[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) April 22, 2017.

More than 300 people took to the streets a month after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was elected Hong Kongs next leader, reiterating their call for genuine universal suffrage and urging Lam to reopen the sealed-off Civic Square in a bid to bridge social divides.

We are here to reiterate the principles we stand for, legislator Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats said, ahead of the march. In order to achieve so-called reconciliation, Hongkongers should be able to enjoy the right to universal suffrage as enjoyed by people in every democratic country.

Demosisto lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who was also an Occupy student activist, blamed the citys social conflicts on the widening wealth gap, political suppression and the government-business-landlord-triad collusion a long-time allegation made by lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick.

Without concrete actions to address these problems, [Lams pledge] to mend the rift would only be empty words, Law said.

The marchers also urged the government to stop what they called political persecution of pan-democrat lawmakers, referring to its attempt to disqualify four more Legislative Council members over improper oath-taking. The protest was led by a number of political and civil rights groups, and was attended by all major pan-democratic parties. Civil Human Rights Front convenor Au Nok-hin yesterday said Lam should reopen the Civic Square the east wing forecourt at the governments Tamar headquarters if she really hoped to mend social rifts. The Front will try to obtain approval to hold a rally on July 1, said Au, referring to the annual pro-democracy march on the anniversary of the citys handover. If Lam refuses to let us hold a rally at Civic Square, then she should stop shedding crocodile tears.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) The police said that 150 persons started the march. The peak number was 320 persons.

- Previously the organizers gave an estimate of 800 marchers. When asked whether the turnout was disappointing, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung said that the number was what he expected. If he thought that there would only be 300 before, then why did he say 800?

- (Cable TV News) The procession included Legislative Councilors Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party), Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party) Claudia Mo, Leung Kwok-hung, Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai. With such a stellar cast, the total turnout was still 300. Chu Hoi Dick got 84,121 persons to vote for him in the Legislative Council election in September 2016. Where have they gone now?

- And they won't tell you about the funniest part of the whole event. Here are the pieces that you can put together for yousself.

(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. When the demonstration reached the building in which the Chief-Executive-elect's office was housed, the demonstrators wanted to hand over certain materials that were sarcastic about '777' . However, the worker at the Chief Executive-elect's office refused to accept the material. The demonstrators gradually dispersed peacefully.

[How stupid can you get? The Chief Executive-elect rented an office inside a commercial office building. This is a Sunday. The building and all the offices are closed for business. So if they march down there, there is no one in the Chief Executive-elect's office at all. The demonstrators marched to the building and then the security guard told them that everything is closed on Sunday. That was all.]

(Resistance Live Media @YouTube)

2:28 Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats chairman): There is no need to make an appointment. Is anyone going to accept this '777 Small Circle Election'? Anyone?
2:44 Security guard: You want someone to take this?
2:45 Avery Ng: I can tell you that she is not there. This one, this one, this one, this one. This is a letter.
2:55 Security guard (turns around and leaves because he expected to receive a letter but this prop was just kindergarten games)
2:55 Avery Ng: Why don't you want it? He doesn't want it. (throws the prop on the ground) Leave it there. Everybody, she says "Reconciliation". She ordered ... if Carrie Lam sees a man and a woman, then then it is not acceptable. But everything else is okay. If she says that she will accept it, she will accept it. If she says that she won't accept it, she won't accept it. She is not accepting it, so it will be left here. Everybody can see that this new Chief Executive is so petty-minded. She is so very rude. She won't accept anything ...

[The demonstrators want Carrie Lam to come out on a Sunday outside her office to accept an black cardboard display with the numbers '777', her own photo and the words 'circle'. With due respect, this is a waste of time for Carrie Lam, the demonstrators and the media entourage.

The cardboard prop contains no information whatsoever, nothing about anything substantive such as demands for universal suffrage, maximum working hours, universal retirement protection, etc. It is simply a way to humiliate Carrie Lam.

And when the office turned out to be unmanned on a Sunday, the demonstrators said that this proves Carrie Lam is rude, haughty and petty-minded for not accepting their 'letter.']

[(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. On the way, a dissident approached the group and started to scold legislator Leung Kwok-hung who was leading the parade. The group stopped as the two yelled at each other. The police had to mediate.

Of course, what the dissident said is never reported by the media. Wouldn't you like to know sometimes? Isn't this more interesting that the 777 Small Circle prop?

Well, if you want to know, the man said that Leung Kwok-hung should hand back his public housing apartment unit for other needy persons since Leung makes $95,000 a month. Leung said that the man was misrepresenting the facts. Now wouldn't you want to know which facts are being misrepresented? That Leung makes $95,000 a month?]

Q2. Do you support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong?
64.1%: Yes
31.5%: No
  4.4%: No opinion

Q3. What is the main reason why you don't support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q2)
27.1%: No need
39.1%: Too expensive
26.7%: Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close
 4.2%: Other
 2.8%: No opinion

Q4. The Express Rail Link will become operational in 2018. If you want to go to mainland China then, would you choose to take the Express Rail Link?
56.2%: Yes
28.3%: No
15.5%: Undecided

Q5. Have you ever crossed into mainland China through the Shenzhen Bay border-crossing point?
70.6%: Yes
24.9%: No
 4.5%: Can't remember

Q6. Right now the discussion is about a single immigration checkpoint for passengers. That is to say, immigration procedures for Hong Kong and mainland China will be handled at the same location as it is at Shenzhen Bay. Can you accept this in Hong Kong?
62.5%: Yes
32.4%: No
 5.2%: No opinion

Q7. What is the main reason why you accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "Yes" in Q6)
 9.2%: Attracts tourists to come to Hong Kong
85.1%: Speeds up the immigration/customs process
 3.6%: Other reasons
 2.0%: No opinion

Q8. What is the main reason why you won't accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q6)
 1.4%: No need
 7.2%: Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally
49.6%: Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong
37.1%: Destroys One Country Two Systems
 3.3%: Other
 1.3%: No opinion

Q9. Did you travel to mainland China within the past year?
79.7%: Yes
18.1%: No
 2.2%: Cannot remember

Internet comments:

- Background (SCMP) May 21, 2015.

Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities have yet to agree on allowing mainland immigration officials to work at the cross-border high-speed railway terminus in West Kowloon but believe the matter can be resolved, the city's justice minister said.

The issue of how these officials can enforce mainland laws in the city without breaching the Basic Law arose during talks between Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and mainland officials in Shenzhen yesterday.

He expressed confidence the matter would be resolved by the end of 2017, when the long- delayed link is scheduled to open.

Speaking after the meeting, Yuen reiterated that both sides had agreed a single immigration checkpoint for passengers should be created, instead of checkpoints at each side of the border.

The two governments do not want checkpoints to be set up on each side of the border, as it would lengthen train journeys and defeat the purpose of building the express railway link to Guangzhou.

- Why don't the opponents want the Express Rail Link?

27.1% "No need"? That's fair enough -- if you don't need it, you don't need it. That's all.

39.1% "Too expensive"? The money has been mostly spent already. It will cost more not to complete the project and start using it.

26.7% "Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close"? Those Chinese Communists can come down by air, sea and land (train, bus, private vehicle and even walking) already. If they want to come, they will come anyway.

Why don't opponents want to accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link?

 1.4% "No need"? If they mean that there is no need for immigration/customs control at all, then it should be eliminated for other entry methods as well. So they mean that there should be separate checkpoints, one at the West Kowloon terminal and another at the Shenzhen border. The result is that it will be faster to reach Guangzhou from Hong Kong through the regular Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train.

7.2% "Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally"? They are using the same procedures as at the other border control checkpoints, so it won't be easier or harder.

49.6% "Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong"? What do you think of the presence of the People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong? Do their wild beer parties keep you from sleeping at night? Do they molest the local girls? What are you afraid of?

37.1% "Destroys One Country Two Systems"? How so? One Country Two Systems is a constitutional principle that is implemented through the Basic Law. If you think so, then the Shenzhen Bay Control Point is already doing co-location clearance. Has One Country Two Systems been destroyed so far?

 (West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Report on the Key Findings of the Public Consultation Exercise on the Hong Kong Palace Museum Project

An independent consulting firm (the Consumer Search Group, the Consultation Consultant) was commissioned by WKCDA to provide data collection and analysis services for the public consultation process.

The public opinion poll collected and analyzed the opinions from the general public in order to understand the similarities and differences of their views on the HKPM project and provide information for WKCDAs reference in the deliberation of the project development.

The public opinion poll covered the Hong Kong resident population aged 15 or above. Quota sampling was adopted to ensure that the enumerated samples could represent an appropriate composition of the target population. The quota was set with reference to the corresponding population figures as at the third quarter of 2016 provided by the Census and Statistics Department, including (i) age, (ii) gender, (iii) highest educational attainment and (iv) working status.

A total of 1,805 respondents were successfully enumerated in 18 locations with major traffic junctions, transport hubs and landmarks in Hong Kong1 , covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, between 28 February and 7 March 2017 via on-street face-to-face interviews.

The fieldwork locations included

i. four (4) sampling points on the Hong Kong Island (Smithfield Market in Sai Wan, Wan Chai MTR station, Tai Koo Shing Aeon, Aberdeen Centre);

ii. five (5) sampling points in Kowloon (Mong Kok Soy Street, Carpenter Road Park in Kowloon City, Kwun Tong Yue Man Square, Sham Shui Po MTR station, Wong Tai Sin MTR station);

iii. four (4) sampling points in New Territories East (Shatin Market, Tai Po Centre, Sheung Shui Shek Wu Hui Market, Po Lam MTR station); and

iv. five (5) sampling points in New Territories West (Tung Chung MTR station, Tsuen Wan Lo Tak Court, Kwai Fong MTR station, Tuen Mun Yan Oi Tong, Kolour Yuen Long).

To correct the potential bias as introduced by the incidence of non-response and non-contact cases, all information collected was properly weighted by age group (15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 or above), gender (male and female) and highest educational attainment (primary or below, secondary and post-secondary or above) in accordance with the corresponding Hong Kong population figures of persons aged 15 or above as at the third quarter of 20162 (i.e. N = 6 143 600 in total).

Key Analysis and Opinions

General awareness of the proposed HKPM project was high with more than four-fifths of the (81.2%) general public being aware of the proposed HKPM project

Supporting views towards HKPM project exceeded opposing views by a big margin. About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.

The key reasons for those in supporting this project (52.0%) evolved around strengthening the ties between Hong Kong and China; establishment of a new attraction and its impact on the tourism industry; and the macro benefits that it would bring to Hong Kong14 . Specifically,

Nearly a quarter (25.2%) believed the HKPM would offer good educational value and could facilitate the learning and understanding of Hong Kong and China, particularly the history (11.1%), culture (10.5%) and cultural relics (3.3%);

8.2% of them believed that the HKPM would become a new attraction in Hong Kong and a good place to go for leisure; the development of the HKPM would attract more tourists to Hong Kong (7.8%); visitors could conveniently enjoy and see the artefacts from the renowned Palace Museum in Hong Kong (5.1%).

Nearly three-fifths (58.3%) of the general public agreed with the statement that this project would provide the WKCD visitors a more diverse range of cultural facilities and experience.

Almost half (49.9%) of them agreed that this project would be beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole, bringing cultural, social and economic benefits; and

4.7% of them expected the project to bring about social and economic benefits to Hong Kong; and

Additionally, a few (0.1%) had mentioned that this world-class museum would uplift Hong Kongs overall international stature.

However, those general public who opposed the HKPM project (14.7%) were more concerned with the resources spent in building the museum (4.9%), and the lack of public consultation (2.4%) than establishing the HKPM itself15 . Nevertheless, their key opposition against establishing the HKPM could mainly be categorized into three aspects:

The role of the HKPM amongst existing Hong Kong museums 1.6% of the general public stated that there were already a lot of museums in Hong Kong; of which, some were considered to be of similar nature (0.8%);

The appropriateness to build the HKPM in Hong Kong 2.3% of the general public stated that people could simply and easily go to Beijing to visit the Palace Museum if they would like to enjoy the exhibits and artefacts; and

The appropriateness to build the HKPM within WKCD 1.5% of the general public were not supporting building the HKPM within WKCD.

Internet comments:

- The main finding in the WKCD Authority report is this:

About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.

Got it? Here is how it was reported in South China Morning Post:

Overall public opinion is split on the decision to build Hong Kongs version of the Palace Museum in the citys art hub, according to the findings of a consultation released to a panel on Friday.

Overall public opinion is split on the decision to build Hong Kongs version of the Palace Museum in the citys art hub, according to the findings of a consultation released to a panel on Friday.

In the [face-to-face citywide] interviews, 52 per cent of respondents were supportive of the palace project, with 48 per cent either opposed to the plan or having no opinion.

- Why wasn't it written as: Opposition to HKPM is small -- In the interviews, 15% opposed the palace project, with 85 percent either supportive to the plan or having no opinion?

- In December 2015, Public Policy Opinion interviewed 532 Republic primary voters in the United States.

Q38. Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?

30%: Support bombing Agrabah
13%: Oppose bombing Agrabah
57%: Not sure

Will this be reported by SCMP as: "Overwhelming support to bomb Agrabah: only 13% opposed"?

[Note: Agrabah is the fictional nation portrayed in the Disney movie Aladdin.]

- (Reuters) July 25, 2016.

About one in six people in Hong Kong want the special administrative region of China to become independent of the mainland, a university poll has shown, although few think it will ever happen.

According to the poll, released on Sunday, 17.4 percent somewhat supported or strongly supported independence for Hong Kong when its 50-year "one country, two systems" agreement, under which it is governed by Beijing, expires in 2047.

Another 22.9 percent were ambivalent, according to the poll, which was conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey. Another 57.6 percent were somewhat or strongly against the idea.

Why wasn't this reported as: "17.4% were supportive of Hong Kong independence, with 80.5 per cent either opposed or having no opinion" la SCMP?

- 33.3% have no opinion on the West Kowloon Palace Museum? At least they are honest about not knowing or caring enough. Most people don't know much about the project now, either in terms of culture or economics, although that has not stopped some of them from offering their opinions. And most people are not going to bother to learn about the project either. They are not going to have an informed opinion until years after it is built (if ever). Are you going to let them make the decision now in the name of democracy?

- Here is another controversial issue: Organ donations by Under 18's. Let's conduct yet another poll of the Hong Kong general public to gauge their expert medical opinions on the risk-benefit tradeoffs for donors and recipients. You can argue for either YES or NO just as effectively because you can lump the 80+% "Don't know/Not sure/No opinion" on your side of the argument.

- (SCMP) Tanya Chan Suk-chong, a lawmaker who is in the same subcommittee, said however that she was not convinced by the consultation results. Given that the project seems a foregone conclusion with everything already in place, including Rocco Yim as the architect, the support figure of 52 per cent in the opinion poll is surprisingly low, Chan said. There is also a problem with the consultation: it did not ask the key question of whether the citys version of the Palace Museum should be built at all.

- So the key question is not whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. It is whether the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ or not?

- (West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Apart from the face-to-face interviews, data were also collected through three other channels -- 623 paper questionnaires were distributed and completed at the City Gallery exhibition; 905 online questionnaires completed at the WKCDA website; and 54 written submissions. The paper questionnaire only covered those who visited the City Gallery exhibition, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The online questionnaires only covered those who visited the WKCDA website by chance or told by others to visit the WKDCA website, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The written submissions came from a total of 119 individuals/associations/bodies, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The face-to-face interviews come closest to represent the entire population.  The other channels are of interest only to the extent that they present certain insights and views.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 21, 2017.

Police have arrested a man on suspicion of making threats towards a football match between the champions of the Hong Kong and the Chinese leagues next Tuesday.

The 31-year-old was arrested on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent for comments he made online about the Asian Champions League match between Eastern and Guangzhou Evergrande.

In a press conference on Thursday, chief inspector Paul Wong Tak-choi said the police received a public complaint about online speech that allegedly threatened the game at Mong Kok Stadium. It includes [threats] of violence against people coming to watch the match, and even arson, he added.

The man was arrested in the Jordan area on Thursday morning. His residence in Chai Wan was also searched, reported Apple Daily.

(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.

At 8pm next Tuesday, Hong Kong Eastern will host Guangzhou Evergrande at Mong Kok Stadium in an AFC Champions League Group G match. Eastern had previously declared on February 13-14 that all tickets have been sold out. This caused Hong Kong fans to be upset, because they think that the visiting team had bought up all the tickets so that they will have more fans at the stadium than the home team!

One Internet user declared that if the visiting team fans are the majority, "then I will cause trouble outside the stadium, including assaulting the other fans and setting fire to their team uniforms even if I have to go to jail." The Mong Kong Police District Crime Investigation Department has arrested a 31-year-old man named Lee in the Jordan District on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent.

According to information, Eastern plays three matches in AFC Champions League matches at home: on March 1 against the Kawasaki Frontale; on March 14 against the Suwon Samsung Bluewings; on April 25 against Guangzhou Evergrande. The tickets are either 3-game sets ($480 regular price; $200 special discounts) or single-game ($180 regular price; $80 special discounts). Sales began at 10am on February 14 via Internet, telephone and box office. Each person can purchase at most 2 single-game tickets or 2 3-game ticket sets.

(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.

Eastern general manager Leung Shou-chi said that the Asian Football Confederation stipulates that the tickets be divided in the ratio of 94% for the home team and 6% for the visiting team. For next Tuesday team, the visiting team Guangzhou Evergrande has asked for about 350 tickets. The Hong Kong Football Association asked for about 1,000 tickets. The home team players and other insiders asked for about 1,000 tickets. The remaining 3,000 tickets were sold to the general public.

The visiting team's fans will have the words "visitor" stamped on their tickets, and they will enter the stadium through a special entrance. The home team fans must show their Hong Kong ID's in order to be admitted to the home team fans' area in the stadium.

Leung Shou-chi pointed out that a typical Hong Kong professional soccer game is watched by a few hundred spectators. At their best, Eastern can draw only 1,000 players. This year, Eastern is playing in the AFC Champions League and their three home games are all sold out. In February this year, Eastern was the visiting team in Guangzhou. The stadium had a capacity of 60,000. But not many Hong Kong fans wanted to go to Guangzhou, so Eastern asked only for about 400 tickets.

Why didn't Eastern use the larger Hong Kong Stadium instead? Leung Shou-chi explained that they would have to play in that stadium for all three matches under Asian Football Confederation rules. Last month, the Hong Kong Stadium hosted the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens, which could not be stopped to make way for these soccer games.

As for the fan who was arrested for threatening physical violence and arson, Leung Shou-chi said: "If some people couldn't get tickets for the Mayday concert, do you think that they should go and burn the Hung Hom Coliseum down?"

Internet comments:

- Round 1 result: (SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Chan Yuen-ting said she was hoping to learn a lot as she became the first woman to manage a team in the AFC Champions League quite what she and her Eastern team took away from a brutal 7-0 humbling across the Pearl River Delta in Guangzhou only they will know.

If dont concede a penalty and have a man sent off in the first three minutes when youre playing a team worth at least 10 times yours was lesson one, lesson two might have been furthermore, dont have another man sent off with almost an hour still to play.

Chan and Eastern and likely the majority of Hong Kong football fans given that the opposition was from the mainland had been hoping for a similar brave, backs-to-the-wall performance as that delivered by the Hong Kong national team in their two World Cup qualifiers against China in 2015.

On those nights, almost everything went right for Hong Kong. In Tianhe Stadium, in front of 38,000 and against Brazilian World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolaris expensively-assembled six-times-in-succession Chinese champions, everything went wrong, immediately.

We have learned a very valuable lesson today, insisted Chan, just 28 and the first woman ever to coach a team to a title in a mens professional league.

Of course losing the game is a very big disappointment, but we learned we need to adjust our mentality as soon as possible [to compete in the Champions League].

After the red card everything changed, all our tactics and plans had to be changed. And in a competition like this the pace is quite different from that we encounter in Hong Kong its our debut and naturally well make mistakes.

Ricardo Goulart got Guangzhou off the mark after Wong Tsz-ho was sent off from one of Guangzhous first attacks, Australian referee Christopher Beath judging he had used his hand rather than his head in clearing a goal-bound shot off the line.

Chans plan to frustrate Guangzhou and their 40 million-worth of Brazlian talent was thus torn up and out the window with her players barely warmed up. To their credit, they held out for nearly another 20 minutes despite incessant pressure.

Wang Shangyuan added the second from close-range after Eastern goalkeeper Yapp Hung-fai failed to divert a corner to safety, and moments later, Guangzhou won another penalty; Goulart surprisingly let compatriot Alan take this one, and Yapp saved.

Liao Lisheng did make it 3-0 just after the half-hour, tapping in after Goulart waltzed through Easterns defence and squared the ball across the six-yard box for him, and with Eastern praying for half-time it got even worse.

Wong Chi-chung brought down Alan on the edge of the box and if that looked harsh, the referees decision to show him a second yellow was even tougher but Eastern were down to nine.

With Guangzhou on a 3 million yuan bonus for every goal scored there was no danger of them letting up.

The second half was little more than a nice extension to Guangzhous pre-season in this their first competitive match, an interesting training exercise with Scolaris side essentially playing 2-4-4 and Eastern desperately trying to keep them at bay.

Liao added another immediately after the restart, Alan made it five with a stunning long-range strike, Wang too got a second, and former Tottenham midfielder Paulinho ensured all the Brazilians got on the scoresheet with another fine strike for the seventh.

"Hero" Yapp Hung-fai's game statistics: 29 shots at goal, 7 goals allowed.


- AFC Champions League Group G results

22-02-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 1, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
22-02-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC 7, Eastern SC 0

01-03-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 2, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 2
01-03-2017: Eastern SC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 1

14-03-2017: Eastern SC 0, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
14-03-2017: Guangzhou FC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 1

12-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 5, Eastern SC 0
12-04-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 0, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 0

25-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings, Kawasaki Frontale
25-04-2017: Eastern SC, Guangzhou Evergrande FC

09-05-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC, Suwon Samsung Bluewings
09-05-2017: Kawasaki Frontale, Eastern SC

- Why the emphasis on the freedom of speech issue or why criminalizing "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent" is bad? Why not ask what is wrong with Mr. Lee? Where did he get the information that Evergrande bought up most of the tickets for its fans to take away Eastern's home field advantage?

(Ming Pao) April 18, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposes that the new Chief Executive Carrie Lam used her powers to grant a special amnesty to all participants in Occupy Central as well as the Seven Policemen and retired police superintendent Franklin Chu.

In a special Ming Pao interview, Wu Chi-wai said that Carrie Lam must take concrete actions to mend social divisions. He recommends that Lam establishes a special group to conduct an in-depth investigation into the causes of Occupy Central and then take measures to mend the social divisions accordingly. Wu recommended Lam to exercise her powers under Basic Law Article 38 to grant amnesty to all persons convicted during Occupy Central, including the seven policemen, Franklin Chu and the Occupy Central participants. He said: "The social conflicts in Hong Kong were caused by the political system. Therefore it will take political action to mend the social divisions."

Wu Chi-wai emphasized that this recommendation falls with the realm of Hong Kong autonomous rule, and therefore the Central Government does not have to be consulted. "These recommendations will let Mrs. Lam show her ideas of governance. For her, it means that the social divisions can be healed and the citizens can rebuilt their confidence for her. The social atmosphere will improve when that time comes."

(TVB) April 18, 2017.

In the evening, the Democratic Party met. Afterwards Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said: "It was clearly an idea that was not well thought through, because I did not speak to my Democratic Party colleagues in detail. I did not anticipate the reaction in society about the proposal. Here I have to apologize deeply over this affair. I will now take this opportunity to formally retract my statement about how the Chief Executive can exercise the power of Basic Law Article 48 to pardon all those who participated in Occupy Central."

Internet comments:

- Basic Law Article 48

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

(12) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties

Please read this carefully. The persons have to be first convicted of criminal offences and given penalties before they can be pardoned. They cannot be pardoned before they stand trial.

- At this time, nine persons have been charged for participation in and/or incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central (Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 11). This is out of 48 who were previously arrested by the police. These nine cannot be pardoned until as such time when they are tried in court, convicted and given penalties. The remaining 39 will have to be charged first and go through the same process. Police superintendent Franklin Chu is in a similar situation as the 39.

- By contrast, the Seven Evil Policemen were charged, convicted, sentenced to two years in prison and serving their terms now. They can be released immediately. [Note: They have appealed their sentences, so their cases are not done yet unless they stop their appeals.] I would like to see how pan-democrats react when Carrie Lam announced that she accepts this solution and immediately orders the release of the Seven Evil Policemen while the cases of the Occupy Central leaders wind through the courts over the years.

- Wu Chi-wai was an Occupy Central participant himself. He was the lone pan-democratic legislator who surrendered to the police together with the Occupy Central trio. Isn't it a conflict of interest to push for a general amnesty that covers oneself?

- (SCMP) April 22, 2017. Leung, who was on an RTHK radio programme on Saturday morning, said he had considered his power to call for an amnesty amid public debate on the issue. He did not refer to specific cases but said: They are still under legal proceedings, which could not be intervened by the chief executive and the administration.

- (Oriental Daily) How often has the Chief Executive exercised his powers under Basic Law Article 48 in the past? According to information provided by the Department of Security to the Legislative Council, there were 98 instances during 2012-2016 in which Chief Executive CY Leung pardoned prisoners who had been convicted and serving

Of these 98 instances, 58 were sentence reductions based upon recommendations by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board for persons who were sentenced to more than 10 years in jail or were under age 21 at the time of committing their crimes.

Another 31 cases were based upon recommendations of medical experts that the prisoner's life is at risk in jail or that the prisoner has a terminal ailment such that his life expectation is less than his jail term.

Another 9 cases were based upon the commendations of the Department of Justice that the prisoners had been helpful to the prosecution of certain cases.

However, the Chief Executive will not exercise the pardon power until as such time as the judicial process is complete.

- (SCMP) "Robber King" Yip Ki-foon was serving his sentence of 41 years when he died from cancer at the hospital. He did not receive a pardon in consideration of his medical condition.

- (Basic Law Article 63) The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

This means that the Chief Executive cannot order the Department of Justice to stop the prosecution of Occupy Central participant or police superintendent Franklin Chu.

- (Ming Pao) also quotes an unnamed pan-democratic legislator. This person supports an amnesty for those persons who were charged with crimes during the 79 days of Occupy Central, including the participants as well as police officers. However, this should not include those who were arrested during the Mong Kok riot because violent acts such as throwing bricks should be opposed.

- Bwaaahhh! Very simply put, this is a case of the traditional pan-democrats trying to cut a deal with Carrie Lam while cutting loose the Localists.

- Hey, during Occupy Central, they refused to talk to Chief Executive CY Leung because they said that the man was not elected democratically. Now they want to cut a deal with CY Leung's successor Carrie Lam who was elected under the same system? If you refuse to acknowledge her authority, then you reject her ability to exercise pardons under Basic Law Article 48.

- All persons convicted in actions related to Occupy Central? I am afraid that the pan-democrats don't want to include Ng "Capone" Ting-pong, who was convicted of assaulting three off-duty police officers in Admiralty Centre and sentenced to 10 months in jail.

- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, district judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the sentence needed to remind young people that they will pay a heavy price if they break the law. But immediately afterwards, we find out that the court verdict can be overturned by an amnesty! How are teachers and parents ever going to convince young people not to riot? Whatever you tell them, they are simply going to say: "There will be an amnesty even if convicted in court!"

- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) The idea of an amnesty should be put away. Political parties should not be interfering with court cases that are already in court. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

- The pan-democrats can't say that violent crimes cannot be pardoned, because the seven policemen were convicted of common assault. There is no deal if the pan-democrats say that all non-violent criminals (namely, themselves) should be pardoned whereas all violent criminals won't be.

- Do Chan's Facebook

I have to ask myself: What would if I do if the deal is about the release of Chan Pak-yeung, Yeung Ka-lun, Cheng Kam-mun and others?

What I want is justice. Cheng Kam-mun, Chan Pak-yeung and Yeung Ka-lun should be declared innocent and released. The Seven Policemen and Franklin Chu should be going to jail. Therefore what I want is not an swap, not any special amnesty. I want a fair and just society. I know what I say is quite cruel. But if I don't have any principles, then why do I have left?

- The pan-democrats have no intention of including Chan Pak-yeung (convicted of assaulting a police officer) and Yeung Ka-lun (convicted of rioting and arson) in their deal.

The case of Cheng Kam-mun is arguably part of Occupy Central, because he was convicted of contempt of court when he refused to leave during the clearance of Occupy Mong Kok. Vacating a contempt of court conviction is just about the most overt attack on rule-of-law.

- Leung Yat-long's Facebook

The Civic Party was known to have voted three different candidates in the Chief Executive election. Now a Civic Party member (Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu) is voting two different ways at the same time.

On one hand, Alvin Yeung says: "The special amnesty is not a political swap. It should not turn rule-of-law into rule-of-man. The Great Reconciliation cannot be accomplished just by the government not seeking further criminal responsibility."

On the other hand, Alvin Yeung says: "If the new administration offers an unconditional amnesty, it will mean that greatest sincerely of the new administration towards Hong Kong, with the hope that the divisions over the past two years can be let go."

So Alvin Yeung is placing bets on both sides. Mr. Yeung, do you support or not support a special amnesty?

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017. Civic Party leader, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, initially backed Wus suggestion when he was asked by Ming Pao. But facing pressure from party colleagues, including Tanya Chan, he backtracked, saying Wus remarks were rushed. I am sorry if my words have caused any misunderstanding. I disagree that the rule of law could be used for any political exchange. Yeung told the Post. He said the best way for the government to achieve reconciliation was by launching a political reform consultation without any conditions.

- (HKG Pao) April 18, 2017.

When the original Ming Pao report came out at 8am, it drew about 196 ANGRY's, 20 LIKE's, 18 SMILE's and 8 WOW's. All 58 comments were critical of Wu Chi-wai and the pan-democrats.

Two hours later, Ming Pao published Wu Chi-wai's explanation of his proposal. Within 2 hours, there were 250 ANGRY's. The 91 comments were all against Wu Chi-wai and his proposal.

Clearly this proposal to swap hostages was not even supported by Ming Pao's Yellow Ribbon readers.

Here are some of those comments:

- How did the Democratic Party get to represent the pan-democrats? You should tell Wu Chi-wai to go and eat shit!

- Everybody should accept responsibility for what they did under the law. This is rule-of-law. When it's right, it's right; when it's wrong, it's wrong.

- Participating in a riot, throwing glass bottles and bricks at people and setting fires to taxis are criminal acts that should be punished. So is assaulting a handcuffed person in a dark corner. Saying the crimes can nullify each other in an amnesty is reckless disregard of rule-of-law.

- Has the Democratic Party gone Blue Ribbon? So stupid! They don't even understand the spirit of rule-of-law.

- Previously so many valiant warriors were sent to jail. Nobody talked about an amnesty. Now that Benny Tai and Tanya Chan are on trial, they suddenly want to have an amnesty in which even the Seven Policemen can be freed. The pan-democrats are shamless!

- The pan-democratic Occupy Central political hacks are scared of going to jail. So they proposed swapping the Seven Policemen/Franklin Chu for themselves. If you guys are so scared of going to jail, you should not have joined in the rioting. You Yellow Ribbon thugs should get ready to go to jail. The people of Hong Kong will not let any one of you thugs go free. Not a single one of you! See you in court, thugs! The people of Hong Kong will not let you get off!

- As you might expect, one commentator said that Wu Chi-wai and Alvin Yeung accomplished the impossible by making the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and the neutral camp unanimously join in the single project of criticizing the proposed special amnesty. Unfortunately, the commentator is one of two persons in the world who should not be saying this.

This commentator is Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration). Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who managed to unify all persons of Chinese descent in the whole wide world to denounce their anti-Chinese Oaths of Office. This was a far greater accomplishment than Wu-Yeung could ever aspire to.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 18, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Nathan Law has criticised the suggestion by one lawmaker that all participants in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests should be pardoned, saying that a reconciliation in the absence of the government fixing its mistakes would just be begging for mercy. Law said a reconciliation is not possible before the government tells the truth and confesses its crimes.

Will the government explain who was responsible for the tear gas? Who was responsible for the dozens, hundreds of injured protesters? Who will be responsible for postponing democracy? he asked, referring to the 87 tear gas canisters used on protesters on September 28, 2014. He added that it was never an imperative for the pro-democracy movement to fix splits in society: If fighting for basic human rights is to blame for the social divide, then what is the point of a harmonious society?

Law said it was the international norm for amnesty and reconciliation to take place after democratic transitions. This is the most basic way for a democratic country to reflect on its tyrannical past. Reconciliation without the truth, without justice, without discussing right and wrong, only by pragmatically asking for a ceasefire, is to beg for mercy by abandoning our moral power it is drilling blood from a stone, it is suicide for civil disobedience, he said.

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.

Wus idea failed to garner much support from his own party and the wider pro-democracy alliance. Democratic Party colleague, lawmaker Hui Chi-fung, disagreed with the call for amnesty, saying it contradicted the rule of law. The origins of the social rift is not the Occupy movement, but the publics distrust of the undemocratic government. Hui said.

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.

Police Inspectors Association chairman Jimes Lee Jim-on described the idea as deplorable. It would be a fatal blow to the citys judicial independence and system, he said. No matter it is about the seven policemen or any other Occupy participants, we should let the judges decide if their acts are right or wrong. We should respect the court.

- (Robert Chow's blog) April 18, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed a full amnesty for Occupy Central participants (and he had to withdraw his proposal on the very same day due to criticisms from across the entire political spectrum). Chairman Wu wants to save the Occupy Central masterminds, but he ended up putting himself and his party in deep shit. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung agreed with Wu at first, and also put himself in deep shit.

Why did the Democratic Party do this?

Simply put, this proved that it was wrong for the Hong Kong SAR government to try to appease the opposition over the twenty years since the handover. The government retreated again and again. They think that by saying that we are all Hongkongers, the opposition will relent and let them breathe. Instead, what they got was an escalation of struggles until we reached the full Hong Kong Independence/Color Revolution situation.

What was the most important condition that Wu stipulated? Do you realize? It is this: Wu said that Carrie Lam will be exercising the powers given to her under Basic Law Article 48; "this being within the scope of Hong Kong autonomous rule, the Central Government does not have to be consulted."

Clearly the opposition wants Carrie Lam to give up rule-of-law and take it easy on the lawbreakers. That's what this is about. Do we have a case of enemies being at the gate, and the HK SAR/Beijing governments have no choice but to sign a treaty against public opinion?

Why did the opposition support John Tsang and oppose Carrie Lam? While there is no evidence that there was a secret pact on amnesty between Tsang and the opposition, it goes without say that elected politicians will act favorably towards their supporters.

Wu Chi-wai and the Democratic Party want an amnesty for the Occupy Central trio and other principals, including their financier Jimmy Lai and members of the Democratic Party. So far Lee Wing-tat (Democratic Party) is among the nine men/women who are charged in the initial wave. More Democratic Party members are expected to be included in the next waves.

The Civic Party also has to defend its financier. Alvin Yeung was elevated to party leader and got the chance to meet with the financier recently. Of course, he responded to Wu's call.

The Central Government has clearly stated its opposition to Hong Kong independence, and the Occupy Central masterminds are classified as the promoters of Color Revolution. The drive against the Occupy Central movement is thus motivated.

By making the proposal and then withdrawing it on the same day, Wu Chi-wai has showed that he holds a very weak hand. What are the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and their financier afraid of? According to their original expectations, they would only be given probation (not even community service) for their participation in Occupy Central. If so, they would still be talking big and loud now. As things turn out right now, they are facing up to seven years in jail under the common law charges against participation in and incitement of unlawful gathering. So there is a palpable sense of panic.

This also showed that the only proper thing for the HK SAR government to do is to enforce the law. This will make potential lawbreakers to reconsider thrice before they break the law.

When I saw how the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and neutral Hongkongers decried Wu Chi-wai's proposal in a completely one-sided manner, I have to wonder how many votes the Democratic Party/Civic Party will get for looking only after their bosses and party members?

- DAB's Facebook

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed that the Chief Executive use her powers to pardon all Occupy Central participants. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu concurred with this proposal. After the news got out, the Democratic Party and Civic Party members criticized the proposal severely. The two changed their tune and said that they were expressing personal opinions that do not represent the positions of their respective political parties.

Mom! I am very confused!
The Democratic Party chairman does not represent the Democratic Party.
The Civic Party chief does not represent the Civic Party.

- Notwithstanding your confusion, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party both insist that they represent the People of Hong Kong, and that Occupy Central is supported by the People of Hong Kong. You should have no confusion about this.


- Wan Chin's Facebook

The pan-democrats want to swap hostages with the government. This is somewhat odd. The so-called Great Reconciliation of the pan-democrats proposed to have the seven policemen who were convicted of abusing their power to assault a citizen are going to swap with the nine pan-democratic leaders who are being prosecuted by the government. They are not swapping for those demonstrators who have been convicted of rioting. This is because the demonstrators in jail are not pan-democrats; they are merely citizens who decided to take a stand for justice at the spur of the moment.

The seven policemen do not need the pan-democrats to get a special amnesty for them. They were prosecuted by the Hong Kong Communist government and they deserved what they got. Meanwhile the pan-democrats do not believe that they deserve to go to jail; instead they are being politically persecuted. There is no reason why they have to discuss terms under which the government will let them off.

The pan-democrats and their supporters are actually an in-group working for their self-interests. They are a selfish group of middle-class bourgeoisie who are detached from the masses. They only care for themselves, and they don't care about justice or appearance. In the future, the pan-democrats and their supporters should not pretend to represent Hong Kong and call for people to support them. We will ignore them hereafter. They can play their own game of politicking. They have the United States behind them; they don't need any Hongkongers to support them.

- Li Yi

The political swap proposed by Wu Chi-wai ignores the righteousness of the Occupy Movement and confounds the political acts of the Umbrella Movement with the crimes committed by the seven policemen and Franklin Chu. As such, it damages the core value of rule-of-law and procedural justice. Ignoring these ill-conceived ideas, there were several cases of young people being given heavy jail sentences for their involvement in resistance, but Wu and others did not offer them any support. This special amnesty does not cover these young political prisoners either. Is it quite clear whether this proposal of a special amnesty intended to obtain a genuine reconciliation, or was it a plea on behalf of someone's pals who are scared of being found guilty? [Sigh] Please do not talk anymore about democracy and civil disobedience. You have blasphemed against those terms.

- (EJ Insight) Why the Occupy universal pardon idea was a non-starter. By SC Yeung. April 19, 2017.

Its no surprise that Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai has drawn widespread criticism and ridicule for offering an unsolicited suggestion to chief executive-elect Carrie Lam.

In an interview published in a Chinese-language newspaper on Tuesday, Wu suggested that Hong Kongs incoming leader should consider pardoning all those convicted or awaiting trial for offenses related to the 2014 Occupy Central protests.

Pardoning the civil disobedience activists as well as seven policemen who were jailed for committing excesses during law enforcement operations during that period can heal the divisions in society and help restore trust between the government and the public, Wu told Ming Pao Daily News.

Meanwhile, the government can form a special committee to look into the reasons behind the 2014 mass protests, Wu added.

But in less than 24 hours after the interview was published, Wu retracted his comments and offered an apology, saying the issue had not been thought out properly.

The U-turn came as the universal pardon idea attracted a storm of criticism from all sides, including the pro-Beijing camp as well as Wus own comrades from the opposition.

In the interview, Wu suggested that Lam can exercise powers under Article 48 of the Basic Law to pardon those in the dock over Occupy incidents, saying the move can bring reconciliation in society.

Asked to respond to Wus suggestion, Lams office said it was inappropriate for her to comment on ongoing legal cases.

From Lams perspective, universal pardon is a no-go unless Beijing changes its stance on the Occupy campaign, which came after mainland authorities nixed electoral reforms in relation to Hong Kongs 2017 chief executive contest.

Beijing keeps insisting to this day that the street protests were illegal and that the key people behind the movement must be brought to book.

According to some pro-Beijing observers, China has set three conditions for any discussion with Hong Kongs opposition camp, namely acknowledgment of Beijings sovereignty over Hong Kong, recognizing a National Peoples Congress decision made on Aug. 31, 2014 in relation to the Hong Kong CE election framework, and lastly, admitting that Occupy was an illegal event.

Against this backdrop, Wus universal pardon suggestion was a non-starter.

With some Occupy activists already sent to jail and some others awaiting trial, legal amnesty for political reasons will also raise worries about the sanctity of rule of law in Hong Kong.

Bending the rules and granting universal pardon will amount to mockery of the local justice system, a fact that even many opposition members acknowledge.

Some activists, meanwhile, have bristled at Wus suggestion that Occupy leaders and the policemen who were jailed for beating up a pro-democracy protester in 2014 be put in the same league and pardoned together.

Facing a series of questions from the public as well as his own party members, Wu has walked back his idea of universal pardon.

He said that it was just his personal idea, and that he had merely sought a solution to heal the wounds in society and bring about a more harmonious political environment.

But the argument failed to convince even those who would like to see authorities be more tolerant of democracy activists.

Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung is among those who poured cold water on Wus suggestion, after initially seeming to back the amnesty idea.

To achieve reconciliation, the right way forward is for the government to restart political reform consultations without any preconditions, he said.

Demosisto also opposed the proposal, saying it would shake the foundation of the pro-democracy movement.

Following the latest developments, Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong may be feeling happy in one way.

Wus comments and the ensuing debate could deepen divisions in the already fragmented pan-democratic camp. That could help pro-Beijing groups gain support from the so-called silent majority in Hong Kong.

As most people are interested in preserving the sanctity of rule of law and the justice system, any move that can undermine established procedures will cause unease.

Even those who sympathize with democracy activists and favor reforms dont want rules bent to achieve a political purpose.

Now, we come to this question: what prompted Wu to go public with his suggestion, before walking back the comments?

According to some critics, democrats had been working on a similar proposal early this year, especially after police groups held a meeting to show their support to seven officers who were jailed for attacking democracy activist Ken Tsang during an Occupy event in October 2014.

The jail terms for the policemen triggered intense debate in society, with opinion split as to whether the punishment was justified.

Some veteran democrats felt the court judgment would only widen the rifts within the community, prompting them to think about some remedial action.

Wus suggestion of a pardon for the jailed activists as well as policemen came against this backdrop.

But what he perhaps didnt imagine is that his idea would be met with scorn even from those whom he had sought to help.

Occupy leaders had known very well that they might face legal risks, and were prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions.

They want their cause to be recognized as just, lending validity to their efforts, rather than being handed a show of compassion by authorities.

In any case, how can those fighting for democracy and the policemen who broke the law be put on a par when it comes to legal amnesty?

Given such feelings and criticism from almost all quarters, is it any wonder that Wu had to beat a hasty retreat?

- (EJ Insight) April 20, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai made a suggestion to Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a media interview a couple of days ago that she should seriously consider pardoning those who were either convicted or are still awaiting trial for criminal charges related to the Occupy Movement after she assumes office as a gesture of goodwill to facilitate reconciliation in society.

According to Wu, the acute social tension and divisions in the city largely have their roots in our unjust political system.

As such, only by resorting to political means can the incoming administration truly mend fences and heal the wounds in our politically torn society.

And by political means, Wu is referring to the act of pardoning all those who were found guilty or are facing charges linked to the Occupy Movement.

All offenders, both pro-democracy and pro-establishment alike, should be given the same treatment, he said.

Among those he believed should be granted pardon are the Occupy participants who have been arrested on public nuisance charges, the seven police officers found guilty of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, as well as retired police superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai who is awaiting trial on charges of assaulting pedestrians during an Occupy protest.

Wu also urged Lam to order an independent inquiry to find the root causes of the Occupy Movement and to make recommendations on how to address those issues.

Under Article 48 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong chief executive can exercise discretion and either pardon convicted criminals or reduce their sentences.

However, the law does not specify the exact circumstances under which the chief executive can exercise this special executive power.

Almost immediately after making his suggestions, Wu came under fire not only from the pro-establishment camp but also from pan-democrats, including some of his own partymates.

As it turned out, his proposal was so disfavored that even Civic Party whip Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, who had earlier echoed Wus suggestion, decided to make a sudden U-turn by retracting what he had said and making an apology to the public for having failed to think it through before openly supporting the idea.

Wus suggestion is so badly received because if the next chief executive did accept his proposal and pardon Occupy activists and the police officers in question when court proceedings on their cases were still underway, that would constitute an outright violation of the rule of law and judicial independence.

For example, some of the seven police officers who were convicted of assaulting Ken Tsang have already filed appeals against their conviction and the sentences they received, and are awaiting court hearings.

If Carrie Lam bypasses the court and pardons them before the entire appeal process is completed, that will certainly amount to a gross interference in the judiciary by the executive branch.

Likewise, it will also constitute a breach of our rule of law if she pardons the principal organizers and participants of the Occupy Movement while they are still awaiting trial.

We firmly believe there is no room for compromise when it comes to our rule of law, and that no cause, no matter how good and noble it might seem, can justify violating proper legal procedures.

The rule of law and judicial independence are the cornerstone of the stability and prosperity of our society, and they must be upheld at all costs and under all circumstances.

Wus suggestion also constitutes an apparent conflict of interest because many of his pan-democratic colleagues are awaiting trial in connection with the Occupy Movement.

Even Wu himself might also face criminal prosecution for the part he played in the 2014 protests.

How could Wu convince the public that he was putting forward that idea out of entirely selfless and genuine concern for society when the pan-democrats, including himself, would be the biggest beneficiaries of the very suggestion he made?

Facing strong criticism from all sides, Wu admitted that he did not make a careful consideration of his suggestions before making them, apologized to the public and retracted his proposals.

If Wu and his party are sincere in their intentions to facilitate reconciliation in society in the aftermath of the Occupy Movement, perhaps they should come up with some other ideas that are more sensible and practical.

- (SCMP) Democrats leader Wu Chi-wai is digging partys own grave. By Alex Lo. April 20, 2017.

The Democratic Party is not what it once was. And under Wu Chi-wai, its in danger of fading into irrelevance. The Democrats chairman seems to have an uncanny ability to inflict self-harm on his own party and the larger pan-democratic cause.

His latest hare-brained idea was to call on chief executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to use her powers under the Basic Law to pardon Occupy participants who have been charged or jailed, including the seven police officers imprisoned for assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu and former superintendent Chu King-wai, who is facing trial for assault.

Wu had to retract his proposal and apologised in less than a day. His motive, he said, was to help with reconciliation between the opposing camps. What he did manage was to upset everyone from across the political spectrum. The blue- and yellow-ribbon factions would rather see punishment for those from the other side than pardon for their own.

Its also clear there is not an overwhelming public interest to be served in interfering with the work of the courts by granting a general amnesty quite the contrary.

It is no less embarrassing for Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu of the Civic Party, who initially supported Wu until he found that practically everyone was against it. This is the same person who helped Legco rejects Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching fight their way into the chamber and disrupt meetings last October. It seems Yeung is good for anything anti-government or against Beijing, however mindless or counterproductive.

While saying he wants to help ease tensions and reconcile the two camps, Wu has banned party members from joining Lams new government. He is now helping to rally pan-democratic lawmakers against the latest government budget, saying it doesnt spend enough to improve peoples livelihoods.

Its the same Wu who helped make sure every pan-democrat voted in the chief executive race for John Tsang Chun-wah, surely one of the most miserly finance ministers in recent times. In any case, blocking the budget wont get more money for the poor and grass roots; it will delay the underprivileged from receiving allowances that have been budgeted, such as HK$30 billion earmarked for the elderly and disabled.

The Democratic Party has always been among the more reasonable and moderate of the pan-democrats. It would be a shame to see it fade away under poor leadership.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 14, 2017.

Localist leader and ex-lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man said Friday that he will be withdrawing from politics. I am saying goodbye to politics, meaning I am quitting. I will not join or lead any political group, nor will I stand as a candidate in any election, Wong said in a statement. Baby boomers like me should not stand in the way of young people.

The 65-year-old veteran politician was a lawmaker between 2008 and 2016, but he failed to be re-elected during the 2016 Legislative Council elections. His retreat may affect the upcoming Legislative Council by-election which will likely take place to fill two seats left by Youngspiration politicians Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang. The localist duo were ousted from the legislature last year. Wong decided not to run in any by-election, as he believes the pair will contest the seats.

He said another reason was that an alliance of localist groups his Proletariat Political Institute, the Civic Passion party, and the camp led by scholar Chin Wan were greatly defeated in the legislative elections. Running for elections is just a means, the end is to achieve self-autonomy, he said. We shouldnt join the race just to fight for a seat.

Wong promised to continue caring about politics despite his withdrawal. I will keep doing what I have been doing for the past 40 years: host internet talk shows and pen commentaries, he said.

He said he wrote the statement to show his concern for localist youth who are going through the toughest of times as they face political prosecution, oppression and isolation. All I can do is write articles denouncing [the government]. I feel very heavy that I cant do more, he said.

Wong added that attacks from various political camps and police roundup of protesters in last years Mong Kok unrest marked the intensification of oppression in the city. He said Hong Kong has seen a growth of young political prisoners under the reign of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

Having been in existence for less than three years, the budding localist movement has already been eradicated, Wong said. But the politician urged young supporters not to give up or make unnecessary sacrifices. Instead, he asked them to stay low for the time being, as time is on their side.

Wong has formed and then quit two political parties the League of Social Democrats and People Power citing differences with other leaders. Since becoming an icon of the localist movement, Wong has been dubbed godfather by supporters.

Internet Comments:

- (Merriam-Webster) Internecine

Internecine comes from the Latin internecinus ("fought to the death" or "destructive"), which traces to the verb "necare" ("to kill") and the prefix inter-. ("Inter-" usually means "between" or "mutual" in Latin, but it can also indicate the completion of an action.) 

Internecine meant "deadly" when it appeared in English in 1663, but when Samuel Johnson entered it in his dictionary almost a century later, he was apparently misled by "inter-" and defined the word as "endeavouring mutual destruction." Johnson's definition was carried into later dictionaries, and before long his sense was the dominant meaning of the word.

"Internecine" developed the association with internal group conflict in the 20th century, and that's the most common sense today.

- (Wikipedia) Purge

In history, religion, and political science, a purge is the removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team owners, or from society as a whole.

The Shanghai massacre of 1927 and the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, in which the leader of a political party turned against and killed a particular section or group within the party, are commonly called "purges"

The term "purge" is often associated with the Stalinist and Maoist regimes. While leading the USSR, Joseph Stalin imprisoned in Gulag-labor camps and executed, i.e. purged, "wreckers", or citizens accused of plotting against communism.[1] Stalin initiated the most notorious of the CPSU purges, the Great Purge, during the 1930s. Mao Zedong and his associates purged much of the Communist Party of China leadership, including the head of state President Liu Shaoqi and then-General Secretary Deng Xiaoping, beginning in 1966 as part of the Cultural Revolution.

- So they formed a revolutionary group with the explicit purpose of carrying out a revolution. Things are fine when you think that you are making progress. But when the revolution is stalled due to exterior factors (such as an overwhelming counter-revolutionary oppression or the waning of public interest), you turn inwards and blame everything on the fifth column inside your organization. Purging this fifth column will keep you very busy for a long time without having to attend to the original purpose of starting a revolution.

- How do you pull off a Revolution to build the Hong Kong Nation? At this point, the consensus among all the leading theoreticians is that this will not come from an uprising of the people of Hong Kong, because they are no match for the People's Liberation Army. Instead, all the leading theoreticians are counting on the upcoming China Meltdown. If China melts down, the Chinese Communist Party melts down, the People's Liberation Army melts down and the Hong Kong people will seize the opportunity to declare independence. Until China melts down, we'll just have to wait. While we wait, we spend our time eating each other.- Raymond Wong said that the localist movement has already been eradicated and therefore young people should not be making unnecessary sacrifices. Instead they should stay low for the time being, as time is on their side. How did this happen? "Political prosecution, oppression and isolation" was Wong's explanation.

- Raymond Wong said that the localist movement has already been eradicated and therefore young people should not be making unnecessary sacrifices. Instead they should stay low for the time being, as time is on their side. How did this happen? "Political prosecution, oppression and isolation" was Wong's explanation.

That can't be true, because the Localists always insist that they are valiant, they are strong, they are firm and they will never yield.

How did an ascendant Localist movement come to be "eradicated"? Raymond Wong won't say, but everybody else is pointing fingers at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration for equating Localism with foolishness and sinophobia, as well as Edward Leung and Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous for telling other people to attack the police and suffer the consequences while the two are furthering their studies at Harvard University and Oxford University respectively. With such precedents, why would young people still come forth and fight for Localism? Whatever you gain, Leung-Yau are going to blow it up for you. And if you heed Leung-Wong's call to blow up a trash bin, you will be spending three years in jail.

- Nevertheless, Raymond Wong continues to insist that he is required by political ethics not to compete against Leung-Yau for their vacated Legislative Council seats? The reasoning is unfathomable.

- Political ethics requires Raymond Wong to run against Leung-Yau and stop them from inflicting even greater harm to Localism.

- Leung-Yau's behavior suggests that they must be Chinese Communist moles. So if Raymond Wong wants Leung-Yau to continue their wrecking trail, he must also be a Chinese Communist mole.

- Raymond Wong talks about "unnecessary sacrifices". What does he mean? Throw a water bottle at a policeman => 3 years in prison. Blow up a trash bin outside the Legislative Council building => 2 years in prison. Join in a riot and tried to set a taxi on fire without success => 4 years 9 months in prison. These were sacrifices that led to absolutely no gain. That is why they are unnecessary.

- (Bastille Post) What does Raymond Wong really want? Some people read his essay and concluded that he intends to engage in politics once more. Other people read his essay and concluded that he is leaving politics for good and his followers had better look out for themselves afterwards.

- (Bastille Post) Here is the key part in Raymond Wong's long-winded diatribe: Certain people are conducting purging irrationally because of personal grudges and party affiliations. "Can people like that still be trusted?" Raymond Wong did not name names, but is it so hard to guess?

- Wan Chin's Facebook

According to the so-called political ethics, the New Territories East Legco by-election seat belongs to Gary Fan Kwok-wai. After all, he is a semi-localist who had certain known accomplishments while he was a legislator. Therefore the pseudo-Hong Kong Independence Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration) should not contest.
According to the so-called political ethics, the leadership post of Hong Kong belongs to Chris Patten because he left before completing his term. Therefore Carrie Lam should not contest.
My political ethics is even more awesome -- China belongs to the Manchurian dynasty. The Kuomintang, Wang Jingwei, the last emperor Chongzhen of the Ming dynasty should not contest. Hong Kong will follow the decision of the Manchurian royalty and be given to the British Empire for custody.

- Wan Chin's Facebook

Withdrawal from social activism caused those people with nothing to do to start quarreling among themselves and thus reveal their true natures. The party needs to purge itself in order to forestall future problems.

In revolution, the most important thing is propaganda. Next comes purging the party. Those who don't agree with me on the need to purge the party are simply not interested in having a revolution. They should go back to the side of Leung ("Long Hair") Kwok-hung and the pan-democrats to make their trips to China to watch the five-star national flag rise. Those people are doing fine. Even Hong Kong Independence proponent Edward Leung is with the Democratic China school. There is no need to stay on this side and starve.

- (HKG Pao) Raymond Wong said that he is retiring from politics in order to make way for young people. He said that since Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang will surely in the Legco by-election, "based on political ethics, I cannot contest a Legislative Council seat that belongs to them originally." The immediate consequences is a dogs-bite-dog show wherein the followers of Civic Passion (known colloquially as "Hot Dogs") went after Raymond "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man.

- The One Drawing Narrative Facebook

"We are nothing without Raymond Wong Yuk-man."

I agree with this statement.

The contribution of Raymond Wong in the Localist Resistance Movement is undeniable. The radicals and the localists arose because of him. Not only did he provided the narrative and opinion support for resistance, he also proposed the idea of a new popular constitution as a new direction in Hong Kong politics.

But does that mean that Raymond Wong is sacrosanct?

Raymond Wong's subordinate MyRadio's technical general manager Marco has repeatedly smeared Passion Times and the supporters of Wan Chin. He has damaged the Constitution camp. However, Raymond Wong has continued to support Marco. He said that everything that Marco does has his tacit approval. He openly decried Yip Ching-shun who was smeared by Marco as having called on people to stop paying their monthly subscriptions. At the time, many listeners (including Yip Ching-shun) did not pursue the matter in the interest of peacefulness and only stayed silently disappointed.

Recently Marco went even further by assassinating the characters of Wong Yeung-tat and his wife and denying the contribution of Civic Passion. He insulted the martyr who had just been sentenced to 4 years 9 months in prison. This is intolerable.

Raymond Wong did not comment on this at all. But on the same day he denounced the ongoing purges. Since he had previously said that everything that Marco does is in accordance with Wong's wishes, I cannot help but think that all this had Wong's tacit approval.

In this incident, many listeners including myself chose not to keep silent anymore. This drew a crowd of Raymond Wong-ism followers who support Wong blindly and classified all criticisms as smears with ulterior motives. Their speeches are contrary to what Raymond Wong usually preaches, but these are now supported by the other followers including Marco.

I have to think, Did Raymond Wong's political enlightenment actually enlightened the masses? Or did it merely breed politician groupies who are no different from Yellow Ribbon fools?

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook

Reviewing all matters small and large that took place over the past half-year, I conclude today that I had misjudged.

When the Eunuch caused trouble, I thought that the Godfather was misled by evil people
When Brother Kidney made false accusations, I thought that the Godfather let up because he appreciated a talent.
When the Godfather said: "Whatever Marco says is the same as what I say," I thought that he was too busy and had to rely on a "spokesperson."
But six months later after repeated problems, this turned out to be my misjudgment due to wishful thinking. This is not a matter of how to define "purging" or "consorting with the enemy." This is about where we stand with respect to justice and righteousness. It is one thing for certain foxes to act on the tiger's authority, but the tiger is protecting the foxes each and every time. Afterwards, anyone critical of them are said to be moles who want to destroy the entire radio station.

At this moment the Eunuch is insulting the political prisoner that you say that you want to protect. I want to know whether you are going to defend him again?

- Restore Hong Kong Facebook

List of Civic Passion people to be purged:

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook

Do I want to "purge" the villains around the Godfather? No.
I have never wanted to purge the villains around the Godfather. If someone to trust villains, there has to be reasons. I criticize these villains for the purpose of showing the villainy to others. As to when these villains will lose power and vanish from sight ... well, do you think anyone cares? Those who choose to take the wrong path must bear responsibility for themselves.
The Eunuchs want to tell us about how they are being persecuted. But they need to rise to the level of being 'purged'. Unfortunately, they don't quality.

- In his statement, Raymond Wong said that he will not enter the Legco by-election, because Leung-Yau are likely to try to take back their seats. Raymond Wong said that political ethics would make it wrong for a big person to bully a smaller person. The true meaning is this: If the Godfather wants the seat, he can take it with no effort whatsoever. But he believes that Leung-Yau will lose badly so as to put the last nail in the coffin for Hong Kong independence. That will show Leung-Yau to be even lesser persons than just losing to Wong.

(Ming Pao) Private car got on pedestrian sidewalk in order to go through the traffic light and get ahead; car owner is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB). April 15, 2017.

Earlier this week a citizen uploaded a video (copy) time/date-stamped as 730am, August 24, 2016. In the video, a private vehicle came to a stop outside Victoria Court, Hing Fat Road, Tin Hau District. A foreign domestic helper came out with a small child in school uniform. The child entered the car, which then got on the pedestrian sideway and proceeded several dozen meters ahead to Tsing Fung Street where it turned left in the direction of Causeway Bay against the traffic light signal.

According to the information in the video, the registered car owner is former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Our reporter called Kwok yesterday. Before we even got to ask our question, Kwok said that he was away from Hong Kong and hung up immediately.

Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB)

Now isn't this a classical piece of investigative reporting? Citizens posted the incontrovertible video of unlawful, reckless behavior. The license number of the vehicle was SP-4450. The reporter made the inquiry and found out that the owner of vehicle SP-4450 is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun, who has the same name and address as the former DAB district councilor. Kwok refused to answer questions from the reporter. Case closed.

Eh ...

(Speakout HK) April 15, 2017.

Based upon Ming Pao's report, the DAB contacted Benjamin Kwok, who provided a copy of the vehicle sales contract. Benjamin Kwok purchased the car on February 3, 2017 from used car dealer DCH. In other words, the owner of SP-4450 on August 24, 2016 was not Benjamin Kwok. The DAB urges Ming Pao to make this clarification as quickly as possible. They also urge the media that they should obtain the facts first before they report.

Internet comments:

- The DAB urges the media to find out the facts before reporting? This is a blatant interference with freedom of press as well as the public's right to know in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journalists must come out immediately to condemn this White Terror political persecution.

- The facts do not matter here. What matters here is that the people of Hong Kong have the right to know that their lives are at risk from the lawless and reckless activities of the pro-establishment politicians and their families. Hong Kong will never be safe unless they are all expelled to mainland China.

- As usual, when the initial Ming Pao story came out, the Yellow Ribbons immediately dumped on the DAB. In so doing, they have violated the first rule of the Internet: Do not stay too close to the preceding car or you may end up in a multiple-vehicle collision. Right now they have completely gone underground.

- Actually Rule #1 is "Do Not Believe Anything in Apple Daily/Ming Pao/RTHK" because the past experience is:

- Here is the non-correction by Ming Pao.

The title of the story is: [Video] Private vehicle got on pedestrian sidewalk to get ahead and go through the traffic light last year; Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun: Just bought the vehicle in this case in February this year; the owner of the vehicle which got on the pedestrian sidewalk is somebody else.

The report went on to say: This morning, former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun told Ming Pao this morning that he purchased the vehicle in February this year, so that the owner of the car at the time of the incident was someone else.

- There is nothing to correct or apologize about. The video proved that SP-4450 went onto the pedestrian sidewalk and ran against the traffic light. The registered owner is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Everything above is truthful. I am sorry if you think that the car which went onto the pedestrian sidewalk was owned by Benjamin Kwok. It is just sad that there is no medicine that can cure your stupidity.

- Should Ming Pao do a bit further investigation to find out who owned the car in August 2016? They probably did but found out that the story has no news value because the owner was not a pro-establishment political figure.

- This is such an elementary mistake, but neither the reporter nor the gate-keeping editor saw the missing gap. It is no wonder that Ming Pao lost the crown of Number 1 In Public Trust.

- When the Ming Pao reporter checked for the ownership of SP-4450, there is a date of purchase listed. The newspaper knew exactly what was going on. They knew that they would get many more LIKE's if they reported it like they did. If they had listed the date of purchase, there would be nothing to report. The only news value here is the 'fact' that the owner is a DAB member.

(Hong Kong Indigenous) April 12, 2017

On 31/3, our spokesmen Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Edward Leung Tin-kei arrived at Washington D.C. to attend a conference held by Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that promotes better human rights protection around the world, has spoken up for Hong Kongs human rights issues for a number of times, such as criticising Hong Kong's Chief Executive election last month and keeping a close eye on the Causeway Bay Books disappearances last year.

At the conference, Wong and Leung talked about the current state of the protesters arrested in Fishball Revolution, and also explained the causes of the civil unrest. As there has been a deadlock over Hong Kong's democratic development in the recent years, and the Hong Kong government is getting more oppressive and becoming a police state, Hongkongers are extremely discontent with the government. In our opinion, such resentment eventually led to the outbreak of the conflict.

However, the communist government has a propaganda to name the demonstration as a 'riot' and the protesters as 'rioters' who were making troubles. We cannot agree with this viewpoint at all. From our point of view, the protesters targeted at the government only, it was apparently a protest against the corruptive government. When we look at the history of 1967 Leftists Riots, there were bomb attacks, police officers killed and curfew imposed. On the contrary, during Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued orderly when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do.

Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners. In view of this, Wong and Leung called for international concern at the conference, and also discussed this issue with the US congressmen and government officials. Hong Kong Indigenous shall continue to find allies who are willing to offer help to the arrested protesters in order to provide suitable assistance to them.

On the other hand, Radio Free Asia conducted an interview with Wong and Leung after the conference and it will be aired soon. Please stay tuned.

Internet comments:

- Here are several video compilations of what happened that night in Mong Kok:

ABC Hongkong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnjWxP93i-A

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTda-evMO6A

Various TV news reports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Upte16Af4

You can let your own lying eyes help you to decide whether this was a 'riot' and whether the participants were 'rioters'.

- Hong Kong Indigenous said: "During Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued in an orderly manner when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do." Yeah? What was this then?

Not vandalism? Not wanton destruction of private property? Were they queuing up in an orderly manner to try to set fire to the liquid gas tank inside a parked taxi? Were they competing to see who would be the first to blow the taxi up along with everybody else within a 10 meter radius?

- The scene shown in this photo is an isolated incident which does not represent the event as a whole. More generally speaking, all the hundreds of other photos and videos showing riotous behaviors are isolated incidents and do not represent the event as a whole.

So what was the event as a whole? There were two major features. Firstly, the police brutally attacked the small vendors with pepper spray and batons in order to shut down the traditional Lunar New Year night market. Secondly, the police prevented Hong Kong Indigenous from holding an election rally which was allowed under the law. When citizens objected to these police actions, the police turned and attacked all the citizens found in Mong Kok that night. A policeman fired two shots to kill but fortunately his aim was poor and nobody was killed.

- Why are Ray Wong and Edward Leung so anxious? Because they can sense the momentum in the court cases.

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

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 7

The trials began with the simple cases of peripheral players. The first major figure was Chan Pak-yeung who got 9 months in jail for assaulting a police officer. Then three more individuals received 3 years each for rioting. Most recently, Yeung Ka-lun received 4 years 9 months for rioting and arson. Ray Wong and Edward Leung are scheduled to stand trial in January 2018 along with 8 others for rioting and incitement to riot. The video evidence against the two is incontrovertible. Given the jail sentences handed out so far, the two should be looking at 7 years or more in jail as the instigators. The best strategy is to raise as much money as possible for legal defense and then seek political asylum when the trial comes up. A 7-year jail term is a very long time to serve. Both Wong and Leung have previously said that their paramount objective is not to go to jail.

- (TVB) News report on the cause of the Mong Kong riot

8:32 The cause of the riot was Hong Kong Indigenous said that they wanted to support unlicensed cooked food vendors to sell their products. Then they said they wanted to hold an election march for their candidate in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election.

8:42 The Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook page called on citizens to come on the night of Lunar New Year's Day to Mong Kok to defend unlicensed vendors' night market. They said that they wanted to valiant defend a unique local feature.

8:54 When the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors tried to enforce the law, they were surrounded. "Go away, go away." The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department workers called the police for assistance.

9:08 Some people pushed the handcarts onto the road to block vehicular traffic.

9:12 After the police came, Hong Kong Indigenous called at the scene and on Facebook for more people to come.

9:16 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone on top of a van: "I hope that you will use every means possible to tell everybody else to come down to Mong Kok to support us citizens."

9:28 At around midnight, the police set up a tall stand in order to impose pedestrian traffic control. A clash took place. There were quarrels and jostling.

10:04 It was observed that certain people came prepared and wore protective gear. They also held home-made shields and forced human chains to face off against the police.

9:45 Afterwards, the violence escalated. Someone threw objects at the police. The police used pepper spray and wielded police batons to disperse the crowd. Flower pots and shards were scattered all over the ground.

10:14 During this time, Hong Kong Indigenous posted on its Facebook:
[The flames of revolution]
Not suitable for filming
The people of Hong Kong already know to tear up bricks from the ground in order to counterattack

10:23 At midnight, they announced that they will use the election campaign rights of candidate Edward Leung to hold an election campaign march. They said that they numbered fewer than 30, so that they do not need to notify or obtain approval from the police beforehand.

10:34 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone: "All those in blue clothing are members of the election campaign march."

10:39 Ray Wong: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong, we Hong Kong Indigenous, will go big-time with you!"

10:46 At 2:00am, the police warned the demonstrators to disperse.

10:52 The demonstrators suddenly charged ahead. Ray Wong: "Three, two, one." The demonstrators charged.

- Hong Kong Indigenous said that protestors have been sentenced to 3 to 5 years in jail, "becoming political prisoners." I wonder which of (1) Amnesty International; (2) the Dalai Lama; (3) the Japanese government; (4) the Taiwan government; (5) the US State Department; (6) US Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton; (7) Noble Peace Prize Committee; etc ... are willing to demand the immediate release of the political prisoner of conscience Yeung Ka-lun pictured here:

According to Hong Kong Indigenous, Mr. Yeung was unjustly sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail by a Hong Kong Communist judge for the peaceful activity recorded by these and other photos/videos taken by citizens and reporters.

- If Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail, then how can Ray Wong and Edward Leung who instigated people like Yeung to riot get less jail time?

- Notice that Ray Wong and Edward Leung will only say: "Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners" without ever naming Yeung Ka-lun (4 years 9 months) or Chan Pak-yeung (9 months). Why? They haven't provided any help to Yeung or Chan so far, so it would be untoward to invoke their cases to raise money for themselves. Why not? Because Yeung and Chan are with rival localist organization Civic Passion.

This is the reason why Hong Kong Indigenous spent more time on the anonymous martyr arrested in Tai Lok House, Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po District on April 11, 2017 by the police for participation in the Mong Kok riot. They wanted information in order to do everything possible to help.

... unless, of course, this person is Civic Passion too.

- While the Civic Passion foot soldiers stew in prison, the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders conduct their 2017 World Tour attending conferences, giving media interviews, meeting with government bigwigs, etc. What a contrast!

- Hong Kong Indigenous claimed that the Fishball Revolution was started to stop the corruptive government from oppressing unlicensed small vendors. If Amnesty International agrees, then they should begin by looking into the plight of small vendors in New York City. (New York Times) June 14, 2014.

There are 853 general vending licenses available to nonveterans. The number has not changed since 1979. The waiting list for a license, with more than 1,800 names, has been closed since 1993.

Selling goods without a license is a misdemeanor; officers have discretion to merely issue a summons or to make an arrest. In recent months, vendors in Chinatown selling items like 1.2 ounce bottles of liquid plant food, plastic lotus flowers, ceramic bobble-headed turtles, tube socks and red envelopes used for offerings during the celebration of the Lunar New Year, have been handcuffed, fingerprinted and taken to jail.

A police spokesperson said that 7,230 summonses were issued for unlicensed vendors in 2013. In the same year, the criminal courts processed arraignments for 1,905 arrests for selling goods without a license, according to the courts' administrative office.

- Finally, please remember to send more money more frequently to Hong Kong Indigenous in order to help the political prisoners of conscience and fight against the 'corruptive government.'

- (Wen Wei Po) April 23, 2017.

Last evening, Ray Wong attended a forum organized by the Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre on the Democracy Movement, on the choice of Peace-Reason-Non-violence versus Valiant Resistance.

Wong said that more and more young people are being arrested for the Mong Kok riot. Personally Wong said that he is "unable to assess" whether it was worth it, or whether the action that night was appropriate. He said that a number of citizens agreed with the action for a brief period after the riot. "If you want democracy and you want to fight against the Hong Kong SAR government, you have to break out of the existing framework."

After the Legislative Council elections last year, the Resistance Movement has ebbed. Wong does not believe that this will continue. He said that that urgent task at this time is to educate the masses and re-gather the "Forces of Resistance". He said that the masses will come back together again for Valiant Resistance as the oppression by the government increases. More and more citizens will be willing to pay higher costs in order to resist the existing authorities.

Wong said that the Valiant Resisters will avoid direct conflicts with the police. They will not throw bricks "openly and fairly" against the police in front of the media. Instead they will go underground.

During the Q&A session, a member of the audience pilloried Wong. He said that the blue-jacket Hong Kong Indigenous members were nowhere to be seen during the brick-throwing incidents in Mong Kok. "I resent most of all the fact that Hong Kong Indigenous is all talk but they never accept any responsibility." Wong put propped his jaw up with his hand and said contemptuously that he merely called on the participants of the Mong Kok riot to "use their own methods" to express their discontent. Wong asked: "What do you want me to accept responsibility for?"

Ray Wong said that Hong Kong Indigenous is not advocating civil disobedience in the manner of the Occupy Central participants who are willing to be arrested. Hong Kong Indigenous will do everything possible to keep the demonstrators from being arrested. Therefore he recommends that all demonstrators wear Black Bloc clothing plus face masks.

Will the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders accept responsibility for incitement of riot? Wong said that if the courts are acting as the henchmen for the authorities and the demonstrators believe that Valiant Resistance is unavoidable, then their actions cannot be Civil Disobedience and therefore there is no issue of accepting responsibility and so on.

- (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. April 23, 2017.

- He means to say that it is none of his business that people went out to throw bricks or set off fires.

- Piece of trash! He doesn't dare to admit what he did. How is he qualified to issue orders as the commander-in-chief.

- He says that it is none of his business. Is he being fucking scared now? Right now, people are receiving three to four years in prison. As the mastermind, he is looking at five to seven years. He needs to take more Viagra pills to get courage.

- What even happened to his Big Brother poise?

- He urged others to charge and turned an assembly into a riot. As the inciter, how can he say that he accepts no responsibility? When bricks were flying and fires were being set off, did he ever tell people to stop!? When he says that he didn't know, he is refusing to accept responsibility.

- Now you really know what this guy is made of. Now that the police are after the perpetrators, he immediately severs all ties. This is a lesson to all fellow travelers.

- Here is another novel interpretation of how laws work. When you believe that you are engaged in civil disobedience, you know that you are breaking the law and therefore you accept whatever judicial sanctions that are delivered against you. But when you are engaged in Valiant Resistance, the law is a tool for the Oppressors and therefore the law is no longer applicable to anything that you. If you blow up the entire block in Mong Kok and kill 800 people, you will have no responsibility under the law.

- That's swell, but I would like to see what his lawyer is going to say when Ray Wong is found guilty under the law. What will be said in mitigation? This fine young man has no prior criminal conviction; he has low IQ/mental retardation; he came under bad influence (Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching); he feels remorseful and promises never to relapse; he has plans to study at Oxford University; etc.

Or will Ray Wong follow Martin Luther: "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.

Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai of Civic Passion is to face prosecution for allegedly desecrating the national and regional flags after he was seen flipping the flags in protest during a legislative session last October.

Cheng said his office received a phone call from police on Monday asking the lawmaker to pick up a prosecution notice at the Central Police Station. Police said his conduct violated the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, as well as the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance.

Cheng was filmed apparently flipping the Chinese and Hong Kong flags inside the LegCo chamber last October. Shortly following the incident, pro-Beijing lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan reported the case to police and urged them to prosecute Cheng. Lau said there are things Chinese people and and lawmakers of Hong Kong SAR, Peoples Republic of China that cannot be tolerated.

Pro-Beijing lawmakers displayed the flags during the session as a political gesture. Cheng said at the time that he flipped them upside down because he considered the display to be cheap patriotic acts, as pro-Beijing lawmakers ignored livelihood issues and the nationality controversy that the legislatures president Andrew Leung was embroiled in. I flipped the Hong Kong flags upside down on behalf of Hong Kong people to show my discontent, he said at the time.

(Oriental Daily) April 11, 2017.

Cheng Chung-tai posted on his Facebook that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest process.

Related Link: How To Burn Your National Flag (If You Must)

Internet comments:

- (CAP A401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance)

Section 7. Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

(CAP A602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance)

Section 7. Protection of the regional flag and regional emblem

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and

(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

- (Wikipedia) Flag Desecration

Hong Kong:

In 1999, two individuals were convicted for desecration of the Regional Flag of Hong Kong and the Chinese flag. They were found guilty by a magistrate, had the conviction overturned in the High Court but the convictions were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. They were bound over to keep the peace on their own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each of the two charges. In the judgement, Chief Justice Andrew Li said although the Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, flag desecration is not legal because there are other protest methods.

Social activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted twice of flag desecration. He was sentenced to a nine-month prison term in 2013 for the offence. However, the sentence was reduced to four months and two weeks after an appeal. In March 2016, he was sentenced to a six-week prison term for burning the regional flag in Wanchai on HKSAR Establishment Day in 2015. Koo responded that "he is happy to be punished as being jailed is part of the life of an activist, and he would continue to protest against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and fight for democracy."

Selected situations in countries around the world:

Algeria: In Algeria, flag desecration is a crime. According to article 160bis of the Algerian penal code, the intentional and public shredding, distortion, or desecration of the national flag is punishable by 5 to 10 years of imprisonment.

Argentina: The Penal Code (Cdigo Penal) on its Article 222 criminalizes the public desecration of the national flag, coat of arms, national anthem, or any provincial symbol, imposing from 1 to 4 years of imprisonment.

Australia: Flag desecration is not, in itself, illegal in Australia.

Austria: In Austria flag desecration is illegal under 248 Strafgesetzbuch. Offenders can be fined or punished with up to 6 months of imprisonment.

China: Flag desecration is prohibited in China. The penal code provides for an imprisonment up to three years, criminal detention, public surveillance, or deprivation of political rights for anyone who "desecrate[s] the National Flag or the National Emblem of the People's Republic of China by intentionally burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling upon it in public".

France: According to French law, outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is liable for a fine of 7,500 (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering).

Germany: Under German criminal code (90a Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)) it is illegal to revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public. Offenders can be fined or sentenced to a maximum of three years in prison, or fined or sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison if the act was intentionally used to support the eradication of the Federal Republic of Germany or to violate constitutional rights.

Italy: In Italy, desecration of any Italian or foreign nation's national flag (vilipendio alla bandiera) is prohibited by law (Article 292 of the Italian Penal Code) and punished with fines (between 1,000 and 10,000 euros) for verbal desecration and with reclusion (up to two years) for physical damage or destruction.

Philippines: Section 34a the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines declares that it is a prohibited act "[t]o mutilate, deface, defile, trample on or cast contempt or commit any act or omission casting dishonor or ridicule upon the flag or over its surface; Section 50 Any person or judicial entity which violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (5,000.00) not more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

Portugal: According to article 332 of the Penal Code,[80] "Who publicly, by means of words, gestures or print publication, or by other means of public communication, insults the Republic, the Flag or the National Anthem, the coats of arms or the symbols of Portuguese sovereignty, or fails to show the respect they are entitled to, shall be punished with up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to 240 days". In the case of the regional symbols, the person shall be punished with up to one year imprisonment or a fine of up to 120 days (fines are calculated based on the defendant's income).

Saudi Arabia: The flag of Saudi Arabia bears the shahada or Islamic declaration of faith. Because the shahada is considered holy, Saudi Arabia's flag code is extremely strict and even the slightest violation amounts to desecration not only of the flag but is also blasphemous to Islam.

United Kingdom: Neither the law of England and Wales nor the law of Scotland has a concept of "flag desecration".

United States: The flag of the United States is sometimes burned in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."

- What, if anything, did the Honorable Cheung Chung-tai do? Here it is on YouTube, YouTube.

- There can be no doubt that Cheng Chung-tai flipped the flags. But the ordinance says:

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence ...

Cheung did not burn the flags, he did not mutilate them, he did not scrawl on them and he did not trample on them. At issue is whether "flipping the flag" is "defiling it." According to Dictionary.com: 'to defile' is to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase; violate the chastity of; to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate; to sully, as a person's reputation. So it can be argued that "flipping the flag" is not "defiling it." Perhaps this was the reason why the the Hong Kong Police had to ask the Department of Justice for legal advice. It seemed that the received opinion was "green light to proceed."

Even if found guilty, the precedents seem to imply that Cheng will only have have to pay a small fine (say, $500) while getting a chance to expound on his political views outside the courtroom. So it is definitely a worthy investment.

- (Basic Law Article 77) Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

The desecration of a flag is arguably "symbolic speech." However, the Legislative Council meeting was adjourned and the hall was largely empty of Legislative Councilors at the time when Cheng Chung-tai moved in to flip the flags. Therefore, Article 77 cannot be invoked in defense.

- First, the oaths of DQ2 Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were not recognized and their offices were vacated. Next the Chief Executive filed a judicial review against the DQ4 (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu Chung-ym) for their oaths of office. The case is winding through the judicial process. Now a seventh legislator Cheng Chung-tai is being charged.

In all seven cases, one has to ask: What for? Why did they engage in these inconsequential trick plays? The answer is always: "Well, they will be coming after us anyway. If not for these things, it will be for something else. Therefore we don't believe that we caused our own problems." That is neither verifiable nor testable.

- Two more legislators (Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun) will go on trial for activities related to the unlawful Occupy Central. Out of 27 pan-democratic legislators, 9 are under a cloud of uncertainty.

- (Basic Law Article 79) The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall declare that a member of the Council is no longer qualified for the office under any of the following circumstances:

(2) When he or she, with no valid reason, is absent from meetings for three consecutive months without the consent of the President of the Legislative Council;


(6) When he or she is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one month or more for a criminal offence committed within or outside the Region and is relieved of his or her duties by a motion passed by two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council present;

(Legislative Council Rules of Procedure Section 49B. Disqualification of Member from Office)

(1) A motion to relieve a Member of his duties as a Member under Article 79(6) of the Basic Law shall be moved in the following form: "That whereas (name of Member) was convicted on (date) in (court) in (place) of a criminal offence(s) and was sentenced on (date) by (court) to imprisonment for one month or more (as particularized in the Schedule to this motion), this Council relieves (name of Member) of his/her duties as a Member of the Legislative Council.".

- Cheng Chung-tai posted on Facebook that the police told him to pick up a letter to inform him that he is formally charged with "insulting the national flag" and "insulting the regional flag." Cheng replied that he is busily serving the people and has no time to go down to the police station. He told the police to mailed the letter to either the Legislative Council chairman or the Legislative Council Secretariat but not directly to himself. The report was that if Cheng Chung-tai won't go down to the station, the police will show up, arrest him, take him down to the police station and notify him there.

- (TVB) Cheung Chung-tai said: "The incident took place during a Legislative Council meeting. So they cannot just hand a letter to a democratically elected parliamentarian to charge him for activities related to his speech and action during the meeting. The most basic process is that I do not believe that I need to go down to the police station to pick up the letter. Clearly this was a big political persecution that is happening before Carrie Lam takes over." Legislative Council president Andrew Leung said: "I remind my colleagues at the Legislative Council that the speeches of the Legislative Councilors are protected under special privileges guaranteed by the law. But they must be responsible for all activities to themselves and to the public.

- Cheng Chung-tai's various attempts to explain were incoherent. He said that the Hong Kong Police should be arresting the pro-establishment legislators for bringing in national/regional flags into the meeting hall because that is defiling the flags for political purposes.

Then Cheng said that the items that he flipped were display objects and not national/regional flags. If so, why does he want the police to arrest the pro-establishment legislators? Does he admit that those objects are indeed national/regional flags?

- Selective prosecution! Why wasn't this man arrested and charged?

- Cheng Chung-tai is a political opportunist. We can review his record in politics. He studied sociology at the University of Peking and graduated with a PhD in 2010. He returned to Hong Kong and became the assistant of former Democratic Party district councilor Lee Kai-hung. He could have joined the traditional Democratic Party. In 2012, Cheng joined Civic Passion, and became one of their valiant warriors. No only did he support democracy, he also supported Hong Kong independence.

The fact is that if Cheng had joined either the Democratic Party or Civic party, he would be very low in the hierarchy. He would not have risen up even if he waited until his hair turns white. But at the time, Hong Kong independence was a hot issue and more and more young people support the idea. These young people don't even think that the League of Social Democrats/People Power are radical enough. So there was a market for even more radical groups.

Once Cheng joined Civic Passion, he was looked upon favorably by Raymond Wong. One reason was his education level. Wong supported him to run for the Legislative Council. This proved that Cheng had made the right decision.

After being voted into the Legislative Council, Cheng was about to continue to use Hong Kong independence. Unfortunately, the two fools known as Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching insulted China during their attempted oaths and drew the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. At first, Cheng supported Leung and Yau. But after seeing that the Central Government was serious, Cheng switched his position and deplored what the two did. Cheng said that he had no foreknowledge about what the two planned, and he does not approve.

Next, Cheng ascended to become Civic Passion chairman. His first declaration was that Civic Passion will switch from street protests to parliamentarian protests, because valiant resistance has no future. The truth was that Hong Kong independence had no future after the NPCSC interpretation and those who advocate such may lose their legislator posts. So Civic Passion is not interested in a permanent extension of the Basic Law with democratic self-determination.

Everything is naked opportunism. The pathetic thing is that parliamentarian protest turned out to be flipping national/regional flags on the desks of other legislators. What is the difference between this and elementary school students hiding the pencils and erasers of other students?

In Hong Kong today, there are plenty of political opportunists. Twenty years ago when Hong Kong was handed back to China, a bunch of politicians suddenly became patriotic. They proclaimed themselves to be more Chinese than the Chinese and they are moved to tears at the sound of the national anthem. In recent years, a bunch of politicians suddenly support democracy, universal values and localism! These two types of opportunists simply want to feed off politics. The only difference is that their food comes from different kitchens.

- (Oriental Daily) April 12, 2017.

RTHK: Legislative Councilor Cheng Feces (Civic Passion) announced on social media that he is being charged with the crimes of insulting the national and regional flags. The case will be heard next Tuesday. Last evening Cheng Chung-tai said on social media that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest procedure. At around 2am, he posted again to say that he has left the police station and will appear in Eastern District Court at 2pm next Tuesday.

Sharp-eyed Internet users noticed the name "Cheng Feces." In response to our inquiry, RTHK said that the text was scrambled when their News Department uploaded the story onto the website. They have made the correction and apologized to Cheng Chung-tai. Cheng has accepted their apology. RTHK said that they remind their colleagues to be careful in the future.

- Occasionally words get scrambled during data transmission, so that "hello goodbye" comes out to be "@#*$(#_@(". But what kind of random scrambling will result in "Cheng Chung-tai" becoming "Cheng Feces"? It could not be random. RTHK is lying about what really happened!

(Sing Pao) February 20, 2016.

Sing Pao front page on February 20, 2016.
The man in the photo is suspected of setting a taxi on fire.
Do you recognize him?

Facebook tip on February 20 1:13pm:

His name is Yeung Ka-lun. He lives at Fung Ting Court, Yuen Long district. Please forward (this information) like crazy!

According to information, the name of the arrested man is Yeung Ka-lun. He was suspected of setting fire to a taxi on the night of the riot. The key breakthrough was that a citizen called up the Hong Kong Police Organized Crime Division's hotline and provided the telephone number and address of Yeung. Based upon the information, the police checked surveillance videos in the area as well as the videos taken by the media, citizens and the police that day. They determined that this was their man and made the arrest. The police said that they are grateful for the many useful tips coming from citizens.

(Oriental Daily) February 26, 2016.

A police arrested a 31-year-old man named Yeung on suspicion of setting a taxi on fire during the Mong Kok riot. The police took the man back to his home in Fung Ting Court, Fung Cheung Road, Yuen Long district. The police removed a mobile phone, clothing and an Octopus card as evidence.

(SCMP) February 29, 2017.

Yeung Ka-lun, 31, faces the one charge of rioting over his alleged involvement on February 9 along with an additional charge of arson for allegedly burning a taxi at the junction of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street on the same day. Yeung was granted a cash bail of HK$30,000 with the condition that he lives in his reported address, surrender his travel documents, remain in Hong Kong, obey a curfew from midnight to 5am each day and refrain from entering parts of Mong Kok except on transport.

(HK ET) October 11, 2016.

Today Yeung Ka-lun pleaded not guilty against the charges of rioting and attempted arson. The trial will be held on March 13, 2017 and is estimated to last five days. The prosecution intends to summon six civilians and twelve police officers as witness. The defense will plead not guilty and argue that Yeung was not present at the scene and did not participate in the incident. The judge reminded that the defense should offer evidence of not being present as soon as possible (so that the trial does not even need to be held). The defendant posted bail of $30,000 while awaiting trial. He also has to observe a curfew and a ban from setting foot in the Mong Kok area.

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017.

In the opening statement, the prosecution said that at around 5am on February 9, 2016, the defendant participated in the riot on Soy Street, including throwing burning objects at a parked taxi and caused damage. The process was filmed by a NOW TV News camera crew and a foreigner. The action caused $4,600 damage to the left rear door of the said taxi.

The prosecution said that photos taken by the foreigner Mein Smith showed that defendant placed the inflammable objects next to the taxi. The defendant's ex-employer was able to identify the defendant through those photos.

Seventeen days later on February 26, 2016, the police intercepted the defendant at the lobby of his housing estate and arrested him for alleged participation in a riot. Later the police found an Octopus card issued on February 10, 2016 and four photo albums.

The prosecution said that defendant wore a beanie and eyeglasses at the time of the incident. When arrested, the defendant did not wear eyeglasses. When taken to court, the defendant wore eyeglasses at one point. The prosecution said that if the defendant wants to testify on his own behalf, they will ask him to wear the beanie and let the judge make a comparison between himself and the person in the photos.

In the opening statement, the defense said that they will provide evidence to prove that the person in the photos is not the defendant.

The first witness was PTU sergeant Shi Cheuk-yin. He testified that proceeded to clear Nathan Road at around 5:55am on the day of the incident. When they got to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, he saw 50 to 60 persons screaming and yelling. When they got to the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street, he observed somebody setting off a fire next to a taxi. Some people were throwing bricks and garbage. The police issues warnings and applied pepper spray. During the chaos, Shi was hit in his upper left arm by a flying brick.

(Oriental Daily) March 14, 2017.

According to foreign language teacher Mein Smith, he came to live and work in Hong Kong since 2014. At the time of the incident, he was living on Fa Yuen Street. At around 5am, he was awakened by a commotion. He looked outside the window and he saw some people tearing up the sidewalk. He called the police and went downstairs with his camera. When he arrived at Soy Street, he observed some people throwing bricks at the police who used pepper spray. The two sides seesawed back and forth. He saw a red taxi parked on the roadside. Its windshield was damage. There were burnt cardboard paper near its left rear wheel. So Smith used his $40,000 Nikon D4s camera to film using medium-long lends. In some of the photos, there was a man wearing eyeglasses and dark-colored hooded sweatshirt. The man placed the cardboard underneath the taxi door. He also saw people throwing bricks at the heads of other people. He also heard that they will throw bricks at photographers. So he sensed danger and went home.

(Oriental Daily) March 15, 2017.

Open University Human Resources Department director Sin Suk-man testified that Yeung Ka-lun worked at the Education and Science/Technology Publishing Department. Sin said that she had seen Yeung two to four times, and that Yeung wore black-rimmed glasses like the judge was wearing today. Sin identified Yeung in court. The defense challenged whether this was because Yeung was sitting in the defendant's box today. Sin said that she can identify Yeung independent of the environment.

The prosecution said that they had a former employer of Yeung who was able to identify Yeung in the photos taken on the day of the incident. However, the prosecution has learned that the man had left Hong Kong for mainland China last year and was arrested there. Therefore the prosecution will not summon this man to testify.

Today, the judge ruled that the evidence exists for the case. The defendant will decide whether he testifies on his own behalf tomorrow.

(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2017.

Today defendant Yeung Ka-lun decided not to testify on his own behalf. Previously the defense said that they have evidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time. However, no such evidence was introduced. Summations will be made on March 22.

(Oriental Daily) March 22, 2017.

The prosecution said that the defendant bought a new Octopus card and stopped wearing glasses in order to prevent identification. The defense said that this inference is baseless. Furthermore, it is not 100% certain that the individual in the photos/videos has dyed hair, or any hair, or even male. The individual in the photos/videos was visible only from the eyebrows downwards. The judge agreed that this was just like himself and the senior counsels wearing wigs in court. The defense said: "That is why nobody can identify me." The defense continued that the angles and facial expressions can also affect the exterior appearances of the individual. Since none of the witnesses have known the defendant for an extensive period of time, they can't identify them confidently just as we cannot identify strangers confidently based upon some photos/videos.

(Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017.

Previously, the prosecution had presented videos and photos that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual who participated in the riot on Soy Street and set fire to a red taxi. Today, the judge ruled that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual in the videos/photos. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant had protruded upper teeth like the individual in the videos/photos. The only difference was that the defendant is not wearing glasses today. The judge found the defendant guilty on both counts (participation in a riot and arson).

After the verdict will come the sentencing on next Monday. In mitigation, the defense pleaded that the defendant did not throw any objects at the police or said anything disrespectful to the police. The defense admitted that his participation encouraged other participants. The defense said that the defendant was not a bad and ruthless person, and all he did was to place a burning piece of cardboard next to a taxi and the fire did not spread. The judge pointed out that a spark can start a conflagration as in the case of the people who were burned to death in a car recently. The defense did not object to Yeung being remanded to custody. The defense wanted the two sentences to be served concurrently.

(Sing Tao) April 3, 2017.

The judge said that the two main issues were: Was there a riot that night wherein a rioter set fire to a taxi? and whether the defendant took part in the riot and set fire to the taxi?

The judge ruled that there was a riot of three or more persons, and that someone set a fire next to the taxi in a breach of peace. So the first issue was answered in the affirmative.

The judge compared multiple photos between 2006 and 2016, and he also carefully observed the defendant. There were some minor differences, such as the defendant used to wear glasses but not at this time. But in the wedding photos of the second elder sister, the defendant showed protruded front teeth just as the judge observed in court. The defendant's eyes, nose, side profile, height and body shape were identical to the perpetrator in the photos/videos. Just because the defendant no longer wears glasses does not mean that everything else is different. The judge ruled that the defendant was the perpetrator in the photos/videos.

After the day of the incident, the defendant purchased a new Octopus card, changed his habit of wearing glasses and had no computer at home even though there is a computer desk. These three amazing situations could not all be coincidental. The defense said that the Crime Investigation Department made a surprise arrest that the defendant could not foresee. The judge disagreed. He said that the act of arson was filmed and publicly aired so that the defendant must know what everybody else in the world (including the police) knows. This three occurrences have a cumulative effect, such that the only conclusion is that they cannot possibly be coincidental. Therefore the judge found Yeung Ka-lun guilty on both counts.

(SCMP) April 3, 2017.

A technician was found guilty on Monday of taking part in last years Mong Kok riot  Hong Kongs worst unrest in years and setting a taxi on fire. The conviction of Yeung Ka-lun, 32, marked the first arson charge over the Lunar New Year clashes, which led to more than 80 protesters arrested and seven convicted so far. Yeung has been remanded and will be sentenced next Monday.

District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.

The case centred on whether Yeung was the bespectacled man filmed committing the crimes as his face was partially obscured by a black cap. Yeung had pleaded not guilty to one count of riot and another of arson.

The District Court heard that Yeung, who had no alibi, was arrested on February 26, more than two weeks after the riot.

Prosecutors relied on Now TV news footage and high-resolution photographs taken by a Mong Kok resident to identify Yeung at the scene. They also seized his sisters wedding and family photos as well as Yeungs job application forms for the courts reference all of which showed his habit of wearing a pair of glasses that closely resembled those of the pictured bespectacled man. Yeung appeared in court for the trial last month without glasses.

While the defence argued that Yeungs appearance was extremely ordinary with no striking features, the court noted that he had slightly protruding front teeth similar to the man in the photos.

The defendant is the man pictured, the judge concluded. The court also noted there were odd coincidences, such as Yeung obtaining a new Octopus card a day after the riot, and the absence of glasses and a computer in his home. The judge said the coincidences led to only one conclusion Yeung was attempting to cover his tracks.

Yeung had no prior criminal record and did not testify or call witnesses in his favour.

A police officer had testified that the damage to the taxi was very serious. Photos of the vehicle showed burn marks on the left glass door. Towing and repairing the taxi cost HK$6,400.

Rioting is a criminal offence punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and five years imprisonment on summary conviction; and 10 years upon conviction on indictment. Arson is punishable by life imprisonment. But the District Court can only hand down a maximum sentence of seven years.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.

The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February.

Handing down the sentence, Judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the level of violence during the protests was so serious that a deterrent sentence was necessary in order to maintain peace and order in the city.

Technician Yeung Ka-lun, 32, was convicted last week of participating in a riot and setting fire to a taxi in Mong Kok on February 9 last year. He was handed a jail term of four years and nine months for rioting, and four years and three months for arson both served concurrently.

The defendant is unfortunate he might have been aware of the legal consequences before committing the crime, but he might not have known that the consequences would be so heavy, Judge Kwok said, according to Apple Daily.

Yeung was sent to prison after the sentencing hearing.

Internet comments:

- Here are the photos of the perpetrator alleged to be 'Yeung Ka-lun'. Who do you trust, his defense lawyer or your own lying eyes? This man tried to set the liquid gas tank in a taxi on fire. The explosion would have put everybody (especially himself) in a diameter of 22 meters in harm's way.

- For the trial, Yeung Ka-lun had a different look, with no black-rimmed glasses and a new haircut. This is the reason why the prosecutor wants the testimonies of ex-employer/co-workers and to ask him to don a beanie in court for the magistrate to look at.

Yeung Ka-lun was not arrested at the scene. Instead, the police began to look for him afterwards and arrested him at home. During this time, the police must have wondered whether this was the right person given the changed appearance. When the arrest was made, the police took four photo albums from his home. Why? Because the photo albums have photos of what he looked like before the recent change in appearance. The judge noted that Yeung had protruded upper front teeth in the 2009 wedding photos of his second elder sister, as well observed by the judge personally during the trial. The judge also noted Yeung's 2007 Hong Kong ID photo as well the photo in Yeung's application for a job at Open University all showed him wearing glasses.

The police also took his Octopus card. Notice that this Octopus card was issued on February 10, 2016, which was the day after the riot. Yeung threw out his old Octopus card immediately after the riot in order to prevent the police from tracking him.

This Yeung person had followed all the standard tips for 'civil disobedience', including discarding any Octopus cards, discarding the clothing worn at the time, discarding his home computer but keeping the desk even though he is a computer technician by profession, changing the exterior appearance (glasses, haircut, etc), etc. He had to do all this because his photo appeared on the front page of Sing Pao. Yeung did not have time to visit a dental surgeon to fix his protruded front teeth.

- (SCMP) Defense counsel Paul Wu said that the defendant "is not a violent person." Bwahhhhhh! Setting fire to a taxi is not a violent act!? Because Paul Wu said that the vehicle was quickly towed away and repaired with damages amounting to only $6,400!? It was only sheer luck that the defendant could not pry over the gas tank which would have caused an explosion with 20-meter blast radius to kill all 20 to 30 rioters.

- Common law is based upon precedents. If the Seven Evil Cops got 2 years for assaulting Ken Tsang, and university student Hui Ka-ki got 3 years for throwing bottled water at the police, then technician Yeung Ka-lun is going to be facing 4 years or more for rioting and arson with total lack of remorse.

- The verdict is out! Four years nine months for rioting, and four years three months for arson, to be served concurrently.

- Why concurrently? Because the arson was a part of or an extension of the rioting.

- The starting point was five years. Because the defendant had no prior criminal record, a three month reduction was given.

- If Yeung Ka-lun had pleaded guilty, he would have had another 1/3 reduction, but he took his chances and lost. I wonder why he decided not to plead guilty. Did he insist himself? Or did his lawyer tell him that he has a good chance to get off? Of course, when a lawyer gives bad advice, the client goes to jail and the lawyer gets paid one way or the other.

- The opening statement by the defense includes a promise to produce evidence that this was a case of misidentification and Yeung was in fact elsewhere at the time. No such evidence was produced. Even in the absence of evidence (such as the testimonies of friends/relatives that Yeung was sleeping in his bed, or surveillance videos around wherever he was), Yeung could have taken the witness stand and said "I slept through the night" or something. He did not. Refusal to testify cannot be used against the defendant, but it does make you wonder.

- You wouldn't want an additional perjury charge, right?

- Hong Kong Free Press began with "The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February." This is giving "activism" a bad name.

(Dictionary.com) "Activism" is the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc. Setting fire is not normally considered "activism." Alternately, most activists would not consider criminal damage of private property as part and parcel of their activism.

Besides, has Yeung Ka-lun ever said anything about being an activist? His original defense was that it was a case of misidentification and that he would prove that he was not present at the scene at the time. After being found guilty, the defense pleaded in mitigation that Yeung is not a bad person, that he has no prior criminal record and that the repair cost for the taxi was only $6,400.

At no point has Yeung Ka-lun ever said that he was any kind of activist, or what he was protesting/demonstrating/rioting about. No activist group ever came out to say that he is their member or even a friend. The 'activist" label (or, worse yet, 'justice fighter' and 'freedom warrior') was thrust upon him by outside forces with ulterior motives.

- (HKG Pao) Hours shortly after Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced and taken directly to jail, Civic Passion former leader Wong Yueng-tat disclosed that Yeung was a Passion Times editor. Wong said that the relationship was not disclosed before because it may affect the outcome of the case. Later that evening, Wong posted a link for people to donate money to help Yeung. Wong did not highlight the fact that 30% of the money is earmarked for "administrative/production costs" for Civic Passion.

- SCMP has the story title of "Hong Kong man jailed four years, nine months for rioting and setting taxi on fire in Mong Kok unrest." After all this time, they still want to call it the "Mong Kok unrest." Let's revisit what the judge said last week as reported by the same newspaper:

(SCMP) April 3, 2017. District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.

A riot is a riot is a riot. It is not "unrest."

- Adof Lau's Facebook

Righteousness comes first. Nothing needs to be said. Please donate money to Civic Passion to overturn the verdict! Afterwards we will withdraw completely!

- Chiu the Dragon's Facebook

Please put aside your prejudices and grudges. Do not listen to those bastards saying that "political asylum is useless."
Today's 4-year-9-month sentence is the final call.

- (Apple Daily) The judge pronounced the sentence and exited. Afterwards, some spectators pounded on their seats to express their dissatisfaction. They used foul language to curse out the judge. The security guards told them stop. The spectators said: "Does the court forbid people to speak?"

- The case of Yeung Ka-lun is being compared to the case of Shi Junlong.

(Wikipedia) Around the turn of the millennium, the Immigration Tower was the site of continual occupation by Mainland Chinese activists demanding right of abode in Hong Kong. At 2:00 pm on 2 August 2000, visa overstayers petitioned immigration officers to issue them Hong Kong Identity Cards on the spot. The officers refused on the basis of the law, and told them to apply in writing. They refused to leave, staging a sit-in until closing time at 6:00 pm when staff attempted to evict the protesters, who responded by splashing highly flammable paint thinner around the 13th storey and setting it ablaze with cigarette lighters. A massive fireball engulfed the crowded room 1301 and shot into the corridor where others were standing. Some 50 people, immigration officers and protesters alike, were injured in the resultant conflagration before it was extinguished by the building sprinkler system.

Two people died in the following days. Senior Immigration Officer Leung Kam-kwong, after being set on fire and sustaining burns to 65 percent of his body, died in hospital. A 26-year-old protester also died on 11 August.

Seven of the Mainland arsonists were sentenced to prison in 2002. The so-called ringleader, Shi Junlong (Chinese: 施君龙), was sentenced to life in prison for two offences of murder and one count of arson, while six accomplices were jailed for 12 to 13 years for two counts of manslaughter and one arson offence each. Following sentencing, Shi Junlong showed no remorse and stated in Chinese that the crime was "a tragedy created by the Immigration Department". After appealing, the arsonists were granted a retrial, at which they won sharply reduced sentences for pleading guilty to the lesser crime of two counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. A third count of arson was dropped in exchange for the guilty pleas. Shi Junlong was released from prison in 2005 and extradited to Mainland China. In 2013, he acquired right of abode in Hong Kong through legal channels to much media attention and public outcry.

If all Shi Junlong got was 8 years in prison for killing 2 persons and injuring 50 others, then isn't Yeung Ka-lun's 4 year 9 months without killing or injuring anybody somewhat harsh?

- The cases are not similar. In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, the main charge was rioting which led to 4 years 9 months of imprisonment. The arson charge is part of or an extension of rioting, and its 4 years 3 months of imprisonment was allowed to be served concurrently. How do you compare a rioting charge against a manslaughter by gross negligence charge? They are apples and oranges.

- Baggio Leung Chung-hang's Facebook

Certain matters are common knowledge.
Suppose these are the truths. Which is more serious: burning a person to death or burning a taxi?
Only fools believe that burning a taxi is more serious, okay?

What if the law says that burning a taxi is more serious?
Then there is a problem with the law itself.

- (Wikipedia) The 1996 Pat Sin Leng Wildfire killed three students and two teachers and injured a further 13 students of HKCWC Fung Yiu King Memorial Secondary School. The coroner believed that the fire was caused by students smoking.

As Baggio Leung would say, it is commonsense that the more people you kill, the more serious is your crime. So why wasn't the student smoker sentenced to the death penalty?

- If Yeung Ka-lun gets four years nine months for participation in a riot, then those who incited/participated in the riot will be facing six or more years. The two instigators Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous must be sleepless from the fear and trembling.

- If Ray Wong and Edward Leung are smart, they can ask their contacts at the US Consulate General to explore the possibility of political asylum/exile.

- Yeung Ka-lun was not the only one to attempt to vandalize or set fire to the taxi. He was the one who was unfortunately identified and caught.

- This festive occasion calls for the standard film screen capture with actor Eric Tsang: "I don't know what fucking else to say except: Congratulations! Bottoms up!"

- (Wen Wei Po) What is this to him?

"Elder Brother Edward Leung, where are you?"
"Someone is being sent to jail for supporting you! What is to be done?"

(SCMP) April 6, 2017.

Students who were involved in an indecent video that went viral have been suspended from their residential hall until an investigation is complete.

Simon KY Lee Hall, a dorm at the University of Hong Kong, confirmed in a statement that the students who were current residents were involved in inappropriate conduct as depicted in a video that went viral on Wednesday.

The statement came as the police stepped in, saying they were looking into the incident as they received a report on the case from two people through an online reporting room.

The 19-second clip showed a man, wearing a maroon hoodie with the words Chemistry and HKU printed on it, using his genitals to hit the back of another mans head. The victim was pinned on a bed by two others, while another person filmed the incident.

Upon discovery of the incident, the warden, hall tutors and the Executive Committee immediately conducted an investigation with the hallmates involved. It confirmed that the relevant conduct raised no concern about bullying, the statement from the halls student association executive committee said.

In response to a Post inquiry, a committee representative had no further explanation or clarification of why the incident was not regarded as bullying. The case was handed over to the university for an investigation. The association called it a one-off incident that had no association whatsoever with hall culture and education.

Students and alumni from 13 dorms at the century-old university consider hall education a key component of university life outside of academic learning.

HKU has set up a committee, which will be chaired by a university vice-president, to look into the incident.

A police spokesman said that two people made reports on Thursday after seeing a clip online and suspected a student had been inappropriately treated. The Western district crime squad have been investigating but no arrests were made.

A source close to the matter said the district crime squad had admitted \difficulties in the probe. We have to figure out who reported the case the victim, witnesses or just netizens, the source said. The university so far did not report the case. It would be difficult for us to enter the school campus to collect evidence.

(SCMP) April 5, 2017.

The incident came a few days after a candidate in the election for the council of St Johns College, another HKU residence, quit the race amid claims that he was being bullied and personally attacked and intimidated.

He said in a Facebook post which has now been deleted that one election candidate had wax poured over his lower body by over 20 people.

The HKU spokeswoman had previously said St Johns College was conducting a comprehensive investigation into the suspected bullying. She added that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken if students were found to have been involved in improper behaviour.

Media reports say the practice was a tradition at the residential hall. Ed Wong Ching-tak, the president of HKU Students Union, rejected such claims, saying that according to the unions understanding, there were no such traditions. He also said both bullying incidents, if proven to be true, were unacceptable.

(SCMP) Our immature university students need counselling ... and punishment. By Alex Lo. April 7, 2017.

The University of Hong Kong is constantly in the news these days, but usually for the wrong reasons. The latest has to do with a possible sexual assault and bullying after a video clip was released showing a young man being held down while another one slapped his head with his private parts.

This followed allegations made by a student that some 20 people had stormed into a dormitory room of a student resident and took turns dripping hot wax on his nether regions.

While these events at the citys oldest and most prestigious university are disturbing enough by themselves, they may not be isolated incidents. In some student online forums, there have been claims that such practices are hall tradition. Wax-dripping and organ-slapping are campus tradition? I seriously hope not. Some parents may now have second thoughts about sending their children to study there.

For the sake of simple decency, such behaviour must be condemned. Sadly, some online commentaries from HKU students seem to be unusually accepting. If you can play along then youll treat it as a game, but if you cant play along youll accuse people of bullying, one post said.

I dont know about you, but those acts go beyond mere bullying.

Education sector lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen said he believed this kind of behaviour among students could be the result of the general mood in society, as well as what they were exposed to on the internet.

What, the state of Hong Kong society made them do it? Pray tell how.

Ip is probably right, though, about the internet. Immaturity, sexual frustration, watching too much online pornography and having little to no sex education all these make for a dangerous combination.

We are still a deeply conservative Chinese society, where parents are not very helpful when it comes to the birds and the bees. Its probably the first time for those youngsters to be away from home, free of parental restraints. And given the anything goes mentality of some students and lecturers at HKU these days, perhaps such incidents are not surprising at all.

The university administration says it is investigating. Those found responsible should be disciplined. But the culprits also need help, althoughtheir actions must never be tolerated. Such behaviour is not about wild partying or youthful excesses; its potentially criminal.

Internet comments:

- Famous Hong Kong adage: "Whose fault is it? It is society's fault." This means that nobody has to accept responsibility for what happened.

- (HKG Pao) On radio, Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that students may have seemed similar acts on the Internet and went ahead themselves while forgetting any legal or moral constraints. Ip said that the incident must not be glossed over lightly, because the students must be made to realize that such acts have consequences. He said that the university should tell the school about the red lines beyond which are criminal sanctions that will ruin their futures.

Ip cited scholars who said that one reason was that sex education in Hong Kong schools are inadequate. "When the schools fail to teach well, the students will learn from elsewhere." An audience member phoned in and said: "This has nothing whatsoever to do with sex education. The problem is that students do not have any bottom lines and therefore they think that they can do whatever they want." The man said that this has to do with respect for other individuals. He added: "I am more than 40 years old and I have not received much by way of sex education during schooling. But I am not doing this sort of thing!"

In Hong Kong today, young people think that the law and morality are worthless. That is why they can occupy the streets or lay siege to their University Council with total disregard of the law. Such being their state of mind, what is the big deal about a little sexual molestation?

- (Silentmajority.hk) Today a magistrate found a police sergeant guilty of three counts of common assault. The magistrate said that the police sergeant pinched the female police officer on the hand and ear lobes on three different occasions. These actions are not normal between male and female co-workers.

Fine. If pinching the hand and/or earlobe is common assault, then how about slapping the face with a penis? Or is that normal between fellow male students?

- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee announced after one day that this case did not involve bullying and that there is no association whatsoever with hall culture and education. At the same time, it was reported that residents received text messages telling them not to wear hall clothing outside and to refuse media interviews. It was even said that the baseball team is not allowed to wear uniforms in today's game; ditto no identifiable clothes at the Joint Hall Mass Dance.

- If this is not bullying, then what does it take to bully before you see it?

- If you mess up, you should 'fess up. This is just making it look so much worse.

- Friends cover up for each other. Of course.

- Not bullying? Was this an adult video shoot?

- Not bullying? How about sexual assault?

- Not bullying? Of course not. Instead there are three criminal counts: unlawful imprisonment; sexual harassment; common assault.

- In addition, whoever posted this video onto the Internet is guilty of distributing obscene/indecent materials.

- In addition, the Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee, the Hong Kong University Students Union and the university administration may be guilty of obstruction/perversion of justice.

- No wonder students break the law all the time. There are no consequences even after doing this. The perpetrator wasn't even expelled from the dormitory, much less from the university, because those in authority (namely, the Executive Committee and the Hall Warden) will always protect the student.

- Protect the students? The person who was assaulted is also a bona fide student. You can't protect both the victim and the perpetrators. Of course, you could mean that if the three perpetrators are expelled, then the victim will be bullied again by the other students who regard the behavior as normal. Therefore you think that you are protecting the victim by leaving the perpetrators alone.

- Who is the real victim here? I go through the discussion forums and there are hundreds and hundreds of jokes about the hoodie guy's small dick. How is he going to live through the psychological trauma?

- (Headline Daily) In the video, it was clearly seen that the male student was held down by others and the guy in the maroon hoodie took out his penis and slapped it on the face of the male student. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee said that no bullying was involved. So I take it that male student must have enjoyed the special attention from his hall mates?

- No, the whole point is that this is part of the maturation process. When a male student starts dating a female student, he has to make an open declaration to the POOL. By tradition, the male student has to go through this particular rite of baptism. So if the male students and the others willingly went through the rite, there is nothing that the administration, the public or the police can or should do. In this case, someone took a video and posted it onto the Internet. Once the public sees it, they get upset about what they see as immoral.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017.

With respect to this incident, HKU alumnus Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) denounced it as sexual perversion. HKU alumnus Tanya Party (Civic Party legislator) said that had seen the screen captures but she cannot bear watching the video. "I don't what to tell these students. I can't bear to watch it."

In recent years, there have been a number of violent incidents on the HKU campus.

On July 28, 2015, the students and others prevented University Council member Ayesha MacPherson from leaving. They also blocked the ambulance carrying injured University Council member Dr. Lo Chung Mo from leaving. At the time, Alan Leong and other Civic Party core members were present. They did not help the University Council members. Instead, they chanted slogans from the sidelines in support of the students.

On January 26, 2016, students laid siege to the University Council members again. They threw objects at the police who were summoned to maintain order. University Council president Arthur Li accused Alan Leong and the Civic Party of inciting the students. There is no doubt that the campus violence has plenty to do with the pan-democratic politicians telling the students that their actions were justified in defense of freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university.

- In order to continue to defend the freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university, the administration will not report this occurrence of a crime to the police. Without a complaint, the police will have no reason to come on campus to gather evidence. Thus, the university continues its autonomous self-rule which frees the professors and students to continue with their academic research.

- You can't blame Alan Leong and Tanya Chan for everything. (The Standard) April 3, 2017. Seven male students of St Stephen's College in Stanley, who are aged between 15 and 16 were arrested today on suspicion of access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent. They have been released on bail. Teachers have found secret cameras installed in the changing rooms in the sports ground, swimming pool and various classrooms. The incident was reported to the police on March 24.


How can slapping your head with my penis be bullying? This is literally a blow in the head to wake your fellow student up to the realities of our society. This is a strong reminder that life isn't going to be smooth sailing just because you managed to get into Hong Kong Universities. There is a very long road ahead of you, and an endless number of things will let you feel as if  you were getting slapped in the head with a penis.
You will slowly get used to being slapped in the head with a penis. Sometimes, before you fall asleep, you will secretly remember that male student who slapped your head with his penis. As you toss and turn in bed, you think travel through the time tunnel. You keep asking yourself why you didn't let him slap you more with his penis?
You will shed some tears, because you remember that his penis was really so much more gentle than this society.

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook

The Hong Kong University Students Union says that hitting the head with my penis is not bullying. Hey, maybe the student did so voluntarily. Or else the HKUSU is saying that even if the student was not willing, it is a trivial matter to have one's head slapped by a penis?
Will the Hong Kong University KOL's (Key Opinion Leaders) please comment?

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook

The positions of the various Hong Kong University KOL (Key Opinion Leaders) on these incidents are very risible. Most of them pretend that they see and hear nothing. Some of them avoided posting anything at all. A very few went out to spin as follows:
1. You people should not be surprised about nothing.
2. So what? Does a single incident represent all of Hong Kong University?
3. The important point is that the public does not understand hall culture.
Logically speaking, this is plausible. But this narrative is like the one about mainlanders defecating in Hong Kong streets:
1. Have the people of Hong Kong never seen anyone defecate?
2. So what if the person did defecate? Does a single incident represent all 1.4 billion Chinese people?
3. The important point is that the people of Hong Kong do not understand the situation in China today.
If you have to resort to these types of arguments as soon as your case comes up, please do a bit better, okay?

- More fun stuff from the Simon KY Lee Hall at Hong Kong University

Applying spray paint to the abdomen

Dripping hot wax from a lit candle

Grand parade in a shopping cart -- with a helmet to protect against the balls thrown by the hallmates.

- Next thing we request is a video of "happy corner" at Hong Kong University. (Urban Dictionary) A form of ritual corporal punishment enacted usually in Hong Kong among male university students. 3 to 4 "executioners" carry their victim by their arms and legs; then split the victim's legs; and swing them so their groin area is subjected to bumping against a pole or corner (not violently). This is not meant to hurt the victim, but can be used maliciously by friends or enemies alike. It may take more than 5 minutes occasionally, until the executioners are satisfied. Sometimes it is called "to Bring Joy" and can be used for a victim's birthday, with "Happy Birthday" being sung to the individual while it being inflicted upon them. While some may be flattered or honoured for this to happen, many others find it humiliating or a form of sexual harassment.

- The two SKY.Lee cases came into light because a mainland Chinese student made the videos/photos public because he found the behavior totally unacceptable. This is the reason why mainland Chinese students should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong to study. They are culturally inferior and completely misconstrue the superior hall cultures in Hong Kong. They are simply not ready to join the global community and adopt universal values.

- If you want to argue that the SKY.Lee Hall cases are not sexual assault, then nothing in the world ever is, including this case: (Hong Kong Free Press) April 7, 2017.

A former welder pleaded guilty to one count of bestiality at the West Kowloon Magistrates Courts on Friday. Chung Lin-fai, 58, was accused of having sex with a stray dog in Tung Chung on February 1. His lawyer pleaded in mitigation that Chung was caught in a moment of confusion and that the dog did not resist at the time. He also said Chung suffered from alcoholism and had lost his job since the incident attracted media attention.

Acting Principal Magistrate So Wai-tak said Chungs conduct was very disgusting and had hurt the feelings of his wife and three children, HK01 reported. So said imprisonment was inevitable, as he remanded Chung in custody pending a sentencing hearing on April 21. The magistrate accepted the prosecutors request to transfer the dog to the animal welfare group SPCA.

The court heard that Chung led a 2-year-old stray dog to near a stream on Wong Lung Hang Road, Lantau, where he assaulted the animal. The incident came to light after a villager spotted a suspicious figure apparently luring a canine with food into the woods. Several hours later, the dog appearing in distress emerged with injuries to its lower body. An examination by a vet detected suspected human semen. Chung admitted when arrested to having sexual intercourse with the dog. He said he occasionally fed the dog over the past two years and took her to a nearby stream to give her a shower. He said he had never had sex with the canine before that.

The magistrate will hand down a sentence on April 21 after obtaining a psychiatric report and a background report. It is an offence to have sexual intercourse with any animal under the Crimes Ordinance. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$50,000 fine and 10 years of imprisonment.

- Here is how the St. John's College case was settled.

- "I want genuine justice" -- Why did St. John's College refer the case to the Hong Kong Police for a range of potential charges such as common assault, sexual assault, etc?

- The St. John's College can only take measures that relate to the College itself. The maximum penalty is expulsion from the College permanently. The issue is whether they refer the case to the University administration. The maximum penalty within the university is expulsion. The University administration can also make a crime report to the Hong Kong Police at which point the Hong Kong crime ordinances apply.

- How about CAP 212 Offences Against the Person Ordinance Section 29 Causing gunpowder to explode, etc., or throwing corrosive fluid, with intent to do grievous bodily harm

Any person who unlawfully and maliciously ... puts or lays at any place, or casts or throws at or upon or otherwise applies to any person, any corrosive fluid or any destructive or explosive substance, with intent in any of such cases to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable any person or to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, shall, whether any bodily injury is effected or not, be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

This covers the situation of dripping hot wax onto the body of a person.

- HKU Student Union ex-president Althea Suen Hiu-nam's Facebook

Everybody feels helpless and despondent over the Internet speculations and the lop-sided negative public opinion. How are the halls going to continue to function?

People put their 3-seconds worth of attention on juicy images and single-sentence taglines that don't require much brainpower to process. The story and the truth underneath are unimportant to them. They only want something that suits their tastes and agenda. (I must admit that #too_long_didnt_read is a common habit.)

Last year, I also experienced the communicative power of these matters. Since I was the student representative, I accepted 200% of the responsibility. I had to be cautious about what I said in order to avoid mistakes that might cause misunderstanding.

These cruel ruthless social mores should not be borne by you alone. It is hard for us to stop these criticisms, but at least we can remind ourselves that we don't want to be people like these. We should not get lazy and fan certain accusations that are not based on truths.

I want us to seek the the truth with a certain sympathetic understanding and give us a chance to make this place perfect. I hope that people can give the university investigative team some room to find the facts and give an account. We want those cyber bullies who claim to be serving justice when they run their public trials and make baseless accusations stop.

- What kind of democracy is this? When public opinion goes overwhelmingly against you, you call the public a bunch of fools? Whatever happened to your claims of trusting in the wisdom of the people? Are you students the sole purveyor of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUE? So it was with Occupy Central and now with the hall ragging incidents.

- What is this profound mistrust of the hoi polloi outside of the Hong Kong University student body? How are they wrong?

1. Did ragging occur? We have photos and we have videos. Should we not trust our own lying eyes and take your word instead?

2. Is such behavior wrong? Well, I can't imagine this being normal in an office or factory. Someday Althea Suen is going to get a job. After her probation period, she is official welcomes by behind held down while her male co-workers slap her face with their penises?

The public is reacting the way that they should be. It is Althea Suen and the rest of the HKU KOL's who should be reflecting on why they are trying to rationalizing the egregious behavior. Why are they weaving and dodging to avoid the objective facts, the relevant laws and the public opinion?

- Somebody passed this uncredited screed for me to read. I read through it, and I swore that this must have been written by a CY Leung supporter who is once again complaining about the fact-free unjust pan-politicization of everything under the sun against Leung.

It began when friends of Yau Wai-ching began posting photos of her and a friend dressed in tight body-hugging cheongsam.

Wan Chin's Facebook

Wan Chin: The independence sect has its unique aesthetics. To thank you for your support at the voting booths, they will come back in the by-elections. Right now, they are starting their election campaign promotion of their cultural tastes. The young men and women who support Youngspiration will find this easy to accept, because they are of the same type as Ms. Yau.

Yau Wai-ching's Facebook

Cultural differences arise due to differences in geographical, political and economic conditions. Clothing, cuisine, habitation and mobility are all affected in addition to aesthetics.

The Cheongsam was popular in Hong Kong during the 1950's and 1960's. At the same time, the Chinese Communist founded their nation in which Cheongsam (and qibao which came from the same origins) began to disappear only to revive in recent years. In Hong Kong, the cheongsam is still the formal dress for many young ladies on formal occasions. Its design reflects historical factors in Hong Kong, and integrates the special features of various cultures. Apart from clothing, the popular music and movies of Hong Kong in the 1980's went into the just opening China and affected that generation of Chinese people. During this period, Hong Kong terminologies such as "taxi", "steak" and "bus" became popular there. Therefore, Hong Kong has always had the responsibility of fusing, preserving and inherting Chinese culture, eventually evolving into a unique Hong Kong-style culture. By comparison, China went through various political transformations as well as the Cultural Revolution. At first, it was influenced by Soviet Russia (especially in terms of official propaganda) and then it purged itself of all civilization. Today it has rebuilt into something completely different. This showed that China has discarded its own culture many times over history, but Hong Kong has managed to combine the best of various culture to form its own style.

We used to be formidable. The movie stars, clothing, cuisine and even transportation vehicles were renowned around the world. If we want to create another acme, we must value the culture that we have inherited and not demean ourselves. If during the process of severing from certain political powers we deliberate cleanse our unique culture, we will have fallen into the trap set by those political powers and become no different from the Chinese Red Guards.

#By-election campaign
#It's gotta be this way

Wan Chin's Facebook

Wan Chin: "Production base for the Hong Kong Independence Movement"

Photo: This cheongsam/qibao is available on Taobao for 228 RMB, 48-hour delivery.

(YouTube) Apple Daily

Internet comments:

- The traditional cheongsam is not available in department stores, whether the Japanese Sogo, or the Hong Kong Sincere/Wing On, or the Chinese Yu Wah. The whole point is that it must be body hugging. Since women come in all sizes and shapes, the cheongsam is custom-tailored by the Shanghai tailors with several fittings during the process.

- Well, people are surely going to say that you can't find a cheongsam tailor in Hong Kong anymore. This explains why Yau Wai-ching paid 228 RMB to buy her cheongsam on Taobao.

But let me tell you: Taobao is the first place in which Hong Kong independence from China has been physically realized. If you make a purchase from anywhere in mainland China, the postage is included in the price. If you make the same purchase from Hong Kong, you will be charged postage/handling. This proves that Hong Kong is not China.

- You take a look at Yau BB's photo taken from the rear. Her body is shaped like a barrel. With a body like that, the cheongsam is a death knell. If she wore and big and fluffy dress (maternity/pregnancy dress), nobody would know for sure. Once she put on this cheongsam, it becomes very apparent that the fat, short and round-faced Yau Wai-ching had none of the attributes of Chinese beauties.

- If you saw those two women in a dark alley, you will probably become scared as hell.

- When a Facebook commentator complained about Yau wearing a traditional Chinese qibao, she countered that "This is a Hong Kong-style cheongsam." Do you know the difference between a Chinese-style qibao and a Hong Kong-style cheongsam? Let see what Wikipedia has to say:

(Cheongsam) The cheongsam (from Cantonese Chinese: 長衫) is a body-hugging one-piece Chinese dress for women, also known as qipao (from Mandarin Chinese: 旗袍), and was ROC's mandarin gown. The stylish and often tight-fitting cheongsam or qipao (chipao) that is best known today was created in the 1920s in Shanghai and made fashionable by socialites and upper class women.

And if you check for Qipao in Wikipedia, it redirects to Cheongsam.

- Yau Wai-ching explained that she rented the clothes from Yan Shang Kee Qipao Rental. In other words, she rented a Chinese-style qipao and not a Hong Kong-style cheongsam.

- That's even more pathetic -- she paid expensively to rent for something that costs 280 RMB on Taobao.

- That's even more pathetic -- she paid expensively to rent something that costs 280 RMB on Taobao.

- Now that you mention money, what about the $950,000 in taxpayer money that she owes the Legislative Council? She's got money to buy qipao, but not to pay her debts.

- So this is the same issue as Freedom fries not being french fries. Any difference between cheongsam and qipao is only clear in the pea-sized brain of Yau Wai-ching.

- People still don't understand the issue with the cheongsam/qipao. The Manchurians were defeated by an uprising of the Hans. As the victorious majority, the Hans preached Racial Harmony and thus appropriated the Manchu's qipao as the Chinese national dress. The dress became very popular in Shanghai among the nouveau riche who liked to imagine that they are a class of nobility in the new China. When the Communists took over, they banned the qipao because it was the symbol of western capitalist compradores/running dogs. The wealthy folks of Shanghai who had the means fled to Hong Kong and brought the qipao fashion there.

In summary, the qipao represents the cultural invasion of Hong Kong by the northern Chinese bitches. When Yau Wai-ching said that "Hong Kong absorbed outside cultural influences and merged the qipao into their own culture," she is spouting nonsense. The true Hong Kong-style women's clothes are those of the Tanka people:

- On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching left a comment: 「我東星耀揚今日黎(嚟)collect your skin」. Literally, this translates to "I, Yiu-yeung from the Tung Sing Gang, will kill you today." This is what the gangster character Cheung Yiu-yeung said in the movie Teddy Boys. But the battle so far seems to have ended with Wan Chin scoring a knockout with his Taobao pictures.

- If this is an advertisement for a Japanese adult video, then the Japanese words should be added:

- A short history of the Live and Death of Localism in Hong Kong:

... In retrospect, the so-called Localism began at first with giving "priority" to Hongkongers in the allocation of resources. And they also think of themselves as the authentic inheritors of traditional Chinese culture which will be the basis for a new nation. Youngspiration went further by advocating de-Sinofication. They ended up blowing away all other Localists first and then they killed themselves along with their modus operandi. Thinking back about the case of Siu Yau-wai, the Localists focused on "Hong Kong Priority" in resource allocation and even the Blue Ribbons stood on our side!

If Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration were really sent by the Chinese Communists, then they are truly brilliant.
First of all, they leaped to the extreme end of the political spectrum and denounced all other Localists as pro-unification with China. Localism became their exclusive terminology and everybody else is a phoney. Then they proceeded with a string of stupid asinine actions. Then they used the "Re-fucking of Sheena" oath ceremony to blow themselves along with Localism. The entire movement is now back to before the anti-High Speed Rail protests of 2009.

Ten years of time was wasted. Worse yet, the Chinese Communists are beginning to learn to use the Internet. We have not only gone back to Level 1 in the game, but the Boss has upgraded himself by ten levels now.

- (HKG Pao) It is the sense of Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgent that Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang are Chinese Communist moles who destroyed the Localism movement. "You can't sell anything unless someone is willing to buy it. So some dickheads must buy it first before they have a market. Many people buy Localism because the term is so cool. Not many people care what Localism is supposed to mean. When Hong Kong Independence appeared, it is even more cool than Localism and so many were attracted to it. For such people, Localism and Hong Kong Independence are just sound bites. They will go over to whichever sound bite seems more attractive at the moment. Hong Kong politics is the politics of sound bites. It is unimportant how stupid the inside contents are. If you have good sound bites, you will attract votes at elections."

Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were able to use slogans to attract voters to get them into the Legislative Council. But they were too stupid and destroyed their own careers. Today, Yau-Leung are like rats-in-the-streets being chased by the Localist, Pan-democratic and Pro-Establishment camps alike.

- Thanks to Yau-Leung, Localism and Hong Kong Independence have lost their luster. Blowing up a rubbish bin seems to be a lot of fun, but people don't want to spend three years in jail for doing so. They want risk-free fun. But incitement to riot carries a ten-year jail sentence.

Here is a spoof of Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok, former Hong Kong University Student Union president.

Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok's Facebook (March 31, 2017): I am no longer Yellow. I have been approved for a scholarship to do further studies in the United States. Farewell to the people of Hong Kong.

Anthony Fung's Facebook: I am the father of Billy Fung. May I ask what arrangements can be made when he goes to jail and comes out afterwards?

Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok:

How are you, Mr. Fung? I believe that you must have discussed these matters with Billy. I am an outsider. I have nothing to do with his arrest. I am his predecessor (as the Hong Kong University Students Union president) and it is my fault not to let him safely serve through his term and share his worries. Therefore no matter what the outcome of Billy's sentencing, I will do my best to pray for him.

Everybody has parents. Mr. Fung, your concerns are the same as the concerns my own parents have for me. Bu when we became union presidents, we were twenty-something-years-old already. Ultimately Billy has to be responsible for his future. We all know that what we did may have certain consequences, but we were not going to stop because of these unknown problems. When some things have to be done, they will have to done. This is in accordance with what my mentor Alan Leong taught me.

It is still not unknown whether Billy has to plan for "going to jail" and "coming out afterwards." Your worries are reasonable, but they really have nothing to do with me. Perhaps Billy does not mind going to jail.

Best wishes.

Internet comments:

- (Speakout.hk) On her Facebook, Yvonne Leung said: "The bill? I did not intend to run away. If you want, you come. I am waiting."

0:30 Yvonne Leung: "I am carrying out civil disobedience. Afterwards I will turn myself in."

What happened to that bit about turning herself in? It is more than two years later now (more than nine hundred days later). She has not yet gone to the police station to turn herself in.

And speaking about paying the debt, she has a prior record -- on the day of the clearance of Admiralty, Yvonne Leung was nowhere to be seen.

0:54 (TVB) Why did I not remain until the last moment at Admiralty? That's because we had to take class exams that day.

- What are Yvonne Leung's priorities in life? FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE for Hong Kong? Or her Hong Kong University law school class exam?

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 3, 2017.

Hong Kongs anti-corruption watchdog arrested activist Avery Ng on Monday for allegedly disclosing the identity of a person that it is investigating.

Ng, chair of the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats, was accused of violating a law that prohibits anyone from disclosing to the public the identity of people being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Last April, local media alleged that Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee had a conflict of interest when exchanging properties with a tycoon and benefiting from the price difference.

Ng reported to the ICAC following news reports and was later invited to the ICAC offices to give a testimony. He told the press at the time that he could not disclose anything, except that he hoped Fung would give a public explanation, Oriental Daily reported.

The 40-year-old activist was arrested on Monday morning for his remarks and taken to the the Eastern Magistrates Courts in the afternoon. Ngs party colleagues including lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung turned up in support of the embattled activist.

Since the Legislative Council elections last September, it is the third time law enforcement agents have searched my home and arrested me. They keep coming up with charges that are just excuses, Ng said following his arrest. The Chinese Communist Party will not allow Hong Kong to have a breathing space. But sorry, Im not easily defeated. The more oppressive you are, the more determined I am, and the more resistance I will commit myself to, he added.

The ICAC confirmed on Monday that Ng was arrested and charged with three counts of disclosing to the public the identity of persons under investigation, an offence under section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$20,000 fine and a year behind bars.

(SCMP) April 3, 2017.

The chairman of Hong Kongs League of Social Democrats was charged on Monday for allegedly disclosing details of a probe by the citys graft buster based on a complaint he lodged last year.

The prosecution of Avery Ng Man-yuen came on the day before the one-year time limit for initiating a prosecution was to expire, with senior public prosecutor Samantha Chiu Ping-yan apologising at the afternoon hearing for the urgent manner in which the case was brought to court.

The urgency was also recognised by principal magistrate Bina Chainrai, who noted that prosecutors had miscalculated the timing and the cut-off point would have passed if the case had been brought to court later than Monday.

Ng, 40, faces three counts of disclosing the identity of persons being investigated. He was not required to take a plea on his first appearance in Eastern Court.

Prosecutors alleged the business consultant had without lawful authority or reasonable excuse disclosed to the public the identity of a person facing an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, as well as broadcaster RTHK.

He was also accused of disclosing details of the investigation in revealing that he had been invited to give and was in the course of giving a witness statement as a complainant. The alleged offences spanned April 5 to May 24 last year. A statement from the ICAC revealed that Ng had earlier lodged a complaint against the subject on April 2 of the same year.

The case was adjourned for five weeks to May 8 for Ng, who was not legally represented, to seek legal advice. He was released on cash bail of HK$1,000, with the condition that he live at his reported address and alert the ICAC 24 hours ahead of any change.

Prosecutors also asked for an additional condition that he refrain from having contact with any of the witnesses, but that was turned down by the magistrate. The witnesses listed are ICAC officers, Chainrai said. I dont think thats a reasonable condition.

The offence is punishable by a HK$20,000 fine and one year in prison.

Internet comments:

- CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30

(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to

(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person ) the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or

(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year. (Replaced 48 of 1996 s. 15)

- (Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017. Outside the courthouse, Avery Ng told the press that this was a political persecution of the League of Social Democrats. He said that he was merely the complainant, but he is being arrested one year later. He emphasized that he never disclosed any details of the the investigation, nor was he in any position to know what was happening. He said that he needed to seek legal advice to see whether he was breaking the law. Ng said that the people have the right to know that senior government officials are corrupt, as in the Donald Tsang case. In this case, a citizen filed a complaint against a senior government official. One year later, the citizen is arrested but nothing has happened to the senior government official.

- Hey, buddy, according to CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b), you are breaking the law if you disclose that a subject person is the subject of an investigation. Further details may or may not be provided.

- At 2:55pm, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng, vice-chairman Raphael Wong and two other members presented themselves at the Eastern District Court. They raised banners and chanted slogans such as "It is no crime to lodge a complaint" and "It is just to fight back."

Eh, this case is not about the right to lodge a complaint with the ICAC. This case is about the perversion of the course of justice by publicly disclosing information about an ongoing investigation against CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b). If Avery Ng does not know what it is, he will now.

- (Bastille Post) April 3, 2017.

The three charges against Avery Ng pertain to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30(1)(b) on the disclosure of the identity of the subject person in an investigation.

This piece of legislation exists for two reasons.

Firstly, it is to ensure that the investigation does not get interfered with. The disclosure of the investigation may cause the subject person to flee, or to destroy evidence, or otherwise pervert the course of justice.

Secondly, it is to protect the reputation of the subject person. Eventually even if the investigation did not result in prosecution by the ICAC, the public will retain the impression that the subject person had been under a cloud of suspicion for probable cause.

In recent years, the pan-democrats have routinely lodged complaints at the ICAC and then tell the world about it afterwards. The action against Avery Ng shows that the ICAC intends to put a stop to the practice in order to defend the reputations of the subject persons of their investigations. If Avery Ng is prosecuted, so will a number of other pan-democrats for doing similar things in the past. These people have plenty to worry about.

- Let me give you an example. Suppose I go down to the ICAC this afternoon. I tell them that there is a report that Jimmy Lai gave a dog biscuit to Avery Ng in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC is required by law to open a file for an investigation.

I come out of the ICAC meeting and declare on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, RTHK, Commercial Radio, Apple Daily and Ming Pao that Avery Ng is under investigation by the ICAC for accepting a dog biscuit from Jimmy Lai in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC will neither acknowledge nor deny this. So everyone will go away thinking that Avery Ng must be a dog, and the only debate left is whether he is Japanese Akita, British Bulldog, German shepherd, French Poodle, Chinese Shih Tzu, or whatever. Eventually the ICAC will close the file on this nothing case. But the world will remember Avery Ng as a dog.

Is that fair to Avery Ng? Of course not.

By prosecuting Avery Ng, ICAC is trying to defend Avery Ng against the same thing happening to him.

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