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

(SCMP) March 28, 2017.

Nine leaders and key participants of Hong Kongs Occupy movement were arrested and charged on Monday night over their roles in the 2014 pro-democracy street protests a day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pledged to unite a divided society as the citys newly elected chief executive. In a move considered long overdue by critics of the protests, authorities ordered the three Occupy Central founders, along with six lawmakers and activists, to report to the Wan Chai police headquarters.

The three leaders of the protests, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man, face three counts each conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to commit public nuisance. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.

The trio will be prosecuted over offences allegedly committed between March 27, 2013 when they first published in newspapers their Occupy manifesto and December 2014, when they turned themselves in to police.

One or both of the incitement charges were laid against the remaining six lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wah, two former leaders of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming, and former legislator Lee Wing-tat.

They will be prosecuted for offences allegedly committed from September 27 to September 28, 2014. All nine were released on bail last night and will appear at Eastern Court on Thursday. They said police had phoned them in the morning to tell them of their arrest by appointment.

While some questioned whether Lam was involved, others accused Leung of deliberately timing the crackdown to follow the election. Lam was quick to distance herself from the arrests, stressing that she had no prior knowledge. This is the action of the current administration, she said. [While] I want to unite society and bridge the divide that has been causing us concern, any such action should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The Department of Justice issued a statement denying any political consideration and dismissing suggestions about Lams involvement as baseless and utterly untrue. When handling prosecution work, the department does not give prior notice to the executive branch, nor did [it] give prior warning to the chief executive-elect, Mrs Carrie Lam, as suggested by certain rumours, the department said.

Internet comments:

- (Occupy Central With Love And Peace) Manual of Civil Disobedience.

1. Philosophy
1. Civil disobedience refers to acts of opposing injustice through refusing to comply with a law, decree or order. The participants will not resort to violence. Rather, they will proactively accept the due legal consequences. The acts have to display not only civility but also a disobedient attitude in refusing to cooperate with the unjust authorities, and to strive for societal changes through continuous protest. Genuine pacifism does not mean not to resist against evils, but to fight against evils squarely with non-violent means.

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

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

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

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

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

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

6. For the sake of consistent crowd control information, no one except designated personnel should use any loudspeakers. Do not put up any long flags or large posters that will block the views.

7. Leaders of the operation could be arrested anytime. Be prepared for changes in leadership and try to maintain good order all along.

8. Respect the decisions of OCLP. Any disagreements should only be reviewed after the operation. Avoid any action that may disrupt the operation.

1. Guidance Note on Legal Matters OCLP is a peaceful movement of civil disobedience, the purpose of which is to inspire other people in the society, to let them see some of the injustices in the law or the current system, and to motivate them to support correcting all the injustices. Those participating in civil disobedience are going to challenge the injustices in the law or the system by means of a restricted scope of unlawful conducts and will bear the legal consequences of their unlawful conducts. This is to demonstrate the commitment of Hong Kong citizens to fight for universal suffrage even in the face of bearing legal liabilities, as well as to galvanize the rest of the society. Although we are willing to bear the legal consequences of our conduct, we must also understand the relevant sections of the law, protect individual as well as collective rights, and be cautious in our actions, so as to prevent unnecessary liabilities and conflicts.

1.1 Sections the Prosecution may use against the Rally

1) Obstruction of public places: Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong

2) Unauthorized assembly: Section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

3)* Unlawful assembly: Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

4)* Disorder in public places: Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

*: Participants will not contravene these sections if they are able to uphold OCLPs conviction of non-violence

Obstruction of public places Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong:

Any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves, or causes to be set out or left, any matter or thing which obstructs, inconveniences or endangers, or may obstruct, inconvenience or endanger, any person or vehicle in a public place shall be liable to a fine of $5000 or to imprisonment for 3 months.

There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will only be fined.

1.1.2 |nauthorized assembly Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance provides that a meeting of more than 50 persons may take place only if an application for a Letter of No Objection is made to the Commissioner of Police under section 8 of the Public Order Ordinance. Section 9 of the Public Order Ordinance gives the Commissioner of Police the power to prohibit the holding of any public meeting notified under section 8 in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

According to Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong, Occupy Central is an unauthorized assembly and every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and (ii) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will be fined, or may be imprisoned for several weeks, but the sentence may also be suspended.

1.1.3 Unlawful assembly
According to Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and (b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

If participants of OCLP only stand or sit on the road without doing anything and uphold the spirit of non-violence, calmness and peace, then the chances of committing the offence of unlawful assembly due to participating in OCLP should not be high.

Disorder in public places Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance provides, (1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months or (2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

As with the offence of unlawful assembly, if we can uphold the OCLP spirit of non-violence, the chance of committing this offence is not high.

- They went in knowing full well that they are violating various laws and that there are legal consequences. Now they are screaming that they cannot be prosecuted? Whatever happened to rule-of-law?

- They went in saying that they will engage in an act of civil disobedience that is breaking certain laws. They said that they will accept the legal consequences. They will go to jail proudly knowing that they are morally superior.

But now the day of reckoning is here. What do they do?

I should not be prosecuted, even though I broke the law.

Even though I am prosecuted, there is no evidence that I was at the scene.

Even if you can prove with videos that I was there, there is no evidence, that I took part in creating a public nuisance.

Even if you can prove with videos that I took part in creating a public nuisance, I was temporarily insane and not accountable for my actions.

Even if you can prove with videos that I was of sound mind all the time, my motives were noble.

Even if noble motives cannot be an excuse to vacate the 2 year jail sentence, I will appeal to the High Court of Appeal.

Even if the High Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, I will appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

What happened to the original intentions? Why go through all this? Because for me to go through the entire appeal process, I will need lots of money to pay for the legal fees. So please send you money to my crowdfunding PayPal account. Thank you. It is very important for you to do that, because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES in Hong Kong depend on it.

- The court ultimately issued clearance orders because minibus operators were suffering economic losses. So there is not much doubt that Occupy Central was a public nuisance for a large number of citizens. So what can't the Occupy Central leaders be prosecuted for inciting and participating in public nuisance? If you answer FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE POLITICAL CLEANSING, then you are proposing rule-of-man instead of rule-of-law.

- Public Nuisance: A Common Law Crime

What is public nuisance?

At common law public nuisance is a crime for which the remedy is criminal proceedings. It is defined as an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public. Probably the most well-known example of public nuisance is obstructing the highway.

Who are the public in public nuisance?

Identifying the public affected by a public nuisance is not as simple as might initially be thought. Clearly, unlawful obstruction of the highway in Liverpool does not affect the public of Plymouth. But does it affect all, or only some, of the public of Liverpool? The modern definition is that rights common to all HMs subjects must be affected, in other words, not necessarily all the public, but rather the rights which they enjoy as citizens. A good illustration is found in the Law Reports. A quarry produced noise, dirt and vibrations which affected the neighbourhood. The court had to decide if this was a private nuisance which only affected some residents, or a public nuisance affecting all HMs subjects in the area. An injunction was ultimately granted to stop the quarry from causing a public nuisance. Among other things, the court held that the public means a class of HMs subjects. Not every member of the class need be affected by the nuisance so long as a representative cross-section is. Additionally, if the nuisance is so widespread that the community as a whole must take action, as it would be unreasonable for a single individual to do so, then the nuisance is public. Consequently, the public means a considerable number of persons or a section of the public.

- Why was the charge related to "common law public nuisance" instead of the usual "unlawful gathering." Under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27:

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

There are restrictions on each of these freedoms. For example, freedom of speech cannot be used to justify libel; freedom of publication cannot be used to publish child pornography; etc. Freedom of assembly means that you are free to assemble -- provided that you are not making a public nuisance of yourselves (as in interfering with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public at large).

- If you hold an assembly in a remote corner somewhere without applying for police permission, then you are in an unlawful assembly but you are not causing public nuisance because the public is not around. But if you assemble in the middle of Connaught Road and block all vehicular traffic for 79 days, you are in an unlawful assembly that is a public nuisance.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 27, 2017.

An international human rights watchdog has accused the government of attacking Hongkongers rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, following a police clampdown on at least nine leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. This vindictiveness shows contempt for well-established freedoms in Hong Kong and will only lead to more political tensions, Amnesty International Hong Kong Director Mabel Au warned on Monday.

Au questioned the timing of the crackdown, which took place just one day after former chief secretary Carrie Lam was elected as the citys next leader. The authorities have had years to consider these cases, she said. [It] raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now.

The Civil Human Rights Front will be staging a solidarity protest during that time outside the police station. They have called on the public to join the protest.

- (Hong Kong Basic Law Article 63)

The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

If anyone has any information of interference by parties outside the Department of Justice (such as Chief Executive CY Leung, Chief-Executive-to-be Carrie Lam, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming, etc), they should bring it out as quickly as possible. The fate of Hong Kong depends on it.

P.S. Saying that it "raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now" is only personal speculation. I also have "serious questions" about the seriousness of Amnesty International Hong Kong to bring this very serious matter up in this very unserious manner.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Tanya Chan, a barrister, said the Department of Justice was part of the government and that Leung Chun-ying must have been involved in the decision to prosecute the Occupy leaders.

- If Tanya Chan produces this sort of thing as court evidence, the judge would have scolded her for wasting everybody's time. Does she not know Basic Law Article 63? Or does she think that Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen and Chief Executive CY Leung not know Basic Law Article 63 and therefore worked together on this?

- The events took place years ago. If it wasn't prosecuted long ago, it shouldn't be prosecuted now. Yes, I am totally in agreement with a statute of limitations. But if you want it, then what is your view of this other prosecution today? Are you going to uphold your usual double standards?

(Hong Kong Free Press) Retired police officer Franklin Chu King-wai has been arrested and charged with assault for allegedly hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. The offence carries a maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment under the Offences Against The Person Ordinance.

- Why did it take several years after the actual events before the charges were made? It would be very easy under CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance Section 4 Nuisances committed in public places, etc. However, the penalty is light (a fine of $500 or imprisonment for 3 months). Since creating a continuous public nuisance for 79 days is a more serious, the Department of Justice wanted to upgrade the charge to common law public nuisance. Since this is through common law, the Department of Justice sought outside legal advice on the likelihood of success based upon the available evidence on a case-by-case basis. The maximum penalty is 7 years in prison.

- (SCMP) March 28, 2017.

Civic Party chairman Alan Leong Kah-kit, who is a senior counsel, believed that political factors were behind the timing, questioning why police chose to charge the nine on Monday when the force was given advice by the Department of Justice months ago.

When I was still a lawmaker, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung ... said in the Legislative Council that the Department of Justice had already provided legal advice (to police). That was half a year ago, Leong said in a Commercial Radio programme on Tuesday.

It was then up to police to decide when to start the process of arresting and charging [the participants]. He elaborated: The [chief executive] election took place on March 26. Then on March 27 at around 9am, (police) phoned the Occupy Central trio. Why was there such a timing when the files were already passed to police half a year ago? Why did [the force] pick that day? If no political considerations were involved, what considerations were involved?

Why does a Senior Counsel spend so much time on the issue of timing instead of the central issue: Were these nine persons responsible for a public nuisance? Because there is nothing much a Senior Counsel can say?

Was Occupy Central a public nuisance? Citizens were inconvenienced, transportation routes were disrupted, businesses lost income, etc. There can be no doubt.

Did these individuals participate in Occupy Central? There are plenty of videos showing them inciting and participating in this public nuisance.

- There isn't any evidence that Carrie Lam was responsible for the prosecution of the Occupy Central leaders. However, as Chief Executive-to-be, Carrie Lam will have the power under Basic Law Article 48: To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties. However, under Basic Law Article 63, not even the Chief Executive can halt a prosecution and the subsequent trial. If these persons were found guilty and sentenced at trial, the Chief Executive may issue pardons afterwards. Right this moment, there is nothing that Carrie Lam can or should do.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Social welfare sector lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun The prosecution sent a ridiculous but clear message: the government wants political cleansing whilst [Lam] proposed reconciliation with people across the political spectrum.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. I am curious: Wht letting you guys off means making peace, whereas rigorous enforcement of the law means making war? As Carrie Lam said, I made it very clear that I want to unite society and mend divisions. But it should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong. As long as these lawbreakers have not been brought to justice, we law-abiding citizens will not compromise with you.

- (Ming Pao) Editorial. Many key Occupy Central member said at the time that they will use civil disobedience for the sake of their democratic ideas and accept the legal consequences. Today, they are being arrested and charged. Rather than calling this "political cleansing", we should be say that they got what they asked for.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 28, 2017.

Hong Kong legislative councilor Nathan Law (Demosisto) said that the political cleansing directed against Umbrella Movement will continue. He predicted that more people will be prosecutred.

Previously, Nathan Law joined with other legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, Siu Ka-chun and others to declare that they will cast blank ballots at the Chief Executive election. This made them the enemies of the John Tsang fans.

Here are some quotes:

- "If you elected John Tsang, you wouldn't have been arrested. You people deserve what you are getting. Nobody will have any sympathy for you."

- "I told you to vote for John Tsang. But now Carrie Lam wins and she begins with sweeping arrests."

- "I don't regard anyone who cast a blank vote as a pan-democrat. At the next Legco election, I will vote ANYONE BUT NOT (a blank ballot voter)."

- "If you had supported John Tsang, people will help you. But now you have upset all the citizens. Who is there to help you?"

- "It is useless to say anything. The people of Hong Kong are still made at you. The Blue Ribbons obviously want you all to die. But now even the Yellow Ribbons have abandoned you. You asked for this. Please enjoy this feeling of abandonment."

Here are some reactions:

- Chapman To: "Whether you succeed or fail, you will always be a leftist retard."

- "How come you Yellow Ribbon pigs are not going after 689 (CY Leung). He was obviously behind this, but you blame it on 777 (Carrie Lam)."

- "Many of you say that Carrie Lam ordered this political cleansing. This proves that you have no brains. You only let your imagination and stance lead you. Carrie Lam resigned as Chief Secretary already. She may be the Chief Executive-elect, but she has no power whatsoever until she takes office. It is none of her business. A large wave of prosecutions was not done haphazardly. It was not decided upon yesterday. No matter who won on Sunday, the prosecutions were scheduled to begin on Monday. If John Tsang won, CY Leung would get the blame. But Carrie Lam, so she gets the blame. This is the typical Yellow Ribbon school of thinking."

(The Stand News) March 26, 2017.

David Beckham came to Hong Kong to attend an event. Afterwards, he posted a video on Facebook/Instagram with the note "Great 48 hours in China." The reference to "China" angered many Hongkongers who left comments: "Hong Kong is not China," "This is Hong Kong not China", "If it's China, you're not able to access Facebook" and "If this Hong Kong, your small pet dog would have been someone's dinner." Meanwhile others responded in simplified character Chinese: "Hong Kong is Hong Kong (China)", "You can ever deny that Hong Kong belongs to China," "Hong Kong independence people get lost!"

Shortly afterwards, David Beckham changed the note to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong". On this trip, he visited Shanghai first and then China. But Hongkongers still challenge this solution because the video only showed Hong Kong scenes.

Internet comments:

- (Hong Kong Free Press) British ex-footballer David Beckham raised eyebrows on Saturday after he said he had enjoyed a great 48 hours in China in reference to his visit to Hong Kong.

David Beckham wore 115 caps playing for England. He never played for Great Britain, because there is no such thing as the Great Britain team. To describe David Beckham as a British footballer is a bit like ... describing Hong Kong goalie Yapp Hung-fai as a Chinese footballer.

- David Beckham is lucky, because his correction to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong" did not aggravate anyone. If he changed it to "Great 48 hours in Hong Kong," he would have aggravated the mainland Chinese people. He was lucky that he also visited Shanghai.

 - When the poster for the movie Arrival placed Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor, there was a backlash from pro-independence/self-determination Hongkongers. When the movie company moved the entire background to Shanghai, Hongkongers promised a boycott. Eventually, the movie grossed US$198 million worldwide including US$15 million in China, but a mere US$1.1 million in Hong Kong. This showed the power of "Hong Kong is not China"!

- The impact of the so-called 'boycott' by Hongkongers is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. You have no way of knowing what the box receipts would have been without your 'boycott'.

(Passion Times) March 25, 2017.

At a Legislative Council Children Rights Committee hearing, female citizen Lo Yuen-kit made a statement (see video, video).

Thank you, chairman Cheung Chiu-hung for holding this hearing. First of all, I am somewhat disappointed that you are going to cast a blank ballot (at the Chief Executive election). Last night I went out to show my support for Mr. Tsang. He is a candidate who wants to eliminate the TSA. I hope that you will reconsider.

I am a single mother. My child is in Primary Six this year. He skipped class for two and a half months at one time. The social worker came and asked him why. He just cried loudly. Where does the pressure come from? People ask: "Why isn't your son going to school? Is it your problem?" I have reflected on my problems. But when I go to work, can the government take pity of grassroots like me? I don't want my son to be a flying man (that is, jumping off a building) some day.

Can you tell us that it costs money and resources to do education? Or is a conscience needed? I want to know why an ordinary school can have so many examinations, tests and dictations? So much copy homework. A primary school may have only one full-time social worker, one part-time social worker, no psychological counseling. Do cases have to be immediately followed up?

The reason why my son hasn't jumped off the building is because I have the support of the church. I am a psychosis patient. I have a social worker who is following up on my son's emotional problems. But do you want me to go on social welfare so that I can watch him every day? Have your reflected on what kind of next generation Hong Kong wants? How long will you oppress our young children?

Everybody may not think that Mr. Tsang is our best choice, but right now he is our only choice. I want you to know that it is very tough to be a young child in Hong Kong. I am very sorry that I choose to give birth to him.

I heard that certain elite schools tell their students to speak putonghua in Hong Kong. They will be penalized if they speak Cantonese. What is the matter with you? Are you sick?

Why would young children jump off the building at such a young age? To commit suicide. I have tried to commit suicide, but I really don't have the courage. Why are they so desperate? They would rather commit suicide than commit reality?

So when you say that Mrs. Lam becomes Chief Executive, I am even more worried. The focus should on the education of very young children. Mrs. Lam came out of an elite secondary school. Will brainwashing begin from kindergarten? My son will not be brainwashed by you people.

I am Yellow Ribbon, and he will be Yellow Ribbon. If Mrs. Tsang loses, I will immigrate. I will marry and move to Africa if I have to.

Finally, I must ask you to think through carefully. Actually, the young children are our future. No more mechanical form. Hong Kong does not need mechanical form.

You look at the television dramas. There is no more creativity whatsoever. Taiwan is better than Hong Kong. Really. Why do so many Hongkongers want to immigrate to Taiwan. Why is the quota being exceeded? Why don't you reflect on this? I thought that there was some hope with this Legislative Council.

Finally, I want to offer something from the Bible: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Thank you.

Internet comments:

- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, you don't have to marry a Kenyan to get out of Hong Kong with your son. You can always go to to the US Consulate General at 26 Garden Road and ask for political asylum. Even Amos Yee can get approved, so must you.

- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, Mr. Tsang has lost the election. Have you decided on which African country to immigrate to yet? Burkina Faso? Eritrea? Libya? Zimbabwe?

(GovHK Press Release) March 26, 2017.

The result of the voting for the Chief Executive Election today (March 26) is as follows:

     Candidate                              Number of valid
                                                 votes obtained
     ---------                                  ---------------
     John Tsang Chun-wah                   365
     Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor         777
     Woo Kwok-hing                               21

Internet comments:

- John Tsang is known to be HEA (lazy). So he gets to be HEA 365 days a year.
- Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes and thinks that it is BLACK JACK! Unfortunately the actual game is Three Card Baccarat and 2 face cards plus an ace is is a 90%-chance losing hand.
- Carrie Lam is playing the slot machine, and three lucky sevens (777) is the casino grand jackpot!

- In Cantonese, '88' is a homonym and short cut for "Bye Bye."
- '689' is the nickname of departing Chief Executive CY Leung because that was the number of votes he received.
- 88 + 689 (Bye bye, CY Leung) = 777 (Carrie Lam)

- In Cantonese, '7' is a homonym for 'dick'. It was on December 2012 that legislative councilor Raymond Wong said that he will refer to CY Leung as '689'. That was the number of votes CY Leung got, but the greater meaning is that '689' means 'no 7' = ('no dick'). But along comes Carrie Lam with '777' (='three dicks').

- Outside the Wanchai Convention Centre at 12:50 March 26, 2017 after Carrie Lam was declared the winner.

 "Don't want Carrie Lam!" 

- Before the counting began, the ballots were randomly shuffled by the election workers so that there won't be clustering. The election workers then proceeded to sort the ballots into bins for the three candidates. Television channels assigned observers to count the number of ballots going into each bin. By the time 100 or so ballots were sorted, it was clear that Carrie Lam was leading John Tsang by a 2-to-1 ratio. The ratio stayed pretty constant. By the time, Carrie Lam passed the magical number of 601, it was over.

Of course, John Tsang fans were angry because their candidate who is the people's choice has lost the election. They were going to march in the streets. Immediately? No. This evening? No. Next Sunday, because people only march on weekends with sufficient notice ahead of time? No. When then? July 1st, 2017. And it is March 26 today.

It is the core value of Hong Kong pigs to be restrained. "I am outraged by what the boss did to me, but I will be back to work tomorrow morning ..."

- Once they saw that their favorite Mr. Pringle won't become Chief Executive, they suddenly woke up to say "I hate fake election" and "I want genuine universal suffrage".

If Mr. Pringle actually won, how would they feel about this fake election? Will they think that the election was actually not fake (in the sense of one-person-one-vote where the only voter is Xi Jinping)?

- Before the results could be announced, a number of problematic ballots have to disposed of. For example, a ballot in which all three candidates were checked was ruled invalid because the intention of the voter was unclear. The biggest buzz on the Internet was this ballot in which a big "FUCK" was written in by hand. This ballot was ruled invalid because no candidates was checked and the intention of the voter was unclear.

- Damn! The voter should have checked one (and only one candidate). Then it becomes ambiguous as to whether the voter is voting for or hates that candidate, which will then lead to a prolonged debate about intention.

- "We want John Tsang!"

Live Apple Daily Facebook voting:
John Tsang: 17,582
Carrie Lam: 410
Woo Kwok Hing: 1,485
Blank ballots: 1,562

- Pre-election advice to all Hong Kong pigs: Wake up tomorrow morning at 9am, bring your Hong Kong ID, proceed to your local polling station and cast your vote for John Tsang, the only hope left for Hong Kong. If you fail to do this, you will have to immigrate to the United States.

- During the nomination phase, John Tsang received 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pro-democracy nominations. Woo Kwok Hing received 180 pro-establishment nominations. The total was 345 broken down into 40 pro-establishment and 305 pro-democracy.

During the election phase, John Tsang got 365 votes and Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes. The total for the two was 386 votes.

Democracy 300+ has 326 votes. This means that Tsang and Woo got about 70 pro-establishment votes out of about 870.

If Tsang and Woo want Carrie Lam to reflect on why she can't get any pro-democracy nominations, then they should reflect on they can't get more pro-establishment votes.

- (Bastille Post) John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing got 345 nominations including some from some pro-establishment electors such as James Tien (Liberal Party). Tsang and Woo then got 386 votes which is 41 more. These include people who didn't want to be known to nominate them, but voted for them with the secret ballots. Some of these may have even nominated Carrie Lam. Two members of the Financial Services sub-sector (Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim) nominated John Tsang but publicly announced that they will vote for Carrie Lam. So the actually number of hidden votes is 41 + 2 = 43. These 43 can be said to be the hardcore Henry Tang voters -- they opposed CY Leung and they continued to oppose Carrie Lam because she is supported by the Central Government.

- (Bastille Post) Carrie Lam had 580 nominations. In truth, another ironclad 200 votes were held back. There would be some pressure on Carrie Lam to be nominated by 780 but received fewer than that in the actual election. Carrie Lam received 777 votes. This was better than the 750 estimated by the Central Government. If you discount Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim, she received 775 out of 780, which means that she only lost 5 votes. That means that she was able to hold on to the votes from the Commercial/Industrial sector.

- What will be the new strategy for the pan-democrats? So far, they have learned:
If they boycott the election, they lose.
If they run a bona fide pro-democracy candidate, they lose.
If they package a pro-establishment figure as a pro-democracy hero, they lose.

- In 2015, the strategy recommended by the United States and the United Kingdom was to accept the August 31st framework which includes nomination by the Election Committee and one-person-one-vote. The present system includes nomination and election by the Election Committee, which means that there are two barriers to overcome. You can get John Tsang nominated and you say that he is more popular than Carrie Lam. Unfortunately, you can't get the Election Committee to vote for him. If they had accepted the August 31st framework, they could have gotten the Election Committee to nominate him and then he wins the popular election.

Instead, the pan-democrats said back then that they wanted civil nomination together with one-person-one-vote. Without that, they would rather have the present system. This is where we are.

- (Oriental Daily) March 26, 2017. The League of Social Democrats said that their members climbed on top of the Lion Rock peak to hang a yellow "I want genuine universal suffrage" vertical banner.

- When you hang a banner, the Fire Services Department has to send firemen to climb up the mountain to remove it. It is not just a piece of decoration, because the banner may fall down onto busy Loong Cheong Roard below and cause traffic accidents. And the following happened this week on another rainy day:

(EJ Insight) March 23, 2017.

A senior fireman died after falling from a cliff while he and his team were attempting to rescue two stranded hikers in a country park in the New Territories on Wednesday. Principal firefighter Yau Siu-ming, 51, succumbed to his injuries after a fall during a rescue operation in Tiu Shau Ngam (吊手岩) in Ma On Shan Country Park, several newspapers reported. The accident took place at about 5 am as Yau was climbing a hill in a bid to reach two hikers who had apparently lost their way in the mountain ridge. As he was climbing, the firefighter slipped and fell 10 meters down to the bottom of the cliff. As the mountains are very steep, other firemen had to walk four kilometers to find Yau, who was lying unconscious on the ground, according to the reports. After a long struggle, they managed to reach him and move him to the Prince of Wales Hospital. The whole process took more than 10 hours, resulting in Yau making it to the hospital only at about 4 pm. Doctors pronounced him dead due to serious head injuries, causing immense sadness to Laus

- According to The Tai Mo Shan Woman (2016/01/25) theory of freedom, it is the freedom of the people of Hong Kong to hang banners wherever they want, and it is the duty of the firemen (who are very well-paid public servants) to remove the banners no matter the conditions are.

- (Ming Pao) March 26, 2017.

Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung announced beforehand that they were casting blank ballots. Leung Kwok-hung said that the fact that Carrie Lam won by the so-called wide margin shows that the Chief Executive election system is "rotten."

Leung admitted that he misjudged the situation. He had worked under the belief that the Central Government secretly supported John Tsang so that he will win with 700+ pro-establishment votes plus 300+ pan-democratic votes to become the indomitable Chief Executive. Leung apologized formally for this misjudgment. He said that the people of Hong Kong has learned a lesson on the perfidiousness of the Chinese Communists. P.S. Leung called on all pro-democracy Hongkongers to show up next Sunday outside the China Liaison Office to protest the election of Carrie Lam.

When asked if there is any room for cooperation with Carrie Lam over the next five years, Leung said that it depends on how Carrie Lam reacts to the demonstration next week.

- Ultimately, there were 23 blank or invalid ballots. What's the difference if Carrie Lam wins by 777 versus either 365 or 388 for John Tsang?

- Zeto Cheng's Facebook

The Chinese Communists had provided a wonderful opening for the radical pan-democrats (People Power, League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups) to breach, but they make the following fucking stupid missteps.

1. They misjudged the situation. They thought that John Tsang was surely anointed by the Chinese Communists to turn. As a result, they made a whole string of missteps ...

2. They were unable to block Carrie Lam, who was the candidate actually anointed by the Chinese Communists, on her path to victory. Instead, they made plenty of unnecessary attacks against the straw man known as Mr. Pringle.

3. Leung Kwok-hung even joined the small-circle election, completely ruining his moral aura. If his participation was supposed to be merely strategic, then why can't the pan-democrats' support of John Tsang also be considered strategic?

4. After Leung Kwok-hung failed to gain nomination, Mr. Pringle began his public relations campaign to rally mainstream pan-democratic support. Many citizens wanted to show their opposition to Sai Wan (China Liaison Office) interference through supporting John Tsang. But many radical pan-democratic Key Opinion Leaders heaped scorn on them.

5. In the later stages of the election, everybody knew that John Tsang was doomed. Those dozen or so blank ballots will make no difference. These people did nothing whatsoever to derail Carrie Lam. Instead they acted like wise people who think everybody else is naive. This made everyone else think that they want Carrie Lam to win. In the end, when everybody begged them to give every last vote to John Tsang, they started talking about the importance of sticking to principles. But didn't they ditch their own principles in order to try to enter the small-circle election already?

6. Now that Carrie Lam is elected and she is talking about reconciliation under her, the radicals say that it was the strategic support for John Tsang which pushed the Chinese Communists towards supporting Carrie Lam. Fuck you! At first, you said that John Tsang was the secret Chinese Communist mega-candidate, so how dare you turn around and accuse everybody else? Did you think that you were perfect?

7. During the election, the radicals had lousy judgment and strategies. Apart from going to the China Liaison Office to throw toilet paper, they had no other gimmick. Their action plans conflict within themselves. Worse yet, they have totally refused to accept any responsibility. Instead, they feel that that they are always correct and they are the only ones who can enlighten the ignorant masses. According to the radicals, if the people support Mr. Pringle, then they must be Hong Kong pigs. By comparison, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party were at least willing to put in an effort and share in the glory/shame.

People Power/League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups have managed to offend the Yellow Ribbons this time. The payback will occur at the 2020 Legislative Council elections. Meanwhile, they can also forget about the crowdfunding campaign to support the DQ4 and the Legislative Council by-elections.

- Who is even a bigger loser than John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing? It's Ming Pao, the newspaper formerly rated number one in public trust.

In the live coverage of the Chief Executive election, someone posted a comment: ""林鄭柒娥柒少陣 Carrie Lam fuck Ngor should fuck around less!" Use of obscenity is protected under the freedom of speech in Basic Law Article 27. Unfortunately, that person forgot to switch to his/her personal Facebook account, and so the post went out under the user name Ming Pao Real-time News. Do you think that a journalists can be working on fair and balanced news coverage as well as vent personal feelings while on the job to the point that he/she can't even figure out where he/she is?

- What is a rational elector supposed to do? Here are the raw data:

(Top left panel) Which candidates best fits the four critieria of the Central Government?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
38%: John Tsang
45%: Carrie Lam
 4%: Woo Kwok Hing
(New Forum)
31%: John Tsang
46%: Carrie Lam
 7%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Top center panel) Which candidate does the Central Government trust most?
 6%: John Tsang
83%: Carrie Lam
 1%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
12%: John Tsang
84%: Carrie Lam
 2%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Top right panel) Which candidate does has the best ability for governance
37%: John Tsang
51%: Carrie Lam
  3%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
39%: John Tsang
58%: Carrie Lam
 3%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Bottom panel) Which candidate do you support?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
36%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
11%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Economic Times/Sky Post)
30%: John Tsang
67%: Carrie Lam
  2%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Women's Association)
35%: John Tsang
43%: Carrie Lam
12%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme)
57%: John Tsang
27%: Carrie Lam
10%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Democratic Party)
50%: John Tsang
24%: Carrie Lam
17%: Woo Kwok Hing

Should you vote for the most popular candidate? That would mean that actor Andy Lau would be a shoo-in if he runs. When asked this hypothetical question, Andy Lau had the patience to point out that the Chief Executive needs to have certain job requirements (such as knowledge, experience and ability) which he does not have.

- If the people want to elect an unqualified person as their leader, they should have the right and freedom to do so.

- Of course, they reap what they sow. Reference: Donald Trump. And when things don't work out so rosily, they will blame evil external forces instead of their own poor judgment.

- There is a lot for the people of Hong Kong to think about as a result of this election. (Oriental Daily) March 27, 2017. At 4am, a 42-year-old man named Lee and his 32-year-old girlfriend named Ngan were seated on a sofa in the roped area of The Landmark, Central District, Hong Kong Island. The security guard told the two to leave because the plaza was closed. They refused. The security guard summoned the police. When the police came to investigate, the two refused to cooperate and they did not produce their Hong Kong ID's when asked. The man struck a policeman, causing an abdominal injury. The two were subdued and arrested on suspicion of obstructing police duty. As he as brought into the police van, Lee was mumbling to himself. He also yelled at the reporter: "They think that I was there to cause trouble in the plaza. I actually went there to help Hong Kong. I hope to help Hong Kong think about all its problems!"

(SCMP) March 25, 2017.

Two days before polling day, chief executive underdog John Tsang Chun-wah drew thousands of supporters to his rally in Central, as he battled a fresh round of criticism that he lacked Beijings trust.

Giving an emotional speech on an open-top bus at the end of the hour-long rally at Edinburgh Place on Friday night, Tsang said: Most of you here dont have votes, but still I yearn for your support. Without your support, how would there be any meaning even if I win all Election Committee votes?

Tsang is expected to secure about 300 votes from pan-democrats on the 1,194-member Election Committee, which is dominated by pro-Beijing supporters. A candidate needs 601 votes to win in Sundays poll.

Police estimated the turnout to be 3,500. The live feed of the rally on Tsangs Facebook page drew 449,000 views by midnight and some 18,700 comments.

Tsang was the first pro-establishment chief executive candidate to host an outdoor rally since his former boss, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, held one at Southorn Playground in Wan Chai in 2007.

Excited supporters chanted John Tsang, elected! and Vote for No 1 if Hong Kong is to win!

Internet comments:

- SCMP kept repeating that John Tsang is pro-establishment. But who is showing up at the rallies/ People with Yellow Umbrellas and banners saying "Support John Tsang, I want genuine universal suffrage." So who is the real John Tsang?

- And someone is holding up a red "Father of Democracy" banner!

- Why do democrats want John Tsang as Chief Executive? (YouTube)

0:09 Alan Leong (Civic Party): The March 26 election is a duel between Sai Wan and the people of Hong Kong. It takes John Tsang to knock down Sai Wan.

0:30 John Tsang: August 31st (resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee) is surely our starting point, the foundation of constitutional reform. [But this group of people who say that they will vote for you were completely against the August 31st resolution).

- (Oriental Daily) March 25, 2017

Spoof street banners directed against pan-democratic political parties:
Green: Democratic Party -- give up democracy, enact Article 23
Purple: Civic Party -- kneel down to the establishment, embrace 8.31

- (Cable TV) John Tsang's biggest cheerleader James Tien predicts that Carrie Lam will win. Of the more than 200 nominations for Carrie Lam from the Commerce/Industry sector, Tien estimates that 50 to 100 will vote for John Tsang during the secret balloting. At present, they are not concerned about whether they will win or not. As for the the Liberal Party, ex-chairman James Tien said that they are pro-establishment, and therefore they support a pro-establishment Chief Executive.

- Why would the Commerce/Industry sector voters switch? James Tien said that they don't want a Chief Executive who has a popular mandate. Now I am confused here. Does the business community think that having a weak Chief Executive unable to implement/legislate anything will be good for their business? What kind of business are they in?

- Conscientious objectors?

Nathan Law (Demosisto): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: Support democratic self-determination, will not change his own democratic principles in response to fluctuating public opinions

Chu Hoi Dick: Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will act in accordance with my beliefs even if nobody supports me ... We are fighting for the democratic powers of the people of Hong Kong. If we compromise even on this, we are democrats -- we are public opinionists.

Fernando Cheung (Labour Party): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: I act according to my principles ... public opinions should be respected sometimes, but principles are sometimes more important.

Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will not change my preference in response to public opinion. I will not support small-circle elections.

Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats): Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I am said it before: I will not vote, I will not nominate, I will not participate in small-circle elections.

P.S. Lau Siu-lai has declared that she will cast a blank ballot to express her opposition to the August 31st framework and Article 23 legislation.

P.P.S. Shiu Ka-chun said that he will cast a blank ballot to oppose the August 31st framework, to demand the restart of constitution reform and to establish a fair and just social welfare system. He said that he chose the final moment to make this announcement in order to reduce embarrassment.

- So there you have it -- according to Jimmy Lai, the six Communists moles within the pan-democratic legislative councilors have just outed themselves.

- (SocREC) March 22, 2017. At a press conference, John Tsang predicted that there will be a miracle on election day.

- Here is the scorecard. John Tsang will get about 310 or so of the 326 pan-democratic votes. During the nomination, he obtained 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pan-democratic nominations. He would have liked to have as many pro-establishment nominations as possible because he claims to be able to bridge the rift. Therefore 40 is his maximum. There is one known desertion. So he has to depend on secret ballots from hidden supporters. How many? Nobody knows and nobody can know. So don't believe anything out there.

But here are some scenarios:

- John Tsang ends up with 320 votes, which means that the Commerce/Industrial sub-sector has completely given up on him. As the saying goes, Tsang needs to go home and seriously reflect on what has happened.

- John Tsang ends up with 350 votes, which means that Tsang got the pan-dems plus the 40 pro-establishment electors who voted for him.

- John Tsang gets 400 votes, which means that there were 40 more hidden votes within the pro-establishment camp.

- John Tsang get 601 votes to win, which means that there were massive desertions within the pro-establishment camp. As the saying goes, Xi Jinping may fire Zhang Dejiang and put someone else in charge of Hong Kong affairs.

- (Cable TV) There is some suspense as to whether Woo Kwok Hing will get more than 10 votes. Woo was nominated with 180 pan-democratic votes. But most of those voters have announced that they will switch to vote. Woo said that his positions on issues such as constitutional reform, Basic Law Article 23 legislation and universal retirement protection are much closer to traditional pan-democratic positions than any other candidate. Woo said that if he gets fewer than 180 votes, then he will feel that he had been used. He said that politics is dirty. BWAAAAAHHHHHH!

- Woo Kwok Hing has at least one committed vote from social welfare sub-sector elector Chong Chan Yau, whose blindness has been cruelly made fun of by John Tsang's fans with sincere statements of fact.

- You seem to have lots of questions, don't you? That's because they won't let you read the script.

Look at the situation of the pan-democrats in past Chief Executive elections.

In 1996, shipping magnate Tung Chee-wah got 80% of the vote to defeat Chief Justice Yang Ti-liang and businessman Peter Woo.

In 2002, incumbent Tung Chee-wah was re-elected uncontested.

In 2007, pan-democrat Alan Leong (Civic Party) ran against incumbent Donald Tsang. Leong lost by 16%-84%.

In 2012, pan-democrat Albert Ho (Democratic Party) ran against two pro-establishment candidates, former Chief Secretary Henry Tang and former Executive Council convener CY Leung. Ho got only 7% of the votes.

From history, if the pan-democrats field a properly credentialed pro-democracy candidate (as in 2007 and 2012), they will lose badly. It is also more trouble than its worth. First of all, they cannot be seen to concede on their core positions (such as genuine universal suffrage with civil nomination; universal retirement protection; right of local approval of mainland Chinese immigrants; minimum wage; standard working hours; etc). Secondly, they will see their internal contradictions exposed (such as self-determination/independence; land supply/housing; etc).

If the pan-democrats boycott the election, then it will be business as usual (in 1996 and 2002) as the pro-establishment camp proceeds to elect a Chief Executive in accordance with the law. That must not be allowed to happen.

So in 2017, the pan-democrats came up with a new strategy -- they will support a pro-establishment candidate in the form of John Tsang. But John Tsang is not in this to win. That is not likely to happen. Instead, John Tsang is there to inflict maximum damage to the true pro-establishment candidate Carrie Lam. Now John Tsang may or may not realize that this is what he got into. But he willing went along with it.

Since John Tsang has positioned himself as pro-establishment, how can one deal with all this defects? You simply pretend that you see nothing and you hear nothing.

John Tsang has accomplished nothing in his 30+ years in government service apart from the deeply troubled food truck? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that constitutional reform should start from the basis of the August 31st constitutional reform? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that Hong Kong should enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that he will work to get 60% of the people of Hong Kong into public housing but with neither plan nor schedule? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang does not support universal retirement protection without asset/income limits? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang underestimated the budget surplus every year during his 9-year reign as Financial Secretary? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that the Occupy Movement destroyed rule-or-law and affected the economy? NO PROBLEM.

... and the list goes on ...

Do these issues matter to the pan-democrats? Of course, they matter. They matter a lot. They are the core democratic issues. But they do not matter during this election, because there is no expectation that John Tsang will be elected as Chief Executive. So if the guy huffs and puffs, let him do so if he thinks that he can get a few points in public opinion support.

Of course, you may well ask: But what if there was a Black Swan incident and John Tsang actually wins? It does not matter to the pan-democrats -- they will just turn on John Tsang to deliver on all the core democratic issues that John Tsang never agreed to. If John Tsang won't, they will filibuster, protest, Occupy Central, etc.

Does John Tsang know? Does he care? Of course, he knows because why else was the John Tsang for Chief Executive campaign run like this? If you really want to win the Chief Executive election and you know that the election is decided by 1,194 electors, you would be trying to do everything possible to appeal to those electors. Instead, you run a Facebook-based campaign that is designed to show that you are a likeable guy and  you make no attempt to find or highlight policies that might appeal to those electors. In fact, you go out your way to insult electors (for example, saying that the 689 electors who voted for CY Leung five years ago should be ashamed).

The bonus in this strategy has been Woo Kwok Hing. The pan-democrats gave him enough nominations so that there were two 'pro-democracy' and one 'pro-establishment' nominees. Under the equal time principle, the election forums saw the two 'pro-democracy' guys beating up on the 'pro-establishment' woman. But as soon as the election forums finish, Woo Kwok Hing becomes the proverbial worn-out battery to be discarded.

- (Ming Pao) Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) said that the Principled Ones who will cast blank ballots and the Strategic Ones who will vote for John Tsang share the same goal. Leong said that he would be heartbroken if schisms occur.

Well, this is a statement that he doesn't give a rat's ass about John Tsang, because the guy is going to lose anyway. However, John Tsang is important to the extent that he serves to make a political point.

- The election was in fact decided by the nomination phase. If John Tsang was able to pull together 75 pro-establishment nominations in addition to 75 pro-democracy nominations, he would be the candidate to bridge the two oppose camps, with Carrie Lam being clearly pro-establishment and Woo Kwok Hing being clearly pro-democracy.

Better  yet, if John Tsang can get 150 pro-establishment nominations, then the scent of victory appears. The situation becomes like Henry Tang and CY Leung five years ago, where either one are fine with the pro-establishment camp. So if the pro-establishment votes split 550 for Carrie Lam and 350 for John Tsang, then the final vote will be 350 + 300 = 650 for John Tsang, 550 for Carrie Lam and 10 for Woo Kwok Hing.

Unfortunately, John Tsang maxed out at 40 pro-establishment nominations.

- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook

"The election results are in. The greatest existential value for HEA Tsang was that he served as a tool for the opposition camp against the Central Government. They rallied for him not because they really supported him. They knew that HEA Tsang could not have won. Actually, they didn't want HEA Tsang to win either. Their goal is to oppose. On the last two days, HEA Tsang did not work on the Election Committee members. Instead, he kept building the image that that he had public support to lay down the grounds for further social rifts. On the day when HEA Tsang loses, it is best time and excuse for the opposition to attack the government ...

(HKG Pao) The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, with more than 100 electors said that its Central Executive Committee has agreed to support Carrie Lam for Chief Executive. The DAB believes that its members will vote according to the decision of its Central Executive Committee.

The FTU (Federation of Trade Unions) surveyed its member trade unions and found that more than 90% of them support Carrie Lam. The FTU has about 60 votes including 5 Legislative Councilors in the Election Committee.

Previously, Carrie Lam obtained 580 nominations from the electors without the full endorsement of DAB, FTU, the publication sub-sector (15 votes), the performing arts sub-sector (14 votes). Unless there are mass desertions, this election is over, as everybody knows many weeks ago. The Hong Kong and Kowloon District Councils which are dominated by pro-establishment district councilors have 57 votes and the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association are also solidly for Carrie Lam. So the suspense is whether Carrie Lam will get more than 800 out of the 1,194 votes.

PolitHK Social Strategic invites you to the Hong Kong Reconnected street carnival 4pm-6pm March 26 to celebrate the election of Carrie Lam as Chief Executive

Question: If you can vote for Chief Executive tomorrow and you can vote for the following candidates, who would you vote for? (Read randomly rotated list)

Data Period #1 John Tsang #2 Carrie Lam #3 Woo Kwok Hing
March 1-5 46% 34% 12%
March 2-6 47% 33% 12%
March 3-7 45% 35% 14%
March 4-8 46% 35% 12%
March 5-9 48% 34% 11%
March 6-10 49% 34% 11%
March 7-11 48% 34% 11%
March 8-12 50% 31% 10%
March 9-13 51% 32% 9%
March 10-14 51% 33% 9%
March 11-15 52% 33% 8%
March 12-16 51% 34% 8%
March 13-17 53% 34% 8%
March 14-18 51% 34% 9%
March 15-19 52% 33% 9%
March 16-20 53% 32% 10%
March 17-21 56% 30% 9%
March 18-22 57% 27% 10%
March 19-23 56% 28% 9%
March 20-24 56% 29% 9%

Q1. Which candidate is most familiar with how the government is run?
38.5%: John Tsang
57.7%: Carrie Lam
 2.8%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q2. Which candidate is most trusted by the Central Government?
11.8%: John Tsang
83.9%: Carrie Lam
 1.8%: Woo Kwok King

Q3. Which candidate is best able to get things done?
45.7%: John Tsang
45.7%: Carrie Lam
 7.0%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q4. Who do you think will become the next Chief Executive in the end?
27.6%: John Tsang
67.8%: Carrie Lam
 2.5%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q1. Among the three candidates, who has the better governance ability?
37.4%: John Tsang
50.8%: Carrie Lam
  2.6%: Woo Kwok Hing
  9.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q2. Among the three candidates, who is better trusted by the Central Government?
 5.9%: John Tsang
83.4%: Carrie Lam
 0.5%: Woo Kwok Hing
10.2%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q3. Among the three candidates, who is able to become the next Chief Executive?
45.3%: John Tsang
44.2%: Carrie Lam
  3.0%: Woo Kwok Hing
  1.2%: All are able
  1.0%: None is able
  5.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q4. Who do you guess will become the next Chief Executive
20.6%: John  Tsang
71.7%: Carrie Lam
 0.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
 7.1%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q5. Which issue should the next Chief Executive give priority to?
39.4%: Land/housing
15.6%: Economic development
11.5%: Education
 9.0%: Healthcare
  8.4%: Restart constitutional reform
  6.1%: Relieve poverty
  5.0%: Retirement protection
  2.2%: Labor benefits
  0.6%: Other issues
  2.3%: Don't know/no opinion

Q1. Among the three candidates, who do you support most to become the next Chief Executive?
52.5%: John Tsang
25.1%: Carrie Lam
  8.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
  6.4%: None of the above
  7.5%: Don't know/no opinion
  0.1%: Refused to answer

Q2. Among the three candidates, who is most likely to be elected?
17.6%: John Tsang
68.8%: Carrie Lam
  1.1%: Woo Kwok Hing
12.2%: Don't know/hard to say
  0.3%: Refused to answer

(Bastille Post) By Lo Wing-hung. March 20, 2017.

Last night was the forum organized by the Chief Executive Election Committee. 90% of the questions came from pan-democratic electors and Carrie Lam fought back.

Many of my non-political friends watched briefly and switched channels. One reason was that it was bickering all the way. Furthermore, people were chanting slogans aloud downstage. My non-political thought that it was very rude and uncivilized, and they really disliked what was happening. Another reason was that most people want to listen to ideas and policies, such as how to increase the land supply in the face of high housing prices. But it was political bickering all the way. Nobody gave a damn about livelihood and economic issues. My friends were disappointed and switched channels.

The preponderance of questions come from the pan-democrats. The pro-establishment camp was disorganized, whereupon they don't seem to be able to mobilize unless they feel that their existence is under threat. By contrast, the pan-democrats were enthusiastic, not because they want to have a better Chief Executive but because they want to seize political power.

During the election, the candidates brought up catchy slogans. John Tsang said: "Trust, unity, hope" while Carrie Lam said "We Connect." Unity and Connect have similar means of harmony. But what I saw at the forum yesterday was mutual acrimony, social rifts and disappointment. I didn't see anything like unity or harmony. I don't see the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps willing to tolerate each other.

Perhaps you say that elections are supposed to be this way. Perhaps the pan-democrats will say that they are going after Carrie Lam only because CY Leung attacked them and Carrie Lam is CY 2.0. So as long as Carrie Lam is not elected, then Hong Kong will be united and harmonious. If John Tsang is elected, then Hong Kong will see unity and harmony; if Carrie Lam is elected, then Hong Kong will be disunited and unharmonious. Is that so?

Let me propose the opposite theory. It does not matter whether John Tsang or Carrie Lam gets elected, Hong Kong will be unharmonious. The source is not because of any difference or similarity between these two candidates; it is about the struggle for political power.

Carrie Lam and John Tsang were both Administrative Officers. Maybe one of them had a messy desk; maybe the other has more stuff on the desk. Maybe one of them works long hours; maybe the other prefers to work smart. These are matters of style, not matters of nature. By nature, both of them want to get along with the pan-democrats.

The pan-democrats define unity as friendliness with the pan-democratic political parties. Are Carrie Lam and John Tsang different from each other? At the Democratic Party anniversary party, Carrie Lam, John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing all showed up. CY Leung would never do that.

Perhaps party attendance is superficial. What about policies? Carrie Lam has greater appeal to the pan-democrats than John Tsang. Carrie Lam wants to allocate an additional $5 billion for education, which is what the Professional Teachers Union has been fighting for over the years. Carrie Lam wants government housing unit owners to be able to rent out their units without penalty. This was proposed by Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai in 2015. If she is so willing to adopt the policies from pan-democratic parties, isn't this the definition of unity and harmony?

But the mainstream pan-democrats refuse to accept Lam's olive branch. The Professional Teachers Union, the Civic Party and the Democratic Party are "all-in" for John Tsang.

The reason why the pan-democrats are adamant on voting for John Tsang is not because Carrie Lam refuses to listen to them or communicate with them. It is because the Central Government supports Carrie Lam. The pan-democrats will vote against anyone that is supported by the Central Government. Had the Central Government come out to support John Tsang, the pan-democrats would be voting for Carrie Lam.

The pan-democrats vote for the Chief Executive not on the basis of capability, ideas or communication. They want to know who the Central Government supports and then they vote the opponent. The pan-democrats and the Central Government are fighting for political power. If the pan-democrats acts this way, how can the Central Government ever talk about unity and harmony with them?

I am pessimistic about the political future of Hong Kong. When the Chief Executive takes over, he/she will be the representative of the Central Government in Hong Kong. It means that he/she will receive a million barbs from the pan-democrats. There will be fights over everything every day in Hong Kong. How can this ever be stopped?

(Bastille Post) Unity? Easier said than done. By Lo Wai-hung. March 22, 2017.

As expected, the pan-democratic electors will cast most of their votes for John Tsang. Irregardless of what their reasons are, the situation is clear: On one side, the pan-democrats support John Tsang; on the other side, the Central Government and the pro-establishment support Carrie Lam.

During the election period, John Tsang's best selling point is that he can increase unity and mend rifts. Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai said that John Tsang is "furthest away from Sai Wan and closest to the people of Hong Kong."

But here is the problem. Suppose that we don't care about capabilities of the candidates and we only care about whether they can mend social rifts. If the candidate supported by the pan-democrats is elected, will there be no more social rifts?

Based upon the various Legislative Council elections in the past, we see that about 55% support the pan-democrats (including both traditional and radical types) and 45% support the pro-establishment camp. In the current Chief Executive election, John Tsang and Carrie Lam are supported by approximately in those proportions. People seem to care less about capabilities than about lining up with their political sides; they care less about unity and healing than about political tendencies.

Logically speaking, social rifts won't decrease no matter who gets elected. If A gets elected, it means that B loses. It won't mend any social rifts. In order to mend social rifts, the pan-democrats and the Central Government which back the respective candidates must yield their rigid positions, make concessions and find a compromise proposal that both sides can accept. Such is the case with constitutional reform as with any other political issue.

I am extremely pessimistic about whether social rifts will be mended after the Chief Executive election. Neither the Central Government nor the pan-democrats are ready to make concessions to reach compromises.

For the pan-democrats, they are internally weak at this time because they have split into the traditional pan-democrats and the radicals. Overall, the pan-democrats have 55% support, but almost 20% have fallen into the hands of the radicals.

The radicals used to account for only a few percentage points. The 2014 Occupy Central movement radicalized many young people, so that the support for the radicals rose sharply at the expense of the traditional pan-democrats. On the eve of the 2014 Occupy Central, the pan-democrats knew that there were problems with the unlawful action but went away anyway. They ended losing a lot of their ground. In the 2016 September Legislative Council elections, many young traditional pan-democrats had to adopt radical positions in order to compete against the radicals.

The traditional pan-democrats are still the majority in the pro-democracy camp, but they do not have leadership position. If Carrie Lam is elected, she will find it ten times harder to reach a deal with them compared to 2010. The pan-democrats have adopted radical tendencies which will make it hard to reach a compromise with the Central Government.

For the Central Government, the Hu Jintao-Wen Jiabao era saw an economic boom. Due to the proliferation of credit and rapid growth, corruption abounded as tycoons colluded with government officials to monopolize the state economy. In 2012, Xi Jinping took over, made structural adjustments to the economy and went after corruption. The situation has improved since.

... In the face of internal and external pressures, the Central Government will take a hard line and continue on what it sees is the right course. The Hong Kong independence movement that arose out of the Occupy Central movement and its separatism theme is in violent clash with the Central Government's governance. It will be a lot harder to ask the Central Government to compromise with the pan-democrats as they did in 2011.

Political compromise means that each side has to take one step back, instead of making one side yield all the way to let the other side gain total victory. Since both sides are unwilling to make large concessions, it does not matter what the next Chief Executive (be it Carrie Lam or John Tsang) does. Unity? Better said than done.

(SCMP) Working against Lam could backfire for pan-dems. By Alex Lo. March 23, 2017.

All the opposition lawmakers who sit on the Election Committee have released a joint statement saying they oppose chief executive front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and that there is no mutual trust between the two sides.

So, assuming Lam wins on Sunday, the localists and pan-democrats have now declared they will not work with her. This is despite her offer of cooperation. Lets say she had no intention to honour her pledge. Shouldnt they at least test her first and expose her bad faith before taking the high road?

Trust is built and peace is made between enemies, not friends. It was the anti-government camp who started the ABC (Anyone but CY) campaign. They won, and Beijing decided not to shove Leung Chun-ying down Hong Kongs throat for a second term. Secretly, most of the opposition members must have felt disappointed to lose such an easy target.

Now they have to work hard to build a case that Lam is another CY. Its a complete mischaracterisation, and most of the old-hand democrats know it. Lam was on good terms with most of them throughout her civil service career especially during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003-04 and when she was head of social welfare. It was only the ill-fated government political reform package that pitted her against them. Even before the central government published the so-called 831 position paper placing restrictions on universal suffrage in 2014, the two sides were on speaking terms.

By their civil service training and temperament, Lam is much closer to election rival John Tsang Chun-wah and former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen than Leung. But the pan-dems want to make her out to be a closet dictator. They clearly plan to stymie Lam at every turn, and from the start, just as they did with Leung.

But if Lam fails over the next five years, she will be the last moderate leader the central government is willing to tolerate in Hong Kong. Beijing will not magically go democratic on us; it will simply take a hardline stance towards a troublesome city that is being overtaken by its mainland rivals and one that can be sacrificed without too high a cost.

Oh, but what if John Tsang wins? Unlikely, but then the opposition will have to turn on him and make him out to be CY3.0.

Background: Rubbish!

(SCMP) December 22, 2015.

Four Hong Kong tertiary students were among six men arrested by police yesterday in connection with a blast outside the Legislative Council building in Admiralty earlier this month, according to police. One of the four students was believed to be the person behind the dustbin blast plot on December 9, the Post learned.

After making five arrests in early hours of yesterday, officers last night detained a decoration worker at the Macau ferry terminal as he returned to Hong Kong for questioning. A police source said he was accused of buying alcohol and newspaper in the arson case.

Last night, all six men were being held for questioning and none had been charged.

Initial investigation showed two of the six suspects, aged between 18 and 24, were members of Valiant Frontier, a radical pro-Hong Kong independence group. It had rallied online against the controversial copyright bill, which it claimed was a means by the government to abridge Hong Kongs freedom of speech. Hongkongers! You know what to do! Remember to meet outside Legislative Council on December 9. Not leave without seeing each other was what it said on the groups Facebook on December 8.

At 6am yesterday, officers arrested five Hongkongers after raiding homes in Tung Chung, Yau Ma Tei, Yau Tong, Sha Tin and Tuen Mun.

Initial investigation showed the two arsonists were among the five, one source with the knowledge of the investigation said, adding that the pair were students. The source said two were university students, two were post-secondary students and the fifth was unemployed. It is understood the five men also took part in various demonstrations such as the Occupy Central and the anti-parallel trade rally in Yuen Long earlier this year.

Superintendent Ng Wai-hon of Hong Kong Island regional crime unit said: This group of people is organised and had premeditated plan [to commit a crime]. They broke a fire alarm and then used igniting objects to set alight a rubbish bin causing a blast.

The five men were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit arson that carries a maximum penalty of life sentence under the Crimes Ordinance, according to another source.

In the afternoon, one suspect was taken to the scene of the crime for about 45 minutes to reconstruct the alleged arson attack. Hooded and handcuffed, the suspects were led around on a metal chain leash by a plainclothes police officer during the videotaped reconstruction.

Lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of the opposition Labour Party, said she was pleased with the polices swift action but said: It is unfair for the police to label the suspects as members of localist groups, as if all people from localist groups are bad guys.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 23, 2015.

Five of the six suspects arrested over the Legislative Council rubbish bin blasts two weeks ago have all been released on bail of between HK$10,000 to HK$50,000 each. The case has been adjourned to February 3 next year.

The suspects are forbidden to go near the Legislative Council complex during this period and have to report to the police station three times a week.

The defendants are of age 18 to 24 and they include two students, an illustrator, an unemployed person, and a former auxiliary police officer. They have been charged for destroying a rubbish bin at the Legislative Council demonstration area on December 9 without a reasonable excuse. The arson attack and explosion occurred at around 8:30pm after a planned rally against a controversial new copyright bill was cancelled by organisers. No one was injured.

Outside the law courts building police stood guard and erected barricades. Civic Passions Wong Yeung-tat and Student Fronts Alvin Cheng were seen in the audience at the hearing.

The defendants have been charged with conspiracy to commit arson and appeared at the Eastern Magistrates Court on Wednesday. They were not required to submit a reply.

In the meantime, the prosecution will be assembling evidence, which includes an analysis of CCTV footage, phone records, thumbprint identifications, and lab reports on the flammable materials.

The prosecution argued that the first to third defendants in the case should not be granted bail, as there was strong evidence against the first defendant. Records showed that he had used his Octopus Card at the MTR exit gate at Admiralty, and CCTV footage appeared to show someone wearing similar clothing as him near the scene of the crime, RTHK reported.

The first defendants lawyer argued that the identity of the defendant will be contested, as the footage merely shows a suspect in a surgical face mask. The defence counsel said that everyone could take the MTR and walk to the LegCo, as the public has a right to assemble there and express their views, Oriental Daily reported. The second and third defendants admitted to the crime under caution. The second defendant, who had been keeping a lookout on the day of the crime, will be assisting the police in reconstructing the crime scene. The third defendant said that he bought alcohol and sheets of paper at the request of the fifth defendant, but he did not know what the items were for. The role of the fourth defendant was not revealed in court.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) The police gave further details. The five arrestees were an 18-year-old named Chan, a 19-year-old named Yip, a 19-year-old named Chow, a 22-year-old named Yeung and a 22-year-old named Ng. Yeung and Ng are students at Shue Yan University, the 18-year-old and 19-year-old are tertiary students (one of them in IVE and the other in Pui Ching Academy). The other 19-year-old is unemployed. Three of them are suspected of conspiring to commit arson, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. According to information, some of the arrestees are members of the organization known as Valiant Frontier. The police searched the homes of the five in Tung Chung, Yau Ma Tei, Yau Tong, Sha Tin and Tuen Mun. Late in the evening, the police announced that they have arrested a sixth suspect, a 24-year-old named Lam who is a interior decoration worker. According to information, Lam just came back from Macau and was arrested at the Hong Kong-Macau pier because his name was on the wanted list. Lam is believed to be the person who purchased the tools (inflammable liquid, newspaper etc) used in the crime.

- The usual congratulatory Internet notice to these men is in order.

Paula Tsui:
Play the piano enthusiastically.
Sing enthusiastically.
Singing with such abandon
Everybody with glee on their faces.

- (Oriental Daily) This newspaper has verified through various channels that the arrestees included the incoming Shue Yan University Student Union president Joe Yeung. The other Shue Yan University student arrested is Ng Kwai-lung, who is the incoming chief editor of the Shue Yan University students' magazine.
- Yeung has long been suspected of being a police agent. So this is going to blow a huge hole in the case about it being a false flag operation.

- Walking the dog?

- After showing a screen capture of the Legco video of two masked men, the police said that they have arrested six men. How do they leap from two to six? One or two of those in the screen capture must have ratted out the rest. We must identify the rat fink before we offer any legal aid to the others.
- (Oriental Daily) After the police cautioned the five arrestees on their rights under the law, four of them decided to maintain their silence but one of them has confessed.
- I'll bet that the rat fink is the unemployed man. The two university students and the two tertiary students expect to get clean reports from the probation officer as outstanding young men with promising careers ahead and an abundance of contrition in their hearts, and therefore community service might be appropriate. But the unemployed wastrel is screwed. Therefore his only way out is to rat out the others and earn some brownie points.
- (Oriental Daily) At around 3:14pm, the police took the unemployed man back to the scene to reconstruct the crime. He went first to the demonstration area of the Legislative Council, then proceeded to the path leading up to Tamar Park, then he went back to circle around the demonstration area, then he entered a restroom and stayed inside for about 10 minutes, then he proceeded to the site of the trash bin, and finally he left at around 4pm. This description confirms the speculation that the rat fink is the unemployed man.
- (Ming Pao) The man brought by the Crime Investigation Department detectives to the scene to reconstruct the crime was the 19-year-old Pui Ching Academy student named Chow. At the time of the incident, Chow was the lookout, while the others were responsible for setting off the fire alarm in the public restroom and setting the fire. So his criminal liability is a lot less than the others, which explains why he wants to become the rat fink. This description confirms a different speculation.
- Regardless of the speculations, the rats are leaving the sinking ship ...

- Five were arrested and one confessed. This means that the psychological preparations were inadequate. Prior to taking the action, they need to believe that they are revolutionary warriors whereas the police are the underlings of the tyrants. Therefore they should not confess under any circumstances. If they were not prepared to do so, the action should not have been carried out.
- Also the action plan should have included the preparation of 'evidence' of being elsewhere at the time of the crime (see, for example, The Krays).
- How to save the six arrested warriors? Go out now to commit some more similar acts, claim credit for the 12/9 action too and declare that the six were wrongfully arrested.

- In this action, the principals clearly wanted to oppose Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 as well as the legislative system. Therefore they chose a destructive course of action. But because they needed to minimize their chances of being apprehended, they did it as quickly as possible with minimal attention on themselves. In the end, they did not leave any information about their cause. They were hoping that the outside world can fill in the missing propaganda. Unfortunately, this did not happen. There were some "Good job!" comments, but also many more "False flag operation!" and "No comment!" In the future, if you are going to take such an action, you should integrate propagandizing (such as leaving pamphlets behind) as part of the action plan.

- Lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of the opposition Labour Party, said she was pleased with the polices swift action but said: It is unfair for the police to label the suspects as members of localist groups, as if all people from localist groups are bad guys.

- How do the Hong Kong Police know that a Localist group was behind the bombing? There is no definition for Localism. It is just a normal state of mind.

- If Cyd Ho has her way, it means that the police cannot even say that the suspects are male, as if all men are bad guys.

- If Cyd Ho has her way, it means that the police cannot even say that the suspects are not women, as if all women are good gals.

- (Bastille Post) According to a source, the organization behind the incident is the Valiant Frontier. This is from their About Us (verbatim in English):

We are the Valiant Frontier, we have form our organization on the July of 2014. We have notice the the tradition democracy party has fail Hong Kong and all the great china ism has lead to a great lost for the citizens of Hong Kong ,such as immigrants doesnt need to wait for seven years before they can have social welfare from Hong Kong.

We hope to break the old habit of fighting for our own right and what we believe. There is no leader in our group as we think everyone is a decision makers and have equal rights in the organization. The idea of Valiant Frontier is to change old thoughts and stimulate localization . The word bravery has always link to violence and unnecessary fights against the government by the media.

The fights between ourselves will make our government with no ethics and no moral go even further with its absolution

In this critical moment our city has fallen, we should not just wait and imagine that everything will be find . We should change the history by blood and sweat we could reach this by destorying communist bull shit.

So do you think that Valiant Frontier is a Localist organization? If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is a duck.

- From the Valiant Frontier Facebook is a composed photo of a man wearing a V-mask throwing a petrol bomb.

- Here is the "No Comment" notice from the very valiant Valiant Frontier:

- P.S. This photo has now been removed by Valiant Frontier as a result of a complaint from the copyright holder.

- (Ming Pao) Valiant Frontier responded via Facebook to Ming Pao's inquiry: "We have no comments on the case at this time. But we are calm at heart because we know that the people will settle accounts with unjust authorities. Life is valuable, but freedom is even more valuable."
- Incoherent rubbish!
- If you can't even understand this much, then you must not be a university student.
- Your definition of settling the accounts is to blow up a trash bin?
- What they're saying is that they will settle the accounts in full by blowing up all the trash bins in Hong Kong, at which point the Chinese Communists will surrender.

- The localist revolutionaries need to re-assess their escape plans because something has clearly gone wrong here. It may be that when they escaped to Admiralty, one of them used his Octopus card to enter the subway. While the Octopus card has no identification, there is a usage trail. If the card was used to buy a pack of cigarettes at a 7-11, the face of the user will be recorded by the store surveillance camera. If the card was used regularly to purchase soda from a machine in the Department of Chemistry, University of XXX, then the photo of the face of the individual can be shown around there to locate the individual. The individual is taken back to his place of residence where the clothing is found along with some localist propaganda materials. That's about what the case would be like.
- (Ming Pao) The police reviewed about 2,000 surveillance videos and checked the Octopus card usage data for transportation services in the vicinity and locked in on a number of targets. They made the arrests after they obtained enough evidence.

- The rubbish bin downstairs from my home was vandalized a month ago, but the police still don't know who did it. However, the Police are willing to watch 2,000 hours of surveillance video to catch these kids. I don't think that this is fair.
- Eh, when the firebomb went off outside the Legislative Council building, do you think that the Police could determine immediately that the men in black were just kids having fun?

- The other possible path in which the case was broken open is the role of TMHK. Shortly after the incident, they uploaded a close-up video of the explosion onto their website as exclusive news. They must be linked somehow to whoever did it.

- (Wen Wei Po) The surveillance cameras at the Legislative Council captured the act, but the trail was broken after the perpetrators fled because there are no surveillance cameras inside Tamar Park. Therefore the Crime Investigation Department could not make any further progress. The case was turned over to the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau, which threw its manpower plus the supercomputer at the Wanchai Police Headquarters to compile and collate a massive amount of information until the suspects were identified.

- What good will this go? For setting fire to a Sheung Shui warehouse, a protestor was sentenced to 100 hours of community service. Penalties are meted out based upon precedents. Nothing is going to happen to these six except the usual 100 hours of community service.
- But this case is a pre-meditated and organized conspiracy to commit arson with division of labor. This is in a different class altogether. The maximum sentence is life in prison.
- No, Apple Daily is reporting that the arrestees told the police that their motives were "
貪玩,搞事想出位" (=want to have some fun, do something to get attention). Kids will always be kids. They will only have to post a $500 good behavior bond.
- Even the four-eyed guy from Keyboard Frontier said that it was just a prank.
- Also because they set off the fire alarm beforehand, this is MENS REA according to Woolmington vs DPP (1935) in that they had intended to commit the crime and they are not mentally disabled.

- Wan Chin, December 21 2015

Wan Chin: For the sake of the elections next year, I bet that pan-democrats won't disavow and denounce any violence. In Reclaim Yuen Long, the pan-democrats held a high-profile press conference to denounce the violence and disavow any association. They won't dare to do so this time with the rubbish bin explosion. Why? Because the Legco elections will be held next year, and Localism is a box-office guarantee. If the pan-democrats forsake Localism, they will lose the elections.

- Oriental Daily headline on December 22, 2015.

Occupy Central auxiliary police, university/tertiary students, six persons arrested
Hong Kong Independence "Valiant" organizations
Suspected of planning explosion outside the Legislative Council

- Ray Wong: I don't want to say anything like I want to pay respect to the martyrs, etc. Saying that is no practical help. I want to reflect on why these students and young people need to bear such huge responsibilities in this society. They only want to stop a bad piece of legislation from being passed. They don't want to get on camera, they don't want to wear any halo, they don't want to be in any group photo. Why do they have to bear such huge responsibilities. Why is setting fire to a rubbish bin as serious as killing someone? Did they hurt anyone? Did they commit any atrocities that offend the Heavens and reason?  They only wanted to use action to express their dissatisfaction with the authorities.

- Statement from REVO, the incoming Shue Yan University student union cabinet: "Our cabinet emphasizes that we respect and support our incoming president Joe Yeung and other resisters. In the future, we will also support various kinds of resistance movements, and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the resisters to fight against the various unfair and unjust matters in society."

- The shorter REVO statement: "We've set off bombs and we will continue to set off more bombs. If I were you, I would be very fearful."

- (Wen Wei Po) According to information, the police have reviewed the surveillance videos and found that the two masked men had set off the fire alarm inside the public restroom in order to draw attention and then they went back to the demonstration area to set off the explosion.

- (Wen Wei Po) About 20 minutes after the explosion, Scholarism spokesperson Joshua Wong arrived outside the Legco building. When he saw the huge police presence at the scene, he turned around to head for the Admiralty MTR with his friend.

- On Wednesday, the Legislative Council session was adjourned due to a lack of quorum. Now if the Copyright Bill is regarded as the battle of the century, then it is rare that one side was rearing to go with these frequent headcount requests, but the other side does not even bother to show up in the needed numbers. Isn't that strange?

So it is no wonder that the conspiracy theorists are having a field day. They accused the pro-establishment camp of deliberately letting the adjournment happen to alienate the moderate pan-democratic supporters. But is it that simple?

Federation of Trade Unions vice-president Wong Kwok-hing has come out to say that the pan-democrats are unafraid of filibustering because they know that the bill will pass because the pro-establishment camp has more votes than the pan-democrats. Under these circumstances, they can filibuster for as long as possible but in the end the bill will pass. That will please the US Consulate, the American Chamber of Commerce and other foreign parties interested in protecting their intellectual properties. It will also displease the Hong Kong Internet users and put the onus on the pro-establishment camp.

At this time, the directly elected pro-establishment legislators are saying that they will abstain. By their abstention, they will not face the wrath of voters in the 2016 direct elections. The pro-establishment legislators in the functional constituencies will vote for the bill, but they count for less than half the legislative council. If the bill doesn't pass, it will be because the pan-democrats failed to support it. The pan-democrats won't know how to explain to the international community.

Wong Kwok-hing said that the existing regulations already protect intellectual property rights. The proposed amendments only clarifies certain gray areas. If the pan-democrats don't want them, the pro-establishment camp won't insist and fight an unwinnabe war.

Instead now, the pro-establishment camp has set the pan-democrats up to lose both the moderate pan-democratic supporters because of the filibustering and the foreign governments and businesses because of they voted/abstained against the bill.

- (Bastille Post) March 30, 2016. A court appearance today for some extra-terrestrial beings ...

- (Oriental Daily) January 5, 2017

Of the five persons arrested, charges were not filed against three of them. The defendant Ip Cheuk-yin, an unemployed man, pleaded guilty yesterday in court.

According to the police, there were about 40 demonstrators at the Legco demonstration zone at around 830pm. Suddenly a trash bin caught fire. Several minutes later, the trash bin exploded with the lide rising 20 to 30 cm high. An iron barricade was toppled and the fire alarm in the public restroom went off. The security guards called the police.

The police found a blowtorch and a metal gas canister inside the trash bin, together with a copy of The Wall Street Journal and a plastic bottle of disinfecting alcohol. According to the surveillance video, at masked man A and the defendant Ip Cheuk-yin approached the trash bin at 831pm. A placed the blowtorch-like object into the trash bin. On December 21, the police arrested Ip Cheuk-yin. Under caution, Ip said that he did it for fun along with a guy called Ah Chak. Ip said that he and Ah Chak belong to the same Facebook group. On the day of the incident, Ip met with Ah Chak and others to discuss the Copyright (Amendment) Bill. Although the Legco session was over, they decided to cause a disturbance in order to show their objection to the proposed bill. So Ip and Ah Chak were assigned to set off a fire. Yip played the role of the lookout.

The second defendant Joe Yeung has pleaded not guilty. The defense said that the surveillance video showed two unknown males A and B approaching the trash bin at 8:26pm. A placed a certain object inside the trash bin. Yeung's friend Lam Kwok-lun testified that he had purchased the disinfecting alcohol and The Wall Street Journal for Yeung, and handed them over to Yeung. Lam identified male A as Joe Yeung and male B as Iip Cheuk-yin.

According to Ip Cheuk-yin's lawyer, Ip is due to start class at the Hong Kong Culinary Institute tomorrow. Therefore Ip applied and obtained bail.

- (SCMP) January 5, 2017.

An unemployed man has admitted his involvement in an incident in which a handmade explosive device blew up inside a rubbish bin outside the Legislative Council in 2015.

Ip Cheuk-yin admitted in the District Court on Thursday that he was the lookout when his accomplice ignited a gas canister outside the Legco complex on December 9, 2015 before shoving it into a rubbish bin.

The canister exploded, damaging the bin worth HK$1,250 and sending its lid about 30cm into the air. It also caused a nearby public toilets fire alarm to go off, the court heard.

The offence took place just hours after Legco adjourned its debate on a controversial copyright bill. Ip was involved in a protest with others he contacted over the internet during the day.

Ip, 20, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit arson. His co-defendant Yeung Yat-long, 23, denied the same charge.

Prosecutor Bernard Chung Wai-keung said according to Legco video footage, two men with their faces covered approached the bin at about 8.30pm. One of them, holding what appeared to be a torch, lit the device and threw it into the bin, he said. Meanwhile, Ip stood by to keep an eye on the area, the court heard. The device exploded three minutes after he and his accomplice left.

Ip was arrested on December 21, 2015 at his home in Jordan, where he admitted under caution that he set fire to the rubbish bin for fun with a man called Ah Chak. Ip also admitted in a subsequent police interview that he first met Ah Chak on Facebook and later bonded over discussions on protest methods.

On the day of the protest, the group he met told him and Ah Chak to set fire to the bin. They were protesting against the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, which was dubbed by critics fearful of its effect on free speech as Internet Article 23 in reference to contentious national security provisions in the Basic Law.

Forensic scientist Dr Billy Leung Kar-on concluded that the explosion was caused by a fire that led to increasing pressure inside the canister. Leung said isopropyl alcohol found inside the bin made the fire worse. The court also heard that a copy of The Wall Street Journal was found inside the rubbish bin.

In his opening remarks in Yeungs trial, Chung alleged that the defendant asked a friend he was meeting that night to buy him isopropyl alcohol and some paper.

After Yeung was given the newspaper and the alcohol, the prosecutor said the defendant put his hand inside the rubbish bin and moved it around for five seconds. He later left to meet his friends for dinner.

Deputy Judge Lily Wong Sze-lai adjourned the case to January 12 to hear mitigation for Ip. Yeungs trial continues on Friday.

- (Oriental Daily) January 9, 2017.

Today Lam Kwok-lun testified in court. He said that he got acquainted with the defendant Joe Yeung Yat-long in early 2015. On December 9, 2015, Lam was dining with friends in Admiralty. Yeung called him and asked me if he has any waste paper (such as A4 paper) and isopropyl alcohol without explaining the purpose. Lam bought the isopropyl alcohol and a copy of The Wall Street Journal at a convenience store in Admiralty. Lam explained while there were other newspapers on sale, the quality of The Wall Street Journal Paper was cruder and "people don't like to read it," so he spent more than 20 dollars to purchase it. Lam also bought some bandages and bandaids on his own initiative, because people may get hurt during conflicts with the police.

Lam proceeded to the Legislative Council and handed over the isopropyl alcohol and newspaper to Yeung in the public restroom. They left separately. Later they met up again outside the public restroom. At the time, Yeung knelt next to a rubbish bin and stuck his hand inside the opening. At this time, Lam heard the sound of a metal barricade falling on the ground and the fire alarm bell. Lam left the Legislative Council area.

At around 11pm, Lam communicated with Yeung by messaging. Yeung asked Lam how he purchased the isopropyl alcohol and newspaper. Lam told Yeung that it was by Octopus card. Yeung said: "You may be in danger." Yeung sent the relevant news video link to Lam. After Lam saw the news videos, he told Yeung that he had no idea what the purpose of the purchases was. Yeung apologized for not having thought things through beforehand. Yeung said that Lam should not have used his personal Octopus card.

Lam said that the isopropyl alcohol and newspaper in the case were purchased by him, as proven by the surveillance videos at the scene and the convenience store. He could not sleep that night because he was worried that he might have to go to jail. Lam said that Yeung did not admit any role in the arson, and Lam cannot prove that he was merely being used. However, Lam was disappointed and "somewhat angry" at Yeung for asking Lam to make the purchases.

- (Bastille Post) January 9, 2017.

Witness Lam Kwok-lun

28-year-old interior decorator Lam Kwok-lun said that he purchased isopropyl alcohol at Watsons with cash and a copy of The Wall Street Journal with his personal Octopus card in Admiralty at the request of Yeung Yat-long. Yeung did not explain what the items were going to be used for. The Lam said that Yeung asked him why he wasn't wearing a surgical mask and handed one over to him. Lam put it on because he was too embarrassed to refuse.

Lam said that he was chatting with other people and saw Yeung stoop down next to the rubbish bin by the metal barricades and stuck his hand to do something for a few seconds. Lam could not see what Yeung did. Shortly afterwards, Lam left the scene.

At around 11pm, Lam communicated with Yeung by Telegram. When Yeung learned that Lam had purchased the newspaper with his personal Octopus card, he said that "there is some danger" and told Lam to take steps not to use his Octopus card anymore and to wear a disguise when going outside. Yeung forwarded a news video link to Lam. It was only then that Lam found out about the arson. Lam told Yeung that he knew nothing about the arson. Yeung apologized to Lam.

Lam said that he knew that he would be swept in, because a number of surveillance cameras caught him in the act of purchasing those items. All the evidence points to him being the arsonist, and he could end up in jail. Therefore Lam was angry. He did not whether Yeung was using him, so he was very disappointed with Yeung. Eventually, Lam cut off all communications with Yeung.

- (Oriental Daily) January 11, 2017.

The defendant Yeung Yat-long chose not to testify on his own behalf. Instead, the defense summoned two character witnesses.

The first witness is the Shue Yan University Christian fellowship leader named Lam. Lam said that Yeung is a righteous and principled young man. On September 28, 2014 when the police fired tear gas, Lam heard that the police was going to fire live rounds and so he called Yeung to tell him to leave. Lam said that, as a Christian, he should be standing in the front line and let the police bullets land on Christians who are willing to sacrifice themselves. Lam said that he was very moved by Yeung's statement.

The prosecution asked Lam whether he knew that Yeung resigned from the Auxiliary Police in 2014. Lam said that Yeung thought that being in the Auxiliary Police was not the best away to realize his ideals during the Occupy Central period and therefore resigned.

The second witness was Yeung's Secondary School teacher named Cheng. When asked why Yeung resigned from the Auxiliary Police, Cheng said that he understood that there were Internet rumors that Yeung was a police mole and therefore he resigned.

Today the magistrate ruled that there is circumstantial evidence that point to Yeung having committed arson.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017.

Today in district court, the magistrate said that the claim that it was a case of misidentification was not supported. The defendant Joe Yeung and the witness Lam Kwok-lun had met many times before, and Lam can recognize Yeung's physique and voice. Furthermore, Lam purchased the materials that he was told by phone and brought them to a man at the Legislative Council. On the surveillance video, Lam identified the two men as Yeung and himself. The magistrate does not think that there is a coincidence of another man who looks like Yeung, sounds like Yeung and also knows the details of the delivered materials. The magistrate also believed that there is an agreement to conspire to commit arson, because the incendiary materials were not accidentally placed in the rubbish bin. Therefore, the magistrate found Joe Yeung guilty of conspiracy to commit arson.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017.

Defense counsel for Ip Cheuk-yin said that Ip was a computer-obsessed user who got worried about Internet freedom of speech and derivative art would be suppressed by the Copyright (Amendment) Bill and therefore gathered some friends to go to the Legislative Council to support the demonstrators. At the time, the area was pretty peaceful. Soon someone was distributing videos of violent overseas demonstrations, and people got excited. Someone said that the government don't listen to their many demands, so it is time to do something to get the attention of the citizens. A man in black clothes began to allocate assignments. Ip and his fellow student were assigned to set trash on tire. Ip was the lookout to make sure that nobody got hurt. In fact, nobody was nearby. At this point, the magistrate interjected to say that "It was sheer luck."

Defense counsel said that Ip was young and ignorant. Today he realizes his mistake and is rueful. He realized that he has to accept responsibility and that was why he cooperated with the police. Ip is willing to pay for the damaged rubbish bin.

- (Bastille Post) March 22, 2017.

The lawyer for the first defendant Ip Cheuk-yin said that the defendant has never lost his freedom before. Before sentence was announced today, Ip was remanded in custody and spent his 21st birthday in prison. Although his family is very supportive, he is very remorseful and uses tears to wipe his face every day. Ip is very worried about his future. He had originally planned to attend university in Taiwan. His conviction forced him to give up that chance and enrolled in a culinary school instead. A jail sentence would cost him even that chance.

- (Oriental Daily) March 22, 2017.

The judge said that this was a serious case in which the two defendants deliberately caused damage and explosion. Fortunately, the fire did not spread. That nobody was injured was due to sheer luck. The judge condemned the two defendants for being selfish, brash, stupid and reckless. Although the plot was not planned over many years, the two had discussed it beforehand.

The judge emphasized that no matter how unhappy you can be about a piece of legislation or the government and no matter how noble their political ideas are or no matter how you feel about an issue, you must never use unlawful and violent methods to express your ideas. If you did so, you will be prosecuted under the law. Nobody is above the law. Therefore the sentence is meant to have a deterrent effect to issue a warning against using unlawful or dangerous methods to express dissatisfaction.

The judge sentenced Joe Yeung to two years in prison, and Ip Cheuk-yin to a training centre where he would be subjected to rigorous discipline.

- (SCMP) March 22, 2017.

A former Hong Kong auxiliary policeman, who quit the force following the 2014 Occupy protests, was jailed for two years on Tuesday for setting fire to a bin outside the citys Legislative Council complex.

Joe Yeung Yat-long, who was also a former president of the Shue Yan Universitys student union, was earlier found guilty at the District Court of one count of conspiracy to commit arson. He was involved in setting fire to the rubbish bin on December 9, 2015, while legislators debated the controversial Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, which some worried would restrict freedom of speech.

Handing down what she stressed was a deterrent sentence, deputy judge Lily Wong Sze-lai said the offence was serious in that the premeditated plot could have inflicted injuries to people in the vicinity and more serious economic loss. It was lucky that no one was injured, she said.

No matter how noble ones cause is, one should not resort to illegal means to express his or her demands, she said, adding she needed to stop copycat behaviour. No one is above the law.

His co-defendant, Ip Cheuk-yin, 21, who admitted acting as lookout and pleaded guilty to the same charge early this year, was sent to a training centre to receive rigorous training.

The judge slammed the duo for using not just matches or lighters, but alcohol and a blowtorch in the arson in an area where there were members of the public and security officers.

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,372 persons age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone March 13-20, 2017.

Q1. Which quality do you think the next Chief Executive needs to have the most?
23%: Promote social harmony
22%: Firmly hold One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people, High Degree of Autonomy
17%: Trusted by the Central Government
12%: Relatively high public opinion support
15%: Has an excellent governing team
5%: Honesty and open-mindedness
2%: Clear concepts of governance
1%: Others
3%: No opinion

Q2. Which issue do you think the next Chief Executive must deal with first?
27%: Relieve the housing problem
18%: Stimulate the Hong Kong economy
16%: Improve relationships between the executive and legislative branches
13%: Resolve conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China
9%: Relieve the poverty problem
9%: Restart the consultation on constitutional reform
4%: Others
4%: No opinion

Q3. Which would you like to see happen in the 2017 Chief Executive election?
56%: The person that I like the most wins
38%: The person that I dislike the most loses
3%: Don't know/hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q4. The Central Government stated the next Chief Executive must satisfy four conditions: Love China, Love Hong Kong/governance ability/trusted by the Central Government/supported by the people of Hong Kong. Which candidate do you think best fits these four conditions?
38%: John Tsang
45%: Carrie Lam
10%: Don't know/hard to say
  3%: No opinion

Q5. Who do you think will most likely become the next Chief Executive?
16%: John Tsang
73%: Carrie Lam
  2%: Woo Kwok Hing
  8%: No opinion

Q6. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?
36%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
11%: Woo Kwok Hing
12%: No opinion

Q7. Do you think the Chief Executive election will end in a situation in which no candidate could obtain more than 600 valid votes whereupon the election proceedings are terminated?
  2%: Definitely
  5%: Most likely
45%: Most likley not
33%: Definitely not
12%: Don't know/hard to say
  3%: No opinion

(SCMP) March 20, 2017.

The two front runners in Hong Kongs leadership race shied away from stating their positions over vindication of the Tiananmen Square crackdown of 1989 as they were publicly grilled for the first time by members of the committee that will pick the citys chief executive next Sunday.

Sunday nights 2 hour election debate saw testy exchanges between Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and John Tsang Chun-wah: Lam mocked Tsang for his laid-back working style, while the latter put her in the category of politicians who think saying is achieving.

The showdown at the AsiaWorld-Expo on Lantau Island between the two front runners and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was organised by a group of Election Committee members from across the political spectrum. Asked about Beijings crackdown on the student-led pro-democracy movement, which remains a highly contentious subject in the city, Tsang gave a meandering answer, saying some time in the future we can see the issue being dealt with [by Beijing]. Lam said the incident was saddening, adding: History will have its judgment.

Lam, the former No 2 official seen as Beijings preferred candidate, appeared to be restrained and respectful at first, but returned to the combative style she displayed in previous debates when she was asked to rate Tsangs performance when they were both serving in the government.

Lam, also a former development minister, was dripping sarcasm as she recalled a meeting with Tsang when he was the financial secretary: When I went to Johns office for a meeting, I saw that there was no file, no paper on his desk. I admired him much. My desk was always full of files and documents.

Tsang retorted: I always believe that, apart from working hard, we need to work smart. If she can take up all the tasks, shes a good employee, not a leader.

When it came to the issue of Hong Kongs stalled political reform process, Lam reiterated that she had been sincere in resolving the deadlock during the Occupy protests of 2014. That was Woos chance to pounce: Lam was the head of the governments task force on political reform but she failed the exercise and that led to the Occupy protests. Restarting the process is not even in her manifesto. Some politicians would think saying is achieving, Tsang added, referring to Lams undelivered promise to set up a multi-side platform for society to discuss democratic development.

Tsang, the popular underdog next to Lam, resorted to humour when taking a question from the floor about Lams refusal to travel to Tin Shui Wai to meet grassroots families because it was too far away. Actually it wasnt that far away, just some 30 minutes by car from Wan Chai, he said. Lam said, I am sorry that I could not go to Tin Shui Wai ... But I have proposals for the lower class.

Tsang was forced to back down on the controversy over his perceived sympathy for those who launched personal attacks against actress Josephine Siao for supporting Lam. Such cyberbullying is not acceptable. We have to respect others and we have to respect ourselves [when expressing views], Tsang conceded.

Lam avoided repeating the gaffes that raised eyebrows in the last election debate, such as her offer to resign if mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue as chief executive.

The debate got off to a noisy start with a partisan audience. As Woo was about to make his opening remarks, four pro-democracy activists marched to the front of the stage, chanting,We want genuine universal suffrage and waving placards that read Support civil nomination and We want universal pension. They were quickly ushered away.

Some 507 of the 1,194 election committee members attended the forum. Among them, 189 members filed questions. Most of the 21 questions selected were from pan-democrats. The second part of the debate featured questions from the public. Organisers said they had received 1,326 questions from public.

In her closing remarks, Lam said: Carrie Lam today is still Carrie Lam of yesterday. The difference is that she is now more humble. And she said: If I am elected, I will achieve the vision of the old and the young. Please vote for me next Sunday.

Tsang said: Five years on, the rift in the society has deepened, the government is not supported by the people, and governance is difficult. Hongkongers want to see a bit of change. They yearn for a change in the social atmosphere, which they wont feel tiring or even suffocating, he added.

Woo continued his attack on Lam in his final remarks, he said fake consultation had been Lams strength. And he criticised Tsang and Lam for passing the buck on this issue. HKs problem is not that it doesnt have money, but that the person in charge does not have a heart, he said.

(The Standard) March 19, 2017.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pronounced last night "I am ready" to become chief executive - but bitter rival John Tsang Chun-wah mocked her saying she would be a "three-low" CE with low popularity, low energy and low legitimacy.

Lam, Tsang and the third contender in the CE race, Woo Kwok-hing, debated in the last election forum before next Sunday's poll of the 1,194-strong Election Committee in a two-and half- hour event organized by EC members at the AsiaWorld-Expo. But only 507 committee members attended. From the outset, the pan- democrats appeared to outnumber pro- establishment members, which was reflected in the questions fired at Lam.

In her opening speech, Lam said that what she called "malicious criticisms and unreasonable blaming" could not dampen her will in the race. "I am ready," she declared to both boos and applause.

Social welfare subsector elector Pang Lok-yan expressed regret at Lam missing a meeting with grassroot residents in Tin Shui Wai on Saturday. Lam apologized again, blaming "arrangement mistakes" for her absence - and mocked an unnamed former colleague for not visiting the community. "We demanded incumbent officials visit communities, and no police were arranged. However, an unorthodox colleague never participated in the visits or had contact with citizens," Lam said, implying it was former financial secretary Tsang. Woo said he went to Tin Shui Wai once he was invited, and said he never called police to protect him, "but wherever Lam goes, 100 or 200 [officers] surround her." Tsang also said he went to Tin Shui Wai on March 8. "The journey is not that long. It just took me half an hour to go there from Wan Chai." "Every time I visit the community I use the least number of police," Tsang said. "If there are too many officers, you can't listen to citizens."

Chik Nga-yin from the health services subsector interrogated Lam about the promises she made to the Federation of Students during the Occupy movement, especially the "multilateral platform" for different parties. "All of you know what happened to Admiralty after that," Lam said, drawing another round of boos. Woo said, as the leader of the three- person team on political reform, Lam's failure gave rise to Occupy. "Her platform said it would need to wait until the social environment was suitable for political reform. How can she? No one agrees with [Beijing's] August 31 framework." Tsang said : "There are many examples of Mrs Lam's policies that were left unfinished."

As examples, he cited tackling illegal structures on village houses and the reconstruction of the Avenue of Stars, as well as what he called the "black-box operation" of the Palace Museum at West Kowloon.

Elector Ng Kwok-yan from the higher education subsector brought up Lam's comment that she would resign if mainstream opinion was against her. Lam explained: "The chief executive has to listen to public opinion carefully, and turn the opinion into actual work." But Tsang countered: "It's unprecedented that a chief executive has a negative approval rating before she assumes office. We can foresee a CE with low popularity, low energy and low acceptance - three lows - leading a three-low- government. The next five years will be tough." Woo said that Lam's clarification of her "I will resign" the following day should teach her to speak carefully, saying: "If I were the judge, I would consider her a dishonest witness."

Lam used up all her allocated time to talk about how many of her old colleagues had joined her campaign office, but her strategy was criticized by medical subsector elector Kwong Po-yin. "You are just burning up all your time available so that you don't need to answer questions," Kwong said.

Elector Wilfred Wong Ying-wai said 507 people joined the forum but there was no breakdown on which camp they belonged to.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) At the Election Committee forum, the three candidates John Tsang, Carrie Lam and Woo Kwok Hing were to answer questions from the Electors and the general public. Although I hoped that this would be better than the electronic media forum, with many policy issues such as the housing prices, this turned out to be more like a low-quality quarrel.

Most of the Election Committee questions came from pan-democrats that were deliberately politicized and targeted against Carrie Lam. When she answered, John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing took turns to tear at her.

Finally Catering sector elector Wong Kit-lung couldn't stand it and raised his question this way: "The mutual acrimony in this debate was unbearable to watch. Can Carrie Lam and John Tsang tell us how they appreciate and thank each other as former colleagues."

Carrie Lam said that they both came from the same system and this election is a competition between gentleman/gentlewoman. She only wants to do her job and she will not manufactures a lot of rumors. Nevertheless there have been many rumros against her. She said that when she was the Secretary for Development, she reported to Financial Secretary John Tsang. When she went to her room, she found that there was nothing on her his desk. She was jealous because she had to read many documents herself in preparation for her work.

John Tsang responded that, being a colleague of Carrie Lam for many years, he knows how she works. However, Lam does not know him. He wants to work hard and he also wants to work smart. He said that when Carrie Lam resigned, she said that she would apologize to any colleague who was unhappy about what she had done. "I understand why she should complain. Actually many people hold opinions against her. I have more than a dozen colleagues helping me in my election campaign. I don't think that she has any. A person needs to attract others to help you. You cannot do everything yourself. That would not be a leader."

Carrie Lam responded that it was unfair to her election campaign team for John Tsang to say that no government colleague would help her. She listed several former senior government officials who are helping her. She said that there was a dinner group of Administrative Officers at which both she and John Tsang were core members. But she did not want to create schism within this group, so she did not ask any of these people to help her.

John Tsang replied that Carrie Lam were naming retired senior government officials helping her, whereas he was talking about people who actually go into the local communities to help him.

After listening to this for a while, I feel that I really don't care about how who is helping who. Perhaps this is good for the electors who are mostly politician-types, but I would have preferred to hear them talk about things that citizens care about, such as the housing prices.

- RTHK: John Tsang says to not just 'work hard' but to 'work hard.' One should frequently think about the smartest method to do something ... he said that a person who can do everything himself is a good employee, but he is not a good leader.

- Ko Chi-sum: A person who is smart but does not want to work hard is an underachieving 'slacker'; a person who cannot complete his job is not a good employee, much less a good leader.

21 questions were randomly selected from the Election Committee members.
19 came from pan-democratic electors
2 came from pro-establishment electors
This Election Committee members was either A Struggle Session Against Carrie Lam or A Rally Session For John Tsang
There was not even a remote hint of democracy, just the Hegemony of Democracy
The pan-democratic Election Committee members received the order from the boss to launch an all-out attack on Carrie Lam in order to cover up the inadequacies of John Tsang
#The questions were screened
#The questioners were pan-democrats

There were 21 questions, of which 19 came from pan-democratic electors
There are 326 pan-democrats out of 1,194 electors.
According to Vassar Stats, the probability of this happening (binomial model with n-21, k=19, p=326/1194) is 0.000000002232. Although this probability is even less likely than being attacked by a shark; hit by a comet or asteroid; struck by lightning; win a Powerball jackpot; injured by an exploding toilet seat ... it is greater than zero and therefore it still might happen.

- If this is not an accident, then it was by design. How so? (Ming Pao) March 21, 2017.

#1. The host Tse Chi-fung colluded with the pan-democrats to get them to fold the corner of their question forms for him to pick. Afterwards, the papers were checked and 80% of them have folded corners.

#2. Someone tampered with the question forms? The person in charge of collecting and watching over the question forms was pro-establishment Lam Suen-Mo.

#3. The electors didn't know how to fill out a question form? When the electors entered the conference room, they were reminded that they can fill out question forms -- only their names and sub-sectors are required, and the question itself does not have to written down. So they couldn't find it too hard to understand.

#4. The pan-democratic camp mobilized but the pro-establishment camp did not? This is not known.

#5. The pro-establishment camp supported Carrie Lam silently? The more active electors are from the professional and political sub-sectors, whereas Carrie Lam's mainstay is in the Commercial and Industrial sub-sectors where the tycoons don't like filling out forms.

#6. Is it possible to review the question forms later? Yes, they were locked in a safe afterwards. If the organizing committee wishes, they can review the question forms.

- This is the last of the Chief Executive election forums. Woo Kwok Hing has fulfilled his historical mission and can now fade away. The Civic Party, the Democratic Party and the Professional Teachers Union have announced that all their votes will go to John Tsang. Previously the Civic Party had nominated Woo Kwok Hing, but he is now discarded just like the piece of toilet paper that you discard after wiping your arse.

What was his mission? It is counted by the minutes. If John Tsang and Carrie Lam were the only candidates, they would have shared equal time at the forums. With three candidates, they still shared three candidates, except two of the 'pro-democracy' candidates are ganging up on the third candidate. The number of minutes is now divided as 2:1.

The pan-democrats only had 327 votes on the Election Committee with 150 required for nomination. If they had 450 votes on hand, they would have nominated three candidates so that the number of minutes will be split as 3:1.

- (SCMP) Tsangs performance won a clear lead of support over Lam, according to a poll. Some 62 per cent of 717 respondents told HKUs public opinion programme that, if eligible to vote, they would vote for Tsang tomorrow after watching the debate, against 24 per cent for Lam.

- How can they conduct an instant poll so quickly? Let's check their methodology? (HKU POP) March 19, 2017.

There are two types of respondents, type 1 being citizens randomly selected by telephone survey during the forum, type 2 being citizens sampled before the forum and agreed to participate in the survey. Both types of citizens answered exactly the same questions, while the latter could choose to answer multiple times, in order to allow us analyse peoples response over different time periods.

Target population: Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or above who have listened or watched the CE Election forum

Sample size: 717 successful cases (type 1 sub-sample: 353; type 2 sub-sample: 364)

There are too many technical problems to enumerate here. As one example, when you make an appointment with a Type 2 respondent, you have effectively changed that person's behavior. Instead of going out to watch a movie, they stay home and watch the forum broadcast closely. As another example, you start calling Type 1 respondents when the forum starts at 7pm. At 7:01pm, you have reached the first respondent. Are you really going to ask for an opinion? But if you wait until the forum ends after some time after 9pm, it will be too late to call people.

- Here is an online poll at the Hong Kong Discussion Forum for the Electronic Media Forum held last week:

Whose performance were you most satisfied with?
39.8%: Carrie Lam
38.9%: John Tsang
16.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
 4.3%: None of the above
(Based: 5,432 persons)

This is just as useless as the HKU-POP poll. For further discussion of technical issues, see Pew Research Center.

- Here is an even more useless instant poll from pro-establishment HKG Pao. Who do the Leon Lai fans think is the greatest singer on the planet?
Who had the best performance at the Chief Executive election forum?
John Tsang: 247 votes
Carrie Lam: 2351 votes
Woo Kwok Hing: 33 votes

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.

A pro-democracy civil group has launched an unofficial referendum for the chief executive election to encourage electors to vote for candidates backed by the wider public. The public can vote using messaging app Telegram between Friday noon and March 19, or at three polling stations set up at universities on March 12 and 19. The project organised by the Citizens United in Action and led by law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting aims at attracting over a million participants.

Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate.

There is a reason to look at the net support rate we hope the new chief executive can mend the split in society, said legal sector elector Eric Cheung Tat-ming. If there is a candidate who, from a million voters, got 900,000 objection votes I believe this message may affect the central government or the pro-Beijing camp electors they would have to think about it again.

The poll also asks participants to answer if they support or oppose the existing model of electing the chief executive.

Cheung said if the number of participants was lower than a million, professionals from the University of Hong Kongs Public Opinion Programme and the Polytechnic Universitys Centre for Social Policy Studies will analysis the result to see how representative the poll was.

In 2012, a similar poll attracted 200,000 voters. The most popular option was abstention, which beat all three candidates. In 2014, a poll on political reform proposals had 800,000 participants.

The current project is also seeking to crowdfund HK$1.5 million to cover costs. It had received 32 per cent of the goal as of Friday.

The three polling stations:

University of Hong Kong student union near Haking Wong Building: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Polytechnic University V109-111: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Chinese University Yasumoto International Academic Park: March 12 between 10:30am and 6pm

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 14, 2017.

Frontline Tech Workers, a group of pro-democracy IT professionals, urged users not to use their number if it is used for confidential matters. Even if their number is not being used for confidential matters, the group urged users to temporarily suspend two-step verification when using the platform so that they would not need to give up their password. The group warned that if the system was being attacked, hackers may be able to obtain the verification codes and passwords for the Telegram accounts, and gain access to them. The system also did not automatically log users out of their Telegram sessions after they completed the nomination process. The function was added following criticism.

On Monday, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement saying that there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives for the collection of personal data. It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest, it read. The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.

In response, Citizens United in Action said in a statement: Although we have confidence in the security of our system, to reduce confusion among members of the public, we will suspend the nomination collection on PopVote. It said it will reopen the system only after the group contacts the commissioner to explain how they use collected data and understand the demands of the commissioner. The group apologised for any inconvenience caused.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 13, 2017.

The Polytechnic University has banned the operation of a polling station for the unofficial leadership election civil referendum on its campus. Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a University of Hong Kong law professor and one of the organisers of the poll, said Polytechnic University staff told its student union that they had no right to borrow a venue for other organisations. He said they pressured students, saying that there may be consequences. Tai said the organiser decided to cancel the station in order to avoid more unnecessary pressure upon students.

Tai said the reason for barring the use of the venue was strange considering that the polling stations at the other two universities were booked by their student unions. He said in the past similar civil polls have been conducted at the university in a smooth manner: Why is it problematic this time? The management of the Polytechnic University should explain.

The university said the organisers did not notify the school ahead of the event and stated that the student union and its affiliates can only book venues for events serving the universitys students. It added that it has communicated with the Centre for Social Policy Studies, saying that outside organisations borrowing venues would only be approved if the events were related to teaching and research.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 18, 2017.

Law professor Benny Tai appealed to the public on Friday to participate in the unofficial referendum on the chief executive election, two days before the campaign is scheduled to end. Over 42,000 people have joined the poll so far, according to the campaigns polling website. Tai, one of the poll organisers, said earlier that the project aims at attracting over a million participants.

Tai said at a media session on Friday that the low turnout might be explained by a number of factors, such as the shutting of the polling station at the Polytechnic University. He said people might also be concerned about online security, after some tech experts alleged that the campaigns previous online platform might have security loopholes. But Tai said the polling website is now safe to use.

Another reason for non-participation may be that some people do not support any of the candidates, Tai said. But our poll allows people to indicate opposition against each candidate, he said. If many people oppose a candidate, that would show the candidates lack of a democratic basis. It would help society campaign against that person in the future.

The professor said the polling exercise would also influence the voting decisions of some Election Committee members, who will be casting their ballots next Sunday. Among the 325 pro-democracy electors, 48 have promised to be bound by the unofficial referendum results and vote for the most popular candidate. The results will also serve as key reference to around 200 electors, Tai added.

If a lot of people participate, maybe even pro-establishment electors will reference the figures, he said. The actual election is very competitive and the candidates could be just a dozen votes apart. But no matter what the turnout is, Tai added, we will keep mobilising society and using our collective creativity to promote the democracy movement, until we attain genuine universal suffrage.

(SCMP) March 19, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was backed by 91.9 per cent of the votes in a mock ballot for the citys next leader, as those who do not have a say in the coming chief executive election got a last chance to cast their unofficial votes.

About 65,000 people had voted as the mock ballot closed on Sunday night, with 96.1 per cent of respondents also saying they opposed contender Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The number of votes was far short of the one million target set by organiser Citizens United in Action, led by Occupy Central founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting, since the exercise was launched on March 10.

Dr Chung Kim-wah, a political scientist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, believed the votes against front runner Carrie Lam would put pressure on the new administration. There would be no honeymoon for the new government, if Lam gets elected.

Meanwhile, Hong Kongs privacy watchdog on Sunday again warned of a security loophole in the mock ballot system. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data said it had preliminarily established that the organiser, when collecting voters personal data, had breached information security practices, after consulting related computer security experts and other professional organisations. [The office] has immediately asked the event organiser for an explanation, the office said. If [personal] information leaks, the organiser needs to be responsible for this.

Internet comments:

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. According to the Census and Statistics Department, the population of Hong Kong is 7,374,900. The 59,878 persons who voted in the Civil Referendum is 0.81% of the population. The pan-democrats took away the chance for one-person-one-vote, and now they want 0.81% to represent the 7.3 million. What kind of democracy is this? Who do you represent when you so decide?

In 2014, there was a spontaneously organized "Preserve Universal Suffrage, Oppose Occupy Central Grand Alliance" to gather signatures in the street. Over nine days, 1.82 million signatures were collected. This is the largest expression of public opinion in the history of Hong Kong, in which citizens wrote down their Hong Kong ID numbers and signed. The opposition scoffed and said the signatures were faked, unreliable, untrustworthy, and destined for the recycling bin.

By contrast, the 0.81% online voters are faceless entities who are making the Electors cast their votes for John Tsang. The opinion of the other 99.19% is irrelevant.

- (RTHK) 63,076 persons voted at the PopVote website, and another 1,829 voted at the street booths of March 18, 2017. The total number so far is 63,076 + 1,829 = 64,905. Missing is the number of physical notes on March 19, 2017.

Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. There are two summary statistics for the candidates.

(1) Support rate
92% support John Tsang
27% support Woo Kwok Hing
 1.5% support Carrie Lam

(2) Net support rate (= Support rate - Objection rate)
+87% net support John Tsang
-12% net support Woo Kwok Hing
-94% net support Carrie Lam

- Here is the "I am a genius" hindsight:

(#701 March 15, 2017) At this rate, PopVote will probably end up with something less than 100,000 votes with something like 98% approval for John Tsang, 30% approval for Woo Kwok-hing and less than 1% approval for Carrie Lam. Such results won't be accepted as legitimately reflecting the will of the people of Hong Kong.

-  No, buddy,  you were not perfect. You thought that non-Yellow Ribbons would never participate in this, which is why you estimated that Carrie Lam would get less than 1%. The actual number was 1.5%. There are Blue Ribbon fools who actually participated in this exercise because they want to help Carrie Lam!

- (RTHK) Even HKU-POP director Robert Chung agreed: "It is rare to see the net support rates of the two candidates differ by so much. Those who voted in the Civil Referendum were relatively opinionated, and do not necessarily represent the citizens as a whole."

- To show you how hard this was, that sort of consistent agreement don't even exist within many households! For example, the father supports Carrie Lam while the son supports John Tsang. What happened was the son voted for John Tsang at PopVote while the father completely ignored PopVote.

- Well, if Adolf Hitler were to come out to run for election in Germany again, I bet that he will get better than a -94% net support rate!

- This is like holding the best singer voting among Leon Lai fans. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.

- (RTHK) IT sector legislator councilor/elector Charles Mok said that the Civil Referendum has a certain degree of representativeness. He said that if you trust the results and obviously trend and you consult the many other public opinion polls conducted by the universities, there is sufficient information to make a decision.

- Charles Mok is right. The 60,000 voters have a certain degree of representativeness -- namely, they represent themselves.

- (BBC) June 30, 2014.

A total of 792,808 voters took part in an unofficial referendum on universal suffrage in Hong Kong, organisers said. The 10-day poll was held by protest group Occupy Central. Campaigners want the public to be able to elect Hong Kong's leader, the chief executive. The Hong Kong government says the vote has no legal standing.

The voting, in polling stations or on the popvote.hk website, began on 20 June. The deadline was originally set for 22 June, but was later extended after what organisers claimed were several cyber attacks on the website. Popvote.hk was designed by the University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University to measure support for Occupy Central's campaign.

What did they do to drive the number of participants down from 800,000 to 65,000?

- I know the answer: "It is always somebody else's fault."

- How did Benny Tai come up with a goal of 1,000,000 votes this time? He thought that if he can get 800,000 in June 2014, then he should be able to get 1,000,000 this time. Democracy is on the march, freedom is on the rise, etc. His self-esteem makes him think that Occupy Central is wildly popular. It was not. 79 days of hell of earth and not a single accomplishment to show.

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. On September 28, 2014, the opposition said that 200,000 persons came out to paralyze admiralty. More than two years later, all they could do was to obtain 60,000+ signatures from faceless entities. What happened to the other 140,000 Yellow Ribbon diehards?

The Civil Referendum project needed to raise $1.5 million through crowdfunding. So far they have raised $600,000. That seems a lot until you realized that $600,000 divided by 60,000 is $10 per person. Brother, can you really not spare a dime?

- You really don't get it, do you? The purpose of this whole exercise was never to run a civil referendum either as a guidance for the Election Committee members or an expression of the popular will of the people of Hong Kong. It was this:

The true purpose is one of two things, or both things. Firstly, it was to get people to part with their money (to the tune of $1.5 million) in order to support getting the 1,000,000 votes. Secondly, it was to use the crowdfunding to launder money from the big-money kind-hearted anonymous donor behind the curtain.

- Either they raised the $1.5 million or they didn't. If they did, how do they account for their inability to deliver anything close to the 1,000,000 votes? If they didn't, how do they explain the deficit gap was closed? Of course, you shouldn't lose any sleep over this, because the answer resides in the same black hole as Benny Tai's Occupy Central accounting ledger.

- If it costs $1.5 million to handle 1,000,000 votes, how much did it cost to handle 65,000 votes? Not as much. What happens to the leftover money? Benny Tai will 'pocket it temporarily' until the next big civil referendum project.

- They are blaming their inability to reach 1,000,000 on the usual suspects:

  • The Central Government/China Liaison Office ordered their minions not to participate;
  • Polytechnic University banned the polling station from campus;
  • DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks on the PopVote server;
  • Political interference by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data;
  • Unfounded rumors about the personal data being publicly available on the Internet;
  • Popular despair at a rigged election;

- In defense of the validity of 65,000+ number of votes, Yellow Ribbons are saying that most public opinion polls have sample sizes of only about 1,000, whether in Hong Kong or the United States (see the Gallup polls). If 1,000 is good enough, then 65,000 must be better. Right?

Wrong! The Gallup samples are drawn from the population in a random manner such that they are representative. The PopVote voters are not a random sample from the population at large, because of self-selection bias:  individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with nonprobability sampling.

Meanwhile, the PopVote polling stations are subjected to selection bias, because the organizers chose three university campuses: Hong Kong University, Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When the Polytechnic University station was shut down, they used the Professional Teachers Union office. And on the last day, they used a scattered locations manned by political parties. What sort of person is going to vote there? Why didn't they go to Golden Plaza (Sham Shiu Po) to sample other people?

- I was at Tai Koo Shing on Sunday, and I saw this Civic Party legislator canvassing votes with the chant: "Vote here if you want to stop CY 2.0." What kind of people do you think will vote?

- The oddest part is the role of the Democratic Party/Civic Party. On March 19, they manned a number of polling stations (see PopVote). But before the day was over and the results were published, the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and the Professional Teachers Union had already announced that they would cast all their votes for John Tsang. What was the point? Did they get a private preview of the results beforehand?

- It all loops back to the August 31st framework for constitutional reform.

Why do we have to resort to holding a civil referendum? Why can't we just have one-person-one-vote? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.

Why do not trust the election results? Because the Election Committee does not fairly and equally represent the people of Hong Kong. Why not? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.

- If we enacted the August 31st framework, we would have one-person-one-vote. There wouldn't be any need for a civil referendum -- we can just go down to the polling stations and vote on March 26th.

- There are 3.8 million registered voters in Hong Kong. Even if all of them voted in this civil referendum, it would mean nothing because the pan-democrats decided once upon a time that the best thing was to let the 1,200-person Election Committee have the vote.

- "Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate."

Why did PopVote ask the survey question this way? Because the whole exercise was rigged to inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam.

Most election-related surveys would ask a question such as: "If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow and you have the right to vote, whom would you vote for? John Tsang, Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing or None-of-the-above (=abstain)? (Choose one answer only)".

The likely answer would be something like: John Tsang 43%, Carrie Lam 37%, Woo Kwok Hing 10%, Abstain 10%. This is not going to give a clear mandate for John Tsang.

However, it was noted that John Tsang supporters really hate Carrie Lam, because the main reasons for supporting John Tsang were not because his policies were aligned with the pan-democrats but because of "John Tsang is the Lesser Evil," "Stop CY 2.0," "Stop Social Rift 2.0," "Slap The Bitch Nurse Amah Down", etc. Meanwhile Carrie Lam supporters don't harbor many personal feelings against John Tsang.

So using "net support rate" as the metric will inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam. Of course, many people realized this either from the identities of those involved in the operation (Benny Tai, Eric Cheung, etc) or the choice of survey questions, so they refused to participate.

Everything worked in favor of the design, but they were too successful, to the point where the survey has zero credibility now. How can Carrie Lam have a 40% support rate in public opinion polls but end up with a -94% net support rate in PopVote?

- (HKG Pao) March 19, 2017.

The gold standard for examining presidential job approval is (Gallup) "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [president's name] is handling his job as president?' (Gallup) Here are the approval rates from Harry S. Truman all the way through Donald Trump using the same question wording.

Do you think that they would ask the same question in Hong Kong? No. Instead they ask:

Please use a scale of 0-100 to rate your extent of support to the Chief Executive [name], with 0 indicating absolutely not supportive, 100 indicating absolutely supportive and 50 indicating half-half.
How would you rate the Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying?

Don't know him
Don't know
Refuse to answer

Then the arithmetic average value is reported as the 'rating of the Chief Executive.'

What is the difference? There are very few people who give a rating of 100 to CY Leung but there are many more who give a rating of 0. So using arithmetic mean instead of "Approve/disapprove" will drive the number down to make CY Leung a miserable failure.

In the United States, it would have been the same thing with Barack Obama. Very few people would consider him to be the perfect president with a 100 score. Many more people would give a 0 score to this Black Muslim Kenya-born illegitimate president.

If you take the raw data from HKU-POP and recode the data as "rating of 0-49" = "disapprove" and "rating of 50-100" as "approve", you will find CY Leung has about the same approval levels as Barack Obama.

Using a numerical rating as the approval/disapproval metric is undemocratic. It allows the extremists to have greater impact on the outcome, whereas the simple YES/NO question gives everybody the same weight.

Can you imagine an election in which each person is handed one hundred ballots to cast in any proportion among the candidates? There is a reason why it is not done anywhere in the world -- except Hong Kong.

- Hopefully this Civil Referendum will prove to be the ultimate referendum killer. Who dares to start yet another civil referendum with a multi-million-dollar crowdfunding goal to obtain useless results?

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2017.

Beginning on Monday, the Hong Kong Police received threatening emails.

On March 13, the message was: I know that  there may be a bomb anytime near a police station. IP host address: Texas, USA

On March 14, the message was: Be careful! There may be a bomb anytime near a police station, because the police are too bad. IP host address: Massachusetts, USA

On March 15, the message was: So the police was so fucking useless. They are turtles hiding inside their shells. Gutless. They are better off dead. They can't even solve one case. IP host address: Singapore

On March 16, the message was: There may be a bomb at some police station on Saturday. Because the police are so bad, they must receive a lesson.

According to an internal police whatsapp message, "Everybody has been notified by email that someone has claimed to place a bomb at a police station. No target was explicitly given. The PSUC members have been told to pay attention to suspicious objects and persons."

(Oriental Daily with video) March 18, 2017.

The Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau (CSTCB) took over the investigation of the email bombs threats. The Hong Kong Police clarified that the perpetrator was not  using email; instead they were leaving messages at the electronic reporting service at the Hong Kong Police website.

Early morning today, the police arrested a 24-year-old woman named Wong at an apartment on Woosung Street, Yau Ma Ti district, Kowloon on suspicion of issuing bomb hoaxes. During the action, the police took away one mobile phone, one computer and one router. The police have not discovered any explosive equipment.

Internet comments:

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 28 Bomb hoaxes

(1) Any person who

(a) places any article or substance in any place whatever; or
(b )dispatches any article or substance by post, rail, sea, air or any other means whatever of sending things from one place to another,

with the intention of inducing some other person to believe that it is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing him or any other person to believe that a bomb or other article, substance or thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) For a person to be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it shall not be necessary for him to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom he intends to induce the belief mentioned in those subsections.

(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $150,000 and to imprisonment for 5 years.

- Don't count on Ms. Wong being convicted. There was a precedent during Occupy Central -- when two people live in the same apartment, which one sent the email bomb threat? Because the prosecution had no conclusive proof one way or the other, the defendant got the benefit of doubt and was freed. Let us hope that Ms. Wong does not live by herself.

- Ms. Wong must think that she is a computer genius because she can use a proxy service to fake the IP host as Texas, Massachusetts or Singapore at will. Unfortunately, the police can ask the proxy service to provide the real IP address and then ask the Internet Service Provider to provide the exact physical geographical address. Given that the police found only one mobile phone, one computer and one router, Ms. Wong must be the sole user at that address. All in all, she is in deep trouble now.

- A real computer genius would have gone down to Apliu Street, Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon to buy a second-hand mobile phone and a prepaid phone card to be destroyed/discarded immediately after use in a back alley with no surveillance camera or in the toilet partition of a large shopping mall.

- I suspect that the first line of defense would be that some unknown hacker broke into her computer system and sent all those messages.

- According to Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous), we should not be thinking about Ms. Wong or what she did. Instead, we should be reflecting deeply on the faults of this government that are forcing people like Ms. Wong to take such desperate measures.

- According to unconfirmed rumors, Ms. Wong held a grudge about the police because of how they handled a case in which she was the victim.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 19, 2017. At around 7pm on Mrach 17, the police received information about a claim that bombs have been placed at Government Headquarters in Admiralty and the Sogo Department Store in Causeway Bay to be detonated at 930pm. The police dispatched officers to the locations and conducted searches. In order to avoid public panic, the bomb squads were not immediately dispatched. The police were unable to find anything.

- The police were negligent when they refuse to send in the bomb squads. If the bombs actually exploded, what excuse will they have? They should have shut down Admiralty and Causeway Bay until after 930pm.

- The police should reflect on their regular conduct to see what they done to deserve bomb hoaxes. The intended victims should do so as well. While we know that the Hong Kong Communist Government is the target of valiant resistance, the role of Sogo has been underrates previously and merits re-evaluation. On one hand, Sogo is a magnet for mainland tourist shoppers, and its total destruction could deter mainlanders from coming to Hong Kong. On the other hand, Sogo was a famous Japanese department store. If the independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need Japanese military intervention to defend itself against China, we can't very well blow up their flagship landmark here.

- No, Japan's Sogo went bankrupt and the Sogo Department Store in Hong Kong is owned and operated by Lifestyle International headed by Thomas Lau. Trust me, you don't want to mess with the Lau brothers ...

More at Occupy Central Part 8

More at:

Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5 (401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)

Occupy Central Part 8 (701-)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com