldnt give in?

No, Im not that brave.

Im just a regular Hong Kong person. If they wanted me to sign, I signed. If they wanted me to act in a video, I acted. Minhais videoGui Minhais video, did you answer the way they told you to? On Phoenix TV.

I dont know about the others, but I had a director and a script that they wanted me to read.

What was it like at the time?

At the time, if I couldnt remember they would give me more time, and I would write it out.

From the beginning, how did they tell you to say it how long

In they said it was illegal business operations, going to the mainland to sell books

Can you tell us about the entire set up for the video interview?

Its very simple. They mainly wanted me to read. One part was taken from the evidence letter I wrote. If they werent satisfied we would add to it or take away. They wanted me to remember it, and then in the video say it according to the script. Thats it, but of course they had not used physical force on me.

But which parts were done according to your wishes?

Well, they think I committed a crime but of course I dont agree. I really dont think I committed a crime.

In the video you said you knew the books were made up

Thats right.

You said you realised you were wrong. What about this?

Well, thats what they thought. They wanted me to admit it. I couldnt not admit it.

Mr. Lam, you said a director brought you back to Hong Kong

I dont know if he was a director thats what I heard.

So someone accompanied you to Hong Kong, at least is that cross border law enforcement?

Thats your interpretation, I dont know.

Did he say he was kidnapped in Hong Kong?

I dont want to sayat the time the situation was being monitoredbut everything should have been recorded. I was still in Shenzhen.

Can you tell us how you came back to Hong Kong? [inaudible] 

I said whatever they told me to say.

Has anyone said or implied that if you break the law again that they would bring you back? And now youre holding a press conference, are you afraid that this will impact your family? And members of the media have photographed a woman outside your home, was that a sex scandal?

Of course that was my woman. That was my woman but whether it was a sex scandal or not depends on what evidence they have. For myself, no. Or I can tell you, when I was in Shaoguan at 1 in the middle of the night, there were two small cars that pulled up. I dont have anyone in Shaoguan, no friends. They knocked on my door at one in the morning I opened the door to see.

One tall, one short. They didnt say anything. I understood at the time that they were probably looking for business. I told them that they had found the wrong person. I dont know if

Actually the two didnt know Cantonese. One asked me, he didnt understand, what? And they were blocking the door, not letting me close it. I was surprised. Its rare that theyre so bold. So I told them again that they had the wrong person. They closed the door and left. This was weird, right?

Do you think it was the authorities?

I dont know, I cant say. I just remembered this. Just now when I was here with Albert Ho, he showed me. This thing happened out of the blue, I dont know whether it has anything to do with it.

How is Gui Minhai doing? He said in the video that he was involved in a car accident some ten years ago and killed someone

I saw that stuff too, but I dont know what his situation is.

I want to ask why it took so long for you to come back.

It took so long because they took that long to release me.

When you were required to read the scripts or to sign papers, when you seemed unwilling, did they imply that something would happen to you, or ?

They didnt need to imply anything. In that situation, you couldnt not sign.

The condition for your return was to bring back the records for the book, do you ?

It was a store of readers information.

Did you promise to bring it to them and did they say when you had to return to report to them?

They came yesterday to get the computer. In Hong Kong, someone called Chan was helping them, I heard. I dont know who he is. In the bookstore, gave it to Lee Bo.

They might have taken the wrong one. Yesterday I went up myself to bring the hard disk back to the hotel. At night I looked again and they had taken everything. It wasnt the one I used to use. So I told the two people accompanying me that I needed to get the original one I was using. So I went up and grabbed the one I used to use. That means it has our readers data on it whether from the mainland or from other places. But the hard drive I didnt give it to them.

At Kowloon Tong, I went out of the station. And last night and tonight and afterwards I didnt give it to them. Seeing 6000 people on the streets and chanting for us, if I, as a Hong Konger,I dont say anything, out of us five I have the lightest burden, I thought I had to come out and disclose everything.

When do you have to go back to see them?

Ho: They are asking if you will go back up?

They originally wanted me to go back today.

Ho: Let him finish, okay?

I answered them.

Ho: No, they asked if you would go back up?

Of course I wont.

But are you worried that theyll bring you back up, like Lee Bo?

Theres nothing I can do about that. That depends on the Hong Kong government and whether our safety is guaranteed in HK. This will tell us whether our lives are guaranteed in Hong Kong.

Will you ask the Hong Kong police for help?

I would rather ask Albert Ho. I dont know if [Chan] was a director. I heard

There were mainlanders coming to Hong Kong with you. What was that situation like? Can you elaborate? Where did they bring you?

In Shaoguan, they bought train tickets and then gave me back my ID. Those people split up. They were a little worried that they would be photographed. Whether it was cross-border law enforcement, I dont know. The process was like that. They split up with me in Hong Kong. They didnt dare stay with me. I can only contact Lee Bo myself.

How did you get away actually?

Because you from when you returned to Hong Kong until you came to this press conference there was somebody following you, like this morning.

I dont know I dont know if there was anybody following me.

But how did you get rid of the two?

They did not dare to appear next to me in Hong Kong.

The Mr Chan you just mentioned, is he the one who took over Causeway Bay Books?

Thats what Ive heard.

Could you say some more about this?

I am not clear about this. TheyI heard Mr. Lee say that [Chan] was going to take over the bookstore, but who was behind this I dont know.

These few days, didnt you just say

(correcting the reporter) These two days

That you went with him to the bookstore together to get stuff

I didnt go up to Causeway Bay Books I only went to Lee Bos office.

With him?

No. Mr Chan I have heard Mr Chan took the computer to Lee Bo and I went to take it at Lee Bos office.

I want to ask whether you know where your case is in in the prosecution process? That is when will you go to court?

Can you talk about the legal process in the mainland?

I dont know about legal process.

Or when you will or when will the case be judged or sentenced and everything?

No idea. No they only said that I am on bail and awaiting trial.

I want to ask about closing the case. Did the mainland police ask you to close the case with the Hong Kong police?

Yes. I answered that just now.

Mr Lam, you mentioned that what happened

Ho: He does not speak English.

Mr Lam I want to clarify whether Lee Bo had taken the bookstores hard drive with readers information on it or  was it all Mr Chan bringing it up?

And do you completely

Chan I heard that Chan took the hard drive to Lee Bo, and I went to Lee Bos office to take it.

This all happened in Hong Kong?


Before, there were rumours saying that you were arrested because

I took the wrong one the first time, the second time was OK.

Before, there were rumours saying that you were arrested because there were some books related to [Chinese President] Xi Jinping.

Actually, you were up there for a few months this time, the whole interview process do you think it is related to what you guys published or do you think they just want to catch those who are reading banned books?

Those who read banned books are probably not a big deal. I suspect that they are trying to get information on those who wrote the books because they asked me whether I knew some of the authors.

Which books authors did they ask you about?

Yes, and what kind of person wrote them.

So which kinds of books?

Did they say in particularly which book or all books?

Books about Chinese senior official, sources, power struggles, or about sex scandals news.

Can you give some examples?

I am not clear on this.

But they had asked you so did you give [information], actually?

We dont even know we just sell books.

So you did not know of these information?

We did not know.

So Lee Bo and Gui Minhai did?

Not possible, because a lot of these information, as everybody knows, not reliable.

Do they have information on the authors?

That I am not clear about.

Mr Lam, did you make contact with other colleagues?

The first time it was eating in Shenzhen, because they had arranged it at Kylin Villa.

Why did they arrange for you guys to have a meal?

Did they clarify whether Lee Bo or Gui Minhai had been kidnapped?

No, they did not mention these things. We only talked about daily happenings.

When you were being interviewed, that time on Phoenix?

They were not clear about it and I was being interviewed. I was being interviewed, not interviewed, being interviewed.

So not being interviewed together?


What did they use to did they use that drag things on? You just said that you needed to eat as well what does that mean?

You have fear. What they wanted to do we dont know. Personally, I did not know.

I want to ask if you will consider reporting to the police or request personal protection because you just said, are you afraid that the mainland will be angry and will find someone to take you back to the mainland after you held the press conference? What kind of protection will you seek?

I did not think about this at all.

Do you think that the Hong Kong Police cannot protect you?

Seeing the Admiralty incident we know, the tear bombs, the students without any weapons.

So you dont think the Hong Kong Police is standing on the side of the Hong Kong citizens?

I see that they really dont.

Do you have anything to say to [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying? Because he said that he had already done a lot regarding this matter. But do you have anything to say?

Regarding this we have nothing to say. what is there to say.

Did you completely not see how the Hong Kong SAR government protected you in this case?

No, no.

In 2012 your bookstore was bought by Mighty Current

2013, no, 2014.

And up to now, do you think that you are being implicated by Mighty Current because of their publication business and you are selling books. Do you think that way?

We are in the same boat. What happens to them may happen to us. What happens to us may also happen to anybody.

Mr. Lam do you know about Lee Bo or Lui Pors situation right now and are you afraid of holding this press conference and revealing the situation that it will be

I am afraid of the situation of those colleagues who are staying [in the mainland] or will have to go to the mainland in the future. I hope that the Chinese government will treat them kindly.

Your family in Hong Kong, did they get harassed or investigated?

As far as I know, no.

Do you think that all five [booksellers] are innocent?

I am not sure about Gui Minhai. If it is simply about mailing or publishing what they think is banned books, then from the perspective of Hongkongers, there is no crime.

Did Gui write some books?

I am not very clear about this.

Can you tell us about the hard drive? The hard drives containing the mainland readers information. Did Lee Bo take the hard drive?

He copied it. As I know he copied.

But not the hard drive?

The hard drive stayed at the bookstore

So has it been taken into the mainland or not?


So it is still in your hands?

Yes, I am keeping it

So I want to ask the central government

I dont want to give a bad impression to mainland Chinese people, that I would give such half copy [evidence] to the Chinese government, I did not want [them to think] that.

Is it true that without the hard copy there would not be enough evidence to [interrupted by Lam]?

I do not know that. I do not understand law.

Does the central government have information about your clients?


Does the central government now have information about the people who you sent books to?

Yes, because Lee Bo copied the files for them. They showed the files to me in Ningbo, asked me to confirm them.

How many people were in the files?

I estimated it must have been about 500 to 600 people. As for books, they counted, there were more than 4000.

Were those information about mainland readers or Hong Kong readers?

Both. But majority were mainland readers.

Did they tell you they were going to find these people?

No idea.

Mr Lam what is your plan to ensure your own safety. You said you dont trust the police.

[Lam turns to Ho] Ho: I think today Mr Lam has told us his situation in this press conference. If anything happens to him, it wont be that he took a shampoo boat back to the mainland. (A shampoo boat is a boat running illegally between Guangdong and Hong Kong on which passengers can solicit prostitutes. This is a reference to lawmaker Ng Leung-sings earlier comment that the five booksellers were caught on such boats.) You would know what happened to him.

Ho: I believe we are an open society. Media workers, you have the freedom and obligation to cover many important events comprehensively. I hope, I believe that your attention is the best protection for Mr Lam, and me also.

Has anyone told you to admit that everything was Guis fault?

What they asked me to admit was that I mailed the books. I did mail the books.

After this incident, do you have anything to say to the Hong Kong people?

Er I hope Hongkongers can say no to hegemony.

But do you think we can still say no under the current circumstances?

I can, why cant you?

Would you continue working in the publishing industry?

Its possible I may.

Mr Lam will you seek political refuge elsewhere?

I am a Hongkonger, born and raised here. I dont need to leave Hong Kong.

Do you have regrets about all this, about sending books to mainland?

Why regret? Sending books is legal in Hong Kong. If they think I broke the law then [approach me] through legal means. [They] shouldnt have detained me. This I cannot accept. Hong Kong is a society ruled by law.

Mr Lam do you have your identification papers? You said they were taken away from you.

They gave them back to me when they let me go. They gave me back my HKID card. The home return permit I didnt want.

Does your family know you were going to hold this press conference?

I called my wife and my sister just now.

Do you worry about their safety?

They should be fine. I am not that worried.

There has been a rumour that the authorities in mainland arranged for you to work in a library. Could you tell us about that?

The library was just a place for me to spend my time.

Where was it?

It was the Shaoguan Library.

Albert, now you have evidence about what really happened in this case, what are you going to do to pursue justice?

Ho: First of all, I think theres a blatant non-compliance on the part of the mainland authority in failing to provide information about Hong Kong citizens being put under compulsory criminal measures in China, OK? With all particulars as soon as reasonably recognised. In fact he has been confined for some many months before information that he was under compulsory measure was notified to the Hong Kong government.

Ho: And in fact a lot of material information was missing, such as the reason for the compulsory criminal measure, place where the measure was put in place and also the reason, ok? So I think the Hong Kong government should follow up and ask for a full account as to why there was such a blatant non-compliance.

Ho: And secondly, we are of course still very concerned about Mr Lee Bo, who obviously had been kidnaped and forced to go to the border to the mainland. This matter is not closed and we got to pursue further until a satisfactory explanation is given to us.

Ho: Thirdly about his personal safety. I dont think from what he told us he committed any offence on the mainland. All the books were mailed out from Hong Kong. OK? All the books were published in Hong Kong. And within the territory of Hong Kong all these acts are lawful. So theres no reason he should be detained, or threatened to be prosecuted for certain acts committed in Hong Kong, which are perfectly lawful.

Ho: I think again the mainland government ought to explain. I think everybody, every hong kong citizen, including the media should keep an eye on I and Mr Lam, make sure he wont suffer the same situation, the same experience as Mr Lee Bo had painfully suffered a few months ago.

Ho: So I think his safety should be protected by all Hong Kong people. All of us should be committed to keeping a close watch and concern for his family. One by one Please listen to me and follow the rules.

Mr Lam, Lee Bo has told the media that he voluntarily returned to the mainland. But you just said he was taken away forcefully. How did you know that?

I talked to him about this. In private he admitted to have been kidnapped.

When did he tell you and under what circumstances?

I didnt ask him when it happened. I asked him this morning.

So you asked him this morning?

He didnt tell me directly.

Does he know you were going to hold a press conference?

He didnt know.

What do you mean he didnt tell you directly? How did he tell you?

He told it in passing that he was taken up there from Hong Kong.

Illegally taken away?

I dont know if it was legal.

You said you struggled for two days thinking whether to tell your story. What was your struggle like? Did the 6000 protesters give you hope and courage? I also want to ask, whats your plan to protect yourself now?

Lets see if the Hong Kong government can protect me. I really havent slept in the past two days watching videos; they touched me a lot. I really think Hong Kong people should come out. Because this is not just my own business, its all of your business.

Did Lee Bo say specifically he was taken away by mainland officers?

No he did not.

How did you ask him and how did he answer?

He told it in passing when he was talking about something else, he didnt specify.

So he was taken away against his will?

Of course.

Do you believe it was mainland police [that took him away]?

No idea.

I apologise if you already answered this in Cantonese, but when you and your colleagues first went missing, the loudest concern in Hong Kong was that it was an unprecedented violation of One Country, Two Systems, Do you agree with this interpretation and if so, what do you think this means for Hong Kongs freedoms?

Ho, translating for Lam: I agree. Their behaviour taking away five people secretly, its obviously [a violation of One Country, Two Systems. And their charge for us illegal publishing. We published and ran our business in Hong Kong without breaking any law, there shouldnt be any problem. I think they just confined us like this, its a violation of One Country, Two Systems.

Sorry can you summarise what he said?

Ho: He said that it was a blatant violation of One Country, Two Systems because the acts of mailing books because the act itself is not unlawful OK?

Ho: So um, he said it would pose a threat to the Hong Kong people that such acts are taken as criminal acts in mainland China.

Did Lee Bo tell you anything about his plan for the future or about the other colleagues situation today?

No. He wishes this would end soon.

Did he say anything about what to do with the bookstore?

He said the bookstore would be taken over, by that Mr Chan. And he said the lease would be extended but whether the money is from Mr Chan, this I dont know.

Did Lee Bo tell you why he still wants to go back to the mainland, and if he is free right now?

They asked him to go back after managing some company affairs here. Thats what I heard.

Have you watched his TV interview? He said he smuggled himself up there. Just now you said you think he was spirited away. Why did he say that on TV?

You are asking me the same question as the one about why I admitted guilt on TV. Its the same thing, we were coerced.

Some people say that four of the five missing booksellers have returned to Hong Kong to cancel their missing persons reports so there is no need to investigate further, what do you think of this?

This incident obviously represents a breach of Hong Kongs human rights.

Maybe those people said that because they thought you wouldnt speak out.

Yeah maybe they think they have nothing to fear.

Did you receive any warning or any signs before this happened?

Personally I did not.

Did you sign any papers to admit guilt in China?

When they questioned meyes I did sign such papers.

Did you sign anything else?

Even if they asked you to sign a slavery contract you had to under those circumstances.

But did you sign?


What else did you sign?

I dont know.

Did they say or imply that if you make the same offence again they would arrest you again?

I had a feeling they would.

So from their conversations with you, you sensed that


Did they ask you not to hold press conferences? What did they say?

Yes, a Mr. Shi who questioned me told me [not to hold press conferences.]

What did he say exactly? How did he say it?

He told me if police ask me if I need protection I should say no. If they ask if I feel safe I should say yes.

What about interviews?

Of course no interviews.

Reporter, asking Ho: As lawmakers how would you follow up this case?

Ho: As I said before, the Lee Bo incident, and the whole Causeway Bay Books incident has shocked Hongkongers and made them angry, infuriated. I had never heard anyone was emigrating out of fear for their safety before. After the Lee Bo incident many said they had no choice but to emigrate.

Ho: I also heard many people said their families told them not to take part in politics, because the mainland government is capable of anything: they dont keep their words, they have no respect for the law, they can use their power to crush anything. So many people are scared. But as Mr Lam said before, 6,000 people came out to speak out for the bookstore. I believe they [the booksellers] must have been touched by this. But we know, those of us who spoke out, we were doing this for ourselves, not just for them.

Ho: Most of us are not leaving Hong Kong. Where can you go? Hong Kong is our home. I myself wont. So we need to, like Lam said, have the courage to say no to hegemony, to pursue the truth and protect each other.

Ho: This Lee Bo incident I think Beijing knows Hongkongers are very unhappy. There is also a lot of opposition internationally. Gui Minhais daughter testifying in the US also attracted a lot of attention around the world. Many people are asking if One Country, Two Systems has crumbled, if they can still come to Hong Kong to invest. These questions are being asked overseas.

Ho: So if the Beijing government does not want Hong Kong, as an international financial centre, to fail, does not want Hong Kong, as an international metropolis, to see its reputation go under overnight, it needs to immediately promise to stop doing this.

Ho: I told Lam today. Theres no need to be too scared, because if he is arrested, Hong Kong people wont accept it. If he suddenly goes missing again, there wont be another explanation. If anything happens, there is no other explanation.

Can you describe what you went through in those months of detention. Were you scared at the beginning? Were you angry? What did you do during those days? How did you spend your time? How has it impact you?

At the time of course I was scared, very scared and lost, felt lonely and helpless. Didnt know what they were going to do to me they werent going by the law. I didnt know if I would be tried. [long silence] I couldnt believe this had happened to me.

It did not feel real. I thought I was in an absurd place. I even hoped what was happening was a dream, not reality.

As a Hong Kong citizen I am a free person. I had never broken the law in Hong Kong. For, as I see it, no reason at all, they just jailed me for five months, I couldnt take a walk, couldnt read the news, couldnt [inaudible]. And the environment I was put in, everything was babyproofed, all desks and chairs were wrapped in soft padding.

The water tap was wrapped in plastic paper. What were they afraid of? They were afraid that people would kill themselves after going crazy because of the long confinement.

It was really obvious. They wanted to keep you there until you go crazy. Such measures prove that in the past people had [killed themselves]. For example the toothbrush they give you, it was a small one but it was tied to a string. Every time you brush your teeth, a guard is holding that string. You have to return the toothbrush to him after you finish brushing your teeth. Because they are afraid you would kill yourself with that. Did you know this? No?

For example when they give you a nail clipper, the nail clipper is also tied to a string; they are afraid you would swallow that to kill yourself. Their suicide proof measures were done very well. But the more I thought about it the more I was afraid. Why would anyone kill themselves? Unless they have been confined for so long they go crazy. Only insane people would do this. Then [a person] would [commit suicide]. Theyre very experienced, I could see this.

So during that period you have not had any contact with the outside world?

No, no news at all.

Did they do anything to you that scared you?

Psychological torture.

How? Did they say anything to you?

During the later period, there were two who were sent from Beijing. I dont know what their identities were, they said I was under control.

Under control?

The government will not show mercy when it comes to people like us. They scolded us so much it put me in a state of confusion. It made me really confused. Selling books can also be put under control.

The place where you were held captive, was there anyone nearby, what was the inside of the place like?

There were about 12 people, they were split into two teams and would watch over me 24 hours a day.

Ho: Were there any other prisoners?

In the other room, according to my knowledge, there were, but I dont know what people were being held in it, because we were never allowed out of our rooms.

Were there any windows? Could you see what is outside of the window?

[Outside] the window was something like a detention house, and there were similar rooms.

What about the place you were located at?

Mine was just one of them. I counted about 20 windows in the building, so about 20 rooms. So if they were holding people prisoner I could see washing basins, and towel, toothbrushes and toothpastes inside the washing basin. Sometimes they would ask me to go out for an interrogation I dont know where to and they would blindfold me, and take me out. And out of the corner of my eye, in the rooms next door, I could see that there were washing basins and towels, so evidently they were keeping people captive in there. Maybe its the legal procedures they believe in and theyve demonstrated that.

What kind of place were you being held in?

A room.

What kind of building?

Was it a detention house?

I dont know if it was a detention house. I have no idea.

What organisation? What unit?

There was no information at all.

You mentioned that you were interrogated. How many times were you interrogated? Youve mentioned that people were sent from Beijing to question you and scold you. Do you know what their identities were?

I dont know. I dont even know what their surnames were. They dont tell you.

What did they say, to make you feel terrible?

They think that publishing these books was [an act of] slandering their leader, that it hurt his reputation. They think its an act of spreading rumours to create trouble.

Do you feel like they were brainwashing you?

They werent brainwashing me, they were just scolding me. I should succumb to authoritarian rule.

I want to ask you about your interrogation. Where did it happen?

Where I slept. There was a table, theres a file and theres a computer. And then there was a period when they would produce a document of the answers I gave and the process of the interrogation, and they would make a record, and ask me to sign it, put my thumbprint on it and confirm.

Like Lee Bo, with the charges laid and and assisting investigation.

Lee Bo? I dont know anything about this.

But you said, the documents they asked you to sign, the affirmations and testimony, does it match up with what you have told them?

They said I was running a business illegally. So even if I didnt admit to that, I still have to sign.

Any impression of how many times you underwent an interrogation?

In terms of leaving the room, maybe two times, but in the room I think maybe 20 to 30 times.

So every week?

Sometimes less frequently, sometimes three to four times a week, sometimes not even once over the span of two weeks.

So they inform you of [when] the process [takes place]?

They inform me, interrogations are conducted, they ask me questions about what happened. Then I answer.

How long was each questioning?

Each time, half an hour to 45 minutes. Sometimes longer, maybe longer than an hour.

What if you didnt answer or refused to

I had to cooperate, there was no other way. I dont know what consequences there were if I didnt answer them. I was in a state of fear.

So you trust them?

Theres no other way except to trust them.

Did you go to the public security bureau at any point or was it all in the room?


Have you asked to contact your family or see a lawyer during the process?

They requested me not to speak to a lawyer or my family. The first day, they made me promise and sign a document.

So you didnt dare bring it up again [while you were detained]?

There was no point in bringing it up. Because according to the declaration I signed there was no point mentioning it again, I gave up [the right to do so anyway].

About the bookstore, if Mr Chan had taken it over, why has he not shown up?

I suggest you ask him.

About the Central Special Unit, during the whole process they were in charge? You said a department head came along with you what department it was?

I do not know. What I know is the person taking my statement, there was someone who said he was the Central Special Unit. When I was held by the Shenzhen immigration, when I was being questioned that night, he was [from] the Central Special Unit. And this guy, back in 2013 when I was crossing the immigration *carrying books* and I was caught by him, this young person was the one in charge of making a written statement. Because he recognised me and I recognised him in 2013 when I was carrying books across the border, he was in charge of making a record. I think his surname was Lee.

Was he a part of the public security, his identity, when he was making a written record?

Do you mean 2013? I think he was from the National Security Bureau just from what I remember.

You said department head so should be from the Central Special Unit?

He should be, from the natural understanding of things, but whether the department head, I dont Its what I heard from Lee Bo.

After so many questionings, during the process apart from asking you to hand over the information, what were the questions about?

They mostly want to know who wrote the books that were being published. They gave me a list of authors names and asked me if I knew them.

They wanted to know the identities?

They wanted me to provide information in detail.

He asked you to disclose their identities?

He demanded that I disclose in detail. For example there was one author I recognised called Liu Lu. I recognised him because there was a book published. I skimmed through it it was a book about the human rights situation. Of course I answered directly, but I dont know much about Liu Lu.

Mr. Lam, youve been detained for eight months how is your physical and mental state? Have you lost weight?

I used to work 13 hours a day, but when they detained me I didnt need to work. So my physical health is actually better than before. But Ive faced great mental stress.

How great?

I didnt know how they would deal with me they didnt go through legal means. What evidence was there to prove that I violated Chinese law? I wasnt breaking the law in Hong Kong. Why would I have broken the law once I crossed the border?

How has this incident changed your opinion of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments?

All I can say is that One Country, Two Systems exists only in name. Because if they can kidnap Lee Bo, then they are enforcing law extraterritorially. But you have to ask Lee Bo to know more about this.

Mr. Lam, you mentioned that you distrust the Hong Kong government.

You have not asked the police to protect you.

Have you considered moving abroad? Or will you stay in Hong Kong?

I am born and bred here. Ive seen Hong Kong grow since the days when we had nothing. Some families had no telephones or televisions. Hong Kong is really my home our home. I have no plans to leave Hong Kong.

Over these few months, apart from the Central Special Unit, have any other people disclosed the identities of government departments or agencies that they work for to you?

They revealed to me they were from the Central Special Unit. But whether they were from the Ministry of State Security or the Public Service Bureau I didnt know.

They didnt tell you during the interrogations?

I asked but they wouldnt answer. They just demanded I sign papers.

Mr. Lam, your family members have been speaking to the newspapers and television about your situation. Have you had the chance to speak to them about what to do next and how they can help you more?

No I havent discussed with them yet. I contacted Albert Ho before I called them, so no.

So you havent seen your family yet?

I ate dinner at my sisters last night and saw my wife. I ate dinner with my sister the night before as well. So Ive seen my family twice.

And your son?

They have their own livesbut weve spoken on the phone.

Have you seen Cheung Chi-ping and Lui Por?

I wasnt allowed to. Ive only seen Lee Bo.

You werent allowed to see them after you returned to Hong Kong?

As far as I know, I wasnt allowed.

What do you think would be the effect on Hong Kongs freedoms, if you hadnt come out to speak today?

Its for the best that I spoke outIt shows that there are still people who speak out in Hong Kong. If I didnt speak out, Hong Kongs freedoms of speech and press would suffer suppression in silence. This is something I dont want.

Youve returned to Hong Kong for two days. Have you spoken to Lee Bo or Cheung Chi-ping?

I spoke to Lee Bo when I gave him the computer.

Lui Por?

Lee [Bo]. Lee Bo is one of the shareholders of [Mighty Current]. As for Lui Por, as far as I know, hes currently doing something somewhere else.

In mainland China?

No, in Hong Kong, from what Ive heard.

You said you heard a womans voice outside your residence just now. Was that your wife?

I didnt hear clearly, Im not sure.

Did you know what she was talking about?

Im not sure.

Could you describe the people who interrogated you? Were they in uniform?

No uniform.

Were they dressed nicely, or?

One of them was dressed nicely. One surnamed Shi treated me very well. I want to say that Im grateful. But I want to call on the Chinese government to treat him nicely. Because this incident could implicate him. And I have a girlfriend in mainland China. I also hoped that she will be treated nicely.

How did you do what you did [over these past two days] in Hong Kong?

Like when you [turned back] at Kowloon Tong station

I dont know if anyone followed me. I just exited the station gates. I just thought about the questions Ive been contemplating over the last two nights.

Ho: I believe that [the authorities did this to avoid us accusing them of extraterritorial law enforcement. Some people might have been watching [over Lam] but they can say they are not enforcing law. I think they are doing this deliberately. Now that [Lam] is in Hong Kong, there appears to be no interference with what he says or does, for the time being. Thats the truth, I have to say.

Mr. Lam, what are your plans for the future? Whether related to this incident or yourself, personally.

I hope that Hong Kong will become better. I hope everyone in Hong Kong can make their voices heard.

Regarding your title, you are the head of the Causeway Bay Bookstore?


Ho: Thank you everyone. Lets give him some rest.

Mr Lam, thank you.

Thank you all.

(SCMP) June 18, 2016.

As he led an estimated 6,000 outraged Hongkongers in a protest against Beijings alleged violent suppression of free speech, Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee urged everyone in the city to fight for themselves.

Lam said on Saturday that he is not worried about his personal safety because he knows that he is supported by the people of Hong Kong.

The bookstore is located in Hong Kong, a place where the freedom of speech and of publishing is protected. And the country is making use of violence to destroy it, because the country wants to tighten the freedom of Hong Kong people gradually, Lam said. I hope that, after this incident, if we are ever to face other incidents in the future, Hong Kong people need to come out again. Dont let it end here.

Lam made the remarks before a march from Causeway Bay to the central governments liaison office began. Organisers estimated that 6,000 people took part, after the march ended before 6pm.

As Lam and marchers reached Southorn Playground in Wan Chai, several protesters from pro-Beijing Voice of Loving Hong Kong shouted: You are anti-China and messing up Hong Kong. They brought a banner, which read: It was right to arrest Lam, it was shameful for anti-China politicians to accuse Beijing.

Lam and chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, Albert Ho Chun-yan, left the protest at Admiralty after marching for more than an hour.

Several pan-democrat lawmakers continued, and reached Central at 4.30pm.

At 5.40pm, the procession arrived at the Beijing governments liaison office in Sai Wan, after a 160-minute walk.

The Labour Partys Cyd Ho said: Although this march was announced with less than 24 hours notice ... and there was the rain and wind [this morning], you have come to respond to Lams bravery, to defend our two systems, and to stand up for our personal safety.

We dont know if we will face any consequences tomorrow, but we know ... every difficulty we faced will build a stronger foundation for our struggle, Ho said.

Lam attended the march after making explosive claims earlier this week about how he was kidnapped by the mainlands secretive central investigation team while crossing the border last October. Lam has also said that his associate Lee Po has told him he was kidnapped from Hong Kong last December.

In response to Lees claims on Saturday morning that he never told Lam he was kidnapped, Lam said: Although Lee Po is now in Hong Kong, he is being controlled because he has family members in the mainland. I knew he has said a lot of things against his will.

(EJ Insight) Lam Wing-kee epitomizes the spirit of Hong Kong people. By Wong On-yin. June 22, 2016.

Ive said before that Hong Kong citizenship can sometimes offer a person more protection and reassurance than what people holding other foreign passports can get if they fall in trouble in China.

Lam Wing-kee, the co-owner of Causeway Bay Bookstore who had been detained in the mainland for more than 8 months, and who is a 100 percent Hong Kong citizen, has come home in one piece and is unafraid to speak up.

That is in contrast to his fellow booksellers who are either staying mum after their release, or are still unaccounted for.

The developments surrounding Lams colleagues Lee Bo and Gui Minhai, both of whom have foreign passports, show that an overseas citizenship is of no help when you are on Chinese soil and the mainlands secret police is after you.

As I was writing this article I learnt that Lam had given an interview to Channel News Asia, during which he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he is for the independence of Hong Kong.

I heard that TVB had also arranged for an interview with him, but cancelled it at the last minute as it got cold feet, probably due to the fear that Lam might drop another bombshell during the interview which could land the network in trouble.

The video clip of Lams interview with Channel News Asia went viral on the internet shortly after it was aired, and the bookseller has become talk of the town for his unwavering advocacy of Hong Kong independence.

Thanks to the internet, the traditional print and broadcast media no longer have the monopoly on the dissemination of information, which means media owners and the authorities can no longer control the public discourse like they did before.

The information superhighway now enables people from around the world to stay tuned to up-to-the-minute reports on basically everything that is going on across the globe. Media blackouts imposed by dictators, to keep the public in the dark about controversial issues, no longer work.

During his interview, Lam used vivid metaphors to describe Hong Kong-China relations, winning praise from many viewers.

The relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland is like that of a forced marriage, Lam said.

We were forced to marry China against our will, and almost 20 years on it has become crystal clear that it hasnt been a happy marriage. So why dont we just divorce and move on separately, he said.

Chinas state police might have thought that Lam would be just another pushover like Lee Bo, and that he will zip his lips and keep a low profile for the rest of his life. Thats why they let him go home.

What they didnt know is that Lam was probably just pretending to be submissive when he was in custody in the mainland in order to fool the communist authorities into believing that he had converted and hence it was safe to send him home.

That has proved to be one heck of a masterful trick.

The political officer who signed off on the paper to release Lam would have never imagined that an old guy like Lam was putting on an act for eight months in order to get released early.

Lam always kept in mind that he had a more important mission to complete, which is, to tell the entire world the stark truth the Chinese Communist Partys disrespect for basic human rights hasnt changed a bit, despite all the nations material wealth and progress over the years.

Lams unwavering determination and courageous act epitomizes the go-getting spirit, righteousness, resourcefulness, endurance and mental toughness that define Hong Kong people.

He has not only set a good example to citizens in Hong Kong who are in their 50s or 60s like myself, but also inspired our young people who want to make a difference.

Hong Kong independence is no longer a topic restricted to a small minority in the city, but has instead become a legitimate subject for open debate in mainstream society.

Following Lams bold remarks, one cannot avoid or push this subject aside anymore.


Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHj5_KOJQA (Full version, 1:23:33)

Internet comments:

- Even if you don't understand Cantonese, you should watch the video of the press conference for the body language.

Left: Lam Wing-kee who was telling the 'truth'
Right: Lee Bo who was telling 'lies'

- Lam Wing-kee said that he does not understand why the Chinese government would treat him in this manner. He does not believe that this concerns just himself personally or Causeway Books. Instead, this concerns all of Hong Kong society. He says that the Chinese government has pushed the people of Hong Kong up against the wall with nowhere to go.

Ha ha ha. There are numerous bookstores all over Hong Kong. So why did the Chinese government target Causeway Bay Books and the five booksellers? What were you people selected? You have said nothing at all. How can you go around accusing the Chinese government?

- Lam said that they were publishing/selling books that tell the truth about China. That is not an opinion that is shared by most others. (SCMP) January 5, 2016: Some of the banned books, especially those concerning politicians who are still alive, contain sensational, or even fabricated, elements intended only to grab eyeballs. They are like entertainment magazines people read them to pry into celebrity affairs, but do not take them seriously.

- Does Lam Wing-kee really not understand what he did? He sold unauthorized books in mainland China over an extended period of time, and he was detained in mainland China. If I may make an analogy. In Hong Kong, it is legal to sell Nazi flags, insignia and uniforms. In Germany, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a prohibits such activities. If a Hong Kong resident brings a trunk full of such materials into Germany for sales, he will be arrested, charged and convicted.

- As another example, marijuana is legalized in Holland but if a Dutch citizen faces the death penalty if he brings drugs into Singapore.

- These books are 'banned' in China not just because of the contents. In China, books are are legally published by a proper publishing company which have International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN) allocated to them. Any book published in China without a Chinese ISBN is illegal. So if you cannot get an ISBN for your book, you can say that it is 'banned' from publishing.

Why won't a publishing house publish these books? Do you really think freedom of expression covers libel, defamation and slander anywhere in the world?

- Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 10. Any person who commits a crime outside PRC territory and according to this law bear criminal responsibility may still be dealt with according to this law even if he has been tried in a foreign country; however, a person who has already received criminal punishment in a foreign country may be exempted from punishment or given a mitigated punishment.

Article 103. Whoever organizes, plots, or acts to split the country or undermine national unification, the ringleader, or the one whose crime is grave, is to be sentenced to life imprisonment or not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment; other active participants are to be sentenced to not less than three but not more than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; and other participants are to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights.

Whoever instigates to split the country and undermine national unification is to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights; ringleaders or those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment.

Article 105. Whoever organizes, plots, or acts to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system, the ringleaders or those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to life imprisonment, or not less than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; active participants are to be sentenced from not less than three years to not more than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; other participants are to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights.

Whoever instigates the subversion of the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system through spreading rumors, slandering, or other ways are to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights; the ringleaders and those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment.

- Lam said that he had previously been detained while bringing books into China. So he knew that this was a crime under Chinese law. So what was he and his colleagues doing? They were bringing in large number of books from Hong Kong into China for sales/distribution.

It was not the case that Causeway Bay Books took telephone/online book orders and shipped the books through Hong Kong  Post or other courier services. If that were the case, they might argue that they were Hongkongers doing what is legally allowed in Hong Kong.

That would not work, because a parcel containing a single book mailed from Hong Kong to mainland China would likely be opened for inspection by Chinese Customs and be confiscated.

Instead, the bookstore workers (Lam Wing-kee, Lui Por and Cheung Jiping) shipped the books to Shenzhen in bulk cartons which were less likely to be inspected. There, they removed the covers of the banned books and glued in covers of innocuous mainland Chinese titles with proper ISBN's. That is the nature of their operation. They were selling and distributed unauthorized books in China in order to make money.

These details came from Cheung Jiping previously. Lam Wing-kee has completely avoided this matter during the press conference today and only talked about wanting to bring the truth to the people of China. Nobody in the media seemed to remember what Cheung Jiping said either.

- Lam Wing-kee said that he was detained in Lohu and admitted he brought banned books into mainland China. When a Hong Kong citizen breaks mainland Chinese law and is detained in mainland China, why is that a violation of One Country Two Systems? Are Hongkongers exempt from criminal charges on mainland China?

Conversely if a mainlander robs a bank in Hong Kong and is arrested, should he be charged in Hong Kong? There should be a symmetry in how the Two Systems work.

- A recent case is that of a mainland woman assaulting a Hong Kong woman in Hong Kong. She was arrested and held in Hong Kong while awaiting trial here in Hong Kong.

- The Hong Kong localists say that they need to defend Hong Kong against the parallel traders who buy infant milk formula, personal products, etc cheaply in Hong Kong and bring it to sell expensively in mainland China. But this is exactly what Lam Wing-kee was doing -- he was buying banned books cheaply from publishers in Hong Kong and selling them expensively in mainland China for profit.

- How was Lam Wing-kee arrested? Lui Por and Cheung Jiping who live in Shenzhen were both arrested in mainland China first. Lam Wing-kee was in mainland China at the time. Whether Lam Wing-kee knew about Lui and Cheung or not, he tried to cross back over to Hong Kong. He presented his Home Visit Permit to the Chinese immigration inspector, who summoned officers to detain him. So his case is not one of cross-border arrest.

Lam Wing-Kee said that this morning Lee Bo told him that he returned to China against his will. This is hearsay and what was said or heard is unclear as well. This will have to wait for Lee Bo to explain himself.

- (Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

This morning, Lee Bo (=Paul Lee) responded on Facebook:

Originally I don't want to say anything more but I need to clarify some of the things that Lam Wing-kee said:
1. I have never used any computers over at Causeway Bay Books, and I have never printed any customer list. Obviously I could not have handed over any customer list to the Chinese public security bureau.
2. When I spoke to Lam Wing-kee, I never mentioned anything about how I got back to the mainland, and I did not say anything to him in the order of "taken back to the mainland against my will."
3. During this period, I cooperated with the Ningbo Public Security Bureau. I have never heard of any "central investigation unit."

A large number of reporters waited outside Lee Bo's home this morning. Lee Bo: "Everything that needs to be said has been said. I don't want to say anything more. I hope that you can give me and my family some peace and privacy."

- Just in case you don't understand, here is the summation:

- Lee Bo has relatives living in mainland China, so it is understandable that he has to lie.

- Lam Wing-kee has a girlfriend living in mainland China, so it is understandable that he tells the truth.

(TVB) June 18, 2016.

As Lee Bo left his North Point residence this morning, he said: "Yes, I have met with Lam Wing-kee. But during our meeting, I never told him about how I went back to mainland China. Therefore I deny what he said about me."

On the subject of the customer list, Lee Bo said: "That's something else that must be said. I can solemnly say that I have never used any computer at Causeway Bay Books. Therefore it is fictional when you say that I took the information to mainland China. And about what he called the 'central investigation team.' His information may be different from mine. I have only dealt with people from the Ningbo City Public Security Bureau. I don't know anything about any 'central investigation team.' I ask people that you can say whatever you want about yourself and I won't comment. But please don't get me into this. Everything about Lee Bo should be based upon what Lee Bo himself says."

He added: "I was doing quite well recently. But the last two days have been very vexing. I hope that you will spare me and let me have a little bit of freedom. Otherwise I am like sitting in jail." He said that he is not saying that Lam Wing-kee is lying. "I never said that. He can tell his story. I don't want to appear in his story." "Mr. Lam's story is his story. I don't have any friendship with him." Lee declined to answer the other questions.

(Oriental Daily) June 18, 2016.

Former Causeway Bay Books part-time employee Woo Chih-wai was interviewed last night and quoted Lee Bo as saying that he went to mainland China by land, as opposed to sea or air. Today Lee Bo responded on Facebook:

Woo Chih-wai totally put his own words into my mouth based upon an imaginary Q&A with himself. I know about this "unlimited imagination" of his, and that is why I won't discuss any sensitive topic with him. Please don't believe him! I plead with everybody: You can say anything you want, but please don't attribute what you want to say to me. Please!

(Sing Tao) June 18, 2016

Causeway Bay Books manager Lui Por was interviewed by Sing Tao today. Lui said that Lam was lying and that Lam was being manipulated by somebody behind the scene. Lui said that he was arrested on October 24, 2015 and taken to Ningbo city. Lui did not go anywhere else. During this time, he had to sign legal papers addressed to the Ningbo City Public Security Bureau. He said that the public security bureau allowed him to contact his family by telephone and Weixin. Lui was asked if he was willing to do media interviews, so he presented the facts and his thoughts in front of the camera. Lui Por said that he was definitely not coerced or led to follow any direction or script. He said that he met with Lee Bo, Lam Wing Kee and Cheung Chiping in Shenzen in March this year. At the time, Lam Wing-kee told him that the public security bureau treated him very well. He also met with Lee Bo in Hong Kong. He has never heard Lee Bo say that he was involuntarily taken back to mainland China. Lui said that he never imagined that Lam Wing-kee is such a dishonest person. Lui Por said that Lam is distorting the facts because he is being manipulated by certain persons with ulterior motives behind the scene. Lui said that Lam is shameless for doing this, and he would have the minimal conscience of a Hongkonger.

Cheung Chiping was also interviewed by Sing Tao Daily. He said that the four booksellers met in mainland China, and he heard Lam Wing-kee said that he didn't want to return to Hong Kong because of poor family relations over a long term and therefore he wanted the Public Security Bureau to help him with making a living in mainland China. He did not hear Lam Wing-kee talk about being forced to do anything.

- (Sing Tao) June 19, 2016. Shaoguan library director Chen Weiqing was interviewed by Sing Tao. He said that Lam claimed to under house arrest between April and June this year, but in fact Lam was working at the Shaoguan Library. It was around the Qing Ming Festival when Chen took in Lam: "I thought that he was alone in an unfamiliar place and I took pity on this jobless old man. I took him in to help me at the library." Lam said that the other library workers can testify that Lam was in good shape and had actually gained weight. Chen also showed some photos of outings with Lam. Chen said that Lam even had a girlfriend in Shaoguan. Chen would like to confront Lam about how he was treated during this three months in Shaoguan.

Phoenix TV video: https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/1001628893219509/

Chen Weiqing said that the Shaoguan Library is equipped with closed-circuit television and he can show the videos of how Lam Wing-kee was treated at work. Chen said that Lam was very happy in Shaoguan and even spoke about buying a home and living there. Chen said that Lam never told him that he was out on bail after committing crimes. In retrospect, Chen thought Lam was very frightening and hypocritical, especially because Lam went to tell lies at the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

- (Apple Daily) June 18, 2016. According to an informed source, Beijing went after the five booksellers in order to see which author leaked the plans of Xi Jinping to purge the People's Liberation Army. Unfortunately, this has turned in a debacle. Right now, Beijing's solution to defuse the ticking bomb is to escalate the smearing campaign against Lam Wing-kee. According to one individual in politics, "the smear campaign will go full force, using character assassination to make the citizens and the foreign media not trust him. At the very least, they want to make people suspect Lam of political motives." However, this individual did not think that the people of Hong Kong would believe this.

- Fuck! Please stop changing the script! Several months ago, Apple Daily swore that Beijing went after the five booksellers because of the book on the Six Romances In The Life of Xi Jinping. Even you must have forgotten about what you wrote before, because you are now talking about Xi Jinping vs. People's Liberation Army.

- "An informed source"? "One individual involved in politics"? This means that the report is fictional.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Today Lam Wing-kee said that Lee Bo never said that he was taken away outside the Mighty Current warehouse in Chai Wan, nor did he say that he was taken away against his will to the mainland. But he remembered that Lee Bo said that "someone from up there went with him." Based upon the tone of voice, Lam Wing-kee determined Lee Bo was taken away against his will.

Lam Win-kee also said that he did not know if there is any other equipment in the office. When asked what office and what equipment he was asking about, Lam said that he doesn't know.

As to how he learned that he was detained by the central investigation team, he said that he encountered a national security agent whom he met previously when stopped in Shenzhen and this time the person said: "This is the second time. The central investigation unit will not hold back on you."

(Wen Wei Po) June 19, 2016.

Earlier Lam Wing-kee said that Causeway Bay Books shareholder Lee Bo told him about "being taken away against his will." Lee Bo came out and emphasized that he never said anything of the sort. Yesterday, Lam Wing-kee changed his statement and said that he only determined from Lee's tone of voice that he must have been "involuntarily" taken away. Lam admitted that Lee did not use those words.

Yesterday, Lam Wing-kee was asked by a Hong Kong news agency about the circumstances under which Lee Bo told Lam about "being taken away against his will." Lam said that he met Lee Bo and his wife. During the discussion, Lee Bo said that someone wanted him to go to mainland China. The reporter asked about the specific details. Lam replied: "It was not specific. Lee said that someone went with him. I can't remember what he said afterwards."

The reporter reminded Lam Wing-kee that he said during the initial press conference that "Lee Bo was taken back against his will by somebody." Lam said: "Very clearly, I heard it from his tone of voice." The reporter wondered: "Tone of voice? He didn't say it directly?" Lam admitted: "Tone of voice. He did not say it directly."

- Fuck! I can tell from the tone of your voice that you are ______________ (fill in as you wish).

Several months ago, the League in Defense of Hong Kong's Freedoms held a demonstration march holding a banner:
We are all Lee Bo
Today Lee Bo, tomorrow you and I

This week, the Democratic Party held a demonstration march holding a banner:
We are all Lam Wing-kee.

- Holding out a "We are all Lee Bo" today would be highly inappropriate because he is now a pariah and a Hong Kong traitor.

- Is there anyway to recycle these banners? It seems such a waste to discard them after using them once (and they don't appear to be re-useable because of the changing realities).

- On the matter of the customer database, Lam Wing-kee's statements are very confusing. The critical issue is whether the Chinese government knows who the Causeway Bay Books customers are and hence take action.

Lam Wing-kee said that Lee Bo copied a hard drive of customer records in March to give to the Chinese government. The records include some 600 people, mostly mainlanders, and some 4,000 book titles. So this means that the Chinese government already has the information.

Lam said that he was asked to look through the records to identify customers. Is Lam Wing-kee the only person in the whole bookstore who can read and understand computer records? Or are certain details (real names, addresses, etc) stored only inside Lam's brain? So if Lam Wing-kee drops dead from a cardiac arrest, everything would be lost and the bookstore can cease all operations?

Normally, a customer database will contain: name, mailing address, telephone number, email, billing information, past transactions (ISBN, title, date, sales amount). If that is what the customer database looks like, the Chinese government knows everything already.

Lam also said that Causeway Bay Books is currently being operated by a mysterious Mr. Chan. Given that his known background is in operating saunas/spas, it is speculated that he is acting at the behest of some unknown mainland Chinese party. This means that the Chinese government has access to everything still there.

From SCMP:

I was afraid my readers would be affected, that they would think Hong Kong people or I sold them out, he said. But I did not do so Now they were doing something even worse asking me to bring them a hard drive as evidence.

Lam said he was supposed to return to the mainland on Thursday and hand over the hard drive to a central special unit. However, after seeing the support from Hongkongers, he hesitated at the Kowloon Tong MTR station en route to the border.

What is on the hard drive that is not already copied by Lee Bo? Why is turning over the actual hard disk "something even worse"? What, if anything, is on the hard drive that Lee Bo hadn't copied?

If the hard drive belongs to Causeway Bay Books, it should be located inside the bookstore which has been closed and under the control of the mysterious Mr. Chan. Why do they need Lam Wing-kee to travel to Hong Kong and retrieve it himself? Lee Bo could have done so himself. This press conference only generated a ton of questions.

It just makes you wonder how much Lam Wing-kee understands operations.

- (Initium) Lam Wing-kee siad that the mainland authorities demanded that he bring the computer hard disk containing customer information to them. In January this year, Initium published an exclusive report about the mysterious Mr. Chan who took over the bookstore in November in order to obtain the customer information. We have now learned that Mr. Chan came back to Hong Kong  on the night of June 15 after vacationing in Pushan (South Korea). Mr. Chan then went to Causeway Bay Books, took the computer hard disk, handed it to Lee Bo who handed it to Lam Wing-kee to bring back to mainland China.

With due respect, this is making less and less sense. Why can't they just hand it over to any agent (of the central investigation team)? What is the point of specifically requiring Lam Wing-kee and only him to bring it?

- (Apple Daily) June 20, 2016.

Lam said that he was permitted to go back to Hong Kong to do two things. Firstly, he has to go see Lee Bo and fetch the hard disk that contains the customer records. "Because I was the person who entered the information and I personally mailed the books, so the evidence is more reliable if I brought it over personally." Secondly, he wants to meet with his elder sister. Lam wanted to gain more time to stay in Hong Kong. On June 15 when he met with Lee Bo, he brought the wrong hard disk. He waited until late night before telling Lee. This let him stay in Hong Kong for an extra day.

On that day, he took the subway to Kowloon Tong in order to switch to East Rail to go to mainland China. "The pressure was very great. I knew it was wrong. I thought that I needed to stop." He wanted to smoke a cigarette. He ended up smoking three cigarettes. He thought for 30 minutes and decided to go home and think some more. He realized that he was being followed. He recognized that the person had been to the bookstore and has been following him. As soon as the person realized that Lam knew, he left. Lam decided to contact Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho. He held a press conference that evening.

Lam said that once he decided not to return to mainland China, he threw away the mobile phone that the mainland agents gave him because he was afraid of being tracked. His worries are not unfounded. Last November, his wife filed a missing person report with the Hong Kong Police. Still detained in Ningbo, Lam was told that "your son has just contacted a Legislative Councilor." Lam said that he was angry that his son was being followed and monitored on telephone.

- Tom Clancy is a better writer than this Apple Daily 'reporter.' This is not about the style, but the homework done to come up with seemingly convincing details.

- Did Lam Wing-kee actually say that "Because I was the person who entered the information and I personally mailed the books, so the evidence is more reliable if I brought it over personally"? How about familiarizing yourself with the rules of evidence first?

- Who has ever heard of the investigators in a case tell the defendant to go fetch a key piece of evidence himself? What if Lam Wing-kee just tossed the hard disk into Victoria Harbor? Then the agents can't prove that he committed any crimes, rights?

- On one hand, the Chinese Communists are lawless thugs. On the other hand, they want the evidence in a court trial to be reliable such that they asked the defendant to personally fetch it himself. Which is it?

- (Headline Daily) Based upon the various pieces of information that Lam Wing-kee provided about the surveillance on him, we concluded (1) the mainland agents are lousy; (2) he was not under close surveillance. Here are the details.

Lam Wing-kee believed that he was allowed to come back to Hong Kong because he was compliant during his time in mainland China. Two agents named Chan and Shi accompanied him on this trip.

He said that Chan and Shi used different passageways to enter Hong Kong, and they arranged to meet at the convenience store on the Hong Kong side after passing through. However, the two agents did not show up. But Chan and Shi continued to keep contact with Lam by mobile phone. They told him not to contact anyone; to tell them about any telephone calls he made. Lam said that these demands "obviously meant that they want to control me."

So according to Lam, these two Central Investigation Team agents actually believed that they can run remote control on Lam because they can count on him to provide all the details of all the contacts that he made. Aren't they being too simple and naive? Do they really believe that they can control someone by telephone? Did they ever consider the possibility that Lam may discard the phone and flee?

If Lam was tasked with bringing the all-important customer list back to mainland China, then these agents are even more incompetent than characters in a Stephen Chow comedy.

And if these agents are really as lousy as Lam described, the people of Hong Kong have nothing to fear from this 'powerful' government department from the 'powerful' nation.

- But previously, this is what Lam said: (Apple Daily) June 20, 2016. Lam said that his case was one of cross-border law enforcement. If the government is willing to air the closed-circuit videos at the border, he is willing to identify the people who cross over with him. "The problem is whether the Hong Kong government is willing to do that."

- Lam Wing-kee used the Immigration Department passage for Hong Kong residents whereas Mr. Chan and Mr. Shi would have to use the passage for mainlanders. They didn't come in at the same time down the same passage. What is the point of looking at the videos? Is Lam not even aware of this?

- (Wen Wei Po) June 22, 2016.

Yesterday Lam Wing-kee was on radio to overturn what he said at the initial press conference about tossing the mobile phone away in Kowloon Tong. He is now saying that he turned the mobile phone off in Kowloon Tong but kept it with him. After the press conference, he was worried that the mobile phone might still be tracked, so he destroyed it. "At the time, I was under a great deal of pressure. I was afraid that they may locate me. So I turned it off. But I am not very good with mobile phones, and I must have touched some control or the other because the mobile phone was on again. I turned it off once again. I put it in my pocket and I did not think about it. That evening, I saw that the mobile phone was still in pocket. When I got home, I got afraid of being tracked. So I immersed it under water in the bathroom. Later I got a relative to come and dismantle it."

Lam also claimed that the hard disk from the bookstore is still in his hands. The data stored included the personal information (name, address, mailing information) of the book buyers. He said that he was afraid that the hard disk may fall into the hands of the other side and becomes court evidence. The other side can also cause trouble for the buyers, or obtain information about the authors and sources from the database.

Lam Wing-kee admitted that his case is not cross-border law enforcement, because he was detained after he crossed into Lohu. But he said that when he came back to Hong Kong, he was accompanied by two members of the Central Investigation Team who used text messages to monitor him and attempted to control his actions in a way that is beyond their authority. "The people of Hong Kong can decide for themselves whether this is cross-border law enforcement."

- (Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016. Lam Wing-kee admitted that the sole piece of evidence against the "Central Investigation Team" has been destroyed by him. He explained that the mobile phone contained the records of how the team leader Mr. Chan and team member Mr. Shi were communicating with him. He was afraid of being tracked, so he submersed the phone under water and then got a relative to dismantle it. In retrospect, he destroyed the most important piece of information.

Lam Wing-kee said that he determined from Lee Bo's tone of voice that Lee was taken away against his will. However, only the principals can confirm this. He said that Lee Bo has relatives in Fujian and is being forced to tell lies. He called on the media once more not to interview Lee Bo and others.

(Silentmajority.hk) June 22, 2016.

Yesterday on radio, Lam Wing-kee admitted that after he was arrested for personally carrying banned books into China, he changed the mode of operation by letting mainlanders purchase online and then mailing the books to them. The online platform and the bank account for receiving payments are both located inside China, so he may have broken mainland laws. Lam admitted that his own case was not that of cross-border law enforcement.

Moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.

Lam said that, on the day he was accosted on the mainland last October, he was originally planning to visit his girlfriend, who he met after living away from his family. She was also detained on the mainland as she had helped him with sending banned books into China. She was released on bail. I am sorry for my girlfriend, he said. But I dont consider this a personal matter anymore, rather a matter for the whole of society Hong Kong people were forced without any way out. Hong Kong has rule of law I am not afraid for my personal safety, and I do not plan to go to the mainland again.

Lam took the risk and his girlfriend bears the costs of those risks.

- It has been speculated that the reason why Lee Bo went to China was because someone from a "central special unit" told him: "You are the owner of Causeway Bay Books. Four of your colleagues have been detained in mainland China on matters related to Causeway Bay Books. Will you come with us to clarify matters?" Lee went because he was a man with a sense of responsibility. This is much more than can be said about Lam Wing-kee.

- Lam Wing-kee received $100,000 in severance pay from Lee Bo. How much of that did he give to his girlfriend and other accomplices who were detained by the Chinese police? Enquiring minds want to know.

(HK01) June 16, 2016.

At around 5pm this afternoon our reporter went to visit Lam Wing-kee at home to ask him questions. Before we even pressed the door bell, we heard a loud female voice talking about a sex scandal. Her voice could be clearly heard in the corridor outside the apartment. The woman spoke in Cantonese and mentioned a person and a woman in bed. "The photo was taken in December. Did you really just got to know her?" "Where did  you take the money? You keep saying that you have to go out on business trips. I told you to take me with you. You said no. Were you really working? Why couldn't you take me with you? I knew that you were up to something." "She must already be related to you before she let you ... it is a video of the entire process." No other voice could be heard during this time.

While the woman was talking, our reporter pressed the door bell around ten times. We said aloud: "Is Mr. Lam home?" This indicated to whoever was inside that someone was outside the door. But nobody came to the door. The woman continued to talk for about half an hour. She said: "I don't know him ... he was with a woman? I don't know about it." "When you don't care about the child, why should the child care about you?" "You teach by example. You don't even know what you are doing, so how can you make demands of a child? Do you know how to? Did you teach him? Right or not?" After the woman finished talking, our reporter pressed the door bell again. But nobody responded. So our reporter left.

At around 7pm, our reporter went to Lam Wing-kee's apartment again. We identified ourselves again. We pressed the door bell many times and asked the woman whether she is Mrs. Lam. We asked the woman to respond to the involvement in the sex scandal. But nobody answered the door. We heard the woman call up the security guard, who came up shortly afterwards to evict our reporter.

We also received information that Lam Wing-kee came back three months later than the other three booksellers for cause. Lam was granted bail in March, but he needed a guarantor. His wife and his son did not go to the mainland to be his guarantor. Between March and June, he was given a temporary job at a Shenzhen library to make a living while he waited.

[Transcription of audio recording (5pm, June 14, 2016)

Female voice: The photo was taken in December. If the woman was a recent acquaintance, there is no reason to go to bed as soon as you got to know her. She already has a relationship with you and that was why you were caught. The video recorded the entire process. It was not filmed with the clothes on. Where was your money spent? I have already asked him. He goes on business trips frequently. I said, "You take me with you. If you are really going on a business trip, why not bring me with you?" I already know that there was a problem. He has a bank account in mainland China. There should be several tens of thousands of RMB. I don't know if he spent all the money after he got together with that woman. In terms of Hong Kong dollars, there should be $100,000, or at least $80,000.  He wanted to save face. That was pointless. I really can't help him. If he really needed money, I could have brought the money to him overnight.]

(HK01) June 16, 2016.

Lam Wing-kee said that the female in the audio recording is his wife. "That is my woman. As to whether there was a sex scandal, it depends on what evidence she has. I didn't." Lam continued: "I got acquainted with the mainland girlfriend after I separated from my wife. She helped me to mail books. Right now she is being investigated. I hope that the Chinese government won't make trouble for my friends on my account."

- Now we see why by the time that the train got to Kowloon Tong station, Lam Wing-kee changed his mind. He did not want to go to Shenzhen and see that woman anymore because his wife was giving him hell over the extramarital affair.

- We can foresee that in the next few days, Lam Wing-kee will be hounded about the purported sex scandal. If he says "No such thing", his wife may really blow up and spill everything to the press? If he says "No comment", everyone will assume this to be true.

- I see that someone is complaining that such scurrilous reportage should not be allowed. Well, what the fuck did you think "pro-democracy" Apple Daily has been doing over these years?

Sample: Bosco Wong-Myolie Wu in Sudden Weekly (defunct Next Media Group magazine)

- Mrs. Lam has made things very clear. She received a video dated December 2015 of Lam Wing-kee and a woman naked together in bed. Lam must know that his wife knows everything. Therefore he would rather stay in mainland China than come back to Hong Kong and confront his wife. But how was he going to make a living for himself and his mistress? Therefore he asked the public security bureau to arrange a librarian job for him in Shenzhen. As time went on, his mistress realized that there is no future in this sixty-something-year-old librarian who got her into all sorts of legal trouble. So now mainland China was also becoming unbearable to Lam Wing-kee. This means that Lam Wing-kee had to come back to Hong Kong.

So who can help him in Hong Kong in terms of money? Well, Albert Ho would surely want Lam to help him 'support patriotic democratic movements in China' which had just raised $1.7 million on June 4th. There is also Jimmy Lai (Next Media) and the US Consulate/National Democratic Institute too. What is Lam Wing-kee's most valuable contribution? He can attack Lee Bo, who issued a denial immediately. But Lam has gotten on the train and he cannot get off now. So Lam will continue have to continue with his shtick now.

But the show isn't over, because there are potential developments. For one thing, if Lam Wing-kee provokes his wife, she may release the December 2015 video. As another example. That video will be worth a lot of the paparazzi media (even including "pro-democracy" Next Media). For another thing, the mistress on mainland China may give an interview to describe her life and times with Lam Wing-kee. That would be another major scoop.

Historical case study:

(August 17, 2004)  The Headline News In Hong Kong - Part 2 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidate Alex Ho was caught stark naked in a mainland hotel bed with a prostitute ("兩條肉蟲").  Was it a frame-up?

(September 1, 2004)  The Verdict On Alex Ho  Simply put, Alex Ho's comrades-in-arms have dumped him by purging his name and face from their Hong Kong Legco campaign.  This is as good as those air-brushed photos of Chinese Politburo membership, but it is a little bit too late.

(September 9, 2004)  The Headline News In Hong Kong - Part 4  The Dongguan Public Security Bureau held its second press conference during they showed photos of a naked Alex Ho, a condom wrapper, menstrual blood stains, scattered underwear, etc, plus further references to a pattern of patronizing prostitutes in Shenzhen dating back some years.

(February 5, 2005)  Alex Ho Meets The Press  Full coverage of one of the most bizarre press conferences in recent times. The shorter summary: "I did not have sex with that woman. That is all I have to say. After today, I will never respond on this issue ever again. I will not address or refute any evidence. You'll just have to trust me. My wife trusts me.  P.S.  Yes, I know that woman, she did knock on my hotel door at 3 am that night I did let her into my room and I was naked when the police entered the room. But I don't have to tell you what we were doing because I just told you that I did not have sex with her and that should be enough for you.  P.P.S.  I am resigning from the Democratic Party this very minute, which means that their disciplinary committee won't have to conduct an internal investigation about the facts of the case.  P.P.P.S.  I am going to remain being a District Councilor because my personal morals is none of your business.  And the fact that the position pays tens of thousands of dollars per month has nothing to do with it."

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Lam said that he has contacted his separated wife many times after he returned to Hong Kong. With the assistance of Albert Ho (Democratic Party legislator), he spoke to her by telephone. She opposed him going  public in a big quarrel. Lam that she cut off the telephone line as soon as they started to argue. After the initial press conference, his ex-wife contacted him. But they quarreled immediately. Lam said that he finds it insufferable.

Lam also said that his wife has something to do with the decision to sell Causeway Bay Books to Gui Min-hai. His wife wanted Lam to come home and not work anymore, so they sold the bookstore. During the separation period, his wife asked him to come home. Apart from this, the sale had to do with the economy going sour. Lam does not exclude the possibility of restarting the bookstore some day.

Lam said that he contacted his two sons after the press conference and warn them not to travel to mainland China. The elder son supported him going public, and the younger son said he was concerned.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2016.

A Sing Tao reporter called up the Ningbo Public Security Bureau and spoke to a police officer in charge of the case. The police officer said that Hong Kong resident Lam Wing-kee and others knowingly violated mainland laws by bringing in unauthorized books over a long period of time. In September 2012, Lam Wing-kee was subject to administrative penalty by the Lohu Customs Department for bringing in unauthorized books.

On October 24, 2015, Lam Wing-kee entered the Lohu border crossing to meet with another person named Hu involved in the case (aka Lam Wing-kee's 'girlfriend') and was detained by the public security bureau. Because Lam and Hu were personally involved, they volunteered to sign letters not to hire lawyers and not to meet with their relatives.

According to the police investigation, Lam used disguised book covers and other methods to mail unauthorized books directly or use Hu and others to mail indirectly to mainland Chinese customers between October 2013 and October 2016. Furthermore, he used a mainland Chinese bank card to accept payments for those books.

The police officer said that Lam Wing-kee admitted to the crime of illegal sales and wrote a confession. Because of Lam's attitude, the public security bureau allowed him to post bail while awaiting trial. During this period, Lam said that he did not get along with his wife and son and would find it hard to live in Hong Kong. Therefore, he asked the public security bureau to help him. The public security bureau made certain arrangements for him.

Recently Lam applied (see letter below) to go to Hong Kong to take care of personal matters. The public security bureau granted him permission.

"I am presently separated from my wife, so it will be inconvenient to stay with her during the probation period. It would also be inconvenient to go back to live and work at the bookstore. The only option is my sister, but she is living in a congested public housing estate unit and it would be inconvenient. Therefore it can be said that I don't any place to stay in.

Furthermore, certain Hong Kong media are hyping up this affair. During my bail term, I can avoid interviews if I stay in mainland China so that things can calm down ... Based upon the above, I want to stay in mainland China for now. In consideration of my personal hardships, I am not applying to the government to arrange a residence and a job (ideally as a librarian) for me in some city. I hope that you can help me. Many thanks!

Applicant: Lam Wing-kee."

Blogger Yip Yat-chee: Lam Wing-kee said something fearful on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. You can imagine how great his sacrifice is. His sacrifice was made only to protect the core values of the people of Hong Kong. Even for a group of Hong Kong pigs who never care about politics, Lam has still sacrificed a lot of protect the freedom that you are not even aware of. Lam is a justice fighters and martyr."

- Lam Wing-kee is a martyr? So what are the requirements to become a martyr:
(1) You double-cross your wife by cheating with another woman
(2) You double-cross your girlfriend by getting her to participate in criminal activities and abandoning her now
(3) You double-cross your bookstore workers (Lui Por and Cheung Jiping)
(4) You double-cross your boss (Lee Bo) who invested money to save your bankrupt bookstore

Oh, I forgot: "You double-cross your country." Did I miss anything?

- Let us assume that Lee Bo was under threat not to tell how he went from Hong Kong to mainland China. Lam knows that his friend is being threatened, but he nevertheless puts his friend in peril. What a friend!!! Why is Lam doing this? There can only be one purpose: Lam does not want to return to mainland China and face the legal consequences of his crime. Therefore he must create a political shield for himself in Hong Kong. What shield? He has to say that Hongkongers are being taken across the border by mainland police! The living proof of that is the Lee Bo case as described by Lam Wing-kee. Once that happens, Hong Kong will never turn Lam over to the mainland for his trial.

(Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 18, 2016.

A certain person was arrested in mainland China for selling banned books. He was detained for several months. When he came back, he said: "This is not just my personal issue. This is not just the issue of the bookstore. It is an issue for the people of Hong Kong." And now he is a hero.

"It concerns the people of Hong Kong" is a panacea. Whenever the phrase is invoked, it becomes a public issue for justice. A lot of people will rush in to support you blindly irrespective of the facts and reasons. Such was the case of Denise Ho, such was the case of Causeway Bay Books.

"If we don't speak up, then Hong Kong will be beyond rescue ..." Thus spoke Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kee at the press conference the other day. This sounds familiar. During Occupy Central, the anti-national education campaign, the Mong Kok brick riot, etc, the people on high moral grounds speak in this manner with megaphone in hand.

There are many Facebook posts with Mr. Lam's photo and the word "Hero" underneath. I would like to ask just in what way or manner is Mr. Lam a hero?

Everybody knows that those books are banned. If you bring them across the border, you are committing a crime. If you want to take risk to make money and then you get caught, who else can you blame except yourself?

Twenty years ago, I worked in Jimmy Lai's Next Media. At the time, tension was high between Taiwan and China. I was sent to gather information in the Fujian province military sites. Since Next Media has always been anti-Communist, our reporters could never get press passes. Each trip is therefore illegal news gathering. Every reporter knew that.

Normally I cover livelihood issues. So people tend to turn a blind eye. But this time, I was going into a military zone to cover national security. We knew that this was very dangerous. Indeed, I and my photographer were arrested while filming in a small fishing harbor across from Matsu Islands (Taiwan). We knew that we crossed the red line this time. So we were detained for a week by the National Security Bureau for illegal news gathering and endangering national security. We were eventually ejected. Our Home Visit Permits were confiscated and we could not enter China for two years.

Afterwards, our boss offered to give us compensation for our troubles. I rejected the offer. I told the boss. "As the Chinese saying goes, if you eat salted fish, you must be prepared to suffer the thirst. You pay higher salaries than other newspapers because of the risks. If I take your salary, I am ready to accept the risks."

So, on the first day that Mr. Lam, Mr. Lee and Mr. Gui decided to get into this business, they have stepped into a minefield. When you libel people to make money, you must be prepared that one day that will get back to you. You cannot say that I have been hurting you so many years in order to make money, so why are you hurting me now?

Causes lead to effects. You deserve the consequences of your actions. You decided to sell banned books about other people by plagiarism and creative writing and you make $200 to $300 per book. If the business is so profitable, then why aren't other writers and publishers rushing in? That's because these other people have considered the risk to be too high and/or they have moral qualms.

Demosisto: Signature campaign to demand the Hong Kong government make a thorough investigation of the Causeway Bay Books incdient.

- The year is 2016 now. Demosisto wants to have a signature campaign to petition the Hong Kong SAR Government (of all people) to conduct an investigation? I am afraid that I can no longer tell the difference between genuine and play-act navet.

Demosisto marched today with Siu Lai's Democracy Classroom, Chu Hoi-dick (Pat Heung) and Edward Yiu to demonstrate at the China Liaison Office. When they got there, they threw newspapers that reported on the Lam Wingkee affair at the entrance gate.

- After their unique contributions to social activism of (1) the relay hunger strike of a relay team with each person fasting for four hours followed by another person; (2) jumping into the harbor which wearing life saving vests; (3) setting up a complex chain of dominoes to topple; they have now come up with throwing newspapers.

- I recently checked Urban Dictionary and I was amazed to see that nobody has come up with a definition for "leftist retard" yet. I think "throwing newspaper reports at the authorities" may easily qualify.

(Headline Daily) June 19, 2016.

Recently Lam Wing-kee's Shenzhen 37-year-old girlfriend named Hu was interviewed by mainland media. The year before last, she got acquainted over the Internet with Lam Wing-kee, who is almost 60 yars old. One month later, Lam Wing-kee came to Shenzhen and they went to a hotel and established a relationship.

Hu said that she only realized that everything that Lam told her was lies. She said: "He got me involved in his bookstore business. He repeatedly brainwashed me. His goal was to get me to forward books for him. But Lam never explained to her that it is illegal in mainland China to mail these books."

Hu had carefully asked Lam whether this was legal. Lam said that there was no problem. Later on, Hu found out that Lam had been penalized for precisely this sort of thing before and so he had to know that this was against the law.

Eight or nine months after they got acquainted, Lam began to ask her to help mail the books. Each time, he would mail the books to Hu and tell her to ship them out by courier service to the names/addresses that he provided. Each time that they met, Lam would pay her a fee for forwarding the books.

At first Hu was suspicious. She asked Lam why he needed her to do this instead of doing it yourself. Lam told her that since she was getting paid, she should not ask any more questions. Hu felt that Lam was exploiting people to do something that he knew was against the law. The receipts showed Hu's address, and that was how the public security bureau eventually tracked her down.

She remembered that Lam once scolded her. "He sent a big parcel of books for me at the post office. The sun was particularly vicious that day, and the  post office is not far from my home. So I didn't go to the post office. He telephoned me and scolded me. He said that he is paying me a fee but I did not do my job. He said that I was too lazy."

Last October, Lam and Hu were both detained by the public security bureau. The investigators told them that they have the right to hire lawyers. But Hu considered that Lam had a family (his parents are in their 70's and there is a son) and did not want them to know about their relationship. So they did not hire lawyers and they did not notify their families either. They only wanted to resolve this matter as soon as possible. So when Lam Wing-kee went back to Hong Kong and said at the press conference that he was forced to sign papers not to inform the family and not to hire a lawyer, he was lying.

In March this year, Hu was allowed to post bail. On the morning of June 17, Hu saw Lam's press conference. Hu said that Lam mentioned her and divulged their relationship. Hu did not want her friends and relatives to know about this. She felt that Lam was being very selfish, wanting only to do the best for himself without worrying whether other people will live or die. Hu will not be to able to lead a serene life from now on.

Hu said repeatedly that if she ever get a chance to see Lam Wing-kee again, she is going to ask him what he did this to her. He used fancy talk to persuade her to mail illegal books in order to make money for him. He only cared about his political interests. He was not a man, he was not a Hong Kong man. Normal Hong Kong men will stick to their promises and principles. But this incident has completely destroyed the image of the Hong Kong man.

Hu now considered that knowing Lam Wing-kee has been a nightmare that she really wants to end. She wants to erase the painful memories so that she can live a new life.

Hu said that she is a divorced woman bringing up a child by herself. She has seen some female friends married to Hong Kong, and so she also hoped to marry a Hong Kong man so that she and her child can live better lives. When she first got acquainted with Lam Wing-kee, he gave her a wonderful dream. Hu said: "Lam Wing-kee told me that he has a wife in Hong Kong but they don't get along. He wants to wait a couple of years to get a divorce, and then he will marry me. He also promised to get my son to go to live in Hong Kong."

- Lam Wing-kee is practicing One Country Two Wives like some many other Hong Kong men.

- Well, the mainland Public Security Bureau apparently has all the mailing and financial records of this Hu woman. This is even more reliable and definitive than any computer file in Causeway Bay Books.

- What are Lam Wing-kee's options right now?

Option 1: Completely ignore the existence of the Hu woman and refuse to answer anything about her. Lam will need to have very thick skin.

Option 2: Attack her for being a gold digger, police informant and/or mental patient. But if you study the case of Alex Ho, there is a good chance that she will counter-attack with all sorts of other evidence (transaction records, photos, videos, etc) so that it becomes a long slow death.

Option 3: Apologize to her in public and promise to make amends.

- Fatal Attraction: "I'm not going to be ignored." Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

- The detractors of the Hu woman said that mainlanders cannot watch television news of Lam Wing-kee's press conference, so she must be fake. Well, the detractors are still living in the Chinese Internet world of twenty years ago. I suggest that they go and visit mainland China some time and actually see what Chinese Internet users actually do nowadays.

Besides, even if she hadn't seen a news broadcast, the Sing Tao reporter must usually have brought the video clip of the relevant section to show her and ask for her reaction.

(Apple Daily) June 19, 2016.

Before our reporter even asked, Lam Wing-kee immediately said: "Of course, I am a man." In 1994, he founded Causeway Bay Books. In 2013, he decided to sell the store to Mighty Current. One one hand, the rent was expensive and he anticipated that the economy would be even worse in 2014. Besides he said that he did not get along with his wife and she wants to sell the bookstore.

Lam said that he got to know this girlfriend two years after he separated from his wife. He said that he has not read the Sing Tao report itself, just the title. "It is for normal for her to talk like that. I am sad that I cannot help her. I know that she would say that. Surely." He said that he was sorry for his girlfriend. "I am rueful. Nothing that I say will make a difference, because she cannot hear me. So I might as well as save my breath."

As for the rebuttals from the other principals at Causeway Bay Books, Lam sighed: "If I confront them each time, it will damage them because they will have to betray their conscience. Therefore I don't want any confrontation. That is not because I am lying, but because it will damage them and make them feel bad. So why do it?"

He said that the business manager Cheung Jiping lives in Dongguan with his wife, so Cheung is unlikely to be allowed to return to Hong Kong. General manager Lui Por was processing the corporate accounts a few days ago. "Lee Bo wants to finish the matters related to the company. He was going to go to mainland China on June 27. My guess is that he won't be going because the Communists don't people to know their agenda. If he doesn't go on June 27, it will prove that what I say is true."

(SCMP) June 19, 2016.

Lee Pos entry to mainland

Lam: Lee admitted he was abducted to the mainland. He entered the mainland involuntarily, as he told me when I met him after I returned to Hong Kong. He had to say what he said because his relatives are in Fujian

Lee: When I was chatting with Lam Wing-kee, I did not talk about how I returned to the mainland, and so I didnt say I went to the mainland involuntarily or anything similar.

Lee Pos handling of customer details

Lam: Lee passed a list of 400 to 500 customers to mainland authorities.

Lee: I never used the computer at Causeway Bay Books and had never printed out any lists of customers, much less passing any lists to mainland police.

Mainland girlfriend on relationship

Hu: [Lam] lied about the legality of mailing banned books on the mainland and paid me every time I helped him deliver the books through mail.

Lam: I do not want to confront her as she would not be able to hear what I say on the mainland. She could not say things voluntarily there, so I dont want to bring further trouble to her. I hope she would be treated leniently on the mainland.

Business partner Lui Por on televised confession

Lam: [Some officers] gave me a script to read to confess on mainland TV. I had to follow the script. If I did not follow it strictly, they would ask for a re-take.

Lui Por: There was absolutely no such thing as coerced confessions or pre-arranged media interviews with a script. I never imagined Lam Wing-kee was such a dishonest person. He should bravely admit his guilt and shoulder the legal responsibility.

Lam: He was forced to say that as his wife was from the northeastern part of China.

Cheung Chi-ping: Lams press conference was premeditated and an attack on the one country, two systems principle

Lam: His wife is in Dongguan city, Guangdong province so he had to say so

Confrontation with Ningbo authorities

Lam: I wanted to commit suicide in Ningbo as the solitary confinement and interrogation was so stressful.

Ningbo authorities: He stayed there voluntarily as he had family disputes in Hong Kong.

Lam: I had separated from my wife for some years already.


Legislator Michael Tien: Lam Wing-kee held a press conference and it was like throwing a rock into a lake. But he kept changing his tune afterwards. First it is this, then it is that. He should get points deducted.

You admit that you have a girlfriend in mainland China. The whole thing is that you admit that you mailed books to mainland China and then they are remailed. You knew the law and you broke the law.

At the press conference, he said that two mainland agents came to Hong Kong with him. I got the impression that the two men were holding you by both arms. But now he is saying that the two men disappeared before he even reached the Lohu border crossing? At first, he said that the two men came with him and this made people think that this was cross-border law enforcement. But now those two persons were not seen after crossing the border. So this is another version, back and forth.

At the time, he gave me the clear impression that Lee Bo told him: "I was kidnapped to the mainland." I don't understand why Lam Wing-kee changed his statement yesterday. After being questioned a few times, he now said that it was a feeling that he had. At the press conference, he said that Lee Bo was taken to the mainland against his will. But now it boils down to the tone of voice. It was just the tone of voice, and Lee Bo did not say it directly. Then why didn't he make it clear at the press conference? Frankly he gets many points deducted over this.

Former legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah: We must admit that as soon as he crossed the border into Hong Kong, he is protected by Hong Kong Basic Law and other laws. Frankly, Lam held this press conference and he said a lot of things. He only indirectly proved that everything that he wanted from One Country Two Systems is already working. One Country Two Systems is working.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Eight members of the Hong Kong-UK Reunification Campaign went to the British Consulate-General to petition. They said that mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to enforce the law are seriously violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration. So they want Hong Kong to be be handed back to the United Kingdom. The group is also starting an online petition and they want to gather 10,000 to 20,000 signatures, so that the United Kingdom can act with public opinion on their side.

(Channel News Asia) June 20, 2016.

The Hong Kong bookseller who broke silence on Thursday about being interrogated in detention in China, said he had weighed the pros and cons before deciding to speak. His decision to break his silence sparked public furore in the process.

In a one-on-one interview with Channel NewsAsia's Wei Du on Sunday (Jun 19), Lam Wing-kee said he was not surprised to hear that his girlfriend and associates had spoke out against him. He also spoke of Hong Kongs political future.

WEI DU: After you gave the interview on Thursday, your associates and girlfriend have told the media that you were not telling the truth. They used some strong words. Are you surprised?

LAM WING-KEE: They were speaking in an abnormal environment. You know what that means? They were not acting on free will. If I refute them point by point, itll do them harm, because everything theyve said is against their own will. They have a lot on the line, I dont want to refute them anymore.

WEI: Do you worry the damage is already done?

LAM: I expected this. When I decided to speak out, I weighed the pros and cons. Its harmed them, its harmed me. My girlfriend is still there, but Ill never see her again in future. The other ones, their cases are pretty much decided on, so the damage is not so great, probably not greater than the harm to myself. But its a different case for the people of Hong Kong. Its important that someone stands up and fights, because many people are too afraid to say anything. I had to make the compromise.

WEI: You said you expect not to see your girlfriend again?

LAM: Thats right. I cant go back anymore, and she will never be able to come here. I hope the Chinese government treats them better. Dont treat them badly because of me.

WEI: You said Lee Bo (one of the other booksellers) told you he was abducted in Hong Kong. If that could happen to him, are you worried about your safety in Hong Kong now?

LAM: When he was abducted in Hong Kong, maybe it was because mainland authorities didnt expect the reaction in Hong Kong to be so strong. It crossed the line for Hong Kongers, so the reaction was strong. Maybe they didnt see that.

WEI: So you think its different now?

LAM: It is different. They werent too smart.

WEI: You think you are safe in Hong Kong?

LAM: Yes. After Lee Bo, they wont be so blatant.

WEI: You were interrogated for eight months. During that time, did you find out what they wanted to know the most?

LAM: Sources for the books. Where the information came from. Thats what they wanted to know.

WEI: What are we supposed to make of the books by Mighty Current (the publishing house)?

LAM: Mighty Current published books to make money. You dont have to understand why. If there was a profit to be made in a book, itd be published. Its all business. The books are often plagiarised. Sometimes they are truthful, sometimes not.

WEI: Many young people in Hong Kong think the "One Country, Two Systems" wont work out. What do you think is the best way forward?

LAM: Independence. My personal opinion, and I am not afraid to say, is that its doable.

In a marriage, if the man treats the woman badly, the woman will leave. Its normal. She wants her happiness too. The Communist party wants to control everyone, but its not elected, it has no legitimacy. It has no respect for human rights. So when people demand independence, they have a reason. Its the same for Hong Kong.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/SinManSing/videos/625192654306981/

- The key comment  is about Hong Kong independence as the best way forward. Lam says "it's doable." That's going to upset the pan-democrats (e.g. Democratic Party) who think that the best way forward is communication/negotiations with the Central Government.

- Very quickly Lam is brought out to reverse course! (TVB) Lam Wing-kee said: "You cannot say that I support Hong Kong independence. I merely support democratic elections." How does he support democratic elections? He said: "So-called Hong Kong independence also goes through democratic elections." He also said that Hong Kong independence is one way forward with democratic elections, but not the only way.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Im not saying [I] support independence. I just think that it can be up for discussion, said Lam during a D100 Radio interview on Monday night. At least give it a space [for discussion], he added. Hong Kong is a free society, everyone has different views, and are promoting different views. The best way to go about it is to host a referendum like a free society, Lam added.

When asked how he would envision an independent Hong Kong, Lam provided a Chinese proverb from ancient philosopher Lao Tzu to illustrate his view.

To not interact with each other until death, but to hear the sounds of chickens and dogs in your surroundings, Lam explained. If it is a place with freedom, someone has the right to not interact with people from another place they can. This is their freedom.

If you, as a powerful regime, force people to interact with you, is this considered tyrannical? he added. You took away peoples freedom, and this applies to Hong Kong too. If Hong Kong has freedom to decide its own future, you can give Hong Kong an election [referendum].

Lam said that it is not about whether people support independence or not.

You have to first give people a free space, [China] does not have the right to decide, [China] hasnt given anything to the people, right? he said.

Lam said that Hong Kong can only hope that China will truly implement the One Country, Two Systems principle, otherwise Hong Kong people will have to fight for it.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 22, 2016. On June 21, Lam Wing-kee was interviewed by Taiwan television channel PTS on telephone. He said that if the central government oppresses Hong Kong too much, then what is wrong with a referendum on independence? He said that while he does not necessarily advocate Hong Kong independence, the central government is a violent organization which is destroying One Country Two Systems. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must find their own way out.

When the PTS host asked about the feasibility of Hong Kong independence, Lam said that no matter whether there is any likelihood for Hong Kong independence, "you should do it first" and that "it should be done even if it is not likely." At the same time, he admitted that he has no idea what the consequences are. He said that Taiwan is more likely to become independent than Hong Kong. Therefore Taiwan should become independent so that Hong Kong can observe how things turn out.

(Ta Kung Pao) June 20, 2016.

After arranging Lam Wing-kee's press conference at the Legislative Council building last Thursday, the Democratic Party against arranged for Lam to be interviewed at the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. When the Ta Kung Pao reporter arrived, he was told the press conference was restricted to "certain invited media." So our reporter had to stay outside and wait for information.

Lam Wing-kee said that he was once arrested and punished by Chinese Customs for bringing books into China. Then he told others to bring books or mail books in China. So is this an intentional violation of mainland laws? Yesterday our reporter asked lawyer-legislator Albert Ho (Democratic Party) whether selling unauthorized books in mainland China is breaking mainland laws. Ho said: "Let mainland explain everything clearly to him. Based upon what he learned when he was in mainland China, nobody ever told him what his crimes were. Ok? Everything that he did was done in Hong Kong. That is the case according to what I know."

With respect to why all the others at Causeway Bay Books reject Lam's position, Ho said: "I think many Hongkongers are using common sense to judge."

When asked whether assisting Lam Wing-kee is part of the Democratic Party's Legco campaign, Ho said that this was risible. "If a citizen asks you help, can you ignore him because you are in an election? That is a joke."

But almost 1,000 citizens demonstrated outside the Legislative Council building against Albert Ho. Love Hong Kong chairman Ko Tato-bin said that Lam Wing-kee admitted that he had violated the law in mainland China for which he was arrested inside mainland China. One Country Two Systems was not violated in any way. Ko said that Lam was hijacked by the pan-democrats to deceive the people of Hong Kong and smear the central government.

- Albert Ho said that Lam Wing-kee has no intention of filing a report to the police. Lam believes that it was more effective to communicate with Security Bureau through the Legislative Council. Ho said that there is no conclusive evidence that cross-border law enforcement took place.

In the case of Lee Bo, Lam Wing-kee said at first that Lee Bo told him about being taken away against his will. Lee Bo issued a denial. The third person Mrs. Lee Bo present at the meeting can also step in. Lam now agrees that Lee did not say so directly but Lam says that he can tell from Lee's tone of voice that this is what happened. Lee repeated that he has nothing to say and he does not need the services of the Hong Kong Police.

In the case of Lam Wing-kee, the original crimes were committed in mainland China and he was arrested in mainland China. So there was no cross-border enforcement. Lam said at first that when he came back to Hong Kong this time, he was escorted by two Central Investigation Team members to take back a computer hard disk. This may be cross-border law enforcement, depending on what the two persons did. Lam is now saying that he lost sight of the two persons before he crossed over to Hong Kong. So there is no cross-border law enforcement.

Given this is what is on the table now, what case is there for cross-border law enforcement in violation of One Country Two Systems?

- Well, just a few days ago, Albert Ho organized the press conference for Lam Wing-kee and the "6,000-person demonstration march" for "We are all Lam Wing-kee." Today, he is saying that there is no conclusive evidence fro cross-border law enforcement. In gambling, once you place your bet, you cannot pull it back because you realized that you are making the wrong bet. You have to wait for the result. Several hundred cameras caught you in the act before as  you making, doubling and tripling the bet. Let us see you squirm and wiggle now.

- A print newspaper Ta Kung Pao (founded in 1902) reporter was refused entry into a press conference held inside the Legislative Council building by a Legislative Council. What (if anything) did the Journalists Association have to say? Nothing, of course. Why? FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES YELLOW UMBRELLA.

- (Lau Nai-keung) June 21, 2016.

If behind a great man there is always a great woman, then behind a despicable man is always one or more crooked men.

Behind the disloyal, unfair, unjust and untrustworthy man Law Wing-yee is the legislator Albert Ho, who does nothing at the Legislative Council except watch adult videos.

Albert Ho is as lusty and exploitative as Lam Wing-kee. When Edward Snowden came to Hong Kong to seek refuse, Ho appeared like the Magnet Man at the press conference. But if you have see the Snowden documentary, you now that "AV Ho" had nothing to do with anything.

This time, "AV Ho" probably had a director/scriptwriter role, because the Ming Pao depiction that Lam WIng-kee smoked three cigarettes, tossed away the mobile phone given to him by mainland agents, left the Kowloon Tong station to seek help from Albert Ho is too melodramatic and unrealistic to be true.

But if Lam said that his activities in Hong Kong were monitored by mainland agents Mr Chan and Mr Shi of the Central Investigation Team, why didn't they do anything? Why didn't "enforce the law across the border" as they have been accused of doing previously?

In any case, we get to see "AV Ho" meet the press and this time he was using Lam Wing-kee.

The opposition thought that they had found a treasure. After the June 16 press conference, they organized a demonstration march two days later. No matter whether the figure was the police estimate of 1,800 or the organizers' claim of 6,000, the number was pretty good. For the sake of getting more votes, there is no such thing as most despicable; there is only being more despicable than ever.

The  problem is that all the bookstore colleagues of Lam Wing-kee have come out to call him a liar. On June 19, Lam told the media that Lee Bo did not tell him directly about being taken away against his will, but Lam said so because he "clearly heard from the tone of voice."

In addition, the media reported on his wife's accusations against him and the tearful interview with his girlfriend. Yesterday the Shaoguan librarian was reported in the media calling Lam a liar and a womanizer.

All of a sudden, Lam Wing-kee has gone from the killer weapon for the opposition to become a negative asset. For elections, lying may be acceptable but womanizing/betrayal upsets female voters.

At this time, "AV Ho" has resurfaced on radio, saying that there is no conclusive evidence on cross-border law enforcement. Well, it that was the case, then what were they demonstrating/marching about?

In one sentence, there is no such thing as most despicable; there is only being more despicable than ever.

Lam Wing-kee's son Phoenix Lam announced on Facebook today: "I want to see a place with no publishing industry and no way to mail books will detain an ordinary Hongkongers for no apparent reason." He said that he will update his post on his post on Friday. But he dies, he wants people to burn some joss money for him.

- Yes, if Phoenix Lam actually goes to mainland China, he will be accompanied by an Apple Daily/Next Magazine team to record his arrest. This will be a replay of the Chan Kin-hong incident, a landmark event in Hong Kong media history.

- Let us suppose that Phoenix Lam actually goes to mainland China (and that is a big IF).

If he commits no crime and he gets arrested, then it proves the thesis that the Chinese Communists are bad.

If he commits no crime and he does not get arrested, then it proves that rule of law exists in China.

If he commits a crime and he gets arrested, then it proves that rule of law exists in China.

If he commits a crime and he does not get arrested, it proves that there is no justice under heaven.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 21, 2016.

Phoenix Lam, the son of recently returned bookseller Lam Wing-kee, has denied that he crossed the border into the mainland to challenge or test any authority. He said that he visits China regularly for legal business and the fact he entered without trouble shows that China is civilised and open and One Country Two System is intact.

He said he mentioned testing the border on Facebook in an effort to seek part-time work. Lets see whether a Hong Kong person who is not involved in the book business, and did not send books anywhere will be detained unreasonably, he wrote on Monday. He then announced through a friend that he had successfully crossed the border at around 6pm the same day.

However, Phoenix published a statement on Tuesday saying that media outlets had used provocative words or did not report the truth about his trip and that he felt that it was necessary to clarify immediately. He said that he talked about entering China because he would only be available for interviews for part-time job offers when he returns on Friday.

He said that his success in returning to the mainland showed that the Chinese government rules according to the law and is civilised and open. It will not detain anyone unrelated to the [Causeway Bay Bookstore] incident. [It] shows the improvement of Chinese law and the effective implementation of One Country, Two Systems. He added that he was not stalked or placed under surveillance inside the mainland [and] was not harassed.

He also said that he runs a design business which does not sell nor mail books, and that the medias inaccurate reporting may destroy his good country-loving, Hong Kong-loving image and affect his business.

Lam Wing-kee said to HKFP last week that he had a separate life to his son.

In a D100 interview on Monday, Lam said that his son had always been rebellious. Phoenix is still immature and his attempt to go to the mainland was unwise and he was playing with fire, Lam said. However, he also said that he was not worried about his sons safety.

- (Bastille Post) The initial Facebook post by Phoenix Lam misled Apple Daily into thinking that he was going to mainland China to challenge the government. Apple Daily contacted him through Facebook but did not interview him directly. Yesterday Phoenix Lam said that the "media" destroyed his "good image of loving China and Hong Kong." This is such an anti-climax that some people think that the initial post was designed to entrap Apple Daily.

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

At around 5am, somebody hung out a yellow banner saying that "LSD: We are all Lam Wing-kee" on the mountainside by Lung Yan Road. At 940am, the fire department removed the banner. The League of Social Democrats claimed credit for the act.

- The most frequent Internet comments were: "We all want to be Lam Wing-kee -- we want one wife in Hong Kong and one wife in mainland China!" and "We don't want One Country Two Systems -- we want One Country Two Wives!"

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

The emergence of Lam Wing-kee has suddenly become rain during a drought for the pan-democrats. The pan-democratic political parties and the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China immediately rushed out to hold a demonstration with the "Golden 72 Hours" period. In so doing, they took the sail away from the Civil Human Rights Front which wanted Lam Wing-kee to be the theme of the July 1st march. On June 17 (Friday), the Civic Human Rights Front held a meeting to discuss whether the theme for the July 1st march should be changed from "The Final Battle Against 689" to "We are all Lam Wing-kee." But since the pan-democrats had already done this, a second round on the same theme may not be a good draw. So they will keep the original theme unless things change.

(Apple Daily) June 18, 2016.

Our newspaper received information that TVB News had invited Lam Wing-kee to appear on the programme On The Record. Lam accepted the invitation. But TVB News has now canceled. According to information, the decision "came from the highest level." Our reporter called TVB News general manager Yuan Chi-wai. Upon learning that our reporter is from Apple Daily, Yuan said: "Sorry, I am not in Hong Kong right now." Then Yuan hung up.

(Headline Daily) June 20, 2016.

A TVB spokesperson that the Apple Daily report was inaccurate. TVB had not decided whether to invite Lam or not, so there is no issue of "cancelation."

According to an informed source, television news programs are required to be fair and balanced. Many of those involved in the affair have already come out to rebut Lam Wing-kee. So if Lam is invited as the sole interviewee, he will only repeat his one-sided story and then TVB will be getting a lot of complaints (to the Broadcasting Authority).

(Kinliu) June 20, 2016.

... Over the past few decades, I have interrogated countless number of criminals. I know that every criminal will exaggerate things that are favorable to their cases and gloss over their own misdeeds. At the June 14 press conference that Lam Wing-kee held under the aegis of legislator Albert Ho, he made all sorts of slips and errors. He may be able to fool some politicians driven by ulterior motives, but he can't expect to fool all of the citizens. Among the most ludicrous slips is the Central Investigation Team that Lam said was in charge of his case. Why is it ludicrous? Let us answer these two questions first: How big is Hong Kong? What is the population of Hong Kong?

Hong Kong has an area of more than 1,100 square kilometers. China has an area of 9.6 million square kilometers. So they don't even bother to discuss any place less than 10,000 square kilometers. Hong Kong has a population of 7.2 million. China has a population of 1.3 million. So they don't even bother to mention any place less than 10 million people. China is the second largest economic power in the world, more than twice as much as number three Japan. Hong Kong's economy is just over 2% of China's economy.

If a foreign government leader or a business mogul sees these numbers, what would they think? If you are Chairman Xi Jinping, how much attention will you give Hong Kong? Stop kidding yourself! Hongkongers are megalomaniacs who think that the world has to revolve around them. The truth is that world leaders and the Central governments rarely think about Hong Kong. Americans are interested in Hong Kong only to the extent that it is the only part of China that is defenseless against their machinations.

Based upon my decades of contact with the mainland public security, Lam's crime is relatively light. That is why he was released back to Hong Kong after several months of "education." Lam is just making it up by saying that his case was handled by a "central investigation team" in order to con Albert Ho and his ilk. He might as well as said "the special investigation team sent by the state chairman/president."

(SCMP) June 23, 2016.

The man at the centre of the bookseller storm stated he would report his case to Hong Kong police in the next few days, putting his account on official record for the citys law enforcement to follow up.

Causeway Bay Books store manager Lam Wing-kee, 61, made explosive claims last week about his abduction and eight months of detention on the mainland. He said he returned to Hong Kong on June 14 after agreeing to hand a hard disk of client information to mainland authorities, but changed his mind at the last minute and instead contacted lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan for help.

Lam had said it was not urgent for him to report to the police, explaining he did not have high hopes that local law enforcement would be helpful. But speaking on a DBC radio programme on Thursday, Lam clarified he would indeed contact the police.

Ill contact them in the next few days, he said. Theres no problem with my personal safety now, so Ill arrange it after meeting media. He added he had media interviews to conduct on Thursday and Friday.

The bookseller did not explain why he had changed his mind.

Hong Kong police said they had been trying to contact Lam for more information about what happened to him.

Lam revealed on Thursday that when he was detained for months in Ningbo in Zhejiang province he had to wear an orange uniform and his hair was shorn.

- Lam Wing-kee is too busy doing media interviews to bother with providing evidence to the police. He knows what the priorities are.

- (HKG Pao)

On one hand, the advantages of doing media interviews include:
- As long as you are opposing CY Leung and the government, you will get large numbers of reporters to attend.
- If CY Leung and the government holds a press conference afterwards to rebut your accusations, you can cry "Political oppression," "White terror" and "Mom, they're bullying me." It will only be more publicity for you.
- It is easy to hold a media trial, because the reporters are on your side. You are the egg and CY Leung is the high wall.
- The audience (including the reporters) don't question you, so you get to say whatever you want
- Even if you engage in libel, slander and defamation, you won't be held accountable (reference: Bawang)

On the other hand, the disadvantages of filing a formal police report are:
- The police will take down your statement and ask you to sign to confirm that everything that you tell them is the truth (and nothing but the truth).
- Everything that you tell the police will be kept confidential, as the police will not comment on the specifics of a case.
- The police will investigate other sources of information to confirm your allegations. If what you tell them does not meet the reality test, you may be charged with wasting police resources. If your case goes to court and your lies are uncovered, it would even be contempt of court.

(YZZK) July 3, 2016.

According to a publisher who works in Hong Kong and China, many Hongkongers are very muddled about the issues. It is not certain whether they are ignorant or deceptive. For example, New People Party legislator and National People's Congress delegate Michael Tien questioned: If a mainlander orders a banned book from Amazon.com which mails the book there, is Amazon.com breaking Chinese law? As another example, pro-Occupy solicitor Herman Tang wrote that "Lam Wing-kee was said to violate Chinese laws by mailing banned books to mainland China ... If that is the case, then shouting 'End one-party-rule' at the June 4th assembly (in Hong Kong) would be violating Chinese law and sending photos and descriptions of the June 4th assembly to friends in China via Weixin would also be violating Chinese law."

The publisher said that Michael Tien and Herman Tang are switching concepts here. They said, If Lam Wing-kee was merely selling banned books that were already being sold at Causeway Bay Books into China, then how can that be violating mainland Chinese laws? Well, if Lam was only mailing these books from Hong Kong to mainland China, then at the most the Customs Department detect some of these books and confiscate them. They won't come across the border to enforce the law. Lam Wing-kee broke mainland laws because he brought the books into mainland China where he sold them. He established a mainland bank account for the buyers to transfer money for payment. He also got his girlfriend in Guangdong to mail those books for him. Michael Tien and Herman Tang are skirting these facts perhaps deliberately so, but they have misled certain Hongkongers.

The publisher said that it is clear to everybody in the Hong Kong publishing industry that Lee Bo-Gui Minhai's Hong Kong Culture and Arts Publishing and Mighty Current publishing political books that were based upon fiction, plagiarism, libel, slander, defamation and rumors. Most Hongkongers won't read these books. If mainland China bans such books, then what has this got to do with freedom of expression, freedom of press and freedom of publishing?

... On June 18, many organizations marched in Hong Kong. Lam Wing-kee held up a Freedom of Expression placard. On June 21, Law WIng-kee said on radio that China is interfering with freedom of publishing in Hong Kong. This is surely misleading. This is the most basic key point in the entire Causeway Bay Books affair. But everybody including singer Denise Ho, the legislative councilors, the political scholars and the media reporters have completely neglected it. A writer even wrote: "Many of the contents in the banned books came from anonymous whistleblowers in China."

(The Standard) June 14, 2016.

A group of secondary school students in Shek Kip Mei began a signature campaign to protest new policies by their principal, including an earlier start to school and threatening to cancel their talent contest. The students at Church of Christ in China Ming Yin College launched a petition on Facebook criticizing principal Anne Chan Yee-man for "carrying out tyranny" and demanding she review the new policies. The petition had 242 signatures by 8.30pm last night.

In an open letter, the group said Chan required teachers to set up tutorial classes regardless of their teaching progress and forced teachers and staff to read specified books. "Teaching work is heavy enough. Why did principal Chan add to their burden?" the letter read. "After principal Chan took office, [she] has threatened to cancel [talent show] New Top Idol, and the student union also needs to take down the uploaded singing contest videos."

The group said Chan changed the school schedule, advancing the start of school by 15 minutes. "Principal Chan claimed that this is one of the ways for self-learning but this cannot lead to self-learning, and has affected students' learning interest." The students said they raised their demands with Chan but were ignored. A black banner stating "face students' demands and petition to call for a dialog" was unfurled outside the campus on Wai Chi Street. Some students were seen distributing leaflets.

The Standard asked for an interview with Chan, but a school employee said there were many media inquiries and they would release a press statement instead. However, The Standard had not received a statement by press time.

(EJ Insight) June 14, 2016.

Students of CCC Ming Yin College (MYC) in Shek Kip Mei are protesting some decisions taken by the secondary schools management recently, particularly with regard to the issue of class timings. The pupils are upset that classes will start at 8.15 am everyday under a new rule, rather than the previous schedule of 8.30 am. Also, there are concerns about a move to increase the number of hours for mandatory tutorial classes and additional mock examinations for DSE students. Angered at the decisions, students are urging the school authorities to reconsider their plans, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. 

On Monday, a banner was hung outside the school, calling on the management to enter into a dialogue with the students. Meanwhile, some former and existing students of the institution published an open letter to the school principal, Anne Chan Yee-man, urging her to sit down with student representatives and listen to their grievances.

Look at the student demands
Signature campaign to request dialogue

Questioned about the revision in class timings, Chan said the 8:15 am start was aimed at standardizing the school hours. Under the previous system, classes used to begin at different times during the summer term and in the winter months. Class timetable is an internal school policy and should not be a matter of public discussion, the principal said, according to Apple Daily. Students are welcome for a dialogue but they would be wrong to think that they can vote on decisions like these, she said.

A former student named Yip Ka-yu, who showed up at a protest outside the school, said Chan was acting like a tyrant and forcing her decisions on the students.

Chan agreed to be interviewed by Apple Daily, but demanded that the transcripts be submitted to her for approval before publication. But she relented after reporters explained that such action would be deemed as censorship and interference in press freedom.

Chris Wat Wing-yin. Where is the tyranny?

Several students and alumni CCC Ming Yin College in Shek Kip Mei set up a banner for a signature petition against "tyranny" at the school and demanded the school principal meet publicly with the student representatives.

The black banner had the words "Look at the student demands, Signature campaign to request dialogue." This was led by the "Protest Against Tyranny At CCC Ming Yin College Concern Group." They also had a plan to ambush the school principal at the front gate in conjunction with the Apple Daily reporter.

I am curious as to what tyrannical rule was imposed upon the students. Why did the children apply such Red Guard tactics to 'treat' their school principal?

So it happens that one of the tyrannical actions was to start class 15 minutes earlier. The school used to start at 830am. Now it will start at 815am. The extra 15 minutes becomes a reading period, so that students will develop the habit of reading for 15 minutes. But a student who signed the petition said: "We are forced to read. I feel so bad (in English)." "This is inconvenient for students who live faraway. Not much reading can be done in 15 minutes."

Actually many schools are already running this type of morning reading period. Usually it is 20 to 30 minutes. I remember that my first class in secondary school was to read the newspaper. At the time, I thought that it was boring. Eventually I developed the habit of reading the news every morning. When I read the news, I keep up with the world; if I can't read the news, I feel as I am missing something.

Thus the principal answered the reporter in that ambush interview: "This is tyranny? May I ask which part of this is tyrannical?" Yes, those 15 minutes are very important. If the students can read some more, maybe they will find out what tyranny is in history and then they will know what tyranny is.

An Internet user wrote: "If it truly tyrannical to force you to come to school earlier and make you read books! You should be able to play with computer games, watch movies, eat and sleep all day; you should get full marks without taking any exams; you should be able to graduate from university automatically; you should be able to get a house and a car automatically; you should be able to have lots of money without working ..."

I have said that something has gone wrong with education. Every school has some cancerous political cells who want to turn educational issues into political strife in the manner of the Cultural Revolution. The person who started this is Yip Ka-yu, who studied for the DSE at CCC Ming Yin this year and who is a follower of Joshua Wong at Scholarism and Demosisto.

What happened at CCC Ming Yin College should be an example for all schools in Hong Kong. A few cancerous cells may take down the entire body, just as a few cancerous students and alumni may take down an entire school. So principals should be wary and prepare yourselves for the coming battle.

Internet comments:

- (Apple Daily) Yip Ka-yu who graduated this year said that the sixth-year students have to take a pre-mock test, a mock test and a post-mock test in order to deal with the Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) exams. This increased the pressure on students greatly.

- In order to run a mock test, the teachers have to prepare a test, administer the test, grade the test and review the results with each students. This is simply a lot of work. Why do this? Because the DSE is the exam is the culmination of six years of hard work and the results can literally change lives. If you do well, you get to attend university; you get to attend trade school or just get a job as a kitchen apprentice.

- Yes, some schools don't even give any mock tests. But parents get nervous and enroll their children in tutoring schools that run the mock tests. The cost may be several thousand dollars per test. In this case, CCC Ming Yin College is offering a pre-mock test, a mock test and a post-mock test for free. What more can you ask for?

- What pressure on students? If the students don't like doing these mock tests, they don't have to do it. In Hong Kong, compulsory education is only for nine years. A 12-th year student sitting for the DSE can always drop out.

- (Apple Daily) Yip Ka-yu said that the school extended school hours by almost one hour, including adding 15 minutes of reading time and making students show up earlier for school.

- Here are some famous quotations from the students themselves:

- Yip Ka-yu explained why this is so bad. She said that showing up earlier will affect the 精神 (mental concentration, vitality, spirit, liveliness) of the students and teachers).

- A student with surname Wong: This is a huge problem because the school did not consult the student. Also the action means that the students cannot go home earlier to rest and study.

-- A student with surname Lai: What is the effectiveness of 15 minutes of reading time? "It is inconvenient for students who live far away, and how much can you read in 15 minutes?"

-- A student with surname Yiu: Reading should be a matter of personal interest for students. Extending the school hours will reduce rest time. "They are forcing us to read. I feel so bad (in English)."

Here are some points:

- Yip Ka-yu attended the CCC Ming Yin College in Sham Shui Po district. Last year she joined Scholarism and became a member of the Standing Committee. So that explains everything.

- Meanwhile Dr. Anne Chan is a member of the pro-establishment Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers. So she must be targeted for extinction.

- No, that isn't everything. The remaining piece of the puzzle is how to get Secretary of Education Eddie Ng into all this.

- Well, all these other issues are peripheral because the main point is to decide the question of "Who is the boss?" So is it the school principal Dr. Anne Chan? Or the students? The issues could be school hours but it could also also have been many other issues (e.g. extracurricular activities, teachers' pay, etc). So who gets to decide on these issues?

- If the students are the decision-makers on school hours, then they will demand the power to hire/fire staff/teachers, setting school curriculum, etc.

- CCC Ming Yin College is a Band 1B school. But there are plenty of other Band 2 and Band 3 schools where students come in every day to have fun and never to study. That is why CCC Ming Yin College students are upset. They want equality, justice and fairness so that they can also come in every day to have fun and never to study.

- If these CCC Ming Yin College students are not happy, they can always transfer to Band 2 and Band 3 schools where it is party time all the time.

- By comparison, mainland Chinese students could only wish that they can be in class every hour of the day to better prepare themselves.

- If you don't want to read, you can just sit there and stare at the book and think about something else. In this case, you are preparing yourself for your future low-end job (such as security guard) which involves serving a certain number of hours each day.

- When I was a student, I studied five to six hours a day on my own. When the school bell rang, the teachers rushed out the door. What do they care about giving me the extra minutes that I wanted? Today students are different. When the principal and teachers want you to do better, you call them tyrants! Why don't you just drop out of school already!? Do you think that the principal/teachers have nothing better to do?

- When I was a student, all the teachers were Division 430 soldiers. When 430pm came around, they got off the job. They won't respond to anything that you ask them. So they should ever voluntarily to give us extra tutoring, we would have been elated to the high heavens! I am not saying that they were lousy teachers; but they stuck to their duties, they did what they were supposed to do and then they went home and led their own lives.

- If the students don't perform well at DSE, the fault lies with the school. The school needs to come up with a way to let students perform well in DSE without having to study. This is why the school is there.

- The students always had the choice. They can choose to study diligently and obtain good results at the DSE. Or they can choose to abandon all hope and choose failure for themselves. Nobody is forcing them. In fact, the students don't even have to stay in school for one more day -- they can drop out right now!

- Compare CCC Ming Yin College against an elite school such as LaSalle College. Why do LSC students work so hard? Is it because their principal and the teachers are oppressive tyrants? Or is it because the students want to study hard and do well? It is clear that the students are elites who know what they want and who do what they have to do to get there.

- These students don't want to go to the additional tutorials, but they are afraid that their fellow students may go and thus gain an advantage over them. So the solution is to make sure that nobody gets anything!

- This is a new world of labor/student thinking. Not only do workers want maximum working hours, but students want maximum study hours.

- If the students are excellent in academically, the principal couldn't care less. But the situation is that the student performances are sliding. What is the principal going to tell the board of directors? Should the principal say that "sleeping in the streets at Occupy Central" is more valuable than "four years of schooling"?

- I don't think that the school should make it compulsory for the students to do one thing or the other. They should offer the students the choice. If the students don't want to take the pre-mock, mock and post-mock tests, then so be it.

- If you think that your whole person will be wasted without getting that 15 minutes of extra sleep, then maybe you shouldn't have stayed up all night playing computer games.

- What is the difference between waking up at 700am and getting to school at 830am, versus waking up 645am and getting to school at 815am? Is it really a matter of life and death?

- What is the 15 minutes for? For example, you have English dictation in your fourth class of the day. You memorized the passage last night (or at least you thought that you did). Why not go over the passage one more time this morning?

- If a student has 15 minutes to spend, would it be for reading books? Or for Facebook? And is Facebook really going to help him/her do better on DSE?

- When the mission is to overthrow tyranny, how can a signature campaign be sufficient? We need student class strikes, labor strikes, sabotage, takeovers, fire bombs, etc.

- (YouTube) From the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, "Revolution is no crime, to rebel is justified."

- (YouTube) Sam Hui's classical song about student life. But that was a long time ago.

- This is the first time anywhere in the world that providing education is TYRANNY because the students say that they don't want it.

- There is a school in Ho Man Tin district where the school principal imposes compulsory extra lessons, compulsory summer classes, compulsory outdoor singing lessons, compulsory religious activities, and compulsory handover of mobile phones. However, the classrooms are in disgraceful shapes. How about that for TYRANNY?

- We can eliminate tyranny by banning the following undemocratic rules and regulations:

- Attending school on time
- Wearing school uniforms
- Handing in homework
- No sleeping in class
- Taking exams to assess achievement
- Attending physical education classes
- Forbidding private chats during teaching ...

- The Revolution never stops. After you are done with tyranny at school, you are going to find tyranny at work:

- You must show up for work on time
- You must adhere to company dress codes
- You must do your work
- You must not sleep at work
- You must be subjected to job performance appraisals to determine your wages
- You are not allowed to use Facebook for personal purposes

- CCC Ming Yin College is a Band 1B school. It is a decent school, though not great. If the students take over, it will guarantee to be a great place to study at, but the students will be non-competitive against those from other schools.

- Where is the Professional Teachers Union? Where is the Civic Party/Democratic Party/League of Social Democrats/People Power/Civic Passion/Hong Kong Indigenous? Everybody knows that the case is so ludicrous that it is drawing huge media attention around the world. So why aren't they jumping in already to get some media exposure? Or is this too embarrassing for even them?

- Soaphk.hk

CCC Ming Yin College students leave angry words at Soaphk.hk to say that they are stakeholders at their school and that they are being nice by not using obscene curses already.

(EJ Insight) June 13, 2016.

Stanley Lau Chin-ho (劉展灝), one of Hong Kongs prominent businessmen, died on Sunday after suffering a heart attack at the age of 66.

Lau, an employer representative on the Labour Advisory Board, attended a public consultation of the Standard Working Hours Committee on Saturday after returning from a business trip to Japan. In the evening, he went to the residence of Eddy Li, the president of the Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong, for dinner. Later, he complained of chest pain and was taken to the Hong Kong Baptist Hospital. He was sent home but was asked to come again on Monday for another check-up. However, he passed away during sleep in the early hours of Sunday.

The businessmans family expressed shock and sadness at the sudden death. Laus elder son, Gary Lau, said his father was in good health and that he had been exercising regularly, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. Following the patriarchs death, Gary said that he and his brother will now jointly take care of the family business.

Lau, who proposed contractual working hours last year, has faced strong criticism and protests from labor representatives. In a protest on Saturday, Tam Leung-ying of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre threw a wig at Lau and mocked him for suggesting a fake standard working hours proposal, according to RTHK. The wig missed Lau. The public consultation ended earlier than scheduled. Tam said he was shocked by Laus death but he said his protest was not personal at all.

Leung Chau-ting, an employee representative on Labour Advisory Board, said that although he had some differences with Lau, he will readily admit that Lau had a deep understanding of labor issues.

Irons Sze Wing-wai, a permanent honorary president of the Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong and an employer representative on the Labour Advisory Board, said Saturdays protest was not good, even though he acknowledged that the incident cant be linked to Laus heart attack. 

(The Standard) June 13, 2016.

Leading industrialist Stanley Lau Chin- ho, a former chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries who opposed standard working hours, has died of a heart attack. He was 66.

Police said they received a report at 5.13am from a 61-year-old woman, saying her husband was in a coma in their home at Kowloon City. The man, who was later confirmed as Lau, was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei, where he was certified dead at 5.40am.

Lau, who was managing director of Renley Watch Group and an employers' representative on the Standard Working Hours Committee, made his last public appearance on Saturday during a public consultation on working hours in Tai Po, where a protester threw a wig at him, criticizing the employers' representatives for refusing to regulate working hours. Lau was supposed to attend the RTHK program City Forum yesterday to debate issues on Mandatory Provident Fund and retirement protection.

His sons, Gary Lau Sun-tao and Ronald Lau Sun-ting, released a statement through the Productivity Council. "It is with great sadness we announce that our beloved father passed away suddenly at home in his sleep this morning with our mother and family members by his side. It is difficult to put into words our loss," they said. "We wish to thank everyone for the love and care towards our father. The funeral arrangements will be announced in due course."

Lau apparently had his last dinner when he attended a reception hosted by Eddy Li Sau-hung, president of the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, at his home on Saturday evening. He then went home but felt uncomfortable at about 10pm. Lau went to Baptist Hospital where his family doctor gave him an electrocardiogram and he went home.

Lau had opposed legislation on standard working hours as he believed it would create labor shortages and hurt Hong Kong's competitiveness.

Hong Kong Trade Unions chairman Stanley Ng Chau-pei, who quit the committee with five other employees' representatives, said yesterday: "Although our stances are completely opposite, both of us keep the public interest in mind instead of personal grudges."

(SCMP) June 13, 2016.

Stanley Lau Chin-ho, one of the citys most prominent industrialists, has died of a heart attack. He was 66. Lau, an honorary president of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, passed away at Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei on Sunday morning. He recently told the Post that he was in good health and ran every morning before work even participating in the occasional marathon. Laus two sons, Gary Lau Sun-tao and Ronald Lau Sun-ting, said their father died in his sleep with their mother and family members by his bedside.

Lau, the federations former chairman and the current Productivity Council chairman, was due to appear on the RTHK programme City Forum on Sunday to discuss Hong Kongs MPF system and retirement protection issues. He had received intense criticism in recent years for voicing the concerns of the industrial and business communities over issues such as standard working hours

Federation chairman Professor Daniel Cheng Man-chung called Lau's death a sad loss to Hong Kong and the local industry. Mr Lau had made invaluable contribution to the FHKI, the Hong Kong industry as well Hong Kong's economic and social development as a whole. He is an outstanding industrial leader and our dearest friend," Cheng said.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor praised Lau as an outstanding industrialist and being passionate for Hong Kong. She expressed condolences to his wife and sons, and said it was totally unfair to criticise Lau for giving his views to the government. Im shocked and saddened by the sudden news, said Lam. All those who know him will sorely miss him. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who was out of the city on holiday, also expressed his sadness and condolences.

Lau, who was also an employees representative on the Standard Working Hours Committee, attended the committees first community consultation meeting on Saturday in Tai Po. Only about 30 citizens attended the consultation, and Lau had a wig thrown at him by a protestor.

Lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung, of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre, said: Although we had different stances [over the standard working hours issue], we felt shocked and sad at [Laus] sudden passing away.

Lau had previously openly opposed legislation on minimum wage and standard working hours.

Standard Working Hours Committee member Leung Chau-ting said that while he and Lau never saw eye to eye, the industrialist was a straight talking man who was easy to get along with. He stood for industry and we stood for the labour sector. On camera, we were at loggerheads. But after meetings we were still friends, Leung said. He was a person who was very easy to get along with. He was very upfront with everything, very frank and never beating around the bush. He would tell us very straight up that certain issues would have an impact on industry.

A watch manufacturer by trade, Lau was a member of the Sichuan Provincial Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference. He was awarded the Young Industrialist Award in 1994 and had a long record of public and community service in industry and labour circles. He also received a bronze Bauhinia Star in 2009 and a silver one in 2014.

He was chairman of the Vetting Committee of the General Support Programme under the Innovation and Technology Fund, and a member of the Economic Development Commission, Hong Kong Trade Development Council and the Labour Advisory Board, among other public roles.

That's what you read in English. Now see what you read in Chinese.

(Oriental Daily including video) June 12, 2016.

In the first round of public consultations on Standard Working Hours in Tai Po, only about 30 citizens and organizations took part because the labor representatives had quit the commission already. The meeting was over by 530pm, more than 1 hour ahead of time. Many members of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre members protested.

Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Tam Leung-ying pulled the wig from his head and threw it at Standard Working Hours Committee member Stanley Lau, hitting the chair on which Lau was sitting on. Lau did not react. Afterwards, Tam and a dozen others left the meeting room in protest. Tam said that throwing the wig was meant to take a dig at the the employers for having no intention to legislate standard working hours ("no wig" sounds like "no law" in Cantonese).

Before the meeting began, the Civic Alliance To Fight For Standard Working Hours protested against committee chairman Edward Leung. They chanted slogans and demanded the establishment of standard working hours. At one point, they surrounded Leung and demanded the cessation of any further discussion of contractual working hours. Leung said: "I heard you. I heard everything that you are saying." The demonstrators dispersed after five minutes.

(Oriental Daily) June 12, 2016.

After Stanley Lau passed away, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Tam Leung-ying said that Lau might be unhappy over Tam's action. However, Tam said that this was the conseuqnce of Lau's poor performance as a member of the Standard Working Hours committee. He said that Lau's previous comments such as saying that "the boss is the dealer and the worker is the dealer" made people feel that he disrespected workers.

- How can Stanley Lau say that "the boss is the dealer and the worker is the dealer"? He has obviously no idea who is in charge. When the workers go out on strike, the boss is finished. Without the workers, the boss is nothing.

- Please fill in: Without the boss, the workers are _____________ .

(Kinliu) June 15, 2016.

On June 13, our reporter reached Tam Leung-ying at the office of Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre legislative councilor Leung Yiu-chung in Kwai Fong Estate. Tam said: "I find this is ... quite funny ... to accuse me of throwing the wig that caused his death." Tam admitted that he wore a wig in order to skirt around the security check. "Throwing a wig will clearly not cause personal injury." He did not think that Stanley Lau was scared by a wig being thrown at him. Tam said that Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre was trying to cause trouble at the public consultation, so that the public won't think things were going smoothly. Tam said that, if necessary, they may initiate a labor strike.

Tam said that if events rewind back to the same moment, he would still not hesitate to throw the wig. He exhibited no remorse. He said that Stanley Lau's death had nothing to do with him. "I have seen an Internet photo which accused me of being the murdering. I didn't think that matters to me."


Video: https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/499943960202986/

(Ming Pao) June 13, 2016.

Shortly after the news came that Stanley Lau had passed away, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Wong Yun-tat posted on his Facebook: "If standard working hours become fact, not just workers but I guess that even bosses will have lower chances of cardiac conditions." He added: "Will the government please enact standard working hours legislation in order to protect the health of citizens." This post drew massive criticisms and was soon deleted.

Yesterday Wong Yun-tat responded to our reporter. He admitted that he deleted his post because it was like throwing salt on other people's wounds. If the family of Stanley Lau is uncomfortable about those comments, Wong was willing to apologize. Lau said that he made those comments because many bosses and not just workers have to work overtime. Lau said that his comments were directed at the social system and not at specific individuals. Wong said that his expression may have been imperfect and he did not intend to be disrespectful to the deceased.

- Standard working hours legislation is going to help the boss stop working too many hours? Do you know what the boss has to do? And the consequence of those things not getting done?

- Mr. Lau clearly died from exhaustion due to overworking. Let us hope that his death will cause him to seriously reflect on his priorities in life.

- I hope that all young people are as wise and humane as you are.

(Sky Post) The First Death. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 14, 2016.

Starting two years ago, Hong Kong became strange. The string of political incidents and the nonstop acts of rage gave the feeling that someone is waiting for the first blood, even the first death, in order to call the emotional Hongkongers to lose their minds and break into rage.

When we looked at the reaction from the Admiralty tear gas and the ecstasy over the shots into the air in Mong Kok on Lunar New Years Day, we begin to sense that the opposition camp do not care at all about the lives of citizens. All they want to see is blood and deaths, because that would be the basis for their emotional appeal. Hongkongers are bleeding hearts. If there are any casualties, then the incident becomes another June 4th and their enemies will never be able to stand up. That is why political confrontations are getting angrier and the words are becoming more vicious.

But the opposition never figured that the first death would take place on the other side. Recently Standard Working Hours Committee member Stanley Lau passed away due to cardiac problems. Earlier he had attended a local consultation meeting in which someone threw a wig at him in insult.

The two facts do not seem to have a direct connection. But Stanley Lau had just returned that day from a business trip to Japan and went immediately to Tai Po to participate in the consultation meeting. Lau receives no compensation for his work on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, but he was insulted in public. One can imagine how hurt it must be. That evening, Lau felt ill and went to Baptist Hospital for treatment. When he got home, he went to sleep and passed away.

According to committee chairman Edward Leung, the committee has held 50 consultation meetings. Lau was absent only once. That means he attended 49 meetings, and he might have encountered similar insults for 49 times. Anyone with common knowledge knows that cardiac problems arise out of excitement.

If a death occurred among the opposition, this would have been a political incident already. But Mr. Lau's family are magnanimous and has not condemned anyone with a single sentence. All those opposition members who think that it is their duty to insult others while veins pop up on their foreheads, should you reflect on whether this type of behavior is necessary?

- In total, Stanley Lau held positions in seven public commissions. He doesn't get paid for any of these positions. He will have to replaced.

How does Civic Passion valiant resist the Chinese Communist Party? They do it by valiant doling out free glutinous rice dumplings!

And when September comes, they will be doling out moon cakes.

Reference: 2015 District Council Elections - Part 4 (Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings)

June 19, 2016 1pm-3pm, ClubOne, Kowloon, Wong Yeung-tat and Raymond Wong Yuk-man comedy show, ticket prices: $1000/$600/$500 all other tickets sold out.
All proceeds will go to the Legislative Council campaign whereupon their candidates will resign immediately upon being elected in order to use the by-election as a public referendum for a new constitution.

2016 Plan for young people to experience politics
Let students have the opportunity to participate in Legislative Council elections, experience and learn about Hong Kong politics. The students will assist in the Legco election campaigns, including local matters, administrative support, election propaganda, etc.
Qualifications: Students at tertiary institutions of education; DSE graduates this year
Time period: July-September 2016
Requirements: Full time, five- to six-working days per week (Saturday and Sunday required), at least 8 hours per day.
Salary: HK$5,000 in subsidies per month.

Please send your C.V. before June 20, 2016 to ymwonghelp@gmail.com, or call 2309-2809.

- Six working days per week at 8 hours per day is 48 hours per week. At the minimum wage level of $35 and four weeks per month, the minimum salary should be 48 x 4 x $35 = $6,720. But they are only paying $5,000.

- Raymond Wong Yuk-man's organization is the Proletariat Political Institute. Proletariats are not born knowing that they are proletariats who are exploited by the capitalists, especially students who have never worked before. So this is their first chance of experiencing exploitative working conditions. Hopefully they will develop the working-class consciousness after this experience and become working-class hero resisters.

- (silentmajority.hk) In 2010, Raymond Wong Yuk-man supported the minimum wage of $33. However, his beef noodle shop was paying employees as low as $25 per hour. He blamed his wife "because she said that if the minimum wage ever reached $33, the business would be impossible to run." But also he blamed rent increase for causing the beef noodle shop to go out of business. If it is the rent, then why won't he raise wages? Also in 2010, during the second reading of the minimum wage bill, Raymond Wong spoke about intern students. He said that university students have special skills, so they deserve to have dignity. "If this minimum wage bill covers all workers, then why don't university students get the same protection for summer internships?"

(Wen Wei Po) June 13, 2016.

Recently, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng and vice-chairman Raphael Wong have been distributed pamphlets about themselves.

In the case of Avery Ng, he said that he graduated from Melbourne University majoring in engineering and actuarial science and worked as strategic consultant for a multinational corporation. He returned from New Zealand to Hong Kong and joined the League of Social Democrats because he felt that society was unfair. During the Umbrella Movement, he stayed to defend Mong Kok and was nicknamed "The Great General" for chasing after triad thugs. He believes firmly that the people will defeat the tyrants by popular resistance.

In the case of Raphael Wong, he is nicknamed "The Village Mayor." He graduated with a degree in social policies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has participated many times in civil disobedience, and has been arrested/charged uncountable number of times. He is accustomed to defending himself in court. He said "I am not afraid of going to jail; I am only afraid that there is silence." He does not care to be understood by others; he only wants justice to be done.

About these depictions, one Internet users wrote: "This is so shameless that I don't even know how to characterize it!" Here are the facts. Avery Ng's full nickname was "The Grand General of the Pedestrian Sidewalk." During Occupy Mong Kok, Ng smeared Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat for being absent when in fact photos showed that Wong was present. Meanwhile it was Ng who stood on the sidewalk watching the battle. That was how Ng came to be sarcastically called the "The Grand General of the Pedestrian Sidewalk."

Raphael Wong's nickname came during the Legislative Council debates about preliminary funding of the New Territories North East development. Raphael Wong stopped others from charging at the Legislative Council and uttered the famous words: "The villagers do not think this way." At the time, there were no villagers present but Wong said that he "represented" them because he knows them best. That was when people made fun of him by calling him the "Village Mayor."

But even as Civic Passion made fun of these two League of Social Democrats candidates, other Internet users pointed out that Civic Passion members are called "Hot Dogs" because they say that they are valiant but they are in fact all talk and no action.

So everybody treats 「噓聲當掌聲,柴台當站台」(= they treated the booing as applause; they treated the heckling as support).

(Wen Wei Po) June 13, 2016.

Ever since the rise of the Localist factions, the two old radical parties People Power and League of Social Democrats are expected to lose a lot of votes. So the two parties have just announced that they will join together for the Legislative Council elections in September. Supporters of the two parties say that this alliance will be the death knell for organizations just as Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-City State, Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, etc. They said that they will even take over the votes of the Labour Party, ADPL and Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre.

Civic Passion struck back as say that their liaison is more of a lonely man with a lonely woman. Others said that they more like "dumb and dumber" except it is hard to say that who is dumber. But in the end the only thing that matters is winning. If they lose their Legco seats (currently LSD has League Kwok-hung and PP has Chan Wai-yip and Chan Chi-chuen), they are extinct.

- This must be the anti-Raymond Wong Yuk-man alliance, right? I actively wait for "Big Guy" Chan Wai-yip to fail in his effort to life up "Village Mayor" Raphael Wong; for "Roadside General" Avery Ng to continue as spectator; Chan Chi-chuen and Tam Tak-chi both defeated; and "141" (former PP chairman Lau Ka-hung supported by current PP chairwoman Erica Yuen) to lose again.

- (Silentmajority.hk) In the New Territories East Legco-election, Edward Leung received 66,000 votes. Polls showed that 25% of these were People Power/League of Social Democrats supporters, 19% were Civic Party supporters and 38% supported other political parties.

- (Wen Wei Po) Chan Wai-yip (People Power) is going to give up his incumbent position to make way for Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats) not because he is generous but because he stands no chance of re-election. By yielding his own slot in New Territories West and also supporting Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats) in Kowloon West, Chan Wai-yip will secure the support of League of Social Democrats for three People Power candidates: Chan Chi-chuen (New Territories East), Tam Tak-chi (Kowloon East) and Lau Ka-hung (Hong Kong Island). Without this deal, neither party won't be able to field strong enough candidates in all five districts.

(Wen Wei Po) June 12, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front recently held a press conference about the July 1st demonstration march. They plan to set off from Victoria Park at 3pm and arrive on the east side of Government Headquarters to demand the resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung, implement a universal retirement plan, etc. They estimated that 100,000 will attend.

However, it is common knowledge that the point is not about the number of marchers but the amount of donations to be raised.

Youngspiration convenor Baggio Wong said that they disagree with the themes of the July 1st march. So they won't participate in the march. However, they will set up booths along the march route "in order to reach more citizens who want freedom and democracy." Youngspiration had made the decision not to apply to the Civil Human Rights Front to set up these booths.

Traditionally, the pan-democratic groups that solicit donations at the July 1st demonstration automatically hand over a portion of their proceeds to the organizer Civil Human Rights Front. Since Youngspiration has stated that they won't apply, it naturally means that they won't share any of their proceeds. Civil Human Rights Front convener Jimmy Sham said: "If you don't agree with the Front's demands or platforms, why do you still want to set up street booths during the march? I find this incomprehensible."

- Youngspiration is telling people not to participate, but they are nevertheless trying to rake in money along the march route.

- In the past, the older people who want to rake in money also participate in the march. Now the younger people don't even want to pretend to march. They just set up a booth to take your money!

- Youngspiration will talk about youth and aspiration, but in the final analysis all they want is $$$$$$$!!!

- The Civil Human Rights Front is being petty-minded! Look, there's plenty of money out there to be shared by everyone. There is no need to attack each other.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2016.

Yesterday the Electoral Affairs Commission held a public forum  in Quarry Bay on the proposed guidelines on election-related activities in respect of the Chief Executive election. For the first 90 minutes, the meeting was conducted on an orderly basis.

Then "Supersonic Mouse" Cheng Kam-kun (Civic Passion) said during the question session that this forum was just a show because at most 1,200 can vote in this Chief Executive election. "You feel very good, don't you?" Cheng said that he will be pushing for a de facto referendum in the Legislative Council in order to come up with a people's constitution. Cheng attempted to get on stage and charge at EAC chairman Barnabas Fung but he was intercepted by security guards. Cheng continued the shouting and said that this public forum must be terminated because the people of Hong Kong cannot vote in the Chief Executive election. He called on others to leave. He and his Civic Passion colleagues led the way by removing the chairs. However, nobody else listened to their call. Eventually the security guards removed the Civic Passion, who tried many times to charge back into the meeting hall. Some citizens left because it was too chaotic and disorderly. Barnabas Fung said that the commission deplored those who disrupted the meeting and deprived other citizens their right to express their opinions.

Oscar Lai Man Lok

Please circulate broadly: We do not want a 'time bomb' by our side!

Hong Kong does not want another building collapse in the manner of City University.

In 2008, the Transportation and Housing Bureau reported that Block 22 of the Tung Tau Estate on Ngai Chin Wai Road requires a large-scale maintenance work. However, the effectiveness of maintenance/repair is less than rebuilding, so the Bureau decided to demolish the Estate.

During the construction period, I went with our Kowloon East team to the construction site. As soon we stepped into Tung Tau Estate, the sound of the pile drivers were deafening. We walked along the path that Estate residents must travel through every day, and the sound of the pile drivers was even more stunning. As we approached the construction side, we felt the mountains shake and earth move while the trees were shaking. We put a key on a railing outside the construction site and attempted to gauge how the construction work is impacting local residents. The video showed that the key vibrating each time that the pile was driven. This demonstrated how much noise the Tung Tau Estate residents have to endure every day. Although the key is small, the construction activity must affect the nearby buildings and the foundation of the entire Tung Tau Estate. We don't want to see Hong Kong have any building collapse in the manner of City University. Besides, the Po Yan Oblate Primary School is located less than one meter away from the construction site, so it will have a huge impact on primary school students. Who can ensure attending class eight hours a day next to a construction site?

We want every resident to monitor the construction activity with us, and minimize the impact of the construction work on residents. If you have any questions or complaints, you can call the company.

Sze Tat Chau

You blokes can make people laugh to death! Brother, how detached are you from reality? Have you never seen pile drivers before? Do you need to place a key on a railing to see if it vibrates or not? How can pile driving affect the foundation of other buildings? Professional experts are monitoring everything, stupid dick! Besides, the building collapse at City University had nothing to do with the foundation. Somehow you mix it up as the same thing. Please, if you don't know something, go ask somebody who does. You just expose your own shortcomings all the time and rant!

Oscar Lai Man Lok went and deleted his post without explanation.

Sze Tat Chau

Oscar Lai, it won't do you any good to delete your post. Stupid things should be remembered forever, and this screen capture will be kept forever. You will never escape from my grasp.

(Wen Wei Po) June 10, 2016.

Oscar Lai Man Lok removed his Tung Tau Estate (I) post shortly afterwards. Then he posted another one:

During the hot Dragon Boat Festival, apart from the dragon boats that are dancing in the water and congratulating each other for happiness during the Dragon Boat Festival, the traditional food of glutinous rice dumpling should not be omitted. This dumpling is not the dumpling as in "snake banquet, vegetarian meal, moon cake and glutinous rice dumpling," but it is a homemade glutinous rice dumpling made by ordinary people.

Once again, Internet user Sze Tat Chau jumped to make fun of him

If Demosisto screwed up again, they should have taken it. However, they are beyond reasoning and they made innumerable denunciations to Facebook which removed Sze Tat Chau's post and banned him for 24 hours.

Sze Tat Chau posted at an alternate Facebook account: "This is not the first time that Facebook favored Demosisto. First, Facebook helped them merge all their pages. This is highly suspicious. Now for the past two days they have been continuously removing information that is critical of Demosisto, even banning Sze Tat Chau. This is just violent action that represents online hegemony, suppression of freedom of expression and violation of democratic principles. Demosisto, do not be proud because your chance of success is zero!"

Sze Tat Chau added: "What use is it to suppress freedom of expression? If I don't fucking ambush you until you fold, I might as well as adopt your family name." The Demosisto also denounced that post, which was also removed by Facebook.

Sze Tat Chau continued: "Demosisto claimed to be fighting for a city of self-determination, but they use violent methods (banning, censorship, deprivation of freedom of expression) to suppress all dissidents. You may be able to co-opt the Facebook administrator but you will never win public support because you don't deserve this! During normal times, you say 'Although I disagree with your viewpoints, I will defend your right to say it to my death!" All that is fake! Once I got you in your weak spot, you immediately got me banned. You can't ban me forever. I will be back in 22 hours. You fucking bastards can forget it!"


So what was funny about the Magnet Man's post on the Dragon Boat Festival. Everything!

「炎炎熱熱的端午節」(The scorching blazing searing hot Dragon Boat Festival) Isn't it enough to say 'this hot Dragon Boat Festival'? Writing out "scorching blazing searing hot" only appears in essays composed by primary school students.

- No, Oscar Lai is extending what the poetess Li Qingzhao (1081-1151?) wrote: 「尋尋覓覓, 冷冷清清, 淒淒慘慘戚戚」(I seek and seek, I search and search -- in vain! It's cold, it's cold! Am so lonely, lonely! I am in pain, in pain! ) into  「炎炎熱熱,尋尋覓覓, 冷冷清清, 淒淒慘慘戚戚」. In this case, Oscar Lai is suffering from 炎 (infection) and 熱(fever), so he is feeling cold, lonely and in pain.

「水中起舞的龍舟」(The dragon boats which were dancing in the waters) Do you see the dragon boats dancing in the waters? Has Oscar Lai ever seen a dragon boat competition (live or televised)? Do they dance when they race?

「互相祝福端午節快樂」(Wishing each other a happy Dragon Boat Festival) For as long as I have lived, I have never wished anyone a happy Dragon Boat Festival nor have I ever heard anyone ever say that to me. You wish each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. And Happy Birthday too. You do not wish people a happy Dragon Boat Festival, Mid-Autumn Festival, Ching Ming Festival, Chung Yeung Festival, Buddha's Birthday, etc.

「糉這個傳統食物也總會令人透心涼」(The traditional food of glutinous rice dumpling generally makes people cool down inside) Hey brother, you store the dumping in the refrigerator first because it may rot in hot weather. When you want to eat it, you take it out the refrigerator and put it into a pot of boiling water for several minutes. If you serve it immediately, it will be hot. If you lay it on the table and wait a while before eating it, it will be at room temperature. Either way, it won't "cool you down inside."

P.S. 「透心涼」has many other meanings none of which you really want to apply here.
(Baike.Baidu.com) (1) A fruit drink concocted from egg yolk, orange juice, lemon and cherries; (2) a bottled drink concocted from water, sugar and dye materials favored by school children in smaller Chinese cities during the 1990's; (3) to become thoroughly disheartened; (4) Schadenfreude, taking delight in the misfortune of others; (5) using a sharp knife to make a clear and precise stab through the heart.

P.P.S. Even Oscar Lai knew that this was indefensible, so he quietly edited this post into saying "the traditional glutinous rice dumpling is an indispensable part of this festival." No acknowledgement about the previous problems, of course.

Other comments:

- ("Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) I support Sze Tat Chau and I support freedom of speech! ... If you have something to say, send me a personal message (pm) and I will post it for you. Defend freedom of speech!

- Demosisto, give up. This is really appalling. If you want to come out and run for election, you ought to have some tolerance for criticisms.

- So Demosisto defends freedom of speech while they report their critics to silence them. Freedom and democracy are so wonderful. Civic society is so wonderful. Marvelous! I have learned something.

- If you can't tolerate dissidence, how can you fight for democracy?

- We must circulate the stories about their dirty tricks so that more people will know. Whenever Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai, Agnes Chow and Nathan Law lose an argument, they resort to dirty tricks. They should go and eat shit!

- Demosisto ... they suppress dissidents.

- They are not in charge yet and they are already like this. What will happen if they ever take charge?

- Whenever they don't like something that they hear, they immediately stop people. What happens if they ever become Legislators? They will be the only ones allowed to speak.

- I detest the bum Joshua Wong. He is only interested in finding ways to take in more money. As soon as he hears something that he dislikes, he files a complaint to the authorities. This is not a person who can be entrusted to achieve great things! He is an enemy of Democracy.

- The Demosisto people are feebleminded. They screw up with what they do, they screw up with what they write. But when they screw up and someone else point this out, they immediately fucking rush to complain to the Facebook administrator! This is suppression of freedom! They can all go and eat shit!

- A better strategy for Demosisto is to get Oscar Lai to screw up fucking less often! That will mean less opportunity for Sze Tat Chau to make fun of him.

- If they delete one post, we will re-post it ten more times. Let us see how many Facebook accounts can Demosisto complain against?

- Demosisto hoists the banner of democracy high ... but when someone makes a screen capture and makes a comment, they immediately launch a campaign to complain. You guys can go and eat shit! Double fucking standards!

(Wen Wei Po) June 11, 2016.

According to the Demosisto web page, they received donations of almost $390,000 coming from 354 persons on June 4th outside Victoria Park. But earlier Demosisto president Nathan Law said that they received $450,000. It is possible that they have got even more when people sent checks care of Wong Chi Fung. So Internet user Sze Tat Chau wanted to know: "How much money did you receive in total?"

Sze Tat Chau noted that Demosisto promised on Facebook that they will normally reply within 10 minutes. But many 10 minutes later, Demosisto still has no response. Other Internet users went to the personal Facebooks of Nathan Law, Oscar Lai and Joshua Wong. But they didn't get any response either, with some of those comments being deleted too.

Internet comments:

- Oscar Lai's Magnet Man gig is wearing thin, so he needs something more substantive for his Legislative Council campaign. This debacle isn't going to help.

- Pile driving has been fucking banned a long time ago already. Nowadays, they use drill holes and then insert the piles. How can the mountains fucking shake and the earth fucking move? All construction projects have permits that allow them to drill only certain hours of the day. All data (noise levels, settlement displacement, groundwater level, etc) goes to the independent project consultant every day. So it goes to fucking show that you are fucking ignorant!

It is fucking alright for you not to fucking know something. But the City University case was one in which they build a green garden on a roof that was not designed to handle the extra load. It had fucking nothing to do any foundation problem. If you want to stop the next City University incident, you should be checking all the green rooftops around Hong Kong for safety. You are fucking wasting your time if you want to fucking check all the building foundations!

That is why I say that trash tend to get together -- Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Nathan Law, Oscar Lai. These people fucking know nothing but they are still full of confidence enough to spout all sorts of nonsense. The only reason why people were tolerant before was that they saw that you were only middle school students.

So please don't go around now saying The People of Hong  Kong this, or The People of Hong Kong that. Will you fucking wake up already!?

- Hong Kong buildings can withstand earthquakes of Richter scale 5 or 6. How is construction activity going to be more intense than an earthquake?

- Oscar Lai said that he and his entire Kowloon East team went down to Tung Tau Estate (I). This shows that there is not a single person with commonsense in Demosisto Kowloon East. What is commonsense? All you have to do is walk up to the entrance of the construction site and you will find all the required permits posted publicly (including the hours of operations, number of accidents, etc).

Here is one of those permits:

... Hard-impact pile driving can be conducted 1230pm-115pm and 430pm-645pm on days other than public holidays. So please stop this nonsense about primary school children putting up with 8 hours of mountain-moving, earth-shaking piling driving each day!

- Maybe a construction permit is too complicated for Oscar Lai to understand, but how about this press release dated January 14, 2008?

(Hong Kong Government) Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 to be cleared in 2012. January 15, 2008.

The Housing Authority's (HA) Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) today (January 15) approved a proposal to clear the 43-year-old Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 in Wong Tai Sin in 2012.

     The decision was made after carefully weighing up the structural conditions and the financial viability of further extending the lifespan of the block.

     Although a comprehensive recently completed structural investigation concludes that the Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 is structurally safe, large-scale repair works are required in order to sustain the serviceable lifespan of the building for the next 15 years," an authority spokesman said. "The necessary repair works, estimated at about $46 million, are not cost effective, not to mention the extensive nuisance and disturbance to be borne by the affected tenants.


      He said the Po Yan Catholic Primary School which is connected to Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 would be retained. The school is structurally sound and the school as well as parents welcomed the proposed retention arrangement.

     To ensure that the school is operated under a safe and less-disturbing environment during the redevelopment period, a liaison group consisting of representatives from the school, Education Bureau and Housing Department will be formed. Hydraulic concrete crusher demolition method and non-percussive piling method will be used to mitigate noise emissions.  Dust suppression devices will also be adopted to minimise air pollution at the school.

- Oscar Lai scored the lowest possible Level 1 in English language during the Diploma of Secondary Education exam. In his defense, people say that he is simply not good with languages. The problem being revealed now is that his problem is not language learning, but commonsense thinking!

- It is true that you don't need to have pilings in order to erect a tall building. They do it right next door to Hong Kong. Remember this?

- Of course, the Demosisto folks are still in their early 20's, so they have never seen what real pile drivers can do back in the 1960's and 1970's.

- Other Demosisto inanity:

(1) Support Denise Ho
(2) Support elimination of animal testing
(3) Decide to quit using Lanme

I am fine with (1) and (2)  because it is just some harmless clicking on Facebook as opposed to real action or you asking me for even more money. (3) is really easy for me, because I have never heard of Lanme before and I solemnly promise that I won't use it in the future.

By the way, you bastards can't even type a few words without mistakes!

- Even more Demosisto inanity:

Nathan Law

Chinese University of Hong Kong student needs a heart transplant urgently.

The degree of civilization for a society is a function of how its people value life. There is a young person who loves life but urgently needs a heart transplant. He has at most six months left to wait. If within these six months, another person sends it a donor card, he will have one more chance. Are you willing to lend a helping hand?

Sze Tat Chau

Is he actually crazy? Each person has one and only one heart. One cannot donate one's heart and still live. "If within these six months, another person sends in a donor card, he will have one more chance." What does that mean? Does he want the registered person to die within six months?

P.S. The CUHK student found a donor and Joshua Wong applauded the good news. This drew another round of criticisms for lack of sensitivity because this is surely not good news for the donor and her family.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 11, 2016.

Demosisto has just updated their Facebook with this portrait of Nathan Law and Oscar Lai singing to "Determine Our Future." This is ripped straight off Sonic Youth's <Goo> album cover. A media consultant said: "I know that many people have done spoofs of this cover, but Demosisto is a political party. So what is the point? Is this a spoof, tribute or ripoff?" An Internet user wrote: "Certain idealistic young people often talk about grand things on stage, but they actually carry out all manners of sneaky things. Character is important, but it takes time to discern it. I hope that people won't be conned by their appearances."

- This is Standard Operating Procedure to Demosisto. Their logo comes straight from the Barcelona Gallery Weekend.

- (Kinliu) June 17, 2016

Yesterday around 3pm, Joshua Wong posted a photo taken of a notice posted in the restroom of Demosisto.


To all those people with penises, you have three choices:

(1) You lift up the toilet seat when you urinate
(2) You sit down first and then you urinate
(3) If you wet the toilet seat, you lick it clean


- Why not all? Just imagine: (1) You lift up the toilet seat; (2) you sit down on the ceramic base and then you urinate; (Hey, that's kind of harsh (especially in winter), isn't it?); (3) you lick the toilet seat clean (but not the ceramic base which you soiled).

(HK01) June 5, 2016.

Recently mainland media reported that Denise Ho was invited by the cosmetics brand Lancme and the mouthwash brand Listerine to do commercials and promotions. Mainland media said that Denise Ho is publicly supporting Hong Kong independence and carries a photo of her with the Dalai Lama at her Facebook. Mainland media said that the commercials and promotions are done for Hong Kong only, but Lancme and Listerine are also operating in mainland China. So this becomes a case of the companies making money off mainland consumers to give to an entertainer to support Hong Kong independence!

So far Lancme has issued an official statement that Denise Ho is not their spokesperson and they apologize for any misunderstanding. Listerine said that Denise Ho is only participating in promotions in Hong Kong. Meanwhile mainland Internet users say: "Chinese traitors usually betray their country for economic reasons" and "There should be a civil organization to mobilize everybody to denounce those businesses and entertainers who take our money and use it against us."

(Global Times) June 6, 2016.

Net users from the Chinese mainland began an online boycott of L'Oreal and Listerine products on Saturday over the two companies' alleged commercial ties with controversial Hong Kong singer Denise Ho Wan-see.

Lancome, a brand of beauty products manufactured by L'Oreal, met with substantial criticism on the mainland's social media on Saturday after Ho posted Thursday on Facebook that she would attend a promotional event for the brand in Hong Kong on June 19.

Many Sina Weibo netizens voiced their anger over the company's commercial connection with Ho, who they claim constantly makes "inappropriate and unpleasant" remarks about the mainland on Facebook.

On Saturday evening, Lancome issued a statement on Weibo that Ho is not a spokesperson for the brand. The statement had received over 550,000 page views as of press time. Netizens urged Lancome to issue the statement on Facebook in addition to Sina Weibo and requested that the brand ask Ho not to attend the promotion.

A similar statement made on the official Facebook account of the brand's Hong Kong branch on Sunday clarified that Ho was simply invited to share her music at the event.

Listerine, a maker of mouthwash and other dental hygiene products, also came under fire for its relationship with Ho after a Listerine ad featuring the singer went viral Saturday.

It is not the first time that the Hong Kong singer has triggered controversy in the mainland.

On May 13, Ho posted pictures of her meeting with the 14th Dalai Lama in Japan on Facebook, calling it a "happy moment," a move that incurred widespread criticism on the mainland's social media. Ho also announced in January that she would close her online shop on Chinese e-commerce platform taobao.com, claiming to follow the actions of Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing, who reportedly began pulling investment funds out of the Chinese mainland in September 2015. Li's company denied the divestment accusations later that month, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Several other Hong Kong celebrities have been the subject of recent boycotts by Chinese Net users for remarks and actions deemed politically "inappropriate" after the Occupy Central movement. In January, Wong Hei, former star of several TV series produced by Hong Kong's TVB, irritated mainland Net users for reportedly posting "inappropriate" content on Hong Kong-mainland ties on Facebook. Wong's face was later blurred out in a reality TV show aired by State-run broadcaster China Central Television. Later that month, a Facebook sticker fight flared up between Net users from the mainland and Taiwan over the former's boycott of reportedly pro-Taiwan-independence singer Chou Tzu-yu. Both Wong and Chou later apologized for their actions.

In February, L'Oreal said that China had outstripped the brand's home base, France, to become its second-largest market in 2015, up from third in 2010.

(SCMP) June 4, 2016.

The cosmetics giant Lancome has cancelled the promotional concert that would have featured Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-see. The firm had moved to distance itself from the singer, prompting an internet backlash.

A short statement posted on Lancomes Facebook page on Sunday afternoon read: Hong Kong actress Denise Ho is not a spokesperson of Lancome. We are sorry for the confusion caused. Thank you for your continuous support to Lancome.

The company had invited Ho to host a mini-concert at a promotion event in Sheung Wan on June 19. The event, which was free of charge, was fully booked. The promotions website only confirmed there would be a concert that afternoon, without naming any singer. It is not known whether Ho sought the companys consent before announcing that she was the performer.

The statement drew a huge backlash on Facebook, with more than 10,000 angry reactions received after just five hours, compared with fewer than 500 likes. Many called on others to boycott Lancome products, while others questioned if the company ever had the Hong Kong market in mind.

Some felt the move was prompted by a Weibo post by Beijing newspaper Global Times on Saturday. We have received tip-offs from netizens that Listerine and Lancome, both popular brands on the mainland, have recently invited Denise Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products in Hong Kong. What do you guys think? the post read. Most comments on Weibo condemned the brands. A comment which read There have been precedents either you apologise and replace the spokesperson, or you can quit the mainland market drew more than 1,200 likes.

Lancome announced at 10pm on Sunday night that the event had been cancelled, citing possible safety reasons, and apologised to its supporters. However, the announcement failed to please internet users, with more than 1,000 angry reactions being posted in less than half an hour.

Ho, who is well-known for her pro-democracy stance, could not be reached for comment.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 6, 2016.

International cosmetic giant Lancme cancelled a mini-concert that was to be performed by outspoken pro-democracy Canto-pop celebrity Denise Ho Wan-see on Sunday night. The company said that it was due to possible safety reasons. Prior to the announcement, Chinese netizens called for a boycott of Lancme, as well as popular mouthwash brand Listerine, for allowing Ho to represent their products.

Lancme also issued a statement saying that Hong Kong actress Denise Ho is not a spokesperson of LANCME on Sunday afternoon before the cancellation.

The boycott campaign was sparked by Chinese state media outlet Global Times, which posted a Weibo post on Saturday morning saying that according to a source, Listerine and Lancme had hired Denise Ho, who was pro-Hong Kong independence and pro-Tibetan independence, for promotional events. You pick your own spokesperson, get out of the Chinese market crying yourself, read one of the most liked comments on the Weibo post.

Lancmes announcement of the decision to cancel the event has attracted 17,000 angry likes as of Monday morning. Netizen Winnie Leung commented on the post, saying The event was cancelled due to safety issues? Are you kidding me? Being a marketing professional, I would say this incidence is definitely a good example of what we called PR disaster.

Listerine continued with Ho as their official face and some commentators noted the difference in approach between the two firms. Grateful thanks to you guys. You are not like the other brand, which has no courage, no guts and no stance, wrote Joel Chow. Ho told Ming Pao through her assistant on Sunday that as she was not in Hong Kong she had not understood the beginnings and ends of the incident. She will release a statement on Monday. The concert was to be performed on June 19 and details of the event remain on Hos personal page on Facebook as of Monday morning.

Ho was a prominent supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy movement in 2014. She was allegedly banned from performing in the mainland after voicing support for protesters in the movement.

- (Quartz) Lancme is self-censoring outside mainland China to keep Beijing happy. June 6, 2016.

Lancome, the global cosmetic brand owned by LOreal, canceled a Hong Kong event with a pro-democracy singer, after a Chinese state newspaper complained online. The company is now facing a boycott in Hong Kong.

On late Sunday night (June 5), Lancome abruptly decided to cancel a musical performance by Denise Ho and others it was sponsoring in the neighborhood of Sheung Wan, citing safety reasons. Ho is one of a handful of outspoken Hong Kong celebrities who openly supports democracyand was the first to be arrested during the 2014 Umbrella Movement protests.


As of Monday morning, nearly 25,000 Hong Kong supporters had posted angry emoticons on Lancomes Facebook page, and left a rich variety of comments and photos. Many also called for a boycott of the brandHong Kong musician Ivana Wong wrote Lancome Bye Bye on her social media page.

Sales in China are a huge part of LOreals business. According to LOreals 2015 annual report (pdf), sales in the Asia-Pacific region were up 19.7% and accounted for nearly 23% of the total. It did not break down mainland Chinas contribution, but said the Consumer Products Division is benefiting from good performances in India, Australia and Thailand, and from LOral Paris, particularly in China. What about Hong Kong? The report described it as a difficult market.

Meanwhile, Listerine has yet to respond to the Global Times post and continues to use Ho in its Facebook cover photo. Many netizens in Hong Kong have vowed to include Listerine mouthwash in their daily dental cleansing routine.

(SCMP) June 6, 2016.

Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze has urged cosmetics giant Lancome to explain why a promotional concert was cancelled after mainland internet users criticised her for her political stance. The company had invited Ho to host a mini-concert at a promotion event in Sheung Wan on June 19. The event, which was free of charge, was fully booked.

But a day after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused Lancome on Weibo for inviting Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products, Lancome clarified on Sunday that Ho was not the brands spokeswoman and called off the concert, citing possible safety reasons.

The incident highlighted the Hong Kong markets relative insignificance in the cosmetics industry compared with the mainland. A pro-business lawmaker also said it showed international investors could be discouraged from doing business in Hong Kong if it remained politically divided.

Ho is well-known for her pro-democracy stance. She was blacklisted by mainland media along with singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming and actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang, who also support democracy.

Ho issued a statement on Facebook on Monday afternoon, criticising Lancome for seriously misleading the public and tarnishing my personal reputation with their statements on Sunday. I understood that the decision was made by the brands head office in France, and I urge it to come clean on the decision, to clear my name and give the public a reasonable explanation, she said. The worlds values have been seriously twisted when we face punishment for seeking freedom, justice and equality, and we must face the problem when an international brand like Lancome is kneeling down in the face of this bullying hegemony, she said.

A spokeswoman for LOreal Hong Kong, which supervises the Lancome brand as well as Shu Uemura, Kiehls and the Body Shop , said the company has nothing to add. Listerine, of whom Ho is a spokeswoman, did not respond to the Posts inquiries on Monday.

Joseph Ho Shiu-chung, president of the Cosmetic and Perfumery Association of Hong Kong, said that mainland tourists usually accounted for 60 per cent of business for cosmetics brands in Hong Kong in recent years, while local customers took 40 per cent. The incident showed that many mainland people misunderstood the views of some Hongkongers ... and businesspeople have to be cautious, especially on social media, he said.

Felix Chung Kwok-pan, chairman of the pro-business Liberal Party, said the controversy showed that foreign investors could be discouraged from doing business in Hong Kong if their decisions could be slammed by critics from both sides of the political spectrum. When companies think of where to invest ... they could go to Singapore or stay on the mainland, as it could be more stable there, Chung said.

According to LOreals annual report last year, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 36 per cent of the global cosmetics market. LOreal described Hong Kong as a difficult market, and while China was a new market that experienced a slowdown last year, the groups e-commerce platform and Lancome performed strongly there. The group also runs a research and innovation centre in Shanghai. LOreals spokesman in Paris could not be reached for comment.

The storm surrounding Lancome and Ho erupted on Saturday after mainland newspaper Global Times said on Weibo: We have received tip-offs from netizens that Listerine and Lancome, both popular brands on the mainland, have recently invited Denise Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products. It was referring to Hos meeting with the Dalai Lama on her birthday last month. On May 13, Ho posted pictures of herself and Tibets exiled spiritual leader on her Facebook page, writing: He is a sublime venerable; a loving grandpa, she wrote.

The newspapers post prompted a barrage of criticism against Lancome, while some internet users from the mainland criticised Ho on her Facebook page. One of them, Luo Xuan, said: I dont want to spend a dime on separating my country. On Sunday, Lancome clarified on Facebook that Ho was not the brands spokesperson, and announced that the concert had been cancelled, citing possible safety reasons.

Many internet users, apparently from Hong Kong, called on others to boycott Lancome products. Internet user Maria Wong wrote: If u think there is an issue about the safety in HK. Go merchandise somewhere else but HK. Leave Hong Kong market.

(Global Times) June 7, 2017.

Hong Kong entertainer Denise Ho has hit the headlines recently. After she announced last week that she would be performing at a concert organized by French cosmetics giant Lancme, mainland netizens launched a boycott of the brand.

Ho was one of the most prominent activists during the 2014 Hong Kong Occupy Central Movement. Mainland netizens then began to boycott her and her harsh response further enraged the mainland public. Last month, she posted her photos with the Dalai Lama on Facebook, writing "I could feel the blessing and energy rushing through my body just by holding his hands." The disagreement between her and mainland opinion is deepening.

Lancme responded fast by releasing a statement saying Ho was not a spokesperson for the brand and canceled the planned concert, citing "safety reasons." But the real reason is self-explanatory.

Some Hongkongers slammed Lancme for groveling to the mainland and vowed to resist the products of Lancme and parent company L'Oreal. It seems that Ho has pushed Lancme into a dilemma. Apparently Lancme has given more consideration to the sentiment of the mainland public, because the mainland boasts a much larger market than Hong Kong. As a commercial company, it is bound to seek commercial gains, a wisdom it is supposed to have under complex situations. No big companies would like to step into politics as the high stakes have already been proved by previous cases.

Entertainers often stay away from politics. The more successful they are, the more they are mindful not to cross the line. But there are a few who want to seek the spotlight by touching politically sensitive issues.

Ho's high-profile stance in the Occupy Central protests won her some support within Hong Kong. However, she has lost virtually all of her work on the mainland and became the target of censure by mainland netizens of celebrities who support Hong Kong independence or Taiwan independence.

But some Hongkongers also called for a boycott of pro-mainland entertainers such as Jackie Chan. Such incidents now often occur on the mainland Internet. Ho's fierce political stance makes her an unavoidable target of netizens. Perhaps she has prepared for it or even calculated the losses and gains.

The mainland public has realized that they are an influential market force. They will be picky about external celebrities who count on China for business while tarnishing China's image. If they want to gain from the market of the Chinese mainland, they must not harm China's national interests, no matter if they are in or outside China.

(EJ Insight) What the Lancme-Denise Ho controversy tells us. By SC Yeung. June 7, 2016.

Lancmes move to cancel a Hong Kong promotional event featuring Canto-pop star Denise Ho is another example of how foreign brands cave in easily to perceived pressures from Beijing.

The French cosmetics brand announced Sunday that it has scrapped an event scheduled for June 19 due to possible safety reasons.

The statement gave no details, but it is not difficult to fathom the motive behind the decision the company just doesnt want to put its mainland China business at any risk.

As Ho is a pro-democracy sympathizer and had in 2014 voiced support for the Occupy movement, there had been calls in the mainland for a boycott of brands that she was associated with.

Over the weekend, Chinas Global Times lashed out at Lancme, saying that it was patronizing an artist who was known for pro-Hong Kong and Tibetan independence leanings.

The company is using the money it earns from mainland consumers to give a platform to someone who acts against the interests of China, the newspaper suggested in a Weibo post.

Following the criticism and several adverse comments in mainland online forums, Lancme stressed on its Facebook page Sunday that Ho is not its spokesperson.

The remarks and the event cancellation make it clear that the French brand and its parent firm LOral are trying to distance themselves from Ho as they doesnt want to antagonize mainland consumers.

Also, that will help it stay on the right side of Beijing, something that is crucial if the group wants to grow its business in China.

Ho is among a handful of Hong Kong celebrities who have openly supported the citys democracy movement. During the 2014 Umbrella Movement, the pop star courted arrest for a while.

In Global Times Weibo post Saturday, Ho was described as poison of Hong Kong.

The post drew thousands of likes from mainland netizens and triggered fresh calls for boycott of the brands the unpatriotic artist was promoting.

This obviously rattled Lancme, prompting it to issue a statement quickly.

On Monday, Ho called on the French firm to provide a clear explanation on the reason for the event cancellation.

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about those precious universal values that every individual yearns for, she said in a statement.

This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be basic human rights.

Accusing the French firm of kneeling down in the face of a bullying hegemony, Ho urged the group to come clean on its decision and to clear her name.

From an outsiders perspective, the latest incident is further proof of Chinas growing intolerance against creative artists who stand up against Beijing on issues such as democracy and human rights.

Ho is the latest in a long line of overseas celebrities who have faced bullying from the Communist regime across the border due to political reasons.

Some artists have been informally blacklisted by Beijing, while some have seen their concerts in the mainland drastically limited often after complaints by Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong.

If you want to make money in China, refrain from speaking about sensitive political issues this is the message going out to performing artists like singers and actors.

Commercial entities or brands that associate themselves with problematic artists will also face the heat, as Lancme has discovered.

In the end, it is up to individual firms to decide how to respond to any threats and intimidation from China.

Are you willing to stand up for what you believe is right, or would you let commercial considerations override everything else? This is the choice facing overseas brands.

It is worth noting that while Lancme has backtracked on its association with Ho, another foreign brand with which the artist is associated Listerine has shown spine despite also facing boycott calls in China.

The mouthwash product launched its latest Bring out the bold global branding campaign in late May, with Ho as its spokesperson.

Despite being called out by Global Times, Listerine is continuing its promotional campaigns featuring Ho.

The courage shown by the Johnson & Johnson brand has been applauded by many netizens, going by the comments in online forums.

Ho is, in fact, a good ambassador for the Bring out the bold campaign, given the singers track record of courage which saw her come out and declare her homosexuality in the past, as well as stand up and be counted among the pro-democracy sympathizers in Hong Kong.

Amid the controversy surrounding Lancme, the artist has raised some important issues for brands operating in the Greater China market.

If we stop self-censoring out of fear and start respecting ourselves and others based on good honest work, we could all be freer, Ho said.

It is about freedom and justice. Because the reality is that if we opt to stay mute and do nothing, the freedoms would all be stripped away from us before we notice.

It is a message that most Hong Kong people would agree with.

- (SCMP) June 8, 2016.

Several cosmetic brands under the LOreal group have closed their stores in shopping malls and department stores across the city, hours before a planned protest against Lancomes decision to cancel a concert amid criticism from mainland China.

Lancomes booth at Lane Crawford, Times Square was the target of the Wednesday afternoon protest initiated by the League of Social Democrats and seven other groups, after the brand cancelled a concert involving Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze.

The Post found that the Lancome, Yves Saint Laurent Beaut and Helena Rubinsteins booths, as well as Shu Uemuras store at Times Square were all closed on Wednesday. All four brands are under the Paris-based LOreal group. A note was posted outside the Shu Uemura store, saying: Our store will be closed on 8 June. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Lancome counters in Sogo and Hysan Place in Causeway Bay were both closed, while those for other brands under LOreal, as Shu Uemura, were open. The Sogo information desk said the Lancome counter would not open on Wednesday, but they had no knowledge of the reason for this. Other closed Lancome locations included the shop at Harbour City, Tsim Sha Tsui, and the store at Cityplaza, Taikoo Shing.

Lancome had invited the singer to host a mini-concert in Hong Kong on June 19, but abruptly called off the event on Sunday after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused it of inviting a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote products while mainland internet users threatened to boycott the brand.

However, after Lancome cancelled the concert citing possible safety reasons, Hong Kong internet users and political activists also vowed to boycott all brands under the LOreal group, including Lancome, Shu Uemura, Kiehls and the Body Shop.

Meanwhile, Ho said Lancome should stand firm on its core values and moral standards.

The singer was speaking up for the first time in a live interview with the BBC on Tuesday night, hours after Global Times argued in its editorial that people should not do things that jeopardise Chinas interest if they were to take part in and benefit from the Chinese market.

Ho was among more than 200 people arrested as the pro-democracy Occupy protests ended in December 2014. She was blacklisted by mainland media along with singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming. Last month, Ho met the Dalai Lama, Tibets exiled spiritual leader, on her 39th birthday.

There have been at least two petitions launched to raise concerns about Lancomes controversial decision, including one initiated by the eight groups planning the protest and eight other local groups.

Another petition was launched on the change.com website by Beatrice Desgranges, believed to be a French citizen, for LOreal Hong Kongs president and managing director Stephen Mosely to reconsider the cancellation. By 10am on Wednesday, it had drawn about 4,200 supporters, 800 away from its target of 5,000.

Speaking to a BBC interviewer on Tuesday, Ho said she was shocked and saddened by Lancomes decision. As an international brand, it should stand firm on its core values and moral standards ... It is not just about making money, Ho said.

She had issued a statement on Monday urging Lancomes office in Paris to come clean on the decision.

LOreal Hong Kong and Paris could not be reached for comment.

(SCMP) Lancome has only itself to blame for public relations fiasco. By Alex Lo. June 8, 2016.

Lancome should have stuck with Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts and Emma Watson. Even Zhang Ziyi, Fan Bingbing and Gong Li would do. Sure, they all cost a lot more than Canto-pop singer and democracy activist Denise Ho Wan-sze. But the public backlash over the cosmetics giants cancellation of a free concert with Ho has probably inflicted far greater cost than jetting one of those superstars to Hong Kong.

The reputational damage is incalculable. Not only has the company suffered a backlash from Hong Kong netizens angry over its apparent kowtowing to Beijing, but the furore has become international news, covered even by The New York Times, the BBC and Le Monde.

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether a multinational like Lancome should have hired, or stayed away from, politically active stars like Ho, who also recently visited the Dalai Lama. If you want to be edgy and appeal to younger locals, you can probably do that. But if you want to stay on Beijings good side, you should definitely stay away.

Whats a definite no-no is to hire someone like Ho and then promptly ditch her after an official mainland newspaper complains. That not only makes you look spineless and unprincipled, it shows you are incompetent, which is more unforgivable in the corporate world.

Listerine has also hired Ho for some of its promotional campaigns, and it is sticking with her. Its been praised for showing courage in standing up to Beijing. I just think they know what they are doing.

The Lancome fiasco has created the perfect opportunity for Ho and her pan-democratic friends to raise hell.

Fourteen local political groups are campaigning against Lancome and its parent company, LOreal.

Ho has accused the French firm of kneeling down in the face of a bullying hegemony.

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about those precious universal values that every individual yearns for, she said in a statement.

This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be basic human rights.

Fine words and just about every international corporations nightmare.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 16, 2016.

International cosmetic brand Lancme has asked shops at Po Hing Fong, Sheung Wan, to return collaboration deposits after they controversially cancelled a concert in the area, Apple Daily has reported. The event scheduled for Sunday, which was to feature pro-democracy Canto-pop singer Denise Ho Wan-see, was axed in to safety reasons on June 5.

Prior to the controversial cancellation, state-backed Global Times linked Ho with Hong Kong and Tibetan independence movements on Weibo. The post led to netizens in the mainland calling for a boycott of the French brand. After the concert was scrapped, Lancme faced protests and boycotts in Hong Kong.

The manager of La Glaise Pottery surnamed Chan told the newspaper that Lancme had invited shops to participate in the event, asking them to place a sticker associated with the brand on shop windows. It paid a deposit for the collaboration prior to the concert, and Chan said she had also ordered 30 cups for a workshop related to the event. She said that Lancme called the shop to request a refund of the deposit but she refused because she found it unreasonable.

Alice, store owner of coffee shop 3rd Space also said she had already ordered a lot of food.

Pro-democracy Canto-pop singer Denise Ho Wan-see announced on Wednesday that she will hold a concert at the same location and on the same day. In her announcement, Ho said that the concert will be very safe: without politics, slogans, banners, no catchphrases, organisations, nor big companies and asked Hongkongers to use [their] own hands to open a path for themselves.

(EJ Insight) June 16, 2016.

Its now more than ten days since Lancme announced the cancellation of a promotional event featuring Cantopop artist and pro-democracy supporter Denise Ho, sparking a controversy. The French cosmetics brand cited security reasons for the abandoned Hong Kong gig, but most people believe the company chickened out due to perceived pressure from Beijing. The speculation is not off the mark, given that Ho was dumped soon after a mainland newspaper warned foreign firms against patronizing artists who may be supporting pro-independence groups.

As Lancme was deemed to have buckled under pressure, it came under much criticism and ridicule in Hong Kong and also faced some boycott calls. While is no escape from the negative press and unfavorable social media comments, the French brand has been hoping that the controversy will die down and that things will get back to normal.

Well, that may indeed happen, going by signs that peoples focus is shifting to other matters. After a few protests outside Lancme outlets last week, there has not been any follow-up action by citizens groups or political figures to demand a formal response from Lancme management. We need not be surprised if the whole matter fades from the publics mind in the coming weeks.

With the Legislative Council election just about three months away, people will turn their attention to the campaign issues and a debate over whether Leung Chun-ying should be allowed a second term in Hong Kongs top job next year. Also, we must bear in mind that the so-called localist groups in Hong Kong have remained largely indifferent to the Lancme-Denise Ho controversy. 

No localist group leader has come out in support of Ho, even though the singer has faced retribution from Beijing for supporting the 2014 Occupy pro-democracy protests. There seems to be strange ambivalence among some groups on what matters they will take up.

Meanwhile, political parties have been accused of trying to use the Ho issue for their own ends, rather than stand with the artist and help her get an official apology from Lancme. The sad truth is that most politicians have narrow agendas, focused only on issues that will yield electoral dividends and career benefits. As for the public, they have short attention spans, taking their mind from one issue to the other.

With Lancme staying mum and the company receding from newspaper headlines, peoples interest in the Denise Ho affair is already beginning to wane. 

That comes even as the Cantopop singer has reminded the public that she is still owed an apology from the French firm. On Tuesday, Ho announced that she will hold a concert and community event on June 19, the same date when she had been scheduled to perform for Lancme. The event, which will have freedom as its theme, will take place at the same location and time as the cancelled show.

In a statement on her official Facebook page, Ho invited people to respond to oppression and fear in Hong Kong using music and culture at the event which has been titled The Beauty of We. But she added that the show will feature no politics, no slogans, no banners, no catchphrases, no organizations, or big companies.

That suggests that even the singer wants to keep her problem with Lancme from getting politicized further. Given the realities in Hong Kong, we can only say that Ho is just being pragmatic.

Internet comments:

- Denise Ho made the announcement that she has gotten a job assignment for the first time since Occupy Central. Global Times mis-characterized her as being a spokesperson capacity for Lancme and Listerine. Lancme issued a correction and said that Ho is not a spokesperson. However, the mainland Chinese are not quibbling about being spokesperson or not; instead they don't want their money go to a separatist. Therefore Lancme canceled the event altogether.

- How significant was this 'concert' event? The cafe has a capacity of 50. Even if the organizers were to charge a HK$1,000 per head, the total receipts would only be HK$50,000. In this case, the organizers don't charge for this neighborhood event. So how much does Denise Ho expect to be paid? $10,000? $20,000?

- "Ho was a prominent supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy movement in 2014. She was allegedly banned from performing in the mainland after voicing support for protesters in the movement." Wrong on two counts.

Firstly, the Occupy movement in 2014 was not 'pro-democracy.' What kind of 'pro-democracy' movement is opposed by the majority of the population? If you are 'pro-democracy,' you should leave when 80% of the population tells you to go.

Secondly, there is no evidence that any Chinese government department (such as the Ministry of Culture) has ever issued bans against any of the so-called Yellow Ribbon entertainers (Denise Ho, Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, Anthony Wong Chau-sang, Chapman To, etc). Whenever these entertainers are invited to some event, there is a spontaneous consumer backlash that caused the event to be canceled. The Chinese consumers are exercising their individual freedom and that is what you want to see in a free society. After a while, the Yellow Ribbon entertainers don't get invited anymore because of the foreseeable consequences.

- Some Q&A's:

Q1. Do the mainland people have the right to like a singer or not?
A1. Yes

Q2. Do the mainland people have the right to like a product or not?
A2. Yes

Q3. Should the mainland people have the freedom of expression?
A3. Yes

So the mainland people disliked singer Denise Ho because she supports separatism, they won't buy any products that pay Ho and they are saying that this is what they are doing. What is wrong with this?

- Your answers are wrong in many ways. Here are the correct answers:

A1. The mainland people have the relative right to like a singer or not, but they are absolutely required to like those singers who support freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

A2. The mainland people have the relative right to buy a product or not, but they are absolutely required to buy products which support freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

A3. The mainland people have the relative freedom of expression, but they are forbidden to criticize anyone who supports freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

- (Quartz) Musician Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, who lost all his mainland gigs, last year described the way corporations have capitulated to Beijing as no different from spreading the white terror.

(SCMP) Wong, who was reportedly banned from the mainland along with Ho, said he was prepared to lose job opportunities across the border. Previously scheduled performances were cancelled. "But not getting even one job in Hong Kong is strange, and it is worrying," he said. Wong suspects that those who have business interests in the mainland are not hiring performers who had high-profile associations with the Occupy protests.

Same misleading statements here. Beijing did not force corporations to capitulate. No ministry is threatening to ban the corporations otherwise. The corporations listened to their customers.

LOral is a listed company with 78,600 employees in 2014. The company is a component of the Euro Stoxx 500 stock market index and has total revenue of 25.257 billion in 2015. It is in the business of making money (and possibly looking after its employees); it does not exist to promote freedom/democracy/human rights/rule of law/civil nomination/universal suffrage/universal values.

- Denise Ho used #Justice because her concert was canceled. What about the companies that went out of business or lost money during the Occupy Movement? Who is going to give them #Justice?

- Hong Kong is a capitalist society and all commercial disputes can be settled by contract law in civil court. When one side cancels a contract, the other side can sue for damages. But Denise Ho is not interested in any lawsuit; she wants a 'reasonable explanation' for what happened. When she says that the explanation must be reasonable, it means that it must match her pre-defined position or else it is not reasonable.

- Speaking of unreasonable explanations for terminating a business deal, how about this one? (Reuters) XpressWest, the private U.S. firm proposing to build a high-speed rail link between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, terminated a joint venture with Chinese companies ... the biggest challenge has been a federal funding requirement that high-speed trains be manufactured in the United States, even though no such trains are produced in the country.

- This is a huge public relations disaster for LOral. It all started because someone in Lancme Hong Kong booked Denise Ho for the Energizing Factory Event on June 19th. There are two theories about this decision. One theory is that the decision-maker is a Yellow Ribbon who wanted to continue the Umbrella Revolution using company resources. The other theory is that the decision-maker was truly ignorant of the foreseeable consequences, or thought that a Hong Kong music concert would have no impact elsewhere. Instead here is the mainland Chinese boycott list of all the brands of the LOral group:

- (HK01) June 9, 2016.

Is Denise Ho pro-Hong Kong independence? That depends on your definition of Hong Kong independence.

To some people, this means expressing and/or acting in support of Hong Kong independence, as in the case of Hong Kong Indigenous and the Hong Kong National Party. Based upon this definition, Denise Ho would not be such because she has never publicly expressed or acted in support of Hong Kong independence. Furthermore, the genuine pro-Hong Kong independence people ostracize Denise Ho because she is regarded as a "leftist retard" and "Greater China chauvinist."  For example, on the issue of June 4th, she supports the responsibility of the people of Hong Kong to promote democracy in China. So when Global Times called her pro-Hong Kong independence, both Denise Ho and the genuine supporters find it objectionable.

Yet, mainland Chinese standards are different. Some Chinese think that pro-Occupy Central means pro-independence; others think that all Hong Kong localists are pro-independence; still others think that saying "I am a Hongkonger" is sufficient to be pro-independence. Based upon these standards, Denise Ho would be pro-independence because she took part in Occupy Central in a high-profiled manner and she emphasized local values.

- It wouldn't matter. The point here is to make Denise Ho make an unequivocal statement to denounce Hong Kong independence. If she can't come out and say it, then she'll have to bear the consequences.

- Photo of Denise Ho being arrested during the clearance of Occupy Central and photo of Denise Ho with the Dalai Lama. Pictures are better than words.

- This is far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Here are two examples:

(July 8, 2009) The Body Shop Foundation announced funding of the International Tibet Support Network which is dedicated to campaigning non-violently to restore the rights that Tibetans lost when China occupied Tibet sixty years ago.

Note: Shortly after June 6, 2016, the above link was disappeared into an Error 404 message.

With the Chinese consumer backlash, the Body Shop International issued a statement of plausible deniability:

(China.com) May 1, 2008. I was strolling down Robson Street (Vancouver) and I wanted to buy some eye cream. The salesperson was very enthusiastic and recommended several. I went up to the cashier to pay. Suddenly my husband came up and told me to look at the wall on the left. I turned and saw this photo:

A man is holding the Tibetan flag of independence with the comments: To Kiehl's, Thanks you for your support, 1st Tibetan flag on the summit of Mt. Everest. With Best Wishes.

I looked at the photo for a while and I felt very upset. It was more than mere anger. I did not even respond to the salesperson. My husband asked me, "Do you really need this?" Of course not. Even if I never wear eye cream again, I would not use my money to support Tibetan independence! I turned around and told the salesperson that I didn't want the merchandise anymore. Then I left the shop.

The Body Shop and Kiehl's are both subsidiaries of L'Oreal, which is why the Lancme Hong Kong incident was so surprising. It is as if they have no inkling that this was going to happen.

- Everybody is waiting for the inside story of what happened at Lancme Hong Kong. How many people were fired?

- Denise Ho is callling out Lancme Hong Kong president Stephen Mosely to give an explanation to her and to the public. According to information, Mosely is on vacation. When he returns, he is scheduled to retire. So Denise Ho is targeting the wrong person.

- (HKG Pao) There is a timing issue that should be sorted out.

There are two events: (1) Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho for the Energizing Factory Event; (2) Denise Ho visits the Dalai Lama on May 10, 2016. Which happened first?

If Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho before she went to visit the Dalai Lama, then Ho engaged in what she must know is risky behavior after the contract signing. Did she do this deliberately to cause a PR crisis at Lancme and gain public sympathy for herself?

If Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho after she posted the photo of her with the Dalai Lama saying that "He tamed me", then this brand manager is suicidal.

- (HKG Pao) Lancme Hong Kong tried to give Denise Ho a job. Ho will now get the full payment without having to do the concert. However, Ho said that she had to go after L'Oreal headquarters as a matter of principle. In Chinese, there is a saying: 落井下石 (=drop a stone down on the man who has fallen into a well). Whoever was responsible for getting her the job is screwed, so is the whole PR/marketing team plus maybe the Hong Kong brand manager. Even the Asia-Pacific regional manager may be at risk. Basically anyone who had anything direct contact with this matter plus anyone else who knew about it will be axed. At this time, L'Oreal is only saying that they have nothing to add. We'll let you if we find out more.

- Listerine's strategy consists of maintaining total silence and letting Lancme take the heat. But how long can this last?

- Whoever at Listerine decided to make this advertisement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdEryGrht7Q must also be trembling about if and when they get axed.

- The Listerine ad talks about being BOLD. Here is a spoof: Is this called being BOLD? If you are bold, you should do more than talking. You said that you will surrender yourself (after Occupy), then you ought to surrender yourself.

- Listerine is manufactured and distributed by Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson sells these products in China: Listerine, Neutrogena, Johnson's body care, Johnson's baby care, o.b., Tylenol, Motrin, Livostin, Imodium, Band-Aid, etc.

- (Wall Street Journal) April 3, 2016.

With 2014 revenue of $74 billion and net profit of $16 billion, Johnson & Johnson is among the worlds largest health-care companies. In an interview in Tokyo following a stop in Beijing, the companys chairman and chief executive, Alex Gorsky, 54 years old, was interviewed.

WSJ: Whats your view of China?

Mr. Gorsky: I think theres tremendous opportunity in China.

Weve recently opened up an innovation center in Shanghai. The way that science is conducted today is much more virtual, is much more ubiquitous versus simply having a large number of scientists in a classic brick-and-mortar setting. Its rather, how can you quickly identify and how can you build relationships with the early startups, with academic centers, with thought leaders, with the venture community, and establish a network and an ecosystem?

We see this as a way to move from bringing great products to China to actually discovering and developing things in China. So one of the areas were looking at right now, for example, is lung disease. I think Chinas got about 50% of the cases of lung disease in the world today. Heres a great opportunity to put a dedicated team of people with pharmacology backgrounds, people with medical-device backgrounds, even people with consumer backgrounds in things like smoking cessation and have them work together. Because so often, if you go to a pharmacologist and ask for a solution, it tends to be a pill. If you go to a medical-device person, it tends to be an engineering approach.

And so by having these people work together, its our hope that we can bring really very innovative, transformational kinds of solutions to bear. And ultimately what we would love to do is then be able to take those from markets like China and take them to other markets around the world.

There goes everything because some PR flack in J&J Hong Kong wants Denise Ho as a promoter.

- Wong Wing-ping holding a bottle of Listerine mouthwash: "It is time to buy more."

- You are buying a whole box of Listerine? Wait till Listerine comes out tonight and dumps Denise Ho as well. Then you're going to have a lifetime supply of toilet cleanser.

- (Apple Daily) June 16, 2016. Our reporter visited Watsons, Mannings, ParknShop, Wellcome and other dispensaries in Tiu Keng Leng and Hang Hau districts to check out the shelves containing Listerine products. We found that only Watsons in Tiu King Leng still had any Denise Ho promotional materials on display. When we asked Listerine whether they had sent their promoters to remove those materials, the company did not deny this. The company only said: "This week Listerine will be entering the next phase of our promotion plans for the properties and functions of the new products. Just like any marketing plan, we have various stages emphasizing various themes to market our products."

On the previous evening when we went to Watsons, we saw the Denise Ho promotional material still there. We asked the worker whether the box was going to be returned. The worker thought that our reporter was the person in charge of removing the material and began to dismantle the box for removal. This confirmed the rumor for us. The worker also said that the box was due to be removed either today or tomorrow, but no reason was offered.

- Time to boycott Listerine ...

- Time to roll out the scientific evidence about the ill effects of Listerine, such as alcoholic addiction, bladder damage, oral cancer, etc. Previous these truths were inconvenient and therefore covered up. Now the world can know the truth about Listerine.

- The pan-democrats (Civic Party, Democratic Party, League of Social Democrats, etc) wouldn't dare go after J&J. L'Oreal is fair game because it is a French company, but J&J is an American company. You wouldn't want the US consulate and the American Chamber of Commerce to come out against you, would you?  You would be losing your UNIVERSAL VALUE (CAPTAIN AMERICA) shield!

- Time for Denise Ho to come out and demand Listerine never ever to remove her photos from the display shelves. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE EQUALITY UNIVERSAL VALUES DALAI LAMA.

- The good thing is that the research efforts do not go to waste. When Lancome hired Denise Ho, mainland Internet users came up with a list of L'Oreal products to boycott. After Lancome fired Denise Ho, Hong Kong Internet users found the list to be very useful for their boycott. Somebody had done all the homework for them. The same thing happens with Listerine. Hong Kong Internet users can now use the J&J product lists for their boycott now.

- The lesson to Lancme and all other corporations: Do not hire Denise Ho or any other Yellow Ribbon entertainer because you lose both ways.

- Worse yet, they are going to snap back and bite you when things go wrong.

- Please note that Yellow Ribbons cannot never be trusted. One day, after Denise Ho boasted about her first post-Occupy job, the Yellow Ribbons praised Lancme to the high heavens. The second day, after Lancme changed its mind, the Yellow Ribbons think Lancme products are scum. So do not think that appeasing them for one moment will buy their eternal loyalty.

- At first, Denise Ho happily accepted the job and her supporters applauded this breakthrough. Now she is launching a public relations campaign against Lancme while her supporters point out that Lancme uses animal testing to develop their products. Gee, why wasn't that an issue before?

- Whey you first date a girl, you say that she is the most beautiful woman in the world. After you break up, you say that she is the ugliest bitch in the world. Your opinion is completely shaped by the state of your relationship. So what else is new?

- In this case, Denise Ho is saying that Lancme needs to fight for freedom, justice and equality. That means specifically to oppose both the government and the people of mainland China.

- (Wen Wei Po) Lancme has the freedom to hire Denise Ho and to praise her. They do not have the freedom to terminate the contract with Denise Ho and they do not have the freedom to criticize her. Why? Because this is a universal value.

- But that doesn't mean everything stops for her, because fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

(Ming Pao) The eco-friendly disinfectant and deodorant house product manufacturer Hyginova said that they are honored to be associated with Denise Ho and hope to invite her to sing some songs. Hyginova said that theirs is the first brand in Asia not to use animal testing. "We promise that we will not conduct animal testing in order to enter the neighboring market of 7 billion persons and we have no intentions to going there until the market regulations have been improved."

- Hyginova is merely jumping in to get free media exposure.

- Thanks to Denise Ho's reaction this time, no other Yellow Ribbon entertainer will get any work as spokesperson now.

- Not true. Fairwood continues to have Chapman To as their spokesperson.

- It seems to be a step down from Lancme cosmetics to Hyginova household products ...

- (Liberty Times (Taiwan)) June 7, 2016. Online music MOOV stated on their Facebook: "Denise Ho, we will hire her forever." MOOV is a PCCW company headed by Richard Li, son of Li Ka-shing.

- (Apple Daily) After MOOV was reported to say on Facebook that they will support Denise Ho forever, mainland Internet users began to organize to boycott all the companies under the Li family. This includes Watsons, ParknShop, etc.

- (Sina.com.hk) Richard Li and PCCW issued a response:

Recently, there was some talk on the Internet about the political position of PCCW's MOOV.

Richard Li and the company have a clear position, namely Hong Kong independence is an impossibility so that any discussion is a waste of social resources. But the company and him respects freedom of expression.

MOOV has always supported the creation of music and has no intention of engaging politics.

According to our understanding, the colleague in charge of the webpage said that "hire forever" was posted before the Internet linked the matter with the politics of Hong Kong independence.

PCCW and Richard Li has never before, now or in future supported any person or thing in support of Hong Kong independence.

- Clearly some PR/marketing flack at MOOV came up with the idea of exploiting the case to get some publicity for a music service that nobody uses, got some Facebook comments such as "Thanks, MOOV! Although I will be laughed at for still paying for music, I think it is worth it! I didn't want to use MOOV but now I will support you forever!" And now the top brasses are pissed.

- Time to start a global boycott campaign of PCCW brands.

- (Weixin) There were several things coming out of PCCW/MOOV/Richard Li. The timing is intriguing.

(1) On June 4th, mainland Internet users learned about the Denise Ho concert and began a campaign against Lancme.

(2) On June 5th, Lancme canceled the concert.

(3) On June 6th at 12:30pm, MOOV stated on its Facebook that "Denise Ho, we will hire her forever! She is a courageous person, she only loves to work and stick to every single one of her beliefs. MOOV loves courageous music." If the PCCW believes that it was wrong, it should have been removed. As of June 8th 7pm, this post is still there.

(4) On June 8th, PCCW/Richard Li issued a statement to say that "Hong Kong independence is an impossibility so that any discussion is a waste of social resources." This statement is worded such that you don't know whether they support or oppose Hong Kong independence; they only said that it is an impossibility.

(5) On June 8th, PCCW/Richard Li sent a statement to a number media outlets that added two paragraphs: "According to our understanding, the colleague in charge of the webpage said that "hire forever" was posted before the Internet linked the matter with the politics of Hong Kong independence. PCCW and Richard Li has never before, now or in future supported any person or thing in support of Hong Kong independence." This was probably added to address the ambiguity caused by the previous statement.

Actually, what does PCCW/Richard Li care about mainland Internet opinion? Several years ago, Richard Li had given up on running business in mainland China. The mainland boycotts being organized right now are directed at Watsons, ParknShop and other properties owned and operated by his father Li Ka-shing and his brother Victor Li, with whom he is not particularly close.

- The MOOV case provides an interesting comparison with Lancme. In the case of Lancme, they hired Denise Ho for a concert but she went ahead and co-branded the brand with her own politics. So Lancme had to back out. In the case of the paid music service MOOV, they have always carried her music and continue to do so. But she is treated no differently than any other musician, nobody thinks that MOOV supports or opposes her political views, and there has never been any demands from any group to ban her from MOOV. PCCW/Richard Li are forced to issue those pseudo-denial statements only because certain people are co-branding MOOV with Denise Ho's politics.

- It is true that Denise Ho did not say on Facebook that she thanks MOOV for their support of her politics. But here is what is in Apple Daily: 電訊盈科主席李澤楷旗下網上音樂串流供應商MOOV最近力挺何韻詩 (PCCW chairman Richard Li and the online music service MOOV recently gave strong support to Denise Ho ...). That is what forced PCCW/Richard Li to issue those statements. You may want to avoid politics, but politics has a way of finding you.

- (Apple Daily) June 6, 2016. Denise Ho issued a statement at around 230pm. There were four points:
(1) Lancme unilaterally terminated the cooperation without cause and also used inexplicable terms in its statement;
(2) It is understand that the decision to terminate was made by Lancme headquarters in France;
(3) Lancme headquarters in France must explain the decision in order to give justice back to Denise Ho and to offer a reasonable explanation to the public;
(4) It is regrettable that Lancme's statement has seriously misled the public and damaged Denise Ho's reputation.

- Companies hire and fire spokespersons all the time, and different people have different reactions to such decisions. No company has to explain their decisions. They might say, "We decide to head in a different direction." It is your personal opinion whether the decision was right or wrong. So why does Denise Ho think that Lancme have to give her and the general public an explanation that has to be "reasonable" to her?

- Companies hire famous spokespersons and promoters because they hope to co-brand each other. For example, Bawang shampoo hired popular actor Jackie Chan as their spokesperson, while Tang Wei speaks for SK II. After Occupy Central, Denise Ho has become a toxic brand. The fact that she couldn't get any job assignments since means that everybody in advertising/public relations knows this. In this case, someone at Lancme Hong Kong made the stupid decision to hire her and Lancme headquarters had to step in to stop the losses.

- Besides, you are not really going to listen to the answer -- either it is going to match the answer that you have already settled upon or else it is not 'reasonable'. Reference: Lee Bo on The Missing Booksellers.

- Denise Ho has many open options at this time. Most obviously, she can apply for legal aid (because she is unemployed) to file a judicial review at the High Court to obtain an injunction to make the Energizing Factor Event take place as scheduled. She can also go to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to complain that her freedom of expression has been unreasonably deprived.

- But here is the mirror symmetry. On one hand, Hong Kong Internet users are deploring the mainland Internet users for boycotting Lancme because such tactics represent bullying hegemony. On the other hand, Hong Kong Internet users are organizing their own boycott of Lancme. Did anyone say "Bullying hegemony"?

- In mainland China, 100% of consumer expenditure on cosmetics is made by mainlanders. In Hong Kong, 60% of consumer expenditure on cosmetics is made by mainland tourists and 40% by Hongkongers themselves. And not all Hongkongers are 'pro-democracy.' So the choice should have been obvious.

- Singer/actress Ivana Wong wrote on Facebook: "Lancme Bye Bye". Wong is known to dislike any and all politics, so this statement is consistent with her past views. In Eileen Chang's novel <Eighteen Springs>, a character said: "Politics decides everything. You may not seek politics, but politics will seek you out."

-Statement from Denise Ho, June 6th, 2016.

- Comments in English by a citizen (Ms. Hei-lo):

I'm rather pissed to read your statement when you claim that you are (though you didn't obviously say it) safeguarding Hong Kong people's freedom! Freedom is not the first priority in businesses and pls ask any CEO on earth whether they'd place "Freedom" as their top priority in their business vision and mission statement!!

My reply to her statement:

"It sounds and looks intelligent in terms of your English but if you ask any CEO of any corporate companies if "Freedom" is their first priority in their business vision and mission, many of them may say "NO" because their positive image is always the first priority in any companies.

Public Relations is all about establishing and securing a positive image but if anyone, whether it is the spokesperson or anyone in the company, has done something wrong that would bring disastrous impact to negatively influence the company's image, then that person will either be fired or penalized.

For the spokesperson's case, I reckon most CEOs will simply cease the working relationship with the spokesperson. It's just a business decision and pls don't self-create such an image that HOCC is such a great person to safeguard HK's / HK people's freedom. You are not the spokesperson of Freedom!! Your statement makes me feel very sick! I'm sorry!"

- Denise Ho thus wrote:

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about these precious universal values that every individual yearn for. This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be human rights.

(Wen Wei Po) Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world. A company can legally terminate contracts and cancel projects, and any disputes can be resolved according to the terms of the contracts. This is the essence of freedom of business. But when this happens to Denise Ho, it becomes an unforgivable crime. If you don't hire Denise Ho, then you are assaulting freedom, justice and equality in Hong Kong and even the precious universal values of every individual in the whole world. Who does Denise Ho think she is? Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa?

- (Chapman To's Facebook)

Chapman To:
Actually life is basically what is the so-called censoring of entertainers.
Whenever a job opportunity arises, it is gone because the boss, competitor or peer is afraid.
People in the street look at you as if you are a monster.
Your family and friends receive well-meaning reminders or malicious criticisms, usually in the manner of: "Tell your son not to do this" or "Your husband hasn't considered you.!"
It is common in the entertainment industry to kick you while you are done!
But I am not a dog. You are.
"Even if I bang my head until I bleed, I will continue to fight on until the last round." This is my motto for over forty years!
Try hard! Fight hard!

- Hey, fella, how about making some money yourself to contribute to your family instead of living off your wife?

- Wang Jing's last movie <From Vegas to Macau III> made $1 billion RMB in mainland China. Your last movie <Aberdeen> made $2 million RMB in mainland China. You must have tried hard and fought hard.

- It is telling that Chapman To is the only known entertainer to come out with a supportive statement. No other actor, actress, singer, musician, director or producer of note has done so.

- Sai Kung District Councilor Christine Fong: "I used Lancme cleaning liquid to wash my toilet! Then I flushed the toilet. That's all."

Video: https://www.facebook.com/christinefks.page/videos/1042796882467650/

- Dump all Lancme products? Who owns Lancme?  LOral. So you should dump all LOral products as well. But who owns LOral? Would you believe that its second biggest shareholder is Nestl? So you should dump all Nestl products as well. You can locate their brands here (partial listing: Nestl, NESCAF, Dairy Farm, Carnation, Gerber, Purina, Milo, Pak Fook, Maggi, Dreyer's, Crunch, KitKat).

- And did you know that NESCAF runs a Leon Lai commercial on TV Most? Now do you realize that you have to boycott NESCAF coffee, Leon Lai and TV Most?

- Does anyone still remember the boycott spreadsheet from Occupy Central?

Boycott all the
LOral products
We will never yield to money
Tomorrow at 1pm we will march to the
Lancme outlet in Lane Crawford
Participating organizations: League of Social Democrats, People Power, Demosisto, Labour Party, Hong Kong Shield, Democratic Party, Neo Democrats, Chu Hoi-dick (more being added)
Date: June 8, 2016
Time: 1pm
Assembly location: Public space at Times Square, Causeway Bay.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 8, 2016.

Dozens gathered outside Lancme store in Times Square, Causeway Bay on Wednesday in protest of the companys decision to cancel a concert featuring pro-democracy star Denise Ho Wan-see.

The French cosmetics giant cancelled the June 19 concert after Chinese state mouthpiece Global Times accused Ho of being a supporter of Hong Kong and Tibetan independence movements. The move sparked controversy among netizens and customers. Ho supported the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests but has rarely spoken about the independence debate.

The protesters urged an international boycott of the brand, as well as other brands under its parent group LOral, until a full explanation and an apology are given. They urged to company to promise not to carry out further political censorship.

What shocks the society is that an international brand, emphasising social responsibility and women[s] empowerment like Lancme, also kneeled down to the bullying government, said Avery Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats party. Ng said the incident was a great contradiction to LOrals mission. Lancme not only insulted Denise Ho, but also insulted Hong Kong citizens who fought for democracy for years, and all global citizens embracing democracy and liberty, Ng added.

Several lawmakers of pro-democracy parties attended the protest, namely Helena Wong Pik-wan of the Democratic Party, Gary Fan Kwok-wai of the Neo Democrats, Cyd Ho Sau-lan and Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung of the Labour Party.

Citing a Whatsapp message from Denise Ho, lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung said although Ho could not come due to her busy schedule, she thanked participants at the protest. [She said] this matter is not her not her personal matter, and not the companys matter anymore it is white terror, he said. She hopes everyone will keep fighting, otherwise people will all live in fear. The protesters produced a large banner with Hos face that said We are all Denise Ho say no to mainland tyranny. Other banners read No kowtow to Beijing and Protecting Hong Kongs core values.

Civic Party lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching said Hos treatment by the firm was simply blatant, naked and despicable. We need to ask, whatever happened to the French qualities liberty, equality, fraternity  are they telling us these days, today, that money talks? Profits come first? she asked.

People Power party representative Tam Tak-chi questioned Lancmes decision to pull Ho from the event. He said that brand ambassadors who opposed animal testing for cosmetic products have not been dropped. LOreal is accused of using animal testing. Does that mean Hong Kong people are easier targets to suppression? he asked.

The Lancme booth at Lane Crawford in Times Square was closed ahead of the protest. The protesters pasted props criticising the company onto the booth, including one saying Lancme Lanout Hong Kong demanding the brand leave the city.

Ng said that they will allow a week for LOral to apologise, and will not rule out any further actions.

- Why was Denise Ho herself absent? She says that she is unemployed but claims to have "a busy schedule." Let me tell you why -- she couldn't control who might show up. For example, if Andy "Captain America" Yung showed up waving his British dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence, what will she do? She says that she is not pro-Hong Kong independence, but now someone is advocating it at her event. What can she do? As another example, the event is backed by the pan-democratic political parties, both traditional (Democratic Party, Civic Party) and so-called radical (League of Social Democrats, People Power). But what if the radical localists (Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous) showed up and start a clash either with the pan-democrats or the police. She would own the consequences.

- That is the same calculation for Johannes Chan, who never shows up at any demonstrations on his behalf.

- Why do they do this type of thing? They are going to the LOral booths in the Lane Crawford department store. They are not numerous, being only "dozens" but enough to surround the booths and disrupt business. Who is at the booth? The sales people. Did the sale people have anything to do with the decision to hire/fire Denise Ho? Absolutely not. Why harass them that? Because you can. The people who are really responsible are sitting in an office somewhere and absolutely unreachable. Therefore you reach the people who can be conveniently reached. What do the sales people think? About one-third of their income is derived from sales commission. When their booths get surrounded and customers stay away, they lose money. Well, that's tough shit because their sacrifice is needed for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values.

- Also, everything is for a media show. Going to an office and not being admitted is not a good media show. Charging into Lane Crawford and stopping business at the LOral booths as well as all other booths makes for a good media show (see video). That is why this has to be done.

- It was the same thing with Occupy Central. Your beef is with CY Leung, the Hong Kong SAR Government, the Central Government and the Chinese Communist Party. But you can't reach them. Therefore you Occupy Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok and make it hell for ordinary citizens.

- The report says "dozens." Let me count them ...

Video: Resistance Live Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFODcOXkZcc League of Social Democrats chanting "Global boycott of LOral," "Shame on self-censorship", etc. Looks like many more photographers than demonstrators.

- I look at the photo of Leung Kwok-hung in this "Global boycott of LOral," and I find it impossible to believe that Leung is a past user who intends to boycott now. If Leung boycotts, the net loss to LOral is zero.

- Actually, if Leung Kwok-hung had used some LOral skincare products, he would be less ugly.

- (HKG Pao) The pan-democrats (Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, Neo Democrats, League of Social Democrats, People Power and Demosisto) must have pretty good reasons to hold demonstrations at the LOral booths at Lane Crawford. After all, there were so many photographers out there. What they don't realize is that they have effectively ended the economic prospects for Yellow Ribbon entertainers. As the saying goes, you are never afraid of powerful enemies; you should be afraid of allies who are even stupider than pigs.

- (HKG Pao) On the day after the demonstration, the Lancme store inside Lane Crawford was re-opened for business. A worker said that they were instructed by the company to report if more demonstrations take place and "our personal safety is of the utmost concern to the company."

- The Energizing Factory Event was canceled by Lancme due to concerns for personal safety. What does that mean? Look at what happened. You don't know which political factions are going to show up at the concert, do you?

- (HKG  Pao) There is a lesson for public relations specialists from all this. On one side, the Hong Kong demonstration against Lancme came with media coverage in the Yellow Ribbon press. LOral closed its booths in anticipation of the demonstration. But when the time came, the media saw just the usual array of the dozens of pan-democratic professional demonstrators (Leung Kwok-hung, Avery Ng, Raphael Wong, etc). Meanwhile on the other side, the Global Times Weibo posts drew tens of thousands of comments against Lancme at first. LOral is present in 80 cities in China at this time. Do they want to see all their booths in China shut down in the face of demonstrations? But apart from sheer numbers, it is also about intensity. In Hong Kong, the thunder is loud but the raindrops are few.

- (SCMP) June 23, 2016.

Five pan-democratic parties are planning to protest at LOreals Hong Kong office on Friday morning, as they say the cosmetics giant has refused to apologise and come clean on its decision to cancel a concert by Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Ma-yuen told the Post on Thursday that the matter was not over.

We want LOreal to know that many people around the world are upset about their decision, Ng said. We want LOreal to apologise, explain how the decision was made, and promise that there will be no more self-censorship ... If they refuse to come clean [on Friday], we will not rule out taking further action.

Ng said the League, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Civic Party and NeoDemocrats would gather outside Times Square at 11am on Friday, before protesting at LOreals office on the 45th floor.

It is unclear if LOreal will close its office and stores on Friday. A spokeswoman said the group had nothing further to add to what it said on June 5.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 7, 2016.

A petition demanding that the cosmetic giant Lancme reverse its decision to cancel a concert featuring pro-democracy singer Denise Ho Wan-see has gained traction online. Prior to the announcement, Chinese netizens had called for a boycott of Lancme products and also of its Listerine mouthwash brand. The company dropped Ho, who is known for her outspoken pro-democracy stance, on Sunday.

The French petition has garnered over 2,200 signatures, and includes a letter directed at the President and Managing Director of LOreals Hong Kong branch, Stephen Mosely. LOreal owns the Lancme brand. The petition called for a boycott of Lancme should it not allow Hos concert to proceed. We cannot accept Lancme as an ambassador of France a country of human rights to Hong Kong, while it sacrifices freedom of thought and freedom of expression in its trade policy. We cannot accept that French companies bend to the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party, the petition said.

- There are 7 billion people in the world. This petition has garnered over 2,200 signatures so far with a goal of 5,000 signatures eventually. Should LOreal be trembling at the might of the masses?

- This is being positioned as a disaster for L'Oreal. How disastrous? In 2015, the company had 25.257 billion in revenue. How many billions will it lose as a result of this 'global boycott'?

- France is 'a country of human rights'? Can you imagine something like in these videos from France happening in Hong Kong now? And this is not some piece of ancient history (like the Reign of Terror); it is happening at this moment in France.


In Hong Kong, they observed an 87-second silence to mark one month since police 87 rounds of tear gas at demonstrators. How many thousands of rounds of tear gas have the French police fired over this past month? Why don't you solve your own human rights problems first? Or should we adopt the 'universal values' that you are using?

- Or this just in: (RT) Euro 2016: French police teargas England fans clashing with Marseilles residents

- The impact of an online petition drive is even less than a loud fart.

- (SCMP) June 10, 2016.

When Lancome cancelled Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-szes concert in Hong Kong, it seemed unlikely that a retired philosophy teacher in Paris would be leading the calls for the cosmetics giant to reconsider its decision.

But there she is. Beatrice Desgranges started a petition on change.org on Monday after learning about the incident from a tweet from a French expatriate in Hong Kong. By 3pm on Friday, Desgranges petition had been signed by more than 50,000 people. A separate petition endorsed by 17 Hong Kong political parties and activist groups was supported by more than 4,300 on Facebook and signed by about 450.

In an exclusive interview conducted via email, Desgranges, 65, said she didnt know much about Hong Kong.

I only spent one day and one night there [in 1995], but it is not the problem for me. I think my duty is to stand up for freedom wherever freedom is violated, she wrote.

Desgranges studied philosophy in Paris in the 1970s and taught it in a school in Eastern France before retiring. She now mostly lives in Paris.

As a philosopher, I always remember Socrates, who said he was like [a] horsefly who keeps people awake, she said. I used to [tell] my pupils: Well, you cant change the world by yourself but you can do what depends on you, you can speak out and tell what is wrong.

Desgranges also suggested that her petition was partly inspired by French writer Emile Zola, who spoke up for Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus when he was accused by the French government for being a spy in 1894.

Liu Xiaobo, whom I admire, says he has drawn inspiration from Zolas principles, Desgranges wrote.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years in jail in 2009 for inciting subversion of state power through Charter 08, co-signed by more than 300 signatories, which called for freedom of expression, free elections and human rights. But a year later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to push for greater freedom in mainland China.

Desgranges also told the Post about her love for Chinese culture and history.

She said she once had a 10-day journey in mainland China, during which she remembered Tiananmen, or the crackdown of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Beijing.

I thought my duty was to learn the Chinese language to be able to talk with Chinese people without any interpreter, she said. I read Chinese novels, see Chinese films ... and created my [online] forum to share what I read or see with others.

Earlier, she wrote in her petition that it was unacceptable for Lancome, as an ambassador of France in Hong Kong, to sacrifice the freedom of thought and expression to their commercial policy.

Denise Ho was vilified and blacklisted by mainland media for taking part in the Occupy movement protests in 2014.

The trouble began after Lancome invited the singer to host a mini-concert in Hong Kong on June 19, then abruptly called it off after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused the brand of inviting a Hong Kong independence advocate. With mainland internet users calling for a boycott of the brands products, an angry backlash ensued from Hongkongers, who accused LOreal, Lancomes parent company, of kowtowing to Beijing.

With more than 56,000 people supporting her petition as of Friday afternoon, Desgranges told the Post that we can wait a little more before sending the petition to Lancomes office.

- (HKG Pao) June 10, 2016. Yesterday Denise Ho shared the link Apple Daily columnist Li Yi's essay <Something that couldn't happen." The essay said that all the accusations against Denise Ho are baseless, that these are is labeling without evidence and "what else is this but the Cultural Revolution?" At the same time, Denise Ho took a dig at Justice Alliance founder Leticia Lee for coming out in support of Lancme, accusing her of acting as if she is the new spokesperson. Ho said: "So I admit defeat!! What more do you want from me?!!! (throwing bottles and cans around)."

Li Yi said that he does not remember Denise Ho ever mentioning Hong Kong independence or voicing support of Tibet independence. Unless you think that all those Hong Kong people who have participated or supported Occupy Central are independence advocates, then she might be. Ho has never mentioned Tibet independence. She met the Dalai Lama in Japan "in order to learn the wisdom to become a person" etc.

However Internet users pointed out, "It is mainstream public opinion that thinks Denise Ho is pro Hong Kong independence and Tibet independence. After all, they mind very much about the Dalai Lama. From the very start, it was the mainland Internet users spontaneously organizing their boycotts. If it was just Global Times making some noise, Lancme would not have to take such drastic actions." Other Internet users said: "If Denise Ho does not separatism (in Hong Kong and Tibet), all she has to do is come out and say so loudly and clearly. PCCW/Richard Li did just that. Once the news get around, the mainland Internet users will stop going after Denise Ho."

- Now that things have been blown up, Denise Ho is out of a living now and in the future. So she is immediately saying that she has said anything ever in support of Hong Kong and Tibet independence. She is accusing people of smearing her ... This is risible! ... She wants a whitewash at this moment in time? Too late!!!"

- Can Denise Ho really come out and declare: "Mainland Chinese people misunderstood me. I do not support Hong Kong independence and I do not support Tibet independence. PERIOD. I hope this message gets to everybody who misunderstood me before." Of course she is incapable of saying it in this loud and clear manner, because it will make her a "leftist retard" and "Chinese chauvinist pig" among her (now former) base of support.

- Another problem is that Denise Ho went too far initially, for she positioned this fight as the final battle of principles. How can she back off now in what seems to be a surrender? She cannot do this herself, but her surrogates (e.g. Li Yi) can't do it for her.

- (Sing Tao) June 10, 2016.

Denise Ho revealed that she had communicated with the persons in charge at Lancome and L'Oreal many times in order to find a solution. She understands that they are under pressure. But they have so far only handled the matter by just informing her. "Our side pleaded with them, but they ignored us. There is nothing to discuss. We find this very regrettable." So far, L'Oreal has said that they will pay compensation but they have ignored everything else. "We keep asking them about what explanation they will offer me or the public. But they refused to answer to any of this. I don't have the sense that they want to face up to this."

Denise Ho emphasized that this is not personal, not about money and not about the cooperative relationship. This is about how the company handled the matter. "Apart from the inexplicable reasons behind, it gives you a feeling that they are respectful. Not just disrespectful of me, but disrespectful of the people of Hong Kong."

"Certain choice of words created misunderstanding and speculations. Why not explain to the public just what the so-called safety issues are?" When the company contacted Denise Ho at first, they must know about her background and view. But they unilaterally terminated the cooperation brusquely due to pressure from mainland official media. To a certain degree, this communicates a certain terror to Hong Kong society, and it also encourages political oppression in the business area."

Finally Denise Ho called on everyone to support the online petition campaign. She would like Lancome Hong Kong person-in-charge Stephen Mosely to make an explanation: "Over the past two years, the people of Hong Kong has had enough of this kind of 'this is how it is.' It is not a choice. It is 'this is how it is' which is increasing the terror and anger in Hong Kong society. This is a responsibility not just to me, but to the entire society."

- I find the story very amusing. The first sentence said that "she communicated with Lancome/L'Oreal many times." Fine. Then its goes on to explain that this so-called communication consists of Denise Ho sending many messages which drew no response. Do you call that communication?

- Communication, noun, the imparting or exchanging of information or news. Denise Ho is talking about imparting information from her to them, not about exchanging information between two sides. So this is within the definition of communication.

- There is no chance that Lancome/L'Oreal will communicate any further with Denise Ho. That's what any PR consultant will advise. So far, they know for sure that anything that they might say will wind up being released and distorted outside.

- More head scratching required here! Since when did disrespecting Denise Ho = disrespecting the people of Hong Kong? Why does she raise discussion of herself to discussion of the people of Hong Kong? Isn't that presumptuous?

- (The Stand News) When Lancome cut off Denise Ho, the focus shouldn't be about any public relations crisis. The real point is that when Lancome had to choose between China and Hong Kong, it chose China because it is a much, much larger market than Hong Kong. That is the brutal reality.

To date, Lancome has not offered any excuse, explanation, justification or apology. Absolutely nothing. Do Lancome and L'Oreal not know about the public clamor in Hong Kong over the past several days? Of course, they know. But so what? The demonstrators can chant their slogans out loud, but can Hongkongers stop buying Lancome forever? And Armani, YSL, Body Sthop, BioTherm, etc? When the demonstration stops, it will be business as usual. This is how Hongkongers feel. They don't give a shit. They won't even want any explanations.

- (Post852) June 11, 2016. Post 852 quotes Denise Ho: "The fact is that before Lancme Hong Kong issued its first statement, a person in charge informed us that this was an irresistible order from a certain mainland Chinese department. Indeed, it was a business decision. But it was a business decision influenced by political factors."

- There is no WHO WHEN WHERE WHY and HOW to verify any bit of it. And why is it only coming out one week later?

- 「大陸部門」(mainland Chinese department)? When you read that phrase, you immediately think of a government department? Zhang Dejiang? The State Council? Central Propaganda Department? Ministry of Culture? But if there were so, they would have nailed it by spelling out "mainland Chinese government department"! Right? But they didn't. So it is not a mainland Chinese government department. More likely, it was a L'Oral department to which Lancme Hong Kong reports. When the matter involves both Hong Kong and mainland China, Lancme Hong Kong has to seek instructions from their supervisor right? L'Oral is structured hierarchically as the L'Oral executive committee, of which Alexis Perakis-Valat is the member in charge of L'Oral Asia Pacific which oversees L'Oral China (also headed by Perakis-Valat) which oversees L'Oral Hong Kong which oversees Lancme Hong Kong.

- There hasn't been many cases of government departments applying political pressures on commercial corporations. In the case of fashion store chain Giordano which was owned by Next Media boss Jimmy Lai at the time, the company kept having problems with license renewals and safety inspections (fire department, labor department, etc) so that Lai decided to sell his shares more than two decades ago. Google left China on its own with great fanfare but is crawling back in quietly. So what order can a mainland government department issue to L'Oral? Cancel the Hong Kong concert or else we are going to close down all L'Oral outlets in 80 mainland cities?

- (Apple Daily) June 9, 2016.

Anna Chan proposed this theory about the entire affair. "How can an international brand work with with an over-the-hill singer such as Denise Ho?" "There is reason to believe that they are deliberately trying to touch on the nerves of mainland Internet users" by crossing the bottom line and "then pretending to be innocent and severing relations, but having provided Denise Ho the chance to gain international sympathy and decry Chinese Communist oppression etc." She said that the American brand Listerine also hired Denise Ho as spokesperson. "Can there be so many coincidences?" She wondered if Lancome is making these moves just before the Hong Kong Legco elections in September. "Although I rarely use cosmetic products, I will firmly remind all my friends to boycott L'Oreal products!"

- Under normal circumstances, it would be logical to assume that Denise Ho set Lancome up because she wants the media publicity to launch a Legislative Council election campaign. This is not true. According to Cap 542 Legislative Council Ordinance S7, a person must be a Chinese citizen who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China. But according to Wikipedia, Denise Ho was born in Hong Kong and emigrated with her family to Montreal at the age of 11. If Denise Ho wants to run for the Hong Kong Legislative Council, she would have to renounce her Canadian citizenship like Albert Cheng.

... unless, of course, Denise Ho has already quietly renounced her Canadian citizenship in preparation for this election ...

- (HKG Pao) June 11, 2016. National People's Congress Standing Committee member Rita Fan said that the Lancome affair was purely a business decision, and she does not see Global Times as suppressing freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Just because you don't like what someone is saying, you can't accuse them of suppression. If Hong Kong has freedom of expression, then it should respect the freedom of expression of others.

Rita Fan also said that there are many people who express certain opinions under freedom of expression, and then they claim that they represent the people of Hong Kong.

- How have Hong Kong media handled this news story? Among newspapers, the Yellow Ribbon Apple Daily and Ming Pao do not appear to be as rabid as expected. Maybe this is because their advertising revenues have been taking deep dives such to cause staff cuts. And L'Oral would be a big-time spender on print advertising. I know that the editorial department acts independently of the advertising department, but the publisher knows who is putting the bread on the table.

Among Internet media, HK01 is taking the lead. Everybody knows that HK01 is bankrolled by mainland money and is losing tens of millions a month. HK01 went ahead and hired away hundreds of workers away from Apple Daily and Ming Pao. How can this be? One conspiracy theory is that the Chinese Communists are hiring away the Apple Daily/Ming Pao workers and then HK01 will declare bankruptcy soon and leave all these Yellow Ribbon people jobless. How is this for a worst-case analysis?

- (Apple Daily) D100 radio host Jess says that his mainland factory had been producing packaging for LOral/Lancme to the tune of several million dollars per year. However, he has decided that he will no longer accept any jobs from them in the future. He tells the people of Hong Kong that they can also help by boycotting products made with mainland Chinese capital. Denise Ho expressed thanks to Jess via Facebook.

- Well, that's fucking great! But Jess, can you please explain why your fucking factory is located in mainland China? Why oh why isn't it fucking located in Hong Kong? Are you another one of those people like Denise Ho who wants to make money in mainland China while criticizing everything there? If you have the courage, you should fold up your mainland factory and set one up in Hong Kong!

- Why can't Jess set up a factory in Hong Kong? Rent and labor. If Lancme sends out a request for proposal for 200,000 packages, the Hong Kong factory's bid will be several times costlier than the bids from Dongguan/Panyu-based Hong Kong-owned factories for the same assured quality. What should Lancme do? Please tell us, Jess.

- This fucking bastard Jess went to set up a factory in mainland China after what happened on Tiananmen Square, June 4th 1989. His fucking conscience must have been eaten by a dog.

- That's fucking fantastic news. When Jess turned down the multimillion business, LOral/Lancme is going to go out of business because they can't find any packaging for their products! NOT! Hundreds of other factories are ready to jump in to take this business for better quality and lower price! This is Jess's loss, not the loss of LOral/Lancme. It will contribute to greater profitability to LOral!

- PLEASE! If Jess is truly a businessman with a conscience, he would not have set up a blood-and-sweat factory in China to exploit workers with inhumane wages and working conditions. And if you say that Jess is different from other factory owners because he pays good wages and provides working conditions, then he wouldn't be getting any contracts (unless the client happens to be a business with a conscience and a sense of social responsibility).

- This Jess guy just turned down a job for Lancme? I am going to call Lancme at 9am on Monday morning to put in a bid. I am sure that I can do a better job.

- Well, timing is an issue here.
If Jess never got the contract and now says he rejected it, this is rubbish.
If Jess got the contract and refuses to carry it out, he will have to pay a penalty. Then he is truly courageous.
Which do you think happened?

- We need to publicize the name of Jess's company. This is a company that puts in a tender offer; when it doesn't get the job, it goes around badmouthing the potential client. Everybody should know about this company and avoid it in future.

- Yes, I remember this Jess guy. He started his career by offering online information on where to find prostitutes in mainland China. So it is hilarious that he is being presented by Apple Daily and Denise Ho as a businessman with a conscience.

- A low-end printing factory rejects a recurrent job from a transnational company? Hahahaha! This is like a Golden Forum lad rejecting a proposal from Miss Hong Kong!

- Many Internet users feel elation whenever foreign media begin reporting on something about Hong Kong. The same thing happens in Taiwan. People in Hong Kong and Taiwan look down on their own media and they think that something becomes more important when written up in English. So they rush to tell each other that CNN, BBC or NHK is reporting on something or the other. Right now some Hong Kong Internet users are congratulating each other because BBC has interviewed Denise Ho and the story has appeared in Daily Mail. Unfortunately, this is a superficial reading. A friend remarked: "You don't realize that BBC was only interested in teaching people how to conduct business in China. They couldn't care less about Denise Ho, Hong Kong or democracy." But do Hongkongers get this?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016. Crowd estimates by source.
Year Alliance Police
2007 55,000 27,000
2008 48,000 15,700
2009 200,000 62,000
2010 150,000 113,000
2011 150,000 77,000
2012 180,000 85,000
2013 150,000 54,000
2014 180,000 99,500
2015 135,000 46,600
2016 125,000 21,800

2016 photo

2015 photo


1. Soccer pitches (six in total, parallel to each other). Each soccer pitch is 72.75 meters long and 46.5 meters wide.

Total length = 72.75 meters plus boundaries of 5 meters at one end and 7.5 metes on the other end = 85.25 meters

Total width = [6 x (46.5 metes)] + [6 x 6 meters boundaries] + [passageways of 6 meters + 6 meters + 24 meters] = 351 meters

Total area = 85.25 meters x 351 meters - [size of grand stage 846 meters] = 29,077 meters

2. Central Lawn. 206 meters long and 108 meters wide for a total area of 22,248 square meters. At 67% usage, the total area is 9800 square meters.

3. Pavilion: 2870 square areas. At 50% usage, the total area is 1435 square meters.

4. Basketball courts. Each basketball court is 28 meters long and 15 meters wide. Total area is 1050 square meters for 2-1/2 courts.

5. Pathway around the soccer pitches. Southern passage is 351 meters long and 6 meters wide. Northern passage is 351 meters long and 5 meters wide. At 50% usage, the total area is 1931 square meters.

Grand total area = 43293 square meters.

At a density of 2.8 persons per square meter, total number of persons = 121,220
At a density of 2.5 persons per square meter, total number of persons = 108,223

- What is 2.8 persons per square meter? In each square meter box (which is 3 feet by 3 feet), 2.8 persons are present. Since the proceedings go on for more than 2 hours, people have to sit. Once they sit down, they cannot move within the box anymore.

- In 2009, the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China announced that 200,000 persons attended. That means there were 200,000 / 43292 = 4.6 persons per square meter.

- An alternate calculation is based upon there being 12 rectangular blocks in the soccer pitches in the 2016 aerial photo above. Counting the number of candles, each block is about 50 times 20 = 1,000 candles. Therefore the total is 1,000 x 12 = 12,000. Add some for the Central Lawn and you get the police estimate. Now who do you trust? The Alliance or your own lying eyes?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

Before the assembly began, many demonstrators carrying "Hong Kong independence", "Hong Kong is not China", "Breakaway from the Chinks and build our own nation, One Country One Side" charged in. One demonstrator got on stage and yelled: "Support Hong Kong independence" before being escorted away by workers. One demonstrator punched the monitors, but was subdued. The police handcuffed one demonstrator and took him away. When they reached the Tin Hau exit of Victoria Park, the demonstrator took off onto the street. Fortunately the cars braked just in time.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 5, 2016.

A stage invasion by Hong Kong independence activists at Saturdays Victoria Park Tiananmen massacre vigil received mixed reactions from different localist political groups.

Several minutes before the commencement of the vigil at 8pm, around a dozen activists, wielding colonial Hong Kong flags and banners, attempted to storm the main stage. One activist seized the microphone, shouting we dont want a democratic China, we want Hong Kong independence we need to take care of ourselves before being removed by event organisers amid scuffles. Others continued to speak to the public behind the stage for around an hour, surrounded by a large contingent of police.

The activist who successfully mounted the stage was named as Simon Sin, a 23 year-old former member of Internet-based group Hong Kong Localism Power, according to Stand News. Sin later alleged that he was assaulted by event staff, saying he was pinched on his arm, seized by his neck, and received blows to his rear.

Hong Kong Localism Power, however, condemned the incident. Everyone has the right to choose to identify with a country, and we will not force Hong Kongers to deny they are Chinese, said Chairman Jonathan Ho Chi-kwong in a statement. We believe that this was a malicious attempt to instigate conflict, Ho concluded.

Last year, the group attempted to disrupt a forum held at Victoria Park on the afternoon of June 4, prior to the vigil. In the same Facebook post, Ho apologised for the groups past actions.

Following the stage invasion, a 24 year-old man was arrested by police on charges of obstructing public officers, and was released on bail shortly before midnight. Members of localist political organisation Civic Passion demonstrated outside North Point Police Station, where he was held. They criticised the event staff for their violent removal of the stage invaders, and questioned the vigil organisers commitment to peaceful forms of protest.

- For this one day of the year, we swear solidarity with our compatriots in China to support patriotic democratic movements there. Now that this is past midnight, we are back to our regular program of "We are Hong Kong", "Hong Kong is not China" and "Mainland locusts, go back where you come from!"

- (The Stand News) June 4, 2016. Video: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/999217053497248/
Simon has frequently propounded on Hong Kong independence before at his street booth. He has more than 1,000 followers on Facebook. At around 745pm, he declared on Facebook that there would be a duel between Reunification versus Independence as he intends to ambush the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Afterwards, reporters and citizens asked him (see video) if he was being rough and impolite. When asked if he applied to speak, Simon said: "We didn't do anything wrong. We only want to express our opinions. We are not on the same side." Afterwards he chanted "Hong Kong independence" with his comrades. He said that those by his side are his brothers and "we will not let the Communist Party rule us."

Kyle is the person holding the "HK is not CHINA" banner. He is a student. He said that it means nothing to him if one or two hundred thousand people attend the assembly tonight. It is more important to let people know that twenty to thirty people oppose the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. He said that in the 1980's, the people of Hong Kong wanted to continue to be be ruled by the British. After June 4th, the Alliance exploited the feelings of the people of Hong Kong and helped the Chinese Communists colonize Hong Kong. Kyle said that the Alliance and Szeto Wah were co-opted to deceive the people of Hong Kong. So should June 4th be commemorated? Kyle said no, because "the dead were Chinese students and not us."

(Apple Daily video) https://www.facebook.com/832553626780002/videos/1007475699287793/

(Video) https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/994196780629387/

- Definition of dog-eat-dog: Complete egotism; action based on utter cynicism; marked by destructive or ruthless competition; without self-restraint, ethics, etc. Because how can you think that 120,000 persons at an event is less important than 20 persons who hold the opposite view? It is the definition of "egotism" --- it's all about ME and the rest of the world be damned.

Definition of egotism: the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance.

- What is the use of seizing the microphone on the grand stage of the Alliance? How does that get Hong Kong independence any closer? Why don't you take over Government Headquarters or Government House?

- You hear that someone is holding a vegetarian banquet at the restaurant. So you decide to crash the gate and you take up a table to eat the chicken thigh that you brought along with you. Why? Because you say that you have the freedom to eat meat. And why won't you just eat your chicken thigh in your own home? Because you can't get media exposure for doing that.

- Video https://www.facebook.com/679614048818777/videos/977426052370907/ Post-incident interview of a demonstrator speaking to reporters. Although bigotry is a serious matter, this comes though comedic all the same.

"We did indeed barge in, but they have no right to beat us.  They support universal values. They support democracy. They support freedom. Why won't they allow pluralistic voices."

(Megaphone) "Hong Kong is not a part of China. The Chinese people are the enemy. They invaded our Hong Kong. They are robbing our resources."

"I want to tell formally that we ostracize the Chinese people! We are not talking about rationality, we are not about welcoming anyone, we are not talking about the quality of the Chinese tourists. Right now we are talking about the water level reaching our eyelids. We are being colonized by China. We are now saying formally and properly. We want a Hong Kong without any Chinese people. There is no need to give any more reasons. In summary, Hong Kong is not China.

- (The Stand News) June 4, 2016. The VTC Political Reform Concern Group and other groups marched towards the China Liaison Office after the Victoria Park candlelight vigil. The police raised the yellow flag to warn them that the march had not received permission. But almost 300 people continued to push on. The police said that they should go back on the sidewalk. The marchers said that the police should give them a car lane. So traffic comes to a halt by the Wan Chai Fire Station.

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016. After the Victoria Park candlelight vigil, the League of Social Democrats called on citizens to march to the China Liaison Office. As they gathered outside Victoria Park, the police stopped them. They argued for about 30 minutes before they were allowed to proceed. They said that they don't need police permission to march in the streets. At around 1030am, the demonstrators reached Hennessey Road and some of them jumped on the vehicular lane. The police raised the yellow warning banner to ask them to move back on tto the pedestrian sidewalk. League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung told the demonstrators that occupying one vehicular lane was sufficient. The police gave them one slow lane on Hennesey Road to march.

- Why did the police object? Look at this photo -- the point of the marchers is to obstruct westbound vehicular traffic and maximize inconvenience to regular citizens. Why should the police go along with this?

- Recently, there is a campaign to issue instant fines to enforce traffic laws (such as loading/unloading passengers/goods in restricted zones, jaywalking, etc). So it turns out that traffic rules are not applicable when you are breaking them in the name of freedom/democracy/human rights/June 4th?

- The whole point:  "Suport Long Hair, Support League of Social Democrats. Please donate money."

- Video: Beggars' alley
Give as much as possible, as soon as possible and as often as possible for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/patriotism/rule of law.
You must donate because we need the money to sustain ourselves until next year's candlelight vigil.
If you don't donate, there won't be another candlelight vigil, and then the Chinese Communists/Li Peng will have won. We can't let that happen, so you must donate as much as possible, as soon as possible and as often as possible for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/patriotism/rule of law.

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

About 20 members of Voice of Loving Hong Kong demonstrated outside the Tin Hau MTR statoin. They criticized the assembly tonight is the "Alliance Alms-begging Evening Gathering." They got into a quarrel with several members of Demosisto and there was a clash (see video). Several dozen policemen were at the scene. Lui "Female Long Hair" Yuk-lin tossed joss paper at the Voice of Loving Hong Kong people and yelled "Vindicate June 4th." Lui was arrested for disorderly conduct in public.

Several other patriotic organizations (including Defend Hong Kong Movement) set up a street booth on Patterson Street "to commemorate the dead soldiers and citizens during the June 4th riot." They chanted "Learn the truth about June 4th," "The pan-democrats have no conscience" and "Albert Ho, you lied by hiding the truth of the bloodshed", "The Alliance is immoral for denying that soldiers were killed." Several other citizens confronted them, and the police intervened.

- (FEHD) "Anyone who commits such offences as littering, spitting, fouling of streets by dog feces, or unauthorised display of bills and posters in public places in Hong Kong is liable to a fixed penalty of HK$1,500.

- (RTHK) June 4, 2016.

At the Tsim Sha Tsui assembly, Civic Passion member "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun said that he doesn't want to vindicate June 4th, because he only wants the Chinese Communists to fall. He quoted a citizen who said, "The Umbrella Movement is the June 4th event for the young people of Hong Kong."

- If you want to bring down the Chinese Communists to fall, you should try to cross the Lohu border. For 27 years, neither the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China nor Civic Passion nor anyone else have tried. They resolutely stayed in Hong Kong to beg alms. In this regard, Civic Passion is no different.

- Well, they don't need to go to Lohu. The China Liaison Office officially represents the Central Government/the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, and it is located in Sai Wan, Hong Kong Island. Why don't you go and bring them down?

P.S. The People's Liberation Army has a garrison in Admiralty, Hong Kong Island, a marine base on Stonecutter's Island and an airbase in Shek Kong. Why don't you take them over?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

Today is the 27th anniversary of the June 4th incident. Several members of the Hong Kong-UK Reunification Campaign (including a masked Andy "Captain America" Yung) went to the British Consulate in Hong Kong to protest. They said that the Joint Sino-British Declaration stipulated that Hong Kong be handed over to China in 1997 without ever consulting the wishes of the broad masses in Hong Kong. After the handover, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly of the people of Hong Kong were deprived, the democratic system was destroyed, corruption is worsening and Hong Kong language is being tampered with. Since China failed to keep the promises in the Joint Sino-British Declaration, they demand that the United Kingdom proclaim it null and void and take back sovereignty over Hong Kong! The British Consulate took the petitions seriously and sent out a security guard to take their letter.

- (SCMP) June 5, 2016.

Donations to organisers of the June 4 candlelight vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown have surged 30 per cent to HK$1.74 million despite a lower turnout at last nights Victoria Park event.

Attendance at the worlds biggest commemoration to the 1989 protests was down by 10,000 from the previous year to 125,000 the lowest since the 20th anniversary vigil in 2009. Police put the figures at a mere 21,800, one of the biggest discrepancies in years compared with the organisers estimate.

- Total amount of donations = $1.74 million.
Number of participants = 125,000
Average amount of donations per person = $13.2.
Cheap bastards!

- (Oriental Daily) June 5, 2016. As for the other pan-democratic political parties, the Labour Party got around $90,000 which is about the same as last year; the League of Social Democrats got $226,000 just slightly less than the $250,000 last year; the Civic Party got $287,000 just slightly less than the $300,000 last year; the Neo Democrats got $60,000 which is about the same as last year; Siu Lai's Democracy Classroom got $87,000 as a first-timer.

- Demosisto led everybody with $450,000 in donations. It should be remembered that they are not registered either as a company or a society, that they don't have a bank account, that they accept checks signed to "Wong Chi Fung" and that they will gladly take checks. This is such an inspiration! Come next June 4th, everybody should show up with a foldable table and a Demosisto banner to collect donations. Who is to say that you are the real thing or not?

- When the League of Social Democrats counted their money, they found that someone had stuffed joss money worth $1,000,000. That was probably reimbursement for the joss money that they burnt outside the China Liaison Office later that night. (video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaI2BxZtK9Y )

- (Local Press) June 5, 2016. A synopsis of the June 4th Forum held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong on the evening of June 4th as an alternative to the Alliance's candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. There were about 500 at the start, and the organizers claimed that 1,500 tickets were handed out.

Session 2: The future of Hong Kong

Fong Chi-hung: Hong Kong has to establish an awareness of an independent identify. We must recognize that we are different from China. We have our own uniqueness (such as our language, culture and independent constitutional system). The Localist movement is more than seeking universal suffrage. With respect to China, we must be autonomous in various domains (politics, economics, culture, energy, etc). Faced with the red-ification of various domains, we must be ready to resist and join up with the civil movements in South East Asia (such as Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan) and establish a unique Hongkonger identity and culture.

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): The preceding generation or generations came as refugees to Hong Kong, so they have strong emotion feelings for China, including a sense of guilt. It would be hard for them to separate from China. But our generation are not close to China. We do no inherit those emotions. We only want to have free, stable lives and retain our own lifestyles, culture and language. If we recognize our own power, then Hong Kong independence is the way to protect our race.

Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party): The June 4th incident gave us two revelations. Firstly, the Hunan Trio advocated the overthrow of the Communist Party in order to establish a democratic society. They threw ink at the Mao Zedong portrait at Tiananmen Square. The Beijing students immediately held a press conference and said that the trio is not connected to the patriotic democratic movement. Their action was just like the pan-democrats today. They regard the Communists as the overlords and they say "We won't overthrow you."

Secondly, the Beijing students advocated non-violent tactics. Liu Xiaobo smashed a gun to pieces. The Hunan Trio were also non-violent. Nevertheless, the People's Liberation Army came out ... We advocate that the people of Hong Kong must get clear what their racial identity is -- that is to say, we are the Hong Kong race, we are the people of Hong Kong and we are not Chinese. Otherwise, it is useless to have Hong Kong independence, because the new government formed by the coalition of the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and the pro-establishment political parties will only lean towards China and Hong Kong will die.

We want to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. If they refuse to negotiate, we will use our fists and bricks to pound them until they agree to negotiate ... We will infiltrate into the various sectors (such as medical care, finance, business, education, culture, etc). For example, if we take over the trade, transportation and logistics sectors, we will be able to prepare Hong Kong to deal with food imports.

Tommy Cheung (former Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president): Our opponent is the Chinese Communists which is a combination of party-state rule and Chinese chauvinism. We must gain self-determination, we must gain autonomy in military and political matters. We must obtain the conditions for self-determination. We must obtain the bargaining chips to realize this vision. We must establish our strengths in economics, academics and culture in order to help Hong Kong.

To get self-determination, we must link up with the histories of resistance in Macau, Taiwan Japan, South Korea and South East Asia. We exchange with their civil groups so that the voices of the people of Hong Kong will get supported. We must stand in the world and seek out Localists everywhere.

Baggio Leung (Youngspiration convener): When Hong Kong first faced the issue of its future, the people of Hong Kong were not aware of sovereignty. At the negotiations between the United Kingdom and China, the people of Hong Kong were missing. 27 years ago after the Chinese Communist murdered its people, a group of Democratic Handover Terrorist appeared. The Chinese Communists need Hong Kong but they don't need its people. This explained why so many absurd things occur in Hong Kong. Now Hong Kong faced the issue of its future for the second time. Hong Kong must establish its racial identity and awareness of sovereignty. Therefore we are advocating a racial self-determination movement ... we must find ways to increase our soft power in order to prepare ourselves for taking over governance and building our own race.

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): The Chinese Communist Party does not believe in the spirit of contracts. Therefore, they wouldn't keep their promise if we negotiate with them. We must increase our own strengths, and link up with Xinjiang and Tibet which are also trying to get independence. Compared to these other places, Hong Kong is the strongest to become independent. Therefore we don't need to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. We have the ability to become independent. Negotiating with them is a regional government negotiating with the sovereign power. It would be an unequal negotiation.

Fong Chi-hung: It is not morally wrong to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. We need to preserve our strengths in order to restrain them.

Baggio Leung: It is not a problem to negotiate. The problem is who gets to negotiate? For example, we wouldn't be getting the Alliance's Choi Yiu-cheung to negotiate. We don't want to repeat the mistake. In 1982, the Reform Society conducted a public opinion poll and only 4% of the people wanted Hong Kong to be handed over to China. So how could these salespersons use the data to sell a democratic handover? The previous generation used such undemocratic methods to sell the democratic handover.

Chan Ho-tin: I am not going to fight for negotiations. I advocate Hong Kong independence. I advocate the use of force, but not violence. Violence gives the impression that you are irrationally and arbitrarily attacking others. I don't lean towards the establishment of an army. Ireland established the Irish Republican Army but that was quickly destroyed. I think that guerilla warfare is better suited for Hong Kong. Will force hurt innocent bystanders? If we don't do anything, the innocent bystanders will suffer even worse fates. For example, many young people are committing suicide due to social pressure.

Right now, 14% (which is 1 million) Hong Kong persons support independence. We must figure out our identities. We are not Chinese, so why should we be governed by the Chinese? Right now, many people are talking about self-determination. That is just a disguise, because they are afraid to say out Hong Kong independence. I think that more and more Hongkongers will support independence. This is inevitably going to happen.

Ray Wong: Do we need the United Kingdom to help Hong Kong? No. If your democracy and freedom were given to you by other persons, it won't last. You have to do it yourself.

Chan Ho-tin: We won't ask the United Kingdom to get democracy for us. We must do it ourselves. But we must gain international recognition, so we need the United Kingdom to support us.

Baggio Leung: Pragmatic politics involve interests. If we want the United Kingdom to help, then it must touch upon their interests. It depends on the objective conditions whether to seek the help of the United Kingdom. If it should happen that everybody in Hong Kong will die unless the United Kingdom supports us, then we want the United Kingdom to help us.

Tommy Cheung: Democracy always depends on oneself, or else the democracy won't last long ...

Fong Chi-hung: Establishing a localist movement is not in conflict with international support. As a cosmopolitan city, Hong Kong needs to gain the recognition of other place in order to gain space for self-determination. It is an objective fact that China is right next door. We need to move among different forces.

47%: The Beijing students did the right thing
17%: The Beijing students did the wrong thing

11%: The Chinese government did the right thing
66%: The Chinese government did the wrong thing

59%: There should be a reversion of the official stand on the incident
20%: There should not be reversion of the official stand on the incident

46%: China's human rights condition has improved since 1989
24%: China's human rights condition has worsened since 1989

32%: China's human rights condition would improve after 3 years
25%: China's human rights condition would worsen after 3 years

62%: HK people have a responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China
27%: HK people have no responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China

57%: HK people have a responsibility to instigate economic development in China
34%: HK people have no responsibility to instigate economic development in China

29%: HK people should put more effort on instigating economic than democratic development in China
37%: HK people should put more effort on instigating democratic than economic development in China

28%: China should emphasize more on economic development
41%: China should emphasize more on democratic development

Internet comments:

- (Ivan Kushnir) In 1990, the Gross Domestic Product of Hong Kong was USD 76.9 billion compared to China's USD 396.6. The ratio was 76.9/396.6 = 0.19.
In 2014, the Gross Domestic Product of Hong Kong was USD 290.9 billion compared to China's USD 10,430.6. The ratio was  290.9/10420.6 = 0.03.
In 1990, the Hong Kong people can still think that they can instigate economic development in China. In 2014, Hong Kong is economically heading towards becoming a second-tier Chinese city.
Therefore the questions about Hong Kong's preferences about instigating economic vs. democratic development in China are anachronistic. Hongkongers may think that they own the responsibility, but they no longer have the ability.

- If once upon a time, China was often at the receiving end of western media barbs, things are very different now.

(New York Times)

Canadians, apart perhaps from hockey players, seem to pride themselves on being affable people averse to confrontation. But China's  foreign minister, Wang Yi, clearly decided that being in Canada was no reason to hold his temper. Especially when it comes to questions on his countrys human rights record.

A Canadian journalist learned that on Wednesday when she asked about the Chinese governments detention of human rights advocates and a Canadian couple accused of espionage. The question was directed at the Canadian foreign minister, Stphane Dion, during a joint news conference in Ottawa. But Mr. Wang then stepped in with a withering lecture, delivered with operatic dudgeon, in which he called the journalist arrogant and prejudiced.

Chinese officials often bristle at questions about human rights and other contentious subjects. But their reactions vary. Sometimes they stick, coolly but adamantly, to the governments stock response that China respects the rule of law and that the countrys stability and economic growth have been a boon to citizens rights.

But sometimes, like Mr. Wang this time, they strike back with their own accusations. In 2000, Jiang Zemin, who was Chinas president at the time, chastised a journalist from Hong Kong for what he considered an impertinent question.

You go everywhere to follow the big news, but the questions you ask are too simple, sometimes nave, Mr. Jiang said. I feel the need to impart to you some real-life experience.

Below is a transcript of the question from the Canadian journalist and Mr. Wangs answer. Ive translated Mr. Wangs original Chinese response. The English-language translation given by the interpreter at the news conference was a little less blunt. The question partly concerned a Canadian couple, Kevin Garratt and Julia Dawn Garratt, who were detained in China in 2014. Mrs. Garratt was later released on bail, but last January, Mr. Garratt was charged with espionage and stealing state secrets while he lived near the border with North Korea accusations that his family has rejected. The question also raised the issue of Hong Kong book publishers detained in mainland China.

Question: There are no shortage of concerns about Chinas treatment of human rights advocates, such as the Hong Kong booksellers and its detention of the Garratts, not to mention the destabilizing effects of its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea. Given these concerns, why is Canada pursuing closer ties with China, how do you plan to use that relationship to improve human rights and security in the region, and did you specifically raise the case of the Garratts during your discussions with the foreign minister today?

Answer: I want to make a response to the questions that the journalist has just raised concerning China. Your question was full of prejudice against China and an arrogance that comes from I dont know where. This is totally unacceptable to me. Do you understand China? Have you been to China? Do you know that China has come from a poor and backward state and lifted more than 600 million people from poverty? Do you know that China is now the worlds second biggest economy with $8,000 per capita? If we werent able to properly protect human rights, would China have achieved such great development? Do you know that China has incorporated protecting human rights into its Constitution? I want to tell you that its the Chinese people who most understand Chinas human rights record not you, but the Chinese people themselves. You have no right to speak on this. The Chinese people have the right to speak. So please dont raise such irresponsible questions again. China welcomes all well-meaning suggestions, but we reject all groundless accusations.

The Canadian Press news agency reported that the offending question, which was asked by a reporter for iPolitics, a news website, was devised through an agreement by several different news outlets, including itself.

Video: Chinese Foreign Minister berates Canadian journalist

- Westerners won't get it until as such time as Chinese journalists get to be just as offensive, ignorant and prejudicial. For example, what if a Global Times reporter were to ask Wang Yi:

There are no shortage of concerns about Canada's contempt of the Chinese. First of all, Canada refuses to extradite Chinese criminals. Even in the case of Lai Changxing, it took Canada 12 years to extradite Lai in spite of incontrovertible evidence. And Canada has never made a sincere apology about the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, beginning with the head tax from 1885 to 1923 (at $500 per head$) and then an outright ban. Given these issues, why should you bother to meet with the Canadians at all? Or perhaps do you plan to use these meetings to press these issues which are of great concern to the people of China?

(Silent Majority for HK) June 3, 2016.

On the Internet, businesses are infinitely creative in using spoofs and jokes to draw attention. Yesterday, Fortune Pharmacal's Facebook made a post with colors similar to Demosisto, whose secretary-general Joshua Wong commented that they choose very good colors. Immediately, the Fortune Pharmacal replied "U no like? Yes like?" in imitation of Wong's internationally famous English.

Joshua Wong immediately made a screen capture of his own icon: Joshua Wong, public figure, 300,690 LIKE's.

This drew in plenty of other Internet comments:

- Please don't fucking jump out like this! Sometimes I cannot help but laugh ...
- Joshua Wong is getting so fucking anxious abut being forgotten. How low can his existential values go?
- Wow! 300,690 LIKE's. That would have gotten him easily elected into the Legislative Council, except that he is not old enough to run.
- The photo shows that Fortune Pharmacal has used that color a long time before Demosisto ever came into existence.

- You can't even tell the difference between someone making fun of your English and competing for more likes? Do you have a reading impediment? Do you really think that they are competing with you for more LIKE's? They are not student chicklets like you! Go and study some more, or else you won't be able to graduate!

- (Hong Kong Democracy Online): "We are envious. 300,690 LIKE's! So awesome! So overwhelming! We are not as good as you are? What should we do? Do we have to become grass on the wall falling whichever way the wind blows at the moment too?"

(Wen Wei Po) June 4, 2016.

When it comes to getting LIKE's, how thick can Demosisto's skin get? Answer: Unlimited! At Ma Shi Po village, so-called villagers are ignoring the court injunction and stopping the land owner Henderson Land Development Company from taking the land back. Demosisto did not respond to earlier Internet calls to defend the land. But once Henderson Land Development Company sent in security guards, Demosisto deputy secretary-general Agnes Chow Ting made an appearance and posted photos to prove that she was there.

Why did Demosisto send in chairman Nathan Law or secretary-general Joshua Wong? Maybe it was because those two haven't acquired any combat skills and can be subdued too easily. However Agnes Chow Ting is a woman, so if you touch her, she can scream "Sexual molestation!"

In any case, Agnes Chow Ting was there. On her Facebook, Chow said that she was there fore six hours. In the end, she was removed forcibly by security guards. She claimed to have personally witnessed a security guard using a lighter to set fire to a piece of canvas at the village entrance. Another security guard even threw a walkie-talkie at the demonstrators. However, even though Agnes Chow brought a professional photographer with her, there were no video recordings of these incidents. On the Internet, the converse of "Video=truth" is "No video=no truth." There were numerous other photographers present too. So how come nobody recorded these violent incidents?

Actually, the attraction of Chow's Facebook post was not her creative writing, but the almost ten photos. Each photo was taken from the correct angle and the colors were finally tuned. In the past, people make fun of her greasy hair. These photos managed to remove even any reflections under the noontime sun. These photos were taken the day before, and it took one day's professional handling before they got posted yesterday.

Ironically, the Ma Shi Po incident is not over yet. But Agnes Chow's involvement was over once she got her photos taken. She had those photos taken in order to enhance her image. But she got blasted by Internet users instead for insincerity. This is in line with the nickname for Demosisto: "Hong Kong gets shot by arrow (香港中箭).

The original TVB report is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvsrEF3gp-U. Enhanced versoin is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGwVXBEvPcs

(SCMP) June 2, 2016.

The defence counsel for seven policemen accused of maliciously assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during the 2014 Occupy protests, officially raised an objection in court against prosecutors attempt to submit news footage as court evidence.

The four pieces of footage - from television stations TVB, ATV, Now TV, and newspaper Apple Daily - purportedly captured the chain of events leading to the moment the seven allegedly assaulted Tsang, deputy director of public prosecutions David Leung Cheuk-yin told the District Court on Thursday.

The seven policemen are Chief Inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, Senior Inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, Detective Sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, and constables Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, who face one joint count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent on Tsang. Chan faces one extra count of common assault for allegedly assaulting Tsang in the interview room of a police station on a separate occasion. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Prosecuting, Leung alleged the ATV and Now TV news footage showed how Tsang was arrested and passed along among a number of police officers. That started the various involvement of the seven defendants, he said. He then said TVB footage showed Tsang being escorted by six officers. Another TVB clip, he alleged, shows how the seven took Tsang to the alleged location of his offence and also assaulted him.

Senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam, for Wong, said the prosecutors failed to prove the originality of the videos and that they had not been tampered with, thereby asking the court not to admit the footage as evidence. But Leung argued that some of the footage was timestamped by the news reporter. The witnesses, including TVB staff, will be called to testify to the chain of events, he said.

It is alleged that the seven unlawfully and maliciously caused grievous bodily harm to Tsang with intent, outside a pump station near Lung Wui Road in Admiralty on October 15 last year.

(SCMP) June 3, 2016.

Witnesses in the case of seven police officers charged with assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during the Occupy protests in 2014 conceded on Friday that news footage didnt tell the full story of what happened that night.

Two police officers, testifying for the prosecution against their colleagues, made the concession to the District Court, where prosecutors have tried to submit a series of videos from different sources leading up to the alleged attack as evidence.

But defence lawyers objected, saying the authenticity of the footage from TVB, ATV, Now TV and Apple Daily could not be verified and that it could have been tampered with.

But despite the concessions, the witnesses confirmed that the news footage matched their recollections of events. Staff from the TV stations also testified that the footage in question was free from tampering.

Chief inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, senior inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, detective sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, and constables Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, deny one joint count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent against Tsang on October 15, 2014. They allegedly assaulted Tsang at a pump station near Lung Wui Road. Chan also denies one lesser charge of common assault.

The seven have been wearing identical ties and suits to court over the past three days, in an apparent attempt to make them harder to distinguish. The court heard earlier that identity would be a key issue in the trial.

In court on Friday, when a piece of ATV footage of Tsangs arrest was shown to senior inspector Wat Chin-cheuk, he identified himself in it and said it was consistent with his recollection. Defence counsel Cheng Huan SC asked him if the footage gave an incomplete picture of what happened. He said: I agree.

Station sergeant Cheng Ho-cheung also identified himself in the video, but conceded that his participation in subduing Tsang, who he described as a man in his black upper garment, lasted about five minutes, while the shown footage ran only about a minute. The sergeant went on and said the subdued man was handed to other officers from a crime team.

Former ATV senior video editor Chim Yat-kin, who explained how videos were backed up by the network, said the device used for conversion had no other function. He also said his team would only process footage, not produce new footage.

Shum Ka-hung, a senior technician at TVB, recalled the signal was normal when real-time footage was transmitted from two cameramen on the ground to his control room. His colleague Lam Ka-yu, senior staff at the stations footage library, said he believed footage had not been tampered with before he burned it onto a disc from a server.

The case continues before judge David Dufton on Monday, when Tsang is expected to testify.

Resistance Live Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0as_ObTefYU Outside the courthouse on June 3rd.

(SCMP) June 6, 2016.

Pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu was in court for the first time on Monday morning, for the trial of seven policemen accused of assaulting him. But Tsang, having been jeered by a scattered, placard-waving crowd, left shortly after his arrival as the District Court needed more time before calling him to the witness stand.

Tsang was allegedly unlawfully and maliciously assaulted by Chief Inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, Senior Inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, Detective Sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, and constables Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, outside a pump station near Lung Wui Road in Admiralty during the Occupy protests on October 15, 2014. It is alleged that Chan also assaulted Tsang later on, in the interview room of Central Police Station. All the men deny one joint count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, while Chan denies a further charge of common assault.

The pro-democracy activist turned up at the court building in Wan Chai at about 10:15am amid jeering by a small group of police supporters, who had not been seen since they staged a demonstration on the first day of the trial on Wednesday last week. But the crowd of dozens thinned as soon as it started raining. When Tsang arrived, one demonstrator rushed at him, but was stopped by police officers. Another hurled verbal abuse as Tsang as he went through the door.

The court had heard since Wednesday the prosecutors application to have a string of news footage admitted as evidence. The videos are from television stations TVB, ATV and Now TV and newspaper Apple Daily, the court heard earlier. Prosecutors argued the footage showed events leading to the alleged assault on Tsang, but defence lawyers contested that, saying the footage lacked traces of origin and proof that it had not been tampered with.

Testifying on Monday, news production manager of TVB David Wong Kwong-hoi was asked about his findings after he compared the footage the police downloaded from TVBs website with the one the station kept in its database. Apart from some scenes which were cut because the camera was blocked, he said: Basically its not edited at all. But he had not compared their audio tracks, the court heard.

The trial continues before Judge David Dufton on Monday afternoon.

(SCMP) June 8, 2016.

Occupy protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu today told the trial of seven policemen accused of maliciously assaulting him that he was in pain so great that he could not tell for how long he had been assaulted.

Taking the witness stand for the first time, Tsang offered his personal account of the alleged assault at the District Court. I was in great pain at that moment ... I didnt know [for how long] because the pain lasted for a long time, he said of the alleged assault that took place on October 15, 2014, during the Occupy movement protests.

Testifying today, Tsang said he was carried to a pump station from a flower bed near the Legislative Council, where he was arrested, by four or five persons on that night. He said the pump station was the dark corner referred to by everyone and the media.

I was dumped to the ground, and then I was kicked and punched, he testified, adding that he felt he was being assaulted with hard objects. Someone stepped on me and hit my face, he continued. He then curled up to face a wall, the court heard. He recalled the group said: Demonstrating, huh?

After watching the news, he realised the assault lasted four minutes, the court heard. He said he was subsequently taken to a private car, which went to Waterfront Police Station, where he stayed for about 30 minutes. He was escorted by seven individuals, including the driver, and eventually taken to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang.

The court also heard that when Tsang was moved to the pump station, those carrying him allegedly assaulted him as well. They held my arms, one on the left and one on the right, and dragged me along, he recalled, saying that his whole body was eventually elevated. One of them twisted my left thumb and left wrist, he recalled. The others, he said, were leading the way and dispersing reporters.

Tsang was also shown news footage the prosecution tried to submit to the court, claiming that it captured events leading up to the alleged assault. Lawyers for the defence objected. Tsang identified himself in the footage and said it was consistent with his recollection of what happened. He was also shown several segments of CCTV footage from Central Police Station. He confirmed it showed him being escorted from a car park to an interview room by two men.

The trial continues before Judge David Dufton.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/832553626780002/videos/1009703105731719/ Ken Tsang supporters on display

(RTHK) June 8, 2016.

Civic Party member, Ken Tsang, on Wednesday made an about-turn admission in the District Court saying he did splash liquid on police officers during the Occupy pro-democracy protests in Admiralty nearly two years ago.

He made the admission while testifying at the trial of seven policemen accused of causing grievous bodily harm to him with intent. One of them is further accused of assaulting Tsang in the report room of the Central Police Station.

Tsang was shown video footage of a man who was wearing a pair of googles and a mask pouring liquid from a large plastic bottle from the embankment of the underpass at Lung Wo Road on to a group of policemen below. He was then asked whether he was the man in the video.

After being told by Judge David Dufton that he can refrain from answering questions that may incriminate him, Tsang confirmed that he was the man in the video.

Tsang had earlier denied, in a separate trial, charges of assaulting police officers by splashing liquid on them. His lawyer argued at the time that the man who was filmed splashing the liquid was not Tsang, and that his client would not have done such an immoral and illegal act.

But Tsang was later convicted and sentenced to five weeks in prison. However, the magistrate released him on bail after he said he will appeal against the conviction.

Earlier in the day, the lawyer representing the police officer accused of assaulting Tsang in the report room of the Central Police Station questioned the authenticity of the closed-circuit television video footage inside the station.

Counsel said the recording system was not functioning properly at the time, and one could not say whether the video was accurate. He said it should not be presented as evidence because there was "insufficient evidence to establish its authenticity".

(TVB) June 8, 2016.

Senior barrister Lawrence Lok Ying-kam showed a video of a man dressed in black tossing liquid (see video). He asked Ken Tsang whether he was that individual. The judge reminded the witness that he has the right not to respond to any question that may incriminate himself, so the witness will have to decide. Ken Tsang then admitted that he was that individual. Lok followed up and asked whether Tsang or his lawyer denied that he toss the liquid. Tsang responded that he did not testify in court, but agreed that his lawyer took the position that he did not toss the liquid.

(SCMP) June 10, 2016.

Prosecution witness Ken Tsang Kin-chiu told a court on Friday that when asked to give statements against seven police officers accused of assaulting him during the 2014 Occupy movement he feared being asked leading questions.

Tsang was responding to defence counsel Cheng Huan SCs questions under cross-examination on the seventh day of the District Court trial in which his testimony on the authenticity of videos that prosecutors sought to submit to court had been challenged.

Cheng told the court that Tsang was invited to the Complaints Against Police Office, better known as CAPO, on October 16 last year to identify himself in a series of videos. On October 20, four days after the invitation, Tsang went to view 20 videos but refused to make an immediate statement, the court heard. Some of the videos were among those shown in court. The prosecutors had argued the recorded events led to the alleged assault on Tsang. But the defence was trying to block their admission.

When asked why he refused to make a statement, Tsang replied: The legal advice I obtained was to prepare further before I was to give a statement. But Cheng persisted. You were asked to simply identify yourself, he told Tsang. Whats so difficult about that? My worry was that during the process police would try to put to me a lot of pre-set questions, Tsang replied.

On Friday, Cheng suggested that Tsang was being deliberately uncooperative and complicated the police investigation by refusing to make a statement at CAPO. Tsang said he tried to fully cooperate, but said problems arose in the course of his being asked to make a statement. He disagreed with Chengs suggestion that he was concerned about possibly incriminating himself.

He declined to answer the questions at that time, he testified on Friday, based on legal advice he was given. Yet Tsang conceded that in a different statement made on October 19, 2014, four days after the alleged assault, he had not mentioned that the number of individuals assaulting him was seven. However, he told the court he had not made the evidence up as he went along, as Cheng suggested.

Earlier Tsang told the court that those who used force on him had to be police officers because protesters would not do so. Defence counsel Edwin Choy Wai-bond SC, accused Tsang of political posturing in court as the pro-democracy protester had previously expressed interest in making himself a candidate for the upcoming Legislative Council elections.

The trial continues before Judge David Dufton.

(Sing Tao Daily http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/159579-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF-%E3%80%90%E4%B8%83%E8%AD%A6%E6%A1%88%E3%80%91%E5%85%A9%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%E4%BB%A3%E8%A1%A8%E5%A4%A7%E7%8B%80%E6%8C%87%E6%9B%BE%E5%81%A5%E8%B6%85%E3%80%8C%E8%AC%9B%E5%A4%A7%E8%A9%B1%E3%80%8D ) June 10, 2016.

Defense counsel Edwin Choy Wai-bond SC asked Ken Tsang about his background. Tsang said that he had studied overseas but never got a degree. Tsang is presently registered as a social worker and is working as a research director. He agreed that he wants to get into politics as he is contemplating entering the Legco election this September. But he objected to Choy's characterization of him as a professional politician because "I haven't been elected, so you cannot say that I have entered politics."

Choy asked Tsang whether he was demonstrating at the flower bed over Lung Wo Road to express opposition to the police re-opening Lung Wo Road. Tsang did not offer an opinion.

Choy asked Tsang about the pouring of liquid onto the uniformed police below. Why did Tsang said on direct examination a few days ago that "only the police will employ violence during a demonstration"? Is pouring liquid on people an act of violence? Tsang did not offer an opinion.

Choy said that all the police officers involved in subduing Tsang were wearing uniforms, and therefore Tsang did not have to guess at the identities of those individuals. Tsang agreed. Choy said that when Tsang testified that he guessed that those persons were police, "it was just a political stance." Tsang disagreed. He said that he did not resist at all while being subdued.

(EJ Insight) How young people will shape the Legco elections. By SC Yeung. June 2, 2016.

If the recent voter registration is anything to go by, people born between 1960 and 1980 will dictate the results of the Legislative Council elections in September. And when public sentiment is factored in, we would be seeing opposition lawmakers in greater numbers in Legco.

In theory, this election is a contest to reshape the chamber before Hong Kongs next leader is chosen next year. But in reality, its a referendum on Leung Chun-ying and his deeply unpopular policies.

This is where voter demographic comes in.

Voters born between 1956 and 1998 account for 71 percent of the electorate, about a third of whom are young people or first-time voters. The latter is the most disaffected with Leungs government. Their older peers are no less dissatisfied, potentially making these two age groups a potent force for the opposition. Those older than 60 make up a small minority and are likely to go either way.

Which is why candidates and their parties are drawing up strategies with these factors in mind. They will be looking back on the district council elections in November, in which pro-establishment candidates won the lions share of seats, for signs of the way forward. Also, they will be keen to know how Edward Leung of the radical localist group Hong Kong Indigenous managed to shake up New Territories East by winning 15 percent of the vote in a by-election.

There are about 3.77 million registered voters for geographical constituencies, up from 3.47 million in 2012. About 3.47 million are registered in the district council (second) functional constituency, which elects five lawmakers. Traditional functional constituencies have 239,000 registered electors.

A 50 percent surge in voter registration among first-time voters and young people shows they are keen to influence the results. And with their sentiment driven by disenchantment with this government, they are likely to reject pro-establishment candidates.

- (SCMP) June 1, 2016.

The lawmaker for information technology has expressed shock at a sharp rise in the number of registered voters in his functional constituency and questioned whether pro-Beijing forces were getting people to sign up.

The information technology constituency saw the biggest expansion in voter numbers from 6,716 in 2012 to 12,046 this year a rise of 79.4 per cent, according to provisional voter statistics released by the Registration and Electoral Office yesterday.

The provisional data also showed those who plan to contest Legislative Council seats in the September elections will face more older voters.

For the 28 traditional trade-based functional constituencies, there are about 239,195 registered voters, a slight drop from about 240,735 in 2012. The accountancy sector has 25,970 voters, 796 more compared with the 2012 figure.

Incumbent IT sector lawmaker Charles Mok described the sharp rise as shocking and claimed it added weight to a conspiracy theory that Beijing was orchestrating it behind the scene.

This proves media reports that various trade organisations have tried to attract voters by reducing membership fees It also proves that some functional constituencies, especially the professional sectors, are strongholds that Beijings liaison office wants to take [from pan-democrats], Mok said.

Controversially, Mok and his fellow pan-democrats, who had in the past called for abolishing functional constituencies because they saw the system as undemocratic, have mobilised supporters to sign up as voters to secure sufficient seats to block government policy.

Mok said he had expected the voter number for his sector to rise to about 8,000.

Internet comments:

- Here are the 2011 versus 2016 voter registration data by age-sex.

There are two angles to look at this.

First  of all,  you can look at the data by the year of birth:

Birth year 2011 2016 %change
80's/90's 597872 901093 151%
70's 553595 576007 104%
60's 721707 753061 104%
50's 789025 782211 99%
Pre-50's 898336 756660 84%
 Total 3,560,535 3,769,032 106%

Everybody knows that you cannot cheat death. Therefore as time goes by, there will be fewer and fewer persons in the population who were born before 1950.

But if you think that the population is getting younger, then you are wrong! After all, all that talk about the universal retirement protection scheme is premised upon a problem faced by an ageing population!

So the alternate view is to look at the data by age:

Age 2011 2016 %change
18-20 144,724 122,947 85%
21-25 213,243 266,301 125%
26-30 239,905 251,858 105%
31-35 262,173 259,987 99%
36-40 291,422 271,102 93%
41-45 308,541 304,905 99%
46-50 413,166 326,141 79%
51-55 437,073 426,920 98%
56-60 351,952 433,731 123%
61-65 273,678 348,480 127%
66-70 162,142 265,116 164%
71+ 462,516 491,544 106%
  3,560,535 3,769,032 106%

So if you say "Don't trust anyone over 30," you are effectively dooming yourself to a minority role. When the population is ageing, your role will in fact diminish over time.

In SC Yeung's article, he chose to look at the birth year and therefore he will get the result that there are fewer people born during or before the 1950's over time. He drew the conclusions as he saw from this. If he had chosen to look at the age distribution instead, he would be looking at an ageing population. What are the old folks' views?

Here is an example: (Ming Pao, Ming Pao, Ming Pao) The newspaper Ming Pao commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to conduct a survey. From October 31 to November 5 2014, 1005 Hong Kong residents aged 18 or over were interviewed by telephone.

Q3. Have you participated in the recent assemblies of the Occupy movement?

18% said that they have participated in the recent assemblies of the Occupy movement, for an average of 3.8 times.
The remaining 82% said that they have never participated.

By age group:
18-29: 44% yes, 55% no
30-49: 17% yes, 83% no
50 or over: 8% yes, 92% no

The big issue is whether the old folks will come out to vote. They can be motivated by more talk on "The Hong Kong race is a completely different race from the Chinese race," "you old people are just pimps at the brothel", etc.

- (Oriental Daily) The confusing thing about the IT sector is that there is no single way of establishing credentials. Most people go though various professional organizations to establish their credentials. In particular, it is easy for university graduates who majored in computer science or information technology to apply to the IEEE  (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), pay an annual fee of about $900 and become a voter. About 3,500 of the new electors qualified by this method. Charles Mok is a senior member of IEEE, but he denies that the organization is friendly to the pan-democrats. He said that he merely encouraged IT workers to register as voters and that more voters mean it would be harder to manipulate.

(Shanghaiist) WATCH: This completely racist ad for washing detergent just aired on Chinese TV and at cinemas. May 26, 2016.

As any foreigner who has ever lived in China can attest, attitudes regarding race and skin color are often quite different here from back home. Still even with prior experience, sometimes this country can leave you completely and utterly dumbfounded.

Such is the case with a recent incredibly racist advertisement for Qiaobi-brand laundry detergent that has been making the rounds on WeChat. According to one young lady on Weibo the ad appeared on television and before movies at Wanda Cinemas this month.

In the video, a paint-splattered black man confidently approaches a young Chinese woman, only to have detergent placed in his mouth and his body shoved into a washing machine for a thorough rinsing. Once the wash cycle is done, out pops a pristine young Chinese man, as clean as can be.

40-second version of Qiaobi ad
60-second version of Qiaobi ad

Wow! Those spots on the shirt came right off!

It turns out that the video is actually a blatant ripoff (even using the exact same music and sound effects) of a series of Italian laundry detergent ads (ad1 and ad2) that were aired about 9 years ago. Containing similar racist overtones, the original ads argue that in fact "Coloured is better."

The Chinese ad would seem to disagree.

Thanks to traditional beauty standards valuing white skin, many Chinese people have a well-established phobia of dark skin which unfortunately also breeds racist attitudes towards people of African descent, who are viewed by some as "dirty" simply because of their skin tone.

(Shanghaiist) May 28, 2016.

The Chinese company behind the shockingly racist laundry detergent ad that everybody is talking about has responded to the global backlash against their ad, calling foreign media "too sensitive."

In an interview over the phone with Party mouthpiece the Global Times, a spokesperson surnamed Wang from the Shanghai-based Leishang cosmetics company, which produces the Qiaobi-brand detergent, said that the commercial had been filmed at the beginning of 2015. "We meant nothing but to promote the product, and we had never thought about the issue of racism," Wang said. "The foreign media might be too sensitive about the ad. Instead of using the full version of the commercial, we actually aired a 5-second version which does not have the black character. We have no idea why the full version went viral online."

Wang's comments would seem to contradict reports on Weibo that the full ads had been aired on Chinese television and during previews at Wanda Cinemas earlier this month. Wang refused to reveal any more information about the commercial's production or cost to Global Times.

He also did not address the fact that the video is actually a blatant ripoff (even using the exact same music and sound effects) of a series of Italian laundry detergent ads that were aired about 9 years ago. Containing similar racist overtones, the original ads argue that in fact "Coloured is better."

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) US media outrage over detergent ad is pot calling the kettle black. By Alex Lo. May 30, 2016.

The Qiaobi detergent TV commercial on the mainland is indeed racist and offensive. Yet, even more interesting, is why it seems to provoke outrage only in the US media and not anywhere else in the world.

US and English-language news media have been quick to report on the commercial, yet few bother to tell their audiences that the long version with the black actor that went viral online was never broadcast; only the shorter version was shown without him.

Americans are quick to condemn.

The popular Vox.com waxed indignant: This ad is blatantly racist... its also a reminder that attitudes over race and skin colour in China can be very bad.

CNN editorialised along a similar vein.

By now, you have probably seen the viral version. A muscular black man whistles and winks at an attractive young Chinese woman. She calls him over, puts a detergent packet in his mouth, and pushes him headfirst into a washing machine. She then sits on the lid while the man shrieks and the washing machine spins. Moments later a young, Asian-looking man emerges in clean clothes, and the woman grins.

I dont know about you but I find the Idris Elba-lookalike black actor far sexier and attractive than the effeminate lady boy that came out of the washer.

Still, whats intriguing is the US news media blasting China for being racist towards blacks, and the commercial is being offered as Exhibit A.

Thats a bit rich coming from a country that was founded on black slavery, whose devastating legacy still haunts the current generation. Thirty-seven per cent of prison inmates in the US are African-Americans, though they make up only 13 per cent of the total population. Blacks on average live five years less than whites. A typical white family has a net worth of US$134,200, while a black one scrapes by with slightly more than US$11,000. US police killed at least 102 unarmed black people last year; unarmed blacks are five times more likely to be killed by police than unarmed whites. Such awful statistics roll on and on.

What you have is a politically correct media that helps to hide the underlying racism running deep in American society and projects it on to other countries.

China has racial problems. But murderous racism against blacks is not one of them.

- Of course, each situation is absolute and you should never resort to using the excuse that things are worse elsewhere. For example, in the case of Ken Tsang, you shouldn't say: "In the United States, if you dump urine on a group of policemen, they would have shot you dead right there and then."

- That's right. In the United States, it is acceptable to have the police kill black people; in Hong Kong, it is acceptable to have demonstrators dump urine on policemen. Moral relativism rules everywhere and there are no international standards as such that hold everywhere.

- (Vox) An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox's Dara Lind shows that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: black people accounted for 31 percent of police shooting victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population.

-Look at the horrible things that are done to black people ...

(SCMP) May 26, 2016.

Pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu has been convicted by the Kowloon City Court of one count of police assault and two of resisting arrest during the Occupy movement in 2014. But he was acquitted of two other charges of resisting arrest.

Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen said on Thursday that he was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Tsang was the one who poured an unknown liquid over 11 police officers and subsequently resisted arrest by two others who were undoubtedly executing their duties. He explained that the act of splashing liquid no doubt amounted to an assault given the hostility involved, and that Tsang must have known he would be arrested in the aftermath, yet resisted the arrest. But Law accepted that his resistance may in part have been due to a natural reaction towards pepper spray and hence acquitted him on two counts of resisting arrest.

Sentencing is scheduled for Monday afternoon. Three letters have been submitted in mitigation. Tsang previously had a clean criminal record.

The case centred on one of the most controversial nights of the 79-day civil disobedience protests, when thousands of Hongkongers occupied thoroughfares in Admiralty, Central, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui to demand universal suffrage.

The verdict was delivered a week ahead of that for a sister case at the District Court, where seven police officers will stand trial next Wednesday for allegedly assaulting Tsang on the same night.

Eleven police officers had told the court that liquid that smelled like urine was spilled on them as they were clearing protestors from Lung Wo Road underpass in Admiralty on October 15.

A statement from police sergeant Wong Hoi-man said: We were moving forward when I suddenly felt my head was wet ... I looked up to see a man wearing goggles and [a] face mask pouring an unknown liquid. But Wong did not identify his attacker, except to say that it was a man in black wearing goggles and [a] face mask.

The court also heard from sergeant Butt Wang-tat, who testified that he immediately tackled a man in black after seeing him pour liquid from a one-litre bottle onto the underpass below, but said he struggled to bring the man down to the pavement. Sergeant Ching Ying-wai added that he needed to pepper-spray the mans face in order to restrain and handcuff him.

Tsang did not take the stand or call witnesses in his defence after denying one count of police assault and four of resisting arrest.

His identification was a major point of contention during the trial as the defence argued that Tsang was not the man in videos filmed by police which showed a man in black T-shirt, goggles and mask splashing liquid or ATV footage of a man in a black T-shirt being arrested. Also at issue was the authenticity of the ATV videos admitted after a trial within a trial, as the defence contended that the court must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the footage had not been tampered with.

Police assault and resisting arrest are both punishable by two years imprisonment, under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance.

Tsang was earlier swarmed by a hundred supporters and journalists as he arrived at Kowloon City Court. Sporting his usual navy suit with a bright yellow ribbon pinned to his lapel, the social worker greeted cameramen and photographers while his Civic Party vice-chairwoman Tanya Chan and lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki stood next to him in support.

Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, League of Social Democrats lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung and activist Tsang Kin-shing were also among those who stood by his side. Before he entered the building, Tsang shook hands with his supporters, who raised yellow umbrellas and a banner that read: Plaintiff turned defendant, prosecuted after he was beaten. Some also chanted: Civil disobedience. Shame on political prosecution.

Those who wished to hear the verdict in person were given stickers at 1.30pm to reserve a seat in courtroom number 13, where the press had been allocated 28 spots and the public, 74. Others occupied the benches at the floor lobby to await news of the anticipated court ruling.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 26, 2016.

A court has found Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu guilty of three counts of assaulting police and resisting arrest in relation to events that took place during the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014. He has been cleared of the other two counts of resisting arrest.

Tsang, 40, was accused of attacking police officers with liquid from the embankment of the underpass at Lung Wo Road and then resisting arrest during the Umbrella Movement demonstrations. He was charged with one count of police assault and four of resisting arrest. He will be sentenced on May 30.

Tsang arrived at the Kowloon City Magistrates Court on Thursday afternoon to a crowd of supporters holding yellow umbrellas. The courtrooms spectator stand was also filled to the brim with members of the public and journalists.

Magistrate Peter Law ruled that the footage relating to the incident was admissible, stating that it showed a continuous chain of events and was of a clear quality. Law said that each witness, and each time frame during the incident, had to be independently evaluated. He stressed that it was important for testimonies to be based on the witnesses own memories rather than the footage, according to the updates on Tsangs official page.

Law questioned how two police officers could mistake each other for themselves and noted that their signatures appeared on the others witness statements. Law said that the court would not accept their testimony.

However, he said he believed the accounts of police sergeant Ching Ying-wai who earlier testified in court about the process of subduing the suspect and others were based on the witnesses memories as opposed to video evidence.

Law said that the footage and the pictures taken at the police station show that the man who poured the liquid on the night of the incident, and the man who was arrested, shared the same facial features and similar shoes, and was therefore the same person.

(SCMP) May 30, 2016.

Activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu was jailed five weeks by the Kowloon City Court on Monday for causing what the magistrate called a great insult to innocent police officers by splashing a foul-smelling liquid on them during an Occupy protest in October 2014. But he was soon freed on HK$300 cash bail after his counsel David Ma indicated that he would appeal.

The sentence was greeted by an uproar in the public gallery, with many booing and shouting Justice is dead as soon as the magistrate began retreating to his chambers.

Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen was told that the social worker splashed an unknown liquid that smelled like urine on 11 police officers before he resisted arrest by two others that night. He said imprisonment was absolutely appropriate and the sole sentencing option.

Law compared the degree of insult and provocation invoked by the act of splashing liquid to spitting in the officers faces, and said Tsangs act turned innocent officers into scapegoats for his venting behaviour. The defendant on one hand was angry at police for losing restraint, the magistrate said. On the other hand, he had similarly lost restraint in splashing an unknown liquid and causing harm to innocent police offices ... It sounds ironic. Law also pointed out that Tsang showed no remorse, before he concluded that the potential loss of his social worker registration was not a mitigating factor.

Assaulting police and resisting arrest are both punishable by up to two years imprisonment, under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance. Tsang was jailed five weeks for assaulting police and three weeks for each count of resisting arrest, all served concurrently.

The afternoon hearing was attended by a full house in the public gallery, including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, vice-chairwoman Tanya Chan and lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki, who were there to support their party member. Many also gathered at the court building entrance an hour before the scheduled hearing, with dozens queuing up to sign a placard showing their support for Tsang.

The Hong Kong Social Workers General Union invited members to share experiences of social workers participation in political movements. But attention was instead drawn to a shouting match that erupted after a man in sunglasses began calling out with the help of a microphone: The many people youve harmed how could you be a social worker? He continued: Why do you guys always lead the breach of law? Meanwhile, Tsangs supporters brandished yellow umbrellas and retorted: Support Tsang Kin-chiu, support Tsang Kin-chiu. The man left the court area about five minutes later, under the escort of a handful of police officers and a pack of three dozen journalists.

Internet comments:

- Do you trust Ken Tsang's lawyer, or your own lying eyes? Here are the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNf052V2Og (slow motion)

- The two policemen who mistook each for the other.

Because these two police officers misidentified themselves, the judge dismissed the two assault charges against them. Two other police officers testified, one having used pepper spray and the other helped Ken Tsang to stand up. The judge found those two credible and found Tsang guilty of the two assault charges against those two.

- In theory, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest are both punishable by two years imprisonment, under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance. In practice, Hong Kong is under common law which is law developed by judges, courts and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future case.

Here is a recent precedent for reference: (SCMP, April 19, 2016) (SCMP, May 3, 2016)

Two men, including a restaurant owner who claimed he hated the Occupy movement because of its effect on his teenage son, face jail time after they were convicted by Eastern Court of throwing animal entrails at media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying at the Admiralty site in November 2014.

Magistrate Lee Siu-ho said it was without question that such behaviour amounted to common assault. This case of common assault is different from simpler cases in which the victim was merely touched once or twice, the magistrate said. The court at this moment believes imprisonment is appropriate and will actively consider imprisoning the defendants.

Sentencing was adjourned until May 3 pending background reports on the defendants.


The animal entrails attack on Jimmy Lai Chee-ying during the Occupy movement in November 2014 was a premeditated plan to insult the media mogul, a magistrate said on Tuesday as he blasted three men for potentially destroying public peace.

Eastern magistrate Lee Siu-hos comments came as he sentenced kitchen worker Chan Kwok-hung, 31, restaurant owner Yip Wing-chi, 44, and businessman Li Siu-lung, 46, to jail terms of between nine and 18 weeks each.

The case centred on an attack at about 4.30pm on November 12, 2014 when Yip threw bags of animal entrails at Lai, who owns the Apple Daily newspaper, on Harcourt Road in Admiralty. Li filmed the attack. The magistrate said: The act of throwing the entrails, in courts view, was to insult the victim not only to dirty his clothes but also to leave a psychological impact.

Lee also noted that it was obviously a premeditated plan to assault Lai as Yip delivered the entrails on a cart from the New Territories and was prepared to launch more attacks, had they not been discovered. The [nature of] common assault in this case was serious among its kind, he added.

All except Yip, who admitted throwing animal entrails, were convicted on common assault charges after trial.

- It is not going to help the image of Rule-of-law in Hong Kong if Magistrate Peter Law sentences Ken Tsang to 80 hours of community service.

- The trick here is the attitude of the defendant. If the defendant is adamant that he is completely innocent, then the sentence will be on the high side. If the defendant expresses regret (and thus implicitly acknowledges guilty), the sentence will be on the lenient side. What is Ken Tsang's position then?

- Is Ken Tsang being too complacent here when because he thought that Yellow Ribbons will be treated leniently? Is that why he didn't even bother to testify himself?

- The judge cannot hold the failure of the defendant to testify in person against him. That is a technicality inside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom, the public is skeptical -- if Ken Tsang was not the man who tossed the smelly liquid, he should have just gotten on the witness stand and say so.

- If Ken Tsang gets a $100 fine for throwing smelly liquid at people, what should the Mong Kok Sai Yeung Choi Street South acid thrower get under this precedent?

- If Ken Tsang is sentenced to more than three months, he will lose the social worker license as well as eligibility to run for elections. What will he do then? Ah, I know -- some Civic Party legislator can hire him as an aide.

- The defense pleaded that the defendant is an experienced social worker who has worked in various government jobs as well as performing volunteer work. After this case, the defendant had stay home to nurse his injuries. Since April 1st this year, he is working as a research director on social welfare policies with a monthly salary of $3,000.

I had to read this again to make sure that the $3,000 figure is not an error.

Why did he start working only on April 1 this year? Because he was concerned about being characterized as a shiftless bum by the probation officer.

- And what was Ken Tsang doing before April 1 this year? For about 18 months, he must be living off social welfare checks. He is a social worker and he surely knows how to navigate the system.

- On one hand, if you can get fined $2,000 for jaywalking, assaulting a police officer should clearly draw a more severe penalty. On the other hand, Tsang makes only $3,000 a month. So a fine of $3,000 would equal his whole month's salary.

- At least Ken Tsang didn't follow the other Umbrella Revolutionaries (such as Andy Yung, Eric Poon, Amy But, etc) to use mental retardation as the excuse.

- The strong piece of evidence was the ATV video showing Ken Tsang being arrested by several police officers. The defense said that the video might have been tampered with. They forgot to add that ATV has previously false stories such as the death of Jiang Zemin, etc.

- (Apple Daily)

The defense said that 40-year-old Ken Tsang is a social worker. In 2014, he traveled to South America by himself. After hearing about the Occupy movement, he returned to Hong Kong in October and wanted to help those who are fighting for social justice. On that evening, Tsang saw on one side were peaceful demonstrators who only wanted to use umbrellas to block the pepper spray applied by the police. On the other side, the police used batons, pepper spray and excessive force to disperse citizens who are fighting for their rights.

Peaceful? Defensive? Who should I believe? Ken Tsang's lawyer or my own lying eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gisNixIsJZk

- By contrast, here are the international standards as set by the French police against protestors on May 17, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwA3pRArFkg

- Ken Tsang's lawyer also said that the act of tossing liquid was to relieve stress and express discontent. This statement is an admission to having committed the act. If Ken Tsang wants to file an appeal on the verdict/sentence, he would have to argue on technical grounds instead of claiming total innocence (e.g. wrong identity).

- There does not appear to be much public outcry against this guilty verdict. The first line of defense would be that Ken Tsang was completely innocent and did not commit the act. To do this, you will have to concoct some fantastically fantastic story to negate what your lying eyes saw. The second line of defense is that even if Ken Tsang committed the act, he should be freed because he is doing it for freedom/democracy/human rights/rule-of-law/universal suffrage. This means the end of Rule of Law in Hong Kong. But Ken Tsang hasn't personally resorted to this tactic, so why are you doing it for him against his wishes?

- After the sentencing, Ken Tsang said in English: "We gonna stand until the last minute,We gonna fight until the end. We never give up." He has not disclosed the approach, which would be either that he was completely innocent or that he is guilty but the sentence was too harsh.

- The judge said that the fact that Ken Tsang is a social worker had no bearing in the sentencing. That had better be the case, because if occupation were a factor, then someone is going to file a complaint at the Equal Opportunities Commission.

- Internet users have made this scorecard:

18 weeks for three regular citizens throwing pig entrails at Jimmy Lai (Next Media boss)
5 weeks for Ken Tsang (Civic Party) throwing urine at a group of police officers
3 weeks for League of Social Democrats member throwing an egg at Secretary of Finance John Tsang

Now we know what the score is.

- Given the above scores, what will Raymond Wong Yuk-man get for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung in the Legislative Council? 12 months probation?

- As soon as the sentence was pronounced, the judge granted a $300 bail while the defendant contemplates an appeal? What is $300? A parking ticket is $450. A jaywalking ticket is $2,000. This shows how serious the judge thinks the crime is.

- (Sing Tao) After the judge pronounced the sentence, a member of the public said "Is there a mistake?" and somebody else used an obscenity. They said "Justice was unfair," "No reasoned basis" and "Damn dog official." After the recess, many supporters of Ken Tsang continued to boo and insulted the judge. According to the relevant law, insulting the magistrate can lead to a jail term of 6 months and a fine of $10,000.

- Civic Party's Audrey Eu and Tanya Chan were present. They are both lawyers and they did nothing to restrain this contempt of court behavior.

- (SCMP) Ken Tsang and his supporters make a mockery of the rule of law. By Alex Lo. May 31, 2016.

For many political activists these days, press freedom is only for those who share their viewpoints. Likewise, those who speak loudest for judicial independence feel no compunction openly denouncing judges who deliver judgments contrary to their demands and expectations.

The behaviour of the supporters of Civic Party activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu at his court sentencing this week was an utter disgrace. On hearing their hero being jailed for five weeks, the dozens of supporters and activists booed and shouted at principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen.

The guy was convicted for assaulting police officers during the Occupy protests in October 2014 by splashing a foul-smelling liquid on them and for resisting arrest. These are serious offences that usually carry mandatory jail sentences upon conviction. So the magistrate actually didnt have much of a choice. But he immediately granted Tsang bail of HK$300 pending an appeal.

All things considered, this is an extremely lenient and considerate judge. Still, Tsangs supporters screamed and insulted the judge and other police officers inside the court. There were shouts of no justice, drop dead you dog judge (as in a corrupt judge), maladministration of justice, and drop dead, your whole family. The last was apparently directed at the families of police officers at the scene.

These people clearly showed a deep contempt of court, but were allowed to walk away. As I said, this judge and other law officers at the court were really lenient.

As the magistrate observed, Tsang showed no remorse throughout the trial. In fact, Tsang clearly delighted in the show being put on and the high turnout of supporters each time he appeared in court. He even thanked his supporters for making him feel strong and powerful after the trial. Some people seem to confuse having many supporters for being in the right.

The fact that Tsang was filmed being beaten after his arrest, allegedly by a group of police officers, does not excuse his prior assaults against the police. The trial has started for the seven officers alleged to have beaten him. If convicted, they deserve to be severely punished.

But their guilt, even if proven in a court of law, does not make Tsang innocent.

- Eyewitness report from the courtroom

After reading out the sentence, the judge thanked the prosecutor and the defense lawyer and quickly left to go back to his office. As soon as he got up, the supporters of Ken Tsang began yelling "Dog judge!" and so on. The judge acted as if he never heard them.

At the time, there were only security guards in the court room. The court system only has a few court policemen to escort prisoners while overall security is outsourced to outside companies. So when the judge left, only the two prosecutors and some unarmed police representatives were left to face the curses from more than 30 Ken Tsang supporters.

After some commotion the courtroom was cleared, leaving only the prosecutors and the police officers to wait in frustration. But the supporters of Ken Tsang stayed in the building.

Apart from the front entrance, there are two other passageways. If the prosecutors left through the front entrance, their personal safety is not assured. After waiting for 30 minutes, the prosecutors asked the court clerk if she can ask Judge Peter Law to let them use the judge's passageway. The response? "Don't ask, because the judge has told me already that you may not use the judge's passageway!"

So the prosecutors asked the court police whether they can use the prisoners' passageway. The response? "The supervisors won't permit this!"

The prosecutors called the Kowloon City Police Station across the street for help. The response? "We have sufficient personnel to maintain order. But they are all outside the building, because we are not allowed to enter a building belonging to the judiciary branch!"

Finally after 90 minutes, the court director made the necessary phone calls and helped the prosecutors and the police to leave through the prisoners' passageway. This was not an exercise of special privileges; it was the only want to prevent harm to the prosecutors!

- (Kinliu) If Rule of Law still exists in Hong Kong, then this is its darkest day. On this day, a judge was cursed out by a mob inside the courtroom, and the prosecutors had to flee through the back. The people leading this action from the Civic Party, which is frequently known as the Party of the Senior Baristers.

Several days later, this mob showed up again and cursed out every person who showed up in court. They cursed out every policeman. On that day, two police officers were cursed out by the Civic Party supporters as "Evil police", "trash" and "We support the police to jump off the roof and kill themselves" along with a lot of obscenities." These two police officers happened to be witnesses for the prosecution against the seven policemen charged with assaulting Ken Tsang.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/hkjoesin/videos/10154159513987381/

(EJ Insight) May 24, 2016.

Hong Kong democracy activists trying to keep the June 4 vigil alive are pressing on with their campaign to vindicate the failed Beijing student movement despite their thinning ranks. This years theme will also feature calls for an end to arbitrary arrests and despotism, as well as a renewed fight for democracy, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Albert Ho, chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, said they expect attendance to top 100,000 people. However, they will not include the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), a key participant in past memorials which withdrew from the alliance, citing differences with the latters objectives. Students will take part in a torch relay ceremony as usual but will not be speaking on stage this time, Ho said. He said he regrets HKFSs decision to withdraw from the activities of the alliance but respects it. 

Vice chairman Choi Yiu-cheong said a planned May 29 protest march will follow last years route, starting in Southorn Playground in Wan Chai and ending outside Beijings Liason Office in Western District. Ho said the June 4 memorials are a show of localism that has been taking place for the past 27 years. Candles are our weapons against killings by the communist regime, he said.

The candlelight vigil was launched in 1990 to mark the first anniversary of a bloody crackdown on student protesters in Beijings Tiananmen Square. Organizers put attendance at 150,000 and the police at 80,000. In 2009, it hit a peak of about 200,000 participants after appearing to lose fervor in previous years. An estimated 135,000 turned out last year. 

(HKG Pao) May 25, 2016.

Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen said that there will be an evening meeting at 7pm on June 4th at Sun Yat-sen Place, Hong Kong University. A student representation will read a statement followed by one minute of silence. This is followed by a 90-minute academic discussion on the future of Hong Kong. There won't be any candle lighting or singing. About 1,000 persons are expected to attend.

Althea Suen emphasized that they are not "fighting for the customers." She criticized Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China chairman Albert Ho as "bullying" when he said that young people ought to be going to Victoria Park if they really want to memorialize the dead.

(Oriental Daily) May 24, 2016.

Last year, the Hong Kong Federation of Students withdrew from the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and held its own evening assembly. But there won't be one this year. Hong Kong University Student Union president Althea Suen announced that they have decided not to participate in any cross-varsity assembly for financial reasons.

Althea Suen said that the cross-varsity assembly was scheduled to be held on the Million Boulevard of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The costs are very high and unequally shared among the 13 institutions of higher learning. In Hong Kong University, the allocated costs exceeded its original budget. Therefore HKU is backing out. Instead, HKU will spend about $16,000 to hold its own evening assembly.

Althea Suen said that she had proposed holding the assembly at Hong Kong University's Sun Yat-sen Place in order to reduce costs, but the other institutions thought that the location was too small. Suen said that Hong Kong students are not necessarily disunited if they hold more than one assembly and that as long as they share the same ideas, having more assemblies will surely provide more perspectives to the students.

However, it is not plausible to say that HKU is not participating for financial reasons. The HKUSU has reserves. Earlier it had allocated $150,000 to develop a mobile phone app but that project was scrapped. So how could they not come up with $100,000 to $200,000 now? Was this just an excuse?

Internet comments:

- No, they are not fighting for bodies. They are fighting for money. If you go to X, then you can't be giving money at Y.

- How much money were raised last year?
$1,700,000 Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in Hong Kong
$370,000 Scholarism
$240,000 League of Social Democrats
$210,000 Civic Party
$60,000 Democratic Party
$45,000 Labour Party

- Famous Chinese saying to describe s chaotic scene: 餓狗搶屎 = hungry dogs fighting over a piece of excrement. In this case, the excrement is the filthy lucre.

- It is a traditional custom  in Southern China to have a big roasted pig during the Ching Ming Festival or the Chung Yeung Festical to be divided among the family clan.

The practice used to be known as 太公分豬肉, meaning that the clan leader makes the allocation according to his preferences. Today, we have rule-of-law in place of rule-of-man, so the rules are made explicit. For example, all males under 60 years old get one share; males aged 60-69 get two shares; males 70 years or older get four shares; women get nothing. Regardless of the variations, it is always true that women get nothing.

So this year the June 4th assembly will adopt some rule changes on how to divide the roasted pig. That's all.

- It is time that some woman lodge a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission to stop this discriminatory practice!

- There is also a sales/marketing issue here. You keep selling a subscription to a product which hasn't demonstrated any effectiveness. For twenty-six years, the Hong Kong suckers have been pouring money into the coffers of the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Great. Where are these so-called 'patriotic democratic movements'? What have they achieved on behalf of patriotic democracy?

- These 'patriotic democratic movements' cannot be public identified because they will be oppressed by the Chinese Communists.

- Well, when Lee Cheuk-yan was the Alliance chairman a few years ago, he had the chance to register June 4th 1989 as a trademark. He didn't, otherwise all other evening assemblies would be in violation of his intellectual property rights.

- Notice that Althea Suen is co-branding her actual product with June 4th. She entices 1,000 people to attend the HKU event. There will be a brief statement and one minute of silence. Then there will be 90 minutes of propaganda on Hong Kong self-determination/independence. I am sure that the dead souls of June 4th 1989 will be very pleased to be able to live on in people's memories in this way.

- Music concerts have price tiers. So how much do they charge for front row seats? Handshakes? Etc?

- It's not all about money. The fact is that many Hong Kong students don't think that they are the same race as the Chinese, so commemorating June 4th 1989 is as meaningless to them as Bloomsday.

- June 4th 1989 took place 27 years ago. Most of the current university students were not born yet. (I say "most" because there are still sixth-year students such as Alex Chow and fifth-year students such as Edward Leung).

- Well, if you can get money from them, you call them 'compatriots'. If you can't get money from them, you call them 'locusts.' It is up to the Chinese race to show what value they can offer to the Hong Kong race.

- Please be aware that this is not a static situation. Instead, it is very dynamic. Thus, for 364 days of the year, mainlanders are locusts but on June 4th they are compatriots. After you get your money for the year, they can go to hell ... until next year.

- It really isn't all about money. If it were, the Hong Kong Federation of Students would have demanded warehouse storage fees for the Statue of Liberty from the Alliance.

- Before June 4th 1989, mainland China was very poor. When my mother took me to visit her family in China, we brought a lot of stuff to distribute around. The people of Hong Kong and China were very close to each other. In recent years, our poor relatives have become wealthy. The people of Hong Kong and China are estranged from each other. What happened?

- It's very simple: 憎人富貴厭人貧 (= you hate people when they are wealthy and you despise them when they are poor).

- (The Stand News) The Students Unions of eleven tertiary institutions (including Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Science and Technology, Baptist University) issued a Joint University Declaration on June 4th and advocated that the people of Hong Kong should breed localism and face up to June 4th. However, the declaration included the sentence: "Before the massacre, Deng Xiaoping met with the students." Deng Xiaoping did not meet with the students; Premier Li Peng met with the students.

- This is a well-known fact to all those who were present at the time. But the students who were not even born in 1989 apparently don't know it. The declaration was written by someone and surely the 11 student unions read and approved it, but nobody knew this most basic historical fact.

- The declaration said that June 4th made two points for Hong Kong students today. Firstly, there is no hope for building democracy in China, because the Chinese Communists are too brutal and powerful and the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens are abetting them. Therefore, democracy isn't coming to China even if the people of Hong Kong wants it.

Secondly, the Chinese Communists cannot be trusted. Before the massacre, Deng Xiaoping met with the students; but the dawn of democracy in China turned into a dark night of bloody massacre. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must never believe in anything that Chinese Communists say. We want the people of Hong Kong to absorb the history lessons of June 4th and prepare themselves for the resistance.

- Professional Teachers Union sells gifts designed for June 4th commodity fetishists:

$120 t-shirts to vindicate June 4th

$100 t-shirts for democratic movements

$120 June 4th USB memory device, 16G capacity with 8.9G preloaded information on the democratic movement.

- Lau Siu-wai offered an eyewitness testimony of the June 4th 1989 massacre:

It is almost June 4th and many people are saying that what has something that happened in China decades ago have to with us? I would like to share a story.
Back then I was a young child. I watched television. Every night I saw the students in danger. When the lights went out on Tiananmen Square that night and the gunshots rang out, the images stayed in the bottom of my heart. When I grow up, what can I give to society ...

So there you have it -- Lau Siu-wai witnessed everything on television. P.S. Lau Siu-wai said that she needed to raise $750,000 before deciding whether to run in the legislative council elections. So send your money (preferably cash) as soon as possible and as often as possible. Thank you.

- Strictly speaking, a young girl watching television in Hong Kong is not a true eyewitness to the June 4th massacre. Chinese University of Hong Kong student Lai Hung was present at the scene, and therefore a true eyewitness.


[In 1989, Lai Hung was interviewed by a gathering of the Hong Kong press]

0:14 Lai Hung: At first, the lights came on and the soldiers marched out in unison from the Great Hall. They got closer and closer. It was very ... the scene ... a bus caught fire ... it was to the other side ... I don't know who set off the fire ... I saw ... the soldiers approached. The people got chaotic. I told the people not to move, not to run. I found the tanks coming down the pedestrian path that we were on. They came at us students. About several tens of meters behind me, a dozen or so students were crushed to death. There were brain matters, arms, legs scattered all over ... that is, a lot of blood ...

0:58 Interviewer: According to information from various sides, a lot of people died this time.

1:01 Lai Hung: ... at least ten thousand (dead) ... more than ten thousand. Actually, if you count several tallies ... if you count two tallies, there were already more than five or six thousand. That is, almost three thousand people died in the rear. That is, at Tiananmen Square in the end. The other tally ... that is, the announcement from the Red Cross ... before 2am or 3am before the attack on Tiananmen Square, more than two thousand people were dead. These are conservative estimates. Also some student leaders visited six hospitals and they estimated more than 1,000. Ultimately, if you add everything up, it is more than 10,000.

[In 1994, Lai Hung was interviewed by ATV]

1:32 Lai Hung: Shooting ... not many people ... nobody was shot ... actually, nothing much happened inside ... in the end, after the lights came on, then things happened.

2:24 Lai Hung: I was in the frontline. I was facing north. I saw a group of soldiers in camouflage uniforms coming up ... actually ... I saw them kicking people aside ... using their guns to force people aside ... they came up ... before I even reacted, another team of more than a dozen ... both teams had more than a dozen or so people ... they might have come from the west ... maybe from the east ... they got to the top level ... they got to the top level ... I was at the top level of the monument ... I saw them go to the top level and before I reacted, they were already shooting at the monument and telling people to leave. They stood at the top level of the monument and shot upwards ... above the heads of the people ... they shot upwards ... they fired shots ... nobody should have been ... nobody was shot. They began to chase people off. The people began to leave slowly.

The true eyewitness Lai Hung said 10,000 were murdered. So you better send your money (preferably cash) to the Professional Teachers Union/Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China as soon as possible and as often as possible. Thank you.

- (Ming Pao) Shue Yan University Student Union editorial committee chief editor Ng Kai-lung posted on the committee Facebook to criticize the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. He said that the older generation was wrong in how they dealt with the Chinese Communists. He said that they were like a raped girl who hated and loved her Chinese Communist rapist. Therefore she has lost her mind and "scolded other rape victims for fighting back." Ng said that the Alliance is the mama-san in a brothel and wanted the "rapist to change his heart after he satisfies his animal lust." Ng said that it is time to give up all illusions that the Chinese Communists will change their evil ways and take care of our own affairs first. The issue of whether the neighboring region will vindicate June 4th or not can be considered later.

The Alliance's Lee Cheuk-yan said that he was angry at what Ng wrote. Lee said that Ng has insulted not just the Alliance but all those who have attended the June 4th memorial services. Lee said that students can have different ideas about how to commemorate June 4th and people can respect each other. However, Ng is only insulting fellow travelers without offering a single actionable proposal to fight against the Chinese Communist dictators.

Ng Kai-lung said that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what he wrote and he will not apologize. "When it comes to apologizing, why doesn't the Alliance apologize for making zero progress after all these years?" He said that he is not a fellow traveler with the traditional pan-democrats, whom he thinks only want to hijack democracy. "If your roads are different, you can't work together."

Revision: The Shue Yan University Student Union editorial committee has revised their statement. Instead of "the mama-san in a brothel" which is sexist, the Alliance is now "the papa-san and mama-san in a brothel."

- (HKG Pao) The Shue Yan University Student Union editorial committee said that the Alliance raked in $83,726,906 over the past 27 years. But they are against spending so much money on a project with no tangible results. It is proposed that Alliance be disbanded and the war chest be donated to organizations such as Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, etc.

- I donated $100 to the Alliance for the purpose of supporting democracy in China and now you tell me that my money has been forwarded to Hong Kong Indigenous which instigated the Mong Kok riot in order to advance Hong Kong independence? Did you ever consult me?

- The Tiananmen Square incident was something that happened in Beijing and therefore has no meaning for Hong Kong localists. What other historical event should take its place in central memory? How about the 3 years 8 months of Japanese occupation, when the population went from 1.6 million in 1941 to 600,000 in 1945? Apart from the common fact that tens of thousands were murdered, it was also true that Japan and China have both failed to apologize for their respective massacres.

- Of course, the Tiananmen Square incident was important to the people of Hong Kong at the time. Here was the Oriental Daily extra: 'Deng Xiaoping is dead! Total chaos in China! 27th Army responsible for the massacre reported to surrender noon today." The source of information? A New York-based dissident publication <Beijing Spring> person received a call from his younger brother who is studying at Peking University and who got the information from a doctor at the Beijing 301 General Hospital. Deng expired at 9:31am.

Here is Ming Pao ("Number one in public trust") on June 6, 1989: "Li Peng shot: Young armed policeman take revenge for family and country; shot Li Peng dead inside Great Hall of the People's Congress of the People."

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016. Our reporter interviewed a number of young people in the streets and found out that their knowledge of June 4th 1989 is far shallower than you ever imagine! For example, a secondary school student had never seen the Tank Man photo before. When asked who the students gathered to commemorate, one person said "Li Peng" and another said "Zhao Ziyang." The correct answer was Hu Yaobang. When young people lack even basic knowledge, it would be tough to hold in-depth discussions and adopt positions.

- (Oriental Daily) May 29, 2016. On the 27th anniversary of the June 4th incident, the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China organized a march under the slogan: "Vindicate June 4th, stop arbitrary arrests, end dictatorship, fight for democracy." The demonstrators started at 3pm from Southorn Sports Ground in Wanchai and arrived at the China Liaison Office at 530pm. The organizers claimed 1,500 participants, while the police said that the peak participation was 780. The number is a new low since 2009. The Alliance said that they are satisfied with the participate.

Outside the China Liaison Office, Lui Yuk-lin scattered joss money and was warned by the police; Leung Kwok-hung carried a paper coffin, kept three minutes of silence, tossed joss money and was warned by the police; "Captain America" Andy Yung waved the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

When the procession went past the Western District Police Station, the police asked the demonstrators to walk back onto the sidewalk. The demonstrators refused. The police set up a human wall and impeded progress. There was some pushing and shoving. After ten minutes or so, the demonstrators walked back onto the sidewalk.

- (SCMP) Advocating independence with a locked mindset. By Alex Lo. May 29, 2016.

You give the lunatics and ignoramuses enough rope and they will hang themselves. That may be the best argument not to worry too much about the extreme localist fringe and those who advocate independence for Hong Kong.

The latest: those who commemorate the June 4 crackdown in 1989 have been denounced as brothel keepers by university student leaders.

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China has become pimps and bawds in a brothel after they themselves were raped, wrote Ng Kwai-lung, head of Shue Yan Universitys student union editorial board. Its task is to lure young girls to be tainted, before submitting them to the gangs and bandits.

When asked to comment on his immoderate language, Ng hid behind Horace Chin Wan-kan, the father of the Hong Kong independence movement, saying Chin helped him write it.

Its a bit sad that the head of a universitys student editorial board could not write a commentary by himself. But I believe Ng.

The violent sex language is characteristic of Chin, who will leave his job at Lingnan University after his contract expires in August. His supporters have hinted at political persecution but anyone who reads up on campus politics knows what his departure is really about. Last year, the university president reprimanded Ng for posting a satirical message in which he advised Hong Kong women to let mainland men fondle their breasts and wash their private parts to provide better service, and Hong Kong men to keep quiet when being shouted at by mainland women. In an earlier incident, Chin posted a message making fun of Chinese University student activist Shek Pui-yins breasts by referring to her cup size.

Independence-seeking youngsters like Ng dont seem to be terribly independent in any critical or intellectual sense. His and other universities student unions and the Federation of Students are all boycotting the June 4 commemorations this year.

They say the quarter-of-a-century-old commemoration has achieved nothing, and that Hong Kong people need to think about their own city and not worry about the mainland and those nasty communists. Never mind that June 4 was the pivotal event that split local politics into the pan-democratic and pro-government camps. You know what they say about people who fail to learn from history.

- (EJ Insight) June 2, 2016.

A former student activist has questioned the decision of some youth groups in the city to stay away from the candlelight vigil to be held on June 4 in memory of the victims of Beijings 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Andrew To Kwan-hang, who had served as secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) in 1989, said it is absurd that people are seeking to boycott the June 4 event on the ground that matters related to China are of no concern to Hongkongers.

Participation in the event should not be linked with the question of national identity, he said, arguing that broader principles are at stake. 

The comments came after some student associations in Hong Kong said they will no longer take part in the annual June 4 event that is organized by the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China.

To said he is disappointed that HKFS has decided to quit the Alliance.

Who else will care about June 4 if Hong Kong people dont care? he said, stressing that the students are sending a wrong message by boycotting the event.

If young people remain indifferent about what goes on in the mainland, it could encourage more brazen acts by Communist authorities, To warned. 

While student leaders are justified in saying that Hong Kong people should focus on local issues, it doesnt mean that we should ignore the events in China, he said.

Spending just one day in a year to remember the June 4, 1989 victims should not be regarded as giving higher priority to Chinese democracy compared to Hong Kong issues, To added.

In other comments, the former student leader admitted that relations between the HKFS and the pan-democratic camp may not be as close now as they had been in the past. 

HKFS students waged a lot of battles before they chose to step back and let other groups take the lead in organizing activities in Hong Kong to support a democracy campaign in China.

When HKFS stepped back, the goal was to bring together as many people as possible, To said.

To said he understands that many young people were disappointed that the 2014 Umbrella Movement failed to yield any result.

While that may have prompted some student groups to rethink their strategies, it still doesnt warrant a boycott of the June 4 vigil, he said.

- (am730) It is hard to build a democratic China from Victoria Park. By Shih Wing-ching.

The Localists believe that Hongkongers should put their effort into building a democratic Hong Kong and not a democratic China. This is because Chinese democracy is as remote as Vietnamese democracy. It does not concern Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong do not have the responsibility to do so. Besides, building democracy in China is really too remote, too hard and too risky. It is not worth the trouble for Hongkongers.

This kind of thinking is too narrow-minded. The reality is that Hong Kong is a part of China. This is recognized by every country in the world. Hong Kong itself cannot change this. In the course of history, changes in China has always affected Hong Kong. The existing One Country Two Systems was the result of the Deng Xiaoping reforms. If China were still run a Maoist regime, the fate of Hong Kong would be very different. In the future, as Chinese politics becomes more open-minded, Hong Kong democracy will have more space to develop. Without Chinese democracy behind, Hong Kong democracy would not be sustainable. Even if Hongkongers become more valiant, they cannot break away from the hold of China.

The Hong Kong pan-democrats have not abandoned the idea of building a democratic China, in spite of what the Localists say. But over the long term, nothing that the pan-democrats did was helpful to building Chinese democracy. Most of their slogans are not easily realizable, and they don't have any concrete strategy that can convince their followers that the dream will be realized if everybody follow their route.

Each year they gathered at Victoria Park and they chanted "End one-party rule!" But have the Chinese Communists lose their grip on power? They also chanted "XXX must resign." But did XXX resign? They only want Beijing to provide a roadmap and a timetable fro Hong Kong democracy, but they themselves do not have any roadmaps or timetables to realize their dream. This is disappointing to their followers.

At first, young Hongkongers followed them. They marched and they chanted slogans. But eventually they find that the impact is small and so they became skeptical. Recently, the pan-democrats were even desperate enough to ask Zhang Dejiang to replace the Chief Executive. They have even forgotten their original intentions. How can the people of Hong Kong follow some people who believe in begging those in authority for favors? What kind of democracy is this? No wonder young people are abandoning the pan-democrats and starting their own groups.

I do not intend to tell people to boycott the June 4th candlelight vigil. I am personally very supportive of the grand vision of a democratic China. But I don't believe singing songs and chanting slogans in Victoria Park is going to build a democratic China. Although the assembly is like a thorn in the side of the Chinese Communists, its marginal utility is diminishing. Over time, the Chinese Communists have come to be grateful that the Alliance In Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in Hong Kong is good only at holding candlelight vigils instead of something else.

Therefore, I agree with the young people in saying that the meaning of June 4th needs to be merged with local needs and then with mainland Chinese needs. Hongkongers are no longer satisfied with expressing discontent and talking about dreams. If they want to see some concrete results, then they should come up with concrete strategies and tactics.

Unfortunately, the young people know only to demonstrate and march; those more valiant throw some bricks. The results is just as limited. The reason for this is that people are more interested in displaying their political stances rather than seeking concrete political results.

(SCMP) May 23, 2016.

Mediatycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-yings Next Magazine was fined HK$3 million by the High Court yesterday for defaming a mainland manufacturer of a herbal shampoo that was once advertised by film star Jackie Chan. The fine was less than 0.5 per cent of the record HK$630 million in damages that BaWang International was seeking.

Judge David Lok Kai-hong reduced the amount, saying the court had to ensure the damages awarded would not be an impediment to freedom of expression. He also said Next Digital, which owns the publication, could not be held responsible according to mainland law for the news spreading across the border, and that BaWang could not sue for losses in the city suffered by its two Hong Kong subsidiaries instead of the parent firm. But Lok criticised the magazine for its naive and unprofessional conduct in publishing the defamatory article, which claimed that BaWangs shampoo could cause cancer.

Next Digital said it would consider filing an appeal.

The article, published on July 14, 2010, claimed BaWangs shampoo contained 1,4-Dioxane, a liquid compound that causes cancer. The shampoo was popular in the city with Jackie Chan promoting its anti-hair-loss qualities in television commercials.

In a 269-page judgment handed down yesterday, Lok noted that BaWangs shampoo, billed as a Chinese herbal product, had been quite successful in the market, although its sales growth had slowed before the publication of the article in question.

The court heard earlier that BaWangs revenues hit 930.8 million yuan (HK$1.17 billion) in the first half of 2010, a year-on-year rise of 36.7 per cent, and its profits were up 47.1 per cent. But its share price slumped 14 per cent within a few hours after the Next Magazine article was published.

Lok said the article had caused serious damage to the reputation of the shampoo manufacturer and made it more difficult for the firm to market its products or to launch new ones. The judge said the report had exaggerated, in a sensational manner, the health risks associated with use of BaWang shampoos. In short, the defendant had adopted a naive and unprofessional approach in reporting the story, he said.

Lok said the defendant should have exercised greater responsibility and care in ensuring the contents of the article were accurate and unbiased. If they perform their work irresponsibly, which seriously affects the reputation of others, they cannot always put forward freedom of speech as an excuse, he said. But the judge did not find any sinister motive behind the report.

Apart from paying HK$3 million in damages, Next Magazine will also have to foot 80 per cent of BaWangs legal bill. Next Digital, which also owns Apple Daily, said the court ruling would not have any material adverse impact on its operations or financial position.

(EJ Insight) May 24, 2016.

Phew. You could almost hear media maverick Jimmy Lai expressing relief, instead of tearing his hair out. The chairman of Next Digital Group (00282.HK) is still out for HK$3 million (US$386,214) but not the HK$630 million a plaintiff had sought in a defamation case against Next Magazine.

A High Court judge handed down a HK$3 million penalty judgment for herbal shampoo maker Bawang International (01338.HK) over a Next Magazine report that its product caused cancer. The judgment, which defied expectations, took Next Digital and Bawang on a roller coaster ride.

Lais flagship went up as much as 7.7 percent after the judgment and closed at 46 HK cents, taking its market capitalization above HK$1.09 billion. Bawang lost a 20 percent gain.

It was a classic case of financial journalism in which an investigative report can make or break a company.

Bawang was an investor darling and a direct play on Chinese consumers because it commanded a market share that dwarfed Rejoice at one time before the Next Magazine report. Bawang lost its halo faster than Cinderellas carriage turned back into a pumpkin after midnight. The stock fell more than 90 percent from about HK$6, losing HK$1.54 billion of its value over the next five years.

Bawang sued Next Magazine six years ago. The trial went on for 39 days until August last year. Apparently, High Court Judge David Lok was not satisfied that Next Magazine produced enough evidence in its own defense.

But before announcing the verdict, Lok cautioned that he would have to take press freedom into account in assessing the award. He said the size of the compensation might deter the media from doing investigative stories.

As it turned out, what he had in mind was a small fraction of the consensus estimate of legal experts. The amount is probably not enough to cover Bawangs costs. It was also a less than the political penalty one might expect for a media group notorious for being a pain on the side of the government.

Before the judgment, there was talk Next Magazine might close its Taiwan business because of deteriorating business environment and the shift to digital publishing. That came with rumors that the 26-year-old magazine could be forced to fold if it lost the case, not that it does not have financial challenges already. Jimmy Lai can thank his lucky stars.

Now that Next Magazine has survived, he needs to find a way to convince readers to continue to pay HK$20 per copy with much weaker content after a round of newsroom firings. Thats nothing compared with Bawangs problem. It still needs to rebuild the brand even after the company was vindicated by no less than the High Court.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) Judge David Lok said that most of the losses incurred by Bawang were in mainland China where the media covered the Next Magazine report. According to mainland law, the originator of the information is not liable. That was why the judge imposed a trivial fine of only $3 million. People think that this is extremely unfair to the plaintiff.

- (Oriental Daily) According to estimates by legal professionals, Next Magazine is expected to have to pay as much as HKD 80 million to cover its own legal fees plus 80% of Bawang's legal fees. Senior counsels charges as much as $300,000 to $400,000 per day. This trial lasted 39 days. Senior counsel David Pilbrow and his team will probably charge between $30 to $40 million for representing Bawang, and therefore Next Magazine's share will be $30 million or so. Senior counsel Benjamin Yu and his team defended Next Magazine, and will charge $40 to $50 million.

- How to cover the $80 million hole? Fire more editors and reporters (preferably those with seniority because their have bigger paychecks). Then Next Weekly will become a $20 16-page advertisement-free pamphlet with these contents: 1 cover page; 2 pages of gourmet/politics from Jimmy Lai; 2 pages of Chip Tso in praise of the United Kingdom; 1 page of freedom/democracy from Martin Lee; 1 page of Cato Institute economics; and the rest being 'investigative reporting' copied from pro-freedom and pro-democracy Facebook pages.

- I did the arithmetic. Bawang was the injured party. Bawang was awarded $3 million. Bawang incurred legal fees of $40 million, for which Next Weekly pays 80%. So Bawang has to pay $8 million out of pocket. This means that Bawang loses $5 million as in the injured party in the whole affair. This is logic-defying!

- (Oriental Daily) Taiwan media are reporting that Next Weekly will cease publication in Taiwan this June. Next Weekly has denied this, but it admitted that they are providing incentives for voluntary resignation. Apple Daily (Taiwan) has also offered the same and 76 employees have applied so far, including three deputy chief-editors.

- Next Magazine (Hong Kong) is delivered as three books in one: Next Magazine, Eat & Travel Weekly and ME!. It is reported that ME! will cease publication as of June.

- This trial lasted 39 days and there were many details about how Next Magazine conducts its journalism.

- (Oriental Daily) The court criticisms of Next Magazine
-- Next Magazine's reportage on safety standards was illogical, arbitrary and unscientific.
-- Next Magazine forgot about the duty to be objective and failed to inform the readers that other expert scientists hold different views about safety standards and they thus forced the readers to accept the only safety standard that was quoted in the report.
-- Next Magazine was suspicious about the complainant Mr. Chen but never verified whether the information provided by the complainant was true.
-- Next Magazine said on one hand that Bawang was irresponsible, evasive and intransigent. On the other hand, it did not inform the readers that Bawang's position was supported by scientific evidence. This was irresponsible reportage.
-- Next Magazine accused Bawang of using poor materials in order to maximize profit. This accusation was speculative, and not in the public interest.
-- The court has reason to believe that no matter how Bawang responded, Next Magazine had made up its mind beforehand that it would call Bawang an irresponsible business organization anyway.
-- Next Magazine's investigation was irresponsible and its conclusions were inaccurate, simple-minded and unprofessional.

- (Oriental Daily) Next Media's senior counsel Benjamin Yu said that there is a great deal of controversy about chemicals in shampoo and therefore the court should protect freedom of expression even if the reporting included elements of exaggeration and inaccuracy. The judge questioned whether the media want the license to make inaccurate reports on matter of public interest.

Bawang's senior counsel David Pilbrow complained that Next Magazine used the terms 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of press' at least 67 times during its summation in order to divert attention. Pilbrow said that Bawang supports the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of press. However, this case is about the irresponsible reporting by Next Magazine that caused Bawang to suffer huge losses.

- (Oriental Daily) According to the testimony of Bawang's Chief Financial Officer Huang Xianrong, he received an email inquiry from a Next Weekly reporter about the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in Bawang shampoo at 11am on the day before the article was published. The reporter gave Bawang 4 hours to respond. Huang provided a written response but Next Weekly went ahead to report selectively anyway. For example, Bawang, Rejoice and Acene all told Next Weekly that different countries have different safety standards for 1,4-Dioxane but the article did not mention this fact. Bawang Chief Executive Officer Wan Yuhua told the reporter that the state had analyzed Bawang products and found them to meet safety standards, but Next Weekly only quoted one sentence from Wan Yuhua followed by a rebuttal citing City University associate professor Lam Hon-wah.

- (Oriental Daily)

Next Magazine report Lam Yu-ting

The court verdict document contained a detailed analysis of every step of the reporting process. Three months before publication, Next Weekly received a tip that Bawang shampoo contained 1,4-Dioxane together with a lab analysis report paid for by the tipster. Although there was evidence afterwards that the tipster was connected to another shampoo manufacturer, Next Weekly did not check this out.

Reporter Lam Yu-ting conducted research on the nature of 1,4-Dioxane. She relied mostly on news reports and not scientific studies. The sole scientific data that she had were the Australian standard of 100ppm. Lam testified that there is no firm conclusion about whether 1,4-Dioxane is carcinogenic and what the safety level is. Lam could not explain why her report stated 10ppm is the safety level.

The judge also criticized Next Magazine for not reporting Bawang's response at short notice. Furthermore, Next Magazine accused Bawang of using 1,4-Dioxane because it wants to use inferior materials in order to maximize profits. This was baseless. Finally, Next Magazine editors changed the report heading from "Bawang contains carcinogenic substances" to "Bawang causes cancer."

In conclusion, Next Magazine's reporting methods were far short of the objectivity and responsibility required under the law.

- (Oriental Daily) During the trial, Next Magazine called on then content advisor Cheung Kim-hung and then chief-editor Lee Chi-ho to testify. These two were the ultimate decision-makers but they held the reporter Lam Yu-ting responsible instead.

Cheung said that he depended to a large extent on the information collected by Lam Yu-ting. Cheng said that he asked Lam to look up the 1,4-Dioxane safety levels in the European Union, United States, mainland China and Hong Kong. However, he only heard a verbal summary from Lam, he did not read the relevant details and he did not see Bawang's response. Cheung said that Lam did not inform him about many things, such as the opposing views within the scientific community about whether 1,4-Dioxane is carcinogenic or not, and the varying safety standards in the European Union, United States and Australia.

Lee Chi-ho wrote in his written testimony that he had "carefully gone over the report and verified that the allegations were based upon facts." In court, he admitted that his 'verification' refers to his having read the final version of the report. Lee said that Lam did not show him the information that she had gathered, or the written response from Bawang, or the written responses of the other shampoo manufacturers or the opinions of the experts. Lee admitted directly that he relied on Lam and Cheung to verify the veracity of the contents in the report.

As to how "Bawang contains carcinogenic substances" became "Bawang causes cancer" after an editorial group meeting, both Cheung and Lee said that they cannot remember who recommended the title be changed that way. Lee said that the two headings are similar and the latter was chosen because it was simpler and "easier to read aloud." Cheung said that "Bawang causes cancer" does not mean that you will get cancer if you use Bawang products or else Next Magazine would have used "Bawang causes cancer with certainty." The plaintiff said that Cheung was engaging in word games in court.

- (Oriental Daily) The tipster Mr. Chan provided Next Weekly with a lab analysis report which showed that Bawang shampoo contained 27ppm 1,4-Dioxane. Next Weekly commissioned its own lab analyses of many samples and found that the maximum level was 10ppm. Lam Yu-ting was suspicious of Mr. Chan at first, but she chose to cite 27ppm in her final report.

According to United States standards, 10ppm or under of 1,4-Dioxane is safe, but an Australian organization NICNAS sets the safety level at 100ppm which is the basis for the European Union, mainland China and Taiwan. However, Next Weekly does not mention the different safety levels and only said that "10ppm is on the brink of danger."

Lam Yu-ting interviewed doctor Lau Fei-lung who told her that "10ppm or less" is definitely not harmful. However, Lam's supervisor thought that Lau's statement was not good enough and directed her to locate other experts to see if someone would say that "10ppm is on the brink of danger." Lau said that danger does not have a border and it is preposterous to speak of "the brink of danger." Lau said that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that 1,4-Dioxane causes cancer in humans and he can only say that 1,4-Dioxane may (or may not) lead to cancer.

- (Oriental Daily) Hong Kong Poison Information Centre chief executive Lau Fei-lung said that it was dangerous for the media to make partial quotations. Lau said that anything can cause cancer but none can lead to cancer immediately after intake. One can only say that it may increase the likelihood of cancer. Furthermore, the carcinogenic effects of 1,4-Dioxane on humans are unknown at this time. Lau Fei-lung said that he remembered telling the female Next Weekly reporter that 10ppm or less of 1,4-Dioxane is definitely safe, and long-term exposure to 20 to 30ppm should be avoided if possible.

- (Oriental Daily) City University associate professor of biology Lam Hon-wah was reported to have told the Next Weekly reporter that "10ppm is on the brink of danger, and 20ppm or above is excessive." In court, Lam Hon-wah said that he remembered saying that 20ppm or above is high, but he does not recall or not whether he said "10ppm is on the brink of danger." However, he said that he rarely uses the term 'danger' to characterize such circumstances. Lam Hon-wah in previous press interviews had said that 1,4-Dioxane is safe unless ingested into the body (and not about being present in shampoos).

Bawang's response to Next Weekly cites the Australian report which said that any shampoo with less than 100ppm 1,4-Dioxane is safe. Reporter Lam Yu-ting said that she does not believe this and therefore she could not put this into her report. Because space is limited, it would be impractical to put the entire Bawang response into the report. She interpreted that the main point of Bawang's response was that products had passed national safety tests and not about the 100ppm safety level.

Lam Yu-ting said that she did not write the heading of "Bawang causes cancer." When she learned her supervisors chose this title, she checked similar reports from the past and found quite a few which says that certain products cause cancer (e.g. "Johnson's cancer-causing products" and "Brand X cancer-causing luncheon meat"). Therefore she did not object to this heading. She said that she has no dissatisfaction with the published report. She said that the sentence "Bawang used this as a shield and persisted in denying any wrongdoing" has room for improvement in the choice of words.

- (Oriental Daily) Lam Yu-ting said that she thinks less harmful material should be better than more. While she has doubts about the scientific research, the magazine had only limited space and therefore she chose to write what she believed to be more important. Thus, she wrote about the standard that she personally agreed with and did not write about alternate standards.

Bawang asked Lam why she spent 1/3 of her article on this background of Bawang but she wouldn't spend 50 words to give the scientific opinions on the other side. Did Lam not want the readers to know that Bawang had met the safety standards? Was her report biased for failing to provide a fair and balanced picture for the readers to decide for themselves? Lam agreed with this characterization of her report.

Bawang said that Bawang's CEO Wan Yuhua was interviewed by Next Weekly and said that a 1,4-Dioxane level of under 100ppm was safe. But the report said that "Bawang used this as the shield and denied any wrongdoing." Bawang said that the reporter was inaccurate and unfair. Lam said that this was not necessarily inaccurate. However, in retrospect, she agreed that this was unfair. But she was adamant that "refused to admit to any wrongdoing" was not unfair. She said that she cannot remember whether she or some editor wrote those words.

Lam said that she had some doubts when she received the tip from Mr. Chen. However Chen said that a family member had just died from cancer. She thought that no normal person would lie about the lives of family members, so she believed 100% in Chen. Only after it was revealed today in court that Chen was connected to a competitor of Bawang did she realize that she had been used. She said she was very careful. In retrospect, she should have been even more careful.

(Oriental Daily) Two days after the Next Weekly report appeared, Bawang received an email from a "indignant person." This person said the complainant Chen Yukong who first contacted Next Weekly about 1,4-Dioxane in Bawang shampoo is the owner of a company that produces the O'Naomi brand for chain stores Watsons and Mannings. After the Next Weekly article appeared, O'Naomi took out an advertisement in Apple Daily that their products are "manufactured in Hong Kong" and therefore "trustworthy." Furthermore, their products do not contain 1,4-Dioxane.

- Bawang asked for $600 million and got $3 million. This shows that Hong Kong laws will shield libel/defamation. With this precedent, how many companies would want to build products here in Hong Kong?

- Rule-of-law is one of Hong Kong's core values. This case showed that the rule-of-law is worth (3 million) / (600 million) = 1/200 = 0.5%. You destroy someone's business and you only have to pay 0.5% of the destroyed value in compensation.

- Hong Kong's big role in One Belt One Road is in providing professional services, especially in the financial and legal fields. When you have a judge rendering such a verdict, it is not clear that people want Hong Kong-style legal services.

- The judge noted that most of Bawang's sales declines occurred in mainland China. The judge said that he checked mainland law and found out that the originator of inaccurate information is not accountable; only those secondary sources that were directly read by the consumers will be held accountable. Next Weekly is published in Hong Kong. When the article appeared, Next Magazine said that only 24 mainlanders read the article on their website. Therefore the direct damage of Next Magazine on mainland sales is negligible. That is why the judge could not come up with a huge fine.

Meanwhile the hundreds of mainland newspapers and websites that reported on the Next Magazine article cannot be held accountable because they cannot possibly verify every news story that they repost or cite.

All this means that it will be easy to commit libel in mainland China. Just use a Hong Kong media outlet to post a sensationalistic story and then the mainland media outlets will report or cite.

- When the judge said that he checked mainland law before he made his decision, my heart skipped a beat. This is an egregious violation of One Country Two Systems! Hong Kong court decisions should be made based upon Hong Kong law, not mainland Chinese law!

- Look at the key data points here.

With respect to safety standards, one standard says 10ppm and another standard says 100ppm.

With respect to Bawang shampoo's 1,4-Dioxane content, Bawang competitor submitted a lab analysis report of 27ppm while Next Magazine's own lab analysis reports were 10ppm or less.

Decision #1: If Next Magazine chose to use their own lab analysis reports, there is no story. Therefore Next Magazine must chose Mr. Chen's report.

Decision #2: If Next Magazine chose to use the 100pm safety standard, there is no story. Therefore Next Magazine must use the 10ppm safety standard while burying the other inconvenient facts.

That is how those decisions got to be made.

- Why was Next Magazine so keen on going after Bawang? Politics. Really.

On one side, Next Magazine is pro-freedom and pro-democracy.

On the other side, Bawang is a mainland Chinese company which hires actor Jackie Chan as their spokesperson (see Jackie Chan's Bawang television ad).  They hate freedom and democracy, so they must be destroyed.

- (HKG Pao)

Here are some strange things that happened after the verdict was announced:

First of all, Apple Daily announced on its Facebook that Next Weekly chief editor Wong Lai-tong will file an appeal of the verdict.

Several hours later, Apple Daily "revisted" its Facebook to say that Wong Lai-tong will consider filing an appeal.

Did the Facebook editor commit a typographic error at first, or have senior management changed its mind?

Next, we look at Wong Lai-tong's reason for filing an appeal. She thought that even the judge did not believe that Next Weekly maliciously libel Bawang. Later the parent company Next Media Group issued a press release, they said that they may appeal against the assignment of responsibility and the award amount. Next Media did not deny libel, but they thought that $3 million was too high. That was why they are considering an appeal. This is very different from Wong Lai-tong's insistence that they did nothing wrong.

So this leads to some interesting question: Does not even the Next Media Group senior management believe in the nonsense spouted by the chief editor? Even they don't think that Next Weekly was 'innocent'?

Even more interesting is the action over at Yellow Media newspaper Ming Pao. In the past, anything over at Next Media is known quickly over at Ming Pao and vice versa. That was why Apple Daily got live coverage of what was happening over at Ming Pao during the firing of Chief Editor Keung.

After Next Weekly lost the case, Ming Pao immediately estimated that Next Weekly will be paying legal fees close to $100 million. Several hours later, the report was "revised" to say that "the estimated legal fees is close to several tens of thousands of dollars dollars." Please note the erratum: They typed in a corrected version that says "dollars dollars." Why was the editor so careless? Was there total panic at the time?

No outsiders can know what really happened here. But let me present a fictional story for your entertainment.

Once upon a time, a certain media organization was suffering from declining revenues and therefore resorted to austerity measures such as mass firings. Then came this libel lawsuit which could involve hundreds of millions in damages. So the senior management told the chief editor: "If you lose this case, you will have to fire more people. You can do the arithmetic yourself and calculate how many firings are needed to cover the costs."

So after the verdict came out, the chief editor told the public that they intend to file an appeal and also told the ally newspaper: "The legal costs are almost $100 million! How can we not appeal?" She was calculating that it was worth the gamble to save a few jobs.

But when senior management found out, they were shocked and angered: It was clear that the magazine had committed libel and they were very lucky to be fined only $3 million! The legal fees are huge, but they can only be bigger with an appeal. And is there any chance of winning an appeal!? You know very well what you did ...

After having some sense slapped into her, the chief editor told the ally newspaper. And then what happened afterwards happened ...

So do you think that there will be an appeal?

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 26, 2016.

Three million dollars is a lot to an ordinary citizen such as myself. But it is small change to a large corporation. With three million dollars, Next Weekly boss Jimmy Lai can buy a car, or a part of a yacht. With three million dollars, Next Weekly managed to ruin Bawang's business. It is clear who the winner is.

In the verdict, Judge David Lok said that Next Weekly was inaccurate and irresponsible, and the reporter was unprofessional and simple-minded in gathering information and writing the report, even intentionally ignoring data that favored Bawang. However, Judge Lok wrote, the monetary award in this case cannot be set too high because it could affect freedom of speech.

Wow! In the name of freedom of speech, you can destroy someone's wealth and get off lightly. Judge Lok's summation was noteworth: "The law permits journalists to employ a certain degree of exaggeration during the exercise of freedom of speech, but this is not unlimited especially when it comes to investigative reports that involve science and technology."

I have been working in the news industry for quite a while. It was only today that I learned that the law permits reporters to "employ a certain degree of exaggeration" during their reporting.

Given that how precious freedom of expression is, I can surely express my personal views about this verdict in the name of freedom of expression, right?

No. Several months ago, someone at the Hong Kong Bar Association informed the public that anyone who makes inappropriate comments about judges will be guilty of contempt of court. So is this easy going to be considered contempt of court? I am very worried!

An exaggerated exercise of freedom of expression destroyed someone's business. In court, the judge punished the defendant lightly because of freedom of expression. I express my opinions but I do not have freedom of expression ...

This is so confusing. So do we have freedom of expression or not? Or does the freedom belong solely in the hands of certain authorities such as judges and reporters?

- (Oriental Daily) May 30, 2016. Bawang chairman Chen Kai-yuan said: "Next Media attacked us because of what they called the freedom of press or perhaps some other motive. Many consumers would rather believe them than not and they don't use our products anymore. This is what hurts us most." As for fighting a lawsuit in Hong Kong, Chen said that it all depends who can live longer and who has more money. Chen did not say that the monetary award was too small. He only expressed regret, helplessness and despair. The only part that he felt was 'unfair' was when the judge said that mainland media quoting what came out of Hong Kong bear no legal responsibility. Chen said that we now live in the Internet era and any news items can reach all over China in less than 30 minutes. In the present case, the libelous information was over China within one day and then traveled to South East Asia, North America, etc. "We are in the Internet era. It is not appropriate to cite precedents that were set decades ago."

- Chen Kai-yuan pointed out that this was not just a listed company losing market value. The company had 20,000 employees before the news report, and now there are only 3,000 thanks to Next Magazine and Lam Yu-ting.

(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2016.

League of Social Democrats members hung up a large vertical banner to demand "the end of the dictatorship of the Chinese Communists" on the base of a bridge under construction in north Lantau Island. Four individuals were arrested, including chairman Avery Ng, vice-chairman Chan Tak-cheung and deputy secretary-general Chow Ka-fat and member Ma Won-ki. The police said that they found two vertical banners at around 1215pm. For the sake of public safety, the police removed the vertical banners. Three men interfered with their actions and were arrested for obstructing the police in the line of duty. One male policeman was injured in the elbow and taken to the hopsital.

League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong, members Shi Shing-wai and Chow Kim-ho hung a vertical banner with the words "Rescind the August 31st resolution" on a hill slope near the Tsing Ma Bridge. The police arrested the three persons for obstruction of police business.

League of Social Democrats member Tsang Kin-shing was stopped on the Tsing Yi-Lantau Island expressway and taken to the police station to assist in an investigation. Tsang was released, but his vehicle is being inspected.

League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung called on all those pan-democratic legislators who attend tomorrow night's banquet to wear yellow clothes, bring yellow umbrellas and tie yellow ribbons at their homes in order to express the demand for genuine universal suffrage.

Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong went to demonstrate outside the Hyatt Hotel. He was surrounded by 30 policemen and he was unable to take any action. Afterwards, Wong said that he did not bring any megaphone or banners and he did not intend to dash out onto the road. Therefore, he is not happy with the police action.

Demosisto chairman Nathan Law and two others persons stood outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre and raised three protest banners that said "I want genuine universal suffrage," "I don't want One Road One Belt" and "Self-determination of destiny." The three attempted to charge on the roadway but were quickly subdued by the police. Nathan Law said that the authorities wanted to create a peaceful image of Hong Kong in the name of anti-terrorism, and that was why they intentionally protested against Zhang Dejiang in a non-designated demonstration area to express their demands for democracy.

Former Scholarism member Derek Lam and two other individuals raised banners and chanted slogans outside Shui On Centre which is within the security zone. The police asked them to leave.

(AM 730) May 17, 2016

Demosisto chairman Nathan "Law 37" Law, Lau Siulai and others charged out of the demonstration zone to express their demands. They were subdued by more than a dozen police officers. The police searched some of the demonstrators, recorded their identity information and released them.

(Sing Tao) May 17, 2016.

At around 8am, someone posted on Facebook a photo of a vertical banner with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" hanging down by Mount Parker inside the Lion Rock Country Park. At 9am, a team of firemen arrived and one fireman climbed down to severe the ropes. By 1035am, the banner was removed. Displaying unauthorized advertisements within country parks is subject to a $2,000 fine and/or a 3 month jail term.

Afterwards, the League of Social Democrats posted on Facebook that their volunteers climbed up Lion Rock this morning and hung down the "I want genuine universal suffrage" in order to express the determination of the people of Hong Kong to get freedom and democracy.

(SCMP) Zhang Dejiang. May 20, 2016.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk from the heart about my views on one country, two systems and issues related to Hong Kong. These could be summarised in three points. The first is: Do not forget the original intent so that we can achieve the ultimate goal. When Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) first proposed the one country, two systems concept as a way to resolve the historic issues related to Hong Kong, what he meant was to resume the power to exercise sovereignty over Hong Kong yet retain its characteristics and advantages as much as possible so as to maintain a sustainable prosperity. Whenever we talk about Hong Kong and one country, two systems, we must adhere to the original intent and cannot go against it.

Here, I would like to talk about a few issues concerning the original intent of one country, two systems, which Hong Kong society is particularly concerned about. One is localism. The moon is bright over my home town; everyone has special homeland feelings. I come from the northeast of China and I love my hometown. I am Chinese, and I love my country. Hong Kong compatriots should be respected for cherishing their characteristic way of life and values. As a matter of fact, some basic principles of one country, two systems include: maintaining Hong Kongs social and economic systems and way of life, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy. These are the best ways to take care of the actual circumstances of Hong Kong.

Today, there is a very tiny minority of people who intend to defy one country and the central government. They even advocate the independence of Hong Kong. This is not localism, but separatism under the camouflage of localism, which is contrary to the original idea of one country, two systems. I believe the majority of Hong Kong people are aware of this and can judge whether this is a blessing or a curse for Hong Kong.

The second is about the rule of law. Rule of law is one of the core values of Hong Kong society, and is the cornerstone of social stability. It is also the bottom line of freedom. When the cornerstone is shaken, the bottom line can be redrawn; if so, then how can we maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong? Everyone is equal before the law, no one can act above the law, and no offenders can evade legal sanctions for any reason. We hope that the SAR government and the judiciary will effectively fulfil the sacred duty of maintaining the rule of law while strictly enforcing laws and ensuring fair administration of justice. We must not make concessions to law-violating behaviour. Society as a whole should also severely condemn such behaviour, which clearly touches on the bottom line of the rule of law.

The third issue is about development, which is Hong Kongs top priority. Hong Kongs international status is determined by its economic status. The peoples quality of life is inseparable from the development of the territory. All walks of life in Hong Kong must have a sense of urgency, and understand that opportunities once lost are lost for good, and that if we stand still, we risk falling behind. Hong Kong people should focus their attention on economic development, on improving livelihoods and on enhancing across-the-board competitiveness. Disputes do Hong Kong no good and only harm the citys efficiency and economy. They waste time and can jeopardise the economy and thus peoples livelihood.

The second point is about patience. The Hong Kong SAR government has been established for less than 19 years. There has been no precedent for the one country, two systems practice. All aspects of the system and institutional mechanisms need to be refined, and some deep-seated contradictions would gradually emerge after some time. There are objective reasons for this. Some problems have surfaced in recent years after remaining somewhat latent. Some problems are new, and can by no means be resolved overnight. We cannot become doubtful about, or lose confidence in or even deny one country, two systems. There are no obstacles that cannot be overcome. We have the wisdom and the abilities to resolve all problems that arise during the implementation of one country, two systems.

Hong Kong is a pluralistic society, and there are different voices in society. This is normal. We respect the one country, two systems principle and the Basic Law, and we are willing to listen to opinions and suggestions from all sides in society as long as they are for the good of Hong Kong. We can also carry out exchanges through different channels. Rational and reasonable communication can reduce or even eliminate differences, and foster consensus.

What is sure is that the three chief executives of the SAR government have done a lot of good work for the development of Hong Kong. Leung Chun-ying, the incumbent chief executive, and the SAR administration led by him have identified the problems. The policies and measures being implemented by them with the aim of promoting the citys economic and social development are taking effect, and have achieved some success. As long as all sectors of Hong Kong have the spirit to set aside disagreements in order to pursue our goals together to realise our dream [Editors note: a line taken from the song Below the Lion Rock], and jointly support the chief executive and the SAR government in their policy implementation according to law, working together, we will gain excellent results and enter a new stage of one country, two systems.

The third point is to have confidence. First, we must have confidence in the undertaking of one country, two systems. There are three reasons for that. First, one country, two systems is the countrys primary national policy, and is a strategic choice rather than a short-term solution. It will not be changed. Second, one country, two systems has a solid public opinion foundation, and is the main common denominator connecting the mainland and Hong Kong, and thus should not be changed. Third, evidence obtained since the 1997 handover has proven that one country, two systems is feasible, and is a proven good system with no need to be changed. In future, we still need to adhere to the principle, so that Hong Kong can continue to play its unique role.

The remarks that the mainland government intends to mainlandise Hong Kong and even turn one country, two systems into one country, one system are completely groundless. The majority of Hong Kong compatriots hope that one country, two system can continue as it is, and this is in the best interest of the nation. The central government will continue to steadfastly implement the system, and the Hong Kong community can rest assured of that.


INT News Channel

Resistance Live Media

Epoch Times

Internet comments:

- These fucking incompetent idiots! The regular slogan is "I want genuine universal suffrage" (我要真普選). They managed to write the characters for "I", "want" and "genuine" incorrectly with missing or extra strokes  for the Mount Parker banner.

- After 7 League of Social Democrats members were arrested, the party immediately boasted their actions on their Facebook without omitting to tell people to support their brothers who will be facing prosecution. Immediately, the localists heaped scorn upon the League of Social Democrats. The wife of Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat wrote,, "Money is always very important, but we really couldn't ask for donations as soon as our members are arrested." Localist scholar Wan Chin said: "The reason why the government set up the water barricades is to invite those stupid pan-democratic social activist pigs to cooperate by pushing at those barricades and shout some slogans in order to demonstrate that the police defense was effective and necessary ..."

Wan Chin added that the banner on Lion Rock is a joint project by the government with civilians. Nowadays, the government needs to have a suitable resistance in order to justify their jobs and overtime pay. The permanent pan-democratic social activism supports the soft oppression by the police and both sides get to rake in a lot of money. By contrast, Wan Chin wrote: "We decided to hold no demonstrations whatsoever because the government has locked down the city. We let the government embarrass itself."

The Localists also criticized the League of Social Democrats for putting the initials LSD on their banners in order to gain election publicity. They scorned them for using the incidents to raise money. Meanwhile the League of Social Democrats scorned the Localists for claiming to be valiant compared to the traditional "Peace, reason and non-violence" but always cowering in the rear eating sour grapes.

- Hanging large banners in wilderness parks is the kind of juvenile behavior such as writing bathroom graffiti.

- No, it is not the same. There is no physical danger involved in writing bathroom graffiti, but those large banners pose risks to the people who have to hang them up and those who have to take them down.

- I note that the banner is smaller than those banners that appeared during the Occupy Central period in 2014. The League of Social Democrats said that this banner was homemade and the characters were written by hand. The 2014 banners were professionally printed. The League of Social Democrats said that their volunteers took the banner up to Mount Parker and not Lion Rock which was patrolled by the police. The 2014 banners were hung down from the peak of Lion Rock by expert mountaineers. There must be an austerity issue here.

So why is Big Money missing in action? One factor is that this action only has nostalgia going for it with the effectiveness proven to be non-existent.

- From the League of Social Democrats' Raphael Wong

I can be scolded for acting stupidly, but acting stupidly will always be better than just talking stupidly without acting. Action is always better than sitting still ... What we doing right now is to bring order out of the chaos and stop the Chinese Communists from causing trouble in Hong Kong and thus making all of us pay the bill!

- So by hanging out a banner by the hillside, the League of Social Democrats will realize their stated objectives such as
(1) Stopping the Express Rail Link that will link Hong Kong to the rest of the High Speed Rail in China
(2) Stopping the completion of the Zhuhai-Macau-Hong Kong bridge
(3) Stopping the construction of the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport
(4) Stopping the One Road One Belt initiative
(5) Implementing a universal retirement protection scheme
(6) The nationalization of Link REIT
(7) Stopping the operation of the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Reactor
etc etc

- What has Zhang Dejiang seen before? He has gone through the Xinjiang riots and the Tibet riots, he has seen self-immolations, he has seen attacks on the police and military, etc. So how is he going to be impressed by a hillside banner saying "Stop One Road One Belt"?

- You don't understand, do you? The target of the demonstrations was never Zhang Dejiang. It is always about getting people to donate more money for the Hong Kong legislative council elections.

- Pounding on your keyboards isn't going to impress Zhang Dejiang either. You aren't going to hurt him a bit with your thousand-word Facebook essays every day. You need to jump off the roof or set yourself on fire to create a stir. But you will have to surpass what has happened in Xinjiang/Tibet.

- There has been a self-immolation in Hong Kong already. This was documented in the movie Ten Years.

- You don't seem to realize that Ten Years is fictional. Nobody can make a real-time documentary about events ten years from now.

- Yellow Ribbon wastrels live in their own fantasy world in which if they can cover the hillsides with banners, they will have won. In the real world, covering the hillsides with banners will only draw criticisms from environmentalists.

- (TVB) The Civil Human Rights Front could not get near the Convention Centre. They met with a Civil Affairs Bureau official who said that she could try to forward their petition letter to Zhang Dejiang, but she cannot guarantee that the letter will reach him. So Civil Human Rights Front decided that they would rather burn the letter and tell Zhang Dejiang to receive the joss paper.

- (Facebook) The Civil Human Rights Front say that they oppose the Chinese Communists, but they want to present a petition letter to a senior Chinese Communist official?

- Even the police officer found the act of League of Social Democrats member Figo Chan to be amusing. But the police officer had better watch out for the kick to the groin?

- How are you going to bring down the Chinese Communists? There are 87 million of them. If your only effort is to hang out banners and shout slogans every time that some Communist bigwig comes to town, you will never pull it off.

- Do not be deceived by the 87 million figure. (Epoch Times) "More than 200 million people have quit the Communist Party," said Zhong Weiguang who is a Chinese dissident and scholar of totalitarianism residing in Germany.

- If you want to go head on against the 87 million Chinese Communists, you can just go across the Shenzhen border post and then you can valiantly resist them. Do not use the fact that you don't have a Home Visit Permit to enter mainland China. Causeway Bay Books' Lee Bo was able to enter China using his own method, and so can you. You are just too comfortable pounding on the keyboard from Hong Kong.

- After watching this type of display for some years, I now find it very boring. I would have loved to see a real battle, with the valiant warriors attempting to breach Zhang Dejiang's defensive cordon by frogmen coming from the harbor, or skydivers jumping off helicopters, or whatever. Instead, I see the same old faces combing their hair first and then make an intentionally futile effort to charge at the largest concentration of police/media cameras.

- (Initium) May 18, 2016. Zhang Dejiang arrived on May 18 and will stay at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Wanchai. Demosisto's Nathan Law, Agnes Chow and another student booked themselves into the Harbour View Hotel which is right across the street  from the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The three followed the television news closely. Agnes Chow told our reporter: "I think that we may not even get to take a look at what Zhang Dejiang ... Faced with the large-scale deployment, some people may think that we shouldn't even bother. But we will persist. We will do it even if we know that it is impossible. We want to let the whole world know that there are still many people fighting/resisting for democracy in Hong Kong.

Zhang Dejiang arrived in Hong Kong at 11:45am on May 17. He was met by China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming, HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung and others. Meanwhile, Nathan Law, Agnes Chow met up Lau Siu-lai and four other Demisisto members who have checked in separately. At 12:25pm, Zhang Dejiang finished his speech and proceeded by car to the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The intercept action began. Because Nathan Law and Agnes Chow frequently appear in media reports, they assumed disguises this time. Nathan Law took off his glasses and wore a hat; Agnes Chow pulled up her hair, wore glasses and hat. Then they sent out into the lobby to look for opportunities.

At 12:45pm, Zhang Dejiang's car arrived at the Grand Hyatt Hotel with four police motorcycles leading the way and another thirty to forty police vehicles following behind. When the car passed the road across the Harbour View Hotel, Nathan Law and two other male Demosisto squeezed through the police cordon holding banners that said "I want genuine universal suffrage," "I don't want One Road One Belt" and "Self-determination of destiny" and dashed onto the roadway.

In less than 10 seconds, more than a dozen police officers tackled two of the Demosisto members onto the ground. Another Demosisto member was surrounded by more than a dozen police officers. The police pressed the three men against the glass door and searched them for weapons of assault.

At 12:56pm, the motorcade has passed by. The Demosisto people were released after questioning and allowed to return to their hotel rooms. At 2pm, Nathan Law ate a takeout lunch while lifting up his shirt to reveal to our reporter the wounds caused by the police. There were two red marks underneath his chest and his wrists were scratched. Nathan Law said that the action was not a success, but they have successfully communicated a message to the whole world: "Even in the face of such a mass deployment and no matter how difficult it is, we will do everything possible to present a picture for the world to see that some people are still resisting in Hong Kong."

- Nathan Law says that they want to send the message to the whole world that some people in Hong Kong are still resisting the Chinese Communists. How many are these 'some people'? The population of Hong Kong is 7.3 million. According to the Initium report, the resisters who checked into the hotel are Nathan Law, Agnes Chow, Lau Siu-lai and five unnamed Demosisto members. Three male Demosisto members (including Nathan Law) attempted to rush the motorcade. Eight out of 7.3 million people are 'resisting'. So should we listen to what they have to say?

- Actually, the more pertinent question is, "Do we know what we want to say?" What is the substance behind the "Hong Kong doesn't want One Road One Belt" slogan"? Why don't you want it? Do you even know what it is? Have you done an economic analysis that suggests that the benefits are small?

- Did those people who donated money to Demosisto ever thought that their money would be spent on hotel rooms (about $3,000 for May 16-18), food and beverage? And is this effort going to stop One Road One Belt?

- (Apple Daily) Today People Power member Tam Tak-chi drove around Hong Kong in a van with the sticker "The Hearse for Zhang Dejiang." He drove up to Government House to display banners to demand "Human waste Mr. and Mrs. Zhang Dejiang responsible for SARS deaths yo disclose your mistresses and corrupt fortune." Four police officers came and stopped him. Tam said that he decided to go to Government House instead of Wanchai where 10,000 police officers were deployed. "I want to show disrespect to the SARS murderer Zhang Dejiang!"

-  The calligraphy for "Zhang Dejiang's hearse" is worse than what a primary school third-grade student can do.

- Since Zhang Dejiang and CY Leung were both at the Convention Centre, what is the point of going to Government House? If Tam Tak-chi were by himself, he wouldn't have done it. Tam did it only because he got Apple Daily to send reporters to record the incident. Conversely, if Tam did not tell Apple Daily that something was going to take place, Apple Daily would see no need to station a reporter at Government House. So it is a symbiotic relationship between activists and journalists which violates the traditional stricture against journalists creating news themselves.

- Derek Lam (of the defunct Scholarism) said that he petitioned Zhang Dejiang in order to inform him that self-determination of destiny of Hong Kong does not need the approval of China.  If the approval of China is not required, then why are you petitioning Zhang Dejiang?

- Derek Lam is a theology student at Chinese University of Hong Kong, so it makes sense that his thinking should be muddled.

- Actually, Derek Lam's logic is very simple and straightforward -- he is petitioning Zhang Dejiang to approve the fact he doesn't need approval. Or something.

- Here is Apple Daily report on May 18:

Give me back my right to use the road, I oppose blocking people from going to work

Well, well, well. Let me replay an episode from Occupy Central:

(TVB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vxUt5QW-yk )

0:01 (VO)  It's after 7am.  Citizens walk from Admiralty Centre across the pedestrian overpass to go to work at Government Headquarters.  Some demonstrators have used metal barricades and garbage cans to set up a road block to prevent entrance.  This those who have to get to work from there very unhappy.

0:28 (Male)  I want to go to work one day at a time.  Don't talk to me about those things.  I didn't go to work for four days in order to avoid you people.  To avoid you people.

0:38 (VO) A janitor had to go through here to work at Government Headquarters.

0:42 (Elderly woman)  Hey, hey, don't pull.  I have to pass through.
0:43 (Male)  Grandma, are you going to work?
0:45 (Elderly woman)  I have to eat.  Make way. Don't hold.
0:48 (Rico Lo)  Grandma, at this time, everybody ...
0:50 (Elderly woman)  Do not call me Grandma.  Grandma has to eat.  You don't have to eat.  Yes.  You let me through.  I want to go to work.
0:55 (Male)  The decision to let people leave but not to enter was made by everybody.
0:58 (Elderly woman)  A person has to breathe.  A person lives between breaths.  Why don't you spend your time well each day?  Why do you have to cause chaos in Hong Kong?

1:06 (VO) Ultimately, the demonstrators let Grandma go through by herself.  Afterwards someone else wanted to go through.
1:13 (Female)  Everyday, I go down this road to go to work.  I am just going to work as usual.  This is a very small and humble request.  I want to man my job post.

1:25 (VO)  The police showed up and wanted to remove the barricades.
1:29 (Crowd)  Not allowed to remove!  Not allowed to remove!

1:33 (VO)  A group of contract security guards also asked the demonstrators to let them pass through.
1:34 (Male)  You give us a path to go through, alright?  Okay?
1:38 (Rico Lo)  We really cannot do that.
1:39 (Male)  Then there is no way.  We have to go to work.  [The security guards pushed the metal barricades back and forced their way through.]
1:45 (Rico Lo)  Our goal is to paralyze Government Headquarters.  If one person gets in, it means that the Government Headquarters will be back in operation.  Whether we let someone through is another matter.  If you remove these metal barricades, then does it mean that you can also remove all the other metal barricades around Government Headquarters?  This is something that we cannot accept.

Well, did Apple Daily ever report about these other people opposing being blocked from going to work?

- Let me make a comparison. During Occupy Central, bus service was halted and I had to take the subway, which was more crowded than usual. So I had to allocate twenty more minutes each day in order to be on time. Today, I took the bus as usual. The Wanchai pedestrian overpass was blocked for a while, because some people wanted to raise "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners on the overpass between 8am and 10am. I entered the office building through the side entrance and I got to work on time. So there you have it.

- Apple Daily interviewed a restaurant owner who said that his afternoon business had dropped to zero because Zhang Dejiang is in town. He said, "It would be better if Zhang Dejiang didn't come." Other office workers were late for work because the roads were blocked. "Can we sue the police for our lost time and money?" That's interesting, because many more workers were late or lost time/money, and many businesses lost income or went out of business during the 79 days of Occupy Central. "Can the citizens sue the Occupy Central people?"

- When Zhang Dejiang was in town, at least the subway was still running. During Occupy Central, here is what the subway entrance looked like.

- League of Social Democrats posts Apple Daily report that a patient nearly died after the ambulance was stuck in the Eastern Harbour Crossing.  The patient was struggling because his anesthetic was wearing off. Fortunately, the emergency workers brought more anesthetic than normal and was able to inject more. Otherwise if the patient yanks off his breathing tube, he could have died ...


- Yet another piece of Apple Daily fiction because there is no WHO WHEN WHERE WHY HOW provided at all.

- If this ambulance was stuck in Admiralty during the Occupy period, the patient would have to wait 79 days before getting to Queen Mary Hospital.

- Apple Daily was reposting from the HA Secrets Facebook. The patient was originally in the Intensive Care Unit of a Hong Kong Island hospital for carbon monoxide poisoning. He was being transferred by ambulance to the decompression chamber at Stonecutters Island.

- Please take out a map of Hong Kong. If you want to go from Hong Kong Island to Stonecutters Island, you would be taking the Western Harbour Crossing and not the Eastern Harbour Crossing. When the ambulance set out, it should have all the information of road closures as provided by the police. For large-scale road closures (such as the watching fireworks show by the harbor front), the police have special car lanes reserved for emergency service vehicles.

- 22 pan-democratic legislators have signed a petition to Zhang Dejiang to demand (1) replace the Chief Executive and (2) restart the constitutional reform process.

The petition to replace the Chief Executive is to ask the System of One Country to intervene and replace the leader of the other System. If the System of One Country can do that once, it will be able to do so again and again in the future. I don't think that this is a good precedent to set under Common Law.

The petition to restart the constitutional reform should begin where it ended. (#269) 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. Liberal Party's James Tien commissioned Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 5,043 persons on June 5-14. When asked "Do you support or oppose the Legislative Council to pass the constitutional reform proposal?", 51% supported and 37% opposed.

The people of Hong Kong (and the United States and the European Union) said "take the deal first because it is an improvement", but the pan-democrats voted against the constitutional reform proposal at the time and that was the end of it. The pan-democrats want to restart the constitutional reform now. What is the point of re-running the same movie? The people of Hong Kong do not want to see Central occupied for 79 days again. If the pan-democrats seriously want to have constitutional reform, they should explain how and why it is different this time. Will they take the original deal? Will they insist that their way is the only way but that this time there is a ray of hope (because Zhang Dejiang looks like a nice guy or a steamed-dumpling-eating surrender monkey or something)?

- When the pan-democrats put the kibosh on the constitutional reform in June 2015, they promised that the five-step process will be re-started immediately. Nothing of the sort ever happened. CY Leung's administration said that they have no interest in so doing for the remainder of their term, and the next Chief Executive (if not the same CY Leung) will take some time to prepare for another constitutional reform proposal. So the optimistic estimate is 2022 or thereafter. When Zhang Dejiang came to town, it is the perfect opportunity for the pan-democrats to make a perfunctory effort against a hopeless situation, as if they have been trying all along but the other side obstructed progress.

- After the constitutional reform proposal was voted down, the pan-democrats promised us that there will be a total non-cooperation campaign in order to force a restart of the five-step constitutional reform process. I am still waiting.

- Only 22 pan-democratic legislators signed the petition? That means the Neo Democrats, the League of Social Democrats, People Power and Raymond Wong Yuk-man refused to join for various reasons (because they are not Chinese, or because they want to overthrow the Chinese Communist regime, or because they say that only armed insurrection will work, etc).

- (Sing Tao) On radio, Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong said that he was uncomfortable with the pan-democrats making a demand to a Central Government official to replace the Hong Kong Chief Executive. He said that such an action would supersede the existing electoral system in Hong Kong.

- Hong Kong 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 Chief Executive is appointed by the Central People's Government. If the Central People's Government rescinds that appointment, that Chief Executive is 'fired.'

- A sideshow was that Democratic Party chairperson Emily Lau said that she lost her invitation and needed a replacement. She also said it was peculiar for the invitation to be addressed to Ms. Lau instead of Legislative Councilor Lau.

- I find it perplexing too that the invitation was not addressed to "BITCH!".

- Whereas its was unacceptable for CY Leung to tell the mythical Cathay Pacific ground crew member that he should properly be addressed as "Chief Executive Leung", it is unacceptable for Emily Lau to be addressed as anything except "Legislative Councilor Lau."

- P.S. Not to worry, because Emily Lau has retrieved the lost invitation from the trash bin.

- (TVB) May 18, 2016. Civic Human Rights Front and many pan-democratic parties set off from Shelter Sports Ground in Wanchai to demand a meeting with Zhang Dejiang. They said that the government arrangements have shut down the voices of the people. They demand that the Central Government form an independent commission to investigate the June 4th incident and offer apologies/compensation to the families of the victims. They also demanded to remove the Chief Executive and re-start the constitutional reform process. When the demonstrators reached the Fleming Road overpass to go to the Immigration Department building, the police warned them that demonstrations have to take place at the designated areas. The two sides faced off for about 30 minutes, because the demonstrators proceeded to Fleming Road Park to continue their assembly.

- (Oriental Daily) May 18, 2016. Remember that the Civil Human Rights Front refused to provide a crowd estimate beforehand? This news report said that there were about 30 demonstrators who were accompanied by 30 police officers. Both sides added together would be outnumbered by the journalists.

Lui Yuk-lin ("Female Long Hair") showed up in a shirt with the snow mountain lion emblem of Tibetan independence and carried a snow mountain lion flag for Tibetan independence and attempted to race towards the Convention Centre. About 20 police officers surrounded her and took her back to the demonstration area. The police warned her that she would be charged with obstruction of police business if she didn't cooperate with them, but they did not take away her flag.

The Civil Rights Human Front demonstration was outnumbered by 40 Pearl Horizon (Macau) property owners because their land lease is not being renewed by the Macau SAR government and therefore they have come to petition Zhang Dejiang to pay attention to their plight.

- (HKG Pao) If you pay attention to China news, you will note that radical Xinjiang/Tibet independence persons often take action in crowded places to use knives, guns and bombs to inflict mass casualties so as to express their political demands and gain foreign media coverage. But in Hong Kong, the Demosisto members could only tried to rush the roadway holding banners in their hands and be subdued by the police within seconds. They did manage to let their cooperating media (Initium) take an iconic photograph of the Hong Kong police suppressing freedom of speech/assembly. But the subject in the photo is Nathan Law who managed to let the Hong Kong Federation of Students collapse under his leadership. How can Nathan Law be said to represent the people of Hong Kong to present their demands to Zhang Dejiang?

The political parties were able to gain publicity by all sorts of methods. First of all, League of Social Democrats' Tsang Kin-shing managed to capture the headlines when he tried to get a mainlander criminal friend to buy an aerial drone in Shenzhen. Then other League of Social Democrats hung up banners around Hong Kong. Then Demosisto members tried to rush Zhang Dejiang's motorcade. Then People Power's Tam Tak-chi raised banners outside Government House ...

- (HKG Pao) Ming Pao ran a story with the heading: "Wanchai: a policeman every few steps, businesses and workers complain about the disruption: Can we get compensated?" The accompanying video showed a woman who spent almost a minute complaining about "the interests of the residents should be considered" and "what has mainland China contributed to Hong Kong?" as if she was reading an Apple Daily column. If you look at the details of the video, it turned out the road was blocked for only a few minutes. More interesting is the photo illustration. Ming Pao chose a photo of the pedestrian overpass between World-wide House and Exchange Square on Pedder Street, Central District to show that there is one policeman every few steps in the Wanchai District. Central District is separated from Wanchai District by the Admiralty District. How can this be mixed up? What won't Ming Pao do to smear the Central Government?

- Chris Wat Wing-yin on the causes and effects of a barricaded city.

I went past the Convention Centre a few days ago and I already saw the water barricades surrounding the place. I went by Wanchai North and I saw the police standing on guard. Some people say that the police are carrying their anti-terrorism act too far. Internet users said that "the security for the Queen of England is more lax than for Zhang Dejiang." The most often conclusion is that "only dictators are afraid of the people" and therefore they used "5,000 police officers to build a high wall to defend against the eggs."

Since when have Hongkongers become so unreasonable so as to invert cause with effect?

For example, if thieves come into your shop every day to steal, will you enhance your security measures by installing more closed-circuit television cameras and introduce anti-theft electronic systems? Will your customer tell you that you are alienating them with these security measures? No. If the customer is not a thief, why would he mind those cameras?

For the same reason, if the opposition camp does not use violence all the time to smash glass doors, set trash bins on fire, occupy roads, dig up bricks, seize iron barricades, surround police vehicles, assault policemen, throw spears, blockade roads, imprison people ... why would the police need to mobilize several thousand officers in defense? Over the past several years, how often have government officials not run into noisy fights? How often have they not run into people upturning the table and howling? How often have meetings ended calmly? Most recently, Carrie Lam could not even finish her summation at a hearing on the retirement scheme.

When the opposition camp is increasingly out of control and they come not to express their views but to be destructive in order to gain media exposure, they have become political terrorists against whom the maximum security level is appropriate. Before you criticize the police for disturbing the people, you should ask what is the "cause" for this "effect."

As for saying the Queen of England did not require this level of security when she came, you are being ignorant. Do you know why the British royalty didn't need water barricades? The colonial administration's Political Department had already arrested or disappeared all the dissidents already. However, the Hong Kong Police today do not have the ability to do that, so they have to erect water barricades instead.

- (Wen Wei Po) May 19, 2016.

For his meeting with Zhang Dejiang, Alan Leong (Civic Party) told everybody to check out his yellow tie.

- Oh, Alan Leong, you are so brave and courageous for daring to wear a yellow tie!

- Pardon me, but I think that this is too radical for me. When I saw the photo, I almost wet my pants because you really scared me. If it weren't for my superior bowel control, I would have lost it. You are truly powerful and you should start worrying about injuring someone with the sight of your yellow time.

- Dear Senior Counsel, can you please explain what your yellow tie is going to accomplish for us? Universal suffrage with civil nomination? Halting One Road One Belt? Dismissal of CY Leung as HKSAR Chief Executive and appointing you as his replacement?

- Can you stop being so fucking stupid?

- Is mental impairment a requirement to become a Senior Counsel? The whole Civic Party is like this!

- If you want to go Yellow, then why not go all the way? Get yourself a yellow suit, yellow shirt, yellow belt, yellow handkerchief, yellow socks, yellow shoes and yellow underpants. P.S. Don't forget to dye your hair yellow, so you will look like a yellow banana (yellow outside, white inside).

- (Oriental Daily) Former Chief Secretary Anson Fong showed up to meet with Zhang Dejiang wearing a yellow jacket. During the whole 20 minutes of Zhang's speech, she did not applaud.

- Cyd Ho (Labour Party) wore a gold umbrella pendant to meet with Zhang Dejiang.

- All things yellow: yellow kites, yellow ties, yellow pendants, yellow earrings, yellow bras, yellow panties. Resist all the way!

- (SCMP) Hong Kongs pan-democrats need to decide if they want reform, or a revolution. By John Chan. June 7, 2016.

During National Peoples Congress chairman Zhang Dejiangs (張德江) visit to Hong Kong, all legislators were invited to a welcome dinner. Pan-democratic lawmakers boycotted the event, claiming it did not offer sufficient opportunity for in-depth dialogue. This excuse is laughable.

Such an occasion is not intended for dialogue. Pan-democrats were invited because of their constitutional status, not for what they have to say.

During the colonial era, lawmakers invited to a formal dinner for a visiting British prime minster wouldnt use such a childish excuse; they would refuse to attend to signal disapproval of the administration. Thus, pan-democrats should have admitted they were boycotting the event.

That aside, four pan-democrats did attend a cocktail reception held beforehand. One, Alan Leong Kah-kit, came out in high spirits, saying he had lodged a complaint with Zhang against Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and requested that Leung be replaced.

By openly asking the No 3 in the Chinese government to interfere in Hong Kongs affairs, Leong did something not even pro-Beijing politicians would try. One pro-democrat commentator said: To suggest to Zhang Dejiang to dismiss and replace the chief executive amounts to accepting that the central government has final say in the election of the chief executive. If this is the case, does this not mean one country, two systems exists only in name?

This is the heart of the pan-democrats predicament. They are anti-communist (no big deal) and refuse to accept the reality that the communist government has a dominant role in local politics (again, no big deal) yet they are reluctant to give up their privileged position in the political order they so despise. With separatists now advocating cutting ties, pan-democrats cowardice has been exposed.

Pan-democrats said their meeting with Zhang served to establish their constitutional status. This is naive. As it is, all lawmakers have a recognised constitutional status. Why did it take a meeting with a top Beijing official to confirm this? They seem reluctant to accept there are limits on what they can achieve under one country, two systems.

They have yet to decide whether to be revolutionaries, like independence-seekers who denounce the existing order; or reformists, working within the existing structure. They should remember: if they want to start a revolution, they cannot be politicians. In any representative government, there can only be three outcomes: win, compromise or accept defeat with grace.

It is a pity they forgot these rules last year, over the electoral reform package, and got dragged into following the lead of radical students. Since then, a small faction has embarked on the dangerous path to self-determination. Pan-democrats have yet to find a clear direction.

- (Apple Daily) Actor Shiu Chung-han has been making Facebook posts to express his outrage at Zhang Dejiang. Yesterday Shiu told our reporter: "On the first day of his trip, my wife was going to work at Harbour Road. Even the parking space was inaccessible so she had to pay for day parking elsewhere. It is not a matter of money. This is about inconveniencing people. Actually Zhang Dejiang may not be the problem, because they are not against inconveniencing people on the mainland too. But I don't understand what Hong Kong is worried about? The person who made this decision was narrow-minded and shortsighted. He fawned on on the wrong person and showed poor leadership to stage this show for the mainland to watch. The international media can see this, and this is an embarrassment for all of Hong Kong. As a Hongkonger, I am embarrassed. I am old enough not to be afraid of saying this." Shiu said that he loves Hong Kong and he loves China. But after these few days, he is thinking about leaving Hong Kong with his wife. "I like the Hong Kong of he past. I am a Hongkonger. That is, my name is Shiu and not Chen or Wang. After the past few days, I am thinking about immigrating after speaking to my wife."

- During Occupy Central, people couldn't park in Admiralty for 79 days in a row. According to Shiu's standards, anyone who gets 'inconvenienced' for three days is going to immigrate. Then there shouldn't be too many people left in Hong Kong by now.

- (Bastille Post) At the meeting with Zhang Dejiang, the pan-democrats kept saying that CY Leung should not be re-elected. A pro-establishment legislator said that he is appalled by this kind of talk because they really should not be stopping someone from entering an election. Supposedly Zhang Dejiang enjoyed this riposte.

After listening to Zhang Dejiang's speech, Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau said: "You say that you are satisfied with the performance of CY Leung and the Hong Kong SAR government, but many people outside are unhappy." Zhang Dejiang replied: "I am not here to debate you today. I am not interested in a war of saliva with you. I am not here to convince you. I will listen to what you say, and I will say something for you to listen to. Hong Kong is a diverse society." Zhang Dejiang added: "If there anything wrong in what I just said? Can you please tell me?" Lau did not respond.

- (Wen Wei Po) May 19, 2016.

When National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang came to Hong Kong, the various radical localists were busy criticizing the traditional pan-democrats as well as attacking each other. After all, this is a good time to get media attention.

So the Localists attacked the traditional social activists of League of Social Democrats for "stupid" activities such as hanging out banners while the League of Social Democrats accused the radicals for being missing in action.

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson said on his Internet program that because he does not want One Country Two Systems to work or to accept any Basic Law framework, his group will ignore the presence of Zhang Dejiang and hold no protests during this period.

Meanwhile, Passion Times (the party organ for the Civic Passion party), posted: "According to secret information, Civic Passion stalwart Wong Yeung-tat is actively contacting people to form an Iron Blood team of 30 people to cause a bloody clash at the Convention Centre on May 18. Wong said that 'I will do this even if I get arrested.'"

After the report appeared, the traditional social activists heaped scoren upon Civic Passion. They said that the presence of 'I will do this even if I get arrested' is proof that this was another piece of fake news because Wong Yeung-tat has always let others get arrested. They accused Civic Passion of 'leaking' a fake story and then announcing that the action was canceled due to the leak.

Civic Passion attempted to divert attention by showing up in Sheung Shui to set up a street booth on Sun Kong Street. They claimed that the parallel traders disappeared when Civic Passion came. But Internet users thought that this was hilarious. They said that it was reported early in the morning that the authorities were conducting a massive sweep of parallel trading activities in Sheung Shui and so the usual parallel traders were absent already. So Civic Passion merely showed up in empty space and claimed credit. At the same time, Wan Chin (part of the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State group) had earlier said that the anti-parallel trade protests were a plot that their supporters should not take part in. So it is hilarious that Civic Passion would be doing just that.

- (Passion Times) https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1114397705290062/ Valiant resistance campaign in Sheung Shui

- 'I will do this even if I get arrested' isn't Civic Passion practice. They've always told people (1) not to get injured and (2) not to get arrested.

- They typed up a Word document of the confidential report and posted a screen capture of that document. How did Passion Times ever got a copy of a confidential report?

- If Civic Passion thinks that the League of Social Democrats is stupid, then why don't they come out and show us how to do it correctly? Instead, they stay inside their air-conditioned homes and pound on the keyboard to carry out their resistance campaign.

- When the North District Parallel Imports Concern Group called their demonstration, Civic Passion was missing in action because they knew that 500 police officers were assigned. When Zhang Dejiang came, 6,000 police officers were assigned to the Wanchai area, so this was the moment for Civic Passion to protest in Sheung Shui because the police presence must be reduced there.

- On Lunar New Year's Day, the localists came out to support the fish ball vendors and chanted "Down with the Communists!" So now the number 3 ranked Chinese Communists is in town, what do they do? They go and fight the non-existent parallel traders in Sheung Shui.

- After the Lunar New Year riot, the radical localists say that they always stand on the side of the resisters. After the League of Social Democrats protested against Zhang Dejiang, all the radical localists did was to heap scorn and abuse upon LSD.

- (NOW TV) A dozen of so Civic Passion members assembed on Sun Kong Street in Sheung Shui. They raised banners and demanded a crackdown on parallel traders. Before the demonstration started, the police stopped them because no application was made beforehand. There were quarrels and physical contacts. More police reinforcement arrived. The demonstrators were allowed to proceed after mediation. Some stores lowered their gates while the demonstration was in progress.

- Here is a quiz: Which situation is likely to deter potential customers from entering your store? A policeman standing outside? Or Civic Passion members congregating outside?

- (RTHK) Demosisto members Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai and two others were arrested for attempting to stop Zhang Dejiang's motorcade. They charged onto the roadway coming out of the Eastern Harbour Crossing, but they were immediately stopped by policemen at the scene.


Five young activists, including Joshua Wong Chi-fung, were released on bail late Thursday night after getting arrested as they attempted to get close to state leader Zhang Dejiangs motorcade on Thursday, the last day of the state leaders visit to Hong Kong. The five Demosisto members said the arrests were clearly politically motivated, criticising also that the force had raided their homes to collect evidence.

We think the arrests are political arrests. The police have abused their power, said Wong after his release outside Kwun Tong police station. The [police] did that when Zhang Dejiang was in Hong Kong because the government is afraid of the peoples voices. Demosisto will not give up and will continue to fight together with everyone.

Wong and his fellow Demosisto members, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Oscar Lai Man-lok, Benny Ng and Chow Cheuk-kiu, attempted to get near to Zhangs motorcade as the vehicles were exiting the Eastern Harbour Crossing on the way to an elderly centre in Tseung Kwan O. They were quickly subdued by police officers while chanting End one-party dictatorship and Self-determination for Hong Kong people

The five were arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct in a public place and obstructing police officers in execution of their duty. They were released late Thursday night about 12 hours after the arrests.

Law said their actions were too minor to warrant being detained for so long. He said police had subdued the five in order to create an illusion to Zhang that the people of Hong Kong were satisfied with the performance of the citys government. Our powers are small. But we have done our best to try to stand in front of Zhang Dejiang to tell him [about] Hong Kong peoples pursuit of democracy, Law added.

- Today the Kwun Tong Bypass was completely frozen because of one person. Here is the video of the congestion: https://www.facebook.com/ArmChannelTV/videos/871411186321623/

- The video always tell the truth. But that one person is not Zhang Dejiang as you supposed. The congestion was caused by Demosisto people running onto the roadway outside the Eastern Harbour Crossing! Now that would be completely consistent with their socio-pathological view of Occupy Central.

- Best news photo of the year:

- Joshua Wong objected to being accused of stopping traffic because he said that he was on the pedestrian walkway and never stepped on the roadway. Here are the photographs from the photographers that he invited to record his actions.

P.S. Joshua Wong also said that the police is holding his mobile phone as evidence, and it will be months before he can get it back. So you better donate even more money to him to buy another mobile phone.

- Over the past week, there were many news reports about increased enforcement of traffic rules (such as walking against the pedestrian light, not using the zebra crossing, etc). People reminded each other to follow the rules, because we can be fined $2,000 for violating the rules. These photos are ironclad evidence that these people have violated the traffic rules and they should be fined $2,000 immediately, apart from any other charges to be investigated?

- Hong Kong Police Force pedestrian traffic offenses that the police will strictly enforce: climbing over fence and jay walking; disobeying pedestrian red light signal and traffic signs; crossing without 15m of pedestrian crossing facilities. In 2015, there were 81 pedestrians killed, 790 serious injuries, 2642 slight injuries.

- Apple Daily posted this video at first but deleted it later because it was politically inconvenient: https://www.facebook.com/csking.chan/videos/1078093992256634/ and https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/624420721059164/ . What happened was that an innocent citizen happened to walk by as the Demosisto folks tried to rush on the roadway.  This bystander was arrested and he made a phone call to explain why he would be late for work.

- Another video https://www.facebook.com/NathanLawKC/videos/675406685944001/ by a shaky amateur cameraman.

- (HKG Pao) The police took Joshua Wong back to his Ap Lei Chau home to gather evidence. In one photo, two policemen escorted Wong who has his hands behind his back. You would think that Wong was handcuffed behind his back. But the TVB camera followed the three and also showed the view from the back. Joshua Wong's hands were free. He was just posing as if he were handcuffed!

- On this 50th anniversary of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the proper way is this:

Marshal Peng Dehuai

- (SpeakoutHK)

Joshua Wong: "Why are you still demonstrating?" I think that we want Zhang Dejiang to realize one thing: what he needs to listen to is not just the demands from the legislators, but the demands of the people of Hong Kong.

Female radio host: If you were invited, what would you say?

Joshua Wong: If there was such an invitation ... I think that as far as I am concerned, I will choose not to attend.

[You want Zhang Dejiang to listen to you, but you refuse to go and see him?]

Joshua Wong: Demosisto is a political group that is more focused on street resistance. In the end, we were able to be very successful.

Female listener: I want to ask the young people. When you charged onto the roadway that day, what was it for? You want to meet with Zhang Dejiang and express your opinions. Therefore I don't think that there is any problem with the pan-democrats going to see Zhang Dejiang to express their opinions.

- (Bastille Post) Summation of how the Central Government succeeded:

(1) The Central Government established the practice of "inspection." Zhang Dejiang declared that he was here on an inspection tour. He went to Government Headquarters to listen to the reports by senior HKSAR government officials on the implementation of One Country Two Systems and he issued directives.

(2) The Central Government held the power. A senior Central Government official came to Hong Kong to communicate with Hongkongers using an acceptable format. Zhang Dejiang articulated the warning against wrong ideas such as Hong Kong independence, self-determination, etc.

(3) The Central Government reminded the people of Hong Kong that the economy is like padding a boat up the river. If you don't advance, you will retrogress. Zhang Dejiang called for Hongkongers to unite, or else they will pay the bill together.

These are the three main points, and not the meeting with pan-democrats. In that meeting, the pan-democrats could not grasp the circumstances and started to file complaints about CY Leung with Zhang Dejiang. Democratic Party's Emily Lau tried. Zhang Dejiang replied. Lau persisted. Zhang lost his patience and told her, "I did not come to Hong Kong to have a war of saliva with you" and asked "Is there anything wrong with what I said? Please point it out to me?" Lau did not say anything more.

Civic Party's Alan Leong was even worse. He said that nothing positive at all came out of the 18 years after the handover, and One Country Two Systems was not implemented. In so saying, he has completely negated all the policies of the Central Government with respect to Hong Kong.

The pan-democrats have made a misjudgment. In their meeting with Zhang Dejiang, they only know how to repeat their slogans. The meeting should have been held at a different level.

(SCMP) Drone plot foiled ahead of Zhang Dejiangs Hong Kong visit. May 16, 2016.

A man arrested over an alleged plot to use a drone to disrupt a state leaders Hong Kong visit was asked to buy the device by veteran local activist Tsang Kin-shing.

Shenzhen police on Sunday said they had arrested five people two of them from Hong Kong and the others from the mainland over the alleged plot, just two days before Hong Kong hosts state leader Zhang Dejiang under the highest security alert.

One of the Hongkongers, identified as a 56-year-old man surnamed Guo, was said to be helping a member of Hong Kongs opposition to cause a nuisance. He was described as a long-time sponsor of the opposition camp and had procured a drone for the opposition figure, only named as Tsang.

Last night, Tsang Kin-shing confirmed he had asked some friends, including Guo, to buy a drone from the mainland a month ago. Tsang, a former lawmaker and now a member of the League of Social Democrats who is known as The Bull, said he had thought of using a drone for protests, not just for Zhangs visit.

(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2016.

The Shenzhen Public Security Bureau notified the Hong Kong Police this morning about the arrest of an crime organization led by a 56-year-old Hongkonger named Guo Huachang. Guo was alleged to be buying/selling Hong Kong ID cards for use in credit card fraud, telecommunications fraud, money laundering and unlicensed business operations.

Guo also confessed that he has been supporting Hong Kong opposition figures, including being asked by Hong Kong opposition member Tsang Kin-sing to purchase an aerial drone to disrupt the Hong Kong visit of Central Government representatives.

In the afternoon, League of Social Democrats member Tsang Kin-shing told the press that he is not connected to the case, that he does not know anyone by the name of Guo Huachang and that he has not asked anyone to purchase an aerial drone in Shenzhen. Tsang said: "Why would I have to buy it in Shenzhen when it is available in Hong Kong." Tsang said that he had no plans to buy an aerial drone while National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang is in Hong Kong. Tsang said: "I don't know how to operate an aerial drone."

In the evening, Tsang Kin-shing revised his statement. He said that he did ask Guo Huachang to purchase an aerial drone for him. Tsang said that at first he was unaware that Guo Huachang is the real name of Kwok Tinloy whom he met first during the 1989 activities of the Alliance To Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and met up again during Occupy Central. Early this year, Guo donated several thousand dollars to Tsang's district office. Tsang said that he always wanted to use an aerial drone to demonstrate and not just specifically against Zhang Dejiang. Earlier this year, he asked friends (including Kwok Tinloy) to locate an aerial drone for him. He wanted to maintain secrecy on the operation, and so he issued a denial when he was first asked in the afternoon. Later he realized that this was a serious matter because the mainland authorities want to link the aerial drone with the other illegal activities of Guo. Therefore Tsang decided to come out with a clarification.

Meanwhile League of Social Democrats member Tam Takchi posted on Facebook on May 9 that he was looking for remotely controlled helicopter plus a pilot but he did not state the purpose. Tam said that he wanted to use a drone to carry banners to demand universal suffrage for Zhang Dejiang to see. Tam said that he did not ask anyone to purchase an aerial drone for him in Shenzhen.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) May 15, 2016.

In 1994, Guo Huachang ran unsuccessfully for District Councilor under his original name of Kwok Tin-loy. From 1994 to 1997, he set up a shell company and used the information from his wife, friends and collaborators to purchase insurance. These insured persons would run into work-related injuries while on company business in mainland China. In total, he defrauded 8 insurance companies of $340,000 in false insurance claims. His cohorts later denounced him to the ICAC. In 2000, Guo was sentenced to 2 years in jail.

After Guo got out of jail, he joined up with his elder brother to look for candidates who filed insurance claims of work-related eye injuries. Some of these candidates were suffering from problems such as glaucoma already, but two had perfect vision. Guo convinced the two to undertake minor surgeries by mainland doctors in order to sustain injuries. Those two would lose vision in one eye permanently afterwards.

The second case was tried in 2007. The judge said that Guo Huachang was involved in 14 separate cases with the same modus operandi. "You are smart and you have good organizational skills, but you are using it for criminal purposes" to lure economically disadvantaged mainlanders to injure their bodies in order to commit fraud. The judge sentenced Guo Huachang to 4 years 3 months in prison because he pleaded guilty and testified against the others.

- In the prior cases, Guo Huachang has always turned state witness in exchange for leniency. I wonder what he is going to spill this time?

- Guo Huachang is 56 years old. If he gets sentenced to 10 years in a mainland jail, his life is effectively over and done with. At this time, he needs to hire a fiction writer to write a confession to all manners of crimes by the Hong Kong opposition.

- The Localists say that everything in China is fake and/or rubbish. But when the time comes to buy an aerial drone, they find that the market is dominated by Shenzhen-based DJI. The body is more honest than the heart.

- Why buy an aerial drone that is MADE IN CHINA? Because we know that you don't have to build a bomb with it! The thing will explode on its own!

- Tsang Kin-shing said that he needed to maintain secrecy and therefore his immediate response was to deny everything. Who is the bigger liar? CY Leung or Tsang Kin-shing?

- The initial press report gave the name of the opposition figure as Tsang X Sing. Immediately HK01 began to speculate whether this was Legislative Council chairman Tsang Yok-sing or his brother Tsang Tak-sing. Hey, wake up! The Tsang brothers are in the pro-establishment camp and not the opposition camp.

- The Shenzhen Public Security Bureau displayed 815 Hong Kong ID cards as part of the evidence collected for the case. What are the cards used for? To register voters in Hong Kong, of course!

- (HKG Pao) According to reliable information from Shenzhen, Tsang Kin-shing told potential suppliers about the requirement that the drone should be able to carry three bottles of 1250 ml Coca Cola (which weighs 4.075 kilograms by our measurement). One source said: "Tsang's requirement was not easy to meet. We obtained a drone. It can carry 1 bottle of Coca Cola. It began to wobble with two bottles. It wasn't able to take off with three bottles." This explained why Tsang had to go outside of Hong Kong because those drones available in Hong Kong could not meet the requirement.

Tsang obviously has no intention of using a drone to transport Coca Cola. We asked Tsang and he said: "If I am going to buy a drone, it obviously must carry a payload!" He explained that he wanted the drone to carry a vertical banner and that no violence is involved.

- Other 'drone attacks':

(USA TODAY) October 9, 2015.

U.S. Park Police confiscated a drone that crashed on the Ellipse near the White House on Friday and issued a citation to the operator involved.

Howard Solomon III of Washington, D.C., was cited with launching, landing or operating an unmanned aircraft in a restricted area, park police said. The citation carries an $85 fine, police said. Reached by phone Friday, Solomon told The Associated Press that he had been trying to take pictures of the monument and that the wind blew the drone across a street that divides the Ellipse from the grounds of the Washington Monument. I was just flying trying to take pictures of the monument, he said of the aircraft that officials said could be bought for about $65.

Drones are prohibited in Washington, D.C., because of security around federal buildings and safety concerns about flying over people and around other planes.

The Federal Aviation Administration announced a 'no-drone zone' campaign in June to reinforce the prohibition. People who violate the ban could be fined up to $25,000. The ban covers everywhere within a 15-mile radius of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Another drone crashed in January on the White House grounds. No charges were filed in that case, which was considered accidental by an operator who lost control of a drone from a nearby apartment building. But the incident raised security concerns about how to protect the White House, Congress and other important buildings from the threat of a drone carrying weapons.

(The Guardian) April 22, 2015.

Japanese authorities have launched an investigation after a small drone reportedly containing traces of radiation was found on the roof of the prime ministers office, sparking concerns about drones and their possible use for terrorist attacks.

No injuries or damage was reported from the incident on Wednesday. The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is at present in Indonesia, works at the building during the day and commutes from his own private home roughly 15 minutes away. Police said it was not immediately known who was responsible for the drone.

The chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, said the incident was a wakeup call to the potential dangers of drones, including possible terror attacks when Japan hosts the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo.

- (EJ Insight) May 16, 2016.

Police said they will be taking counterterrorism security measures to ensure the safety of Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee, during his three-day visit to Hong Kong starting Tuesday.

Zhang, who will deliver a keynote address at the Belt and Road Summit Wednesday at the invitation of Chief Executive Leung Chung-ying, is the first top Beijing leader to visit Hong Kong since 2012, when former president Hu Jintao took part in the 15th-anniversary celebrations of the citys handover to China.

Police said Sunday that appropriate counterterrorism security measures, including personal and traffic escorts, will be provided throughout Zhangs stay in Hong Kong.

Inconvenience to the public and road users might be unavoidable, such as temporary diversion of traffic and pedestrian access and temporary closure of flyovers and footbridges during the passage of the motorcade, police said.

Special traffic arrangements on Hong Kong Island from May 17 to 19 will include the rerouting of Harbour Road between Fenwick Pier Street and Fleming Road to one-way eastbound and to one-way westbound from 7 a.m. on Tuesday to noon on Thursday.

This section of the road will be intermittently closed if necessary, police said.

Expo Drive, Expo Drive Central and Expo Drive East will be closed from midnight Wednesday to midnight Thursday.

Construction work near the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, where the summit is being held, will be suspended for four days.

The arrangements are expected to cause serious traffic congestion in Admiralty and Wan Chai, the Hong Kong Economic Journal said Monday.

Nelson Cheng Yiu-mo, assistant commissioner of police (operations), stressed that the priority of police work is to make sure nothing will jeopardize safety of Zhang and other participants in the summit, and police will take decisive action to prevent any potential threats.

He did not confirm whether the police have received any terrorism-related information, nor did he disclose which places around the venue of the summit are part of security zones.

Sham Yee-lan, chairwoman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, quoted police as saying that, after negotiations, people from the media are allowed to move and take pictures freely in the security zones.

While police apparently want to avoid the raising of controversial issues, as occurred during a 2011 visit paid by then vice premier Li Keqiang, using tight security measures, some critics questioned the necessity of doing so.

Political commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu told Ming Pao Daily it is unwise for the police to implement high-level security arrangements for Zhangs visit, as that could only make the situation in Hong Kong more tense.

Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, said police should set security zones with clear boundaries, based on the Public Order Ordinance, as they did during the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference back in 2005.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a senior lecturer in the department of government and public administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said police are trying to use the potential threat of terrorism merely as a justification for heightened security.

-  Only dictators need to have a high level of security because they know that they are so unpopular. In a democratic society, a leader elected by universal suffrage with civil nomination has nothing to fear. See, for example, President Barack Obama of the United States of America.

(Times of India) December 4, 2014.

Security agencies of the US and India are bracing for one of their biggest challenges when US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi share the dais this Republic Day.

Sources said security on the ground and in the air this January 26 will be of a kind "never seen before". The US Secret Service, CIA, Navy Seals and India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Intelligence Bureau, paramilitary forces and Army will be working together round-the-clock to ensure the safety of the two leaders of the two largest democracies who face a high order of threat from global terrorist groups.

A senior officer said security at this year's Republic Day would be "unmatchable". Without going into details, the officer said, "Usually, around 25,000 police, paramilitary and other officers work alone in Delhi to make Republic Day safe. But this time, the number of security, Army officers may touch 40,000 to 45,000 with Secret Service and SPG closely monitoring every security detail."

Sources said when Obama came to India in November 2010, more than 500 personnel including almost all White House security and staff arrived here in advance to make foolproof security arrangements for him. This time, the US may send a much larger contingent as Obama is attending a ceremony in the open.

Sources said several contingency routes and exits were likely to be worked out for Republic Day. From 7, RCR to the entire India Gate lawns, Maurya Sheraton and Taj hotel (where Obama's entourage stayed last time), every route will be monitored through CCTV cameras, surveillance equipment and satellites. Those who take part in the parade tableau are likely to undergo double security check and verification as they pass close to the dais where the leaders will sit.

An officer added that spectators may face more difficulty this year as almost all Metro stations within a radius of six to seven kilometers may be closed. People may also have to undergo extra security checks and watching the parade from close quarters may not be allowed.

Anti-sabotage checks, security drills and surveillance of India Gate will begin much earlier this time and air traffic over Delhi NCR is likely to be halted on January 26 till the end of the parade.

(Tuoitrenews.vn) May 17, 2016.

More than 1,000 people are expected to accompany United States President Barrack Obama during his visit to Vietnam from May 23 to 25, according to a Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper source. The delegation includes officials and employees of the U.S. government, the presidents entourage, representatives of businesses, security officers, and secret service agents, the source added. About six hotels in Vietnam are anticipated to be rented in order to accommodate the large group of visitors.

According to the Tuoi Tre source, U.S. teams in charge of security and preparations for the upcoming trip of President Obama have arrived in the country to work with their Vietnamese counterparts. This includes discussing proper ways to welcome the head of state, and transport him during his visit.

Three Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft have landed at Noi Bai International Airport in Hanoi so far, carrying tens of metric tons of equipment set to assist the arrival of the U.S. president. The most recent plane brought some 53 metric tons of such equipment to the capitals airport, the source said. At least four more aircraft of the same type are scheduled to arrive at the international airport prior to the presidents visit to transfer all necessary items for his entire trip, it added. They will also carry the helicopter Marine One, the presidential state car, automobiles of other key officials of the delegation, special vehicles, ambulances, weapons for security and protection, and devices for communication.

- Demosisto's Joshua Wong posted a photo of Obama in a Vietnamese restaurant to demonstrate that the American president did not need a large contingent of security agents. Internet users posted other photos from the scene that showed the security agents.

P.S. Why are the restaurant patrons completely indifferent to the presence of Obama? How unrealistic can this get? These are obviously actors/actresses and the real people are outside behind the metal barriers.
P.S. Notice that all the shops that are next to this restaurant were shuttered!

Video: https://www.facebook.com/silentmajorityhk/videos/1059847434104362/ inside the Vietnamese restaurant
SpeakoutHK: https://youtu.be/jIPPXoVQJkI

P.P.S. Zhang Dejiang's motorcade went the wrong way on a road in Science Park. which shows that Communist dictators make up their own laws. This was immediately turned into a headline story by Apple Daily:

By comparison, President Obama's motorcade adhered strictly to traffic laws because they respect the people of Vietnam and their democratically elected government.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/989448184437580/

(Armenpress) May 25, 2016.

Japan's Mie prefecture is scheduled to hold the Thursday-Friday G7 summit in the city of Ise-Shima, report Sputnik News. A record-setting 100,000 police officers will maintain security at the G7, Japanese television reported Wednesday. The summit venue and the airport where world leaders are expected to arrive will be secured by nearly 23,000 police, the NHK broadcaster said. Another 70,000 law enforcement officials will guard 3,500 major stations, shopping districts, and other so-called soft targets of less secure sites where people converge, the channel added.

Up to 4,500 will be on duty during US President Barack Obama's visit to Hiroshiam, the city the United States dropped an atomic bomb on to force Japan's surrender in World War II.

More at Occupy Central Part 6

More at:
Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5
Occupy Central Part 6

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com