(v4.0)

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

• [Permalink] Demosistō? (2016/04/07)

(EJ Insight) April 7, 2016.

A new political party called Demosistō will be formed on Sunday, led by student activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Agnes Chow Ting, thestandnews.com reported Wednesday night. Wong was the convener of the now-defunct student group Scholarism, and Chow used to be its spokeswoman.

The invitation to Chinese media issued by Wong portrays the party’s inauguration as a movie premiere under the tagline “The Younger Games” — a play on the title of the hit film franchise The Hunger Games. In line with that theme, Chow, like the movies’ heroine, is pictured with a bow and arrow. 

Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a former secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, will be one of the founding members of the new party. Law said Wednesday night that the party’s name suggests it will “stand with the people” in their quest to turn around the destiny of Hong Kong.

The name Demosistō is formed from the Greek work “demos”, meaning people, and the Latin word “sisto”, meaning “I stand”, Law said. While “demos” is a root word of democracy, “sisto” is a root of words such as “insist”, “persist” and “resist”. The party’s name suggests it will stand by the people to resist suppression.

Some netizens, however, found the name difficult to pronounce, hard to remember and maybe grammatically incorrect. 

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 7, 2016.

Student activist Joshua Wong’s new political party will be named Demosistō, after his group Scholarism suspended operations. Yet the rather surprising name has drawn questions and parodies.

The new party, which will be launched on Sunday, said its name was derived from the Greek word Demos – people – and the Latin word Sisto – stand – and that it will stand with the people to resist suppression.

Key well-known members of the party, other than Wong, include Oscar Lai Man-lok and Agnes Chow Ting – formerly of Scholarism – and Nathan Law Kwun-chung – formerly of the Hong Kong Federation of Students.

The agenda of the party is unclear, but Wong has previously called for a referendum to decide on Hong Kong’s future after 2047, when the One Country, Two Systems agreement expires. The party is also expected to run in the Legislative Council elections in September.

However, the new combination of words in its name may not have given the party a great start. “The name is difficult, it is hard to pronounce, I accept the criticisms, I will reflect on it deeply,” Nathan Law said on his Facebook page after the announcement. Joshua Wong had to send a voice recording to reporters on how to pronounce it.

Some pointed out that the name may not be grammatically correct, that sisto is a first person singular form of the word, meaning there is only one person standing or resisting. “Demos means people, you should use third person plural form – sistunt – meaning they stand,” a commentator posted on Joshua Wong’s Facebook account. “Common people would not be able to speak and remember the name, no matter how meaningful it is, it seems distant to people,” another said.

At least eight Facebook pages using the party’s name were set up after the announcement. Some even made websites such as demosisto.github.io and demosisto.com with messages to “Gif” – a play on Joshua Wong’s Chinese name Chi-fung. However, the party has not set up any official Facebook page or website, although Wong said they were ready to be rolled out.

The party also admitted that the group’s Chinese name 香港眾志 – with roughly the same meaning as the English one – was only announced hours after the English name. “Some foreign journalists suddenly told us they were coming to Hong Kong, we must respond immediately, we are sorry for the chaos due to the rush,” Law added.

Hong Kong Language Studies, a group promoting Cantonese teaching, translated its name into Latin using the same style of graphic as the new party in response. “But how to pronounce it in Latin is not the main point. In Hong Kong, Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters must come first,” it said on its Facebook page.

The last two characters of the Chinese name are also the same as Chung Chi Tang, a building at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where there is a canteen famous for its HK$10 cheap meals. “I didn’t intend to, but my first impression was Chung Chi Tang at CUHK,” Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, a former Scholarism member and CUHK student leader, posted on his Facebook account.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po)

- The name Scholarism is the anglicized version of the Latin or German term Scholarismus. So I guess that they want to do something similar ... sisto is first person singular, so demo+sisto means The People, I stand alone. Now this is truly independent political party, because it is a political party for a single person standing alone.

- Another way of parsing the term is even more ominous: demos+isto means The People, That Person. But since isto is an ablative male, it means The Man Who Has Left The People.

- They wanted to convey a message like The People Stand Together. In the Chinese-language press release, they proclaimed that they are presenting a great work on the future of Hong Kong titled "眾志圍城" (The Will of the People lay siege to the City." But Stand (sistō) in Greek means "have or maintain an upright position supported by one's feet in a fixed location" and not "an attitude towards a particular issue or a position taken in an argument."

- No wonder they had to stop the Copyright Amendment Bill in spite of the wishes of the American Chamber of Commerce. Here is he rip-off version of The Hunger Games poster.

- A spoof on the poster changed "眾志圍城" into "I don't know how to read this."

- (Wen Wei Po) April 7 2016.

- Generally speaking, Hongkongers have trouble pronouncing English words with many syllables. Typically they map the English word into Chinese words and memorize those words. An easy-to-remember mnemonic for Demosistō is 地踎屎塔 (which literally means Toilet Used By Unemployed Coolies). Reference: How to Use a Squat Toilet in China.

- The invitation to attend the press conference took the form of a film premier. The poster is titled The Younger Games starring Agnes Chow, Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai and Nathan Law. So this is just democracy being sold as a computer games and/or a movie.

The director is Shu Kei, who may or may not be the person of the same name who is the Dean of Film and Television at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. The names of the scriptwriter and the producer are pseudonyms.

How serious can these people be?

- The slogan on the poster says that on April 10, they will bring the city down with one arrow. Thanks a lot for shooting Hong Kong!

- Here is the exercise of the inalienable right to spoof.

DEMO: In Cantonese, this means Fuck Someone's Mother.
SISTO: In Cantonese, this means Fleeing After The Act.
So DEMOSISTO means fucking someone's mother and fleeing after the act.
"眾志圍城" is a homonym as "眾痔圍城", which means that everyone who has hemorrhoids is laying siege to the city. By being destructive and non-constructive, Joshua Wong is indeed Hong Kong's hemorrhoid.

- On an RTHK radio talk show, Joshua Wong and Kaizer Lau were guests. After the show, they shook hands. A picture tells the story better than one thousand words. So what did you think happen? What does this have to say about family upbringing and self-cultivation? What kind of democracy will you have if you totally disrespect all dissidents?

- (SCMP) Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong must realise that banks have rules; By Alex Lo. April 7, 2016.

It’s a good thing I am not a news editor. I wouldn’t last a day in today’s newsroom. I can’t, for example, understand why political activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung’s inability to open an account with HSBC was news, when it was reported in practically all the major local media outlets. Some pan-democrat lawmakers even demanded answers from Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Chan Ka-keung. I could have thought of more worthwhile things to ask in the legislature.

When I first became a reporter 20 years ago, the Bank of China wouldn’t let me open a current account because, a branch manager told me, I earned too little to qualify to have my own cheque book. Later, they refused me a mortgage because they didn’t think I was “financially viable”. I could have claimed political persecution because of my job. By the way, I was actually holding down a steady job with a stable, if very low, income.

So here’s young Joshua, formerly of the student activist group Scholarism, screaming bloody murder because HSBC turned down his application to open an account. But even according to Wong, HSBC didn’t simply say no. It’s just that the bank asked for additional information, which he refused to supply. Worse, he wasn’t entirely forthcoming about his purpose of opening a joint savings account with a fellow activist when asked by the bank.

He also tried to open a current account but was turned down. “We were asked about the purpose of the joint account and we said it was for personal savings,” Wong said.

But when interviewed by reporters, he admitted they needed the accounts to handle donations and other business dealings for a new political party they were setting up. “It seems the fuss is because I am a politically sensitive person,” Wong said. “Political censorship seems to have been involved in [HSBC’s] business considerations.”

So here’s a young guy with only a secondary school education, has never earned a cent in his life or never held down a steady job. When asked for more personal details, he declined to comply out of what he called “privacy concerns”.

Is it any wonder that HSBC, or any bank, would refuse to do business with such a person?

• [Permalink] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/04/06) (Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong)

Q1a. Is the conflict between the government and the citizens serious?
66.5%: Serious
24.2%: In-between
6.6%: Not serious
2.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q1b. Is the political wrangling in Hong Kong serious?
71.4%: Serious
21.8%: In-between
4.3%: Not serious
2.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2a. When struggling with the government to fight for our demands, we should always adhere to peaceful, rational and non-violent means.
69.5%: Agree
20.5%: In-between
8.1%: Disagree
2.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2b. Nowadays in Hong Kong, taking radical actions such as physical clashes or traffic blockage is the only way of making the government respond to people's demands.
15.9%: Agree
23.2%: In-between
57.8%: Disagree
3.1%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2c. Taking radical action is the only way to make the government respond to your demands.
9.1%: Agree
23.9%: In-between
63.6%: Disagree
3.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. In fighting for public interests, you prefer to
22.3%: Stick to your principles and not compromise
66.9%: See both sides make concessions in order to co-exist
2.0%: Neither
8.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. During a demonstration, are the following actions acceptable or not?

Physical clashes
18.6%: Acceptable
23.0%: In-between
56.9%: Unacceptable
1.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Throwing eggs at government officials
18.9%: Acceptable
17.6%: In-between
61.0%: Unacceptable
2.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Lie-down protests
41.7%: Acceptable
17.6%: In-between
37.2%: Unacceptable
3.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Traffic blockage
3.9%: Acceptable
10.9%: In-between
82.2%: Unacceptable
2.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Throwing hard objects at law enforcement officers
3.9%: Acceptable
10.9%: In-between
82.2%: Unacceptable
2.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Vandalism
2.9%: Acceptable
13.5%: In-between
81.0%: Unacceptable
2.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Burning tires or rubbish bins
3.9%: Acceptable
8.7%: In-between
84.6%: Unacceptable
2.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. Do you expect social conflict to become more serious over the next three years?
45.5%: More serious
25.5%: About the same as now
13.2%: More moderate
16.0%: Don't know/hard to say

• [Permalink] Ten Years (2016/04/04)

(Hong Kong Film Awards) 35th Hong Kong Film Awards

Best Film: Ten Years
Best Director: Tsui Hark (The Taking of Tiger Mountain)
Best Screenplay: Philip Yung Tsz Kwong (Port of Call)
Best Actor: Aaron Kwok (Port of Call)
Best Actress: Jessie Li (Port of Call)
Best Supporting Actor: Michael Ning (Port of Call)
Best Supporting Actress: Elaine Jin (Port of Call)
Best Cinematography: Christopher Doyle (Port of Call)
Best New Performer: Michael Ning (Port of Call)

(YouTube) Ten Years trailer
(YouTube) Hong Kong Film Awards presentation of Best Film award

(BBC) Ten Years: Controversial Hong Kong film wins top Asia award. April 4, 2016.

A controversial film depicting a bleak future for Hong Kong under Beijing's control has won one of Asia's top film awards. The low-budget, independent movie Ten Years has packed screenings in Hong Kong, but is banned in mainland China. Set in 2025, it depicts political gangs and persecution of local people for speaking Cantonese not Mandarin. It comes amid increasing nervousness in Hong Kong about perceived Communist Party interference in its affairs.

Ten Years, which is made up of five vignettes, won the best film prize at the Hong Kong Film Awards held on Sunday. "Ten Years exposed the fear of Hong Kong people (towards China)," said one of the film's directors, Chow Kwun-wai.

Producer Andrew Choi told the BBC the award came as a surprise. "It's important for Hong Kong that a film that echoes so much of what people are feeling in their hearts has won." He said the film won after several rounds of voting by mainly Hong Kong filmmakers and praised the "integrity" of that process.

The film includes scenes such as children in uniform policing adults, reminiscent of the child Red Guards of China's violent 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, and an old woman setting herself alight in front of the British consulate.

In January, China's state-controlled Global Times ran an editorial describing the film as a "thought virus". Shortly after, many cinemas in Hong Kong stopped screening it, though independent screenings have continued to show the film. It is also expected to appear in limited release or at festivals in Taiwan, Singapore, the US and Italy. The film's makers have never sought distribution in mainland China, but the awards ceremony was not broadcast there, as it normally is. Censors in the mainland also blacked out the story when it appeared on BBC World News.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 5, 2016.

Dystopian movie Ten Years won “Best Film” at the 2016 Hong Kong Film Awards held at the Cultural Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui on Sunday.

Ten Years is a dark socio-political fantasy that imagines what Hong Kong may look like ten years on. Five directors produced five shorts exploring a city where shops are attacked by uniformed army cadets for selling banned materials, where Mandarin is the dominant language, and where an activist self-immolates in a fight for Hong Kong’s independence.

Ng Ka-leung, one of the film’s directors, told reporters that he was not concerned by Beijing’s opinion: “If you ask me what Beijing might feel towards us, I would say it doesn’t really matter. The movie was made for Hong Kong people. We are open-minded to anyone who likes it or not. We just hope that Hong Kong people can share our feelings. We would like people to think about the future of Hong Kong.”

The film was called a “miracle,” for its success despite a limited showing in cinema chains. Thousands of Hong Kongers flocked to see the movie at special screenings across the city of Friday. Despite being produced on a low budget of HK$500,000, it took over HK$6 million at cinemas according to latest figures at Box Office Mojo, a website owned by the international film site IMDB.

Earlier in late January, the film’s success caught the attention of the Chinese government. China’s state newspaper Global Times criticised the film as “ridiculous,” saying that it was spreading desperation.

In February, Chinese state media broadcaster CCTV notified the Hong Kong Film Awards Association that it will not broadcast this year’s event on television. Tencent, the Chinese technology giant, also told the association that it will cease its broadcasting online.

As Sunday’s ceremony came to a close, news of the “best film” winner was omitted from reports in mainland China. On Saturday, state mouthpiece Global Times ran an article entitled: “Hong Kong Film Awards fails to attract attention at home”.

Internet comments:

- Ten Years was nominated in one category (Best Film) and won. Port of Call was nominated in ten categories including Best Film and swept most of the major awards (Best Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Cinematography) but it is not the Best Film. It is hard not to think that the voting was political.

35th Hong Kong Film Awards
Politics hijacks Art

- How extraordinary is this? Here are the results for the Best Film over the past 35 years. The first column of numbers is the number of nominated awards and the second column is the number won. The only film that won the Best Film Award without winning any other categories was Ann Hui's Ordinary Heroes (2000) about social activists. But even that film had 8 nominations in total, and it was also voted the Best Film at the Taipei Golden Horse Film Festival. Ten Years is the only Best Film ever to be nominated for Best Film only and failed to make the final nomination list on every other category.

- Ten Years is composed of five vignettes directed by five different teams. Therefore it could not be nominated for Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress or Best Cinematography. There is no need to politicize everything.

- If you have five stories to tell woven around a single theme ("Hong Kong ten years from now"), then you write a script that weaves those stories together. It is because your scripting skills are insufficient that you tell five separate stories instead.

- If you want to improve your story-telling skills, please read Dream of the Red Chamber, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, Lord of he Rings, War and Peace, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Tereza Batista, etc. Correction: The first three titles are Chinese, so please remove them because Hong Kong is not China.

- (Apple Daily) Quotes from the Ten Years team: "Ten Years is more than a film. Production-wise, we are in many ways inadequate. This award tells us to continue to be humble. At the same time, it tells us that there is a great deal of possibilities for Hong Kong films. As long as you honestly make a film, there can be a lot of forces. Therefore I must thank every Hongkonger, because you are telling us that it is not too late for Hong Kong." "The emergence of Ten Years is somewhat peculiar, because it is not qualified to become Best Film in terms of film art and technique. But I am very grateful to the Film Awards judges, because they used their angle to affirm this film."

Last night a Hong Kong film Ten Years was selected as the Best Film. Is this movie so exceptional in its art and production? Does it really overpower the other nominees? Or was the key issue about Ten Years producing a terrifying and desperate image in the five vignettes of Hong Kong ten years later under One Country Two Systems. Ten Years is a totally fictional film intended to generate political fear. Look at the stories of the five vignettes:

(1) Floating Melon: Senior government officials plotted to assassinate a legislator during an assembly and used the resultant chaos to pass through the National Security Bill;

(2) Winter Cicada: Two genetic scientists turned themselves into preserved specimens because they cannot shake off their memories;
(3) Dialect: Taxi drivers must know putonghua in order to work; those who don't know putonghua struggle to make a living because their taxis are labeled "non-putonghua."

(4) Self-immolator: A social movement leader was sentenced to jail for violating Basic Law Article 23. A supporter sets himself on fire in front of the British Consulate in Hong Kong. The police attacked the senior citizens and students, and prevented the students from speaking about Hong Kong independence to an interviewer.

(5) Local egg: A farmer insist on producing and selling local eggs. His son joins the Youth Army and attacked local eggs.

Ten Years is made up of these five stories and became the Best Film. This is a low-budget black-and-white production whose directors, actors and actresses are all unknowns. Apart from political reasons and smearing One Country Two Systems, there is no justification for this film to be given the Best Film award.

At a time when the Hong Kong film industry is in the doldrums, what is the reason that the Hong Kong Film Awards organizers and the judges gave Ten Years the Best Film award? When Ten Years was nominated, the mainland Chinese television stations canceled their live broadcast of the Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony. What good does this do to cooperation and exchange between Hong Kong and mainland China?

Self-immolator: In 2025, Basic Law Article 23 was enacted in Hong Kong. 19-year-old Auyueng was arrested for breaching national security because he supported Hong Kong independence. He died from a hunger strike in jail. This caused a Hongkonger to set himself on fire in front of the British Consulate in order to express his dissatisfaction with the Communist Party. At the same time, non-violent resistance has proven to be ineffective and the people of Hong Kong must give up their times to fight for Hong Kong independence.

Dialect: Hong Kong is being invaded by putonghua. The government required that taxi drivers who have not passed the standard putonghua test to pick up passengers at the airport, piers and Central on pain of prosecution.

Floating Melon: In 2020, the Chinese Communist Party and the pro-establishment camp fabricated a terrorist attack against a political party party in order to successfully enact Basic Law Article 23. But the new immigrants and the South Asian who carried out the terrorist attack were shot and killed by the police.

Winter Cicada: The house of a Hongkonger was razed by bulldozer and the residents killed. A taxidermist couple was turning everything that the people of Hong Kong are losing into specimens. Finally, they found the burden too heavy and the husband chose to let his wife turn him into a specimen.

Local Egg: The Youth Army became a new version of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. They patrol and look for irregularities. The word "Local" is now banned in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong are donating money to support a bookstore that sells banned books. Finally the last local farm was forced to migrate to Taiwan and "local eggs" disappear forever.

- (Ming Pao) Peter Lam Kin-ngok spoke as a film investor that it was unfortunate for the Hong Kong film industry to have Ten Years win the Best Film award. He said: "Although I respect the choice of the judges, I disagree with the result. I feel the same way as the Ten Years' executive Choi Lim-ming who admitted himself: 'Although the production is inadequate in many ways, this film showed that there is a great deal of possibilities for Hong Kong films.'"

Lam said that Ten Years was not nominated in any other category and it was not a top seller, and this shows that it is not the best film. He said that it was unfair to the film industry for Ten Years to win the Best Film. Politics ran roughshod over professionalism and the whole judging was politicized.

- (Wen Wei Po) Director Johnny To had this to say about Peter Lam and Wong Pak-ming saying that Ten Years is unfit for Best Film because it was not nominated in any other category: "What is the background of the person who is saying these things? Let's see if he's fair? Even if Peter Lam has been a wonderful boss, I have to speak out because this is about the dignity of the film industry."

Peter Lam responded: "I thank Johnny To for describing me as his good boss. I also think that he is a marvelous director. But I would like to make an analogy about what he said last evening. Suppose I invested in a restaurant. It is up to the cook to decided whether a dish tastes good or not? For example, Michelin gives various number of stars to restaurants based upon the judgment of various professional epicureans. According to information, the most professional Hong Kong Film Critics Society named Port of Call as Best Film and the Hong Kong Directors Association named The Taking of Tiger Mountain as Best Film. So I don't know what Johnny To was trying to say."

- (Ming Pao) Veteran filmmaker John Shum said that the judging should be based upon professionalism. While Ten Years should be praised for its spirit and youthfulness, "This is not what the Best Film award should be about." He said that Global Times criticized the film and the awards show was not broadcast in mainland China. This might have touched the nerves of certain judges and Hongkongers, because the film could not have drawn such a response otherwise. He said that he did not think that the judging was politicized; however, it may have been emotional.

- (Ming Pao) Motion Pictures Industry Association executive director Crucindo Hung Cho-sing said that he voted and Ten Years would not even be on the queue of choices. "It is risible that the standards of Hong Kong films should drop to this level." He said that when professional judges vote out of sympathy for films with the "right message," then it is unfair to all film producers and actors in Hong Kong. "In the history of the Hong Kong Film Awards, how many films won the Best Film while being nominated for only that category?" "When someone else puts in 100% effort to make their film, and you put in 15% effort, is it fair for you to win?" "Where is the art in Ten Years?" Hung said that he cannot believe that Ten Years would be better than Little Big Master, which is based up on a real-life story. He asked the judges to "examine their consciences to see why they voted for Ten Years."

- Legislative Councilor Leung Mei-fun wrote: "Derek Yee is the Hong Kong Film Awards Association chairman. At the awards ceremony, he spoke in praise of this pro-Hong Kong independence film. In order to divert attention, he spoke against my criticisms of this movie several months ago. He said that I shouldn't have articulated my thoughts about this film. I am astonished. I am not acquainted with Director Yee, although I have heard of his name before. I did not expect him to make some unreasonable accusations in this matter of utmost importance.

Ten Years is a film shown publicly in the cinemas with tickets being sold to the general public. If the film does not want to listen to dissident opinions, the producers should have held closed-door sessions for pro-Hong Kong independence people only. As a legislator, I have to denounce the flaws of a film that was selling Hong Kong independence and proposing ideas such as 'The reason why Hong Kong hasn't gotten democracy is that nobody has died yet.' During my eight years in politics, I have criticized many people. None of them won any awards for what they said or did. Director Yee ought to think about why such a film won the Best Film award at the association that he chairs instead of making pathetic digressions."

- (HKG Pao) Director John Woo had served five years as Hong Kong Film Awards Association chairman. He said that Ten Years should not have won Best Film. He speculated that a small number manipulated the process. "Because Ten Years drew certain critical comments beforehand, so certain people like to vote as contrarians. The more you don't like it, the more they will vote for it. When a small group of people vote this way, and the rest of the votes are objectively voted among other movies, Ten Years took the award. Not even the Hong Kong Film Awards Association can control this voting system."

- Pity the other four Best Film nominees: Little Big Master; The Taking of Tiger Mountain; Ip Man 3; and Port of Call. All the efforts that they put into their work meant nothing in the face of a political decision. Especially Port of Call, which was clearly the Best Film given that it swept most of the other major categories.

- Let me tell you the latest joke:

Once upon a time, the gay director Kenneth Ip (Shu Kei) encouraged a group of students to produce five student film exercises and used language to package this into a movie. At a famous film award, it was able to win the Best Film Award in spite of not being nominated in any of the professional categories. Isn't this a joke? Isn't this child's play?
It is even funnier when one of the young directors who went on stage to pick up the award admitted that he was technically unskilled.
The funniest part was that even the chairman of the film awards ceremony said that the small circle of judges were acting emotionally when they gave the award to this micro-movie.
If you should ever come across this Film Award show again,  you should remember how much it is like kindergarten.

- (Headline Daily) I admire the courage and bearing of the organizing committee of the Hong Kong Film Awards. When they let Ten Years become a nominee, they never considered the price including the revenue from the mainland Chinese broadcast rights, the presence of tens of millions of viewers and appearances from topline mainland directors and actors. Even many award-winning Hongkongers chose to be absent, so that the hosts had to present the awards and receive them at the same time.

I support the Hong Kong Film Awards for not bowing down to the power of money in order to protect the freedom of artistic creation. But if the judges know very well that Ten Years is not worthy to be Best Film but nevertheless voted for it, they are bowing to politics and therefore sacrificing art to. If the Hong Kong Film Award judges really thought that Ten Years should be praised for its boldness but inadequate in artistic quality, they should have given a special award instead. If they sacrificed the other deserving Best Film candidates just to make a political point, they have given up their own objectivity. Ultimately, this is the Hong Kong Film Awards and not the Hong Kong Politics Awards.

- (HKG Pao) Some people say that Ten Years was a serious film. But its simple linear narrative technique makes it no different from those micro-movies on RTHK television. If a television show can become Best Film, it only shows that Hong Kong movies have stooped to the level of television. Should people celebrate when the film industry retrogresses?

Film-making is an art but also a business. Without a market, there is no investment. Filmmakers can win major film awards by making anti-communist films, but in the end they have to put food into their hungry stomachs. How far can the Hong Kong film industry progress without investment? If independent short films continue to win the Best Film awards in future years, the Hong Kong Film Awards will be as useless as the Hong Kong film industry.

Ten Years is not a commercial film. It made about HKD $6 million at the box office. Of course, it also costs very little. Compared to movies that make a few billion, this type of film will find it had to attract investors. After the film finished its run, it was immediately arranged to be shown at the twelve tertiary institutions of education in conjunction with discussion forums. So this film was never intended to make money. Rather this is a model film to be used as a political brainwashing tool. Sustainable development of such films require commercially viable conditions. I can say that this film is not repeatable. Hereafter you can only have such micro-movies given away for free over the Internet.

- Who is in the small circle of voters? Here are the qualified voters (HKFAA):

HKFA voters must be Hong Kong residents at or over the age of 18, holding Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards, and fulfill one of the following criteria:

1. Hong Kong film workers whose names have been listed in a Hong Kong’s roller credits under the following position(s):
   Film Producer, Executive Producer, Production coordinator, Line Producer, Administrative Producer, Director, Deputy Director, First Assistant Director, Production Manager, Assistant Production Manager, Scriptwriter, Actor/Actress, Dubbing Artist, Cinematographer, Assistant Cinematographer, Gaffer, Film Editor, Assistant Film Editor, Art Director, Assistant Art Director, Costume Designer, Assistant Costume Designer, Action Choreographer, Assistant Action Choreographer, Audio-effect Designer, Sound-man, Post- Production recording and mixing technician in chief, Computer Effect Designer, Film Score Composer and Lyricist / Composer for film songs.
    
2. Current members of the following associations who have participated in Hong Kong film productions (his/her name is stated in the roller credits list):
   Hong Kong Film Directors' Guild, Hong Kong Screenwriters' Guild, Hong Kong Stuntman Association, Society of Cinematographers (H.K.), Hong Kong Performing Artistes Guild, Society of Film Editors (H.K.), Hong Kong Film Arts Association, Hong Kong Movie Production Executive Association, Hong Kong Cinematography Lighting Association, Association of Motion Picture Post Production Professionals , members of other film associations invited by the Hong Kong Film Awards Association or affiliated members referred by Society of Cinematographers (H.K.).
    
3. Current film critics whose critiques have been published in Hong Kong printed media within the past year by the time application received.
    
4. Any person invited by Hong Kong Film Awards Association whose profession is related to film culture/ education or be the executive of Artiste Management/ film association.
    
5. Any person who has been working for film distribution or promotion for not less than 3 years or his/her name is included in roller credit list of a Hong Kong film.

- The Hong Kong Directors' Guild voted The Taking of Tiger Mountain its Best Film, while the Hong Kong Film Critics Society voted Port of Call its Best Film.

- (NOW TV) Two of the Ten Years directors said that the award was made through a democratic system and they won because they got more votes than the others. So they don't understand why people are saying that there was a political hijack. They also said that they are not worried that their careers will be impacted. They said that they are trying to get the film shown again, but they haven't gotten any response yet.

- The news reporting seems to suggest that Ten Years was a runaway hit at the box office at HK$ 6 million over 58 days. Furthermore, the film was pulled due to political intimidation of the exhibitors when it was still selling out every show .

Let's look at the reality.

During the 2015-2016, Ten Years made $6.07 million. Is that a lot? It is a lot when the cost to produce this student exercise was merely $500,000. It is not a lot when compared to the other Hong Kong movies at around the same time.

During 2016, the most popular Hong Kong movie was Stephen Chow's Mermaid at HK$57.48 million.

From Vegas to Macau 3 was subjected to a boycott called by Civic Party because the director Wong Jing is pro-China. The film grossed $27.25 million in Hong Kong.

Even a film that nobody has heard of: Anniversary starring Stephy Tang and Alex Fong grossed $20.64 million.

So you get the idea that anyone who puts out any movie will automatically get $10 million plus at the box office. So in that context, $6 million is worse than average.

It is not limited to Hong Kong films. Here is the list of recent Hollywood films: Deadpool $61.71 million; Batman vs Superman $30.83 million; The Revenant $22.65 million; Kung Fu Panda 3 $20.65; London Has Fallen $15.63 million; Zootopia $14.88 million; The Danish Girl $14.29 million; Gods of Egypt $14.06 million; ...

- Hong Kong films are not in the doldrums. In fact, they have never done better. During the 2016 Lunar New Year, three Hong Kong films dominated the mainland Chinese market. Together they accounted for more than a 90% market share. Here they are: Mermaid 3.29 billion RMB; The Monkey King 2 1.19 billion RMB; From Vegas to Macau III $1.11 billion RMB. Whatever you want to think, the reality is that Hong Kong films are doing great in mainland China. However, the brouhaha over Ten Years may cast a shadow. If Hong Kong film professionals voted a film like Ten Years as their best film of the year, it shows that they are suspect professionally and ideologically. Would you hire them for your next mainland Chinese film? Without work on mainland China, most Hong Kong film professionals won't make enough for a living.

- The Hong Kong film industry is doing fine. It is just that the Hong Kong Film Awards Association has just killed its own brand.

- (HKG Pao) For one moment, they had a moment of joy because they thought that they had given the middle finger to the Chinese Communists. But what next? By forsaking professionalism, this Best Film award is a watershed for the Hong Kong film industry. The industry will hereafter be divided into two parts. In terms of capital, technology, producers, directors and actors/actresses, only those who are "qualified" will be able to access the world's largest film market of mainland China. The rest of the politicized local film workers will only have Hong Kong left.

- The directors of Ten Years say that the Hong Kong Film Awards has a democratic system. Well, it is a small circle of voters. If you want to see the people of Hong Kong vote with their wallets, you can look at the box office receipts.

Here are the top 10 movies in Hong Kong in 2015.
1. Avengers: Age of Ultron -- $133,061,397
2. Jurassic World -- $96,295,976
3. Minions -- $78,404,191
4. Inside Out -- $66,016,979
5. Star Wars: The Force Awakens -- $65,511,534
6. Fast and Furious 7 -- $59,634,515
7. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation -- $52,970,115
8. Ant-Man -- $50,719,129
9. Stand by Me: Doraemon -- $46,891,675
10. Little Big Master -- 46,729,492.
The most popular 2015 Hong Kong film is Little Big Master, as voted by the most democratic manner possible.

- Some people say that film-making is artistic creation, so why should China be upset about a film? Why don't you make <The Joys and Sorrows of Young Hitler> in Europe, or <The Life of Osama Bin Laden> in America, or <The Wives of the Prophet> in the Middle East?

- Visual Artists Guild: Congratulations to the film "Ten Years" for winning Best Film at the Hong Kong Film Award. Salute to the Hong Kong Film Award Association! You are one of the engines that will save Hong Kong. Standing up for the "One Country Two Systems" in refusing to succumb to Beijing's threats is what will bring global confidence in Hong Kong. One must recognize that when Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded Hong Kong's credit ratings from stable to negative last month, it shows that China's blatant kidnappings of the booksellers has affected Hong Kong's global economic status while the Umbrella movement in 2014 did not despite dire warnings from pro-Beijing entities.

- Chop suey is a Chinese American dish that originated in Taishan county, Guangdong province. At the end of the day, the farmers would stir-dry their unsold vegetables of the day into one dish. So you toss Ten Years, Moody's/S&P and kidnapped booksellers in the wok, stir-fry it and you get your dish of the day.

- (Oriental Daily) Hong Kong Film Awards Association chairman Derek Yee Tung-sing has these things to say. About the controversy over the nomination of Ten Years, "There is no much controversy within the Hong Kong Film Awards Associaiton. The whole program was designed to appeal to many young people who are not familiar with the award system. Next year, the number of voters will be increased to 1,200. Even if a controversial film is nominated, we'll just let it be ... This time, Ten Years may not meet the standards on stage this time. But the judges appreciate the film for its boldness. Or maybe this was a form of encouragement."

Was this award being given out of spite? "Actually this is not the first time, but I won't mention the name of the other film or else people will think that I don't approve. But we creative types are very emotional and can easily let others influence our emotions. I don't think that there is a problem with the system. But it is the people who have problems. This time, they voted according to their emotions and they need to be professionalized ... Some people will vote for a film that they haven't even seen. So  what is this except emotionalism? As chairman, I am here to reform matters."

Will this affect next year's awards? "No. Don't be so pessimistic. I am very sure that such movies cannot be shown, because there is a regulation said that films must not affect relations with our neighbors. But who dares to say now? I hope that the Hong Kong Film Awards won't change its nature. At the next meeting, I will call on everybody to stay rational. Actually, when the Ten Years team went up to receive their award, they admitted that they were not sufficiently professional. If even they can get the award, then what is this award worth?"

- What an amazing awards show with so many of the winners being absent! Of course, they all knew that Ten Years was rigged to become Ten Years so they chose to be absent. Of those present, very few applauded and many were expressionless and even contemptuous.

- When it came to the Best Film award, they showed a collection of clips including "Hatred does not keep the faith"; "Nothing to watch here because there wasn't a single bullet"; "Is it illegal to speak Cantonese?"; "Don't say it because others are saying it; don't do it because others are doing it"; "Over the past ten years, what we learn the most are conspiracy theories; what we lost the most was mutual trust." Tsk tsk tsk. Clearly these clips were selected to make fun of Ten Years.

- Famous words from Joshua Wong on a previous occasion:

It is a trend for politics to override professionalism.

- (EJ Insight) April 5, 2016.

Chinese moviegoers have no idea which movie topped the Hong Kong Film Award on Sunday night.

Not that they could care less but even if they did, they would not know that Ten Years, a dark foretelling of Hong Kong’s not-too-distant future, was the judges’ pick for Best Movie.

Chinese censors scrubbed all news about the awards ceremony and the compliant state media was only too happy to oblige.

Ten Years is banned in China, so you’d be hard-pressed to find anything remotely related to it in the Chinese press.

Not content with the news blackout, Beijing’s censors tried their best to pressure the Hong Kong Film Award (HKFA) board into freezing the movie out of this year’s ceremony.

Chairman Derek Yee can tell you how much pressure he had faced since Ten Years was nominated for the award in January.  

“Someone told me we have to avoid mentioning the words ‘ten’ and ‘years’ due to their sensitivity,” Yee said at the awards presentation.

Then he quoted US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (“the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”) and defiantly announced the winner.

Thanks to a voting panel of more than 100 industry professionals, politics lost out to the creative process — make that freedom of expression.

A small-budget movie about Hong Kong with a predictable but gutsy theme showed up the powerful mandarins in Beijing.

But trust their Hong Kong allies to find a way to disparage it.

Hong Kong Tourism Board chairman Peter Lam, a movie investor, said the win was “unfortunate” because Ten Years flunked at the box office and was not nominated for any other category.

It was a “joke”, said Pegasus Motion Pictures boss Wong Pak-ming, adding any film with a political theme can win an award in Hong Kong.

And former HKFA chairman Crucindo Hung belittled its production values, saying a low-budget film like Ten Years could not possibly win Best Movie.

By contrast, young Hong Kong filmmakers gave the movie a lusty clap and a standing ovation.

That said, the jury is still out on what impact the award might have on ordinary moviegoers who have not exactly embraced it, judging by its showing at the box office.

Ten Years had a short general release and some cinemas refused to screen it.

In the run-up to its debut, state newspaper Global Times called it “totally absurd” and a “virus of the mind”. 

The withering attack is not so much about the movie itself but what it represents to the business of filmmaking.

Increasingly, Hong Kong movies are joint productions with mainland interests, more than the other way around.

The underlying unease over a production that angers the central government is exacerbating fears Beijing might pull the plug on these joint ventures.

Industry veterans, ever conscious of spiralling costs, are leading the pushback against politically charged productions.

But as Ten Years shows, you don’t need a mainland backer to make an award-winning movie if you can work within your budget.

And we can all thank heaven we are in Hong Kong where freedom of thought and expression was alive last time I checked.

The movie painfully depicts an inconvenient truth — that some day soon, our freedoms will be history.

There’s nothing about it we don’t already know, which is perhaps why moviegoers have not been dying of suspense.

But remarkably, Ten Years is excellently timed.

Pick a time in recent months or years that the movie is not spot-on about China’s increased tinkering with Hong Kong — from the reinterpretation of “one country, two systems”, the attempts to introduce patriotic education and a national security law, the crackdown on pro-democracy activists, the failed election reform bill, police overreach in the hunt for dissidents, tighter grip on the local media, etc.

Give up?  

- Chris Wat Wing-yin

... I am not a film expert, so I can't judge. I will use common logic instead. An athlete who won the 100m sprint, the 110m hurdles, the long jump and the discus throw was not selected as the Best Athlete. Meanwhile another athlete who did not finish among the medals in any of the individual events was named Best Athlete. How is the public going to be convinced? Where is the fairness?

Not the Best Director, not the best screenplay, not the best actor/actress, not the best editing, not the best music ... not even the best art, the best clothes, the best newcomer, the best visual effect ... nothing whatsoever, and yet it became the best movie. It goes without say that politics had trumped ability and technique. Films are not for dreams anymore; they are for expressing political attitudes. You can try to deny and deny, but it is undeniable. We are in the midst of a Cultural Revolution.

One of the competitors is <The Taking of Tiger Mountain> directed by Tsui Hark. This story is based upon a model opera from the Cultural Revolution era. Tsui Hark removed the revolutionary aspects and turned it into a tightly scripted fictional story. That is drama.

I have seen both versions of <The Taking of Tiger Mountain>. It is a good adventure story in the manner of the Indiana Jones series, or else Tsui Hark would not have bothered to adapt the screenplay to make a movie. What was the old <The Taking of Tiger Mountain> no longer talked about now? Why couldn't it be a classic like the Hollywood adventure movies? Very simple -- it was a political tool and nobody considered it to be a film.

For the same reason, Hong Kong movies are being turned into political tools. When this particular film is made the Best Film, how can all those who put their hearts, souls and money into creating their works of art not be thoroughly despondent? How can the Hong Kong audience not be discouraged?

It took Chinese films 50 years to escape the political clutches of the Cultural Revolution. Meanwhile Hong Kong films have plunged headlong into the abyss of 50 years ago. I can only say: Stupid!

- Who was the best Track & Field athlete at the 2012 London Olympics? You would think that Usain Bolt would be the automatic choice with three gold medals (100m, 200m and 4x100m) won in dominating fashion? What if they decide to give the Best Athlete award to Tetyana Filonyuk (Ukraine) because the judges want to express solidarity with little Ukraine against hegemon Russia? How much respect would you accord this Best Athlete award?

- (Ming Pao) Earlier it was rumored that TVB has purchased the television rights for Ten Years. However, TVB issued a denial. More recently, Internet users report that a high-definition copy of Ten Years has been uploaded to YouTube for free viewing. The Ten Years team said that this unauthorized uploading was disrespectful to to the five directors and all those film workers who contributed to the film. "We are very disappointed. We will immediately ask YouTube to remove the video and follow through." They said that YouTube to deal with this, but it takes time. So far there has been no result. According to information, the five segments of Ten Years were uploaded separately this morning and so far there has been more than 28,000 viewings already.

- Well, you're the same guys who were celebrating the demise of the Copyright Bill Amendment earlier. What happened to the inalienable right of Internet users to view whatever they want whenever they want?

- (SCMP) Ten Years can be tedious but its theme about Hong Kong’s paranoia is not far off the mark. By Alex Lo. April 8, 2016.

Movies with an overt political message that smack you in head to make sure you “get it” are typically tedious. To this end, Ten Years does not disappoint. Practically every scene is a display of some Hongkongers’ paranoid anti-mainland sentiment, from a taxi driver being forced to speak Putonghua to a store owner berated by children for advertising his eggs as “local”.

It’s not really a movie with a clear narrative but a series of vignettes about what life would be like in 10 years as imagined by localists and separatists. It suffers from the humourless literalism of the unartistic.

But, despite all that, it fully deserves winning the top prize at the Hong Kong Film Awards. It’s a perfect product of our time, capturing many people’s anxieties and fears about creeping mainland dominance, whether real or imagined.

It is, therefore, by definition, a serious movie. None of the other competing movies remotely approach Ten Years’ social relevance and political importance at this time.

So, it’s been a bit like watching the theatre of the absurd when so many of the industry’s great and good come out to denounce the film winning the award.

‘Politics has kidnapped filmmaking’: Media Asia head Peter Lam slams Ten Years’ win at Hong Kong Film Awards

The awards’ voting system has been criticised as irrational and unrepresentative by Crucindo Hung Cho-sing, chairman of the Hong Kong Motion Picture Industry Association, and Daniel Lam Siu-ming, head of Universal International, a large film production company.

Tourism Board chairman and billionaire businessman Peter Lam Kin-ngok said: “Politics has kidnapped the profession and politicised film awards”.

Clearly the movie touches a raw nerve. But let’s not bury our heads in the sand by denouncing a political movie for being political and dismissing the fears and concerns it depicts.

It’s too bad that Ten Years has been reportedly banned on the mainland. Watching this movie will help mainlanders, or any foreigner, understand better the angst of a typical youngish person in Hong Kong.

Whatever Beijing’s real or supposed intentions towards Hong Kong, our paranoia and fears are real enough, and are increasingly being channelled into radical politics, even rioting. Clearly, things will only get worse before they get better. For that, Ten Years may even prove to be prescient.

• [Permalink] Burn This Book! (2016/04/03)

(Oriental Daily with video) April 3, 2016.

Yesterday "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun published a Facebook post titled "The battle of the Hong Kong Public Library: spontaneously remove simplified character books from the shelves in order to resist brainwashing." Cheng said that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had purchased 600,000 simplified characters, including many children books in praise of the Chinese Communist Party. Because library space is finite, they also removed certain traditional character books to make room for the simplified character books. Cheng said that this was brainwashing of the next generation. Cheng called on citizens to spontaneously remove the simplified character books.

Cheng uploaded a video to demonstrate tossing the simplified character books into trash bins, slipping them into cracks between books shelves, stuffing them into the fire hydrant boxes, etc.

Internet comments:

- Legislator Wong Kwok-hing said that Cheng Kam-mun is being selfish here. Just because Cheng didn't like simplified characters himself, he is depriving all other persons from reading those books. "If you destroy these library books, you will be legally responsible and not Cheng Kam-mun."

- Cheng Kam-mun says that he hails from the city of Chaozhou, Guangdong province. And now he wants to fight against China and oust all mainland Chinese (including himself?) from Hong Kong.

- Yet another boycott campaign by Civic Passion? The last time they called for the people of Hong Kong to boycott Wong Jing's film, <From Vegas to Macau III>, that movie raked in HKD 27 million in Hong Kong and RMB 1.1 billion in mainland China (see #448).

- I also remember the case when the rumor first surfaced that Yoshinoya was serving radiation-contaminated Fujishima rice. Yoshinoya clarified that the company uses rice from Heilongjiang province, China. Immediately the localists aid that they would rather eat radiation-contaminated Fujishima rice than Heilongjiang rice. That was a perfect supporting proof for the WWII Japanese belief that they can always count on the Chinese to kill each other first.

- Simplified character books are used for brainwashing? Here is a set of traditional character books that is much more so than any simplified character book: The Selected Works of Mao Zedong.

- Cheng Kam-mun is confusing the message and the medium. He thinks that the medium is everything. You can publish The Selected Works of Wan Chin in simplified characters and Cheng would think that this will brainwash youngsters to become Communists.

- Cheung Kam-mun and his friends is going to dump 600,000 into the trash bins of the public libraries in Hong Kong. If you have to stack 600,000 books, how tall is that? Let's assume that each book is 10 cm thick. 600,000 books will be 600,000 x 1cm = 6,000 meters. You need a very, very tall trash bin to hold those books.

- The reason why some Hongkongers like to go to the Shenzhen Book City to shop for books is very simple -- there is greater variety. In China, they publish several hundred thousand new book titles per year. All sorts of specialist books are published because the mainland market is big enough. These books will not get published in Hong Kong, because the market is too small.

- Most books on Chinese medicine are published in simplified characters in China. Does Hong Kong want to shut itself out from progress in Chinese medicine?

- (WSJ) Guide to Hong Kong Schools and Education

The Hong Kong education system, overseen by the Hong Kong Education Bureau, is divided into three types of schools: government schools, subsidized schools and private international schools. There are more than 1,100 schools in Hong Kong in total; as of 2010, more than 1,000 of them were local government schools. Primary and secondary education is mandatory for Hong Kong residents, but kindergarten is not.

Government schools are fully funded by the Hong Kong government and teach in Cantonese and English – though it is up to each school to determine how much of each language is used as the medium of instruction. Government schools are open and free for all children. There is a short application process in which students can select their top school choices, but assignments are generally made based on residency zones.

The English Schools Foundation is subsidized by the Hong Kong government to provide an English-language education, with priority given to students who cannot speak Chinese. Starting in 2001, ESF schools started switching over to the International Baccalaureate system, after years of using the British curriculum. As of 2010, there were 20 ESF schools with about 12,000 students enrolled. The schools are delineated in geographical zones and only accept students who reside in their applicable zone. There is also an admissions process, which includes interviews and an application. Preference is given to non-Chinese speakers, students of alumni and siblings of students. ESF schools all have the same fee structure, which runs from HK$58,100 (with a $10,000 deposit) per year for primary school to HK$89,250 (with a $16,000 deposit) for secondary school.

Hong Kong also has private international schools, which vary in curriculum and teaching style. With a focus on sending their students to foreign universities, these schools can be very competitive — wait lists can approach 70 students per grade. Most international schools use an English-based curriculum and tend to be separated into the British, American, Canadian and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs.

Many schools identify with a particular country (such as Singapore, Canada or France) and offer separate English and foreign-language sections. There are also an increasing number of schools that emphasize a compulsory Mandarin Chinese component, reflecting Mandarin’s growing influence in Hong Kong.

Here is the gist of the matter: At the international schools, they teach putonghua/simplified characters and they don't teach Cantonese/traditional characters. If Civic Passion doesn't like this, they can protest at the international schools.

Why are the international schools doing this? Because they want their students to be useful internationally. Knowing Cantonese/traditional characters is not useful internationally; knowing putonghua/simplified characters is very useful internationally.

- Chris Wat Wing-yin wrote about the mentally retarded people who started the Hong Kong National Party, and the Equal Opportunities Commission received complaints about her insulting that particular class of people. So everybody lay off Cheng Kam-mun's intelligence!

- Based upon my personal observations of many hours spend at the public library, I can tell you that it is not efficient to dump the simplified character books into the trash bins or hide them in the cracks. It is more efficient to hide them in plain sight. My observation is that nobody ever uses the English-language section of the public library here and yet that section is sizeable. So all it takes is to move the simplified character books en masse into the English-language section. The books have not been stolen or vandalized. They have only been misplaced. And the readers will not never find it because nobody goes into the English-language section.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 4, 2016.

Pro:
"It was effective and fun! Well done!"
"I went down to the Tsuen Wan Public Library and slid some simplified character books into the cracks"
"Set fire to them"
"Use markers to deface the pages of the books"
"Tear pages out of the books"
"Swipe some feces inside the books"

Con:
"Why are you picking on books such as The Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Exegesis of Dream of Red Chamber?"
"Many reference books exist only in simplified editions. Why are they being destroyed?"
"This is what the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty did -- he burned the books and put all the scholars to death."
"Once this catches on, it merely puts a burden on the cleaning lady who has to carefully go through the trash bins to retrieve the discarded books. I am sure that she is going to be very grateful to Cheng Kam-mun for keeping her employed."
"It means that the libraries will have to hire outside help to look for missing books."
"Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat's own novel has a simplified character edition. These guys change their tunes so quickly that they can't even keep up with themselves."
"Well, I think that the Valiant Warriors can always borrow Deng Xiaoping's Black/White Cat Theory: It does not matter whether a book is printed in simplified or traditional characters; it only matters that the contents of the book have been vetted by the Valiant Warriors to be consistent with Hong Kong values as only they know."

- (Oriental Daily) April 6, 2016. Civic Passion said that a number of police officers went to Cheng Kam-mun's home this morning, but Cheng was not there. Cheng was later arrested at a Civic Passion street booth in Central. Cheng was taken down to the Chai Wan Police Station. Several Civic Passion members are outside the police station to voice their support of Cheng. It is believed that this was related to dishonest use of a computer to advocate certain actions at public libraries.

- Cheng Kam-mun was not telling people to deface simplified character books. He made it very, very clear that he was only posting certain information onto the Internet for reference's sake. How can that be "dishonest use of a computer"? He can't be held responsible for what persons unknown do after reading his reference materials. The Internet is already filled with reference materials on making bombs, committing suicide, etc.

• [Permalink] An Apple A Day (2016/04/02)

(EJ Insight) March 31, 2016.

Apple Daily has been forced to apologize after running an advertorial featuring a renowned Hong Kong-based Australian artist who disavowed it. The newspaper said none of its editorial staff was involved but held an employee from its classified ads department responsible after an internal investigation. The employee has been suspended, according to media reports.

The investigation followed a Facebook post by Gregory Charles Rivers (河國榮) in which the 50-year-old Australian performer complained about being used in an advertisement without his permission. Rivers said he was approached in February to do an interview with Apple Daily in Jini Bakery Cookies, a local bake shop, on March 7. He was to be paid HK$2,000 (US$258) for expenses. He went to the venue on the appointed day and was quickly made to pose inside the shop by a photographer. Rivers repeatedly asked the photographer if the photos were going to be used in an article or in an advertorial and was told these were for the interview, according to news website hk01.com.

The interview lasted five minutes but Rivers said he did not check the media credentials of the interviewer who asked just three questions. The photographer did not say whether they were from Apple Daily. On March 20, Apple Daily ran a full-page spread of Jini cookies with Rivers’s image and it was marked “advertorial”.

A day earlier, the bake shop published a photo of Rivers on its Facebook page, along with a note thanking him for “dropping by”. The post was subsequently removed.

Netizens flooded Jini’s social media pages with angry comments and expressed their support for Rivers. Jini Bakery Cookies has been dismissed as a copycat version of Jenny Bakery, a popular pastry shop which operates in Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China.

(Jini Bakery Cookies Facebook) March 31, 2016.

Last night Jini Bakery Cookies published "A Letter to Mr. Gregory Rivers" on its Facebook in which their boss Eric Chiang Yao-ming explained:

It all began when our company worked with Apple Daily on an advertisement ... I asked the Apple Daily Advertising Department worker Terry to see if you will take part. He contacted a woman named Apple who claimed to be the manager of Gregory Rivers. After Terry sent her the advertisement, she said that Gregory Rivers has seen it, sees no problems and will take place. The asking price was $14,000 (Terry said that the whole sum was for you and the other costs will be billed elsewhere). I agreed to the price and arranged for the photo session. On that day, I was away from Hong Kong, so I asked Terry with whom I have worked many times before to assume full responsibility.

During the session, Terry used whatsapp to inform me that Gregory Rivers believes that this event was an advertisement/spokesperson and wants to stop. I was obviously displeased because your reaction was completely different from what Apple said. But I can't force you, so I said to stop the session. However, I did not want Gregory Rivers to lose anything on account of this, so I offered to pay the $14,000. However Terry did not want my company to lose money so he offered to call Gregory River's manger to see if the session could be completed at a higher price. We finished our overseas telephone conversation. Afterwards, he called me and said that the session was successfully completed after negotiating an additional payment. Our company wired two sums of money into Terry's bank account, one for $14,000 and another for $4,000 in additional payment. Although Terry insists on paying the additional $4,000 because he said that it was his mistake, I stuck to my principles of not wanting anyone else to lose money so I made him take the additional sum.

After my carefully analysis of the incident and seeing your whatsapp screen captures over at HK01, I conclude that the woman named Apple is not your manger (Terry told me that she is your manager) and she only paid you $2,000! She deceived you into coming to our company for a photo session!

After this incident, our company's reputation has been completely ruined ... At this time, this woman Apple has deceived you, Terry (at Apple Daily) and my company. After consulting my lawyer, I believe that this is a case of commercial fraud. It is a criminal act. I don't know if you have to join my company's lawyer to file a police report, so that the police can pursue this matter.

Internet comments:

- (Apple Daily) January 27, 2015. Recently Jini Bakery Cookies took out a full-page newspaper ad to say that certain people are selling their cookies under other brand names in an improper manner. Jini Bakery says that they only have two official retail outlets, one in iSquare (Tsim Sha Tsui) and the other in Tsuen Wan Citywalk. In the ad, Jini Bakery did not name the other brands. However, many people believe that this must be Jenny Bakery which is founded earlier than Jini Bakery.

Our reporter went down to Jini Bakery in iSquare. The worker there said that everybody who visits Hong Kong will buy these "Little Bear" cookies. They line up to buy from us every day." However, the reporter did not find any other customer at the time. By contrast, Jenny Bakery located in the next block had more than 100 people queuing up outside. One mainland tourist waited for more than two hours to spend more than $1,000 to buy more than a dozen boxes of cookies as presents. Because of the popularity of Jenny Bakery Cookies, many other stores have risen to sell counterfeit products. Rather than producing their own counterfeit products, they are buying Jini Bakery cookies and selling them as Jenny Bakery cookies. This is a violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.

- (Oriental Daily) For the second day in a row, Apple Daily has apologized to Gregory Rivers. On March 31, Apple Daily's entertainment real-time news published a news report titled "Gregory Rivers's homemade cookies, free music video for ATV." However, the cookies in the video were computer creations which don't exist in reality. The video caused people to misunderstand and make inquiries with Gregory Rivers.

- Gregory Rivers spent more than 20 years licking TVB's boots and got nowhere with his career. But he is suddenly popular with Yellow Ribbons because of his anti-TVB, anti-government comments.

- Don't be silly. Gregory Rivers is a veteran performer, so he will always saying things that are wishy-washy. For example, here is what he has to say about the Mong Kok riot:

I found last night's Mong Kok riot to be ridiculous. Real Hongkongers don't do this. Everyone who participated in the riot used masks to cover their faces, so they must be bad guys. I have some suspicion that somone paid these people to use the vendors' issue to cause trouble as Hongkongers.

I pray that each injured policeman, reporter and citizen will recover soon.

You are right. It was wrong to say: "Everyone who participated in the riot used masks to cover their faces, so they must be bad guys.:

P.S.

Vendors should have the right to make a living (I like the vendors).
People throwing bricks at the police is ridiculous.
The police firing shots is even more ridiculous.

In a while, I will delete this post. It is a radicalized subject!

Can you figure out which side he is on?

- Elephants can fly if Apple Daily writers can be trusted to tell the truth.

(Huaxi Dushibao) April 1, 2016.

On the morning of April 1 in Sanpu village, Buyao town, Zhaojiao county, Liangshan prefecture, villager Ma Weiha sensed that his chickens and sheep seemed to be scared by something. So he went out to check and he found a panda hiding in his courtyard. Ma said that the villagers keep about a dozen mountain hunting dogs, and he was concerned that the panda might be chased and injured by the dogs. So he immediately informed the community director. Meanwhile villagers heard that a panda had been found. So they rushed over because they were all concerned that the panda might be endandered. So they used ropes to tie up the panda and formed a human wall to protect it. They also called the Forestry Department immediately. The panda was eventually released back into the wilderness.

(Apple Daily) Panda appears, villagers forcibly press it on the ground for a group photo. April 1, 2016.

Zhaojiao country Liangzhou prefecture Sichuan province villagers found a 100-kilogram panda in the wilderness. Many villagers were excited and they pressed the panda on the ground in order to take photos with this "national treasure." This was the second time that a wild panda has been found here. The villagers found this panda very interesting. After the Forestry Department was apprised, they immediately placed the panda under protection, and they planned to send the panda into the Meigu Dafongting National Nature Preservation Area.

Internet comments:

- Apple Daily does not have any correspondents covering news in mainland China. They have dozens of writers sitting in a large room scouring the mainland websites. The writers look for stories which they rewrite with angles that are more aligned with the political inclinations of Apple Daily. This is the kind of journalism practiced in Hong Kong today. There is absolutely no reason to spend any time learning journalism at the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at Hong Kong University.

- When Apple Daily says that everything in China is fake, we encounter a philosophical conundrum. If Apple Daily is lying some of the time, then is everything in China fake or not?

- This Apple Daily news story is as dumb as it gets. Everybody in China knows that it is a serious crime to trap a panda and hold it under captivity. Such being the case, would you pose for a group portrait to be widely distributed by a newspaper? Is there better evidence for a criminal conviction?

- All this was supposed to stop in 1998 as Jimmy Lai promised, but it has actually gotten worse. A lot worse.

(SCMP) October 30, 2016.

The husband of the woman who last week threw her two sons then herself to their deaths from a Sheung Shui building said yesterday he had been a victim of media trickery and his own greed.

Chan Kin-hong said that in the days after the deaths of his wife, Lam Man-fong, 41, and sons Ho-wai, six, and Ho-yin, 10, he accepted money from a newspaper, spending it on prostitutes in Dongguan. 'I was tricked into allowing the newspaper to photograph me with the women. I was greedy for the money,' Mr Chan said in a television interview last night. He has become a figure of hate since the media scrutiny of his sex life.

Yesterday, Mr Chan, 41, was attacked by four or five men as he burned offerings to his wife and sons, who were cremated on Wednesday. Mr Chan said he was afraid to travel to the mainland since the newspaper and television reports on him and his family.

'I was set up by a newspaper. I was greedy for $5,000 which was offered to me to have my picture taken in bed with two women. I did it as a floor show to get the press off my back,' Mr Chan said. 'I'm sorry for what I've done. I know I've wronged my wife and my two sons. I deeply regret that what I did in the past caused the deaths of my beloved wife and sons. I have been sacked from my job and I don't have any friends any more. All my relatives have been keeping away from me. I promise to turn over a new leaf. I have to find a job soon because I can't depend on the allowance from the Social Welfare Department.'

Yesterday's attack came as Mr Chan burned the offerings at the back door of an undertaker in Winslow Street, Hunghom, after staff refused to let him inside. Passersby abused him as TV cameras filmed and shortly afterwards a group of men appeared and kicked and beat him. Mr Chan suffered bruises and a cut lip, but told police he did not want to report it. Mr Chan urged reporters not to follow him and said he was contemplating legal action against two newspapers for calling him 'names', and ruining his reputation.

(SCMP) November 11, 1998.

The Apple Daily newspaper yesterday gave over its entire front page to an apology for its reports on controversial widower Chan Kin-hong. Owner Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who signed the apology, said the incident had been handled improperly, although he insisted the paper had not, as alleged, paid $5,000 directly to Mr Chan. He described the reports as 'sensational' and pledged a review of the newspaper's practices. 'The inappropriate way of handling the stories made the readers and the public dissatisfied and led to strong criticism. I and the editorial management of the paper are uneasy and sorry about it,' he wrote.

Mr Chan, 41, drew media interest after his wife threw their two sons out of a window before leaping to her own death from their Sheung Shui home on October 19. She was reported to be upset about her husband's visits to mainland prostitutes. Soon afterwards, Apple Daily printed pictures of Mr Chan in bed with prostitutes in Dongguan. It said it had paid $5,000 to Mr Chan's associates.

(Oriental Daily) April 2, 2016.

Hoi Tin Tong filed a lawsuit against Apple Daily three years ago about a newspaper report in which Hoi Tin Tong was accused of selling rotten turtle jelly. During the civil trial, it was revealed that Hoi Tin Tong's former partner Choi Kwok-keung had provided the information to Apple Daily. The High Court ordered Apple Daily to turn over the unedited video to Hoi Tin Tong. However, Apple Daily appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals said that the courts will protect the confidentiality of sources for the sake of public interest. However if the newspaper had already disclosed the identities of the sources, then it can no longer use that as a reason. In this case, Apple Daily published a video in which Choi Kwok-keung was identified as the source who brought the reporter to Hoi Tin Tong to film how a female worker processed the rotten turtle jelly. The video also showed the name badge of that female worker. Choi Kwok-keung also admitted that he arranged for the Apple Daily reporter to meet with the female worker.

The Court of Appeals also said that the sworn statement by the Apple Daily reporter did not address anything about leaking the identifies of Choi Kwok-keung and the female worker. In considering this case, the courts noted that the sworn statements did not say that other sources have to be protected besides those who are already know. Therefore the court ruled the High Court was correct in ruling that Apple Daily must provide the original video to Hoi Tin Tong.

Internet comments:

- (YouTube) Apple Daily, September 12, 2013.

When the video began, the ID badge of the female worker was made fuzzy. The video was said to be taken by a hidden camera and the voice was distorted.

Once into the video, the protocol was tossed into the wind. For example, at 1:21, you can see the name of the female employee very clearly.

In a case like this, the stakes are very high because a company can be destroyed. Guilty or not, the company will file a lawsuit. Everything about this report should have been reviewed many times by the reporter, editors and lawyers. How can this sort of elementary mistake be missed? You get the sense that they don't care at all. This is because so far the advertising revenues have far outstrip the costs. For example, you can be fined for inaccurate reporting but the costs are less than one full-page advertisement for one day.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 1, 2016. Apple Daily was ordered to pay $100,000 in court fees.

- But that still pales in the wake of the HK$1,660.8 million in revenue.

• [Permalink] The Hong Kong National Party (2016/03/28)

(SCMP) March 29, 2016.

A new group appearing to be at the extreme end of the localism movement is setting up a party to turn Hong Kong into an independent republic, swiftly inviting scepticism across the political divide.

Calling itself the Hong Kong National Party, the group said it would not recognise the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, a stance that could have it mired in legal trouble.

Led by former Occupy Central activist Chan Ho-tin, the National Party will use “whatever effective means” available to push for independence, including fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September and co-ordinating with other pro-independence localist groups.

“Staging marches or shouting slogans is obviously useless now. Regarding using violence, we would support it if it is effective to make us heard,” said Chan at a press conference he conducted alone on Monday at a flat in a Tuen Mun factory building.

He claimed the party was funded entirely by the donations of its 50-plus members, mostly university students and young activists.

On the Hong Kong Nation:

1. What is the Hong Kong Nation?

Just holding values, culture and habits similar to Hongkongers isn't sufficient to become a member of the Hong Kong nation. The Hong Kong Nation are those who are dissatisfied with the colonial oppression of Hong Kong by China and want this oppression to stop or disappear.

2. The mainstream and the margins are all in the Hong Kong Nation.

It is an undeniable fact that Hongkongers are Chinese people from Guangdong and their descendants. But history tells us that regional culture is inseparable from unique national characteristics. The Guangdong Chinese who were born and raised in Hong Kong will be known and regarded by the mainstream Hongkongers as more "Hongkonger" than those who speak putonghua or are non-Chinese residents.

Of course, we agree that persons of any nationality, color or race can become Hongkongers. But we must admit that non-Guangdong Chinese people are more marginal, so that they will have to spend more effort before they can be regarded as Hongkongers in practice. This reality cannot be altered in the short run, but it shows that the Hong Kong Nation has its own language and race. This can be frequently found in other nations. We believe that the nation should be restricted by race, but we also agree that a nation cannot be formed without any racial factors. We welcome persons of any race to become a member of the Hong Kong Nation by their efforts.

3. Naturalization is one way to become the Hong Kong Nation

Presently the Hong Kong Communist colonial government is using the one-way-visas and the births of infants whose parents are not Hong Kong residents to cleanse the Hong Kong Nation through a large-scale racial genetic transformation. Before the Hong Kong Nation retakes its own sovereignty, any immigrant approved by the Hong Kong Communist colonial government is an immigrant tool of the Chinese Communists.

Hongkongers do not have sovereignty and therefore cannot screen the values and cultural levels of the immigrants. Presently they are unable to block the immigrants. But any newly arrived immigrant in Hong Kong must go through a naturalization process before that meet the conditions to become part of the Hong Kong Nation. New immigrants must melt into the Hong Kong community through learning Hong Kong values and culture before they can become a member of the Hong Kong Nation.

4. Opposing colonialism is a universal value

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights both have Articles that recognize the right of each nation for self-determination and that colonial imperialism is an evil act that isn't allowed by the international community. Every nation which was oppressed by colonialism, including Hong Kong, should have the right for self-determination. We support the Hong Kong Nation in order to let the world know that the Hong Kong Nation was to shrug off Chinese colonization and become independent and self-sufficient.

5. Hongkongers are not part of the Chinese Nation

The Chinese Nation is a deformed concept for nationhood. It is a political tool used by the Chinese colonists to rule. The Manchurian Empire used territorial boundaries to muddle up the definitions of nations, using economic and military invasions, religious and cultural infiltration to transform cultures and customs and destroying the sovereignty and uniqueness of the various nations and forcing them into submission. The Chinese Communists continued with the Manchurians' colonial policies to now. China used these excuses to invade and oppress the neighboring countries. Historically Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet and now Hong Kong today are the victims of the Chinese Nation.

The Chinese colonialists often used racial characteristics to distinguish among races, so that they came up with absurd ideas such as "all those with yellow skin and dark eyes are Chinese." Today in Hong Kong, some people still think that they are "Chinese" which showed that they lack consciousness of Hong Kong nationhood. In the 1980's, the Hong Kong Nation was misled by the Greater China advocates, and their "democratic return to China" actually deprived the Hong Kong Nation of the right for self-determination.

Video: Press conference about the establishment of the Hong Kong National Party. March 28, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beC4MK6j5Ac

(SCMP) March 30, 2016.

Beijing’s office in charge of Hong Kong affairs has slammed the establishment of a new political party advocating independence for the city as a serious violation of the country’s constitution, the Basic Law and a threat to national security.

The State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office issued a strongly worded statement through the official Xinhua news agency on Wednesday, after the Hong Kong National Party ­announced its formation on Monday. It has yet to be ­registered. The party, led by former Occupy activist Chan Ho-tin, has pledged to push for independence by, for example, fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September.

“The establishment of a pro-independence party by an extremely small group of people in Hong Kong has harmed the country’s sovereignty and security, as well as endangered the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong,” a spokesman for the office was quoted as saying. “It has also harmed the interests of Hong Kong. It is firmly opposed by all Chinese nationals, including some seven million Hong Kong people. It is also a serious violation of the country’s constitution, Hong Kong’s Basic Law and the relevant existing laws.”

The office said the Hong Kong government would handle the matter according to the law. “We are aware that the Hong Kong SAR government has ­already rejected the party’s registration. It was a suitable action,” the office was quoted as saying.

But the party was undeterred. It issued a statement on Wednesday saying a constitution is supposed to serve as a proclamation on how citizens are to be protected. “It is ridiculous that the citizens are accused of violating the constitution,” the party said. It also dismissed as “ridiculous” a warning on Tuesday by the Department of Justice that it might take legal action against the party. “We will not be afraid of such draconian laws. Bring it on. We will push ahead with Hong Kong independence with Hong Kong people,” the party said.

A government spokesman ­replied: “Any suggestion that Hong Kong should be independent or any movement to advocate such ‘independence’ is against the Basic Law, and will undermine the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and impair the interests of the general public. The SAR government will take action according to the law.”

Political commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu said Beijing’s condemnation was “unnecessary” because pro-independence ­ideology had not gained support in the city. “The statement would in fact drive more Hong Kong people to care about the issue of independence. They may not support it but they will think about it,” Lau said.

Internet comments

- (NOW TV) The Hong Kong National Party says that they have 30 to 50 members at this time, half of them being university students. The convener Chan Ho-tin was the convener of the Polytechnic University Concern Group For Withdrawing From The Hong Kong Federation of Students. Chan said that the Hong Kong National Party will actively think about entering the Legislative Council elections. They do not exclude the possibility of working with other Localist groups.

- (Oriental Daily) How do you squeeze the toothpaste out of an empty tube? The press asked Chan Ho-tin how many members were in the Hong Kong National Party. Chan beat around the bush for a while. When finally pressed to the wall, he said that they have 30 to 50 members. What asked who these people are, he eventually said that half of them are students. But he won't say what the other half is. When asked where the money comes from (for example, to rent the office at which the press conference was being held), Chan said that all their members are funders.

- Chan Ho-tin graduated from Polytechnic University six months ago. He is working full-time on the Hong Kong National Party. Is there more money in political party building than a regular job?

- The Hong Kong National Party opposes Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1, which states that Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. The reasoning is that Hong Kong began functioning as a port in 1841, which was before the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

- When the Hong Kong Nation is founded, we must immediately start a racial cleansing campaign to get rid of all impure, inferior racial types such as new mainland Chinese immigrants and South Asians!

- After the Hong Kong Nation is founded, the new immigrants (=all those who came to Hong Kong after July 1, 1997) will not automatically become Hong Kong Nation citizens. Instead they will go through special screening and subject to re-education if they fail to meet the requirements.

- What requirements? Firstly, there is the language test on reading/writing traditional Chinese characters, and speaking/listening to Kong-style Cantonese. Secondly, there is the new Constitution and the revised history of the Hong Kong Nation where Year Zero is 1841. 

- Culture always starts with the cuisine. In the Hong Kong Nation, the national foods shall be curry fish balls, shumai, fried pork intestine, chicken feet, fake shark fin soup, rickshaw noodles, milk tea, pineapple bread, etc. All the foods of the Chinese colonizers will be banned, including Peking duck, Yangchow fried rice, Guangdong roast goose, Chung King hot pot, Wan Nam rice noodles, Shanghai stir fried thick noodles, Shan Tung dumplings, Sichuan wontons, Mongolian lamb, Lan Chow Beef Noodles, etc.

- But what should we do about French fries, French toast, Taiwanese beef noodles, American/Swiss cheese, American pie, Brussels sprouts, Norwegian/Scottish salmon, New York cheese cake, London broil, Hungarian goulash, etc?

- It is not necessary to ban all these traditional dishes. We only have to rename them. For example, Peking duck becomes Tsim Sha Tsui duck, Yangchow fried rice becomes Cheung Chau fried rice, etc. See Freedom Fries.

- (Wikipedia) The genuine indigenous Hong Kong people are the five families with the names, Tang, Hau, Pang, Liu and Man during the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). These are the earliest recorded settlers of Hong Kong. It is still an open question whether the revised history of the Hong Kong Nation will begin with these aborigines or the British rule.

- Those who were born in mainland China but came before July 1 1997 are Communist infiltration agents. It is true that some of them may be genuine. But during a state of emergency, there won't be time to sort things out. About 30% to 40% of all Hong Kong residents were born in mainland China. The simple solution is to march them to the border or order to march to the other side. If they won't move, fire machine guns into the air. If they still won't move, fire machine guns at them. They will all be gone, one way or the other. Hong Kong will be a much better place to live in. Housing prices will plummet and everyone will have at least one apartment. Food and water will be easy to find. Jobs will be begging for workers and wages will go through the roof. Happy days will be here.

- About seven percent of those with right of abode are not of Chinese ancestry. Unfortunately, many of them can't pass the civic test on the language, history and culture. We will need the support of the United Nations Security Council members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, etc) to recognize the Hong Kong Nation, so their citizens will be allowed to stay if they wish. But all others (such as Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Indonesians, etc) will be given a short period of time to pack up and go home where they belong. 

- Even if you were born in Hong Kong, you will still have to be screened based upon your personal history (e.g. schooling, your work, your family, your associates, etc). After all, CY Leung was born in Queen Mary Hospital and studied at King's College/Polytechnic University during the British colonial era. So if you attended the pro-China Pui Kiu Middle School, you will be on the list of excluded people; if you work as a policeman, you are excluded; if your retired father worked as a policeman, you are excluded; if your wife works for the Bank of China, you are excluded; etc).

- It is less important to define who is a Hong Kong Nation citizen. The important thing is to persuade others to join the Hong Kong Nation. But no exceptions should be given to anyone born in mainland China or whose parents were born in mainland China. These vermin belong to the hostile invasion forces sent down here by the Communists.

- The more important point is to get people to join the Hong Kong Nation. As for those who refuse to join the Hong Kong Nation, they will be judged by People's Court and declared to be Enemies of the People. It is expected that a state of emergency will exist during the first days of the Hong Kong Nation. All Enemies of the State will be interned, expelled or executed.

- After the Revolution takes place, it is likely that there will be a great deal of hardship due to the embargo by mainland China. If a referendum/plebiscite were held, it is likely that the Chinese Reunification Party will make a clean sweep. Therefore, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Hong Kong Nation must necessarily be: "Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the Hong Kong Nation."

- Basic Law Article 2 about the National People's Congress will be erased.

- Basic Law Article 3 about citizenship requirements shall replace "permanent residents" by "those born in Hong Kong, speak/write Cantonese and have passed the history/culture test."

- Basic Law Article 4 about "safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens" shall be suspended indefinitely until as such time that all traitors and saboteurs are eradicated.

...

- (TVB) On March 28, 2016, the Immigration Department reported that more than 576,000 persons entered Hong Kong. Of these more than 170,000 entered via Lo Wu, more than 61,000 via Lok Ma Chau and another 90,000 plus through the airport. This is the reason why the people of Hong Kong are up in arms about! When the Hong Kong Nation is founded, all human traffic between borders will be halted pending studies to be performed by experts.

- Two types of people were entering Hong Kong at the end of this four-day Easter holiday. Firstly, they are mainland invaders. They obviously should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong and defecate/urinate in the streets/subways. Secondly, they are Hongkongers who spent their vacation in mainland China. They should not be allowed to spend their money over there. So sealing off the borders will be in the best interests of the Hong Kong Nation.

- When the inevitable collapse of China occurs and the Hong Kong Nation comes into existence, we must be prepared to immediately form a Committee of Public Security/Revolutionary Tribunal. All existing laws should be vacated. In the interregnum, there should be a Law of 22 Prairial, which will forbid persons to employ counsel for their defense, disallow the hearing of witnesses and make death the sole penalty.

- The assumption is often made that when the Hong Kong Nation comes into being, the first task is to immediately convert all the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs) into embassies. At this time, there are 12 HKETOs outside the Greater China region (in Berlin, Brussels, Geneva, Jakarta, London, New York City, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington DC). and eight in the Greater China Region (including one in Taiwan). Looking at this line up, it looks like we need to set up offices in Moscow, Paris, Sao Paulo, Mexico City Johannesburg, New Dehli, Rome, Madrid, Stockholm, etc pretty soon in order to cover all the majors.

- You can't declare your overseas offices as embassies on their own. You have to establish diplomatic ties with the home countries first. What makes you think that they will risk making enemies with China?

- There is so much preparation work that the Hong Kong National Party must perform in anticipation of Independence Day. Everything costs money (e.g. the rent for the office in the Tuen Mun industrial building), so it is time for all future Hong Kong Nation citizens to donate money to the Cause. Since they have neither corporate regisration nor bank account (because the name Hong Kong National Party contravenes the Basic Law), they will accept cash donations only.

- Of course, the reason why they have to field a candidate for the Legislative Council elections is that the job pays $93,000 per month plus another $100,000 for staffing. By comparison, the average starting salary for a recent university graduate is only $11,000.

- More evidence that there is plenty of money to be made in the Hong Kong independence industry:

These Civic Passion t-shirts are being sold at $380 per piece. It is for certain that these t-shirts are not made in Hong Kong. It is more likely that they produced in China for less than $10 apiece.

- The share of voters for the radical Localists is fixed. More and more organizations coming in means greater fragmentation of the fragments. From here to September, it will be Localists attacking other Localists.

- Here is the catalog of messages:

"Donate more money!"
"Democracy can solve all problems!"
"University students rule!"
"I am your savior!"
"Chicken soup of the soul!"
"Yes! Yap Yat-tze fucking said David Tang said fucking whatever!"
"You are the pig, not me!"
"Born in a time of chaos, I have to eat buffet!"
"It's all the fault of the government!"
"America/Japan are the best! We're the worst!"
"When big brother tells me to break the law, I do it immediately!"

- (SCMP) Independence party founders are both clowns and criminals – and their poison is spreading. By Alex Lo. March 31, 2016.

It’s just a matter of time. A new extreme localist group has been formed, calling itself the Hong Kong National Party. It repudiates the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, seeks to establish independence for “the Republic of Hong Kong” and will use any means, including inciting violence, to achieve its goal.

Co-founder and former Occupy Central activist Chan Ho-tin said his party would use “whatever effective means” available to push for independence, including fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September and coordinating with other pro-independence localist groups.

“Staging marches or shouting slogans is obviously useless now. Regarding violence, we would support it if it is effective to make us heard,” Chan said.

I am no lawyer but it all sounds illegal. If you don’t recognise our constitution, how can you become a lawmaker? If you advocate violence, any number of local laws including the public order ordinance and the crimes ordinance will suffice to define a criminal offence.

But the question is, how should reasonable people respond to localist groups like this? Should they be treated like clowns or criminals?

They certainly deserve to be laughed off the stage. But as they say, it takes a village, that is, the whole community, to stop something like that.

Alas, too many people in Hong Kong nowadays are only too happy to make excuses for such inexcusable individuals, exploiting their misguided efforts to spite the government, Leung Chun-ying and Beijing.

The latter are blamed for pushing people in Hong Kong towards extremism. I am not sure it’s really so simple.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say Beijing and the Hong Kong government are entirely to blame. Does it follow we should fold our arms, shake our heads and let the localists and their independence movement run berserk? It’s not in anyone’s interest to let such a movement take root in Hong Kong.

Since independence will never be a realistic option for Hong Kong, nothing good will come out of extreme localism. This is a poison that is spreading in our body politic. But unless we can figure out a way to channel the anger and idealism of young people into fighting for more viable political goals, localism will look appealing to many of them.

- (Chris Wat Wing-yin) When my daughter first posted a message to a forum about "a Hongkonger wants to seek pen pals," she got practically no response for the whole week. Then she added "China" to her profile. Suddenly, she got many requests from all over the world, including Slovakia, Lithuania, Croatia, Poland and Tunisia. So in the eyes of the rest of the world, Hong Kong is nothing but everything changes when Hong Kong becomes Hong Kong (China). Why are these people interested in Hong Kong? What do they write to my daughter about? She said that it was mostly about daily life but many people also asked her about homework exercises. Say what? What kind of homework would a Polish girl need to ask my daughter about? "Chinese!" These are young people who are learning Chinese (putonghua/simplified character system) in school and that is why they seek out Chinese people to become their pen pals. In this world, many people in faraway places are learning Chinese. Meanwhile in Hong Kong, some people are proud that they don't know Chinese (putonghua/simplified character system). Good luck to the Hong Kong Nation! They don't know how insignificant they are in the world until Hong Kong leaves China. At 13 years old, my daughter found out just by posting a message to seek pen pals.

- (EJ Insight) March 31, 2016.

Beijing appears to be sufficiently alarmed by the formation of Hong Kong National Party, which is advocating the creation of an independent republic and the repudiation of the Basic Law.

The SAR government promptly rejected the group’s application for registration, warning that calling for independence is a violation of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

However, official condemnation of the group has only made it well-known over a period of just a few days after its establishment was announced on Sunday.

In fact, attacks on the group have fueled discussions about Hong Kong independence, prompting many people to consider the concept of independence as an option for the city as China tightens its grip on the territory.

A spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office strongly opposed any action related to Hong Kong independence, stressing that the Hong Kong SAR is part of the People’s Republic of China under the Basic Law, and the principles of “one country two systems” and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.

In an interview with the state-owned Xinhua news agency, the spokesperson said “an extremely small number of people” have formed a pro-independence group, “threatening the national sovereignty and safety, as well as Hong Kong’s stability, prosperity and basic interest”.

Such action, the spokesperson said, is “firmly opposed by all Chinese nationals, including some seven million Hong Kong people”.

“It is also a serious violation of the country’s constitution, Hong Kong’s Basic Law and the relevant existing laws.”

The office said the SAR government would handle the matter according to the law, and praised it for refusing to register the group.

Also on Wednesday, the official Global Times dismissed the National Party’s founders as “mere attention-seekers who want overnight fame”.

The paper said the idea of Hong Kong becoming independent is “completely unrealistic”, and called on Hong Kong people to simply ignore the group.

In a way, Beijing’s reaction was completely understandable and expected.

In a place where there is no freedom of expression, where people have long lived under authoritarian rule, any concept that goes beyond the official line is considered treason, an outright rebellion.

But for Hong Kong people, the discussion of a topic such as Hong Kong independence should be protected by our laws. Hong Kong, after all, highly values its freedom of expression and thought.

That’s why we find it quite strange for the administration of Leung Chun-ying to issue a statement echoing Beijing’s official stance on the issue, warning that it “will take action according to the law”.

However, the government did not say which law it is referring to.

Even local legislators said the government would be hard put to find an appropriate law to sue the National Party’s members for advocating independence.

Beijing is correct in saying that Hong Kong National Party is only a small group.

Not only that, it is composed mostly of university students and other political neophytes, just like Youngspiration and Hong Kong Indigenous.

Though lacking in support from established politicians, these groups have proved their strong influence among the youth in the district council elections in November last year and the Legislative Council by-election for the New Territories East last month.

In the by-election, for example, Hong Kong Indigenous candidate Edward Leung was able to secure more than 15 percent of the votes.

What apparently worries Beijing and Hong Kong officials is the profile of his supporters, which could provide some insight into the possible outcome of the Legislative Council elections in September.

Data provided by the electoral office shows that Leung’s votes mostly came from traditional public estates in Tseung Kwan O, Tai Po as well as the Northern District.

The top 10 polling stations where Leung secured the highest votes shared the same characteristic, which is the higher than average number of voters born after 1990.

For example, in the polling station of Sheung Tak Estate in Tseung Kwan O, voters born after 1990 accounted for 23.1 percent, while in other polling stations, they accounted for 12 percent.

That indicates that most of the supporters of radical democrats with independence leanings were first-time voters.

This means that most of the young voters have a tendency to support Hong Kong independence, and this is what Beijing authorities are most worried about.

However, Beijing’s hard-line stance on the issue could only encourage more youngsters to register to be able to cast their votes in the September elections.

Based on the Edward Leung’s 15 percent vote benchmark, it cannot be ruled out that radical young democrats can secure seats in the five geographical constituencies in Hong Kong, or five seats in total.

Hong Kong National Party may just be an appetizer in the emerging campaign for Hong Kong independence.

There is also a political party being formed by Scholarism stalwarts Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Oscar Lai, which will be announced in mid-April.

The new party has identified Hong Kong’s future after 2047 as its key advocacy, which is probably another way of saying that they will focus on the issue of Hong Kong independence.

The three Scholarism stalwarts have deep experience in political struggle and enjoy massive support from the youth, so it is expected that their new party will be at the forefront of the discussion on independence.

It’s highly likely that Beijing’s stern warning against Hong Kong National Party is actually directed at Joshua Wong and his new party.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 31, 2016.

Talk of independence for Hong Kong could bring forward legislation to enact Article 23, the security law targeting subversion and sedition which was abandoned in the face of mass opposition in 2003, Hong Kong University law Professor Eric Cheung Tat-ming said on Thursday. He added that he was worried that such discussions could touch a nerve in the central government.

Regarding the newly-established, pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, Cheung said that their stance may not conform to the Constitution of China and the Basic Law, but the suggestion that it severely endangers the country is an exaggeration, according to a report by RTHK. Cheung said: “It’s the same as you suggesting that ‘defeat the Communist Party’ is against the Constitution of China, but this does not mean that people who voiced this kind of opinion have broken the law. The Basic Law and Bill of Rights protect freedom of speech.”

The Hong Kong National Party announced its establishment on Sunday, and said that they were denied registration at the Companies Registry. “They said we could not register because of political reasons,” said party convenor Chan Ho-tin.

With the party not being a “society” or a “company”, those advocating for independence could be charged with violation of the Societies Ordinance, Cheung told Apple Daily. However, Cheung said that a lot of concern groups and alliances are also not registered. “The government cannot enforce the law selectively.”

- (Commercial Radio) Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen proposed to adopt Hong Kong independence as a common goal, to gain the support of the international community and to achieve Hong Kong independence ultimately overthrowing the existing government by revolution or force.

- Yippee! Let Althea Suen lead the way on the assault of the PLA garrison in Admiralty! Millions will join and thousand will die, but the commies will be drowned with our blood!

- Sorry that you miss the message from Occupy Central! In a revolution, there will always be a division of labor -- some people will charge headlong while others will stay behind to take care of command-control-communications, logistics, propaganda, media relations, etc. In Althea Suen's case, she will serve best as the spokesperson interviewed by BBC/CNN/VOA/Fox News instead of throwing bricks at PLA tanks. When the bullets start flying, someone has to be alive and speaking from the American consulate to tell the world that we are being slaughtered.

• [Permalink] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/03/25)

(Wen Wei Po) March 24, 2016.

The staff associations at the eight universities held a joint referendum over three days. Today, they announced the results. out of 26,332 qualified teachers and staff members, 4520 voted at a rate of 17.2%. On the motion to "abolish the powers of the Chief Executive to appoint the university trustees/council members", 92% voted for. On the motion to "increase the ratio of representation of popularly elected teachers, staff members, graduate students and undergraduate students in the board of trustees/councils, 94% voted for.

The organizers declared that the approval rates were more than 90% across all the universities. This proves that the opinions of the teachers and staff members are "clear and consistent" across the universities. They said that they intend to hold a press conference next Tuesday about these results.

The voting in this referendum can be done by one of two methods. Electronic voting requires the staff association to first send a invitation to which the staff member must provide staff ID and other personal information to confirm before registration is complete for voting. However, Hong Kong University declined to provide the email file to the staff association on privacy grounds. Therefore the HKU staff association had to use their own sources to send out the invitations. Individual staff members complained that they received these invitations without asking and have questions about where the senders obtained their email addresses from. The other voting method is to appear in person at the voting booth, present ID and cast the ballot.

(Hong Kong Economic Times) March 25, 2016.

Internet comments:

- 17.2% voted of which 92.0% voted for the motion. What is the headline? "92.0% voted for the motion."

- Most of the newspapers took dictation from the organizers' press release. For example, Hong Kong Economic Times' title is:
"Referendum on institutional autonomy": More than 90% of university teachers/staff members agreed to abolish the Chief Exeuctive's powers to make appointments.
- At least, HKET put "Referendum on institutional autonomy" in quotes to show some reservation.
- The two tables inside the HKET report conveniently leave out the base total. That is, you cannot deduce the voting turnout.

- And this is Ming Pao:

More than 4,000 university teachers voted
90% agree to eliminate Chief Executive as Chancellor.
- The Ming Pao person who wrote this must be still asleep at the time. The voters were teachers AND staff members who don't necessarily teach. The two motions do not include stopping the Chief Executive from becoming the Chancellor. Wake up, already!

- A 17.2% voting rate? That is an improvement over the 17.1% voting for the 2010 mini-referendum! Democracy is on the march to victory!

- Deep down inside, of course, everybody knows that the response is tepid. Even supporters are embarrassed by the organizers using such headlines in their press release. It also means that voter turnout will be even worse the next time. Just take a look at the referenda organized by the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group:

September 1, 2015: Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting #1 (#314): 9,298 voted out of about 162,000 alumni for a 5.7% participation rate

November 28, 2015: Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting #2 (#388): 4,454 out of 165,450 alumni voted for a 2.7% participation rate.

And they are not going to hold any more of these Extraordinary General Meeting because of the backlash over the waste of time and money.

- (Apple Daily) The organization of this referendum is inconsistent across the institutions. At Chinese University of Hong Kong, the staff association set up two street booths (at the train station and by the cafeteria) operating during 8:00am-9:30am, 12n-2pm and 5pm-7pm. Student volunteers handed out leaflets to promote the referendum. At University of Science and Technology, Institute of Education and Baptist University, there are no booths and all voting is done over the Internet. At Baptist University, the only promotion is through posters on Democracy Wall and email.

- When the campaigners are spiritless, the result will be dispiriting too.

- "Institutional autonomy" takes two steps. The first step is the negation of the status quo in which the Chief Executive can appoint a number of of trustees and council members. Once the Chief Executive is out of the picture, who becomes the Chancellor? Who appoints the trustees and council members? There is no constructive proposal from anyone so far on this second step, because everybody knows that all proposals will be shot down by somebody or the other.

- In society at large, it is commonsense to say that the universities receive huge amounts of public funding and therefore they must be subject to oversight from the outside. So it will never be allowed to have the university councils and trustee boards be dominated by teachers, staff members and students. What is left unresolved is how these outside council members and trustees come from.

- The students don't have any proposals, because they are less concerned about the means than the ends -- they don't care who is on the council as long as it votes according to what the students want.

- The students can't spell out what they want. Sometimes, they want Person X to be hired; other times they want Person Y not to be hired. Their goalposts are moving around all the time, so they can't spell out what they want.

- HKU Council chairman Arthur Li met with "elite" students and made the comment that while he does not oppose teachers and staff members being involved in politicking, he said that it was wrong to hold a press conference during the school week. Why? Because it means that that teachers and staff members are taking time off from their regular business to engage in extracurricular activities. He must be referring to next Tuesday's press conference ...

- Digression: How do you reconcile this photo of people trying to go from Hong Kong through the Futian Border Crossing into China with all the talk about the People of Hong Kong don't want China?

- Hongkongers go to mainland China because they know that:
(1) you can't buy anything because everything is fake
(2) you can't eat food or drink water because everything is poisoned
(3) you can't find any entertainment because the place and its people are so backward
(4) you may find your body organs stolen
(5) you have no freedom of speech
(6) you are monitored by the Public Security Bureau the whole time
(7) ...

- (Wen Wei Po) March 27, 2016. In February, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union held a referendum on "the Chief Executive automatically becoming the Chancellor" and "increasing the representation ratio of staff/teachers/students on the board of directors". However the project was ruled invalid due to improper arrangements. Although 24% of the students voted, it was pointed out that the ballots were incorrectly printed and the voter identity was not recorded.

Recently the CUHK Student Union held another referendum. 17% of the students voted and that was more than the 16.66% (=2,816 votes) threshold so that all four motions were passed at approval rates between 54% to 97%.

However, the votes came about only because the student union pulled a number of tricks. On March 20, the Student Union said that they will have evening voting hours "at the request of certain members." Also the referendum was supposed to be held on nine days (March 11-23 minus Saturdays and Sundays) but they suddenly announced that voting will take place on March 24 too "so that more members can vote." On the evening of March 24, voting was extended 30 minutes past the stated deadline due to "technical problems." This kind of unscheduled "extra time" is even more amazing that the "Ferguson extra minutes" that are routinely given to Manchester United.

In truth, the record showed the voter turnout was only 6.75% by March 20; on March 24, almost 900 persons voted and pushed the total to several dozen votes past the threshold.

• [Permalink] The Hong Kong Chief Executive Election 2017 (2016/03/24)

Waiting for a mistake. By Chris Wat Wing-yin

Are the Hong Kong media sick? Are the Hong Kong reporters losing their minds? Why else are they reiterating the same mumbo-jumbo every day?

Nowadays no matter where or whom, as you as you finish speaking, the reporters will fire rapid questions at you:

"What do you think of CY Leung's performance? Do you support a second term for him? Do you think that the Central Government supports a second term for him?"

"What you think about John Tsang as Chief Executive? Somebody says that the Central Government has anointed our Secretary for Finance? Have you heard that?"

"What about Jasper Tsang? What about Regina Ip Lau?"

"Recently some people are advocating Hong Kong independence? Do you approve or disapprove Hong Kong independence? Do you think that Hong Kong can become independent? But some people say that it is possible? ..."

"What is your view on young people today? What is your view on the Mong Kok riot? ..."

In Hong Kong, every time that CY Leung, John Tsang, Regina Ip Lau, Jasper Tsang, Starry Lee etc shows up, the reporters will ask them again; when Rita Fan, Tam Wai-chu, Elsie Leung, Chan Chi-shi, Ambrose Lee show up in Beijing, the reporters will ask them again; even the financial news about shareholders' meetings, Li Ka-shing, Li Siu-kei, Ng Kwong-ching, Chan Kai-chung show up and the reporters are still asking them these things.

Isn't this bothersome? Isn't this boring? Isn't this annoying? Is there really nothing new under the sun? Do these questions have to be repeated again and again day after day? Clearly the reporters are waiting for somebody to make a mistake, or for somebody to lose patient and blurt out something straight. That is what news is made of.

Whether someone supports CY Leung for a second term as Chief Executive or not, and whether they support Hong Kong independence of not share the same answer: It is a waste of time to talk about it.

CY Leung has given no indication that he is interested in a second term. He is like someone who hasn't entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant, but every day people are debating whether she is beautiful or not? Elegant or not? Composed or not? Suitable to be crowned Miss Hong Kong or not? Don't you think that this is absurd?

As for Hong Kong independence, it is summarized as: If they want to be idiotic, why do you have to be idiotic with them too? The Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital patient wants Earth to become independent of the solar system. Are we going to seriously conduct a feasibility study?

When the sun rises up tomorrow, can we stop having these intangible matters that have not happened or cannot possibly happen? Please?

News coordinator Fung Wai-kwong recently said that Chief Executive CY Leung is facing "character assassination" by the opposition on a daily basis. Commentators made fun of this effort to protect his master. But here is an example of what this "character assassination" can be.

Previously CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung spoke to Ta Kung Pao. Sung spoke about his feelings when he went down to the Occupy Central site in October 2014: "... at the time, our only thoughts is that these students are like our children. We don't want to see anyone hurt, even sacrificed ..."

An Internet media outlet immediately seized on this to come up with their exclusive report titled: "One word in Joseph Sung's interview disclosed that Chief Executive CY Leung wanted bloody suppression of Occupy Movement." Where is the evidence?

I checked with a politician who is familiar with Hong Kong as well as the mainland. He said that some media outlets reported during the Occupy Central period that the central government was going to send troops out to deal with it. They even spelled out that those PLA soldiers will be coming from the Guangzhou military district. However, this person heard a different version: At the time, CY Leung guaranteed that the Hong Kong Police can handle the matter and he asked the central government to wait patiently for the HK SAR government to deal with it. CY Leung had the trust of the central government, and no PLA troops were sent. In the end, events proved that the PLA never came and Occupy Central was dispersed peacefully.

With respect to the Joseph Sung interview, he did not spell out what "sacrifice" refers to. Does it mean "sacrificing their studies"? Sacrificing their time? Or sacrificing their lives? Even if it is the latter, how did the Internet media outlet deduce that CY Leung wanted to do so? Logically the deduction is untenable. But in so doing, the Internet media outlet is doing "character assassination" on CY Leung as well as Joseph SUng.

The politician said that the Internet media outlet is moronic. If CY Leung wanted a bloody suppression, he would not have to wait for 79 days. Because Occupy Central was dragging on, certain Hong Kong media complained that the government response was too weak and they demand clearance by use of force. If the Hong Kong people and the central government both want clearance and this Chief Executive wants to carry out a bloody suppression, he would not have to wait so long for the Occupy people to disperse on their own.

Oddly enough, the Occupy Central instigators and the other principals have not gotten their day in court as yet. Meanwhile someone is already making a scare story out of some demonstrably false old information. Could it be that some people needed to raise the level of "character assassination" against the Chief Executive because they are interested in entering the election too?

• [Permalink] The Interns (2016/03/24)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 24, 2016.

Press freedom in Hong Kong has declined for the second year in a row, with both the public and journalists believing that it deteriorated in 2015, a study by the Hong Kong Journalist Association (HKJA) has found.

Although the survey only began in 2013, the index is currently at its lowest, dropping 1.4 points to 47.4 for the general public and 0.7 points to 38.2 for journalists compared to the previous year. A total of 54 percent of public respondents and 85 percent of journalists believed that it has declined.

According to HKJA Chairperson Sham Yee-lan, journalists are usually more sensitive towards such changes but, when the public rating also falls, it shows an increased awareness of the problem.

The survey was conducted in conjunction with the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP), which interviewed a total of 1,021 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adults between January 14 and 19. Questionnaires were also received from 446 journalists.

It was also found that journalists and the general public are of the view that self-censorship has become more common, with both groups believing that media outlets are concerned about criticising the central government in Beijing.

Many also reacted negatively to the purchase of English-language daily The South China Morning Post by Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba with 88 percent of journalists and 57 percent of the public believing that the buy-out threatened press freedom.

An overwhelming 97.7 percent of journalists also believed that the failure to prosecute those who attacked reporters during the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014 harmed press freedom, while over 97.1 percent said the government’s release of information at inappropriate times or through inappropriate channels was detrimental.

More than 94 percent of journalists also believed not allowing online media to attend government press conferences was harmful to the freedom of the press.

Sham called for the government to introduce a Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible.

“That existing laws are insufficient to allow journalists to obtain the information they needed for reporting also renders undesirable effects on press freedom. With 10 being very adequate and 0 being very inadequate, the average rate for the public is 5.7 and for journalists 4.4, further 0.1 and 0.2 down from 2014 respectively,” the HKJA observed.

Sham said that press freedom was pillar of Hong Kong’s success, but it had been “eroded at its roots”, and was an indication that fundamental rights enjoyed by the public were being encroached upon. She urged the government to do more to safeguard press freedom, a right guaranteed under the Basic Law.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 23, 2016.

Journalism students from local universities have been rejected from TVB News’ summer internship programme. Staff from Baptist University, Shue Yan University and Chinese University confirmed with HK01 that their journalism students had not been accepted as interns.

Shue Yan University Head of Department of Journalism and Communication Leung Tin-wai told Apple Daily that their students did not even get an interview.

TVB said that the arrangement to split the eight intern places equally between Hong Kong and mainland university students is the usual practice. The company did not confirm the rejection of local journalism students to Apple Daily but said that the interview process for the internship had been partially completed.

Last year, TVB News took on four local students for its internship programme, but at least two of them were not journalism students, HK01 reported.

Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) Chairperson Sham Yee-lan told Apple Daily that news media had independent decision-making power, but should not forget Hong Kong students.

HKJA vice Chairperson Shirley Yam also said that local news media should allocate intern places for local journalism students. “Do mainland students know Hong Kong better than Hong Kong students?” she asked. She also said that “it would be a very sad thing” if local journalism students could not practise journalism in Hong Kong.

The news sparked much debate online, with one netizen saying, “when TVB stops taking local students, the number of students applying to journalism will fall, or even plummet.”

(Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 26, 2016.

After being quiescent for a while, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has re-surfaced with a research report that gave a failing grade to freedom of press in Hong Kong.

Indeed, there is less and less space for freedom of press in Hong Kong. Why? Very simple. You're the problem! Don't you see that the news reports over the past several years are only about you people pushing Yellow Ribbon views. Those who throw bricks, assault police, imprison others, break windows, start riots, disrupt society, destroy order ... become heroes, saints and angels according to you in full-page interviews, cover stories and special issues.

Have you ever seen reporters interview the policeman who fired the shots during the riot? The injured policemen? Did you read about HKU Council members getting their clothes ripped up? No. Instead we get to see the criminals talking about meting out justice.

Using the power of the Fourth Estate, the media has raised the lawbreakers onto the moral high ground, protected the criminals, hurt the citizens and wronged society. Is there freedom of press? Yes, but it is in the hands of the opposition camp.

Common folks who don't side with the Yellow Ribbons found that their voices are silenced. They won't be heard on radio phone-in programs. They can only send the news around the Internet bit by bit. As for the government's responses, very little is reported. If there was an one-hour interview, then one sentence will be aired and that is the sentence that you misspoke. Freedom of press? For most citizens, it was lost long ago. We don't need the Journalists Association to tell us now.

Recently RTHK invited me to participate in a program for Grand Reconciliation. I declined. The reason is simple. While RTHK is funded by the taxpayers, it is the instigator of these social conflicts. If you listen to their phone-in programs or City Forums, they are never fair and balanced. The ratio of voices is 9:1, with 9 being the opposition camp and 1 being regular citizens. Now they want to know how to achieve a reconciliation? The problem is with you folks!

Earlier the new media outlet HK01 threw out a lot of money to hire more than 300 people mostly from Ming Pao and Apple Daily. With staff people like those, you can imagine how "fair and balanced" they might be. The mysterious financiers are very generous, and they hired all the university interns that TVB won't hire.

HK01 purchased advertisements on the MTR and television. Their slogan is: "When society is riven asunder, everybody loses. So it is time to change!" Yet the first issue of HK01 has a photo of Chan Kam-lam and his family, saying that Internet users are encouraging people to cause trouble at the ice cream store founded by Chan Kam-lam's son-in-law. Thus they are indirectly promoting that campaign. So this is HK01's idea of "change."

In Hong Kong, we have genuine freedom of press.

Internet comments:

- HKJA vice Chairperson Shirley Yam said that TVB is not just a commercial business because it is regulated by the CAP 562  Broadcasting Ordinance. Therefore every one of its decisions must convince the public.

Chinese University School of Journalism and Communication professor Clement So said that TVB reserved intern slots for CUHK journalism students every year, so he is perplexed by TVB's decision not to hire any Hong Kong university students.

Have these people ever thought of what is the consequence of full disclosure? Let me imagine how this could happen.

First, TVB issues a statement to the effect that it hire interns on the basis of the best talents from among the pool of applicants.

That statement won't satisfy the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the university journalism professors or the student unions. They demand FULL DISCLOSURE now!!!

So what if on the next day, TVB uploads the particulars of all candidates, plus the video interviews. Here are some samples that I made up:

Candidate #1:

Gender: Male
Age: 21
Residency: Born in Hong Kong
University: Chinese University of Hong Kong
Major: Journalism
Languages: Two languages (English and Chinese), three dialects (English, Cantonese and putonghua)

Video interview:

Q. Many others of your generation have chosen to study overseas (United States, England, Australia, etc). Why did you choose to stay in Hong Kong?
A. Because this is the place that I have known all my life. I love Hong Kong and I want to be here forever.

Q. You are a Hongkonger. Do you have a Home Visit Permit to visit China?
A. I don't have one. I have never applied for one because I have never thought about going there. But I am willing to apply for one if I get this internship.

Q. ... only if you get this internship?
A. Eh ... I am not sure. It depends.

Q. What is the difference between Qianhai and Hengqin?
A. Eh. I don't know. They may something to do with places in Shenzhen. I don't know.

Q. What do think about the unlicensed cooked food vendors in Hong Kong? Should they be allowed to operate?
A. The cooked food vendors represent a way of life in Hong Kong and they must be allowed to operate without interference from those government bureaucrats.

Q. Do you have a personal Facebook page? What do you write about?
A. Of course, every Joe has a personal Facebook page. I love to write about what I eat. I post pictures of every dish at every meal that I eat. I want to make a total record of everything that I eat.

Q. Do you have a Weibo?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Why not?
A. Because I don't know anyone who uses Weibo. And I don't know how to read or write in simplified Chinese characters. Besides I hear that everything on Weibo are lies. Why should I bother?

Q. Do you use WeChat?
A. What for!? This is Hong Kong. Everybody uses Whatsapp.

Q. Would you feel comfortable interviewing someone in English?
A. Well ... I don't think that will come to pass. TVB Jade is a Cantonese-language station. There is no reason to interview in English. If it has to be, then I am confident that I can read off the questions in a script.

Q. (in English) And I decline to make any response to any further questions at this time as I feel that you are maligning my character.
A. Eh ... (in Cantonese) I think that it is totally unfair for you to spring some English on me like this.

Candidate #2:

Gender: Female
Age: 22
Residency: Born in Suzhou, China.
University: Chinese University of Hong Kong
Major: Journalism
Languages: Three languages (English, French and Chinese), five dialects (English, French, putonghua, Suzhou (father), Wenzhou (mother), Cantonese (four years in Hong Kong)).

Video interview:

Q. On your resumé, you claim to know French. How did that come about?
A. My father is a university professor in linguistics. He told me that the French language sounds very much like the Suzhou dialect that I grew up with in my family. Therefore I decided to study French. It is always good to open up your eyes to look at the rest of the world.

Q. With your university entrance exam marks, you would have been accepted by all the top universities in China. Why did you choose to come to study in Hong Kong?
A. I had lived in China all my life. What is the point of more of the same? I wanted to see what the rest of the world was like and experience the lives of others. Hong Kong is a midway point, because it is still Chinese enough not to be completely exotic.

Q. Tell me about Yiwu. What, if anything, do you know?
A. Hmm. That's interesting. Yiwu is a medium-sized city in Zhejiang province, but it has assumed mythic status in China as the city of trades. I have not been there yet, but this is one of the places that I mark down as one that I must visit. If you haven't been to Yiwu, you can't understand China. 

Q. What do think about the unlicensed cooked food vendors in Hong Kong? Should they be allowed to operate?
A. Hmm. As an outsider with no detailed knowledge, I don't have any positions. On one hand, people should be allowed to make a living without unnecessary restrictions. On the other hand, the vendors seem to pose some threats to public health and safety. This is not a Hong Kong-only problem, as the situations exist all around the world, whether it is my hometown Suzhou or wherever else. In the end, it depends on the particular details.

Q. Do you have a Facebook account? If so, please describe what you typically post on?
A. Indeed I do. Every student at the university has a Facebook page, and we are all involved in various special interest groups. My personal Facebook is a collection of the big world news stories. I find that maintaining such a Facebook forces me to keep up with what is going around the world. Unlike my peers, I am not interesting in posting about myself.

Q. Do you have a Weibo? If so, what's it about?
A. Indeed I do. On my Weibo, I talk about my personal experiences as a mainland students in Hong Kong. I have a following of about 20,000 individuals at this time. I will only post what I believe is useful or interesting to others. People say that while my posts are infrequent, they appreciate the thoughtfulness.

Q. How do you communicate with your friends? Whatsapp? WeChat?
A. If I have to communicate with someone, I will use whatever suits them. I can use Whatsapp and I can use WeChat. Whatever they prefer. The communication medium is only a means. The message itself is the ends.

Q. Would you feel comfortable interviewing someone in English?
A. Why not? At my university, most of the journalism are taught by foreigners using English. Our students are all supposed to be multi-lingual.

Q. (in English) I have doubts whether you can understand my articulations on this particular issue as they involve certain complex considerations of socio-cultural issues.
A. (in English) I believe that your statement is a test of my grasp of the English language and my ability to respond in such situations. I assure you that this is totally unnecessary.

Now the point is not so much whether you would choose Candidate #1 over Candidate #2 or vice versa. The point is that the lives of both candidates will be ruined forever afterwards when the data dump at this level is done. This is a serious violation of the privacy of the candidates. You don't really want FULL DISCLOSURE, or else nobody is ever going to apply for internship again.

- This is the same issue with the case of Johannes Chan, an applicant for the pro vice-chancellor of academic staffing and resources. If the university made a full disclosure of his entire C.V. plus all the comments from the referees, many people will see their careers ruined.

- TVB has several hundred people in its new department. They are hiring eight interns for the summer to assist their regular workers and to learn from that experience. Perhaps some day these interns might be hired after they graduate, or perhaps not. Get real!

- What is an intern? The TV news broadcast hostess says that she needs coffee and the intern rushes over to offer her a cup. That intern isn't going to change the lead story on 6:30pm news. Please do not equate intern hiring with freedom of press.

- Regular workers obviously more important than the interns in turns of producing news. Why stop at full disclosure of the intern-hiring decisions? We want full disclosure on the hiring of all workers at all the media organizations in Hong Kong!

- I consider it a far worst suppression of freedom of press if TVB's decision to hire a summer intern has to be approved by Organization X.
- The Journalists Association is the perfect illustration of suppression of freedom of press.

- The Heritage Foundation ranked Hong Kong as the top 'country' in the world on its 2016 index of economic freedom. But what economic freedom is there if TVB's decision to hire a summer intern has to be approved by a special interest group, the Hong Kong Journalists Association? PLEASE!

- (HKG Pao) Each year TVB's news department hires mainland student interns. But these interns are not taking over the positions of local Hong Kong students, because the former will be with the putonghua news programs while the latter are with the Cantonese news programs. Generally speaking, local Hong Kong student interns won't be able to speak putonghua flawlessly. Furthermore, the putonghua audience are liable to call in to complain if the intern speaks atrocious putonghua!

• [Permalink] Resist Compulsory HKUSU Membership Fee (2016/03/23)

(Silent Majority HK Facebook) March 23, 2016.

The Hong Kong University Student Union misused freedom to speech to promote Hong  Kong independence, giving the impression that all the students agree with their union. However, this occurs only because the students have to pay compulsory union membership dues of more than $100 each. This was what gave the union millions of dollars a year to spend on promoting Hong Kong independence.

Last month, the incoming union president Althea Suen publicly stated that she supports Hong Kong independence, and the Hong Kong University Student Union magazine Undergrad published an entire issue on that subject. Last month, the mainland students at Hong Kong University began an eggs-versus-high wall campaign to stop paying their union fees.

In the past, Yellow Ribbon media such as Apple Daily and Ming Pao love to quote Haruki Murakami:

“If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg, I will stand on the side of the egg. Why? Because each of us is an egg, a unique soul enclosed in a fragile egg. Each of us is confronting a high wall. The high wall is the system which forces us to do the things we would not ordinarily see fit to do as individuals . . . We are all human beings, individuals, fragile eggs. We have no hope against the wall: it's too high, too dark, too cold. To fight the wall, we must join our souls together for warmth, strength. We must not let the system control us -- create who we are. It is we who created the system. (Jerusalem Prize acceptance speech, JERUSALEM POST, Feb. 15, 2009)”

After the Mong Kok riot earlier this year, the Hong Kong University Student Union declared that they will not abandon the rioters: "We will always stand on the side of the resisters."

So now with millions of its own dollars at stake, will the Hong Kong University Student Union stand on the side of the resisters who don't want to pay their compulsory union dues? Will they join the mainland students to overturn the system of compulsory union membership? Or will they crush the eggs and make an omelette?

Internet comments:

- (BBC) By Li Zan. March 22, 2016. ... After Althea Suen stated on RTHK that she supports Hong Kong Independence, a February 21 essay <Concerning the HKUSU president's Hong Kong independence statements plus detailed methods for mainland students to refuse to pay union membership dues> began to be circulated among mainland students." The essay said: "No matter whether she was speaking for herself or for the student union, the fact that she is the HKUSU president means that what she says will carry weight in society and this is a severe blow to mainland studnets at HKU." The sub-title of this essay: "Nothing about matters of nationhood is too small to tolerate." On the same day, the Resist HKUSU Compulsory Membership Fee Facebook was established.

Later that day another essay <Student Union, give me a reason why I should pay membership dues> was circulated. The essay said that Althea Suen can say whatever she personally wants to say as a matter of freedom of speech. The student union is supposed to be there as the bridge between the students and the university. Yet the student union has made a lot of decisions without consulting the students, such as "Billy Fung leading the students to charge into the council meeting and leaking the confidential meeting details," "laying siege to university council chairman Arthur Li," etc. "The Student Union merely communicated with certain students. So why should the other students who were not consulted want to join this union?"

The writer asked: "Why should students whose voices aren't being heard join the union?" The writer said that the student union cannot and does not represent all the students. Usually, the student union cabinet are all Hongkongers. The current cabinet ran with a big "Hong Kong Priority" slogan, with certain xenophobic attitudes. By comparison, their platform for non-local students is a very vague: "We will attract non-local students to attend union activities and melt into the Hong Kong University community."

The essay said that the refusal to pay membership dues is not intended to start a polarized war between local and non-local students. The authors of these two essays declined to be interviewed. However, it is clear that just about every one of the 1,200 mainland students have seen these two essays.

"... I asked cabinet members for comments, but there have not been any substantive replies. Althea Suen said that she has no comments because this matter is not progressing any further. As a student union member, I sent emails to Althea Suen, Internal Affairs vice-president Lau Chi-hang and the Student Union official mailbox, but I got no response."

So perhaps the discontent of the mainland students with the student union election/communication system, the compulsory membership system and the political directions of the student union will die down after the new president's comments. But someday the same discontent will rise up again.

- The Hong Kong University Student Union is too busy with overturning the university ordinance whereby Hong Kong's Chief Executive automatically becomes the university chancellor.

- Oh, previously, they promised that they would try their best to stop the constitutional reform for the Chief Executive election. They even occupied Central for 79 days. The bill was vetoed in June 2015. What a victory for the students and the rest of the people of Hong Kong!!! The students and the pan-democratic politicians that they would immediately trigger a new bill with their preferred civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates. It is March 2016 now. Not a single thing has happened. They have moved on and now the hot topic is Hong Kong independence in 2047. Universal suffrage is just so "YESTERDAY".

What this means is that today they may be saying that they busily engaged in running these university referenda on the chancellor appointment. They promise to get back to you on the compulsory student union dues as soon as that is over. But they won't, especially when it means that you want to take a chunk of money out of their pockets.

- Unfortunately the students have already paid their union dues before school started last September. Therefore the students can't get their money back.

- A vote of no confidence in the cabinet is better. If the motion is passed, Althea Sun will have to leave with her tail between her legs.

- A referendum is the best solution. The Hong Kong University withdrew from the Hong Kong Federation of Students after such a referendum. In like manner, the students can collect signatures to hold a referendum to make the student union fees optional rather than compulsory. If there isn't enough money to run the student union, then those who want to pay can pay $1,000 per person. Hereafter, the student union can advocate Hong Kong independence or whatever else, and everybody knows that they represent only their small number of dues-paying members and not the entire student body. That would put an end to any future controversy.

- Althea Suen said that membership dues payment this year is about the same as previous years, so there is no reason to be concerned.

- Suen was referring to membership dues payment that were made before last September.

- The students are habitually saying that government officials are numb and indifferent to the voices of the People. How would you characterize the response of Althea Suen and the student union? How is it any different?

- Actually, it's only the mainland students who are unhappy. The other non-local students also feel alienated. Many of the HKUSU announcements and statements are in Chinese only, because the student union people aren't comfortable with using English.

• [Permalink] Walk Tall And Carry A Big Stick (2016/03/23)

(Oriental Daily with video) March 22, 2016.

Last night at around 10pm at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shan Tung Street, two men and two women were using a megaphone to do their Shopping Revolution thing. Three men about 40 to 50 years found them annoying and told them to quiet down. The two sides argued. The two men and two women were attacked with punches and an umbrella. The police were called.

By the time the police arrived, the three men had fled. A 60-year-old man named Koo and a 39-year-old woman named Cheung reported head injuries. 40-year-old man named Chan reported pain on his face. 56-year-old woman named China reported pain on the back of her arm. The four were sent to the hospital. The police are treating this case as common assault which caused actual bodily injuries.

Videos:

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCAJx02azL8
At past 10pm on March 21, the Mong Kok Shopping Revolutionaries were marching along Nathan Road when a man wielding an umbrella attacked and injured four Shopping Revolutionaries. The man then fled into the Sun Hing Building. The Shopping Revolutionaries pursued the man to the building, but the security guards blocked them from entering the lobby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyNvz8gi5fM The men tried to leave by taxi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HnKYtsuys The Shopping Revolutionaries marched down the Mong Kok Police Station to protest police misdeed (namely, not telling the complainants about the case number).

Internet comments:

- Why are they calling the police when attacked? Don't they always say that the police are black canines?

- I thank the three heroes for taking action. Finally someone saw to it that justice was done.

- Everybody else knows that this was inevitable except those Shopping Revolutionaries. Furthermore, this will continue to happen again and again.

- The man escaped into the Sun Hing building. Where else? The Shopping Revolutionaries quickly gave up, because they knew that if they made more noise, the bouncers are going to come downstairs ...

- Attacked by a man wielding an umbrella? So they finally admit that the umbrella is an assault weapon.

• [Permalink] What Happened To My Money? (2016/03/21)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 20, 2016.

Student group Scholarism has announced the suspension of its operations to make way for the formation of a new student group and a political party.

Scholarism, which was formed in May 2011, said that it had been thinking about its future position since the end of the pro-democracy occupy movement in 2014. It said that its model of supporting political movements and student movements simultaneously needed to be changed.

“A highly political Scholarism made us hard to get into schools to educate and organise secondary school students; as a student group it is hard for Scholarism to handle a self-determination movement which will last for dozens of years,” it said in a statement.

Convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung said that he was able to visit almost 30 schools to give talks during summer breaks before the occupy movement, but he only went to one afterwards. Protesters would target him outside school premises, causing others to cancel appointments, he said.

After deliberation between members, it was decided that the group will suspect its operations though not disband.

A new political party to be formed next month was previously announced by some ten members including Wong and former spokesperson Agnes Chow Ting. The group will push for a referendum on Hong Kong’s future. Meanwhile, a new student group will also be formed in around six months time, headed by spokesperson Prince Wong Ji-yuet.

“The new student group will not intentionally politicise itself, as we wish for a new image, to drop the burden of the past, and focus on works about students,” Prince Wong said. “But if there are any [political] educational issues coming, such as TSA tests and teaching Chinese in Mandarin, we will continue to follow up.”

Of the 120 current members, 30 have expressed wishes to move to the new student group, though Scholarism has not consulted every member yet.

Joshua Wong denied that a split in political ideals led to the group being broken up into two new organisations.

“Every issue is related to politics – but the political party will focus on discussions on political reform and advocacy, while the student group will focus on educational issues or civic education,” Joshua Wong said.

Of the HK$1.45 million currently held by the group, HK$700,000 will be transferred to the new student group and HK$750,000 will be transferred to a fund for legal assistance. None of Scholarism’s current funds will be transferred to the new party.

“Donations previously given to Scholarism were also agreeing to the same ideals, so we think it is suitable for the funds to be given to the new student group,” Prince Wong said.

The Scholarism Fund for Legal Assistance will be managed by Tang, Wong & Chow Solicitors, for providing financial support to those in need, should they be arrested or charged due to political actions they participated in as Scholarism members.

The fund is entrusted to six Scholarism members including Joshua Wong, Prince Wong, Agnes Chow, Andrea Melody Chuh, Pauline Chan Po-ling and Chung Lai-him. They are responsible for the respective approval procedures, annual releases of audit reports and revealing the types of cases approved for the coming seven years. Remaining funds after seven years will be donated to human rights organisations.

Joshua Wong stressed that the fund would not be used in a judicial review he has filed.

(SCMP ) March 20, 2016.

Student activist group Scholarism, which played a leading role in the 2014 Occupy protests, suspended work yesterday before completely disbanding to form a new, “less politicised” group. The end was announced a month before the formation of the new political party to be led by the group’s convenor, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, alongside a few core members.

The party is preparing to field at least two candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September, setting the stage for younger players to enter an arena dominated by ageing veterans. It is also planning a referendum in 10 years’ time for Hongkongers to decide their own future beyond 2047, the expiry date for Beijing’s 50-year promise to run the city under the “one country, two systems” formula.

Wong said the group he formed five years ago was now too heavily politicised in the wake of the 79-day pro-democracy sit-ins in 2014, making it difficult for them to reach out to schools. “I managed to conduct sharing in some 30 schools after I finished the public exams, but after the umbrella movement I have been [invited] by only one or two schools, with one being besieged by Beijing-friendly protesters and the other cancelling the sharing session after the incident,” Wong said on Sunday. “That’s my first-hand experience.”

Describing the break-up of Scholarism as a tough decision, Wong said it would help the group to reposition itself, with a new student body – to be formed in six months – focusing on student issues and civic education, while the party concentrated on elections and greater democracy.

Founded by Wong when he was a secondary school student, Scholarism made a name in leading a citywide campaign that forced the government to shelve a national education curriculum in 2012. It then shifted its focus from education policy to the city’s democratic development, gaining international exposure during the Occupy protests.

What Scholarism does with the HK$1.45 million in donations it still possesses will be closely watched. The plan is to set aside HK$700,000 to form the new student group, while the remaining HK$750,000 will be pumped into Scholarism’s fund for legal assistance – managed by lawyers and entrusted to six core group members – to offer financial support to group members who were arrested in previous protests. No money will be passed on to the new party. Any money in the legal assistance fund left over after seven years will be donated to human rights groups.

Prince Wong Ji-yuet, the Scholarism spokeswoman who will lead the new student body, said the financial arrangements would not go against the donors’ wishes as the new body would uphold the principles and philosophy advocated by the original group. She added the new student group would not be deliberately “depoliticised”, but would focus on promoting civic education.

(Oriental Daily) March 20, 2016.

After the dissolution of Scholarism, the whole world is interested in where the millions in assets are going. Joshua Wong said that the $1.45 million of Scholarism will be split into two pieces: $700,000 to establish and operate a new student organization, and another $750,000 for the legal defense fund of Scholarism members. Joshua Wong's new political party won't get a cent of the money.

However, this statement is contrary to a comment that Joshua Wong posted on his Facebook on March 14. The comment was titled "The last membership meeting of Scholarism." The recommendation was made to turn over $1.2 million of the Scholarism assets to the new political party to establish itself. This motion was passed on the meeting of March 6. This new political party will pay all the legal fees of the Scholarism members. Another $500,000 was allocated to establish the new student organization. Please note that the total assets amount to $1,200,000 + $500,000 = $1,700,000 at the time. But now Joshua Wong has declared that the total assets are only $1,450,000. Where is that missing $250,000?

On the Internet, people wondered that if the money was donated to Scholarism, by what right does this as-yet-unnamed student organization can take over the money? Some people are saying that they will form a Scholarism Victims' Alliance to get their money back.

Why wasn't Scholarism allowed to continue? What was it necessary to form a new brand student organization? One explanation was that if Scholarism is not dissolved, the money would not be dispensed. Furthermore, Scholarism has a constitution of some kind whereas a new student organization can be more malleable so as to make Joshua Wong the supreme regent to direct all matters in conjunction with the new political party. However, the leader of the new student organization Prince Wong said that Scholarism had been too politicized which makes it hard to push for civic education and therefore they wanted the new organization to focus for improving education. You can decide for yourself whether you believe this?

Videos

INT New Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zSGHwxJVE Full press conference

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) When Scholarism was founded in 2011, they had only a single issue: to oppose national education. The members were all students with no political party background (note: Joshua Wong's parents were said to be Civic Party members later on). They gave the impression of being "very pure, very true." That was the time when Scholarism gained the most by way of aura.

Once national education was over, Scholarism had to go into the political arena in order to live on. During the July 1st march, they took in more in donations than the traditional pan-democratic political parties. During the Occupy Central "referendum", they proposed civil nomination of the Chief Executive candidates. Occupy Central also started in support of Joshua Wong.

Unfortunately, once they became highly politicized, the schools began to shut them out for that reason. Meanwhile as youngsters who are not adults yet, they cannot enter the adult world of politics. They don't know anything and yet they think that they are exceptional and brilliant. Are they too young, or too ignorant, or too narcissistic?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 22, 2016.

Yesterday morning, Joshua Wong was scheduled to appear on Commercial Radio at 8am along with Prince Wong. Prince Wong arrived on time, but Joshua Wong was not to be seen. The host sighed and said: "I have been a radio host for such a long time, and I am saddened by the sight that young guests are usually late. Within the same group, the women usually on time but the men are late. Why?" He said: "This is 8:22am now. Prince Wong is sitting by my side. Joshua Wong is late ... I hereby publicly denounce Joshua Wong for being late." Prince Wong sat and smiled in embarrassment.

Finally Joshua Wong showed up at 9am. The host said: "Every listener knows that we have been waiting for the arrival of former Scholarism convener Joshua Wong. He has finally shown up. Good morning." The host said that Joshua Wong is about to form a new political party: "If you have been telling the old farts that trustworthiness is the most important thing. Hey, you were late by one hour. As you take the first step into politics, can  you explain to us what you think about trustworthiness?"

Joshua Wong apologized to the hosts and the audience for his tardiness. But he said that being late once does not affect his "trustworthiness."

During the program, Joshua Wong said that they plan to feel candidates in Hong Kong Island and New Territories East for the 2016 Legislative Council elections in September. Based upon the experience of certain other political parties, each district will require $800,000 to $1,000,000 in election campaign funds. Therefore the new political party will need $2 million in funds.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 22, 2016. Earlier this month at a court hearing about the taking of Civic Plaza, Joshua Wong was late by half an hour. The magistrate ordered him to stand still and be lectured. The magistrate said: "People who want to carry out great things should reserve the time" and "being late is waste of other people's time." At the time, Joshua Wong said that he "totally understood." Less than three weeks later, Joshua Wong was an hour late for the Commercial Radio program. Does he "totally understand" that he was wasting other people's time?

- (Kinliu) On Monday, Joshua Wong went on radio to talk about his new political party. Afterwards, he went to the HSBC Bank to open a new account for his new political party. However, the bank determined that this organization does not meet their requirements and declined to open an account. HSBC Bank declined to comment to the media, saying that all client information is confidential.

According to information, the Scholarism account had about $1.45 million. Scholarism said that none of the money will be forwarded to the new political party, which therefore has nothing to operate with. No wonder Wong is anxious to establish a bank account for the new political party so that he can start another round of fund-raising.

- Joshua Wong has started fund-raising even before he got a bank account.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 21, 2016.

Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong said that HK$2 million would be needed to field two candidates in the upcoming LegCo elections, after the student activist group announced its suspension of operations to focus on a political party and a student group.

“At the moment, new political groups don’t even have one dollar. In April, [we] have to start paying rent. Hence we are in immediate and dire straits,” said Wong on Monday.

“In the future, we will use a crowdfunding movement, hoping to raise funds,” he said. “If we are elected by citizens, we hope to receive their small donations, even if it was ten or eight dollars, or even 50 or 100 dollars.”

- At $10 per person, Joshua Wong needs 200,000 suckers to raise $2 million. Alternately, Joshua Wong can travel to Kadoorie Hill to pay homage, and Jimmy Lai will give him a suitcase loaded with spanking new $1,000 bills.

- Wait, did he mention Viagra pills?

- For the final group photo of Scholarism, Joshua Wong told everybody to wear their black t-shirts. But he shows up in a bright orange t-shirt to match the orange banners in the background. This shows who is the superstar and who are the background props.

- (Headline Daily) Scholarism was founded by Joshua Wong, Queenie Chung and Ivan Lam. It began under the name "Scholarism-Anti-National Education Alliance." At the time, Joshua Wong promised that the organization will be disbanded if and when national education is vetoed. In 2012, Wong changed the name of the organization to "Scholarism" which began to deal with other political issues. Queenie Chung decided to quit because the nature of the organization had changed. She characterized the current Scholarism as over-expanding like a nouveau riche with volunteers of uneven quality. In the end, there are opinion differences which made it hard for students to focus on education issues.

Ivan Lam said that Scholarism had been facing up to internal dissension and public disappointment for some time. The dissolution after four years will be good for both members and supporers. He said: "Scholarism wanted people to unite together. But another way of looking at this is that they did not know how to deal with opinion differences."

- Whereas Scholarism began as a single-issue organization, it later began to engage in various political issues. This made it hard for schools to invite Scholarism speakers like Joshua Wong, Prince Wong, etc to address students because they have become an overtly political organization. In future, Scholarism members who are interested about education issues should be with the new student organization and those who are interested about political issues should be with the new political party. That is the stated reason for the split-up.

- Five years ago when Scholarism started, Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai, Queenie Chung, Ivan Lam, Prince Wong, Agnes Chow and others were secondary school students. Five years later, they aren't. So Scholarism has difficulty defining itself as an organization representing secondary school students. Some of these people have left secondary school and gone on to tertiary education. But their scholastic records were so terrible so as none of them managed to enroll in the top eight universities. For example, Joshua Wong was said to be in Open University. So it was clear that Scholarism had no future.

- On January 3, 2015, Joshua wong said: "I want to complete my four years of university first and then I will consider the future. At this time, I don't intend to follow a political party, enter politics or take part in any elections ..."

So much for that ...

- Scholarism always featured Joshua Wong in center stage and there is was no attempt to cultivate a new leader who is currently a secondary school student. As Joshua Wong and others got older, they can no longer be perceived as representing secondary school students. So it was a matter of time before demise.

If Scholarism is to continue with the same cast of characters, it has to abandon the student market and become a political party going after voters who were born in the 1990's. However, Scholarism is at an awkward stage because people like Joshua Wong are not yet old enough to run for the Legislative Council. But if they don't do anything before then, their support base will shrink severely. So they had to form a political party because they are marginalized and forgotten.

- After Occupy Central, the pan-democrats can see that Occupy tactics can't force the Chief Executive to quit or squeeze even a very small concession out of the government. Thus the new view is to engage in "valiant resistance by force" in the manner of the Localists. However, Scholarism's political narrative and methods follow those of the traditional pan-democrats, except that they have a few neatly packaged baby faces. Eventually, the faces of these young people will no longer be fresh. Therefore they will be facing an uphill battle. Will Joshua Wong still be remembered by the time that the 2020 Legislative Council elections come around?

- Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat said that the ideas of Scholarism and its convener Joshua Wong do not overlap with Civic Passion or the Localists. Civic Passion is more radical and Scholarism is more moderate and closer to the mainstream pan-democrats. However, other people say that Scholarism may be on speaking terms with the pan-democrats but their methods are more radical. Scholarism's main support base is young people, so when they will be competing with the Localists and the radical pan-democrats such as People Power and League of Social Democrats. This means all-out civil war in the September Legislative Council elections.

- (Strait Times) March 18, 2016.

Billionaire Li Ka Shing said yesterday that Hong Kong's economy is at its worst in 20 years, and warned that the city's stock market could fall by more than half if the financial hub does not get backing from mainland China.

Mr Li, who held court with reporters for over an hour at an earnings news conference, is the latest person to sound the alarm after Moody's downgraded Hong Kong's sovereign credit rating at the weekend, citing its links to China's economic slowdown.

"Today's Hong Kong is getting worse... the worst I've seen in 20 years," said Mr Li, 88, referring to the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. "Our home sales and retail now is worse than in the Sars period. During Sars, (the effect) was short-lived but now it is long," he said, in a reference to the severe acute respiratory syndrome that crippled the city in 2003.

Hong Kong retail sales, which suffered their worst decline in 13 years last year, have been hit by a slump in tourists from the mainland which has been blamed in part on increasing cross-border tensions.

"If we respect tourists, no matter where they're from, today our retail, hotels would not be this bad. So everyone has to reflect on themselves, there are a lot of issues the politicians need to reflect on how they can do better," Mr Li said.

A contrary opinion came from Joshua Wong: (Speakout HK @ YouTube)

0:07 Wong: I have not any large companies being affected because Occupy took place so as to carry out mass-scale layoffs. The Hong Kong stock market did not go down. So how was the economy affected?

- On radio this morning, Prince Wong said that she was happiest during Occupy Central and saddest when Occupy Central was over. So she is also a member of the "Don't Worry Be Happy" faction.

- Scholarism Victims Alliance Facebook

- Thievery:

Yesterday Scholarism said that they are disbanding. After all these years, they have $1.45 million left. Another $2.74 million is unaccounted for.

Previously Scholarism had given Ming Pao the following information:

2012 June - 2013 June Futak Building office rent = $1,000 x 12 = $12,000

2013 July - 2016 June Lai Chi Kok office rent = $21,000 x 36 = $756,000

Printing news and miscellaneous expenses = $250,000 per year x 4 years = $1,000,000.

So the total expenses over the past four years is $180,000. Where is the remaining $960,000? This does not include the donations from June 4th event, the Lunar New Year's event, online donations, etc. According to the above, the July 1st march raises at least $200,000 each year. So that is $600,000 for the three dates per year. For the two years, the total would be $1,200,000.

Added to the $960,000, this means that $2,160,000 is missing!

- (Bastille Post) Immediately after the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election, the Localists including Raymond Wong (Proletariat Political Institute), Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) and Wan Chin (City-State) announced that they intend to field five candidates in five districts for the Legislative Council elections in September. Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) was not on their list.

Scholarism now says that they want to field two candidates, Oscar Lai in Kowloon East and Nathan Law in Hong Kong Island. Joshua Wong is only 19 years old and has not yet met the age requirement. Scholarism will be trying to take away the votes from both the mainstream pan-democrats and the radicals

In the 2012 Legislative Council Kowloon East elections, Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) got 36,600 votes and Andrew To (League of Social Democrats) got 27,300 votes. The two split up the radical votes and enabled the pro-establishment Paul Tse to sneak into the final position at 38,500 votes. The entry of Oscar Lai means that the radical vote may be further divided.

In the 2012 Legislative Council Hong Kong Island elections, the Civic Party got 70,400 but they could only send one candidate into the Legislative Council. Labour Party's Cyd Ho got in with 31,500. In this case, Scholarism needs to take votes away from the Democratic Party, Civic Party and Labour Party.

Overall the situation is that the total votes for the pan-democratic and the pro-establishment camps will be about the same. However, the pan-democrats will be split up into (1) mainstream pan-democratic political parties; (2) mainstream radical political parties; and (3) Localists/Scholarisms.

• [Permalink] Charles Ho's Speech (2016/03/20)

(Headline Daily @  YouTube)

0:38 Mr. Li Ka-shing said earlier that the Hong Kong economy is the worst now over the past 20 years. He is right to say that it is the worst. Every sector is at its worst. How did this happen? It started from Occupy Central. This was not anything to do with political governance. It was a manmade disaster. It was caused by people. A group of people with no promise.

1:11 For example, Benny Tai. This inexperienced, rigid person. (applause) He walks around the street telling people to do this sort of thing. Of course, he was overtaken by others. He couldn't stop it, right or not? You teach at a school, but you tell people to go into the streets and break the law. I think that as a professor, you should be teaching people how to study.  But you teach people to stand in the streets. But other people took the wind out of your sail when it came to standing in the streets.

1:47 You let that ... what's his name? ... Wong what ... (laughter) He doesn't even look human, right or not? He couldn't stop things. How are you going how to deliver a lecture? When he failed, he looked as if he was going to cry. If you lose, you shouldn't be crying. You should just shut up. But now you come out again to start something else. Of course you are going to wind up with another failure.

2:18 I have previously spoken about the ill effects of Occupy Central. They shouldn't be very happy. First there are the ill effects of Occupy Central. Next there is anti-parallel trade. Now all the ill effects are showing themselves. The ill effects are becoming clearer and clearer now.

2:39 Firstly, your international image is bad. At the time, it was a lot of fun, a lot of fun. But you are hurting other people. You should not think that you are just hurting business people. You are hurting your friends and relatives, even your parents. Because if the economy is bad, they will cut wages and hire fewer people. Did you think about that? They haven't thought about that. There is a causal effect.

3:16 You should not think that if you cause trouble out there in Hong  Kong, it won't affect you. You will be hurting the people around you. Dozens of them. Hundreds of them. You don't know for sure.

3:50 So you go ahead to riot. I have never heard of collecting donations while rioting. Brand new money bills. I have never head of that. If you have to donate to them, you iron new money bills for them with Viagra inside, etc. This group of people are awesome. I don't know what they were up to.

4:23 So there is this one person named Leung. He says that he is a Localist. He is the king of liars. I was born in Hong Kong and I am a Localist. He was born in mainland China and he he says that he is also a Localist. That is deceiving people, that is conning people. Today there are many young kids who don't know better and they are willing to follow him to death because they think that he is such a hero. He calls other people "locusts" but he is also a "locust" himself. Why didn't he say so himself? He thought that he could just gloss over it.

4:58 Does Hong Kong have any chance to become independent? If he goes to Paradise, he may have a chance. Because Paradise is his world. Paradise. That is the Paradise that he created for himself.

5:20 Anyone with even a modicum of thought would know that there is no possibility for independence. He talks these about these sorts of things. Now I, Charles Ho, have traveled to the mainland for many times over many years. I frequently see those current affairs commentators talking about the mainland and then the United States. They are lousy.  I guarantee that I know one billion times more than they do.

5:58 Over the years, I have seen so many policies coming from the central government and I have met so many people. Nobody has ever said that they want to trample upon Hong Kong or otherwise not support Hong Kong. So you have to be fair according to your conscience.

6:15 So when these guys want to go independent, I don't know what they are up to. So when they say how bad the Communists are and the democrats are whatever ... all that I have observed and experienced over the years, none of the many government teams over have ever wanted Hong Kong's economy not to be good. That is why I say that the Hong Kong economy is bad today because it is a manmade disaster.

6:46 So why can't Hong Kong not be independent or become like those Middle Eastern countries? Please don't trust what the Americans say. Those revolutions. Today the Middle East have so many broken families and refugees. Please don't believe in this sort of thing. Therefore I sometimes say that Hong Kong is a lucky land.

7:17 Today the students like the one named Leung who graduated after studying so many years. Today you are studying there in those schools because we are giving you the money to enable you to study, because the government is subsidizing you. You have no idea how lucky you are. You should think about this. The structure of the government is tops among the world.

7:56 When the Civic Party first showed up more than a decade ago, I had some hopes. But I find that the Civic Party is becoming worse and worse as time goes by. When I heard that Leong ... what's his name ... oh, Alan Leong ... each time that I hear Alan Leong speak, I visualize him wearing a Chinese-style suit and speaking inside a funeral parlor. Do you think that is what he looks like? (laughter) He looks like a master of ceremony.

8:26 These people have no original ideas. They watch what others do and they repeat the same. They see Long Hair do something, they do the same. Brother, how educated is Long Hair? He is just a bum. But they follow Long Hair and act in the same lowly manner. So don't you think that the Civic Party people have damaged their brains with too much studying?

8:51 A colleague of mine told me that Joshua Wong may be going to study at Harvard. He was going to study overseas. I said that this punk won't go. He asked me why. Take a look at him and you know that he can't pass the SAT. Right or not? If he gets into Harvard, he can't even keep up with ABC. Right or not?

9:11 Today there is a very tragic situation in Hong Kong. When our university students graduate, their English skills are worse than the Hong Kong University students from thirty or forty years ago. You can find any Hong Kong University student from thirty years ago, forty years ago from Hong Kong University who graduated studying in English. There is no comparison. They are ten times better. The reason why you see so many people still working is that the quality of those coming from behind is so poor.

9:55 Over the years, Hong Kong education has been been a complete failure. There are two reasons for the failure. One of them is about using the mother tongue to teach. The other is is liberal studies. When I talk about education, many people don't want to listen. They came up with this before. But I have to speak out. Teaching in the mother tongue. I, Charles Ho, only found out three years ago that teaching in the mother tongue means teaching in Cantonese. If you want to learn, you should learn in Mandarin. At least you can get around in mainland China. Therefore English-language skills are getting worse.

• [Permalink] Today's Roundup of Demonstrations (2016/03/19)

(Oriental Daily) (Oriental Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

Today after attending a school anniversary event at the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai, Department of Education secretary Eddie Ny found his vehicle surrounded by more than one hundred demonstrators. According to eyewitnesses, some of the demonstrators wore black clothes with stickers saying "Down with Eddie Ng", "Cancel TSA" and "Defend traditional Chinese characters." Other demonstrators wearing Civic Passion t-shirts used megaphones. When the demonstrators saw Eddie Ng coming out, they surrounded the car, banged on the car and demanded that Eddie Ng get out of the car and received the letter signed by 335 students.

The Department of Education news office said that Ng was invited the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School to celebrate their anniversary. Unfortunately the event was disrupted by persons on the outside and Ng expressed regret that a shadow was cast upon the celebrations. Ng did not step out of the car in view of the personal safety of all those present.

The school said that they learned from the students' Facebook group that they intend to petition Eddie Ng today. The school said that they respect the students' freedom of expression, and they set up an area for the students to express their opinions to Eddie Ng.

However, the 100 or demonstrators contained only three to four alumni and current students. Most of those standing in front were outsiders not wearing school uniforms. In consideration of personal safety, the school summoned the police.

(Apple Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

When Eddie Ng, he encountered the student demonstrators. More than 100 students took part in the demonstration. But Eddie Ng hid inside his car, played with his mobile phone checked his watch. He did not accept the petition letter and he did not speak to the students. After about 30 minutes, the police arrived. The students clashed with the police, with one student falling down on the ground. The students broke through the police blockade several times to block Ng's exit. The police tightened their cordon and closed the side entrance. Finally Ng was able to leave after the police opened a path for him.

(Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

Yesterday morning at 10am, a Golden Forum user began posting on "(People needed quickly) Eddie Ng is at Tong Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai". He taught outsiders to take the 705 and 706 buses to get off at Tin Yuet Stop. This internet user continued to post updates: "Quick, the students are waiting to start and the Apple Daily reporter has arrived", "open day at the school anniversary, so everyone can enter" and "people are needed as well as equipment."

The internet user also uploaded photos taken at the school. Even before Eddie Ng arrived, someone had laid down a banner on the ground. There were photos of Eddie Ng arriving and being surrounded by the demonstrators. "The police are helping him to leave so we need people quickly" and "the police are pushing us aside and blocking us."

Other commentators added: "Magnify this! We have to push push push," "the police have charged into the school and they are assaulting the students!" "there are three police vehicles plus one water cannon vehicle" and "let us hope that no student would jump off the building to land on top of Eddie Ng's vehicle."

But eventually the show was over. What did they have to say? "Although the school is somewhat useless, many of the teachers are anti-government. Previously some teachers told the students to go and occupy Central." "The teachers took part in the anti-national education campaigns upon the orders of the principal." "Many teachers gave tacit permission, and even said that they will support anything and everything." "The teachers did not stop the students; they encouraged them" "I saw some teachers holding the police back. Also the teachers started the black-shirt movement, so it is hard to say whether the black-shirt people were teachers or outsiders."

(EJ Insight) March 21, 2016.

Education Secretary Eddie Ng Hak-kim has dismissed criticism that he chose to sit in his car and play with his smartphone rather than meet some students and activists who had staged a protest over the weekend. Ng was accused of taking refuge in his car for about 30 minutes on Saturday after the vehicle was surrounded by protesters who were calling for, among other things, abolishment of the controversial Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) for local students.

The incident happened after Ng attended an anniversary celebration at the Queen Elizabeth School Old Students’ Association Tong Kwok Wah Secondary School in Tin Shui Wai on the morning of March 19.

As Ng was preparing to leave, he was accosted by protesters. Rather than engage with the activists, the education chief sneaked into his car and tried to get away from the scene, according to reports. Students then blocked the car in protest, prompting Ng to remain in the vehicle. He was seen sitting with his legs crossed and his eyes firmly glued to his mobile phone. Ng took out some documents to read at one point, and checked the time on his watch several times, turning a deaf ear to the chants by protesters.

The protesters, who were around a hundred in number, were demanding that Ng come out of the car to receive a petition on education-related issues. Some of the activists had also raised slogans that Ng should step down from his post. Around 20 police officers arrived at the scene as the standoff continued for about half an hour. The officers then formed human chains to allow Ng’s car to leave.

Following the incident, Ng, through a secretary, sought to justify his actions, saying the decision to remain in the car was made in view of the situation. His top concern was ensuring safety of all the people present there, he said, adding that it is regrettable that a school event was disrupted. He lashed out at the protesters, saying that blocking roads and surrounding people’s cars is not the right way to express one’s opinions.

Ng later said during the tenth anniversary of the Hong Kong Woman Teachers’ Organization that he is unhappy that some people are making the local education system the scapegoat for every social issue. The education chief said that he communicates with teachers, students, parents and principals on a daily basis and that over 40 schools have participated in the enhanced edition of the TSA, which he insists is a good evaluation tool.

Lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen, who represents the education functional constituency in Legco, was quoted as saying by RTHK on Sunday that Ng was wrong in not getting off his car and listening to the students. The official’s handling of the incident on Saturday was poor, he said, suggesting that his actions will be deemed as arrogance and lack of empathy toward students.

Internet comments:

- Oriental Daily says that the school said that it was 100 persons, with three to four alumni/students and the rest outsiders. Apple Daily says 100 student demonstrators. The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPp-dzwXgBE

- The best part of the Apple Daily video is this guy giving an impassioned speech:

Secondary School third year students have to take the TSA, sixth year students have take the DSE. These open exams has caused me to be under a lot of unnecessary pressure!

Even the guy next to him had to giggle and others were looking away. In summary, he is saying: "I don't like studying. So there are no exams, there won't be any pressure!"

- Secondary students protest against TSA! That should have been a good news story. Instead, the story became Civic Passion Hot Dogs causing trouble again! and has no news value anymore.

- (Cable TV) The black hand behind the assault today was Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association Tong Kwok-wah Secondary School principal Chu Kwok-wah.
Frame 1: I would be very proud
Frame 2: Good students, good students
Frame 3: I don't think that they committed any real wrongs

- You don't get it -- Principal Chu was talking about his students, not the Civic Passion Hot Dogs from the outside.
- No, Principal Chu is clearly suffering a case of the Stockholm syndrome. Just take a look at that completely inappropriate smirk on his face.

- (HGK Pao) March 23, 2016. The school has issued an open letter to accuse the media of taking Principal Chu's partial statements out of context. For example, the open letter said that Principal Chu did indeed say that "he was proud of the students." However, the original full statement was: "During the anniversary ceremony and the open day activities, the students behaved in a well-mannered, proper and appropriate, and they deserve to be proud of." However, when our reporter reviewed the video, Principal Chu's original full statement was: "Good students! Good students! I would be very proud!" with no sign of being edited.

As another example, when Principal Chu said "I don't think that they committed any real wrongs", the school said that original full statement was: "During the process of learning and maturing, the actions and deeds of the students will definitely contain some imperfections. Even if they sometimes break the rules, they haven't make any big mistakes." But what Principal Chu said in the video clip was "I don't think that they committed any real wrongs." This is not what the claimed original full statement contains, and it is inconsistent with the preceding part of the claimed original full statement.

 The format of the letter is also odd. The letter began as a statement from the school but it is signed by Principal Chu. So does this letter represent the school or Principal Chu? Are they one and the same? Or are they separate entities with different interests? Was Principal Chu trying to clarify what he meant, or what he being 'apologized' by persons unknown? And what is the position of the Queen Elizabeth Secondary School Alumni Association in all this?\

- (Cable TV) The school has sent out a letter to the parents to say that Cable TV edited the response of the principal. Cable TV is now presenting the full video segment. The principal said that he was proud of the overall performances of his students on the school anniversary. However, the full video showed the principal was saying that he was proud of the student demonstrators. The school is not responding to further inquiries from Cable TV.

- (HKG Pao) March 24, 2016. Four questions for Principal Chu:
(1) He could have presented the letter of petition to Eddie Ng on behalf of the students, but he didn't.
(2) After Ng's car was surrounded and prevented from leaving, he did not come out to deal with the matter as the highest authority on campus.
(3) Ng was his honored guest who was treated impolitely. That was a disgrace.
(4) After the incident, he address the public and he did not apologize publicly to Ng.
Based upon these signs, Principal Chu is most likely the mastermind behind this plot to insult Ng.

Indeed, Principal Chu said that he was aware that there will be demonstrators one day ahead of time. He did not make any arrangement, he did not notify Ng, he did not protect his guest, he did not take the petition letter on behalf of Ng, he did not arrange for a suitable time/location for the students to present the letter. That's what he has admitted to so far. The real question is whether he was aware that outsiders (Civic Passion) will be coming to make one big mess. If so, then what if anything did he do? Was he negligent or did he really want to chaos occur?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 23, 2016. Department of Education secretary Eddie Ng's mother recently passed away. This became a hot topic for the Localists! Localists including Civic Passion, Hong Kong People Awaken, Anti-Communist Party/Anti Colonialization and Golden Forum posted the good news. Many people using the Edward Leung icon said that Ng's mother died because of the sins of her son, and that Eddie Ng sent his mother to meet the school children who committed suicide. They wondered when it will come to the turn of Ng's own children. This is the sort of thing that you can expect if and when the radical elements takes over in Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily with video) March 19, 2016.

Eight demonstrators charged into the Express Rail Link construction site on Austin Road, Tsim Sha Tsui district at 6am. Three of them climbed up a crane, hung down two banners "Stop construction of Express Rail Link" and "Oppose Co-location." The police and fire departments were summoned. At 9am, the three individuals were persuaded to come down. One of the demonstrators was League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong.

(Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

According to information, this action was pre-planned. Raphael Wong said on his Facebook, they attempted to enter the construction site two nights ago but were discovered and forced to withdraw. Afterwards, the eight persons (including Wong, Land Justice League's Chu Hoi-dick and Yip Wing-lam plus other League of Social Democrats members sneaked into the construction site between 1am and 2am. They even went up a crane and hung out two banners. They used Facebook to hold a live broadcast of the process.

At around 7am, the construction workers showed up to work. The demonstrators used their megaphones to chant slogans. They said that the extra funding process was illegal, the co-location arrangement violates One Country Two Systems and they demanded to stop construction immediately and all the MTR and government officials bear the responsibility. According to the construction workers, those people were shouting from ten floors up and nobody could hear what they were saying.

The construction management could not persuade those people to come down. So they called the police. Fire engines, ambulances and police vehicles were sent to the scene. At around 9am, the demonstrators came back down. The police inspected them to make sure that they did not remove anything that belongs to the construction site. Then the police took down their Hong Kong ID information and let them leave.

Afterwards these people chanted slogans outside the construction site. Raphael Wong said that they "used their own methods" to enter the construction site, and they were willing to bear the consequences of this act of civil disobedience.

Yesterday, Initium posted an exclusive report. They said that the eight demonstrators entered construction site at 130am. At 200am, the demonstrators used a metal ladder to scale a two-storey high wall and entered the emergency exit to reach the construction site for the lower levels. At 3pm, they reached a crane. At 530pm, they began to go up the crane. At 6pm, they hung out the banners.

Raphael Wong said that Chu Hoi-dick had been in and out of the construction site three times already. The crane appeared to have only seven floors high, but it is actually 20 floors high. He said that they recognized that the act of civil disobedience carries the risk of being prosecuted, or being sued by the MTR in a civil case which may cause bankruptcy. However, "we have prepared ourselves with that awareness."

Internet comments

- Not wonder there was a huge traffic jam on Wui Cheung Road today. Fire engines, ambulances and police vehicles were parked along one lane. Plus the reporters too. That road is always congested already! Please find some other way of expressing! The fire engines and ambulances are needed to help others who are really in need. Why don't you people just leap down?

- Stop the Express Rail Link project? Are you going to provide for the livelihood of several thousand families? As the Chinese saying goes, ruining somebody's livelihood is like killing their parents! ..

- Those people who opposed the MTR system back then are probably riding it every day now! High Speed Rail is something that all modern cities around the world have. These people keep trying to block economic development in Hong Kong. What do they want?

- The answer is simple: Raphael Wong and Chu Hoi-dick are running for Legislative Council in September. They need the publicity.
- They think that by staging these shows, they will get as many votes as Edward Leung. Then they will get a job that (1) pays $93,000 per month; (2) does not entail much hard work -- just show up occasionally, shout and scream from your seat, get expelled by the chairman and go to lunch.

- The astonishing thing is that the police only took down their Hong Kong ID information and did not arrest them. This is as straightforward a case of trespassing as there ever will be.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 20, 2016.

Reactions from the radical Localists.

- They went when nobody was working. This is like protesting after the Legislative Council passed the extra funding. Only leftist retards do this!

- They succeeded in delaying the project by four hours?

- Actually you are not occupying the entire construction site. You just went up to hang two banners and then you came back down. You are putting up a show more than anything else.

- They talk as if this action was valiant and courageous. But actually everything took place between 6am and 8am. With due respect, what is the purpose of all this? If you want to put on a show, you should put on a full show.

- Bastards, you ought to leap down. Construction sites stop work when someone gets injured or dies. Please don't pretend as if you are engaged in resistance.

- What a fucking big halo! This is yet another partial victory that will bring your bastards closer to that Legislative Council seat!

- Raphael Wong had to find a way to stand out because his boss Leung Kwok-hung had just gotten himself in trouble by insulting Wong Yeung-tat's wife with a sexist comment ("a thousand heads rested on her arms of jade").

- Yo, bro! You had plenty of chance to filibuster/block the extra funding of the Express Rail Link inside the Legislative Council, but you let the government off. After Edward Leung got many votes, you suddenly remembered that you guys are radicals too. So you pretended to charge the Legco. After you let the government off, you come to cause trouble at the construction site? I will definitely vote against you in September!

Reactions against the radical Localists.

- This is funny. Is anti-Express Rail Link the sole right of the Localists? For anybody else, if they take action, the Localists scold them; if they don't take action, the Localists scold them too. Only the Localists can do no wrong; everybody else is wrong all of the time.

- Only the Localists can "fight valiantly with force." All others are traitors.

- Well, at least these people today did not wear masks to conceal their identities. And they are not facing ten years in jail for rioting. I don't understand what the Localists want to incite a riot and go to jail for ten years.

- Well, the Localists always throw the first brick in an assembly and then they leave by taxi. This is what they do best.

- Those who claim to be "valiant" are usually the fastest to leave. By now, the term "valiant" is actually negative thanks to the Localists.

- Civic Passion member Dr. Cheng Chung-tai is different from the people today. He is "valiantly resisting" the Express Rail Link by standing at a street booth and doing voter registration.

- Why does Cheng Chung-tai want to resist/oppose the system (which includes the Legislative Council which is dominated by pro-establishment side) on one hand and then actively campaigning for a Legco seat on the other hand? Because the job fucking pays $93,000 a month. It only takes 10% of the votes to get elected, so Cheng is trying to register enough people who want to destroy everything.

(Agence Presse France) March 20, 2016.

Rights groups have condemned China after a Beijing-based journalist went missing, linking his disappearance to an unusual open letter calling for President Xi Jinping’s resignation. Jia Jia, a freelance journalist, has not been seen since Tuesday, his lawyer told AFP, without giving further details.

Amnesty International said a close friend of Jia told the group he disappeared some time after going through customs at Beijing airport when about to board a flight to Hong Kong. “He went missing on the 15th,” lawyer Yan Xin said, citing the journalist’s wife.

City University of Hong Kong also confirmed to AFP that Jia had not turned up to a seminar he was due to give on Thursday.

“We are deeply concerned by Chinese journalist Jia Jia’s disappearance,” said Bob Dietz, Asia program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. “If he is in police custody, officials must disclose where they are holding him and why. If anyone else knows where he is, they should step forward and clarify this worrisome mystery.”

Under Xi, China‘s ruling Communist Party has tightened controls over civil society, detaining or interrogating more than 200 human rights lawyers and activists last year in what analysts have called one of the biggest crackdowns on dissent in recent times.

Sophie Richardson, China director for Human Rights Watch, voiced concern over Jia on Twitter. “#China disapps journo–no longer enough to just erase all trace of criticism. Trend now is to erase critics, too,” she tweeted. Both Amnesty and the CPJ have linked Jia’s disappearance to an open letter published on the news website Wujie News earlier this month calling for Xi’s resignation. The letter, which was rapidly removed, was signed “Loyal Communist Party members”, but little else is known about its authorship.

“His going missing is most likely related to the publishing of the letter and perhaps the authorities’ implication of his involvement or knowledge of the letter,” Amnesty China researcher William Nee told AFP. “Journalists and activists are forced all the time to ‘drink tea’ with the authorities… but it generally doesn’t last this long,” he said, adding that officials usually try to extract information during such meetings.

However, Jia’s lawyer Yan said his disappearance may not be connected to the letter.

(Apple Daily) March 19, 2016.

About 10 League of Social Democrats members marched from the Western District Police Station to the China Liaison Office to demand an account of Jia Jia's whereabouts. Because nobody came out to accept their letter, they burned it in front of the bu ilding. They also pasted posters on the front door.

(SCMP) March 20, 2016.

At least eight activists and a lawmaker were arrested over a dramatic protest on Sunday morning when they entered the site of a massive, illegal waste hill in Tin Shui Wai and attempted to shovel earth into bags to take to government offices. They were frustrated by the slow pace of government action to tackle the illegal dumping that formed a four-storey-high mound over an area the size of two football pitches.

This was the second daring stunt by the group this weekend. On Saturday, they entered the construction site of the controversial high-speed rail link in Austin, scaled cranes and unfurled banners at the top, calling for the work to be stopped. No one was arrested.

On Sunday, lugging shovels, trollies and canvas sacks, about a dozen activists from the Land Justice League entered the dump site, opposite the private Kingswood Gardens estate, at around 7am. They climbed the waste hill and erected large banners that read “shame to dumping” and “government responsibility”. They then started filling the bags with earth.

Police stopped the activists from leaving after receiving reports from the site manager, warning them that removing earth from the private site would be tantamount to theft of private property. After a tense standoff, eight activists were arrested and sent to Yuen Long police station, at least six of them for suspected theft, while others had their particulars recorded and told to leave.

Labour Party lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan also arrived to show his support for the protesters, but after a struggle to enter the site, he was physically carried out by officers who handcuffed him and drove him away. Another Labour Party member, Eddie Tse Sai-kit, was also arrested.

“To date, we have not seen the Planning Department use the Town Planning Ordinance to take enforcement action,” league member Chu Hoi-dick said as he was also arrested. “[Tin Shui Wai] is not an isolated example. Across Hong Kong, many illegal dumping cases go unresolved ... If the government keeps ignoring this, we residents will not continue to let the environment be destroyed.”

Two weeks ago, government departments said the “illegal site formation” was potentially “unstable” and “dangerous”. An order to the landowners to ‘shotcrete’ the mound with high pressure air and concrete within a week went ignored. The Lands Department said nothing could be done as it was on private land and there was no breach of lease. Environment officials said the dumping did not constitute illegal waste dumping but possibly a breach of air pollution laws. The Planning Department said it would look into whether there was any unauthorised development. And after nearly three weeks, the illegal mound remains on the site despite the government pledging to take “join enforcement action”. On Sunday, development minister Paul Chan Mo-po reassured the public that the departments were taking “stringent follow-up action” and was in contact with the landowners. “We need to collect lots of evidence, including satellite imagery from different times and study the relevant laws and their applications,” he said.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) According to Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki, Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan was arrested because he "talked too loudly" when speaking to the police commander at the scene. Kwok said that the arrest was "unnecessary" and that the Hong Kong Police are becoming just like the mainland Public Security Bureau.

- Kwok Ka-ki was addressing about 50 people outside the Yuen Long Police Station demanding the release the arrestees. You have eight persons arrested in the original incident and 50 people showed up later down at the police station. Why didn't the 50 people show up in the first place? Because nobody wants to hike out early in the morning to an event at which nothing may be happening. They will go down to the police station because they heard that something has happened.

- Kwok Ka-ki was not present at the scene of the arrest either. So he was just either making it up or repeating some hearsay. (Oriental Daily)'s version was:

According to information from the scene, Lee Cheuk-yan arrived earlier than the others. Twice he attempted to charge into the site, but the police stopped him. He argued with and bellowed at the police. He sat down on the ground and refused to leave. So he was carried away by six police officers. He was even handcuffed. The police report said that a 59-year-old man named Lee was arrested by disorderly conduct in a public place.

As for the other Labour Party member Eddie Tse Sai-kit, he was arrested for the more mundane charge of not carrying his Hong Kong ID.

Police.gov.hk In accordance with Section 17C "Carrying and production of proof of identity' of "Immigration Ordinance" (Cap 115) of Hong Kong Law, a police officer has power to inspect the proof of identity of any person. Any person who fails to produce proof of his identity for inspection as required by the law will commit an offence. If any person fails to produce his proof of identity for inspection on demand, he should give a reasonable explanation and evidence to prove his identify to any police officer in a reasonable time and circumstance. Depending on the circumstances and attitude of the person being checked, a police officer may issue a verbal warning, bring the person back to the police station for further enquiry, take summons action or even arrest the person concerned.

- I am not sure if Lee Cheuk-yan's arrest was necessary or not, but I do know that Tse Sai-kit's arrest was not unnecessary on his part. When he left home his morning to come here, he must surely know what he was going to do and that there is a good chance for ID checks. So why didn't he bring his ID? Or is he an illegal mainlander?

- (Ming Pao)'s version was:

Lee Cheuk-yan attempted to charge past the gate and got into an argument with the police. Lee said: "The land owner can build a mound but we cannot go back in to clean up the mound?" The female police officer responded: "There is no problem with you expressing your views. But this is a private ground. You should pay attention to your behavior. Do you understand?" Lee said: "My behavior right now is very good. Right now we are protecting the environment. What is the problem with clearing the mound?" Lee was then surrounded and taken away by several police officers on the grounds of disturbing the peace.

- LOL. It took six police officers to carry that big fat slob Lee Cheuk-yan away (see TVB news report).

- Why did Lee Cheuk-yan have to bellow? (see RTHK video) The police officers aren't hard of hearing. He is doing it for the news camera. If he speaks in a normal reasonable tone, the audio recording may miss him.

- Whenever the government is unwilling or unable to enforce the law, citizens must take matters into their own hands. That is the logic. So when the government is unwilling or unable to remove that mound, citizens must do so themselves. Similarly when Hong Kong is being swept by a crime spree committed by South Asians and the police can't stop them, citizens must take matters into their own hands.

- When the earth was being unloaded, nobody (such as the residents of Kingswood Garden) called the police. So the police did not do anything. Now these people break into the property and start removing earth, the owner calls the police to report theft of property. Of course, the police have to act. That's the only thing that the police can do.

- Suppose that you are a scavenger/collector by habit. Your apartment is stacked to the ceiling with newspapers that you scavenged over the thirty years. Your neighbors think that this is a disgrace that subtracts from the value of their real estate. They call the police but the police say that what you do in your own home is none of their business. They break into your house to remove the heaps. You call the police about these thieves. The police arrest them.

- If someone goes down to Repulse Bay and removes a bagful of sand for keepsake, she is guilty of theft. The sand belongs to the government. In like manner, you remove earth from anywhere without permission from the owner (either the government or a private owner),  you commit theft.

- (Cable TV) A Kingswood Garden resident has a photo from 12 years ago that the mound was already present. This is disappointing because CY Leung can't be blame for everything. However, it is still possible for the rumor that his buddy is the operator.

- If Lee Cheuk-yan believes that the government repay the citizens $19.6 billion for that extra funding of Express Rail Link, then can he march down to the Money Authority and take matters into his own hands to carry out his justice?

- When he gets the $19.6 billion from the Money Authority, he'll keep it in his pockets for now, just as he did to the $500,000 that Jimmy Lai donated to the Labour Party.

- A few members of the Land Justice League showed up this morning and began filling sandbags with earth from that mound. They eventually filled about 50 sandbags. Do you know how tall that mound is? At 50 sandbags per day, it will take several decades to do it yourself. So you are only doing this for show. You were never serious about doing the job yourself.

- The purpose of the Land Justice League action today was to take some of the earth and dump it outside Government House/Government Headquarters in order to gain attention. The action was symbolic.

- If the Land Justice League people were seen dumping in front of Government Headquarters and the police are called, they will be caught red-handed for illegal dumping. The land belongs to the government and the perpetrators were caught dumping without permission from the owner.

- Indeed, the Contemporary Manual for Social Activism says that the first step is to do something to attract attention. The second step is to raise money. The third step is to run for elective office. So far so good. Everything is working according to plan.

- That was the Hong Kong Indigenous model that everyone is now adopting: (1) the Mong Kok riot; (2) $1,000,000 in donations kept by the organization plus $530,000 kept by Ray Wong; (3) Edward Leung gets 60,000+ votes in the Legco by-elections.

- The media has already made the determination that this was an illegal waste hill. The 'hill' is visibly confirmed. The 'illegal' and 'waste' parts have really not been clearly defined yet. If the government charges in and levels the hill to the ground, the same Civic Party will pop out and say that rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong which is becoming just like Red China.

- Your break into private property and you remove contents without permission. The owner calls the police. But the police can't arrest you. This sort of thing may be typical in Communist China, but it shouldn't be happening in a place with 'rule-of-law' as its core value.

- No, you don't understand. Breaking-and-entering/theft is illegal ... but not if you are doing it for FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY UNIVERSAL VALUES etc. That called meting out justice.

- It is wrong to dig up the bricks from the pavement. But if you are using the bricks to throw at the police, then it's alright. It is just sand particles in the grand scheme of things. Also sprach Edward Leung.

- There are two views of the relationship between Lee Cheuk-yan and Chu Hoi-dick. On one hand, Chu Hoi-dick ran in the Pat Heung South district council election, got 1482 votes compared to the winner Lai Wai-hung's 2872 votes. Therefore Chu Hoi-dick can be a good precinct captain for the Labour Party. On the other hand, Chu Hoi-dick seemed to harbor Legco ambitions along with Lau Siu-lai and other 'scholars'. So he would be competing for the same voter base with Lee Cheuk-yan.

• [Permalink] Follow the Money (2016/03/17) There is money ... correction ...  a lot of money to be made in the democracy game. The best part is that people can't ask you any hard questions because that would be suppressing FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE OPEN TRANSPARENCY PRIVACY CONFIDENTIALITY. Or something.

(HKG Pao) March 17, 2016.

After their successful awards show, TV Most is going to have an anniversary party in May. Today Apple Daily, Ming Pao and HK01 are reporting that TV Most is demanding $3.28 million for event sponsorship, which is a significant increase from the $1 million that Shell Oil paid for event sponsorship of the awards show. If that is too much, there are other tiers of sponsorship at $1.28 million, $640,000 and $280,000. TV Most's goal is to bring in between $7 to $10 million.

Yesterday TV Most boss Lam Yat-hei acknowledged on Facebook that the price list is correct. "But we are being quite reasonable here. It is nothing to pay a few million in sponsorship. We deserve that." "Other media outlets wondered if our price is too high, but they cannot doubt that we have worked very hard ... and we make lots of money along the way. It's going to be great ..."

Even as TV Most declared that that they deserve to get rich, there is news that certain people are organizing to target the TV Most sponsors. According to one person, "Politics and politics, and business is business. Any advertising agency or advertiser who wants to jump in will be targeted." The event sponsor will definitely be targeted, and so will the other sponsors at the lower tiers. "Anyone who wants to make  money by causing chaos in Hong Kong will be our targets! Rather than attacking TV Most, we will be attending their sponsors. Hong Kong is the battlefield, but the mainland Internet users will join in to form an even larger battlefield. We'll see who is going to challenge us."

This person did not spell out the tactics in detail. But it is believed that it will included negative Internet publicity, boycotts and complaints. The person did not respond whether there will be protests at the event itself.

Silent Majority HK Facebook. March 17, 2016.

Last night Pricerite announced on its Facebook that it will be the event sponsor for TV Most's anniversary programme. So praises were heaped upon Pricerite owner Guan Baiho.

In 2004, Guan bought the debt-ridden Pricerite and turned the company around. Clearly Guan has the ability to become the God of TV Most. However, what did Guan attribute his success to? Guan said that there were two major reasons: (1) the motherland and (2) trust.

Guan Baiho said that young people in Hong Kong should strive to become better by going north to start their businesses. "You ought to realize that you will be serving all of China and not just the 7 million in Hong Kong." Furthermore this is the trend: "I hired Hong Kong university graduates in mainland China, because they knew enough to seek their opportunities in Shanghai."

Guan also aid that his dad taught him that a man cannot succeed without gaining trust. "The ideology and culture of the motherland is no longer like before. They are getting closer and closer to Hong Kong." Guan said that young people need to improve themselves constant in order to get ahead.

Does Pricerite stand to profit with its marketing strategy of sponsoring TV Most? Well, don't count on it. Look at what happened to Shell when they became the event sponsor of the TV Most's music award show. As usual, TV Most fans posted hashtags to thank Shell. But after the show, they will only say "I enjoy TV Most but I can't say thanks to Shell" and "I encourage Shell's sponsorship but I am not going to thank Shell." Once the money changes hands, the hell with you!

(HKG Pao) March 20, 2016.

We contacted Pricerite and wanted to interview Chief Executive Mr. Ng, Customer Communications director Mr. Leung, Marketing Department and Brand manager Ms. Lam and Executive Director Ms. Leung about the TV Most sponsorship. The receptionist said that Pricerite does not use Chinese names and so we had to ask for Mr. John Leung. Thus we reached Customer Communications director Mr. Leung.

As soon as we told Mr. Leung that we wanted to ask about the TV Most sponsorship, Mr. Leung said that he cannot respond and he referred us to the public relations specialist Ms. Tsang who is responsible to answer on behalf of Pricerite. Ms. Tsang is a very busy person and we finally got through to her at 5pm. Interestingly, Ms. Tsang said that she cannot answer on her own. She asked us to give her the questions and she emphasized that she will have to discuss with the director in charge of this matter before she can respond. But isn't the "director in charge" precisely Customer Communications director Mr. Leung?

Pricerite has not made their response by our deadline. We have this idea that if Pricerite is paying $3.28 million, why not go all the way? They can invite all the big bosses led by Shanghai Chinese Communist Party Consultative Conference member Mr. Guan to get on stage to receive the thanks of the thousands of audience members. And they get invite the Shanghai city leaders to attend as VIP guests!

Previously our detailed reports on Pricerite may have created the impression that we are about to start a boycott movement. That could not be more wrong! We urge everybody at TV Most, HKG Pao, Facebook and the discussion forums to support Pricerite and we urge all our Yellow Ribbon friends to proceed to Pricerite to buy buy buy everything in order to support CCPCC member Mr. Guan and his company. Pricerite paid $3.28 million to TV Most and the furniture industry typically has a very low profit margin of 1%, so Yellow Ribbons must buy $328 million in furniture and electronic goods to make good for Pricerite.

Internet comments:

- Looking up Pricerite's performance, they earned $9.8 million for the first half of 2015. They have 31 stores at the time, which means that each store earns only about $50,000 per month. Well, this is a waste of time and they are better off looking for opportunities elsewhere.
- If they make only $9.8 million over 6 months and they want to spend $3.28 million to sponsor the TV Most show, then Pricerite deserves to go bankrupt.

(Wen Wei Po) March 17, 2016.

Previously, the Hong Kong Federation of Students had to disclose its financial statement under public pressure. However, the information simply created more problems. According to the 2013/2014 financial statement posted in June 2015, the Federation has a HSBC account with more than 10 million RMB which is a "strategic investment." Where did this money come from? Why was it never reported previously?

According to Localist Ventus Lau, who was the convenor of the Localist Study Group at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, "the Localists' strategy should not be to divide the political spectrum into three segments. We should only have two segments. To do so, we have to take over the assets of the pan-democrats. From the Tertiary Student Unions to the Federation of Students to the District Councils to the Legislative Council. We have to take over everything to form a new pyramid for the Localists."

Ho Kwan is the successor to Ventus Lau. Ho has participated in the anti-parallel trade protests and he organized the CUHK to withdraw from the Federation of Students. Ho is running to become secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He proposed to use the Federation's Hong Kong Democracy Fund to support democratic movements in Hong Kong, such as posting bail for students who are arrested during the resistance.

Ho also pointed out that the Federation of Students had a property nicknamed Self-Rule Eighth Floor which is being used rent-free by "social organizations." Ho said that if elected as secretary-general, he will order the "social organizations" to vacate the premises within one month. "Afterwards, the property may be rented out or just to be used by students. In any case, we won't let the social organizations benefit."

Ho reposted Ventus Lau on Facebook: "If the Federation of Students is ultimately going to be dissolved, where do you think that the remaining assets should go to? The Localists or the Leftist Retards? Who do you want to deal with Self-Rule Eighth Floor? Politics is always a battle for resources!" Ho said: "This is one reason why I am running for secretary-general."

(EJ Insight) March 17, 2016.

A decision by key leaders of Scholarism to run in the Legislative Council elections in September has raised speculation that the student activist group will soon be disbanded. There are also rumors that the key leaders will form a new political party while Scholarism will be replaced by a new student body, Apple Daily reports.

Scholarism spokesperson Wong Tsz-yuet said no decision has been made and discussions are still going on. He remained tight-lipped on rumors that the student organization will dissolve on March 20.

Former spokesperson Oscar Lai Man-lok refused to comment, adding that questions about the matter should be addressed to the group’s convenor or spokesperson. Lai announced earlier that he is forming a political party with convenor Joshua Wong and former spokesperson Agnes Chow to compete in the Legco elections. Wong, however, has yet to reach the legal age of 21 to be eligible as a candidate and is awaiting the result of a judicial review on the issue.

Founded in 2011, Scholarism used to have more than 600 full-fledged members, but now only has about 120 members after several restructuring exercises. According to its rules, all members must not belong to any other political party. This means that Legco hopefuls like Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow must first quit Scholarism in order to form their own political party.

Professor Dixon Sing Ming of the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology said it would be a pity if Scholarism were dissolved, noting that the group has yet to complete its “historical mission” after the Occupy protests in 2014. Sing, however, believes that any new political party to be formed by the Scholarism leaders would be able to solicit support from young people as well as middle-age and older voters who have become disappointed with the pan-democrats.

According to news website hk01.com, Scholarism has been outstanding in raising funds through public donations, sometimes even outperforming some pan-democrat parties.

Last March, Oscar Lai revealed the student group had a cash reserve of HK$2.5 million. Current spokesperson Wong Tsz-yuet said should the organization disband, its funds could be donated to other organizations sharing their beliefs. It was reported that Scholarism had an income of HK$1.937 million between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014, with a surplus of HK$810,000 for the 12-month period. The group also raised HK$1.31 million from a July 1 protest in 2014.

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2016.

On March 15, the news came that Scholarism will disband. So far there has been no denials coming from Scholarism members. People speculate that they will split up into two halves: a political party and a student organization.

Previously last March, former Scholarism spokesperson Oscar Lai disclosed that Scholarism has reserve funds of $2.52 million coming from donations. So where is that money going to go after Scholarism disbands? The public is keenly interested. Yesterday an alleged member of Scholarism said that the money will be split between the two new groups. But if a citizen donated money to the student group Scholarism, is it fair to take that money to give to a political party?

Scholarism spokesperson Prince Wong responded that "according to the organization rules, the assets will be donated to organizations with similar ideas." This was immediately taken to mean the new organizations. Critics also said that the organization rules have never been publicly disclosed, so that the rules are whatever those people say."

(Wen Wei Po) March 27, 2016.

On February 1st this year, Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat announced that they have a plan to recruit a "Civic Youth Army" to raise fresh troops for the Resistance. He said that the Civic Youth Army training will include combat techniques and wilderness survival plus the correct culture/history of Hong Kong. Each class shall consist of 50 teenagers starting this summer. He said that the fees per Youth Army soldier shall be $15,000, so that each class of 50 will bring in $750,000.

However, Civic Passion is not a licensed educational institution. So Wong Yeung-tat came up with the idea that instead of collecting tuition fees, they will sell military coupons valued at $2,500 each. If you buy 6 coupons (totaling $15,000), you can "sponsor" one teenager to join the Civic Youth Army; if you buy only one coupon, you can "nominate" one teenager.

Further conditions are attached to the use of these military coupons. First of all, the coupons must be used up in the next two periods of the Civic Youth Army recruitment drive or else they expire without any refunding. Secondly, if the buyer fails to nominate a candidate, the right of selection goes to Civic Passoin.

On March 24, Civic Passion removed the Civic Youth Army recruitment poster from its Facebook. Nowadays they are just recruiting regular Civic Passion members. According to information, there were few takers and there was no way to reach the goal of 50 recruits.

Earlier a citizen Chiu said that his son told him to purchase military coupons. In the mid-March, he contacted a Civic Passion executive editor named Ho and was told that they are still raising funds and have not yet begun to accept applications. When Chiu asked whether the money will be refunded if there are insufficient applicants to form a class, Ho said no refunds.

Citizen Chiu said that if he was paying tuition and the class could not be formed, he should be getting a refund. But now Civic Passion is selling military coupons and not collecting tuition, so they are saying that they won't do any refunds on the military coupons. Citizen Chiu said the "the Hot Dogs (=Civic Passion) are using this ruse to rip people off!"

Internet comments:

- You forgot two more recent cases: the $530,000 and 100 Viagra pills found with Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) and the holy mess with Leticia Lee and others over at the Justice Alliance etc.

• [Permalink] Kong Girl Redux (2017/03/17)

(Facebook video) https://www.facebook.com/1517304251910273/videos/1518333415140690/

On the No. 9 bus, a Kong girl sat on the outside priority seat reserved for the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and persons with special needs. The bus companies introduce these priority seats to enhance the awareness of offering seats to the people with special needs so as to cultivate a culture of being considerate and sacrificing themselves.

A senior citizen wanted to sit on the inside seat. The Kong girl got up, moved her suitcase and let the senior citizen in. Then she sat back down and threw the suitcase on the foot of the senior citizen. This is when the video starts.

Kong Girl: Is it the case that I am not letting you sit down? You want the outcome. Why are you arguing about the process? Is it the case that I am not letting you sit down? SHUT UP! Or else you can call the police. Alright or not?

Senior citizen: Call the police.

Kong Girl: You call the police! I have plenty of time to play with you. I did not make hit you (with the suitcase)!

Senior citizen: You say ...

Kong Girl: If I did, you call the police!

Senior citizen: You call the police.

Kong Girl: You call the police! I hit you. So why do I have to call the police!?

Male: Forget it. You're only riding for several stops.

Kong Girl: Fucking insane! You tell her to shut up. If you tell her to shut up, then I won't make any noise. I am not letting her sit. Do you think that you are everything? Just because you are a senior citizen, do you think that you are everything? Sooner or later I will become a senior citizen too!

Senior citizen: You are sitting here.

Kong Girl: It is not that I am not allowing you to sit down. Why are you arguing?

Senior citizen: Why ...?

Kong Girl: YOU SHUT UP!!!

Senior citizen: Why don't you stop talking?

Kong Girl: I let you sit down. What more do you want?

Woman: This is a priority seat.

Kong Girl: I have a suitcase! You get off the bus! What fucking business is this to you!? Or else you call the police! Leave! Go away, bitch!

• [Permalink] Racism Against South Asians (2017/03/17)

(SCMP) Trump card – Hong Kong politicians have followed US tycoon into the gutter by fanning racist fears. By Michael Chugani. March 15, 2016.

Election year brings gutter politics. In America, presidential candidate Donald Trump is fanning the prejudices of voters with promises to ban Muslims and to keep out Mexicans with a border wall.

In Hong Kong, legislator Elizabeth Quat has learnt from Trump ahead of September’s Legislative Council elections. She wants to intern South Asian asylum seekers. Trounced in last November’s district council elections, Quat likely believes she can score points by labelling dark-skinned asylum seekers as criminals who should be locked up.

She is not the only pro-Beijing politician to play the race card. Her Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong is aping the Liberal Party, whose Dominic Lee Tsz-king on Tuesday labelled South Asian asylum seekers as murderers and rapists. He talked of “over 3,800 crimes for the past few years”, but glossed over how many were murders and rapes.

Former security secretary Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong has joined the drumbeat for Hong Kong to quit a UN convention on asylum claimants, denigrating Indians as so poor that they come for the HK$3,000 monthly refugee allowance. These are the same people who denounce localists as bigots for confronting mainlanders who abuse their tourist status to trade in parallel goods.

Lee cited Europe’s refugee crisis as an alarm bell for Hong Kong. Quat cited our 1980s refugee camps for Vietnamese as reason to intern South Asians. Over a million refugees flooded Europe last year. Hong Kong had over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees. And the accumulative backlog of South Asian claimants? About 11,000. Oh my, we’re really being swamped.

How are people like Dominic Lee different from Trump when they demonise a race? An Immigration Department statement to Public Eye’s questions was no better, accusing South Asian claimants of gaming the system, a claim dismissed by human rights lawyer Mark Daly.

Let’s do a reality check. Just 230 asylum seekers were caught working illegally last year. The number for mainland Chinese was 1,609. This does not include the hundreds of mainland women who come here illegally as sex workers or the foreign sex workers in Wan Chai bars. Let’s not forget the mainland gangs who burgle upscale homes and kidnap rich people.

Who has ruined our quality of life more – the 11,000 asylum seekers or the millions of mainlanders whom the localists oppose?

Quat and the others won’t dare answer. They belong to a group whose hands are tied to a puppet string that leads to the liaison office. Hong Kong has only accepted a tiny handful of asylum seekers. Most are fakes who need to be stopped. But let’s not do it by fanning racist fears.

Michael Chugani may be impeccably politically correct about his situational analysis, but the information being fed daily to the people of Hong Kong is this table at Oriental Daily:

1/6/2016: Happy Valley. Three South Asians armed with knives showed up outside the home of a wealthy businessman but were arrested by the police. A total of 8 men and women were arrested, with one man being prosecuted to conspire to cause grave physical harm to a businessman.

1/7/2016: Sham Shui Po. Eight South Asian males chased and chopped a male asylum seeker.

1/8/2016: Yau Ma Ti. Police arrested a South Asian man who was running an unlicensed pub.

1/8/2016: Yuen Long. A male asylum seeker from India slashed the neck and chest of his Indonesian girlfriend.

1/9/2016. Tin Shui Wai. Eight Pakistanis were arrested for illegal assembly and carrying concealed weapons.

1/9/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian was arrested fro stealing the mobile phone of a female vegetable stand operator.

1/10/2016. Hung Hom. Three South Asian men went into a car washing place and assaulted a worker.

1/10/2016. Sham Shui Po. A South Asian male armed with a knife robbed $4,500 from a convenience store.

1/10/2016. Central. The Customs Department arrested three South Asian males at a warehouse for contraband merchandise.

1/14/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Two South Asian men destroyed property at the Oriental Daily office with red paint and hard objects.

1/14/2016. Aberdeen. A male asylum seeker was arrested for working illegally and assaulting the police.

1/15-16/2016. Yuen Long/Tin Shui Wai. 30 South Asians were arrested at an unlicensed pub.

1/19/2016. Tsuen Wan. The Customs Department arrested a Pakistani man at a contraband cigarette warehouse in an industrial building.

1/22/2016. Yuen Long. A drunken South Asian male was arrested for assaulting a male who was trying to help street people.

1/22/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian male was arrested for defacing a store with red paint.

1/23/2016. Sheung Shui. A South Asian male was arrested for selling drugs. $5,500 worth of drugs was seized.

1/27/2016. Shan Shui Po. Two South Asian thieves stole from the donation box at Lord Guan's Temple.

1/30/2016. North Point. Four South Asian robbers robbed a garage owner of $100,000 in cash. (see YouTube)

1/30/2016. Mong Kok. Four South Asian pickpockets stole $10,000 RMB from a male pedestrian.

1/31/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian male snatched a mobile phone from a woman who was waiting for a bus.

1/31/2016. Mong Kok. Six South Asian men stole $19,000 from a man and a woman.

1/31/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian man holding a broken bottle charged onto the road to stop a car and robbed $100 from the driver.

1/31/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A number of South Asians robbed more than $27,000 from an Indian tourists. Four Indians were arrested.

2/1/2016. Admiralty. A doctor was bashed on the head by a South Asian man and needed four stiches at the hospital.

2/3/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A Pakistani male asylum seeker robbed a woman of $58,000 in cash, but he was subdued by citizens.

2/3/2016. Yuen Long. A Bangladesh male attacked a compatriot and robbed him of a mobile phone worth about $1,000.

2/4/2016. Yau Ma Ti. Five South Asians robbed a $10,000 gold chain off a compatriot.

2/4/2016/ Yau Ma Ti. A Bangladesh male was arrested for drug possession and loitering.

2/5/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A South Asian asylum seeker was arrested for possession of an assault weapon and resisting arrest.

2/5/2016. Tai Kok Tsui. A South Asian male charged onto the road to stop a car and commit robbery.

2/5/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A Nepalese man was assaulted by compatriots.

2/6/2016. Causeway Bay. Two South Asian asylum seekers quarreled over money and assaulted/injured each other with knives.

2/7/2016. Sham Shui Po. Three to four South Asian males set fire to a foot bath facility.

2/8/2016. Two South Asian Males stole $8,000 RMB from an African man.

2/8/2016. Wanchai. Four Indian men robbed a mainland Chinese male of $1,000. The police arrested three Indian men at the scene.

2/9/2016. Pat Heung. Three South Asian men entered a village house to assault a Bengladesh man and robbed him to $3,000.

2/13/2016. Cheung Sha Wan. A South Asian man snatched a mobile phone from a female pedestrian and fled.

2/14/2016. Yuen Long. A Thai man was arrested while committing burglary at a store room.

2/14/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Four intoxicated Ugandans were arrested for fighting.

2/17/2016. Causeway Bay. A South Asian man stole $78,000 in cash from a male MTR passenger.

2/18/2016. Tsuen Wan. Two South Asians attempted to rob the bag of a male pedestrian.

2/18/2016. Yuen Long. A female Indonesian asylum seeker was arrested with $800,000 worth of drugs.

2/19/2016. Sham Shui Po. A South Asian male stole a wallet from a man containing $1,500.

2/20/2016. Tin Shui Wai. A South Asian man assaulted citizens playing chess in the park.

2/22/2016. Wan Chai. Three South Asians attacked a truck driver with hard objects to cause injuries on hands and feet.

2/24/2016. Sham Shui Po. Two Vietnamese asylum seekers were caught stealing 34 chickens.

2/24/2016. Yuen Long. Two South Asian burglars stole $200,000 from a villa.

2/24/2016. Sham Shui Po. A male Vietnamese asylum seeker was arrested for assaulting a female compatriot.

2/25/2016. Tin Shui Wai. A male South Asian asylum was arrested for sexual assault against a female neighbor whose South Asian boyfriend was arrested for physical assault against the transgressor.

2/25/2016. Tai Wai. Two South Asian men stole $5,000 RMB from a male MTR passenger.

2/25/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian asylum seeker was arrested for stealing perfume worth $180.

2/26/2016. Tuen Mun. Three South Asian males robbed a woman's handbag which carried $7,000.

2/26/2016. Tuen Mun. Six South Asian men bashed the head of a compatriot and fled.

2/27/2016. Sham Shui Po. Eight South Asian males and two Hong Kong males stopped a van, assaulted the driver and the male passenger and robbed $270,000. (see YouTube) (see Facebook)

2/28/2016. Yuen Long. A South Asian man was spotted by restaurant workers for eating without paying. He smashed a beer bottle against the wall and fled.

3/2/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A South Asian man was arrested for pounding on the keyboard at the Jockey Club betting station.

3/3/2016. Kwun Tong. Four South Asians stole a $170 speaker.

3/4/2016. Mong Kok. A South Asian smashed a taxi window and ripped off the camera.

3/6/2016. Central. Two South Asian males bashed the heads of two compatriots and fled.

3/6/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. Five persons were engaged in a melee, and two South Asian men were arrested.

3/6/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. An Indian man was arrested for shoplifting.

3/6/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men attacked an Indian man with wooden poles and took the money in his pockets.

3/7/2016. To Kwa Wan. A South Asian man attacked an Indian man and stole his bicycle.

3/7/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men broke into a villa and took almost $10,000.

3/8/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A South Asian man robbed a mainland tourists of $3,000.

3/8/2016. Hung Hom. A Pakistani man assaulted two compatriots after a dispute over a transaction.

3/8/2016. Yau Ma Ti. A Vietnamese man was stealing a bag of potato chips from a 7-11 store. When detected, he stabbed and killed the owner. (see YouTube)

3/9/2016. Jordan. A male Pakistani asylum seekers was arrested for extorting drivers over public parking space.

3/10/2016. Yuen Long. Three South Asian men robbed a woman of $1,500.

3/10/2016. Tsuen Wan. Two South Asian men pretended to be buying flowers and stole $14,000. (see YouTube)

3/11/2016. Cheung Sha Wan. Two South Asian men stole $2,000 from a compatriot.

3/12/2016. Tin Shui Wai. Two South Asian men were arrested for punching a young man who was coming home late at night. [Note: they didn't like the way that he looked at them]

3/15/2016. Tsim Sha Tsui. A male African asylum seeker was arrested for drug possession and resisting arrest.

3/15/2016. Mong Kok. A Nigerian man using drugs was injured when he jumped out of the window to avoid arrest.

3/15/2016/ Yuen Long. A South Asian man was arrested for sexual assault against an 18-year-old female.

3/16/2016. Yuen Long. Two South Asian men robbed a male pedestrian of $5,000 cash.

3/16/2016. Yuen Long. A Pakistani man assaulted and robbed a young man of $1,600.

Internet comments:

- Why is Oriental Daily so keen on tracking crimes committed by South Asians? You need to go back to this series of stories about The Shanghai Kid and his South Asian poster gang.

(Oriental Daily) January 16, 2016.

Previously a wealthy tycoon had received an extortion text message from former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid). The tycoon reported the matter to the police and called Oriental Daily too. On January 6, the tycoon noticed three South Asian men and a Chinese man outside his residence. He believed that these people meant him hardm. So he called the police. The police came and the men fled. In the vehicle that the men came in, the police found three knives, gloves and masks. So the police gave protection to the tycoon and his family and then the Organized Crime Unit followed up on the case. Yesterday the police arrested seven men and one woman. Of these, three were South Asian men. The arrested included "Paki Ming", a lieutenant for the The Shanghai Kid.

The tycoon said that he is not afraid of evil triad forces and that he will testify against them. He said that the Shanghai Kid has looked for and gotten trouble. "It is a up to God whether to forgive these triad gangsters. My duty is to send them to see God!"

(Oriental Daily) January 16, 2016.

Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung's lieutenant "Paki Ming" was arrested with seven other individuals  and taken back to a container park in Yuen Long to gather evidence.

(Oriental Daily) January 22, 2016.

In recent years, the problem of South Asians and Africans coming to seek asylum in Hong Kong and then joining triad gangs afterwards is become more serious. Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid) is said to directly send selectors to India and Pakistan to pick his troops. Then he provided full service to have them come over here to seek asylum; before they come, they are taught how to claim torture and hence obtain temporary residence while their asylum application is being considered. once they get here, he provided legal services and food/board, and they get assigned to their respective jobs (such as bouncers, extortionists, drug dealers, etc). 

(Oriental Daily) March 3, 2016.

Former Wo Shing Wo triad leader Kwok Wing-hung (nicknamed The Shanghai Kid) hired unemployed young people and South Asians to paste posters all over hong Kong to smear and blackmail a number of wealth Hong Kong tycoons.

Today at around 1pm, four South Asian men was pasting posters at the pedestrian overpass across T.mark Plaza, Tai Ho Road, Tsuen Wan district. More than 10 police officers who had been staking out the location rushed up to arrest them. The four men were 3 Pakistanis and one Indian. They all have temporary resident papers while awaiting resolution on their petition for asylum because they feared torture at home. According to eyewitnesses, these four men were very efficient with their work and they put up thirty to forty posters in a matter of minutes. When the police appeared, the four tossed their glue bottles and posters into the flower bed and fled. They struggled hard even after the police pushed them onto the ground.

The four men were posting threatening posters directed at senior personnel at Oriental Daily.

Oriental Daily has counted 71 instances in which posters directed at Oriental Daily were posted between January 7 and March 3 at various locations all over Hong Kong.

- Given that this type of information is flooding the news, it is no surprise to find:

The people of Hong Kong are being bullied and harassed by fake asylum seekers
The Localists have never done anything to fight back and resist.

The Localists (such as Hong Kong Indigenous, Hong Kong Localism Power, etc) are not expected to do the work of law enforcement. However, they also said that the the people of Hong Kong are suffering at the hands of the mainland parallel traders who are clogging up the sidewalks of Sheung Shui, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun and therefore they are taking action into their own hands to valiantly defeat the parallel traders. Fine. Now the people of Hong Kong (especially in Yuen Long, Tin Shui Wai, Sham Shui Po, Mong Kok, Tsim Sha Tsui) are terrified by the South Asian crime spree. So why aren't the Localists out there to valiantly defeat the South Asian criminals.

- Remember that while the Localists say that they are valiantly fighting the parallel traders, they were actually targeting anyone who looks a mainlander. So in this case they need to target every South Asian that they come across.

- Labour Party legislator Fernando Cheung defends the asylum policy: "I see no evidence that every asylum seeker is fake." (YouTube)

Of course, Cheung is right. Some asylum seekers came under false pretenses but it is unlikely that every single one of them is. But if some asylum seekers come under false pretenses, abuse the system, use up Hong Kong taxpayers money to the tune of $1.6 billion a year and commit all sorts of crimes, then something should be done.

- Fernando Cheung seems to take the position that nothing must be done because we may be sending back some person who is genuinely under the threat of torture. God forbid!

- Well, it defies credulity to see so many asylum seekers who fear torture back in their home countries of India, Pakistan, etc. Don't those countries have 'democracy', 'freedom', 'human rights' and 'universal suffrage.' If we Hongkongers living in a time of chaos are better off than they are, why do we need 'democracy', 'freedom', 'human rights' and 'universal suffrage.'

- In 2014, Fernando Cheung argued at the Legislative Council that the asylum seekers should receive the same level of money that Hong Kong residents receive for social welfare. He said that this was the basic level, and it is their basic human right. The government should find them jobs so that they can make their own living. Presently the asylum seekers receive $3,000 a month and they are not allowed to work.

- A poster against the Labour Party:

- (Oriental Daily) March 16, 2016. Late breaking news! At 0:55, a 17-year-old boy was at an electronic game centre in Kwong Wah Plaza, Yuen Long district. He got into an argument with three men, including one South Asian. He was attacked and robbed of $100 cash plus a game card containing $1,500 worth of game points. The police arrested 28-year-old Pakistani asylum seeker man Alimjiid for drug possession and common assault. According to a female worker, there have been frequent quarrels between South Asians and Hongkongers there.

- (Oriental Daily) March 16, 2016. An 18-year-old woman went past Sau Fu Street, Yuen Long Street when she was groped on the buttocks by a 25-year-old male Pakistani asylum seeker. She called the police who came to arrest the man. One commentator wrote: "Do Yuen Long residents have to form their own civilian self-defense militia?"

- (Oriental Daily) March 17, 2016. At 4am on Lugard Road, Wanchai district, a slightly intoxicated 24-year-old Englishman Josh quarreled with ten men some of whom were South Asians. Josh was punched and injured in his head and hands. His attackers fled.

Related link: South Asians in Hong Kong.

• [Permalink Impasse/Stalemae/Dead End/Game Over (2016/03/15)

(EJ Insight) Game over for Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. January 5, 2016.

Is it game over for Hong Kong?

I have asked this question in two previous articles.

In a 2013 article, I wrote: “I do not think Hong Kong is ‘game over’. But I do think we are in danger of becoming that.”

In a 2014 article, I wrote: “I asked in a previous column if it is ‘game over’ for Hong Kong. I now believe it is indeed game over for us if we compare ourselves to what we were.”

A year has passed since I wrote that. I have not changed my mind.

I still think it is game over for Hong Kong.

But let me explain what I mean when I say Hong Kong is game over.

I do not mean we are going to become a third-world city. We will remain a highly developed and wealthy city.

But we will no longer be the pride of Asia.

We will no longer excel and succeed in everything we do, like we did before.

We will no longer unite and put the overall interests of our society above our own interests when necessary, like we did before.

Our politics will not be driven by common sense but by divisive self-interest.

This divisiveness will produce political leaders who lack the conscience to do what is morally right for our society.

In fact, we are already seeing all of this now. I believe it will only get worse, not better.

The reason I believe it will only get worse is our political leaders are not making any effort to make it better.

They seem to prefer a chaotic and divisive political atmosphere to a rational one.

Without a doubt, we were once the pride of Asia, especially during the era of the four Asian Tigers.

The term refers to Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. The high economic growth rate of these four economies from the 1960s to the ’90s was admired by the world.

Many considered British-ruled Hong Kong to be the most successful of the four Asian Tigers.

The economic models of these four Tigers were the envy of developing nations. Many other places tried to copy our road to success.

Can we honestly say today that Hong Kong is more successful than Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan?

Of course not.

To be brutally honest, we are the least successful of the four Tigers today.

We lose to Singapore virtually all the time in global surveys on housing standards, innovation, standard of English and quality of life.

We were once the most economically competitive city in China but lost the No. 1 position to Shanghai two years ago.

We are now in second place, but the latest survey warns that Shenzhen is poised to overtake us soon.

Shenzhen’s gross domestic product will overtake Hong Kong’s in the coming year.

We admire Korean TV dramas, Korean music and pop stars, but we have created nothing for others to admire.

Koreans don’t care too much about Hong Kong dramas or Cantopop.

We were far ahead of Taiwan in innovation, lifestyle and many other things, but now Taiwan even has a higher standard of English than Hong Kong.

When our first post-handover chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, tried to position Hong Kong as Asia’s world city in his 1999 annual policy speech in the Legislative Council, many wondered what he meant by it.

His administration explained that it meant making Hong Kong excel in areas such as innovation, quality of life, education and tourism, and become a coordinator of global economic activity so we could be on an equal ranking with such great cities as New York and London.

But a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed Hong Kong ranked only 11th on livability out of 28 cities in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, behind Singapore and even Seoul.

Everyone knows our quality of life has plunged because of factors such as air pollution, housing unaffordability, which has forced families to live in subdivided homes, and the flood of mainland tourists.

Our tourism industry is in a mess, mostly because of our overreliance on mainland tourists.

Our universities have been dropping in global rankings, and our neighbors now far outperform us in innovation.

Our MTR was once the pride of Hong Kong and envied by the world.

Today, it has become the shame of Hong Kong. It is horrendously overcrowded, and every new project is delayed and over budget.

Far from being Asia’s world city, we are now a city in decline.

I believe Hong Kong has already reached its peak and is now on the way down.

We no longer have the political will, the competitiveness, the unity and the yearning to be No. 1.

We don’t have leaders who can bring us back up to our former peak.

It is hard to climb up. It is easy to fall down. Once you begin falling down, it is even harder to stop the fall.

That’s why I say I believe it’s game over for Hong Kong.

Our political system is largely to blame for our decline.

Hong Kong is neither a democracy nor a totalitarian city.

After the end of British colonial rule in 1997, we switched to a unique, executive-led political model under the “one country, two systems” principle.

The model allowed Hong Kong to continue as a free society governed by the rule of law, unlike mainland China, our new sovereign.

It worked for a while after the reunification but has now become so dysfunctional that it is the cause of our political polarization, stagnation and Legislative Council gridlock.

The executive is no longer able to lead, because the political model does not allow the chief executive to be the leader of a political party.

The political system allows half of the 70-member legislature to be directly elected and the other half to be indirectly elected through functional constituencies.

The proportional representation system of Legco direct elections means that candidates can win a seat with as few as 30,000 or 40,000 votes.

This has enabled candidates hostile to the government to win seats, creating an opposition with enough Legco members to vote down important proposals from the executive branch.

The model allows even a handful of hostile Legco members to derail government policies through filibusters and quorum calls.

In other free societies, ruling parties can overcome this, but since the chief executive cannot be a member of a party, there is no ruling party in Hong Kong.

The executive must depend on the support of our so-called pro-establishment Legco members, but these members are not always united.

Our political system is now so dysfunctional that it took over three years for the executive-led government to get Legco funding for a new Innovation and Technology Bureau.

Most countries updated their laws years ago to protect copyright in the internet age, but a copyright protection amendment bill has been stuck in Legco for years even though it meets international standards and is supported by western countries, including the United States.

Legco members in the democracy camp will continue to block the bill unless the government meets the demands of young netizens to make it even more liberal than international standards.

Opposition legislators are now so fearful of losing their seats in next year’s Legco elections that they have become hostages of young people who were politicized by Occupy Central and are now registering as voters.

The copyright bill and the technology bureau are not the only victims of our dysfunctional system.

New towns to solve the housing shortage, a dual immigration control point at the West Kowloon high-speed railway terminus and even landfill expansions have all become victims.

The chief executive is unable to even appoint council members at publicly funded universities without facing a mountain of criticism.

This opposition to everything that the executive-led government does is driven mostly by a reluctance of many Hong Kong people to accept and trust the one-party communist system of China.

Opposition politicians and a large sector of the local media feed on this mistrust to create even more mistrust by whipping up anti-mainland sentiment within the population.

They are far better at using mistrust to win hearts and minds than government officials, pro-establishment politicians, and the pro-establishment media are at using trust to win hearts and minds.

It is, of course, easier to ask Hong Kong people, who are so used to living in a free society, to mistrust a communist regime than it is to ask them to trust a communist regime that jails political dissidents, restricts freedoms and even bans popular internet sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

But our highly paid senior officials are now so devoid of leadership qualities and innovative new ideas to compete in today’s world that you can’t really blame Hong Kong people for having so little trust and so much contempt for the government.

When the number of mainland tourists to Hong Kong began to fall, the only idea our officials could come up with was a “Happy @ Hong Kong Super Jetso” campaign of discounts to promote shopping.aaaaaa

It was a stupid idea that failed miserably.

Now our highly paid financial secretary has come up with the idea of food trucks to promote tourism after watching a movie about food trucks.

Surely, such a senior official should be taking a macro view instead of proposing food trucks, which is not a novel idea and should be dealt with by far junior officials.

Would the finance ministers of Singapore or South Korea propose food trucks to promote tourism? Of course not.

It is too late to reboot Hong Kong and hope that will fix our problems.

We need to reinvent Hong Kong.

We need a new political system to get us moving again.

We can either have a less democratic and more dictatorial system, such as the successful Singapore model, where the executive-led government holds real power through a ruling party, or a more democratic system where the leader has a mandate from the people to rule.

Either system will be better and more effective than the one we have now.

But there are no signs that we will change our political system any time soon.

That’s why I believe it’s game over for Hong Kong.

(EJ Insight) Hong Kong has reached a political dead end. By Michael Chugani. March 15, 2016.

You can change Hong Kong this coming September.

I wish I could say you have a chance to change it for the better. But the sad reality is that you cannot.

It doesn’t really matter which way you vote in September’s Legislative Council elections.

Our politics have now become so divisive that Hong Kong will continue to be an angry city dominated by rancorous politics regardless of whether the so-called democracy camp or the so-called establishment camp wins.

This will be the case even if voters choose to keep the status quo so that neither side wins.

A politically divided city that sometimes erupts in violence is the new normal for Hong Kong.

The Mong Kok riot on the first day of the Lunar New Year proved in graphic terms that the old Hong Kong we knew is gone for good.

We must all learn to live with this new normal of protests becoming more and more violent with no solutions in sight to heal our society.

Some will say I am too pessimistic. But the truth is I am being realistic.

Let me explain why you cannot change Hong Kong for the better, whichever way you vote in September’s Legco elections.

Many people may choose to vote for pan-democrats because they are angry about the mainland’s abduction of bookseller Lee Bo and four of his associates for selling books critical of the Communist Party.

And many may vote for establishment camp candidates because they are angry at the way young rioters set fires, hurled bricks and fought with police throughout the night in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year.

But it won’t make any difference whichever side wins.

Neither side has a strategy or the political courage to unite Hong Kong.

Supposing the so-called democracy camp wins at least 35 of the 70 Legco seats.

Occupy Central co-initiator Benny Tai Yiu-ting has proposed a strategy to do this.

He used the English word “enemy” to describe the so-called pro-establishment camp during media interviews about his proposed strategy.

His use of the word “enemy” to describe the establishment camp already shows how rancorous our politics has become.

The establishment camp consists of Legco and district council members, the Leung Chun-ying administration, and the central government.

It is common knowledge that many in the democracy camp consider Leung Chun-ying and the central government as enemies.

But should establishment camp Legco members and district councilors also be regarded as enemies?

Over 800,000 people voted for establishment camp candidates in the 2012 Legco elections.

If the establishment camp is the enemy, then the 800,000 voters who supported the camp are also enemies by association.

How can the democracy camp unite Hong Kong if it wins in September when it considers the Hong Kong and central governments and 800,000 voters as enemies?

Perhaps Tai Yiu-ting should have said “political opponent” instead of “enemy”.

He believes it will strengthen the hand of the so-called democracy camp if it can win at least 35 Legco seats.

Yes, the hand of the pan-democrats in Legco will indeed be stronger if they control half the seats.

But what’s the use of this stronger hand in practical terms?

Legco’s power is limited

The only use that I can see is that the pan-democrats will find it far easier to block government policies if they control at least 35 votes.

But they are already quite successful now in delaying and blocking government policies through filibusters and quorum calls.

They cannot propose and push through their own policies even if they have control of half of Legco because the constitution, which provides for an executive-led government for Hong Kong, greatly limits the power of Legco to propose policies.

Important policies must come from the government.

Legco only has the power to block such policies, like it did with the central government’s political reform framework for the 2017 election for chief executive.

And it needs to be understood that two can play at the game of filibusters and quorum calls.

If the pan-democrats win half the Legco seats and try to push through even non-binding motions, such as condemning the June 4, 1989, crackdown, the establishment camp can thwart this by using the democracy camp’s tactic of filibusters and quorum calls.

It would be foolish for the democracy camp to think that if it wins over half the Legco seats it can proclaim that Hong Kong’s people have voted for so-called genuine democracy and force the central government to allow it.

The central government will never allow genuine democracy as defined by the democracy camp.

It did not allow it even after the 79-day Occupy civil disobedience protest, which paralyzed parts of the city.

And it will not allow it even if Hong Kong people give the democracy camp a major victory in the September Legco elections.

It should be clear by now that Beijing’s top priority is national security.

That’s why it even risked damaging the “one country, two systems” principle by detaining Lee Bo.

Beijing will not undermine national security by allowing an election system for Hong Kong that could produce a chief executive it does not trust, especially now that so many young people are willing to use violent means to agitate for self-rule and even independence.

I do not want to belittle Tai Yiu-ting.

I consider him a friend. He has been on my television show several times, and he was kind enough to write a foreword for one of my books.

But I just do not see how so-called genuine democracy can be furthered if the pan-democrats win half the Legco seats.

How much or how little democracy Hong Kong has is in the hands of the central government. Nothing can change that.

Tai Yiu-ting believed he could force the hand of Beijing with Occupy Central.

The civil disobedience protest, which came to be known as the Umbrella Movement, caught the attention of the whole world.

Did it bring the central government to its knees? Of course not.

Instead of allowing so-called genuine democracy, the central government became even tougher toward Hong Kong.

Now let’s suppose the establishment camp wins such a big victory in September’s election that the democracy camp no longer has enough votes to block policies in the same way it blocked the political reform framework for the 2017 election for chief executive.

The central government would then most likely reintroduce the same reform framework for the 2022 election for chief executive.

As we all know, the framework allows one person one vote, but people can only vote for candidates prescreened by a nominating committee.

That’s why the democracy camp voted it down as fake democracy.

But if the establishment camp wins big in September, it will have enough votes to easily pass it.

The central government would most likely also instruct the Hong Kong government to reintroduce the controversial Article 23 national security legislation, which was abandoned in 2003 after mass street protests against it.

Would it bring political unity and harmony if a victory by the establishment camp in September gives it enough votes to pass Article 23 legislation and Beijing’s framework for the 2022 election for chief executive?

Of course not.

A part of society, especially the younger generation, will see it as the central government imposing its policies on Hong Kong.

They will hate the establishment camp even more for kowtowing to Beijing’s wishes.

The establishment camp will be seen as the enemy by a part of society even though it can legitimately claim it had a mandate from voters to approve the framework and Article 23.

That’s why I say Hong Kong will be as divided as it is now regardless of which side wins.

In reality, everyone will be a loser.

Hong Kong people have dug themselves a hole and they are sinking deeper into it every day.

Is there a way out of this hole?

Only one way out of this mess

Yes, there is always a way out of a predicament, but you have to know how to find the right door.

The first step is to accept the fact that Hong Kong is part of China and that China is ruled by the Communist Party.

Hong Kong’s freedoms allow people to hate the Communist Party, but it is futile to fight it.

The second step is for the pan-democrats and young people to understand that they are free to hate Leung Chun-ying but must accept the fact that he is the chief executive and he has Beijing’s support.

They have to realize that Hong Kong can only have a democratic system that Beijing trusts.

The third step is for the democracy camp, particularly the Civic Party, to be willing to cooperate with Leung Chun-ying to find middle ground.

The Civic Party must end the stupidity of boycotting him because they refuse to accept that he is the chief executive.

The Democratic Party must end the childishness of refusing even to invite him to its anniversary dinners.

The democracy camp must also not allow radical young groups to set the political agenda or tell it what to do.

In return, Leung Chun-ying must end his hostile attitude toward the democracy camp, and the central government must trust Hong Kong people and listen more to their views instead of using a hardline approach.

Sadly, I do not see any of this happening any time soon.

Neither side is willing to compromise.

That’s why I say we cannot change Hong Kong for the better.

And that’s why I have said in past articles that it’s game over for Hong Kong.

• [Permalink] Our 2047 (2016/03/15)

(Wikipedia) One Country Two Systems

Deng Xiaoping proposed to apply the principle to Hong Kong in the negotiation with the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher over the future of Hong Kong when the lease of the New Territories (including New Kowloon) of Hong Kong to the United Kingdom was to expire in 1997. The same principle was proposed in talks with Portugal about Macau.

The principle is that, upon reunification, despite the practice of socialism in mainland China, both Hong Kong and Macau, which were colonies of the UK and Portugal respectively, can retain their established system under a high degree of autonomy for at least 50 years after reunification. What will happen after 2047 (Hong Kong) and 2049 (Macau) has never been publicly stated.

(Hong Kong University Student Union's Undergrad magazine)  Our 2047

The Joint Sino-British Declaration's promise of no changes for 50 years will reach the end of its term in 2047. The fate of Hong Kong is unknown. Will it be an independent country? Continue in it present form? Or become a Chinese city? This is seldom discussed by society. 2047 seems to be remote, but the Hongkongers began talking about the 1997 in the late 1970's already. Based upon the rapid Communization of Hong Kong, we must be ready to deal with the second discussion of Hong Kong's future in order to increase our bargaining trips at the table. With respect to the second discussion of Hong Kong future, we have the following demands:

(1) Hong Kong becomes an independent sovereign country that is recognized by the United Nations;
(2) The establishment of a democratic government;
(3) A Hong Kong constitution drawn up by the people of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong government has become a puppet of the Chinese Communists. Its governance is blindly tilted towards the Chinese Communists. They weaken autonomy and self-rule in Hong Kong, they developed Northeast New Territories for no reason, they gloss over the endless cost overruns at the Express Rail Link, they cooperated with the Chinese Communists' Qianhai project and the government report became a One Belt One Rail report. Even if Hong Kong does not have the ability to become independent in terms of hardware, and even if the Chinese economy continues to be strong, our main consideration is not whether we can become independent. Instead, the important point should be whether Hong Kong should become independent or not.

We yearn to defend the Cantonese dialect and the traditional characters, the historical markings on our mailboxes, an independent and solemn judicial system, the unique humanities and social ecology of Hong Kong and a democratic government that is oriented towards the interests of Hong Kong. These demands are not based upon hatred. They comes from every single soul that longs for freedom. Fighting for independence does not take place overnight. At this moment, we are only at the beginning. Very often, advocates of Greater China chauvinism say that we must support democratic movements in Hong Kong because Hong Kong can't have democracy if China does not have it. Yet can promoting the democratization of China be easier than building an independent nation? Absolutely not.

(SCMP) March 16, 2016.

Hong Kong should become a sovereign state recognised by the United Nations in 2047, according to the latest issue of the University of Hong Kong student magazine Undergrad.

An article headed “Hong Kong Youth’s Declaration” argues for the city’s independence on expiry of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which stipulates that Hong Kong should remain unchanged for 50 years from the handover. “Even though Hong Kong doesn’t have the conditions to become independent yet ... whether independence is viable or not is not our main concern. The main point is whether Hong Kong should become independent”, the article says.

In addition to independence, it demands a democratic government be set up after 2047 and for the public to draw up the city’s constitution. It also denounces the Hong Kong government for becoming a “puppet” of the Communist Party, “weakening” the city’s ­autonomy.

But the article’s claims were on Tuesday dismissed by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Leung said that while Beijing had promised Hong Kong’s capitalistic systems and way of life would remain unchanged at least until 2047, “Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times, and this is a fact that will not change after 2047”. In last year’s policy address, Leung criticised the student publication for discussing independence.

The article was also slammed by a number of prominent Beijing loyalists. HKU council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung described the idea of independence as nonsense, adding: “I don’t think any wise person would listen.” Alluding to mainland China, Li said: “Where would our water and food come from? Hong Kong’s future is good – it is a blessed place.” Basic Law Committee vice-chairwoman Elsie Leung Oi-sie said independence would be impossible. “In terms of culture, lineage and nationhood, we are one with the country,” she said.

Marcus Lau Yee-ching, editor of Undergrad, argued that “only Hongkongers can decide the future of Hong Kong when the Basic Law expires in 50 years”.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, said calls for independence represent a “natural progression” in the city’s politics, as the SAR government has repeatedly failed to maintain Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. “Many young people are disappointed, in terms of political reform and failure to achieve universal suffrage,” Choy said.

(EJ Insight) 2047: Who can predict what will happen?  By Alan Lee. March 21, 2016.

The Hong Kong University Students’ Union’s official periodical, the Undergrad, recently published an article in which the author says the year 2047 will mark another crossroads in Hong Kong’s history. By that time Hong Kong people, he says, should seize the opportunity and rethink the future of our city and its relationship with China.

As the Sino-British treaty governing Hong Kong’s handover is set to expire, the city must consider declaring independence and seek the United Nations’ recognition as a sovereign state, and then build its own democratic government and draft its own constitution, the author suggests.

He believes it could be the best way out for our city as Beijing continues to deny us greater democracy, and as our civil rights and way of life are under serious threat due to the mainland’s increasingly aggressive interference in our affairs.

As expected, the article immediately came under heavy fire from the pro-establishment camp and pro-Beijing heavyweights such as Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, member of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee; Elsie Leung Oi-sie, former Secretary for Justice; and Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, chairman of the Hong Kong University Council and former Secretary for Education.

Dismissing the article’s proposals as “nonsense” and “ridiculous”, the heavyweights urged the people contemplating Hong Kong independence to stop wasting their time on something that is absolutely impossible and will never happen.

Then it was our Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s turn to weigh in on the matter.

Speaking to reporters, Leung pointed out with absolute conviction that Hong Kong has been a part of China since ancient times and that it will definitely remain so after 2047.

Now, while our leaders have dismissed the idea of Hong Kong’s independence as ridiculous and far-fetched, isn’t it equally ridiculous and far-fetched when a bunch of people tell you firmly that something will definitely not happen 30 years from now, when none of them will live to see it?

Do they all have a crystal ball at home through which they can predict what exactly will happen in the future?

Let’s imagine, if a Russian guy back in 1961 had told everybody around him that the Soviet Union would cease to exist by 1991, I bet people would definitely have called him insane and ridiculous.

Likewise, if a Chinese person had in, say, 1881 told his friends that the Qing Emperor would abdicate in 1911, I’m sure his buddies would definitely have dismissed that as nonsense as well.

Now, let’s push our imagination a little further.

If Mao Zedong had proclaimed at the first national congress and founding ceremony of the Chinese Communist Party — which took place at a non-descript urban apartment in July 1921 in Shanghai, and which saw the attendance of just 12 people including Mao — that the party would take power in around 30 years’ time, I bet his fellow party members who were at that meeting would probably have laughed at him in the way like Arthur Li laughed at the Undergrad.

Let’s bear in mind the fact that in 1921 there were less than a hundred registered Chinese Communist Party members across the entire China.

As we all know now, all of the above “nonsensical” and “ridiculous predictions” have turned out to be true.

So who could tell — apart from God — what exactly is or is not going to happen 30 years from now?

Of course I understand that our prominent pro-Beijing figures, given the positions they hold and the prospect of midnight phone calls from Beijing, had no choice but to denounce the calls for Hong Kong’s independence without any delay.

However, they would be completely ignorant and naïve if they truly and faithfully believe that the status quo in Hong Kong — or even the mainland — would definitely remain intact in and beyond 2047. Do they really think they are Nostradamus or something?

The fact that the pro-independence discourse which used to be shrugged off by the overwhelming majority of the public in Hong Kong before the handover has now reached the mainstream media and is quickly gaining momentum indicates that something must have gone seriously wrong with the SAR government and Beijing’s policies towards Hong Kong over the past 20 years.

As a matter of fact, one could hardly have imagined in the 90s that the idea of Hong Kong seeking independence from China would one day become a legitimate topic up for serious discussion in local and even international media and quickly gain popularity among the younger generation in our city.

Instead of denouncing the idea and labeling those who advocate it as “separationists”, isn’t it time for our chief executive and his bosses in Beijing to reflect on what they have done to alienate the people of Hong Kong, especially the younger ones, so much over the past two decades?

And why independence sentiments appear to be gaining ground in Hong Kong, while 10 or 20 years ago the idea would have been dismissed out of hand by most people!

Internet comments:

- With respect to demand (1) in the Our 2047 essay, this Undergrad writer has not even bothered to familiarize himself/herself with what the United Nations has to say about its procedures:

How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations?

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the [United Nations Charter] and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows:

1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.

2. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.

3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.

4. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

So if Hong Kong wants to become an independent sovereign nation in the future, it better start lobbying 9 out of 15 Security Council members (including China) plus two-third of the majority in the General Assembly.

- But of course if it is the usual vaporware again, then never mind ... just go back to your other business.

- Strategy #1: Buy their votes. The current members of the Security Council members are:

Permanent members
- China
- France
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom
- United States

Non-permanent members
- Angola
- Egypt
- Japan
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Senegal
- Spain
- Ukraine
- Uruguay
- Venezuela

You can't pay enough to buy the votes of the five permanent members. If one or more of the permanent members vote for Hong Kong, China will break off diplomatic relations. That may mean the end of the United Nations as a whole. So the five permanent members will vote as China wishes. Of the current nine non-permanent members, Angola and Venezuela are politically aligned with China. That means you have eight votes at a maximum. Everybody can count this. Therefore nobody except perhaps Japan will even grant you the courtesy of a meeting. And Japan will meet with you only to anger China and not because they sympathize with your cause.

- The path is actually clear. Singapore achieved independence because it had the blessing of Malaysia. Hong Kong can achieve independence if and when it gets the blessing of China. If China supports Hong Kong independence, so will everybody else. So you need a strategy to get China's consent. The only strategy that the Localists have so far is "valiant resistance with force." So the Localists will rip the bricks out of the pavement and force the Chinese Communists to bend to the will of the people of Hong Kong. Or something.

- How hard is it to gain United Nations recognition as a sovereign nation? A case for comparison is Taiwan, with a seemingly better argument than Hong Kong.

(Wikipedia) Foreign relations of Taiwan.

Entities with full diplomatic relations with Taiwan

Oceania:
- Kiribati
- Marshall Islands
- Naurau
- Palau
- Solomon Islands
- Tuvalu

Africa:
- Burkina Faso
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Swaziland

Europe:
- Holy See

Central America:
- Belize
- El Salvador
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Nicaragua
- Panama

Caribbean
- Dominican Republic
- Haiti
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

South America
- Paraguay

The current members of the Security Council members are:

Permanent members
- China
- France
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom
- United States

Non-permanent members
- Angola
- Egypt
- Japan
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Senegal
- Spain
- Ukraine
- Uruguay
- Venezuela

Taiwan has no diplomatic relations with any of the 15 Security Council members.

Under the One China policy, countries that seek diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China must break official relations with the Republic of China (ROC) and vice versa. Recognizing Hong Kong would mean breaking diplomatic relations with Security Council permanent member China. Good luck with all your future issues before the United Nations Security Council.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 21, 2016. at a forum, China-Australia Legal Exchange Foundation chairman Lawrence Ma said that Hong Kong cannot possibly be recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign nation under the United Nations Charter. Ma asked former Undergrad editor-in-chief Marcus Lau Yee-ching if Lau was willing to fight the People's Liberation Army to his death. Lau who had said that he would "valiantly retaliate" immediately retreated and said that force was unnecessary because Hong Kong wants to conduct a referendum like Scotland. Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers chairman Tang Fei said that Scotland was historically a separate country that was conquered by England. Tang asked: "Has Hong Kong ever been an independent country?" Tang said that Scotland could hold a referendum because the British Parliament agreed to let it. "Do you believe that the National People's Congress will allow this matter to be discussed?" Tang

- With respect to demand (2), the same issue of Undergrad enunciated clearly that the lesson from Occupy Central is that they don't want a Grand Stage from which orders are issued by the leaders. In other words, they won't allow any government to function. You can clearly see what will happen under a democratic government. You can name the person whom you believe is best qualified to become Chief Executive, and I can give you a long list of people who will be his enemies via street protests, pelting eggs at events, filibustering in the Legislative Council, etc.

- With respect to demand (3) about the Hong Kong constitution drawn up by the people of Hong Kong, this is hilarious because it ignores the history of democratic referendum and constitutional reform.

As one example, see the Civic Referendum during Occupy Central with Love and Peace:

OCLP commissioned the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP) to run a poll on three proposals – all of which involve allowing citizens to directly nominate candidates – to present to the Beijing government. It ran from 20 to 29 June 2014.

A total of 792,808 people, equivalent to a fifth of the registered electorate, took part in the poll by either voting online or going to designated polling stations. The two referendum questions were

Item 1: For CE Election 2017, I support OCLP to submit this proposal to the Government:

1. Alliance for True Democracy Proposal;
2. People Power Proposal;
3. Students Proposal, or Abstention;

Item 2: If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices by electors, LegCo should veto it, my stance is:

LegCo should veto;
LegCo should not veto;
or abstain" respectively.

The proposal tabled by the Alliance for True Democracy, a group comprising 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers, won the unofficial "referendum" by securing 331,427 votes, or 42.1 per cent of the 787,767 valid ballots. A joint blueprint put forward by Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students came second with 302,567 votes (38.4 per cent), followed by a People Power's proposal, which clinched 81,588 votes (10.4 per cent).

Please note the two problems:

- A referendum can let voters choose among one (or more) among a small number of options. Whoever comes up with the list of options has circumscribed the possible outcomes. For example, you are not allowed to state "None of the above" in item 1, or otherwise state your own proposal. So when you run a so-called referendum, you will only generate more irresolvable controversies.

- The response rate is "one-fifth of the registered electorate." The total population will be "represented" by those who voted as if they have the identical preferences. So when you run a so-called referendum, you will only generate more irresolvable controversies.

As another example, consider the Hong Kong Legislative Council by-election 2010:

The 2010 Hong Kong by-election was an election held on 16 May 2010 in Hong Kong, triggered by the resignation of five pan-democrat Legislative Councillors in January of the same year.[1]

Discussions among the pan-democrats commenced in July 2009 for five legislators to resign to force a territory-wide by-election. The plan, which they dubbed the Five Constituencies Referendum (五區公投/五區總辭), involved one pan-democratic legislator resigning from each of the five geographical constituencies, thereby triggering a by-election in which all Hong Kong citizens could participate.

Although the Basic Law of Hong Kong does not provide for official referenda, the pan-democrats hope that by returning the resignees to the Legislative Council, on their manifesto of real political reform in Hong Kong and the abolition of functional constituencies, the election can be seen as a de facto referendum and an endorsement of these issues. The five LegCo members resigned their seats on 21 January 2010 with the by-election taking place on 16 May 2010.

Only 17.1% of HK's registered voters cast ballots, as compared to the record of 45.2% for the 2008 legco election.

We have the same two problems here.

For the 2016 September Legislative Council elections, it is announced that five Localists candidates will participate:

- "Four Eyed-Brother "Cheng Kam-mun in Hong Kong Island
- Raymond Wong Yuk-man in Kowloon East
- Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) in Kowloon West
- Wan Chin in New Territories East
- Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) in New Territories West

If elected, they plan to resign immediately in order to trigger yet another Five Constituencies Referendum on something or the other. They haven't learned a thing from history. They think that "banging your head against the wall" is an act of courage.

- I like the part about "Even if Hong Kong does not have the ability to become independent in terms of hardware, and even if the Chinese economy continues to be strong, our main consideration is not whether we can become independent. Instead, the important point should be whether Hong Kong ought become independent or not." That is to say, the important thing is for you to waste your time on this.

- This is going to start a new wave of analogous statements, such as: I know that physics says that I cannot fly to the moon by bicycle, but the important point should be whether I ought fly to Mars or not.

- I know that I won't be able to win the Mark 6 lottery because I haven't purchased a ticket, but the important point ought to be how I should plan to spend my winnings.

- Very funny! (Wen Wei Po) Education constituency legislator and Professional Teachers Union vice-chairman Ip Kin-yuen was asked about Undergrad promoting Hong Kong Independence. He said that the situation is "somewhat complicated." Since he hadn't read the publication, it was "inappropriate for him to comment." Although his answer did not answer anything, he added: "In these situations, your newspaper usually says that I am dodging the issue." Our reporter said that Ip Kin-yuen can contact us anytime after he finishes reading this issue of Undergrad.

- Of course, Ip Kin-yuen will make every effort to make sure that he does not read Undergrad.

- (TVB) Hong Kong University council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung said that the students have freedom of spee3ch, but Hong Kong independence after 2047 is just impossible. Li said: "If Hong Kong independence means returning to the United Kingdom, which does not want you and you don't have right of abode there. So this is sheer nonsense. If Hong Kong becomes independent, where does the food and water come from? These are two very basic things without which you cannot be independent. Everybody knows that Hong Kong has been part of China the whole time, even after the Opium Wars. It is absurd to talk about Hong Kong leaving China. I am not going to waste time to comment or debate on this. Any intelligent person knows that this is infeasible and a dead end. There is no point in wasting time."

- If all Arthur Li can come up with are food and water, then I think that he is pathetic with these old gags. I wish he could come up with some other points the next time. It's only food and water. Hongkongers are valiant and ingenuous. We will think of some way of solving these minor problems.

- Indeed, we'll just hire the best experts out there to tell us how to get the food and water to feed 7.3 million people. These will be people who know what they're talking about, unlike the political hacks who are clueless. (Acknowledgement: I borrowed this quote from Donald Trump)

- Apart from food and water, Arthur Li can also mention gas and electricity. Natural gas is imported from China via submarine pipelines for electricity generation and gas production. No gas means that people will have to head to the hills to gather firewood for cooking. Electricity is generated by local plants using coal and natural gas imported from mainland China and the Daya Bay nuclear power station in mainland China. No electricity means no mobile phones and computers, which means no Facebook.

- TVB didn't report that Arthur Li said he is born a Hongkonger and proud to be Chinese. But if someone wants to become a Jap, then Li said that he can't stop them.

- Everybody knows that Li's elders held important positions during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. So how dare he denigrate the people who want to be Japs?

- You say that if you pay with real money, then they must sell it to you. If that's the case, then why do you want to go out and stop mainland tourists and parallel traders from coming here to pay real money to buy merchandise? It comes down to if you hate them, you won't sell to them at any price.

- Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho said that Undergrad has freedom of speech, which means that no subject or viewpoints should be taboo. In so doing, Ho is trying to fawn on young people. Unfortunately the radical youth thinks that his comments represented "leftist retardism" because the only acceptable course of action is "valiant resistance by force."

- (EJ Insight) Why can’t we talk about independence?  By SC Yeung. March 16, 2016.

Hong Kong independence has once again become a topic of conversation after a student publication featured it in its latest issue.

Civic Party helped turn it into a political talking point by raising the importance of autonomy in the context of 2047, when Hong Kong fully reverts to Chinese sovereignty.

That is when the Basic Law and other agreements under the Sino-British Declaration, the basis of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover to China, expire. That is also more than 31 years out, a generation away and a distant future for older Hongkongers.

But for younger people who have the most at stake in that future, there’s no time to lose to ensure the next phase of Hong Kong’s political development. Which is why such issues as self-determination and autonomy will remain in our consciousness even if we don’t actually talk about them.

But why not? If we have been discussing autonomy, why can’t we talk about independence?

Hong Kong people were already excluded from the Sino-British talks on their own future. They want to make sure that this time around, their views will be heard. Hong Kong’s political class is not ready or willing to accept the fact that independence could be an option.

Realistically, that notion is a non-starter. China will not allow it to flourish, let alone happen, and it will take a yeoman’s job to get the Hong Kong government, with the pro-Beijing camp behind it, to let it enter the political mainstream.

Leung Chun-ying famously excoriated Undergrad magazine, the University of Hong Kong student publication in question, in his 2015 policy address for an article about self-determination. He accused it of inciting separatism. Yesterday, he responded to Undergrad’s latest issue as emphatically. “It’s ‘common sense that Hong Kong will continue to be part of China after 2047 when the Basic Law guaranteeing the way of life in the Special Administrative Region is to expire,” he said, adding that Hong Kong’s capitalist system “should not and need not change” after 2047.

Leung’s remarks are straight out of Beijing’s playbook. Chinese officials have repeatedly stressed that Hong Kong is part of China and that fact will not change, although they might allow certain rights and freedoms of its citizens beyond 2047. And in case anyone is in doubt, they keep reminding us that independence is impossible.

Now comes Arthur Li, the HKU council chairman and not the biggest fan of Undergrad magazine, who is playing to our worst fears. “Where will our fresh water come from? Where will our food come from?” he said. Nonsense. Li’s scaremongering shows his ignorance of how market economics work.

First of all, our water supply does not come free. We buy it from Guangdong under a commercial agreement. Some of our food supply comes from the mainland but we also pay for it.

Second, the world is a marketplace of commodities and services.  If China does not want to sell food and water to us, someone else will come forward. That’s not to mention that Hong Kong will soon have a desalination plant to turn sea water into fresh water.

When Singapore left the Malaysian Federation in the 1960s to go it alone, it didn’t go thirsty or hungry. They have kept their border open to allow the flow of goods. The two countries have maintained a long-term water supply contract.

Li’s argument is as implausible as the idea of Hong Kong independence. And that is precisely the point.

We need to talk about these issues because we are being plied with ideas that don’t make sense. And we are being warned about certain “unmentionables” lest we provoke Beijing. Yet, we are told at the same time that there’s freedom of thought and free speech in Hong Kong.

- Joshua Wong's argument about why Hong Kong should be independent: Hong Kong port began in 1841 but the People's Republic of China was founded only one century later in 1949.

Internet comment:

- In 214 BC, the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty Qin Shi Huang conquered the territories of the southern tribes, and the uninhabited island known today as Hong Kong became a part of Greater China. But Joshua Wong was not a good student and he wasn't even admitted to university, so he can only be expected to be ignorant about basic history.

- (Ta Kung Pao) What is the significance of 2047 anyway?

According to Basic Law Article 5,

The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.

So 2047 is in a way a dividing line. But what is dividing? The socialist/capitalist economic and/or lifestyle systems? Or something else.

Some people will have you believe that 2047 is the moment to decide upon territoriality and sovereignty. But Basic Law Article 1 clearly states:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an unalienable part of the People's Republic of China.

This means that territoriality and sovereignty are not up for discussion at all. So any talk of dividing lines such as independent state-building etc is just a pack of lies.

- Reasons for Hong Kong independence from the University of Science and Technology students:

(1) Hong Kong only imports 90% of its water, pork, beef, fish and vegetables plus 20% of the packaged foods from mainland China. The rest is produced locally or supplied by other countries. So if Hongkongers eat only 10% of what they used to eat, they'll be okay. Besides they can always increase their imports of Japanese waygu beef, Norwegian salmon, and Boston lobsters to replace the mainland food.

(2) Scotland can demand independence even though it does not have an army. But Hong Kong has 6,000 PLA soldiers and more than 33,000+ police officers. So if the PLA and the police are a formidable army already. Unfortunately, the PLA soldiers are all mainlanders who are under the command of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, the 33,000+ are Evil Police Dogs who will be purged if and when the Revolution for Independence succeeds.

(3) 25 sovereign countries around the world have even less land than Hong Kong. So Hong Kong can become an independent nation like São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Palau, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Marshall Island, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Tuvalu, Nauru, Monaco, Vatican City, etc.

- (SCMP) March 18, 2016.

Act strategically instead of just venting anger, one of the world’s leading political scientists told activists in Hong Kong as he warned that the rise of separatist sentiments was counterproductive if not suicidal for the city’s democratic future.

Professor Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University in the United States, said any attempt to advocate independence or regard it as a way out beyond 2047, the expiry date of Beijing’s 50-year promise under the “one country, two systems” formula, would only push the central authorities to crack down on Hong Kong and further marginalise the already weak pro-democracy camp.

“I think it is suicidal,” Diamond, who was visiting the city, told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday. “It is not the way Hong Kong is going to achieve democracy and deeper or more meaningful autonomy. It is just going to play into the hands of the hardest hardliners in China.”

Diamond was commenting on the rise of localism as reflected most recently in the Legislative Council by-election last month, in which young candidate Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous scored a significant 16 per cent vote share despite a short period of campaigning.

The convenor of the student-led group Scholarism, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who played a significant role in the Occupy protests in 2014 and planned to form a new political party next month, also pledged to hold a referendum in 10 years to let Hongkongers express their desire for self-determination after 2047.

Diamond, founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy who has studied democratisation across continents, pointed to the basic strategic rules of social movement – “to unify your ranks and divide your adversaries”.

Noting the strong sentiment of nationalism in mainland China, he said advocating independence would only divide Hongkongers but unify everybody in China, not to mention drive away some moderates across the border who had looked forward to more engagement with the city.

The same theory applied to the relationship between police and pro-democracy activists, which had turned confrontational in the wake of the 79-day Occupy sit-ins. The scholar believed the protesters should be more empathetic and get into the minds of their political adversaries in a bid to neutralise the opposition.

Emphasising his empathy towards the young’s frustrations, Diamond stressed he was not asking them to change their aspirations, just to act strategically with an analytical mind.

“When you have been victimised … and been treated unjustly, as the whole Hong Kong population has been, the natural reaction is anger, frustration and resentment,” he said. “But being mad as hell and resolving that you are not taking it anymore is an emotion but not a strategy.”

He added that the democratic camp, which had little power and resources compared to its counterparts, did not “have the luxury of simply venting emotion”, like what the Philippines went through in 1986.

Meanwhile, Diamond believed the mainland could eventually evolve into an asymmetrical federal system, which allowed the two special administrative regions to enjoy more autonomy than the other provinces, and this could be a possible way out for Hong Kong.

He said the Communist Party should lead a process of gradual political reform like the KMT did in Taiwan and that could “buy themselves a lot of time”.

“I think if the Chinese Communist Party would move to that direction and lead and shape the process of political reform, they would be able to remain in the driver’s seat like the KMT did,” said Diamond.

(SCMP) Nationalism reigns whatever the ideology. By Alex Lo. March 19, 2016.

According to numerous accounts, Margaret Thatcher at one time considered the options of either retaining Hong Kong post-1997 or granting it independence. At a crucial meeting with her senior staff and military advisers, she voiced both possibilities.

Her generals promptly showed her maps of the city in relations to the Chinese hinterland. They reportedly said there was no possibility of holding or defending Hong Kong against a China committed to retaking it.

China, they reportedly said, could just choke off the city by cutting off food and water supplies. That meeting put an end to her musings and set her on the path to negotiations that led to the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Localists, who fantasise about independence now or after 2047, may well ponder the history of that episode. Independence is not for us to gain, but for China to grant. As an abstract intellectual exercise, let us consider what kind of a China it would have to become to be willing to grant such a thing. It’s obviously out of the question under communist China. The supposition by some people is that only a democratic China would be willing to entertain real independence or autonomy for Hong Kong.

This way of thinking is most recently raised by Larry Diamond, an anti-communist conservative ideologue from the US.

He reportedly said the Chinese Communist Party regime was going down. “It is not what China can do for Hong Kong but what Hong Kong can do to advance democratisation in China,” Diamond said.

If you want Hong Kong to be free, you must help China democratise. That’s his logic. I would not bet on the demise of the CCP so easily. Leaving aside his call for subversion, Diamond’s proposition is historically and logically dubious.

Why would a democratic or politically liberal China be any less interfering? In one of his more lucid writings, Horace Chin Wan-kan, the godfather of localism, wrote that a democratic China would be as nationalistic as it is now, if not more so. Why would it let Hong Kong go?

Perhaps Diamond should spend more time in his own country. Would most right-thinking patriotic Americans even consider independence for Texas, something that is advocated time and again?

- (EJ Insight) Joshua Wong and the pan-dems should get their priorities right. By Wong On-yin. March 23, 2016.

It appears politicians in Hong Kong have suddenly become exceptionally visionary, as they rush to join in the discussion of Hong Kong’s way forward after 2047.

Many say we should start fighting now for our right to determine our own future after 2047.

However, that begs the question: what about the unfinished business of fighting for universal suffrage that is still lying right in front of us?

Are the pan-democrats really that concerned about planning ahead for the days after 2047, or are they just deliberately changing the subject in order to hide their failure and incompetence?

Apart from rushing to change the subject in order to divert public attention from the pro-democracy campaign, there is also a stampede among the pan-democrats to claim they are “indigenous parties” in an apparent attempt to ride on the tidal wave of popular support for nativism and widen their support base.

For example, the Civic Party, which rose to prominence after the July 1 rally in 2003, has recently changed its party’s main theme by replacing “fighting for democracy” with “defending our indigenous self-determination”.

Also replacing its goal is Scholarism, which announced Sunday that it will shortly cease to exist and split into two different wings, one of which will form a political party and send members to run for public office pledging “self-determination in 2047”.

But what about the idea of “popular nomination” in the election of the chief executive that these parties pushed for during the Occupy movement?

Have they all ditched the idea already?

Don’t the pan-democrats who are pitching the 2047 issue owe the public an explanation as to whether they will, from now on, focus on promoting nativism rather than fighting for democracy, something we have been relying on them to do for us for the past 30 years?

In fact it is undeniable that the subject of “2047 and beyond” is important, but at this moment, discussion of this topic should be confined to academic circles and remain on a theoretical level only.

It is because there is something far more urgent lying immediately before us, which is the fight for universal suffrage and the right to choose our own leader, and it is this ongoing and unfinished fight that people like Joshua Wong should remain focused on right now.

The freedom and civil rights promised under the Basic Law, although continuously deteriorating, still give us a window of opportunity to fight for as much democracy as we can.

What we should be doing now is making full use of that window of opportunity to get the best deal from Beijing before that window is closed, rather than worrying about something 30 years from now.

- (AM 730) By Zhou Xian. March 23, 2016.

... Even the most stubborn Hong Kong independence advocate knows clearly that Hong Kong cannot become independent under the present objective circumstances. However, just because it is impossible today does not mean the same in the future.

The fast-track Hong Kong independence people make assumption that China will collapse economically and politically in the near future. When the central government loses control, Hong Kong independence will have a chance.

The slow-track Hong Kong independence people do not believe that a rapid collapse of China will take place. Furthermore, the people of Hong Kong still do not have a sufficient sense of nationhood. Therefore, they are actively spreading ideas such as "Hongkongers are different from Chinese people," "Hongkongers are not Chinese," "Hongkongers are a separate race," etc. If they repeat this sort of thing often enough, the Hongkongers will be sufficiently detached from China. When the opportunity arises, Hong Kong can become independent. Specifically, the slow-track people will resist One Country and increase the gap between the Two Systems. Otherwise, Hong Kong will be eaten up by mainland China before independence.

There is another basic assumption, which is that Hong Kong is irreplaceable as a financial centre for China. For example, where would the corrupt officials hide their money without Hong Kong? So no matter how bad things gets here, the central government will not strip away One Country Two Systems and take over Hong Kong. Back then Deng Xiaoping refused to make any compromise in taking Hong Kong back. The Hong Kong independence view is that the central government leaders today do not have the standing and courage of Deng Xiaoping.

These assumptions cannot be shown to be implausible. But I have an idea: Do you think the central government will sit and watch helplessly as the Hong Kong independence people play out their script until 2047, when today's young people have grown up and became the majority who will vote for independence?

I respectfully disagree with Li Ka-shing who said: "It may be One Country One System in 2047." I personally believe that the central government will act first, and it may be One Country One System before 2027 already.

- Spoof of Apple Daily: Security lapse at Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital, large number of patients escape to disseminate message of Hong Kong independence

- (HKG Pao) In an Apple Daily essay, professor Benny Tai began by talking about water, electricity and food. He says that you can buy these things with money. Even the mainland will continue to sell to Hong Kong because they make money.

Tai said that he does not see any possibility for Hong Kong independence in the short run. But he predicted that the Chinese Communists and mainland China will run into a huge political crisis before 2047. "Only when mainland China falls into political chaos can Hong Kong become independent. If China is so chaotic that even its own sovereignty is uncertain, then the sovereignty of Hong Kong is even less certain. That is the opportunity for Hong Kong to become independent."

Tai said that "it is beyond subjective desires of people to know how China will change." There should not be just "the China opportunity" without "the China crisis." Tai called for Hong Kong independence young men to "be concerned" about mainland political developments and "fight for international attention." Tai said: "At the key moment, the Hong Kong people will be able to gain international recognition to become an independent sovereign nation.

Internet comments: 

- The only way for Hong Kong to become independent is for China to fall into total chaos like Iraq or Syria? When that happens, Hong Kong will be in the middle of all that chaos. Millions of refugees will try to rush in because the independent sovereign nation of Hong Kong will be a safe haven. What will you do then? Set up machine guns on the border to mow down these refugees? Tow their boats back out to open sea and sink them?

- This is the same old script that Wan Chin has peddled before. At least Wan Chin said that when China collapses, Hong Kong must be independent in order to survive ... "Hong Kong has to establish its city-state sovereignty, consolidate internal governance and implement double universal suffrage in accordance with the method of Wan Chin." The only difference is that Benny Tai is speaking as a scholar while Wan Chin is speaking as the Grandmaster of the City-State of Hong Kong.

- (Speakout HK) Immigration is an individual right. If a Hongkonger wants to immigrate to Canada or Australia, the Hong Kong government will not obstruct. Independence is not an individual right. You may want Hong Kong to be independent, but this is not up to Marcus Lau to decide. Because this is an issue of national sovereignty of China, the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens will have a say on the matter. Hong Kong is not Scotland. Whereas the British Parliament allow a referendum to be held in Scotland, the Chinese government holds the position that Hong Kong independence is separatism/treason. Given this position, why bother holding these referenda in Hong Kong? The Chinese government won't let independence happen, and the 1.4 billion people either. Why bother?

In Hong Kong, the most basic question about independence is this: "Do you want to be Chinese or not?" Marcus Lau wants independence because he thinks that he is not Chinese. Fine. But what about other Hongkongers who want to be Chinese? What about their rights? Never mind that these other people might be the majority. Even if they are a minority, will they quietly accept this "annexation" of their homes to a foreign country?

It is total fraud to package Hong Kong independence as an individual right. It is not an individual choice like immigration. It is forcing other people to give up being Chinese. "It's alright for you not to want to be Chinese, but why are you forcing me to give up being Chinese?"

• [Permalink] Loud Speaker (2016/03/12)

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 11, 2016.

Additional funds totalling HK$19.6 billion for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) have been approved by the legislature’s Finance Committee, despite fierce protests and filibustering from pan-democratic lawmakers.

Ray Chan Chi-chuen and his handheld mini-megaphone

Pan-democrats questioned the procedure set by acting chairman of the committee Chan Kam-lam whereby newly elected lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu could only ask questions after motions put forward by pan-democratic lawmakers were dealt with. The 19 pan-democratic lawmakers moved 1,262 motions, but Chan only approved 36.

Lawmakers such as Ray Chan Chi-chuen, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo Man-ching rushed to the chairman’s table in attempt to take away Chan Kam-lam’s microphone, in order to stall the meeting. Leung Kwok-hung sprayed ink on Chan, and was told to leave.

Leung Kwok-hung sprayed ink on Chan Kam-lam.

Chan Kam-lam also ordered four other pan-democratic lawmakers, Albert Chan Wai-yip, Ray Chan, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo, to leave the meeting room but the order could not be executed by security guards, who were trying to block lawmakers from getting close to the chairman’s table. Chan then suspended the meeting three times, with each suspension lasting 10 minutes each. He then moved the meeting into the Legislative Council chamber. Chan decided to bypass the 7-minute question time allocated to Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung, and begin the discussion of the motions put forward by lawmakers. Yeung then took out a loudspeaker and questioned Chan’s decision to bypass him.

Alvin Yeung protesting using a loudspeaker

Large numbers of pan-democratic lawmakers protested in support of Yeung, leaving their seats and rushing to the front of the chamber. They were asked by Chan to leave.

At 5.10 pm, Chan suddenly asked lawmakers to vote on the motion, but only counted the votes of those seated. The HK$19.6 billion extra funds for controversial rail project was passed.

Yeung later added that he would apply for judicial review over Chan ignoring his request to have a recorded vote, which he claimed was in violation of the Basic Law.

Protesters stormed into LegCo building as the funding was passed and stayed on an escalator leading up to the chamber. Police officers went into LegCo to maintain order. Some protesters were holding loudspeakers. A LegCo staff member asked protesters to leave the building or face police action.

(SCMP) March 12, 2016.

The HK$19.6 billion extra funding request for the controversial express rail link from Hong Kong to Guangdong was abruptly passed by the legislature’s Finance Committee yesterday, triggering chaos inside and outside the chamber.

An angry legislator threw ink at acting committee chairman Chan Kam-lam as he out-manoeuvred pan-democratic lawmakers’ efforts to stall the vote, while police had to forcibly remove protesters who had the building.

The drama erupted at around 5pm, two hours into the meeting, when Chan suddenly called for a vote on the government’s request for extra money to complete the railway that will link Hong Kong to Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

Moments before the vote, newly elected Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, used a megaphone to complain that he was only given seven minutes to ask questions even though he had not participated in the funding request debates before.

“I know Mr Alvin Yeung has been returned by 160,000 voters… but while you are here [in the chamber], you have to act according to the rules of procedure,” Chan told Yeung. “You don’t enjoy any privilege just because you have gained a certain number of votes.” As Yeung continued to protest, Chan called for security to remove him from the chamber, at which point, all the pan-democrats left their seats and stood around their new colleague.

When they refused to return to their seats, the acting chairman suddenly put the funding request to a vote, relying on raised hands among pro-establishment lawmakers still in their seats . The vote was taken in the main chamber after the meeting had to be suspended three times in another room, where radical lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung threw ink at Chan, forcing him to go the bathroom to clean up.

Soon after the vote, around a dozen activists from Leung’s party, the League of Social Democrats, and the Land Justice League stormed into the Legislative Council’s lobby.

Scuffles broke out between the activists and security guards as they tried to rush into the chamber. “The vote is void! Shame on Chan Kam-lam!” they shouted as they grappled with security, and police were called in. The activists remained in the legislature for around three hours before being removed by officers, who carried them out one by one without any violence.

The arguments raged on after the meeting, over whether Chan’s surprise move was in accordance with Legco rules. Speaking to the media after the snap vote, lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, convenor of an alliance of 23 pan-democrats, apologised to the public for not being able to block the funding. Ho accused Chan of abusing his power and described the vote as “violence in Legco”. She did not rule out seeking a judicial review to overturn the decision.

The pro-establishment camp, however, insisted that Chan acted fairly and rationally, in accordance with the rules. Veteran lawmaker Tam Yiu-chung of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong hailed Chan’s “patient and careful” conduct. “Chan repeatedly asked the pan-democrats to stop messing around and return to their seats in order to proceed with the motions,” Tam said. “But sadly they kept breaking order.” Tam, also an executive councillor, said the debate had been delayed too many times by the pan-democrats’ filibustering.

Former Civic Party lawmaker and barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah said it was hard to discern at this stage if there were reasonable grounds to challenge the handling of the vote in court. Tong noted that courts had reiterated in previous legal challenges against Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-tsing’s decisions to halt filibusters that they had no intention of interfering with legislative proceedings.

(EJ Insight) How pan-democrats deceive their supporters. By Wong On-yin. March 16, 2016.

One of the most disappointing things about Hong Kong’s pan-democrats is that they are not only incompetent, but they also, from time to time, deliberately create misconceptions in the minds of the public in order to deceive the citizens and hold their support base.

The most recent example of that was seen during the Legco New Territories East by-election late last month, when pan-democrats were begging their supporters to vote for Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu of the Civic Party.

Yeung must win to ensure the marginal majority of the pan-democrats in the geographical constituency in the legislature, the pan-democrats said.

Otherwise, the pro-establishment camp will have enough votes to amend the Rules of Procedures of the Legco to ban filibuster, which is the only means the opposition camp has to stop the legco from passing unpopular or unjust bills submitted by the Leung Chun-ying regime, pan-democrats warned.

Many voters seemed to buy into their sales pitch and voted for Yeung, who finally beat the DAB candidate by more than 10,000 votes and got elected.

However, what the pan-democrats didn’t tell their supporters is that filibuster as a means of resistance in Legco had already been ruled null and void by the High Court four years ago, and as a result had completely lost its effect both tactically and constitutionally.

The fact that pan-democrats were hiding this truth from their supporters, so that they can continue to claim moral high ground and create a deceptive impression that they are bravely standing up against tyranny, suggests that these people are a bunch of hypocrites with no integrity whatsoever.

Some of you might doubt that I am wrong, as a filibuster mounted by the pan-democrats in the Legco recently did strike down the so-called “Cyber Article 23”. So filibuster still works, doesn’t it?

At first glance it might have been so. However the truth is that the government withdrew the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 not because it was brought to its knees by the pan-democrats, but simply because the administration just didn’t mind doing so as the bill itself was politically insignificant and the only people that would be let down by its withdrawal were a handful of American copyright holders only.

However, based on what happened in the past few years in Legco, when it comes to important bills that mean life and death to the government such as the Appropriation Bill, filibusters might have postponed voting on these bills for a couple of weeks on a few occasions, but have never succeeded in striking down any single one of these bills. Simply put, filibusters are just a useless performance in front of camera staged by the pan-democrats to impress their supporters.

One might still remember that after Legco President Jasper Tsang Yuk-shing had invoked cloture in May 2011 on a bill that banned any legislator who had tendered his resignation from running again in the by-election that followed, radical lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung took the case to the High Court and filed a judicial review application over Tsang’s power to force a vote on the bill.

In May 2012 the High Court ruled in favor of Tsang, saying that under the principle of the separation of the three branches, the judiciary had no constitutional right to interfere in how the legislature was run, and therefore the court agreed that the decision on invoking cloture rested completely with the Legco president himself.

Then in September 2014 the Court of Final Appeal again ruled in favour of Tsang citing the same arguments. However, the significance of these court rulings largely went unnoticed as the public was captivated by the Occupy Movement at that time.

As Tsang has already vowed that he will not be running in the upcoming Legco election, the next Legco president, certainly someone from the pro-establishment camp, might not be as profound and tolerant as the incumbent, and may invoke cloture much more frequently. Hence, there will certainly be even less room for filibusters in the next Legco.

To members of the “Valor Faction (勇武派)” who intend to run in the election in September, it’s time for them to understand the truth: filibuster no longer works and is nothing but a farce staged by the pan-democrats who otherwise cannot come up with any other trick to please their supporters.

Therefore, it would be a complete waste of time for anyone who really wants to make a difference to join the washed-up pan-democrats and take part in their scam in the next Legco.

Videos:

NOW TV
http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=171858 Many interruptions during the morning. When the meeting resumed at 230am, People Power's Chan Wai-yip and Chan Chi-chuen and League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung took over the chairman's post and refused to leave. The meeting was suspended again.

NOW TV
http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=171790 At around 740pm, the police cleared out demonstrators inside the Legislative Council building at the request of the secretariat.

Oriental Daily
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160311/bkn-20160311161125217-0311_00822_001.html Pan-democratic legislators Chan Chi-chuen, Chan Wai-yip, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung Kwok-hung and Gary Fan Kwok-wai rushed up to the acting chairman's post. Leung Kwok-hung splashed the ink that he brought with him. Chan Chi-chuen occupied the chairman's seat. Chan Wai-yip sat down on the floor.

Oriental Daily
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160311/bkn-20160311194138222-0311_00822_001.html Demonstrators outside the Legislative Council.

TVB News
http://news.tvb.com/local/56e2c1a76db28ccf38000007/ Demonstrators charged into the Legislative Council to protest the vote. A number of them tried to go up the escalator but security guards stopped them. Other demonstrators were locked outside the building. Both pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps speak to the press.

Cable TV
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/461365950727454/ Demonstration outside the Legislative Council building

RTHK
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/461280594069323/ Leung Kwok-hung splashed black ink on Chan Kam-lam and the secretariat. Four pan-democratic legislators were ejected.

Ming Pao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Vm4eHein8 Demonstrators charged into the Legislative Council building
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0lm0tzpYMU Twelve demonstrators were carried off by the police

Headline Daily
http://hd.stheadline.com/news/realtime/hk/1054635/ Demonstrators charge into the Legislative Council building after the vote.

Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJnaLdrGNXM Alvin Yeung speaks with megaphone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdYX_lL3RZI Leung Kwok-fung vs. Chan Kam-lam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxixWuvtGU Occupation of the chairman's post - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLYGbGTvgo Occupation of the chairman's post - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5rsH598ydw Demonstrators carried off by the police

Chu Hoi-dick's Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1048226825251253/ Demonstration outside the Legislative Council

Oliver Yip
https://www.facebook.com/yin.yip.96/videos/448955638643915/ Young man harassing uncles and aunties is harassed by them outside the Legislative Council.

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAAtQec0d7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wz1Qqr0DHc
Demonstrators charge into the Legco building

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) In 2010, there were 10,000 persons voicing their opposition to the funding of the Express Rail Link at the Legislative Council. Yesterday when the Legislative Council passed the extra funding of the Express Rail Link, 12 protestors were arrested.

Land Justice League member Chu Hoi-dick was present in 2010 as well as yesterday. He founded the Land Justice League after the 2010 demonstration and he has continued to oppose the Express Rail Link since. Yesterday he gave two reasons on why the turnouts were so differently. Firstly, the people have lost confidence in the effectiveness of protests, because it was like banging your head against the wall with no effect. Even idealism will have to deal with defeat.

Secondly, different factions and different thoughts are no longer mutually inclusive. In recent years, the Valiant Resistance movement have criticized the lefist social activists relentless for insisting on moral correctness but achieving nothing. Therefore many activists have left because they don't want to be stereotyped, smeared, and insulted.

An informed source said that Chu Hoi-dick was only scratching the surface without getting to the underlying reason. Nothing fails or succeeds without reason. The reason why there were 10,000 people was because various forces mobilized their people. Today nobody came for the simple reason that those forces did not mobilize their people.

For example, the Localists (Hong Kong Indigenous, Civic Passion, etc) want to focus on the issues that they are leading on, such as radical resistance actions and legislative council elections. They do not regard Express Rail Link was a major issue for them. If they show up, they will only be lending their support to their rivals. Therefore you don't see them around.

- Present to be counted: League of Social Democrats (Raphael Wong, Tsang Kin-sing); People Power; Shopping Revolutionaries (Chin Po-fun); Land Justice League; Lau Siu-lai, etc.
Absent/missing in action: Civic Passion; Hong Kong Indigenous; Hong Kong Localism Power; Valiant Frontier; Keyboard Frontier; North District Parallel Imports Concern Group; Hong Kong City-State; Scholarism; Hong Kong Federation of Students; etc.

- (Bastille Post) The Legislative Council Finance Committee passed the extra funding of the Express Rail Link in a seemingly controversial manner. Previously, informed sources told me that they were confident that the measure would pass. This was not because they knew that committee acting chairman Chan Kam-lam would violently stop the filibustering. Instead, they said that they were coordinating through middlemen with the pan-democratic legislators all along, including both the large traditional parties and the small radical parties. These middlemen believed that the pan-democrats knew that they could not afford to bear the responsibility if the project was killed off at this stage.

On television, you see the pan-democrats surround the acting chairman to scream and yell before the vote, but in truth they had no intention of stopping him. After the vote, the pan-democratic camp said that the vote was invalid while the pro-establishment camp said that the vote was justified under the circumstances blah blah blah. In truth, all that was just a sideshow because all the actors and actresses knew what the outcome had to be.

- (HKG Pao) Last time around on the Copyright Amendment Bill, the pan-democrats dallied around with filibustering and quorum calls. But the government made a surprise move by withdrawing the bill from further consideration and thus putting the blame squarely on the pan-democrats. On television the pan-democrats were in complete disarray, as they wished the government could make some symbolic concession to let them pass the bill in order to satisfy the American copyright holders. So the pan-democrats knew this time that they could not let this happen again. Therefore, we have this piece of lousy acting.

- The whole affair is like the Shumai offered by the restaurant this morning -- it was all prepared overnight. When you want it, it is heated up and brought out to your table. However, the acting was incredibly bad (especially "Village Mayor" Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats vice-chairman and legislator Leung Kwok-hung's aide).

Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats) and Claudia Mo (Civic Party) embrace and shed tears at not being able to fight for that big hole in the ground in Kowloon West.

Best Actress Award goes to Lau Siu-lai, who was crying because the PLA will be coming down to Hong Kong via the Express Rail Link. (InMediaHK) Lau was shut out of the building before the doors were locked. She began crying outside. A policeman said: "Is she done with crying? She is really annoying."

- (Oriental Daily) When acting Chairman Chan Kam-lam decided to  call for a vote, no pan-democratic legislator offered any motion in objection. Chan Kam-lam then ordered a vote on the first motion to allocate extra funding to the Express Rail Link. The motion was passed without anyone objecting. Chan Kam-lam then ordered a vote on the second motion to allocate extra funding to the Express Rail Link. The motion was also passed without anyone objecting. The meeting was then adjourned. So the pan-democrats had at least three chances to postpone the voting. They did not act.

The explanation from one pan-democratic legislator was that Alvin Yeung was speaking very loudly through his megaphone, and the nearby pan-democratic legislators could not hear what Chan Kam-lam was saying. Meanwhile the pro-establishment legislators said that the pan-democrats deliberately let the motions pass because they knew that they would be held responsible for a large number of construction workers losing their jobs as well as tens of billions of sunk costs going down the drain. Therefore the pan-democrats acted deaf and dumb, and blamed the pro-establishment camp for pulling off a dirty trick.

- Were the pan-democrats fighting every inch of the way? You betcha!

Here is radical legislator Raymond Wong shooting the breeze with pro-establishment legislators Leung Mei-fun and Lam Tai-fai. Wong jumped on the table to pose for television after the vote.

- (HKG Pao) March 12, 2016. Everybody had expected the Legco debates would go down the wire. But amidst the chaos of flying ink and three adjournments, it was the turn for newcomer Alvin Yeung. He brought along a megaphone to make his speech, and acting chairman Chan Kam-lam ordered him to leave immediately for disorderly conduct. Immediately the pan-democrats jumped up from their seats and rushed over to form a human wall to defend Yeung and his megaphone. So there we have the sight of more than twenty pan-democrats worth millions of dollars in pay per month trying to defend the Yeung's megaphone which is a low-tech gadget worth just a few hundred dollars. In the end, Chan Kam-lam asked several times "If you don't get back into your seats, I'll take the vote" without response and so he went ahead with the vote. That was the rout of the battle to stop extra funding of the Express Rail Link.

After the dust settled, Chan Chi-chuen ran around and babbled nonsense. Cyd Ho was in tears apologizing to the 7.3 million Hong Kong citizens. So this was a even bigger fiasco than the veto of the reform of the Chief Executive election when the pro-establishment legislators went outside to wait for Lau Wong-fat to arrive.

Spoof of Alvin Yeung: See how awesome I am. The extra funding of the Express Rail Link was passed because of my megaphone. Haha!

- Alvin Yeung is a barrister by profession. What is the purpose of the megaphone? With a megaphone, you drown someone else without a megaphone out. This means that you rest your case not on some reasoning, but on the volume of your voice. You don't need to go to Law School to do this.

- Alvin Yeung is such a weirdo, because
(1) When he was studying in Beijing, he sang praises of mainland China. Now that he is back in Hong Kong, he says mainland China is hell on earth.
(2) He was politically mentored by his predecessor Ronny Tong Ka-wah, but they are not on speaking terms now.
(3) When there was a riot on Lunar New Year's Day, he said that he was providing legal service. But he got evasive when it was pointed out that barrister cannot be making direct solicitations for business. He showered loving care on the rioters, but not a single word of sympathy went to injured reporters and police officers.
(4) He said that he wanted to enter the Legislative Council in order to get things done. So his act as a Legislator was to demand a quorum call in order to filibuster.

- (Oriental Daily) Alvin Yeung said that the vote was taken before he had his seven minutes. He says that what he has to say may influence the preferences of the pro-establishment legislators and therefore he wants the vote to be taken again. However Finance Committee chairman Chan Kin-por said that only the Legislative Council chairman has the right to veto the vote. He added: "I understand that you are a new legislator who is unfamiliar with many things." Legislator Wong Kwok-kin said that Alvin Yeung violated discipline by using a megaphone to speak. Acting chairman Chan Lam-lam had kicked Yeung out of the chamber already, so Yeung had lost his right to speak.

- On8 Channel (Wong On-yin) Facebook

Only one person rushed out while the others stood around chanting. Shameful! They were deliberately shirking off ...
"They did not take any action to prevent Chan Kam-lam from calling for the vote. In the end, they watched $19.6 billion in funding passed within one minute. The pan-democratic legislators kept saying that "the vote was invalid", but this is the same as the police telling the robber that "it is wrong to rob." Is this anyway to stop it from happening? ... If the Hong Kong legislators charged out and took away Chan Kam-lam's microphone, they would have stopped him from calling for that quick vote. If you want to resist, you must go all the way. It is no use to stay in your seat and yell with a megaphone, because what you say on the megaphone is not part of the official transcript and cannot be part of the filibustering. At this moment, I admit that I am sorry about how things might be different if Edward Leung was the one in the Legislative Council ..."

What is this talk about how Alvin Yeung was useless and that things would have been different had Edward Leung been elected instead? Well, well, well. At the time when Chan Kam-lam announced a vote was on, five legislators (Chan Wai-yip, Chan Chi-chuen, Leung Kwok-hung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Claudia Mo) had already been expelled for disorderly conduct. Furthermore, the doors were barred so that the five could not re-enter. Back in the main chamber, Alvin Yeung brought out his megaphone to speak and he too was ejected. However, the other pan-democrats formed a ring around Yeung to prevent the security guards from removing him and Raymond stood on his desk to speak. Then Chan Kam-lam announced that the vote was on. Gary Fan Kwok-wai, Raymond Wong and Alvin Yeung rushed towards the chairman but there were stopped by a row of about a dozen security guards.

Given these circumstances, what do you think Edward Leung can do? Do you think that he is so valiant, brave and powerful that he will be able to overwhelm a dozen security guards with his bare hands? Or did he bring a bottle of acid in his pocket to take out and use at the right moment? Or a petrol bomb? Unfortunately we don't know the answer, because this is just speculative. We will have to wait until September. If and when Edward Leung is elected, we will see what he can so that he won't be expelled or stopped by the security guards like everyone else so far.

- Edward Leung would have tried to break through but he will be stopped. Then he will post on the Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook that they need people to donate more money to them.

- The premise of Hong Kong Indigenous is that they need someone inside the Legislative Council to work with those on the outside, in the same way that Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung let the demonstrators gain entrance to the university council meetings. But you cannot assume that the Legislative Council security arrangements are static like the Great Wall of China. Because if the existing arrangement is breached once, it will justifiably be upgraded in the future. If ten security guards are not enough this time, they will have thirty next time. If thirty security guards are not enough, they will invite the police Special Tactical Squad in. If the STS is not enough, they will invite the PLA in.

- (TVB) The next day at the Finance Committee meeting, Lee Cheuk-yan said: "Yesterday Chan Kam-lam clearly took advantage of the confusion to help the government rob the citizens out of $19.6 billion. The questioning was not completed and the 37A was not processed yet before the vote. We feel that the vote was invalid. I have a motion of no confidence in the manner by which acting chairman Chan Kam-lam handled things. I ask you to declare today that the vote yesterday was invalid." To which chairman Chan Kin-por said: "Because the agenda today does not contain the item that you are talking about, your question is not in accordance with procedures. I've heard what you said. Next!"

- (Facebook) On the next day, the Legislative Council Finance Committee was supposed to meet on matters related to healthcare. As soon as the meeting started, Civic Party legislator Alan Leong motioned for an adjournment. The reason that Leong gave was that he was not in a good mood!!! Also Chan Chi-chuen thought that he liked Raymond Wong's standing-on-the-desk act yesterday, so he took off his shoes and jumped on the desk too.

- Why do the pan-democratic legislators do these things?
(1) The job pays $93,000 a month.
(2) And you have fun and joy every day at work. Just look at the beaming smiles on the faces of Chan Wai-yip, Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung.

- D100

- Express Rail Link's $19.6 billion cost overrun could be used on livelihood issues:
It can build 32,000 public housing units
It can pay for 21,700 more emergency room doctors for one year
It can pay for 49,000 more registered nurses for one year
It can pay for 46,300 more social workers to look after small children
It can pay for 50,000 more teachers to teach and care for students

That may all be technically true, but the $19.6 billion to complete the Express Rail Link is a one-time-only cost. The cost of the healthcare system is more than $50 billion per year, which recurs year after year. You cannot just hire 21,700 more emergency room doctors, because they have to work in some kind of facility with the proper equipment (such as hospital beds, x-ray machines, CT/MRI/Ultrasound devices, air conditioning, morgue, etc) and supporting personnel (such as nurses, radiologists, physical therapists, pharmacists, database programmers, cashiers, administrators, etc).  Besides, you can't hire 21,700 more emergency room doctors even if you want to because qualified people are not available in such numbers.

- Hong Kong Localism Power

Chan Kam-lam's children are named Chan Chun-kit and Chan Wing-yan. These two pieces of trash will be running for district councilor. Everybody remember to harass them.

(Wen Wei Po) March 14, 2016.

After the vote for extra funding for the Express Rail Link, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi wrote on Facebook: "Somebody asked me where Chan Kam-lam lives. Does that person want to do something stunning? I told that person to be careful. Sha Tin Pass Road, Shap Yi Watt Village. Everybody knows that." Then Tam used a conversation between husband and wife to pinpoint Chan Kam-lam to be "near the Kuan Yin Temple in Shap Yi Watt village."

One Internet user noted that after tonight, "there is good chance that Chan Kam-lam will be living in Wo Hop Shek tomorrow." Wo Hop Shek is the name of a major cemetery in Hong Kong. Another Internet user said that while nothing will change because the vote was final, "at least we can give Chan Kam-lam's mother a fright."  A third Internet user wrote: "Tam Tak-chi, do it quickly. You are a Hot Dog (=Civic Passion) bastard if you expect others to do what you fervently wish for in your heart. I hope that's not what you are." Tam replied: "I have always followed the non-violent path" and "Do I want to beat up Chan Kam-lam? Today at the Legislative Council ... I wanted to go over and beat him up. Long Hair (=League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung) said it would be doing that piece of shit a favor." A fourth Internet user wrote: "Hey, I want a take-out food order. Two bowls of lotus seed soup." In Chinese, the lotus seed is the term for bullet.

Meanwhile the Longsee Facebook posted Chan Kam-Lam's address as Number 14, Shap Yi Watt Village, Sha Tin, New Territories. They suggested: "If Hong Kong citizens are interested, they can look up Legislator Chan and thank him for his great accomplishments. Hey hey hey, this is information publicly disclosed by the Election Affairs Committee so it is not illegal. Don't blame me."

- If you can't reach Chan Kam-lam personally, you can reach his family. According to information, the Korean ice cream shop Honey Creme in Lei Garden Road in Causeway Bay was founded by Chan Kam-lam's son-in-law. Recently, Internet users went to Honey Creme's Facebook and left comments demanding repayment of the $19.6 billion that Chan Kam-lam stole from the people of Hong Kong. Today, the Honey Creme Facebook was deleted so that people cannot leave more comments. An Internet user also went to the location on March 16 and spotted only about 6 customers between 7pm to 8pm. Will Honey Creme be heading the way of the Hei Kee Crab General?

• [Permalink] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2016/03/11)

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,187 persons interviewed by automated telephone in Hong Kong during March 1-7 2016.

Q1. Did you pay attention to the results from the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election?
74%: Paid attention
15%: Half-half
7%: Paid no attention
2%: Hard to say
3%: No opinion

Q2. Traditionally the political spectrum in Hong Kong is divided into the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp. Some people think that this by-election shows that the radical localists have become a third force in the political spectrum. Do you agree?
43%: Agree
30%: Disagree
22%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

Q3. Are you a New Territories East registered voter?
35%: Yes
66%: No

The rest of the questions are asked of NTE registered voters only:

Q4. How satisfied are you with the overall arrangements for this by-election?
50%: Satisfied
30%: Half-half
13%: Dissatisfied
7%: No opinion

Q5. Do you think that there was an intense atmosphere around this by-election:
40%: Intense
45%: Half-half
11%: Not intense
4%: No opinon

Q6. Did you vote in this New Territories East Legco by-election?
85%: Yes
15%: No

Q7. What is the main reason why you voted? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
35%: To show that I oppose a certain candidate/political group/faction
41%: To show that I support a certain candidate/political group/faction
4%: Habit
17%: Fulfill my civic duty
3%: Other
0%: No opinion

Q8. What is the main reason why you did not vote? [Base: Those registered voters who did not vote on election day]
9%: Unsure which candidate/political group to choose
12%: Don't care about politics
18%: Don't agree with the political groups to which the candidates belong
13%: No time to vote
14%: No candidates that I like
8%: Voting can't change things
4%: A by-election is unimportant
16%: Other
5%: No opinion

Q9. When did you made the final decision on whom to vote for? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
20%: On the day of the vote
30%: Within one week of the vote
12%: Within two weeks of the vote
36%: More than two weeks before the vote
3%: No opinion

Q10. Whom did you vote for? [Base: Those registered voters who voted on election day]
2%: Lau Chi-shing
4%: Nelson Wong
27%: Holden Chow
1%: Leung Shi-ho
5%: Christine Fong
15%: Edward Leung
35%: Alvin Yeung
3%: Blank/void
8%: No opinion

Q11. Which political party/group do you support most?
6%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
21%: Federation of Trade Unions/DAB
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
11%: Civic Party
10%: Democratic Party
2%: Liberal Party
3%: New People's Party
9%: Other political parties
35%: No clear preferences (including those who support no political parties; independents; don't know)

In the cross-tabulation of candidates voted for versus most supported political parties,

Holden Chow:
69%: FTU/DAB
13%: New People's Party
4%: Liberal Party
13%: Others

Edward Leung:
25%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
19%: Civic Party
3%: Democratic Party
3%: FTU/DAB
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
38%: Others

Alvin Yeung:
33%: Civic Party
15%: Democratic Party
10%: People Power/League of Social Democrats
3%: Labour Party/ADPL/Street and Neighbourhood Workers
3%: Others

• [Permalink] Sieg Heil! (2016/03/10)

(Hong Kong Free Press) New ‘localist’ CUHK student leader will not veto any method if effective and supported by students. February 22, 2016.

A group of students who identify as “localists” have been elected to run the student union in the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). When asked about what their “bottom line” is, the newly-elected leader of the student union stated that they would not veto any method of resistance so long as it was effective and supported by students.

The win marked a change from the usual “leftist” student leadership in the school in previous years. Chow Shue-fung, president of incoming localist cabinet Spark, said that the election was a battle between the traditional left-wing ideology and the ideas of localism. He also said that the victory was not just a result of his cabinet’s efforts; rather, it was a triumph of the rise of localism.

Chow also said that the voting results showed that localism had become an unstoppable force amongst students. He believed that even if Spark was not elected, CUHK would also become gradually “localised”, and that it was the general trend amongst students.

The localist camp is tied with various movements related to the expansion of Hong Kong’s autonomy, for example advocating for city-state status or outright independence. Last week, new University of Hong Kong (HKU) student union president Althea Suen associated localism with “seeing Hong Kong as their ‘home’, and wanting to prioritise the interests of Hongkongers and protect the city’s core values.”

For the first time in 19 years, there was more than one cabinet running for student union in CUHK. Spark obtained 2,343 votes – meaning around 60 percent of the total – beating its competition, Illuminant, by around 800 votes.

The voting turnout, however, was only around 23 percent, similar to previous years. Chow said that this was because the incumbent student union faced a manpower shortage problem, leading to long queues at polling stations which put students off, Ming Pao reported. Chow also said that the voting turnout went up following the Mong Kok unrest which broke out over the government’s clearing of street hawkers earlier this month.

A member of Chow’s cabinet was arrested in connection with the Mong Kok unrest earlier this month. Chow said that he respected that member’s decision and was confident that his performance in student union tasks would not be affected by his legal troubles.

In an earlier interview, Chow had said that they would “fight valiantly with force”. When asked whether there was any bottom line with regards to the use of force, Chow said that the cabinet would not veto any method so long as it was effective and was not opposed to by CUHK students.

However, like HKU’s Althea Suen, Chow said that the student union was not a political party and that they would have to take into considerations the students’ interests, RTHK reported. He also said that the traditional peaceful methods of protest, such as singing and marching, had been proven to be ineffective.

Reforms proposed by Spark included introducing fast food chains such as McDonald’s into the campus and holding the first-ever e-Sports competitions at the university.

(HK01) March 9, 2016.

The Nazi salute is illegal in Germany and other countries, but recently a Hong Kong student aroused controversy with the Nazi salute. <HK01> received a complaint from a foreign student at Chinese University of Hong Kong about the incoming student union president Chow Shue-fung making a Nazi salute-like pose at a recent event. The student said that he was shocked at the photo and felt offended by the gesture. He thought that his was not something that a student leader or anyone who knows and respects history should do. The student said that he sent the email to HK01 because he wants public attention to the tragic history behind the gesture. Chow admits that he was the individual in the photo.

Chow Shue-fung replied: "I made that pose at the request of a friend. That pose can stand for many things, just as Superman ready to take flight. If that student felt offended, he can contact me. I will explain it to him in person."

Chow Shue-fung's Facebook

Chow Shue-fung
[You again, HK01?]
HK01 claimed that a foreign student from Germany at Chinese University of Hong Kong complained to them that a photo that my friend uploaded had me raising my right hand in the manner of the Nazi salute. That photo shocked him and he wanted HK01 to follow up.
(1)  HK01 is a new Chinese-language Internet media outlet. For the past week, HK01 is the only media outlet that has been pursuing this case with me. According to what I know, there are not many German students at CUHK and it is rare that there is one student who knows Chinese, reads Chinese-language Internet and knows about HK01. If he was so shocked, then why didn't he complain to Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Apple Daily, South China Morning Post and other newspapers? Why didn't he complain to me, the Student Union or the University? Why did he only complain to HK01? This is puzzling. Here I sincerely ask HK01 to refer the student to seek me out directly so that we can discuss this in person. If I offended him, I want an opportunity to explain to him in person.
(2) As my friend said, this photo was uploaded for viewing by his friends. It was included in a folder of about 100 photos. About one hour later, another friend who is studying in Europe told me that the photo is likely being used by the media to create a story. So I immediately called the friend who uploaded the photo to remove it. He removed it immediately.
(3) This photo was among the photos that my friend took with me at his graduation ceremony. The pose was made at the request of this friend. I did not pay any special attention when I took the photo, and I did not intend any disrespect to anyone.
(4) I do not support Nazism and its historical acts. I detest the racism and war crimes that Nazi Germany committed during WWII. In the first semester this year, I attended Ivan Choi's Art of Leadership class and I wrote two essays about Hitler's rights and wrongs. I am willing to publish those two essays for anyone who is interested in my views on Nazism.
(5) I am angry that HK01 would ambush me over my private activities with my friends. HK01 used the paparazzi method to ask me about this affair via my Facebook, mobile phone and the Student Union office. The frequency of calls annoyed the Student Union workers and myself.
(6) I along with our cabinet (the 46th CUHK Student Union cabinet Spark) have made an internal decision in February that since HK01 has a pro-government position and its funding is very suspicious, we will not take any interviews or inquiries from HK01. This is the reason why I will not respond to HK01. HK01 has harassed our union many times and I am forced to make this response against the union's consensus. So here I have to apologize to the other executives of the Student Union.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) Today in Germany, Nazi salutes in written form, vocally, and even straight-extending the right arm as a saluting gesture (with or without the phrase), are illegal. It is a criminal offence punishable by up to three years of prison (Strafgesetzbuch section 86a).

- Chow Shu-fung said: "If that student felt offended, he can contact me. I will explain it to him in person." Indeed, Chow will "fight valiantly with force" against that whiner.
- Unless, of course, that complainant is a 6'10" 320-pound American football player in which case Chow will just shut the fuck up.

- Chow said that he pose in that manner at the request of his friend. If his friend told him to pull his pants down, would he? Probably not, because even Chow knows that it is wrong. In this case, Chow doesn't know that performing the Nazi salute is wrong, especially when it is totally unnecessary.
- The focus so far has been on Chow. He is fair game because he is the president of the CUHK Students Union and therefore a public figure/official. But what about his friend who made Chow pose that way? Chow said that he did not mean offense, but who was his friend trying to intimidate/insult/mock?
- Chow said that the pose can mean many things, such as Superman getting ready to fly. But he simply won't say what he or his friend meant at that particular moment.

- One of the consequences of the 'opening' of Eastern Europe (including Poland, Ukraine, etc) is the emergence of pro-Nazi skinhead movements. As Hong Kong 'opens' up, we should expect to see our own indigenous pro-Nazi racist movements, in the manner of White Aryan Resistance, Blood and Honour, and Hammerskins.

- On the Hong Kong Internet, there is a saying that there is truth when there is a photo. Here is a photo of Adolf Hitler demonstrating the proper Nazi salute by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Then there is a photo of tens of thousands of Germans making the Nazi salute. Finally there is a photo of Superman extending his right arm in the air with a close fist. Conclusion: Chow Shue-fung does not read his comics very closely.

- On July 18 2015, The Sun published an image of the Elizabeth II (then a young girl) and the Queen Mother performing the Nazi salute.

If the Hong Kong localists believe that the path to independence is by returning Hong Kong sovereignty from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom and the Queen of England can perform the Nazi salute, then so too can localist Chow Shue-fung.

- If the Journalists Association threw a fit when TVB said that they will refuse to take any more Next Media interviews, what will they do when the CUHK Student Union refuses to take any more HK01 interviews/inquiries?

More at Occupy Central Part 5

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+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com