Section 1 of 3:  Recommended Photos/Videos/Reading

Global (in English) Greater China (in English) Greater China (in Chinese)
Why the new Vatican leaks scandal is diffeent Alexander Stille, The New Yorker
Mexico: The War on Journalists
Alma Guillermoprieto, NYROB
Hispanic, Latino, or neither? Why people can't agree on these labels Vox
Owen Jones talks to Calais migrants: "They forget we are human" New Statesman
Who Profits From the Bangkok Bombing? Pepe Escobar, CounterPunch
Spectacular photos of China Daily Mail
The Umbrella Movement, one year later The Big Picture
China Rising: Parsing the Big Parade
Peter Lee, CounterPunch
Explosions shock China's Tianjin port The Big Picture, Boston Globe
When One App Rules Them All: The Case of WeChat and Mobile in China Connie Chan

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

Section 2 of 3:  Brief comments

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

Previously, there were Leaks, Leaks and More Leaks.

(PTT-Gossiping) Hong Kong University council meeting, September 29, 2015.

Audio file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MeFixiJhdyUGpoRlZoRnNtUFU/view
Transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MeFixiJhdyMEQzRGtEbjllbkE/view?usp=sh

KK Wong: Thank you chairman. I think Professor Kwok has a point but I think academic freedom I think here is the Council meeting on this particular issue is not the main point of concern because we are talking about is the recruitment of human resources matter. Whether or not we are appointing a person does not relate to academic freedom. I think we all respect academic freedom very well. And as our President said in the opening and remarks, right now we are really in a dilemma: approve it, disapprove it or delay it. Every single option will have a down side. I think we have to make a choice.

After reading the papers which is the first time I have ever heard of this paper, then I officially looked at the name of the candidate although I have heard about the name in the press for a long time. I do feel that we have to be very cautious in this appointment because, as some of our colleagues mentioned earlier, we have to really unite--I am talking about HKU only, not Hong Kong. We have to unite, trying to develop a strategy under the instruction of President to really foster and assure academic freedom, academic excellence and also smooth human relation. I think we have been divided too much. We need somebody to really hold us together, our chairman, our President and all our senior management team. So, on balance, without referring to particular issues, I really think that therere controversies surrounding the candidate. So maybe it needs more cautious step to appoint a person in this post as soon as possible, but I will not support the nomination at this point.

Martin Liao: I have made some enquiries amongst the senior academics both in this University and other universitiesit is more or less the same thing. I did look into the publications for the past five years myself, and also nothing as detailed and as comprehensive as Edwards research. Perhaps just to supplement on what Edward said, I have looked into the past five years, and I was looking for citations of academic work that from the candidate, and there was none, except there was googled four times, googled research I mean it was google searched it was google searched four times, and there was no citation. Thank you.

CM Lo: My position in the Council is somewhat similar to KY. We are both academic staff elected by staff members. I fully understand that we are here at our full capacity. I am not representing the staff but I do have the perspective from the staff members. So in terms of the academic qualifications, I can make some comments and in terms of how I see him as the potential candidate for PVC staffing, remember this is related to academic staffing and resources. So thats why I feel that I can give my opinion and thoughts about the appointment.

Firstly it is on academic achievement. Secondly, as a staff, whether I see him as a suitable person to take care of staffing and resources because there have very important implications for us, for the staff. I am a new member of the
council and I was elected in May, so I have been in the Council this is the forth one. When I decided to accept the nomination, I really dont have this item on my agenda, I am a bit regret now as if you look at the attack against Johannes Chan, I would say that my suffer in the last couple of months is a result in the participation in this Council, is perhaps even more than one. He has the right to complain about. I dont know what I should do. I was fulfilling my duty as a University staff elected representative to take part in this council meeting and every time I remind myself this is my duty to do this for the best interest of the University.

But when I fell, all these people, I am not saying only the students, I know there are people outside the University, there is no doubt that the student lead the crowd in and I have this meeting. I have been teased in so many articles, so many pictures to say that I am an actor, that I took a dive, alright. I really feel very bad, I didnt complain eventually and even when I was in the hospital and I talked to the media with my occupation in charge that I will kindly accept, I won't hold the students accountable. Thats my true believe because I feel very sad if those people in the room and outside were our students, I really feel ashamed. We have not do our duty well.

I always remind myself that what I read in the newspaper cannot be taken as the truth and I always say and tell other people that I dont know the candidate, until I saw it on the table in this meeting. I was asked, before this meeting, in the last honorary fellowship conference. All these media come to me asking, would you accept this JC be received as the next PVC and I said come on, how can you ask me to make a conclusion before I actually conducted a study as an academic, we should not make conclusion before we looked at the facts. The facts are here and the facts are also from all the discussions we had. I really appreciated all the members and I truly believe everyone here is an independent trustee of the University, hoping for the best interest of the University. I appreciate all the thoughts and I now saying what I think base on all these facts, what is my opinion.

Now, first of all I have to declare my conflict of interest, I know JC. He was in the same hostel with me in St. Johns College so we live next to another floor. We know each other and in some of the previous University activities he has expressed support for me and for my department. So I really appreciate his support for me and in fact when I heard about his nomination in the media, that he is the candidate... and in the personal point of view that he is a good guy as many of the members have said. He is a good man. He has been working for the University for so long. This is the first impression for me that I should support him.

After looking at this and especially after the incident in July, I have some reservation. It is about his qualification. Professor Chan has a very detailed analysis on the publication. You can look at it, for the last 15 years, he has produced less than 5 items output including factor and article, less than 5 a year and in some years for example, in 2008, he has produced only 1 item, 2011, 1 item only. I know the number, quantity, is not the absolute measure, you have to see the quality as well.

If I have an assistant professor with this kind of output, I will be very concerned about, I would really say, hey, how can you reach the bar of the notion with in the university, very strict criteria 4 + 4 for practical, 3 + 3 for non-practical, for promotion either up or out from an assistant professor to an associate professor. And if my assistant professor give me a CV which is 1 output per year, I would say, you are in trouble. In 6 years or in 8 years time, how many publications did you have in your CV, you cant reach that bar. I agree with KY that the University, the USBC, he is not a case to promotion and I doubt whether the same applies to the  Law faculty. I believe it should, you still have to same sort of criteria.

Professor Chan is actually the best person here as an academic. So I would like to start a question whether he has the academic qualifications to take up this position especially he will be looking at staffing, looking at promotion and if you are not a Phd yourself how can you supervise people. The same as if you are not academically of certain standing. How can you say, hey, you are not well presented. The candidate would really say, look at your CV, your CV is not as good as mine. How can you turn down an application, if you dont have the kind of quality?

So this is my feeling when I saw this CV and reminded me of quality and whether he is qualified as a PVC. Perhaps the VC may not be aware of this but certainly I think after this point was mentioned, I hope as the search committee chairman, you would consider whether, you know, you said just now you were not aware of this and you take it for granted since he has been promoted to a professor and since he is appointed as a dean, he must qualify. I dont feel that should be some trivial correlation

PM: there were 4 academic members on the search committee. I was qualified to make academic judgments. I have a lot of experience of making these judgments. There were 3 other academic members of the committee. So there were 4 ppl, 3 of them are not here to represent their views, so my job as a chairman is to represent their views. Academic credentials were considered, and were considered suitable. Council members may disagree. But I am not going to go back from the judgement made by the search committee.

As to a comment to the number of papers he published, I think its utterly irrelevant. Theres no job description that says you could have published certain number of papers or youre not qualified for this role. The number of papers published that not enough quality and you cant transfer from medicine into law because the publication requirement is different. So frankly the number of paper he published in the last 15 years ()

CM Lo: Well thats the qualification part my feeling about reading his CV...the second part is related to whether he's suitable for this position, because he's going to take care of academic staffing. And my expectation for such person has to be very impartial. I wouldn't have problem with political approval, alright? You can apply to yourpolitical meeting or whatever. I do have many staffs who take part in occupy central. They are so yellow, and I've expressed my position and my opinion that I did not support occupy central. I don't have a problem in the hospital. Because they work in hospital, political opinion does not affect their clinical service, and never change their duty just because they support occupy central. That should not affect your work in the university and the hospital.

But on that event, on that night that we have been in the storm of council meeting and subsequently my injury. And after the event, I really didn't see him showing any sympathy for the council members, and particular I...myself. I am a staff elected by the all the other staff to take part, and I sustained and injured. From all the opinion that he has expressed, actually he's still putting the blame on the council, he has never, I'm not saying I need his sympathy. But as a staff, I really feel if you are PVC (staffing) and if a staff member had an injury during an event like this, should you just keep on saying it's the council's fault. That means it's my fault as well? So in a way he's telling the public, he's speaking out in public, including his Letter to Hong Kong, that the fault remains in the council...in a wayfor the suffering I encountered. That is my concern, and as I said before, I came to this meeting when I know hes a potential candidate. I am very supportive initially, but with this and now looking his CV and what happened and his way of handling it... I really need to think twice before considering him as a suitable person for this position, and I wonder, I know the recommendation by the search committee was actually made a while ago, was actually written in July... With that kind of incidents and the way that this candidate has expressed his opinion in public, would the search committee still consider that kind of person is suitable to handle academic staffing and resource? Because as a staff, I am seriously concerned, even though I know I am here not representing the staff.

CH: The recommendation of search committee was made in July (...) sorry in May. So anything after that was not included.

CM Lo: If that is the case. Can I ask the chairman of the search committee, would you take into account of what happened afterwards, that this candidate has done this (VC: done what?), openly breached the confidentiality calling himself a candidate, and then was complaining that the council has not doing the right thing? and despite the fact that there are council members including the staff member who suffer injury during that event, he has expressed no concern whatsoever, to the safety of the council and staff members.

And in contrast, he put the blame on the council members and including me as a staff member. I am really terrified that someone with this kind of... I don't want to extrapolate but I felt the threat is someone ... i would say he's putting his political intonation into the university. Because at a ... political opinion he may think that I am here to represent CY. I can tell you I am not a Leung fan. I came in with support of the staff members. I've never talked to CY. CY has never talked to me about this. But it seems that everybody there including Johannes Chan has labelled..Whatever I suffer, I deserve it.

PM: So my comment on that is I think youve taken things very personally, and I think we should keep things to factual discussion, and the purpose of the candidate. Theres no requirement in the job description for the candidate to express sympathy otherwise on anybody who is injured. I think you are putting post-event facts into this particular context, so the I cant speak for the Search Committee, Search Committee hasnt met since 27 May, I can only speak as a Council Member, the events that happened since the Search Committees paper was written on 27 May, there have been many things written and said, a lot of opinions, I prefer to stick to the facts. And the facts that the Committee has to consider were the qualification and suitability for the post. Ive already said at the start of the meeting that its my view that whilst none of the outcomes are attractive, to my mind, there will be less damage done for the University by the acceptance of the nomination ...

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2015.

Christopher Chung Shu-kun had been councilor for the Yue Wan district, Eastern Hong Kong since 1991. Today, he was defeated by the independent first-time candidate Chui Chi-kin who entered the election on the last day. Yesterday, Chung admitted to us that he had been too complacent and ignored the newly registered voters who were motivated by Occupy Central. Since Occupy Central, the number of registered voters in Yue Wan district increased from 6,000+ to 8337. On election day, there were almost 1,000 more voters compared to 2011.

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

Pro-Beijing veteran Christopher Chung Shu-kun spent more than two decades representing Eastern District Council, but it seems to have been too big a challenge for him to serve the district and the Legislative Council at the same time.

Chung, from the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, was defeated on Sunday by Chui Chi-kin - a relatively unknown candidate and so-called "umbrella soldier".

Chui chose to run only on the last day of the nomination period, with the news shocking several DAB lawmakers, including party chairwoman Starry Lee Wai-king.

Chung was first elected as a district councillor in 1991. He became vice-chairman in 2003, and took the helm at the council for about a year before stepping down when he was finally elected to the Legislative Council in 2012 - securing 33,901 votes in his Hong Kong Island constituency after failing in all four previous polls from 1998 to 2008.

He was often ridiculed for his mistakes in English, such as misspelling "legislative". In May last year, his English skills came under the spotlight again as he questioned then-MTR chief executive Jay Walder about delayed high-speed rail link to Guangzhou.

"You are being a CEO. You are very 'wearly' [sic] passive to get the information from your staff You are dreaming on your office or you are not attended at your office. Answer me!" he said.

Despite a flood of criticism, Chung, who earned a master's degree in Britain, was unrepentant. "Who can claim themselves speaking perfect English?" he said.

Before Sunday's election, Chung was again ridiculed after his election pamphlets misspelled his name "Chirs"; he blamed the printing firm.

Chung attributed his shock loss to first-time voters. " It was because of the political climate."

Lee said the poll showed "councillors have to do their job well and get results, otherwise the incumbents and veterans won't be supported."

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2015.

After Chris Chung's defeat, a Facebook was created under the name: "Committee of all the people of Hong Kong enthusiastically celebrating Treegun losing the election." People said that Chung has been uprooted by the root. In discussing his defeat, Chung mentioned that the Internet smears and jokes against him were another factor.

Internet users also challenged Chung's academic credentials. Chung said that his two England masters degree came from accredited institutions so that there is no question of buying diplomas. However, the candidates cannot use their Facebook during the campaign period, so he couldn't take part in any Facebook debate.

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

A newly-defeated pro-Beijing veteran district councillor has told his critics that he will be back and seek to regain his seat in the Eastern District Council in 2019.

Christopher Chung Shu-kan, from the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, was defeated by the relatively unknown independent pan-democrat Chui Chi-kin in Yue Wan constituency on Sunday, where he served for 24 years since 1991. Chui was regarded as an Umbrella soldier a candidate inspired by the 79-day Occupy protests last year.

The outspoken pro-Beijing veterans defeat shocked his party colleagues, but about 100 supporters of his rival threw a party outside Chungs district office in Yue Wan Estate in Chai Wan last night to rub salt into his wound. They sang festive songs and opened a bottle of champagne.

When asked about the party on a DBC radio programme this morning, Chung said: I thank them for the encouragement. I will stand up from where I fell and Ill be back I will continue to serve my constituents because I represent Hong Kong Island in the Legislative Council.

But political commentators raised questions after Chungs defeat, suggesting the pro-Beijing camp could ask him to give up his seat in the Legco poll next September and let someone else have a go.

Chung admitted he feel pressured to keep his seat: My partys chairwoman (Starry Lee Wai-king) was right: those who lost have to improve their work I will seek [the partys] endorsement of my bid for re-election, so I will improve, get prepared and show that I am more popular than other potential candidates.

Chung also reiterated that his defeat was partly because young voters had come out to cast political votes, rather than performance votes based on what he did in the last two decades. Chui only decided to run at the end of the nomination period last month.

However, he appeared to have little idea yet on how to win over young voters. We will work on them But I will try to secure my votes first because peoples work is long term, and its not just something you can do, its related to their development and school education.

While Chungs DAB colleagues had been relatively defensive the councillors defeat, some of his pro-establishment allies appeared more critical. Speaking separately on DBC, independent pro-establishment lawmaker Paul Tse Wai-chung launched a veiled attack on Chung, and said some district councillors public image could have cost them their seats.

If many things you did just made you out to be a laughingstock, moderate voters might have negative feelings about you, the newly-elected Wan Chai district councillor said. Before Sundays election, Chung was ridiculed after his election pamphlets misspelled his name Chirs, an error for which he blamed the printing firm.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 23, 2014.

Internet users converge to Chung's office to celebrate and wave the British Dragon-Lion drag of Hong Kong independence

Celebrants harass a female worker in Chung's office.

In the evening, about 150 Internet users responded to the call on the special Facebook to gather outside Chris Chung's office to celebrate. They played music on the broadcast system that they brought along, they set off cherry bombs, they waved the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, they set up an altar with Chung's photo and and burned joss sticks.

Before the main event, four to five likely celebrants showed up outside Chung's office to take photos. A man who claimed to be resident approached them and asked them whether they have taken enough photos. There was a quarrel. A female worker from Chung's office came out to film the incident with her mobile phone. The four to five men turned their attention to the female worker and cursed her out. After five minutes or so, the men left.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 24, 2015.

Dozens of local residents and activists gathered outside outgoing district councillor Chris Chung Shu-kuns office on Monday night to celebrate his defeat in the latest district election. Champagne bottles were opened, party poppers were set off and people sang a classic joyful Cantonese tune by pop singer Paula Tsui.

Residents were happy to see Chung, who had been representing Yuen Wan in Eastern District for more than two decades, ousted in Sundays election. I have never seen him walk by in the past ten years, a man at the rally told Apple Daily, he only appears during elections.

Police were called to the scene but no one was arrested.

(Oriental Daily with video)) November 24, 2015.

Tonight about 100 people showed up at Elizabeth Quat's office in Ma On Shan to celebrate her defeat in the district council election. They brought champagne and peanuts, and they sang Paula Tsui's song. At around 8pm, someone through an egg from above and hit celebrant Mr. Leung in the chest. Fortunately, Mr. Leung was not injured.


(Oriental Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30imebiMl5A

(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIO62mci0Bo

(TMHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rihHye2NJZ0

(Committee of all the people of Hong Kong enthusiastically celebrating Treegun losing the election) https://www.facebook.com/treegunloseyeahyeahyeah/videos/882727478481817/

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsFdgeh714 At Christopher Chung's office

(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ1dIvD5Ack At Elizabeth Quat's office.

Internet comments:

- Two can play in this game.

Celebration party for the total annihilation of People Power/League of Social Democrats/Civic Passion
December 5
Su Yat Sen Memorial Park, Western Hong Kong

- Chris Chung was frequently made fun of for misspelling English words, such as his own name as Chirs. Here is Yao Wai-ching, the Youngspiration candidate who used to Leung Mei-fun. She said: "Hongkongers let's win this toghether."

Meanwhile, Kwong Po-yin who was the sole Youngspiration candidate to win said that she will maintain a street booth and an Internet presence in order to actively reach out to residents. Of course, she will have a district councilor's office. By the way, she is a doctor at a public hospital. It will be interesting to see how she finds time to do everything.
- (SCMP) Another member, Yau Wai-ching, who lost her race to lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun by just 300 votes, said she did not highlight her participation in the 79-day Occupy protests during the election campaign as she did not want to be labelled an Umbrella soldier. I did not join the race simply because of the Umbrella movement ... but because of unresolved deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong, she said. Voters care more about your manifesto.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 23, 2015.

The pan-democrats have won 112 seats, eight of which went to umbrella soldiers, while the pro-establishment camp has taken 298 in the District Council elections on Sunday. Candidates who were independent of political groups and parties won 13 seats.

The pan-democrats performed the best in the Sha Tin district, where the traditional pro-democracy parties won 17 seats, the umbrella soldiers took two, and the pro-Beijing parties swept up the rest. This means that the pan-democrats have won 50% of the seats in the district, Apple Daily reported. However, because there is one ex officio seat reserved for the rural committee in Sha Tin, the pan-democrats are still one seat short of having a majority on the Council. Umbrella soldiers refers to young candidates representing parties who emerged from the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.

There was a close call in Sham Shui Po, where the pan-democrats won 11 seats and the pro-Beijing parties won 12. In the Lai Kok constituency, Frederick Fung Kin-kee of the Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood (ADPL) lost by 99 votes to Chan Wing-yan of the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. Eric Wong Chung-ki, who was formerly an ADPL member and ran independently this election, only took 215 votes.

Many regarded Wong to have taken the votes from Fung, as he divided the support of the pan-democrat voters by running against Fung. As Wong was leaving the polling station, voters shouted at him saying Youre a bad person, youve ruined everything, Stand News reported. Fung had previously been a District Councillor for 12 years.

In the Kwai Tsing District, where the pro-democracy parties had high hopes, pro-Beijing parties won 19 out of 29 of the seats, while the Democratic Party lost four of their seats. Five gave the pro-Beijing district councillors a run for their seats but were unsuccessful. Andrew Wan Siu-kin, Vice Chairman of the Democratic Party, lost his seat in the Shek Yam constituency to The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB)s Li Sai-lung by a mere 54 votes. Lam lap-chi, Sammy Tsui Sang-hung and Leung Kwok-wah of the Democratic Party all lost their seats to pro-Beijing candidates.

The closest call was in the Wah Fu South constituency, where the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Island Federations Au Lap-sing won Democratic Partys Li Shee-lin by just three votes. The influence of the pro-Beijing parties was is most prominent in the Wan Chai District, in which they won 84.6% of the seats.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 23, 2015.

Pro-democracy parties who exposed the lead in water scandal have won only one seat in the five constituencies where the major affected public housing estates are situated. The contamination issue was first brought to light by the Democratic Party in July, after which 11 public housing estates and various schools across Hong Kong were found with excessive lead content in their water supplies. The pro-democracy Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood (ADPL) also uncovered evidence of contamination. Most of the affected public estates were built after 2010, meaning the population in the areas could have seen certain degree of change after the last District Council election in 2011.

The Democratic Partys Ng Kim-sing beat Leung Kar-ming of the pro-Beijing DAB party in the Hing Fong constituency, Kwai Tsing district by 2,701 votes to 2,029. Kwai Luen Estate, one of the estates affected by the scandal, is in the constituency.

However, the pro-Beijing camp won four other constituencies where affected estates are located:

(SCMP) Hong Kong's Occupy movement less than meets the eye. By Alex Lo. November 24, 2015.

As the old phrase goes, it's probably better to have them inside the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in.

That's why it was a good thing there were dozens of so-called umbrella soldiers running in the district council elections. Unfortunately, despite the propagandising by pan-democratic media like Apple Daily, the young lads didn't have such a great victory. Of the 50 or so troops who contested, only seven won. With a 14 per cent success rate, it's hardly impressive.

I would have preferred to see more wins, so that more of our young activists could start their political education by working within the system, compromising with established pan-democratic parties and articulating their agendas better than just shouting slogans and occupying streets.

As it was, most refused to coordinate strategies with older candidates and so probably cannibalised a fair amount of votes within the pan-democratic camp. If the umbrella fighters want to have a shot at the Legislative Council election next year, they will have to recalibrate and think like politicians rather than just activists against a campaign machine like the far better financed Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. A pro-Beijing party and the largest one in Hong Kong, DAB won 117 seats, down from 136 in the last 2011 elections.

Still, a few did score some interesting wins for the umbrella camp. Established DAB lawmaker Christopher Chung Shu-kun lost to the relatively unknown umbrella soldier Chui Chi-kin, who only ran on the last day of the nomination period. Chui's win probably says more about the unimpressive performance of Chung in the legislature than anything else.

Meanwhile, Kwong Po-yin, of the newly formed group Youngspiration, defeated Kowloon City council chairman Lau Wai-wing in another shock victory for the umbrella movement.

The League of Social Democrats and People Power, two parties usually described as radical and whose lawmakers have perfected disruptions and filibustering in Legco, did not win a single seat.

Despite the sound and fury of last year, the Occupy movement has once again proved to be less than meets the eye.

(SCMP) November 25, 2015.

eterans from both the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps might have won more votes from their constituents than in the last election but they still lost in Sundays district council elections. This was due mostly to the effects of mobilisation on the ground and at times the opposite phenomenon.

An analyst said the fall of pro-democracy old hands was to do with targeted mobilisation by the rival camp. But this meant diverting resources from other areas held by pro-Beijing veterans. The diversion coupled with over-confident members in that camp meant smaller vote shares, which sometimes led to defeat for candidates.

Pro-establishment parties received 529,000 votes for 191 seats, while the pan-democratic camp, including Occupy protesters-turned-candidates, won 476,000 votes and 94 seats. Apart from pan-democratic heavyweights Albert Ho Chun-yan and Frederick Fung Kin-kee, many other veterans also lost.

Initial checks by the South China Morning Post showed that they did not lose because their voter base disappeared. Indeed, in some cases they collected more votes than in the previous elections in 2011. The fact was that their rivals outperformed them, reeling in more votes from the enlarged pool of electors.

Take Josephine Chan Shu-ying  of the Democratic Party, who has been a Tuen Mun district councillor since 1994. She bagged 2,267 votes 156 more than she got four years ago. Still, she was ousted by 25-year-old Mo Shing-fun of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, who snapped up even more votes than she received in the 2011 polls an additional 1,090. Their battle ground Siu Hong recorded a voter turnout of 58 per cent, far higher than the city-wide average of 47 per cent.

The DAB started its strategic planning four years ago, said Chan as she blamed her defeat on DAB mobilisation. They set up many organisations to network with owners corporations in private housing blocks, collecting their data to keep regular contact, giving away gifts and organising meals and trips for them. She noted that there were 800 newly registered voters in the constituency this year. Given that she had kept her supporters, many of the new voters, whom she claimed to be new arrivals from the mainland, could have become DAB targets, she said. But Mo dismissed the suggestion, saying he had not been dealing with many new immigrants: What I have done is deal with residents requests for help case by case.  Chan added that her party vice-chairman, Andrew Wan Siu-kin,  faced a similar fate in Kwai Tsing district, managing to keep his votes but still being defeated by a DAB member.

DAB veterans also shared Chans frustrations. Chan Wan-sang,  a Tuen Mun district councillor for 24 years, obtained1,616 votes this time, only 169 fewer than he did in 2011. But his rival, Tam Chun-yin, a first-timer from the Labour Party, won 1,731 votes. Tams margin of victory was far bigger than his predecessors in 2011. Chan alleged that Tam won by giving away boxes of mooncakes to residents while he could give residents only a single cake each. Tam rejected the accusation, saying he worked  by offering much-needed services. Tams party runs two social enterprises in the neighbourhood, collecting second-hand toys and books from the richer private housing estates for distribution to the needy in public housing.  Not all these activities are very popular, but they gave me opportunities to reach out to many residents, Tam said.

 Ma Ngok, a political scientist at Chinese University, said the fall of veterans in the pro-Beijing camp showed that the camp does not have unlimited resources after all.  You see their resources are targeted at the pan-democrats veterans who are strong enough to contest the Legislative Council or who will take over the party leadership, he said. 


Summary of the 22 November 2015 District Councils of Hong Kong election results
Political Affiliation Popular vote % % +/− Standing Elected +/−
Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong 309,262 21.39 2.50 171 119 0
  Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 88,292 6.11 +3.01 48 27 2
New People's Party 75,793 5.24 +0.94 42 25 2
  Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong 27,452 1.90 - 16 10 4
Liberal Party 25,157 1.74 0.24 20 9 1
  Kowloon West New Dynamic 11,647 0.81 - 5 3 1
  Federation of Public Housing Estates 3,457 0.24 - 1 1 +1
  Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions 3,168 0.22 +0.06 2 1 0
  New Territories Association of Societies 2,356 0.16 0.03 2 2 0
  New Century Forum 1,717 0.12 - 1 0 1
Pro-Beijing Independents 239,609 16.68 - 177 100  
Total for pro-Beijing camp 783,176 54.18 1.24 482 295 5
  Democratic Party 196,068 13.56 3.86 95 43 +1
Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood 55,275 3.82 0.03 26 18 +2
Civic Party 52,346 3.62 0.41 25 10 +3
  Neo Democrats 42,148 2.92 +0.77 16 15 +8
Labour Party 23,029 1.59 - 12 3 +2
Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre 16,105 1.11 0.11 6 5 0
League of Social Democrats 6,526 0.45 1.40 5 0 0
Power for Democracy 3,938 0.27 0.05 1 1 0
Sha Tin Community Network 3,718 0.26 - 2 1 +1
Individuals 52,612 3.64 - 38 9  
Total for Democratic Coalition for DC Election 451,765 31.25 0.04 226 104 +20
Youngspiration 12,520 0.87 - 9 1 +1
People Power 11,503 0.80 1.19 9 0 0
Democratic Alliance 5,313 0.37 - 4 1 0
Tuen Mun Community 5,196 0.36 - 4 0 0
Civic Passion 3,006 0.21 - 6 0 0
East Kowloon Community 3,922 0.27 - 3 1 +1
Third Side 2,011 0.14 - 3 0 0
Tsz Wan Shan Constructive Power 3,633 0.25 - 2 0 0
The Frontier 2,974 0.21 - 1 1 0
North of the Rings 1,710 0.12 - 1 0 0
Land Justice League 1,482 0.10 0.16 1 0 0
Tsuen Wan Dynamic for the People 1,500 0.10 - 1 0 0
Independent democrats and others 73,500 5.08 - 64 15 -
Total for pro-democracy camp 578,802 40.04 +0.70 333 124 +23
Independent and others 78,814 5.45 +0.21 117 9 0
Total vaild votes 1,445,526 100.0 - 935 431 +19
Invaild votes 21,730  
Total (turnout 47.01%) 1,467,229

Distribution of district votes by pro-establishment (red)/pan-democrats (orange)/independents (grey).

Distribution of district votes by pan-democrats/independents/pro-establishment with number of voters and turnout rate.


Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Frederick Fung (ADPL) was defeated by 25-year-old Chan Wing-yan (FTU) by a margin of 99 votes. Fung received 2432 votes while Chan received 2531 votes. Meanwhile the third candidate Wong Chung-ki took 215 votes. Fung said Wong took 215 votes away from him, which would have been his margin of victory. In 2011, Fung received 2528 votes. So his votes were not iron-clad.

Albert Ho (Democratic Party) lost by more than 200 votes to Junius Ho. Afterwards, Ho said that he won't blame Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) for stealing his votes. The fact is that Junius Ho got 2031 votes, Albert Ho got 1736 votes, Cheng Chung-tai got 391 votes, Yuan Wai-chung got 99 votes, Shum Kam-tim got 94 votes. This year, Shum Kam-tim entered the election with the support of Lau Wong-fat and therefore he can be considered pro-establishment. In 2011, Shum Kam-tim got 1477 votes. But this year nearly all of those votes went to Junius Ho. If Shum wasn't in the field, those 94 votes would have gone mostly to Junius Ho as well. In 2011, Albert Ho got 1876 votes while League of Social Democrats' Chan Wai-yip votes. So Albert Ho lost votes while Chan Wai-yip's radical voters went to Cheng Chung-tai. Even if Cheung Chung-tai was not in the field, Ho may not be able to attract those voters. So Ho is better off not trying to blame Cheng for his woes.

- (Apple Daily) Among the 431 district council seats, the pro-establishment camp won 298 (69%). The pan-democrats won 112 (26%). The umbrellas soldiers won 8 seats (2%). Independents won 13 seats (3%). Compared to 2011, the pro-establishment camp lost 3 seats while the pan-democrats gained 21 seats. In terms of votes, the pro-establishment camp won 780,000 votes this time compared to 670,000 last time. The pan-democrats went to 470,000 from 440,000. The umbrella soldiers got around 70,000.

- This means the ratio of pro-establishment versus pan-democrats is 780000 to 470000 (64% to 36%).
- No, the ratio of pro-establishment versus pan-democrats is 780000 to 540000 (59% to 41%), because you have to add the umbrella soldiers.
- That's hilarious. When the umbrella soldiers first appear, you condemn them for stealing your votes and exclude them from your power circle. But now you are counting as being in your camp?

- The total number of votes is 1,460,000. The pro-establishment camp has a 53% share, the pan-democrats a 32% share and the umbrella soldiers a 5% share.
The total number of votes in 2011 was 1,200,000. The pro-establishment camp had a 56% share and the pan-democrats a 37%.

- When you look at the share of votes, you are ignoring the fact that 66 pro-establishment candidates were automatic winner in the absence of other candidates. No elections were held in those 66 districts. Given that no one bothered to challenge these councilors, wouldn't it be fair to assume that they would have won big?

- The pro-establishment camp has majority control of all 18 district councils just as before.

- The Democratic Party said that they are happy with gaining one seat from 42 to 43. Well, in 2011, they actually won 47 seats. But some of those elected district council eventually resigned or were expelled from the party, and that is how they ended up with only 42 seats at the time of this election. It is not a proud record to purge 10% of your party roll.

- (Oriental Daily) According to election regulations, all candidates must make a deposit of $3,000 at the time of application in order as a sign of good faith to run in the election. After the election, if the candidate gets less than 5% of the votes in that district, that $3,000 will be forwarded to the tax coffers. If the candidates gets 5% or more, the money is refunded. In these elections, 54 out of 935 candidates had their $3,000 confiscated, resulting a total of $162,000 for the tax coffers. Many of the 54 are so-called "fake umbrella soldiers" all of whom got fewer than 100 votes. For example, in the Lok Tsui district with six candidates, three lost their $3,000 deposit. The lowest number of votes received by a candidate is 16 in the Kai Tak North district, Kowloon City.

- According to the Wikipedia table above,
Pro-Beijing camp: 54.18% share of voters; 295 seats out of 482 candidates
Pro-democracy camp: 40.04% share of voters; 125 seats out of 333 candidates
Independents: 5.45% share of voters; 9 seats out of 117 candidates
The rule-of-thumb is that the pro-democracy camp has a 60/40 (or 55/45) advantage in the legislative council elections. But that is not so in the district council elections.

More importantly from the Wikipedia table, here is how the radical political parties fared:
People Power: 0.80% share of voters; 0 seats out of 9 candidates
League of Social Democrats: 0.45% share of voters; 0 seats out of 5 candidates
Civic Passion: 0.21% share of voters; 0 seats out of 6 candidates
And these are the people who also say that they represent the people of Hong Kong.

- The problem with Cheng Chung-tai's campaign is that he is disconnected from the people. Running for a district council seat, his slogan is "Down with the Communists!" There is nothing about the job of a district councilor that is connected to overthrowing the Communist regime. If that is what he really wants to do, he should bring his followers and march north to Shenzhen.

- In Cheng Chung-tai's worldview, the people of Hong Kong are divided into three categories:
(1) several hundred valiant resisters led by Civic Passion
(2) several tens of thousands of local communists obeying orders from Beijing
(3) several million Hong Kong pigs who have to led to the troughs to be fed.
When this election comes, Cheng finds having to beg the Hong Kong pigs to vote for him. Should be it a big surprise that the pigs won't vote for someone who calls them pigs?

- (Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/428730733990976/ Li Ting-fung (ADPL) ran and lost in the Kai Tak North district, Kowloon City. But here is an interesting post-race video.

0:01 (Tatooed man) My daughter is only 15 years old. You let her work until 3am. What a joke! If you don't have people, you say so. I can get you one hundred plus people.
0:10 (Voice over) Candidate #4 in Kai Tak North, Li Ting-fung (ADPL) lost his election. He is being accused of getting a 15-year-old girl to work as a volunteer. The girl even spent the night in Li's home. For three nights in a row, she had no contact with her family. On election night, this tatooed man came down to the voting station to look for his daughter. He suspects that Li and his daughter has an amorous relationship.
0:32 (Tatooed man) That is, you believe that if you need her to help out, you don't need to obtain parental consent?
0:38 (Li) She consented herself.
0:39 (Tatooed man) Huh? Fifteen is past the age of consent?
0:42 (Li) That is what she said.
0:44 (Tatooed man) If that is the case, we wouldn't be calling age 18 as adulthood. The courts wouldn't require us to supervise her until she is 18.
0:51 (Li) Being a volunteers has nothing to do with age.
0:53 (Tatooed man) Volunteer? I fear that she might be lured to become a volunteer. She was lured so that she didn't come home.
1:01 (Voice over) So the man stood at the voting station to wait for Li Ting-fung. It is alleged that Li Ting-fung was aware that this man is the father of the young girl, so he did not step outside. But the vote counting has to finish eventually. When he came out, the father confronted Li.
1:05 (Female) Cool down first!
1:07 (Tatooed man) I was speaking very politely to you before. It is you who are saying things that human beings should not be saying. She came out and that's her personal business. What kind of talk is this?
1:23 (Female) He replied inappropriately. He is tired.
1:28 (Tatooed man) How many hours have I sat here? Right or wrong?

- (Apple Daily) Frederick Fung said that his opponent Chan Wing-yan has a strategy of handing out. Based upon his own obsevations, Chan received four to five times more in campaign resources. Every day she gave away lunch boxes to senior citizens, even threatening no lunch boxes if they vote for Fung. At the same time, mainland village mayors have detailed lists of Hong Kong voters to call directly. In addition, Fung said that he would have won without the presence of the third candidate Wong Chung-ki.

- Well, who is going to know whom the senior citizens voted for? In Taiwan, voters have been educated to take bribes from all sides and then vote according to the conscience.

- Mainland village mayors have lists of relatives to call? This makes no sense statistically. (Facts and Details) China has about 1 million villages each with an average of 916 people. One of them is the mayor. So the probability of having a mayor as a relative in China is not that high. About 5,000 people voted in Lai Kok district. How many of those have a mainland village mayor as a relative?

(Hong Kong Free Press)

Should I answer exit polls?

It is up to voters whether or not they answer questions from exit poll staffers.

Usually, pro-democracy groups are unlikely to do large scale exit polls due to limited resources. The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong will be conducting exit polls as it has done for other elections.

The Hong Kong Research Association, the Association of Community in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Society Monitor are the three other main groups conducting exit polls. These are commonly considered to be affiliated with the pro-Beijing camp. Of the 363 constituencies where elections are being held, these three groups will conduct exit polls in 282 of them, reports Apple Daily. In the past, the groups have been accused of sending exit poll data to candidates to help them win the elections.

However, organisations conducting exit polls should not release the results to any candidate or any person or organisation which has publicly expressed support for any candidate, or any organisation with a member or members contesting in any constituency covered by the exit poll. They should not make specific remarks or predictions on the performance of any individual candidate before the close of the poll, as this may affect electors voting intentions and have an impact on election results.

Hong Kong Research Association, as of 10:45pm, November 22, 2015.
Code Constituency Name Exit Poll Estimate% Ac tual # Actual % Political affiliation
B09 Broadwood SIU See-kong 17.5% 141 5.8% *Independent
B09 Broadwood MAK Kwok-fung Michael 39.6% 939 38.6% League of Social Democrats
B09 Broadwood TSE Wai-chun Paul 42.9% 1,350 55.6% Independent
C10 Siu Sai Wan WONG Kwok-hing 57.2% 1,981 49.6% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU)
C10 Siu Sai Wan CHU Yat-on 15.3% 783 19.6%  
C10 Siu Sai Wan TAM Tak-chi 27.5% 1,229 30.8% People Power
C34 Yue Wan CHUNG Shu-kun Christopher 47.8% 1,863 47.9% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
C34 Yue Wan CHUI Chi-kin 52.2% 2,026 52.1% Independent
D06 South Horizons East LAM Kai-fai 52.7% 2,180 46.7% Independent Candidate
D06 South Horizons East CHAN Ka-lok 36.7% 1,845 39.5% Civic Party
D06 South Horizons East AU Yuen-fat Joseph 10.7% 643 13.8%  
D07 South Horizons West CHAN Judy Kapui 68.0% 2,945 56.7% New Peoples Party
D07 South Horizons West YUEN Mi-ming Erica 32.0% 2,245 43.3% People Power
E08 Olympic KO Hiu-wing 47.7% 1,414 48.0% Independent Candidate
E08 Olympic TO Kun-sun James 52.3% 1,531 52.0% The Democratic Party
F10 Lai Kok CHAN Wing-yan 51.4% 2,531 48.9% DAB/FTU
F10 Lai Kok FUNG Kin-kee Frederick 46.4% 2,432 47.0% ADPL
F10 Lai Kok WONG Chung-ki Eric 2.2% 215 4.2%  
G15 To Kwa Wan North LEE Wai-king Starry 82.9% 1,544 80.2% DAB
G15 To Kwa Wan North SHUM Tai-fung 8.9% 204 10.6%  
G15 To Kwa Wan North LAM Yi-lai 8.2% 177 9.2%  
G18 Whampoa East LEUNG Mei-fun 53.0% 2,345 47.1% Kowloon West New Dynamic/BPA Services Company Limited
G18 Whampoa East YAU Wai-ching 39.0% 2,041 41.0% Youngspiration
G18 Whampoa East LAW Shek-ming 8.1% 596 12.0%  
H20 King Fu WONG Chun-kin 40.2% 2,377 37.8% FTU
H20 King Fu WU Chi-wai 59.8% 3,907 62.2% The Democratic Party
K02 Yeung Uk Road CHAN Han-pan 69.7% 2,075 62.7% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
K02 Yeung Uk Road LAM Sek-tim 30.3% 1,233 37.3% Tsuen Wan Community Network
K06 Discovery Park CHIU Yan-loy 28.6% 2,020 35.5% Labour Party
K06 Discovery Park TIEN Michael Puk-sun 71.4% 3,674 64.5% New People's Party
L19 Lok Tsui HO Chun-yan 35.5% 1,736 39.8% The Democratic Party
L19 Lok Tsui HO Kwan-yiu 50.6% 2,013 46.2% Independent
L19 Lok Tsui YUEN Wai-chung 2.0% 99 2.3% MESSAGE
L19 Lok Tsui CHEUNG Wing-wai 2.3% 25 0.6%  
L19 Lok Tsui CHENG Chung-tai 7.3% 391 9.0% Civic Passion
L19 Lok Tsui SHUM Kam-tim 2.3% 94 2.2%  
M28 Tin Yiu LEUNG Chin-hang 42.8% 1,552 47.5%  
M28 Tin Yiu LEUNG Che-cheung 57.2% 1,713 52.5% *Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong/NTAS
N08 Fanling South HO Shu-kwong Raymond 64.7% 1,824 64.8% *Independent Candidate
N08 Fanling South WONG Sing-chi 35.3% 992 35.2% Third Side
N08 Wan Hang SUN Wai-kei 48.2% 2,313 41.8%  
Q19 Wan Hang FAN Gary Kwok-wai 49.3% 3,104 56.1% Neo Democrats
Q19 Wan Hang LAI Tze-wah 2.5% 117 2.1% Independent
R24 Chung On YIP Wing 42.0% 2,506 51.3% Labour Party
R24 Chung On QUAT Elizabeth 58.0% 2,376 48.7% DAB
S12 Kwai Fong CHAN Man-luen-ying 34.4% 1,624 33.0% HKFLU
S12 Kwai Fong LEUNG Yiu-chung 65.6% 3,301 67.0% Neighbourhood & Workers Service Centre
S15 Cho Yiu PAU Ming-hong 65.2% 2,986 62.3% DAB
S15 Cho Yiu LO Wai-lan 10.4% 580 12.1% *BPA
S15 Cho Yiu CHAN Tak-cheung 24.5% 1,230 25.6% League of Social Democrats
T02 Yat Tung Estate North TANG Ka-piu 72.1% 3,061 77.3% F.T.U
T02 Yat Tung Estate North LEUNG Hon-wai 28.0% 900 22.7%  

These were the 20 major races. The exit poll numbers were posted at the HKRA website soon after 1030pm and long before the actual vote tallies appeared. The HKRA exit polls correctly identified 19 out of 20 winners with only one wrong pick in district R24.

Second round of exit polls released at 12:10am November 23, 2015, also before the actual numbers were known.
Code Constituency Name Exit Poll Estimate% Ac tual # Actual % Political affiliation
A04 Peak CHAN Ho-lim Joseph 85.5% 1837 85.3% Liberal Party
A04 Peak CHAN Shu-moon 14.5% 317 14.7% Independent Candidate
A07 Kwun Lung YEUNG Hoi-wing 62.0% 2491 61.4% DAB
A07 Kwun Lung LEUNG Chung-hang Sixtus 38.0% 1569 38.6% Youngspiration
B02 Oi Kwan TANG King-yung Anna 72.5% 1367 59.9% DAB
B02 Oi Kwan WONG Sui-lung 27.5% 915 40.1%  
B07 Tai Hang WONG Ching-chi Gigi 47.9% 1148 45.1% New Peoples Party
B07 Tai Hang YEUNG Suet-ying Clarisse 52.1% 1398 54.9% Independent Candidate
B10 Happy Valley NG Kam-chun 68.9% 1377 60.5% Independent
B10 Happy Valley CHIEN Ka-wo Kelvin 31.1% 900 39.5%  
B11 Stubbs Road AU Lai-chong 27.9% 642 35.8%  
B11 Stubbs Road WONG Wang-tai 72.1% 1150 64.2%  
B12 Southorn LEE Pik-yee 85.1% 1463 77.0% Independent
B12 Southorn YEUNG Yau-fung 14.9% 437 23.0%  
C02 Tai Koo Shing East TSE Tsz-kei 56.0% 2587 49.2% New Peoples Party
C02 Tai Koo Shing East WONG Chun-sing Patrick 44.0% 2674 50.8% Independent
C05 Shaukeiwan LAM Sum-lim 50.1% 1444 48.5% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
C05 Shaukeiwan POON Wing-yin 6.1% 107 3.6%  
C05 Shaukeiwan LEUNG Wing-sze 43.9% 1429 48.0%  
E12 Tai Nan CHONG Wing-charn Francis 52.8% 1424 47.6% Kowloon West New Dynamic/BPA
E12 Tai Nan CHIU Yuk-kwong 18.0% 606 20.3% Youngspiration
E12 Tai Nan FUNG Joshua Man-tao 29.2% 962 32.2% The Democratic Party
J14 Sau Mau Ping South CHAN Yiu-hung Jimmy 76.0% 2418 70.6% Independent
J14 Sau Mau Ping South KAI Ming-wah 6.5% 340 9.9% *The Democratic Party
J14 Sau Mau Ping South CHENG Kwok-chun 17.5% 668 19.5% Kowloon East Community
K02 Yeung Uk Road CHAN Han-pan 69.7% 2075 62.7% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
K02 Yeung Uk Road LAM Sek-tim 30.3% 1233 37.3% Tsuen Wan Community Network
K11 Tsuen Wan West LAM Lam Nixie 62.2% 2463 51.8% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
K11 Tsuen Wan West POON Chiu-lam 23.0% 1500 31.5% Tsuen Wan Dynamic for the People
K11 Tsuen Wan West CHU Shun-ming 14.8% 793 16.7%  
L10 Hing Tsak TSUI Fan 64.8% 2673 64.1% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions
L10 Hing Tsak CHAN Sze-nga 35.2% 1498 35.9%  
L28 Fu Tai CHAN Manwell 63.2% 2823 73.0% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions
L28 Fu Tai HO Wai-cheung 36.8% 1044 27.0% Tuen Mun Community Concern Group
M18 Chung Wah WONG Wai-ling 72.1% 1775 64.8% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong
M18 Chung Wah CHAN Ka-kui 27.9% 965 35.2%  
M31 Fairview Park YAU Tai-tai 43.1% 1596 44.8%  
M31 Fairview Park LEUNG Wai-kwan 30.5% 144 4.0%  
M31 Fairview Park TO Ka-lun 26.5% 1826 51.2%  
N03 Cheung Wah CHAN Yuk-ming 30.9% 1814 34.4% The Democratic Party
N03 Cheung Wah YUEN Hoi-wai Feder 6.3% 178 3.4% Non-affiliated Candidate
N03 Cheung Wah YIP Yiu-shing Chris 30.3% 1569 29.8% Independent
N03 Cheung Wah WONG Ka-ho 32.6% 1710 32.4% North of The Rings
P01 Tai Po Hui LI Kwok-ying 66.1% 1096 55.9% DAB
P01 Tai Po Hui CHOY Wing-mui Molly 33.9% 865 44.1%  
P11 Wan Tau Tong YU Chi-wing 66.0% 2711 56.1% *Independent Candidates
P11 Wan Tau Tong CHENG Wai 34.0% 2123 43.9%  
P16 Old Market & Serenity LAU Yung-wai 52.1% 2170 56.1% Independent Candidate
P16 Old Market & Serenity CHEUNG Kwok-wai 47.9% 1699 43.9% DAB
Q22 Fu Nam CHAN Pok-chi 60.8% 2207 49.9% DAB
Q22 Fu Nam CHAN Yiu-ming 39.2% 2213 50.1% Independent Democrat
Q25 Kwong Ming CHONG Yuen-tung 76.1% 3373 64.8% DAB
Q25 Kwong Ming SHI Hau-kit Simon 13.0% 777 14.9%  
Q25 Kwong Ming CHOI Ming-hei 11.0% 1055 20.3% *Independent Democrat
R15 Wan Shing HO Hau-cheung 62.5% 1989 51.3% New Peoples Party/ Civil Force
R15 Wan Shing WONG Leung-hi 17.7% 962 24.8% Independent Democrats
R15 Wan Shing CHEUNG Tak-wing 19.8% 927 23.9%  
R20 Chung Tin TANG Wing-cheong 42.5% 1268 35.6% Civil Force/New Peoples Party
R20 Chung Tin LO Yuet-chau 16.2% 662 18.6%  
R20 Chung Tin WONG Hok-lai 41.3% 1631 45.8% Shatin Community Network
S28 Ching Fat LEE Hon-sam 8.1% 282 5.2% Ching Fat Living Concern
S28 Ching Fat LAM Chui-ling Nancy 54.7% 2648 48.6% Independent
S28 Ching Fat LAU Chi-kit 34.3% 2283 41.9% The Democratic Party
S28 Ching Fat WONG Kin-long 2.9% 233 4.3%  
T05 Tung Chung South CHOW Ho-ding Holden 56.9% 2161 53.0% DAB
T05 Tung Chung South WONG Chun-yeung 43.1% 1917 47.0%  

There were 27 districts in the second round, of which the winners were incorrectly called in 4 cases (C02, M31, Q22 and R20). For example, R20 would have been classified as too close to call.

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme conducted exit polls but restricted distribution of their data to media sponsors (such as Cable TV). On the television news programs, they did not show any numbers. Instead they showed qualitative information (such as "very little chance" or "equal chance"). For example, in Lok Tsui district, they reported that Junius Ho and Albert Ho have "equal chance" whereas the other four candidates have "very little chance"). In Lai Kok district, they reported that Frederick Fung and Chan Wing-yan have "equal chance." But everybody knows before the voting started. This is not imparting anything new or surprising.

1985: 37.5%
1988: 30.3%
1991: 32.5%
1994: 33.1%
1999: 35.82%
2003: 44.06%
2007: 38.83%
2011: 41.49%
2015: 47.01%
Time of Day 2007 2011 2015
0830am 1.08% 1.19% 1.28%
0930am 3.30% 3.59% 3.85%
1030am 6.26% 6.73% 6.79%
1130am 9.50% 10.10% 10.90%
1230pm 12.34% 13.20% 14.49%
0130pm 14.83% 15.85% 17.68%
0230pm 17.48% 18.73% 21.00%
0330pm 20.05% 21.48% 24.21%
0430pm 22.68% 24.33% 27.40%
0530pm 25.30% 27.08% 30.62%
0630pm 28.07% 30.20% 33.99%
0730pm 30.63% 32.88% 37.15%
0830pm 33.19% 35.57% 40.28%
0930pm 35.97% 38.54% 43.65%
1030pm 38.83% 41.49% 47.01%

(Oriental Daily) The final two tricks. By Tik Chi-yuen. November 21, 2015.

The District Council elections have reached the final stage. The preceding months of campaigning were mainly about hanging out banners, posting posters, distributing leaflets, manning street booths, social media, home visits, etc. But at the final moment, there are only two tricks left in the election campaign -- the emergency appeal and the smear.

In recent days, candidates from both sides are making emergency appeals. The emergency appeal is intended to mobilize your supporters so that they feel an urgency to vote. With it, the supporters may get complacent and has less urgency to vote.

The emergency is not going to expand your support base. It is done to consolidate your support base, which was built up long before. Therefore the emergency appeal can only be invoked in the final two or three days before the balloting. Furthermore, it has to be done throughout the entire district. Past experience says that the emergency appeal can motivate the supporters to vote. However, after having the emergency appeal over each and every election, the effect today may be lessened.

As for the smear, it is the last trick. The smear will not be used early on, because that will give your opponent an opportunity to explain. After the smear information is released, a number of innuendoes are spread out by whispering and disseminated as quickly. The smear is especially effective for the undecided voters. There are many controversies in elections that are reported by certain media, but the smears are even more prevalent on Internet discussion forums and Facebook. There is so much information that it is hard to tell who is right or wrong. But the smear may also have the effect of driving some disgusted voters away from voting at all.

These District Council elections will serve as indicators. Firstly, the election results will affect the plans of the political parties for next year's Legislative Council elections. Some elected District Councilors will qualify to run for the five District Council (2) seats in the Legislative Council. Secondly, the election results will be a referendum on the Umbrella Movement. If the pan-democrats win big, it will be a vindication of the Umbrella Movement.

(Sky Post) Day of Exorcism. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 20, 2015.

I have never had so much expectations for an election day. Perhaps the anger has been pented up for too long. In recent years, there has been a new kind of evil force, based on viciousness. If they don't like what someone says, they will use the Internet to ferret out all kinds of information to smear and attack. Ordinary law-abiding citizens are intimidated. Besides who has time to tussle with these evil forces? Thus, citizens clam up and withdraw, leaving the evil forces to roam freely. We all have to make a living, don't we?

After a few years, we can now observe the consequences. Not only are the streets littered with garbage, but there are viruses everywhere. The children get infected with the virus and become demonized. The city streets are full of zombies and the exorcists have no answers.

But on this Sunday, there is a chance to counterattack. As in a martial arts film, this Sunday is a day when the sun, the moon and the heavens all converge at a singular moment. Ordinary people such as ourselves don't need knives, guns or bombs. We can use a single piece of ballot paper to exorcise the demons.

Does someone still say "I don't know to choose?" Let me tell you how simple it is. If you still have doubts, you can ask the candidates directly:

1. Do you support Occupy Central?

2. Do you agree or disagree with using "Black/Evil Police" to refer to the Hong Kong Police?

3. What is your view of young people booing the Chinese national anthem and university students using foul language?

4. What is your view of hoisting the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence?

5. Do you support filibustering in the Legislative Council?

A newspaper posed similar questions to the candidates, and all 193 pan-democrats refused to answer. Their non-answer is already the answer.

Recently many candidates are using foldable banners and posters to smear their opponents. This is similar to how they attack anti-Occupy Central folks. In a fair election, it is easy to see whether such kinds of ugly tactics are constructive or destructive. That goes without say.

In the past, the people of Hong Kong lose because they are not sufficiently courageous and united. In two days' time, the chance is here for us to defend our families. We will chase those who want the ship Hong Kong to sink off our ship. We must be careful and bold in casting our vote. Please remember that if we miss this chance, we will have to wait for the next full moon (the 2016 Legislative Council).

November 22
Day of Exorcism
Use your vote to destroy the yellow zombies

(South China Morning Post) Elections? In Hong Kong? No, not to elect the Chief Executive but here are four good reasons to care about the polls on Sunday. November 21, 2015.

Some 935 candidates are in the fray fighting for 431 seats in the district council elections that will take place across the city on Sunday. Voters will decide on their choice of district councillor, and heres why the polls matter:

1. The First Post-Occupy Political Temperature Taking

Sunday will be the first post-Occupy elections and could reshape the political landscape.

The 79-day Occupy protests took place last year from September to December and left the city deeply divided politically.

In June this year, legislators rejected the governments proposal for political reform the issue that sparked the protests in the first place. The failed proposal had stipulated that only nominated candidates up to three could run for the citys top position of chief executive in 2017.

Pan-democratic groups said that after the protests and the reform package rejection, the movement would remain strong and represent a season of political awakening. The thinking went that more Hongkongers would be encouraged to vote in support of pro-democracy candidates.

Beijing-loyalist groups argued otherwise: they said many Hong Kong voters would vote in support of pro-establishment candidates, weary of political mudslinging post-Occupy.

More than 40 candidates either declared they hailed from new groups as a result of Occupy or were politically awakened by the 79-day sit-ins. They included doctors, accountants, IT professionals, financiers, the owner of an adventure-sports business, two chefs and a university student.

They vowed during their campaigns to spread the same bottom-up community planning spirit that inspired them during last years protests, also known as the Umbrella Movement.

Sundays results could show whether the pan-democrats or the pro-establishment camp was right about the effect of the Occupy movement on the citys political landscape.

2. The first all-elected seats election

Note that district councils serve to advise the government on matters affecting residents in the district and the provision of public facilities within the district.

Number of seats: 431

Number of candidates received: 935

Number of uncontested constituencies: 68

867 candidates are contesting 363 constituencies

New this year: All appointed seats were scrapped, except for 27 ex-officio seats reserved for rural leaders in the New Territories.

In 2011, only five out of 102 appointed district councillors gave up their seats and stood for the direct election. But as the government announced that all appointed seats would be scrapped by the end of this year, 13 out of 68 district councillors appointed in 2011 decided to run for a directly-elected seat.

Some appointed councillors argued that, with their professional and business background, they would continue to make their districts a better place. The election will decide whether voters, empowered with a say, agree with them.

3. First big hint of how two looming political battles will shape up

The election results will influence the Legislative Council election next year, and the chief executive election in 2017.

District councillors are eligible to nominate their colleagues to run for five super seats in the Legco poll in September, and to run for 117 seats in the 1,200-strong Election Committee, which will elect the citys chief executive in March 2017.

The super seats are officially known as the District Council (II) constituency, but theyre so nicknamed because they have a citywide ballot of more than 3 million voters, several times larger than the electorate in the five geographical constituencies.

4. Its about your money

District councils have the power to decide on the use of large sums of taxpayers money allocated by the government for local level improvements.

And some councillors can come up with wacky ideas, so watch out. In 2013, for example, the Tsuen Wan District Council faced a barrage of criticism after it was revealed that it spent HK$766,000 of public money to build a goose statue in Sham Tseng in honour of its famous roast goose dish, and endorsed a HK$1.5-million project to build a giant butterfly statue at Chuen Lung to grace the slopes of Tai Mo Shan.

Since then, district councillors promised they would spend taxpayers money more wisely, especially after Leung announced the Signature Project Scheme, under which each of the 18 district councils approved a one-off grant of HK$100 million to improve neighbourhood facilities. All the projects were to be proposed, discussed and agreed on by district councils.

Another controversy: In August, the Tai Po district council was criticised as its plan to build a HK$12 million public square in Tai Po was lambasted as a local answer to Tiananmen Square.

Some pro-democracy candidates said they hoped to win and stop public money from being misused or used without sufficient consultation.

Apart from the signature project scheme, district councils are entitled to initiate, endorse and manage minor works in their districts that cost no more than HK$30 million each, under the District Minor Works Programme. In the present financial year, HK$340 million was earmarked for the programme.

Its your money, so you should care. And yes, vote wisely.

Internet comments:

- A genuine and sincere Yellow Ribbon could easily answer those five questions:

1. Yes. I support the defense of Hong Kong's core values. Therefore I support Occupy Central.

2. Yes. I oppose the police using excessive force (such as using tear gas against unarmed civilians and beating Kenneth Tsang in a dark corner of Tamar Park).

3. Yes. The young people are exercising their freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law.

4. Yes. Same as (3).

5. Yes. Filibustering is in accordance with the existing procedures/rules/regulations of the Legislative Council.

So how hard is it?

- If it is so easy, then why didn't the 193 pan-democrats answer? Because all these answers are genuine and sincere, but the majority of the voters do not approve. If they publicly take these positions, they will be voted out.

-  They will give these answers -- after the district council elections are over. They will re-iterate those answers until the 2016 Legislative Council elections approach. Then they will develop amnesia again. After those elections, they will re-iterate those answers.

- You could counter with 5 questions for the pro-establishment candidates:

1. Do you support the August 31 2014 resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on constitutional reform?

2. Do you support the police use of tear gas against unarmed civilians on September 28, 2014?

3. Do you oppose the appointment of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor of staffing and academic resources at Hong Kong University?

4. Do you oppose the elimination of the existing ordinances that automatically appoints the Chief Executive as the chancellor of ten institutions of higher learning in Hong Kong?

5. Do you think of yourself as more Hongkonger or more Chinese?

Will Blue Ribbons answer?

- Well, that's easy:

1. Yes. I support the August 31 2014 resolution because the people of Hong Kong will get one-person-one-vote and that is infinitely better than leaving in the hands of the 1,200-person election committee.

2. Yes. Tear gas is used around the rest of the world to stop chaos without using deadly force.

3. Yes. I believe that such matters should be decided by the Hong Kong University council whose members made a well-considered decision.

4. Yes. All ordinances are created by men and can be amended by men. But if not the Chief Executive, then who? We cannot eliminate the ordinances because some people don't like the current Chief Executive and leave a vacuum for the chancellor.

5. I am a Chinese person living in Hong Kong.

- Here is another list for pro-China candidates:

1. Do you support the Chinese Communist Party?

2. Do you support the slaughter of 1,000 students on Tiananmen Square on July 4, 1989.

3. Do you oppose foreign forces? If so, does any family member of yours have foreign passports?

That's easily answered as well:

1. Yes. I support the Chinese Communist Party because of the progress that they have made since 1980. I cannot imagine the Hong Kong Democratic Party or Civic Party achieve such progress.

2. With due respect, the number 1,000 is fantasy. To quote Leon Lai, "I do not answer hypothetical questions."

3. Yes. I oppose foreign forces interfering with Hong Kong because I believe in self-determination/autonomy/sovereignty. If any of my family members has a foreign passport, he/she is exercising his/her freedom to choose so as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

- Do you want to see a re-run of 'students' stopping ambulances in order to carry out 'inspections'?  On this Sundary, you can decide.

- Do you want to see a re-run of 'students' having hot-pot dinner in the middle of the main boulevard?  On Sunday, you can decide for  yourself.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 20, 2015.

With the District Council elections just two days away, the Democratic Party is urging supporters to vote so as not to let Leung Chun-ying win a second term.

At a press conference, Democratic Party founding leader Martin Lee Chu-ming said that a lot of voters may believe that District Council elections are not important. However, if the pro-establishment camp gain more seats than in previous years, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying could win the approval of Beijing and win a second term, Apple Daily reported. If you dont want him to stay [in power], everyone please come out and vote.

He also asked voters belonging to districts in which the candidates were automatically elected due to a lack of competition, to hop over to the neighbouring districts and support the party.

Internet comments:

- The logical basis is quite tenuous. The election committee gets to vote for the Chief Executive. Out of 1,200 committee members, district councilors account for 121 only (10%).

If the Democratic Party had voted for the constitutional reform bill in June this year, Hong Kong would have one-person-one-vote for the 2017 Chief Executive. But they vetoed the bill and we are back to the 1,200-person election committee. So if CY Leung re-elected, you can blame the Democratic Party among many others.

- If not CY Leung, then it is a clone with a different name. What can the Democratic Party do after squandering away one-person-one-vote?

- The Democratic Party supported Occupy Central, which went on for 79 days without realizing any of its intended goals while inflicting hurt and pain on people's livelihood. Given this lapse in judgment, why would voting for the Democratic Party reduce the chances of CY Leung being re-elected?

- You vote for a District Councilor who will take care of district affairs. You don't want a district councilor busy about electing the Chief Executive and ignoring district affairs.

- The entire Democratic Party press conference lasted 15 minutes. Martin Lee still managed to show up late and depart early. He doesn't even believe in this himself.

- Wan Chin's strategy

Wan Chin: We will destroy the Democratic Party first, then destroy the DAB. We eradicate the agents of the United States and China in Hong Kong and replace with Hong Kong localist councilors. How are localist rights guaranteed through voting? Firstly, we use our votes to sweep the pan-democrats out of the councils. After they lose their council seats, the pan-democrats can either surrender to the localists or the establishment. Next, in the 2016 Legislative Council elections, the localists will field at least one person per district and propose a perfect system for Hong Kong democracy to replace the pan-democrats. Apart from economy, livelihood, culture and education policies, we will recommend introducing legislation on political parties, universal suffrage and district council reforms. This will leave the pan-democrats with no place to go except to exit!

As for the DAB and FTU, their "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings" and fake community service will can easily be taken over by rule-of-law and community self-help methods. We will eradicate them. The political role of the Hong Kong communists is to take care of lower class Hongkongers politically. Their political function will be terminated after the rise of the localists. When the localists begin direct negotiations with Beijing, the Hong Kong communists will be gone. Beijing can save a lot of money on the ineffective stability-maintenance fees.

Internet comments:

- Since very few of the 431 districts have localist candidates, Wan Chin is in fact saying to vote for the DAB/FTU this Sunday, in order to inflict maximum damage on the pan-democrats.

(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme) November 19, 2015. POP interviewed 1,052 Hong Kong registered voters between October 29 and 4 November 2015 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers.

  2003 2007 2011 2015
Proportion of voters who planned to vote in DC election 74% 76% 66% 71%
Have decided which candidate to vote for 37% 47% 37% 30%
Knew which political camps are running for election at local district 75% 76% 80% 73%
Main factor: platform and political alignment 35% 36% 47% 41%
Main factor: past performance 47% 50% 40% 33%
Main factor: personal background and performance during election 3% 3% 4% 6%

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

A survey by the University of Hong Kong has shown that a large majority of registered voters intend to cast their ballots at the district council elections on Sunday, but the amount of voters who have decided which poll candidate to vote for has decreased.

The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP) interviewed 1,052 registered voters between October 29 and November 4. Results showed that 71 percent of respondents plan to voteup five percent from the same survey in 2011but the proportion of those who have already decided how to vote has slipped seven points down to 30 percent.

According to HKUPOP Research Manager Frank Lee,This means that the turnout rate in the coming election may be higher, but the effect of loyal voters may weaken.

Around 73 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they know which political camps are running for office at the local level.

Candidates platform and political alignment were deemed the decisive factor for 41 percent of interviewees; 33 percent prioritised past performance and six percent emphasised personal background and campaign performance.

People continue to value the candidates political background, which may be related to the recent political environment, Lee said.

HKUPOP will also conduct exit polls on election day, November 22.

(SCMP) November 19, 2015.

The turnout rate for Sundays district council elections is expected to be higher than the 41.5 per cent for the 2011 election, after a University of Hong Kong survey found 71 per cent of registered voters interviewed intended to vote up 5 percentage points from a similar survey four years ago.

However, with a wider choice of parties, pollsters also discovered that only 30 per cent of the 1,052 voters had made up their minds about which candidate they would vote for 7 percentage points lower than in 2011.

In a statement, HKU Public Opinion Programme research manager Frank Lee Wai-kin said: The turnout rate in the coming election may be higher, but the effect of loyal voters may weaken.

Political scientists had said that since new groups formed in recent years would be taking part in the poll for the first time, older parties might find it harder to retain their voters support.

However, Democratic Party lawmaker and Wong Tai Sin district councillor Wu Chi-wai said it was difficult to say whether the effect of loyal voters was weakening.

People might only be more cautious about public opinion surveys and want to hide their view from pollsters, Wu, 53, told the Post. Based on the survey, I can only say it is still possible to change voters minds in constituencies over the next three days. But there are 400 constituencies around the city and they are all so different. It is difficult to draw conclusions at this point.

Wus sole rival in the King Fu constituency is Wong Chun-kin, also 53, of the Beijing-loyalist Federation of Trade Unions.

The HKU survey also found that 41 per cent of voters consider candidates platforms and political backgrounds to be the most important for them, while 33 per cent said candidates past performance was more important.

(EJinsight) November 20, 2015.

As Hong Kong prepares for district council elections, a survey has shown that more people are now keen to vote in the local polls compared to the previous such exercise in 2011. According to the University of Hong Kongs Public Opinion Programme (POP), 71 percent of respondents said they will vote in Sundays elections.

The figure marks an increase of 5 percentage points from the voting level in the previous district council contest four years ago, Apple Daily noted. However, the percentage of voters who said they knew the candidates in their district fell to 73 percent, from 80 percent in the last election. Also, only 30 percent of the respondents said they had already made up their minds about who they will vote for. That compares to 37 percent in a previous survey done ahead of the 2011 election.

For the latest survey, HKU researchers interviewed more than 1,052 registered voters between Oct. 29 and Nov. 4. Frank Lee, Research Manager of POP, said the turnout rate in Sundays election may be higher, but the effect of loyal voters may weaken.

Among various factors under consideration, 41 percent of the respondents said they will mainly take into account candidates political platform and alignment, while 33 percent indicated that their chief deciding factor will be the candidates service record. The figures mark a decline of 6 and 7 percentage points respectively from 2011.

Six percent of the respondents said they will focus mainly on candidates individual background and performance in the election campaign, up 2 percentage points from the last election. People continue to value the candidates political background, which may be related to the recent political environment, Lee noted.

Internet comments:

- Here are the historical turnout rates versus HKUPOP poll responses.
  2003 2007 2011 2015
Proportion of voters who planned to vote in DC election 74% 76% 66% 71%
Actual Voter Turnout 44% 39% 41% -
Total number of voters 2,384,181 2,958,953 2,989,180 3,693,492

In the last 3 elections,
the highest poll number ended up with the lowest actual turnout
the middle poll number ended up with the highest actual turnout
the lowest poll number ended up with the middle actual turnout.

I don't see any patterns here.

You cannot take the HKUPOP number and apply a simple discount factor based on 2011 to it, as in estimating 2015 turnout to be 41 x 71 / 66 = 44%.
If you did that to 2003, you will get 41 x 74 / 66 = 46%, which is okay.
If you did that to 2007, you will get 41 x 76 / 66 = 47%, which is very wrong.

- If you want to extrapolate from 2003/2007/2011 to 2015, you are making the assumption that "other things being equal." The other things are not equal here. The change factors include: Occupy Central; umbrella soldiers; many more first-time voters (both young and old).

- Related link: An Analysis of a Hong Kong District Council Election Exit Poll (2013/11/09)

- (Apple Daily, November 20, 2015) Lingnan University Public Governance Programme research director Li Pang-kwong estimates that the pan-democrats have a chance to win a majority in the district council elections because people are angry after Occupy Central. He believes that voter turnout will be higher than 2011. 

- Why is there suddenly a surge in registration of elderly voters? They were present all along but never bothered to register to voter. Now they are showing up en masse. The first explanation is that the elderly people are now registering to take revenge against any pro-Occupy candidates at the voting booths. The second explanation is that the elderly people are mostly anti-Occupy and they are now registering to support the anti-Occupy candidates. It is know that the elderly (both new and old registered voters) are mostly anti-Occupy.  So the first explanation is more plausible.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 18, 2015.

Hong Kong fans booed the anthem they share with China on Tuesday while some turned their backs and held up boo signs in a show of defiance before a crunch World Cup football qualifier with their mainland rivals. Home supporters also swore at the visiting Chinese supporters and showed them their middle fingers in a rowdy start to proceedings at the sold-out, 6,000-seat Mong Kok Stadium.

Loud jeers rang out during the March of the Volunteers anthem, which the semi-autonomous territory shares with China, and held up white signs saying boo in English following warnings against audible jeering.

The joint 2018 World Cup and 2019 Asian Cup qualifier follows last years Umbrella movement pro-democracy protests which gripped the city and underlined discontent over Beijings rule. The fans have been strictly segregated, using separate entrances and even different toilets, in a bid to head off any potential trouble in a district which was one of the centres of the pro-democracy protests.

Because we dont like the Chinese national anthem, we have to go against it, Hong Kong student Jerry Wong, 20, told AFP. Because Hong Kong is not part of China, I dont feel like I am Chinese. The booing was also in defiance of orders from world body FIFA, which fined the Hong Kong Football Association after fans jeered their own anthem at previous qualifiers.

Chinese supporter and government worker Fan Yufeng, 33, who crossed the border to watch the game, said the spectators who showed anti-China feelings did not speak for all of Hong Kong. They only represent a small portion of Hong Kong, he told AFP.

Local media reported that 1,200 police officers would be on standby for the match, or about one for every five fans at the stadium.

But despite tensions between the fans, after the anthem both sides held a moments silence to commemorate the victims of the weekend attacks in Paris.

(SCMP) November 18, 2015.

Thousands of fans packed bars and public playgrounds around Hong Kong after failing to get tickets to the game. More than 1,200 police were on standby - fearing trouble after Hong Kong fans booed the national anthem at previous matches - and there was a huge security presence but the overall atmosphere - though massively partisan - was good-natured.

Hong Kong fans waited patiently for hours to get in. The 500 China fans were let in by a separate entrance and all were subject to ID checks, and extensive bag checks, while police dogs were deployed to detect dangerous articles, according to officers.

Police patrolled the area segregating the two sets of fans, while plain-clothes officers and the force's video team in vests were also spotted.

Mainland fans sang patriotic songs glorifying the Communist Party and local fans responded with rounds of jeering and displaying signs that read "BOO".

A minute's silence was observed to mourn the victims of the terror attacks in Paris.

Bars in Tung Choi street in Mong Kok did a roaring trade. One bar manager said business was much better than usual "by at least 70 to 80 per cent". She added it was full house. A waiter from another bar said business increased by 50 per cent.

Casar Leung, 27, who watched on Mong Kok's Soy Street, said: "This result shows Hong Kong's football is not as bad as people always say."

More than 150 fans crammed a playground near the University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam where a projector was set up.

Savio Wai, an education administrator, said: "It's a bit disappointing we didn't get the three points that are super important for us. But we are proud of them. Our goalkeeper did great."

Train driver Him Lo, like many fans, donned a red shirt and a headscarf emblazoned with "We are Hong Kong".

Asked about the atmosphere, student Rocci Yue said: "It's normal for fans to voice support Hongkongers are civilised."

(Oriental Daily) November 18, 2015.

When the Chinese national anthem began, many Hong  Kong fans ignored the appeal and once against boo'ed. Some fans held up "BOO" placards instead of making noise. Others turned their backs on the playing field. Some fans collectively used foul language to address Chinese player Zheng Zhi. Outside the stadium several dozen Hong Kong fans also boo'ed.

Many localist groups took the opportunity to promote Hong Kong independence. Several members of Hong Kong Priority showed up wearing clothes with the British Dragon/Lion emblem and "I am Hongkonger." UST Movement members waved the British Dragon/Lion flag.

(Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2015.

Koey (Hong Kong City-State) and Leung Kam-shing (North District Parallel Imports Concern Group)

About two hours before the match started, many radical group cadres led their members for a show of force in front of the Mong Kok Sports Ground entrance. These included Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai, DLLM Orchid's Barry Ma and "Hakka Boy," Shopping Revolutionary Ah Cho, North District Parallel Imports Concern Group's Leung Kam-shing, Hong Kong City-State's Koey etc. Most of them wore red t-shirts. At first Barry Ma and others wore t-shirts with the British Dragon-Lion logo. Then they changed into red t-shirts. The City-State people continued to wave the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

Apart from Cheng Chung-tai and a few others, most of these radicals do not have tickets. They didn't seem to mind not being able to enter the stadium. Shortly before the match commenced, a hundred or so went into the small park next to the stadium. Someone used a large white cloth to project the live match video onto it. But the effect was poor, so that most people watched their mobile phones.

After the match ended, these people returned to gather near the exit on Flower Market Street. A large number of PTU police officers watched over them. Under the leadership of Barry Ma and others, the crowd began to sing the Chinese national anthem with obscene lyrics. Cheng Chung-tai who is running in the Lok Tsui election and Leung Kam-shing who is running in the Choi Yuen district were both in the crowd and yelling obscenities.

(HKG Pao) November 18, 2015.

After the match ended, there was a quarrel between fans outside the stadium. Cheng Chung-tai and others rushed over immediately and began to insult the police ("Evil police" and "Chinese dogs") who were trying to maintain order. Cheng Chung-tai and Leung Kam-shing led the crowd to chant "We are Hongkongers, not Chinese" and sing obscene songs.

As these people departed, they used cursed out any police officer that they saw with obscene language and gestures. When they passed by Mong Kok Police Station, they banged on the wall and cursed.

(Oriental Daily) November 18, 2015.

At Chinese University of Hong Kong, five to six hundred students gathered on the Circular Plaza of New Asia College to watch the live match broadcast. When the national anthem began, several mainland students stood up in attention and sing, but the other students boo'ed. This went for more more than 10 seconds. The booing drowned out the singing.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying remained coy when asked which team he supported in Tuesday nights FIFA World Cup qualifier between Hong Kong and mainland China.

Speaking to journalists after his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference in Manila, Leung tried to evade the question, saying that he and the Chinese leader did not talk about football.  But the reporters pressed him on the matter, asking him why it was so sensitive to reveal which side he supported.

There was, in fact, nothing too sensitive, Ming Pao Daily quoted Leung as saying. He went on to say that members of the press never asked him which team he supported when Hong Kong faced mainland opponents in past games.

The question highlights the rising tension between Hong Kong residents and mainlanders, and any statement from Leung about which team he supported in the game could be given a political meaning by either side.

Critics have accused Leung of being beholden to Beijing, implementing its wishes even at the expense of Hong Kong people. Leung said the Hong Kong government has always been supportive of sports development and cited its plan to build sports facilities at the former airport in Kai Tak. He noted that the HK$20 billion multi-purpose sports complex will be built on a valuable piece of land, which otherwise could have been used to ease the housing shortage in the territory.

Speaking in a morning radio program on Wednesday, Hong Kong Football Association (HKFA) chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak said government officials are Hong Kong people as well and it is only fair that they support the local team. A football match is no more than a football match, there is no need to think too much about it, the HKFA chief said.

He praised Hong Kong team coach Kim Pan-gon for the strategies he deployed in the match, which ended 0-0, while thanking the players for their unreserved dedication to the game and the enthusiastic support of the home fans. He said he had never experienced before the kind of atmosphere at the Mong Kok Stadium where the game was held, and he hoped more international competitions can be staged in Hong Kong. 

As to why football fans were asked not to display sign boards with the slogan Hong Kong is not China by HKFA staff during the match, Leung said the slogan was a little bit too political.

State-backed newspaper Global Times bewailed the behavior of some local fans during the game, such as when they booed the national anthem, and urged FIFA to impose heavier penalty on the HKFA.

(EJinsight) November 20, 2015.

Three years into Leung Chun-yings term as chief executive, the attitude of Hongkongers toward Communist China has shifted from subliminal phobia to firm separatism. And this sentiment has now been given public recognition thanks to a crunch World Cup qualifier against China.

For the first time in Hong Kongs history, de facto apartheid was enforced by the citys football association: there were separate seats, entrances and even toilets at Mong Kok Stadium for Hong Kong spectators and those from the mainland. The security measures were so extraordinary that they would have been beyond peoples weirdest imagination if suggested just a few years ago.

But in the context of todays Hong Kong, such an implementation of apartheid has become so apposite that even Beijings envoys and the government of the special administrative region expressed no objections.

We saw some partial racial segregation in Hong Kongs earliest days, when The Peak and its vicinity were off limits to Chinese and other colored people, unless they were employed as helpers. Some gentlemens clubs and societies with membership restricted to personalities from the upper class bear the hallmarks of apartheid as well.

The word apartheid originates with the Dutch colonists in South Africa, who segregated themselves from the black and other colored inhabitants, curtailing their associations, movements and social and political rights. Different residential locations, schools, toilets and even beaches were designated for people with different skin colors.

But Hong Kong-style apartheid between locals and mainlanders is something that was never seen before the handover, and it may gain further momentum, though how it will evolve remains to be seen. The only thing we know for sure is that we can expect more unthinkable outcomes like this one to occur thanks to the Leung administration.

Some Hong Kong fans still booed the Chinese national anthem when it was played before the game on Tuesday.

The truth about the current national anthem, March of the Volunteers (義勇軍進行曲), the theme song of a 1935 movie about the Sino-Japanese War, is that its not the first national anthem adopted by the Communist Party. Just like the fact that the Peoples Republic of China is not the first country the party founded.

Japans invasion of China got into full swing in September 1931. Three months later, Mao Zedong proclaimed the Chinese Soviet Republic, the start of the two Chinas, alongside the Kuomintang-ruled Republic of China. The soviet republic had its own capital, Ruijin (瑞金) in Jiangxi province, constitution, laws, army and even currency.

This act of separatism was obviously immoral and treasonous amid the external threat facing the country.

The Internationale, a widely sung left-wing battle cry that was already the national anthem of the Soviet Union, was given the same national status by the Chinese Soviet Republic. The soviet republic ceased to exist after Mao Zedong agreed to form a coalition with Chiang Kai-shek to resist the Japanese aggression.

The greatest ironies were to follow.

While the KMT was confronting the Japanese on its own, Mao and the Red Army hid in the vast rural areas of western China most of the time and quietly built up their strength. Then after the mainland fell to Mao, the Communist Party made the March of the Volunteers, a song calling for all-out efforts to defend Chinese soil, the new national anthem.

The writer of the songs lyrics, Tian Han (田漢), was thrown behind bars during the Cultural Revolution on charges of being a counterrevolutionary. Tians original lyrics were also edited to suit the partys political needs.

On Tuesday and on several earlier occasions, Hong Kong soccer fans were booing not the song itself but the party and the communist republic that the anthem now represents.

Now, will the sports worldwide governing body, the Fdration Internationale de Football Association, find fault with Hong Kong again as it did last time? Not likely.

Booing ones opponents is not uncommon at all. El Clsico is a term that refers to the rivalry between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid C.F. Zealous supporters of the team from the capital of Spains autonomous region of Catalonia often boo the Spanish national anthem and get into brawls with Real Madrid fans. Sometimes the rowdy encounters even involve players and coaches.

Seldom has European footballs watchdog, with an eye on ticketing and other revenues, taken punitive action against the culprits, and thus FIFA is also unlikely to interfere. The worst possible consequence the Hong Kong Football Association may face is another small fine.

(SCMP) November 21, 2015.

In the United States, candidates for national office wear their sporting loyalties on their sleeves and on their heads. Donning a cap advertising their favourite team is such a standard photo op, it is almost a clich.

Barack Obama may be president of the union of 50 states, with an official residence in the neutral ground of the District of Columbia, but he has never been shy of his Chicago roots when it comes to baseball. He is a Chicago White Sox fan. And when arch rivals the Chicago Cubs had a chance to make it to the World Series, he didnt hesitate to support them. Congrats @Cubs even @whitesox fans are rooting for you! he tweeted.

The current pretenders in the presidential primaries are continuing this old tradition, flaunting their love for their hometown sports teams even as they traverse the country trying to persuade voters from Connecticut to California that they care passionately about each and every one of them.

As for those vying for state or city office, supporting the local team is a job requirement. George W. Bush did one better. As a potential Texas governor, he bought a share in the Texas Rangers, gaining him not just street cred but also a tidy bonus when the club was later sold.

These politicians all know how sports can be a useful arena to show their more human side.

What has all this got to do with Hong Kong? A lot, if the events of the past week are any indication. The World Cup soccer qualifying match between Hong Kong and China, coming in the wake of tensions between the city and the mainland, was the talk of the town.

To avoid any ugly incidents, fans were physically separated. Hongkongers had to produce their IDs to get in. Mainlander numbers were kept to 500.

Ignoring warnings, Hong Kong fans booed the national anthem, The March of the Volunteers. On the bright side, the negativity was said to be more restrained than at previous games.

The home fans were overjoyed when the final score was 0-0. The next day, there was a run on Hong Kong jerseys.

On the whole, it was a feel-good event for the average Hongkonger. Politically and economically, there is no question of Hong Kong dealing with Beijing on a level playing field. But on the soccer pitch, the local boys showed they could still give residents something to cheer about. A couple of contacts with affiliations to the mainland told me they felt proud of the men in red.

But how did the local politicians react? Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was coy, saying he was impressed by the excellent performance of the Hong Kong team and national team players.

John Tsang Chun-wah, his finance secretary and apparent rival, posted a picture of himself watching the match, but couldnt bring himself to say anything more than exciting match! Well, there was that effusive exclamation mark.

By comparison, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor appeared positively ebullient before the game, saying she hoped the Hong Kong team would play a wonderful game only to dial down the enthusiasm immediately by confessing she was not a football fan and would be too busy to watch the match.

Granted, the relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland is complicated. There is nothing else like it in the world. And it is prudent of Hong Kongs leaders to manage carefully the toxic anti-China sentiments that threaten to bubble over every now and then.

But that is exactly why they should have done better. The match was a chance for leaders to showcase how people here can strike a healthy balance between their Hong Kong and Chinese identities that you dont have to be jingoistic or xenophobic to be passionate about Hong Kong. Instead, the signal they gave was that Hong Kong loyalties have to be suppressed ostensibly for the larger good of China.

The irony is that Beijing probably would not have taken offence if they had openly rooted for the Hong Kong boys. Nobody could accuse the chief executive of being anti-China on substantial matters. He could have surely afforded to show more pride in his home team in a largely symbolic soccer match.

Such moments in a polarised society don't come along often. Campaigns like Appreciate Hong Kong are one way, but being manufactured from the top, they lack the authenticity that fandom provides.

One thinks back to Nelson Mandela and his deft use of sporting and cultural symbolism. When he became the leader of post-apartheid South Africa, one of the most divided societies in the world, he embraced the 1995 Rugby World Cup as an opportunity to build unity.

It was a sport that the black population associated with white nationalism, but he showed he was not going to bear a grudge. At the same time, he flaunted his love for his own African and Xhosa culture, in his dress, diction and dance.

The best political leaders know that their identity like that of their people is never an either/or choice. They show nous in picking the right one for the right occasion.

Hong Kong is hungry for moments to just be itself even as it adjusts to the inevitability of Chinas embrace. Win-win chances are hard to come by. Politically speaking, last Tuesday in Mong Kok Stadium, there was an open goal that Hong Kongs leaders missed.

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

Fifa opened a disiciplinary investigation into fans booing the Chinese national anthem prior to the Hong Kong-China clash at Mong Kok Stadium last Tuesday. 

The Hong Kong Football Association confirmed in a statement that they received a letter from the world governing body and were asked to provide a statement and evidence regarding the incident that took place before the match, which ended up a 0-0 draw and dealt a heavy blow to China's chances of qualifying for the 2018 showpiece.

"Today, the HKFA has received an official letter from Fifa announcing that disciplinary proceedings have been opened against the HKFA. The letter also confirmed that the HKFA appeared to be in violation of the Fifa Regulations (article 65 ff of the Fifa Disciplinary Code)," the statement said. 

"The incident referred to is the booing of the national anthem prior to the match. The HKFA is requested by Fifa to provide a statement and any supporting evidence that the HKFA may consider as relevant to the present case by December 1."

The HKFA also said the final decision will be released by Fifa by the end of December.

The local governing body was fined by Fifa after fans booed the Chinese anthem and threw a paper cup onto the pitch in another World Cup qualifying match against Qatar in September. 

The HKFA said after being fined last time: "Fifa has warned the HKFA that any further infringements will lead to more severe sanctions."

The most severe punishment could see Hong Kong stripped of points or even disqualified from the World Cup qualifiers.


(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv0gHR_UcSI The title of this news report is: "After September 3, November 17 has also become the "Memorial Day for Victory in the War of Resistance against Fascism!" in the hearts of Hong Kong fans.

(TVB) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH6oGpe0q8 News report including match highlights

(NOW TV) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=158363 News report on the booing of the Chinese national anthem

(Cable TV) http://cablenews.i-cable.com/ci/index.php/VideoPage/news/470541/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/%E7%90%83%E8%BF%B7%E5%85%A5%E5%A0%B4%E5%BE%8C%E4%BA%92%E7%9B%B8%E5%8F%AB%E5%8F%A3%E8%99%9F%E5%8F%8A%E5%A0%B1%E4%BB%A5%E5%99%93%E8%81%B2

(AFP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf5LCywZ99k
0:12 (Man) Fuck your mother!

(Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuN3kbWfbc8 Outside the stadium

(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2HTDrxnFA

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-8EI7KycRY News report
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhejdHq0Ka4 Booing the national anthem

(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maNlxaLjlao Passing out "Hong Kong is not China" posters to the spectators as they enter
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIAW3fWhkY "We are Hong Kong" chants
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJmpVrA4T18 "Boo"!
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXbAFgUmb8 "We are Hong Kong" near the big screen television near a park next to Mong Kok Stadium
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CeoH7Ul7O4 After the match, some fans walked over to the Chiu Luen Minibus area to demand the police tow away the illegally parked minibuses.
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdf50ts6CF4 At 915pm, some sports fans saw a man taking photos. When asked, the man said that he was taking photos on behalf of Ta Kung Pao/Wen Wei Po but he did not show a press pass. The fans chased him all the way to the transformer station on Sai Yee Street. The police escorted the man away.
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymZJA190s04 District council candidates Cheng Chung-tai and Leung Kam-shing lead the chant of "Down with the Communist Party" and foul-mouthed songs

(SocREC) https://youtu.be/mtu9kVv3J4g A man is escorted away because people suspect that he is a spy for the China Liaison Office to take photographs for Ta Kung Pao/Wen Wei Po

(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XexdC7u1L70 Fans want to beat up a Blue Ribbon who made provocative remarks to them in the children's playground on Sai Yee Street.

(Ellis Kwong Wai Kwan) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeibvK_WFd8 Booing the Chinese national anthem outside the stadium

(Chinese Football) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhRcz3w4Kw Match highlights
(Chinese Football) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8amAT4OXU Booing the national anthem.

Internet comments:

- (Silent Majority Facebook) It is rare in the world to see no sporting spirit inside a sports stadium.

"I am very normal. Therefore I will boo the national anthem!"

- Can you in any way shape or form justify this:
They are just chanting "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" and "Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!"

- Chip Tso Channel

The ball is round but men's hearts are not all round.

When the reporters want a statement of preference for the Hong Kong-China match:
Secretary of Finance John Tsang said: "I support the Hong Kong team."
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam said: "I support the Hong Kong team to play an exciting match" -- this means "I support to the Hong Kong team for having good spirits even after losing this match" so she has been hanging around the Chief Executive too long and she talks 30% like him.
As for Chief Executive CY Leung, he found the excuse of having to shake hands at APEC as a client state. He said: "I have to go to Manila. Unfortunately I won't be able to watch to match" as his excuse to avoid answering the question.
If you are open-minded and you feel that "Hong Kong is a part of China), you should support the Hong Kong team if you want to. If the Hong Kong team wins, it is a win for Hong Kong (China). Why be afraid of saying "I support the Hong Kong team"?
Unless of course you think that Hong Kong and China are "one nation on each side" or "two different political entities," why do you need to state a position?
This Chinese-style of dishonesty has a certain logical function: Those senior government officials who dare not openly support the Hong Kong team must be consciously or subconsciously Hong Kong independence elements.

- You can say that "I support the Hong Kong team" or "I support the Chinese team" or "this has nothing to do with my job" or "I don't even like soccer" or "why am I being forced to choose sides? why can't I just want a good and exciting game regardless of who wins?" or "I am busy overseas on government business" or whatever, Chip Tso will find a way of criticizing you. As my response, I think I will just quote what the Hong Kong fans always say:

"Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" and "Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!"

- "Hong Kong Is Not China"? I checked the map:

This statement is true: Hong Kong is just one little black dot whereas China is the big yellow chunk in the middle. In the same way, New York City is not the United States, Osaka is not Japan, Marseilles is not France, Perth is not Australia, etc.  But what is the purpose of saying so?
Which English-language genius came up with this phrase? No wonder Vietnam has surged ahead of Hong Kong in terms of command of the English language.

- Let me tell you: "You are not your mother."

- When you have public signs that read: "Drink Don't Drive", this is the level of language competency you expect.

- This is Hong Kong-style English, which is different from American or British English with its unique characteristics. In like manner, Hongkongers also speak Hongkongese, which is different from the Cantonese dialect with its unique characteristics. What you regard as language mistakes are actually creative inventions.  Unfortunately the rest of the world has yet to learn the Hong Kong-style languages.

- They should stick to "BOO". But it is not universal. The Cantonese word is "噓" (sound of "hur"). "BOO" is almost not specific, because it could be for unsportsman-like conduct, or skin color, or whatever.

- "Hong Kong does not belong to China" or "Hong Kong is not a part of China" may be better. But that becomes clearly political. "Hong Kong is not China" could be taken to be cultural or other meanings.

- I am totally uninterested in which soccer teams (if any) are supported by which senior government official. That's their personal business. There is no need for them to pledge allegiance.

- Why should there be two teams coming from the same country? This proves that Hong Kong is an independent sovereign entity.
- The United Kingdom fields four separate teams: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This proves that these are independent sovereign entities. And Denmark fields Denmark and the Faroe Islands. This proves that the Faroe Islands are an independent sovereign entity.

- What do they teach in universities? When the national anthem gets played and some people sing along, you use boo's to drown them out. Is this the result of your refined and cultivated education?

- (Apple Daily) Polytechnic University Social Policy Research Centre director Chung Kim-wah said that it is normal for a senior government official representing Hong Kong to say "I support the Hong Kong team." So when the senior government official is afraid to say so, then how can the people of Hong Kong believe that this government official will fight for the interests of the people of Hong Kong with respect to the Central Government?

- Does saying "I support the Hong Kong team" mean that the speaker will look after the interests of Hong Kong?

- Well, if CY Leung simply said: "I support the Hong Kong team," they will say that he is insincere or that they the people of Hong Kong don't appreciate his support anyway. Then they will say that he must attend the match instead of going to the APEC meeting. And if he does attend the match, they will find something else to pick on such as the lack of extensive funding for sports in Hong Kong. And if he proposes to increase funding for sports, they will criticize them for placing sports over livelihood issues (e.g. universal pension).

- Before this scholar makes criticisms, he should fix up his hair first. And why that bitter look? Why is there so much bile and hatred in him?

- If this scholar wants to have a good research topic, then how about this: Wen Wei Po polled 193 pan-democratic candidates in the district council elections -- Do you support Occupy Central? None dared to answer. None. What is the political analysis of this situation?

- Scholars want more interesting and useful research projects, such as polling people and forcing them to choose one and only one among these:
(1) I am Hongkonger but not Chinese
(2) I am Chinese but not Hongkonger
(3) I am Chinese Hongkonger
(4) I am Hongkonger Chinese
(5) I am Hongkonger first, Chinese second
(6) I am Chinese first, Hongkonger
(7) None of the above
(8) Hard to say/not sure/refuse to answer

- A political scientist must clearly know that there are multiple views on an issue. For example, some people support the Hong Kong team, some support the Chinese team, some support the German team and others don't support any team. As another example, some people support Occupy Central and other people oppose Occupy Central. So what exactly does "the interest of the people of Hong Kong" mean? Either it is to support or not to support. If you support, you are working for their interests and against the interests of those who oppose. Vice versa. The only reason you talk that way is that you have clearly decided that you (and only you) will make the determination of what the true interest of the people of Hong Kong lies. Thus, you support the Hong Kong team,  you support Occupy Central, etc. And all those who disagree with your determination can fuck themselves because they are Hong Kong traitors.

- A Hong Kong citizen must support the Hong Kong team? Why?
- It is a sad day when a Hongkonger is compelled to support the Hong Kong team, for Fascism will have won.
- Hongkongers support Manchester United much more so than South China. Does that make them unpatriotic?
- What kind of Hong Kong team is this anyway? Seven members (Festus Baise, Bai He, Jean-Jacques Kilama, Sandro, Jack Sealy, Paulinho and Jaimes McKee) out of the 11 starters are outsider mercenaries who took jobs away from homegrown Hong Kong talents. At least on the Chinese team, every player is born in China.

- The situation is that Hong Kong has one away game left at Qatar on March 24, 2015. Meanwhile China has two home games with Maldives on March 24, 2016 and Qatar on March 29, 2016. So far China and Hong Kong have been defeating the minnow (Bhutan and Maldives), they lose to Qatar and they tie each other. If at the end of the qualifying round, Hong Kong and China are tied on points, the tie breaker will be on goals scored. China has 21 goals and Hong Kong 13. To advance as second-place finisher, Hong Kong must get some points from Qatar. Meanwhile China should beat Maldives easily and they must get the same or more points from Qatar.
- As Group C leader, undefeated Qatar has already qualified. How do you fix the game with them? You can't offer them money because they are flushed with oil cash.

(The Standard) In the most contentious moment of the match, Hong Kong goalie Yapp Hung-fai made a double save to deny Yu Dabao in the 76th minute. Yapp could only palm Yu's pointblank header straight back to the striker, whose second-chance header deflected off the post and appeared to cross the line before the goalkeeper clawed the ball back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhRcz3w4Kw (1:54)

- It is hard for me to support a Hong Kong team whose captain is Yapp Hung-fai. When Yapp was asked about the call (because he was the person who swatted the ball back out), he got angry and said that it was a refereeing issue to which he won't respond. Yapp lacks sporting spirit.

- If there is a photograph, there is truth.

The question to Yapp is not: "Did the ball cross the line?" but "How do you live with this lie the rest for your life?"

- Here is Yapp's Facebook with a photo of himself kicking a Chinese player and a challenge to comment.

- Under normal circumstances, I might consider supporting the Hong Kong team. But a small group of political parties and media outlets have decided to inject politics into a soccer game. If this whole thing is turned into a chance to increase Hong Kong-China conflicts and physical assaults around the stadium, then I respectfully decline to support anything around this match.

- As a soccer fan, a Hongkonger and a Chinese, I have to say that I am not a fan of either the Hong Kong team or the Chinese team. They both suck (海軍鬥水兵). I am a Bayern Munich fan because I like to watch Neuer, Ribery, Lahm, Robben, Mueller and Lewandowski. They are physically fit, they are skillful, they are intelligent, they have brilliant tactics, they score beautiful goals. Thank you.
- One of these days, the Hong Kong team may be playing England. Then who will the Hong Kong independence advocates support? If they wave the British Dragon/Lion flag, they will be supporting England over Hong Kong.

- (Apple Daily) With respect to the photo of Hong Kong fans holding up "Hong Kong Is Not China" placards, Chinese goalie Wang Da-lei posted on Weibo: "As for this photo ... CNMD (=Fuck your mother's)" and "I don't know politics. I only know that I am Chinese and I am very proud to be Chinese. I love my motherland! I and the ordinary Chinese have the same bright red hearts!"

- TVB has been given air play about the political showdown for several months already. Why do they want to magnify the matter? The answer is very simple: they own the television broadcast rights and they want to maximize the audience (and hence ad revenue from the sponsor Panasonic).

- (Oriental Daily) Chinese University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu was not present at the site of the campus live broadcast of the match. Therefore he missed out on what the students did. Apparently Sung doesn't read newspapers either. Therefore he gave a speech at the CUHK graduate ceremony a couple of days later to say: "Right now everybody thinks that university students nowadays have become worse, because they quarrel, they lack manners and they don't think about advancing themselves. This is not the case for CUHK. People should not make sweeping statements ..." Sung is still in denial mode.

- The so-called Battle between Hong Kong and China is one of the worst games that I have seen in recent years. All I saw was a group of people struggling with each other, completely without any skill or tactic.

The Chinese national team has always been disappointing because they only know to play one way; the Hong Kong are like what they were in the past, with occasional flashes of brilliance. If I weren't a Chinese living in Hong Kong, I would have switched tv channels early on.

While watching the match, it occurred to me that the Hong Kong players are in the situation as Hong Kong itself. For the Hong Kong players, the market is performing poorly, the income is pitiful and the prospects are dim. That's how it's been for twenty years already. Meanwhile the Chinese national team lacks both skill and character, but their average income is more than ten times higher than the Hong Kong players. Why?

Because they are in the Chinese market where the wind is so strong that even pigs can fly! Over the past five years, there is a huge infusion of capital led by Evergrande into the Chinese Premier League, thus creating a strange situation: the Chinese Premier League has attracted talents from over the world even as the Chinese national team is making zero progress. The situation is similar in England. When I was a sports reporter, the Hong Kong teams were asked it they were interested in joining the Chinese Division A. The teams rejected the offer, with the official explanation being that the level of play was poor. But other veteran reporters said: "They don't want to spend the money! If they are in Division A, they probably can't afford to play airfares for the teams!"

Twenty years have passed. The Chinese Premier League is not its former shadow. In the next five years, the broadcast rights for the Chinese Premier League will be 8 billion yuan, which is more than the total of the broadcast rights of the English Premier League, the Spanish Liga and the NBA together. Meanwhile, Hong Kong soccer is ailing. The best hope for Hong Kong players is to be signed by the Chinese Premier League, or even organizing a Hong Kong team for the Chinese Premier League. Even if they only manage to join the Chinese Division A, their income and skills will improve immensely. If the Hong Kong players are enjoying their fans chanting "We are Hong Kong," then this is seriously delusional.

- (Headline Daily, November 22 2015) On Tuesday, more than 6,000 people crowded into Mong Kok Sports Ground to watch Hong Kong versus China. On Saturday, the two local club matches were attended by 334 and 728 spectators respectively. This is the true level of support for Hong Kong soccer.

- (Oriental Daily) The fact that Hong Kong was able to tie China twice is going to cause the Hong Kong Football Association some problems. When the transfer market opens up again in January, a number of Hong Kong team members will be going north to dig gold. These include Lee Chi-ho (who played for Beijing Guo'an two years ago) and the "twin black towers" Festus Baise and Jean-Jacques Kilama. During the friendly match between Hong Kong and Myanmar, Chinese scouts were present to watch Sandro, Alex Akande and Paulinho.

When Hong Kong tied China in Shenzhen on September 3, a number of Chinese clubs were sending signals to Kilama, offering much more than the $60,000 per month that he gets from Oriental Club in Hong Kong. However, Kilama is still under contract here.

Right now it is almost certain that the "black twin towers" of Baise and Kilama will be heading north next year. The Oriental CEO Leung Sau-chi said: "They played for Hong Kong and their excellent performances drew the attention of the mainland clubs. I am personally happy for them. But their departures will impact our club. The transfer fees will allow us to hire quality foreign replacements. However, those two do not count as foreign imports because they have right of abode after being here for seven years and there are no local players of the same quality. This is not something that can be solved with money alone."

Meanwhile Lee Chi-ho who had no takers early this year has now found a golden opportunity. In the two matches against China, Lee played as well as any of the Chinese players. He said: "How did you get wind so quickly? Yes! I am going north in January! I cannot tell you which team yet. I will continue to play for Rangers here. After all, Rangers gave me a chance early in the season." He added: "The terms are very good. It is a lot higher than when I played for Beijing Guo'an. Hehe!"

- Why do Hong Kong players want to go north?
Reason #1: Their monthly salary will get an extra zero behind.
Reason #2: The club game attendance figure will get one or two extra zeroes behind. No professional soccer player wants to play in front of 50 spectators.
Reason #3: It is more challenging.

- Hong Kong goalie Yapp Hung-fai holding up a sign:

I am Chinese, not foreign nationality. Yapp Hung-fai

(SCMP September 4, 2015) Hong Kong hero Yapp Hung-fai claimed he was called a dog by China captain Zheng Zhi during a thrilling 0-0 draw in their World Cup qualifier in Shenzhen on Thursday night. Goalkeeper Yapp posted a photo on Instagram around midnight with a short paragraph: We made it! Also, we, Hong Kong team intended to defend. You are mad at not winning the match and approached me to call me a dog. Asian Footballer of the Year, you have good skills, but you fail in terms of sportsmanship! Chinese media confirmed with Yapp that the Asian Footballer of the Year mentioned was Zheng. Zheng denied the allegation, telling mainland news portal sina.com: I cursed him [Yapp]? It didnt happen. I did spoke to him. I said: Get up. Nobody touched you! Zheng accused the Hong Kong team of time wasting and Yapp of pretending to be injured. He said Yapps accusation was a joke. 

So will Yapp Hung-fai get a mainland club offer that he can't refuse?

- Post on City University's Democracy Wall:

With foreign enemies arriving here, we will give full support
Hong Kong's national team will defeat China on November 17
Immediately the whole city will offer backup support
Chinese national team will teach Hong Kong on November 17

- At around 7pm on November 19, a female mainland student was spotted ripping down the HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA post on the Democracy Wall inside City University. She attempted to replace it with replacing NOT CHINA with JUST A PART OF CHINA. As seen in the video, she had already posted JUST A. A male Hong Kong student argued with her. She also covered her face and cried. She asked the reporter not to film her and tried to cover the camera eye. Our reporter told her to stop. The Hong Kong student said that he observed the whole process. When she spotted him filming, she tried to seize the camera in order to delete the film. He told her that she better restore the poster or else he would post the video onto the Internet. The Hong Kong student said that his hand was injured in the struggle. As he tried to show our reporter his wounds, the mainland student cried: "I really didn't intend to hurt you. Do you feel that I intentionally injured you?"

- Boos? There were plenty of boos when Turkey played Greece in Istanbul and a minute of silence was held for the Paris massacres. The crowd was chanting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwKOq2oz9Nk

- Sorry, they were chanting "Sehitler olmez, vatan bolunmez" which means "Martyrs never die, the nation won't be divided." This is a common slogan thrown in remembrance of Turkish soldiers who fell victim to terrorism. In Turkey, there is rarely a minute of silence that isn't interrupted by this chant. Whether its a minute of silence for a Turkish catastrophe, or something else that happened globally, this always happens. The booing wasn't for the victims in Paris, but more to do with the hypocrisy of the Western world. International teams did not hold a minute's silence after the Ankara terror attack in October. More than 100 people died in the Turkish capital after two bombs were set off outside the Ankara Central railway station on 11 October.

- (Bastille Post with video) November 22, 2015. In the AFC Champions League, Evergrande (Guangzhou, China) defeated Al Ahli (United Arab Emirates) 1:0 in Guangzhou to win the title. Evergrande's principal is Ma Yun (Alibaba). Afterwards, the Evergrande fans began to sing songs including the Queen's "We Are The Champions" and Beyond's "Vast Oceans, Boundless Skies". Chinese national team captain Zheng Zhi may be pilloried in Hong Kong but he is a hero here. It is wistful that the only difference between Evergrande and the Chinese national team is several foreign imported stars. However, Evergrande is bent on nurturing the next generation of the Chinese national team. After this match, 2800 of the Evergrande Soccer School students came onto the field. When these students mature, the Evergrande team will be completely Chinese.
- The match was won with the goal by Brazilian Elkeson. Evergrande is coached by former Brazil national coach Luis Scolari.
- By the way, the team bonus for the win was $20 million RMB compared to $1 million if Hong Kong defeated China.

(Oriental Daily) November 17, 2015.

Today Lingnan University held graduation ceremony. About 10 new graduates demonstrated outside the venue by raising placards and chanting slogans. Before the ceremony, Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group spokesperson Lee Mei-ting  said that they intend to protest during the ceremony. Then about 30 new graduates threw paper airplanes inside the venue and place white roses on the stage in front of vice-chancellor Leonard Cheng to symbolize their desire for freedom. They also want the right to elect the board of trustees, and to have no threats against teachers and students for expressing their opinions. The white roses were intended to mourn Lingnan University. After the ceremony, about a dozen new graduates tossed airplanes outside the venue.

According to Lee Mei-ting, 200 paper airplanes were prepared. They chose to protest at the graduation ceremony because this is their last chance to express their opinions as students. She said that their method of protest was solemn and ironical, and did not disturb the atmosphere of the ceremony. She said that she was dissatisfied with Leonard Cheng sending a letter to Wan Chin to tell him to be "careful about what he said." She said that Cheng was intimidated a teacher, and interfering with freedom of expression and academic research. Lee said that the university was suppressing freedom of press by not permitting filming during the ceremony.

Today, various newspapers in Hong Kong carried an advertisement in which several hundred persons signed to protest against the newly appointed trustees. They said that political interference is taking place. The Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group demanded that the government withdraw the appointments and eliminate the law which makes the Chief Executive chancellor with the power to appoint trustees. They also demanded that the Lingnan University Ordinance be amended so as to have more students and staff on the board of trustees for self-rule.


(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzX3Zpw_Ng
(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YhFPU7KAk

(Radio Free Asia) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edqJu3d-AMM

(TVB) http://news.tvb.com/local/564b056d6db28ccc62000004/ (0:47) A parent: "I don't oppose them. I understand that they want to express their opinions. But I think that they should respect the ceremony." Another parents: "I feel that this meeting belong to the graduating students. Ultimately they took up some time."

Internet comments:

- I hope that they bothered to pick up the paper airplanes after they launched them into the air.
- Even if they picked up all the paper airplanes afterwards, did they make sure that the paper was recycled?

- When these new graduates get a job with a company, they are going to demonstrate against their supervisors and demand one-person-one-vote with civil nomination to elect senior managers.
- Lee Mei-ting has just told me that if a corporate manager issues a letter of warning for using obscene language at work, then he is violating my freedom of expression.

- There is normally only one student representative appointed for one year to the board of trustees. During the course of that year, the student representative can barely learn the ropes. Just ask: How much does a second-year student know about running a university? About appraising the qualifications of job candidates?  By the time a student representative learns enough, it is time for him/her to move on (e.g. overseas exchange, graduation, etc). A board of trustees with a majority of student representatives is not sustainable.
- There are normally several academic and non-academic staff members on the board of trustees. A board of trustees with a majority of staff member is not likely to work because it will tilt towards protecting existing interests (e.g. give huge pay raises, oppose downsizing in spite of dwindling enrolment, etc).

- The proper target is not the Chief Executive or the board of trustees. On a day-to-day basis, it is the president/vice-chancellor who is in charge. So why are the students not demanding to elect their president/vice-chancellor? The answer is very simple -- the staff and students are unqualified to screen the academic and administrative records of the potential candidates. If they make a decision it will something along the lines of "Leonard Cheng had supported CY Leung in the past and this makes him unfit to become Lingnan University president. As for Leonard Cheng's work on "applied game theory, market structure, currency crisis, international trade and investment, technological innovation and imitation, and Chinas inward and outward foreign direct investment", how do you expect a first-year student or a department administrative assistant to make an informed evaluation?

- If Lingnan University manages to elect its president by universal suffrage, then it may be unique in the world. What is for certain is that they will not get any high-quality applicants for the job. What administrator/scholar would put themselves through this kind of meat grinder? However highly you think of your own administrative skills and academic accomplishments, it means nothing because the voters only want to know what you think of CY Leung.

- This Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group seems to be loaded with money because they can afford to buy newspaper ads.

- It always comes down to $MONEY$. If Lingnan University faculty and students truly want to be independent, they can reject the government subsidies offered through the University Grants Commission and become privatized. The students only have to quadruple their tuition fees while the faculty can help by accepting a 50% pay cut. You can't take the government's money and want no oversight in the name of academic freedom.

- Did the reporter ask Lee Mei-ting whether her breasts have been fondled by mainland men and whether she washed her vagina before providing service?
- When a teacher talks that way to Lee Mei-ting, do you think the vice-chancellor should give a warning to that teacher?

- Flying paper airplanes? Well, in Cantonese, the term "打飛機" (shooting at airplanes) means masturbation. This is exactly what this whole exercise is -- you feel good about yourself, but you won't change anything outside.
- '
嘈完一輪又得個吉.'  After all the hububb, nada.

- What kind of journalism is this? Did anyone interview the non-protestors? About how they felt about the demonstration at their graduation ceremony?

- The photo shows about 10 demonstrators. How many new graduates in total were there? 100? 500? But this important moment of the lives of these others was overshadowed by morons throwing paper airplanes around.
- Normally, the diploma has the signature of the chancellor (=Chief Executive). Did the protestors rip their diplomas up?
- So when you have a graduation ceremony to celebrate, someone places white flowers (=symbols of death) on the stage. Someday when Lee Mei-ting gets married, you should show up with a funeral wreath to pay her back.

- (Speakout HK) Lingnan University trustee Wong Kwun-yu said that it is inappropriate to demonstrate during the graduation ceremony. He said that the students have worked hard for four years to earn their degrees and this is the day that they and their families were looking forward to. It would be unfair to them if a small number of students want to demonstrate during the ceremony. He said that the students should respect other people. If someone insists on using this occasion to express political opinions, the students will end up losing.

- (Ming Pao) By tradition, the university chancellor (=Chief Executive) should attend the graduate ceremonies of at least two universities per year. This year, CY Leung will attend not any. In 2012, at the Academy of Performing Arts, the students crossed their arms and made thumbs down gestures to greet Leung; in 2013, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam took Leung's place at the Academy of Performing Arts, and the students crossed their arms and sang <Did you ask who hasn't spoken yet?>. Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that the chancellor has the duty to attend important ceremonies such as graduation. He thinks that Leung hasn't fulfilled his duties.

- As if the students aren't disruptive enough now, Ip Kin-yuen wants even more trouble. Right now, the students can surely demonstrate anytime anywhere that they want, but they chose to disrupt the graduate ceremony because they know they will get media exposure. If the Chief Executive comes, the students will create an even greater stir and outside radical groups will crash the gate and put on their own show.

- This is continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Occupy Central. They want civil nomination of the Chief Executive, and they decide to put the citizens through hell to get media exposure. In like manner, these 10 Lingnan students want attention so they put the entire graduating class and their families through hell to get media exposure.

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2015.

At the intersection of Ma Tau Wai Road and Bailey Street in Hung Hom, a black sedan car was intercepted by the police early in the morning. The driver came out and cursed out the police. The police suspected that the car was illegally modified. The unhappy driver launched a stream of obscene invectives.

While the police were writing a summons, the driver continued to yell: "Are you done with the ticketing?" "Take the video and note how long they took to record the information in an ID" and "He is still not fucking writing the ticket. Take a video and post it onto the Internet."

The video was posted onto YouTube, and drew plenty of negative comments about the driver.

- That driver was guilty as hell, and that's why he didn't want the police to check his car. He thought that screaming aloud means that he is innocent.

- He raved and ranted for so long, but in the end he got what he wished for -- the police towed away the car.

- This guy thinks that he is such a big shot. His choice of words went too far already. The police mishandled the case. When a man is screaming and yelling in the middle of the night, they should have invited him back down to the police station for a chat instead of letting him disturb the neighborhood.

- This is so pathetic. Hong Kong should really consider criminalizing the act of insulting a police officer.

- This bloke posted the video on the Internet, thinking that he looked really cool.

Very soon afterwards, the Internet human flesh search engines flushed out information on the driver named Leung. It turns out that he works for a car washing shop named Lok Go on Wing Kwong Street, To Kwa Wan district.

It would also turn out that the car washing operation does its work in the street. Immediately Internet users filed police reports about the illegal car parking on that street, including the shops using objects to block others from parking at their 'reserve spaces'. Now there are police officers 24 hours a day issuing parking tickets on that street.

This is what the street looks like according to Google Map before, with cars parked illegally.

This is how it looks now with all the illegally parked cars gone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAkOL4Mskg A copy of the 9-minute video taken by the companion of the driver.

https://www.facebook.com/308634672647539/videos/517885928389078/ Shorter 1-minute version.

0:01 Leung: Don't fucking touch me! I am prepared. You go ahead and tow. You tow, dickhead! Fuck your mother! It's just a piece of cake. You drop dead! Fuck your mother! ... What's the big deal? It's only several tens of thousand dollars. You remember to stay here and wait. What are you writing? You have fucking written it yet. Is it so fucking had to write words? You write. Write. I am not finished.
0:56 Policeman: Can you wait?
0:57 Leung: No. I am in a hurry.
0:58 Policeman: I am going to fill it out.
0:59 Leung: You go ahead and fill it out. Why are you still fucking standing around? Fill it out! Don't you know how to fucking write!? Fucking hurry up! Moron! Fucking hurry up! What the fuck are you talking about? Dickhead!

Internet comments:

- In the case of Couple vs. Hong Kong Police, the couple thought that everybody would be on their side and found the opposite to their surprise.

- The Golden Forum lads really have to thank morons like Mr. Leung for providing them with regular entertainment.

- The evolution of this story shows the power of the Internet. From a YouTube video, it went to the Hong Kong Discussion Forum where users kept pushing it until the mainstream Oriental Daily picked it up.

- There will never be criminalization of the act of insulting the police. To quote the Civic Party: When citizens are doing what they consider to be right and just, it is alright to insult the police for stopping them. But, of course, the citizens must not be allowed to insult judges and lawyers.

- More developments: The heavy police presence caused business to dwindle along the whole street, as customers can no longer park illegally like they used to. The businesses have called on Democratic Party district councilor Poon Chi-man to make a demand to the Police Public Relations Bureau and the Transportation Department not to chase away the illegally parked cars anymore. There is now a call for Internet users to go down to Wing Kwong Street every day and make calls to the police to complain about illegally parked cars. The police have to respond to the complaints.

- More developments: Mr. Leung is a member of an illegal car racing group called Copaze. You can see the sign of Copaze placed in front of the car window in the video. Every night these Copaze guys gather in front of Lok Go and create noise and pollution to the consternation of local residents. After racing, they come back to Lok Go and drink beer in front of the store. When neighbors get the police to come, these guys insult them. Sometimes their cars even block the police cars from going through the street. 

(Wikipedia) Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is the public broadcaster of Hong Kong, operated as an independent government department under the Communications Authority.

(Wikipedia) Police Report is a weekend RTHK programme in Hong Kong, similar to Crimewatch in the UK or America's Most Wanted in the United States. It is broadcast in English and Cantonese versions (broadcast as Police Magazine, subtitled), and each episode differ only in broadcast language and cast. Each episode is only five minutes long, and is televised on TVB Pearl on Saturdays and ATV World on Sundays, following their evening newscasts.(HKG Pao) November 16, 2015.

A recent episode of RTHK's Police Report was to alert about telephone scamming. In the fictional story, the scammer conned a credit card number out of the victim. Credit card numbers have 16 digits, but the example used here only has 13 of the numbers entered so far. The numbers are 94135354689.

Immediately within hours of the broadcast, the Yellow Ribbon media were in ecstasy because everybody who knows Cantonese knows that these numbers have meaning.

'9413' is '九死一生', which means that the situation is perilous with a 90% chance of dying and a 10% chance of surviving.

'5354' is '唔生唔死' which means neither dead nor alive, or suspended in limbo.

'689' is the codeword of Chief Executive CY Leung, who was elected by 689 votes out of the 1,200-person election committee.

Was this deliberate? Or was this a mere coincidence?

Presently, Police Report is produced by RTHK. The Hong Kong Police Public Relations Branch provides the case files, the spokesperson, etc, but RTHK is responsible for scripting. In this incident, the suspicion is that there were Yellow Ribbons within the production team who sneaked in a piece of Yellow Ribbon political propaganda. The Hong Kong Police are very unhappy, but there is nothing that they can do.

In recent years, RTHK programs and news reporting have been controversial because they slant towards the pan-democrats. Almost all current affairs programs are premised on criticizing the government. The City Forum is particularly notorious for inviting mostly anti-government guests to blast the government. Internet users use the homonym '傷港奠台' =(the mourning altar that hurts Hong Kong) for RTHK.

Not only are the RTHK programs getting more politically motivated, but they are also getting sloppier. In this particular episode, the victim entered the credit card number 941353545689 but the scammer was shown to have received 94135354689. Someone was asleep on the job.

When our reporter contacted RTHK over this matter, the RTHK corporate communications team said that they "didn't think there was any special meaning" and the colleagues in the production team will respond. So far there has been no response yet.

Internet comments:

- What is the purpose of all these shenanigans? In the short run, it is good for a laugh but it won't change anything politically speaking. CY Leung isn't going to resign, the Chinese Communist regime isn't going to collapse, etc. In the long run, this is going to eventually hurt the independence of RTHK. Some day, the government is going to send in a new management team. You can scream and holler, but the government will simply produce a dossier of these shenanigans to show the old management has lost control.

(RTHK) November 15, 2015.

Headline: Hong Kong University academic staff and others in referendum; 95% said that Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not fit to become HKU council chairman

The Hong Kong University Academic Staff Association and the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group held a referendum. On the motion "Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not fit to become HKU council chairman," 754 postgraduate students and academic and non-academic staff members voted, with 95% agreeing and 2.4% disagreeing ...

(Speakout HK @ YouTube) November 16, 2015.

When you read the headline, it would seem as if almost everybody is against Arthur Li. But if you read the details, it turns out that 148 academic staff members and 334 non-academic staff members voted. That makes 482 in total. That number is 4.4% out of all the 10,965 academic and non-academic staff at the university.

Interestingly, Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the Hong Kong University Academic Staff Association, had previously said that a vote by 152 association members was highly representative but this time he has an excuse for the low turnout. Cheung said: "Previously we were able to spam all teachers and staff members but we are no longer allowed to do so. I have gone out to knock on doors to tell people to vote, but I found out that many many people were not aware of the matter."

Well, at one time, you said 152 was highly representative. Now you say that 482 is low response. You sure know how to move the goalposts around.

Related link: Hong Kong By The Numbers (#360)

(Wen Wei Po) November 16, 2015.

On November 13-15, Wen Wei Po conducted a survey of the 2015 District Council election candidates. The survey was sent to 587 email addresses listed by the Electoral Affairs Office. These were the questions:

- Do you support Occupy Central?

- Do you agree with people calling the Hong Kong Police as the "Dark (Evil) Police"?

- Will you support a second Occupy Central?

- Do you support the "Drive the Locusts out" action against the mainlanders?

- Do you support the "Reclaim" action against mainland parallel traders?

- Do you agree with establishing nationhood for Hong Kong?

- Do you support filibustering (in the Legislative Council)?

- Do you have any other opinions?

Among the 587 subjects, all 193 opposition candidates were evasive, some not even answering at all. The Democratic Party fielded 95 candidates, but they refused to answer these simple questions because "the candidates from the party are worried that their responses may not be adequately and/or accurately presented and thus the fairness of the elections will be affected to a certain degree."

Civic Party which was one of the parties which started Occupy Central responded that the party was studying how to respond. By the deadline, there was no reaction from them. The ADPL, League of Social Democrats, People Power, Neo Democrats and other major opposition parties did not respond. Some of the post-Umbrella organizations and "faux independence" candidates did not respond either.

But the historical archive shows that many members of the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats and People Power including candidates in the elections participated in the unlawful Occupy Central, with some of them even having been arrested.

(SCMP) November 19, 2015.

Almost half of the self-proclaimed "independents" in the district council elections are linked to pro-establishment groups, the Post has found.

Although the candidates claim those groups are not political bodies, the groups have taken a clear stance on political issues, including taking part in anti-Occupy campaigns and expressing support for the government's political reform package.

A scholar says affiliation with such long-established groups should not be ignored by candidates given their record of mobilising support for pro-Beijing candidates, but with no law to regulate political parties, there is nothing the authorities can do about such omissions.

The Post's check covered 117 candidates who declared themselves to be "independent" or "non-affiliated" in their nomination forms. It did not cover 280 candidates who left a blank in the political affiliation column.

Of the 117 candidates, 51 are in one way or another linked to pro-establishment groups. They may hold office, serve as advisers, or are included in a "recommended candidates list" for members.

Marco Ma Yat-chiu is one of the eight "independents" who failed to declare his ties with the Kowloon Federation of Associations, which has the likes of Basic Law Committee vice-chairwoman Elsie Leung Oi-sie as an honorary president. He is an executive member in charge of recreational affairs.

"I want to be a true pro-establishment candidate in name but no party invited me," said Ma, 38, who is seeking another term in Kwun Tong's Hong Lok constituency.

He did not declare his affiliation because the federation "was not a political party" and his role was minimal, he said.

Other such organisations include the Hong Kong Island Federation, which stresses the principle of "love the country and love Hong Kong", and the New Territories Association of Societies. Eight and six independent candidates are related to these groups respectively.

Positive Synergy, a younger group that was set up in 2013, held a swearing-in ceremony for the 22 candidates in Kwun Tong district last month. But at least three of them call themselves independent and others simply left a blank in the affiliation column in their nomination form.

The group prompted questions about its political stance after an official from Beijing's liaison office attended its launch ceremony. Its secretary is Wong Chun-ping, a former liaison office official who became a district councillor.

But Positive Synergy chairman Bunny Chan Chung-bun denies the group is close to Beijing. "We get together but we are not a party. We are just a platform for independents to exchange views," said Chan, a deputy to the National People's Congress.

Meanwhile, three non-affiliated candidates are provincial or municipal deputies to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. None of the four - Paul Law Siu-hung and Patrick Ko Hiu-wing running in Yau Tsim Mong district and Roy Ting Chi-wai in Wong Tai Sin - could be reached for comment.

Joseph Lam Chok, who is said to be dating current Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak Ming-sze, is among the dozens of names included in the list of "recommended candidates" of the Federation of Fujian Associations, which was leaked to the media last week.

Lam, vying for the seat in Wong Tai Sin's Lung Sing constituency, denied suggestions that he was an "invisible leftist". "I have asked my volunteers and supporters - none say they sought the Fujian group's support. I don't know what happened."

Just as such candidates argue that some Occupy protesters did not declare their stance, Edward Lau Wai-tak, an Occupy activist vying for the seat in Central and Western District's University constituency, said he did not state his affiliation to Island West Dynamic Movement, which he founded with two other candidates, as he considered himself to be independent.

"Our group is self-funded and subject to no party's control," he said.

Dixon Sing Ming, a political scientist at the University of Science and Technology, said affiliation to pro-Beijing groups was key information that should not be concealed from voters. "A lot of these societies were set up after the handover to mobilise support for pro-establishment parties in elections," he said.

(Kinliu) Judgment by Voting. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 21, 2015.

Have you noticed that we are seeing much less of the color yellow in recent months? Even at the Lingnan University graduation ceremony, they were only throwing white paper airplanes. Isn't this odd?

When I went hiking, I ran into yellow banners. At graduate ceremonies, there are yellow umbrellas. Also yellow talismans with "I want genuine universal suffrage" are seen in the streets. For one year, the color yellow was with us. Many people got rich and famous through the Yellow Color Industry. Joshua Wong (where Wong means Yellow) broke out during the storm and became a Yellow General. He came and went by taxi, he attends a university but he is actually traveling all over the world. Who knows how many classes he has cut, but he is certainly subsidized by the taxpayers.

Whereas normal people see a Yellow Disaster, the Yellow Umbrella Soldiers say that they are only seeking an Utopia with democracy, freedom, rule of law, human rights ... they invoke these sacred terms whenever they run into objections. As soon as they raise yellow umbrellas, government officials, vice-chancellors, bosses and citizens are scared stiff.

If the going is so good, they should keep in going. So why is it that on the eve of the elections, they have quietly folded up their yellow flags and use red, green, purple and anything but yellow colors; they pretend that they are independents, they don't show any umbrellas and they run their battles from hiding.

There is one explanation: deep down inside, they realize that the color yellow repels people.

Only the umbrella soldiers who dare to identify themselves, the radical localists and the mentally ill candidates have declared aloud: "Occupy Central is guilt-free, rebellion is reasonable!" The rest of the pan-democrats --- the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, ADPL, Street and Neighbourhood Worker ... have all kept the yellow color away. Emily Lau no longer shrieks "I want genuine universal suffrage"; Alan Leong has wiped his smirk away and is now standing at the street corner begging for votes and maintains a bitter smile when cursed out by passersby. That is because they know that if they show their true selves and let the citizens remember what they were like during Occupy Central, the race would be a total rout.

These pro-democracy big brothers are now saying that they are retiring and leaving a new generation to fight the battle. Thus, they avoid judgment on election day. Even if the party loses, they can blame the new generation for not being ready yet. That is better than these Gods and Goddesses of Democracy being routed by a thousand or so votes in district council elections.

The various signs indicate that even the pan-democrats don't believe in Yellow Power. If they think that there was this great revolution, then the city should be awash in yellow this election month. There should be yellow banners, yellow signs, yellow flags, yellow clothe everywhere. But if you do look carefully, you won't even find a yellow ribbon.

This is about their vital interest -- getting votes. That is when people reveal their true faces. It was only yesterday that they condemned the police as "black/evil" but today they are visiting the quarters of the disciplinary forces and promising them nicely that they will fight for retirement benefits. So it turns out that a pistol in the belt of a policeman is much less damaging than a vote in his hand. I don't think that the citizens will forget so easily. Let us use our votes to render final judgment of the Yellow Army.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) On the question of support for "Drive the Locusts out"/"Reclaim XXX"/Nationhood, every single of the 195 opposition candidates refused to answer.

Claudia Mo (Civic Party) and Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats) are two better known Localists who achieved by lugging suitcases to express their dissatisfaction with mainland tourists. Kwok is running for District Councilor. In recent years Kwok has raised the Localistism in the name for "defending the interests of the people of Hong Kong" but actually wanting to fight for Hong Kong independence. However, Fan and the Neo Democrats will not answer the Wen Wei Po survey.

- (Wen Wei Po) When Civic Party member Kenneth Tsang reported about being "assaulted" by the police, Democratic Party legislative/district councilor James To immediately said that those police officers were "Black (Evil) Police" and that the Hong Kong Police is out of control. Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan said with red eyes that the Hong Kong Police is lawless. Later James To (now running for re-election in the Olympic district, Yau Tsim Mong), Kwong Chun-yu (Democratic Party candidate in Pek Long district, Yuen Long), Josephine Chan Shu-ying (Democratic Party candidate in Siu Hong district, Tuen Mun) and others threatened to resign en masse from the Crime Reduction District Committee to protest the secret police torture.

At this time, in an unprecedented move, the four police union for officers of various ranks have issued an open call to their members to vote in the district council elections for candidates who are positive and responsible. The four unions of of the Immigration Department and the Correctional Services union have also called on their members to vote for truthful, undestructive candidates.

The unions did not call for their members to vote for specific candidates. Therefore they are not violating neutrality. When they called for union members to vote for positive, responsible and truthful candidates, this is as wholesome and traditional values as mom and apple pie (=something that cannot be questioned because it appeals to universally-held beliefs or values). But everybody also knows that the subliminal message is to vote against all those who have called them "Black (Evil) Police" for the past year.

There are about 33,000 police officers,  6,500 correctional services workers and 6,500 immigration department workers. They also have families. The chances of them voting for a pro-Occupy/Reclaim/Shopping Revolution candidate are nil. That is why the opposition candidates have to be evasive on their positions.

Hong Kong Police Inspectors Association poster: Cast a vote so that you won't have any regrets in the future

- (Wen Wei Po) As of May 2015, 1,003 persons have been arrested in matters related to Occupy Central. Among the arrestees, 160 were prosecuted with convictions on crimes such as unlawful assembly, sexual molestation, common assault, possession of deadly weapons, theft, criminal destruction of property, criminal intimidation, possession of Class I poison, careless driving, etc.

With these District Council elections, the opposition do not have a strong record in community work and they are unable to stir up political issues. Instead, their big brothers and sisters were involved in secret donation scandals and led the way to block streets and prevent citizens from conducting normal lives, and they were the cheerleaders behind their leaders. They necessarily have to run for cover. When Albert Ho was accused of breaking the law as a lawyer, he responded that "he was using peaceful and rational methods to resist." But this is hardly convincing.

The Labour Party, People Power and the League of Social Democrats rely on radical elements more so than the Democratic Party and Civic Party. So even if "Occupy Central" is box-office poison generally speaking, they can still count on the blind support of the radical elements. But they would be fantasizing if they think that they can attract some moderate voters. What resident in their right minds would invite "the mice to enter their rice storage tank"? Who would want endless filibustering in their District Councils?

- (Wen Wei Po) The independent candidate Nadaze Hitsujiku (see #337) was more forthcoming than the Democratic Party, Civic Party or Labour Party. He responded to our survey, but he also included a lot of comments laced with obscene language. For example, he said that he supports the Umbrella Revolution but he opposes Occupy Central because that never took place. The Three Occupy Shames are fucking useless. They should be executed by a firing squad." He also condemned the government not having prosecuted the Three Occupy Shames as yet.

He said that he "supports the establishment of Hong Kong City-State sovereignty with Wan Chin becoming the transitional president and the City-State Royal Family becoming officials in the transitional government.

- The behavior of the closet Yellow Ribbon candidates make one thing very clear. Previously during Occupy Central, they said that they represent the people of Hong Kong. For example, they ran a referendum during which they claimed to have collected 780,000 signatures in support of civil nomination of Hong Kong Chief Executive. If they have popular support, then why are they running, ducking and hiding their Yellow Umbrellas now? Why can't they stand up, hold up their Yellow Umbrellas and say aloud: "I am Yellow Ribbon and I am proud." The silence is deafening.

- (Oriental Daily) Among the district council election candidates, about 40% claim to be independent or free of political affiliation. This is a record high in recent years. The Caritas Senior Citizen Association recently interviewed more than 1,700 senior citizens aged 60 or older. 80% of the respondents think that district council should be "honest and dependable" and "frequently come into the community to meet with residents." 64% of them would choose a candidate with no political party background. Analysts believe that senior citizens distrust persons with political party backgrounds because those people have the interests of their parties in mind and not those of the voters. The ideal candidate is between 41 to 59 years old. Interestingly, senior citizens do not favor young candidates because of the lack of work and life experiences.

- Is so hard to answer 6 yes/no questions?

- Why is it impossible to condemn the Black/Evil Police now? It was noted that there was a surge in voter registration this year. If you check the increases by election districts, those with the largest increases typically have government-employee quarters (e.g. police married quarters, etc) within. Previously, the police and other government workers were politically neutral. With the coming of Occupy/Shopping/Reclaim, the police felt unjustly attacked and insulted with the support of the pan-democrats. Their response was to urge each other to register and vote against the Yellow Ribbons. Under such circumstances, no candidates in their right minds would continue to call the police black and evil.

- Occupy Central may mean that there are certain monolithic blocs that will vote against the pan-democrats:

- (HKG Pao) November 20, 2015.

During Occupy Central, hedge fund manager Edward C.K. Chin and his 80 or supporters were prominent (see CNN). Now supporter Au Lai-chong has shown up as a "financial professional" with "no political affiliation" to run in the Stubbs Road district. She even mentioned that her father was a Communist Party Political Consultative Conference in Macau in order to create impression that she has nothing whatsoever to do with Occupy Central.

Unfortunately she made the mistake of asking former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, Labour Party's Cyd Ho and Civic Party's Tanya Chan and Lai Kwong-tak to join her at a rally.

If Occupy Central is just, then why hide your involvement and pretend to be independent instead? Maybe she knows that Occupy Central is very unpopular?

- Someone wrote (probably in sarcasm) that the pan-democrats only want to give without needing to receive. They are sincere people who are working for the good of Hong Kong. Therefore they Occupied Central but they did not want to use that as the reason to vote for them.

Sincere and good people?

If they are sincere and good, they wouldn't have occupied Hong Kong for 79 days and stopped people from working, attending school, shopping, visiting doctors, etc.

If they are sincere and good, they wouldn't be taking American funds to cause chaos in Hong Kong.

If they are sincere and good, they wouldn't be trying to give right of abode to foreign domestic helpers and children whose parents are not Hong Kong residents.

If they are sincere and good, they wouldn't be seeking judicial review of every single major infrastructure project.

If they are sincere and good, they wouldn't be filibustering in the Legislative Council and stopping Hong Kong from forging ahead.

They've done a lot more bad things, but I won't bother listing everything.

- (YouTube) Grandpas and grandmas wagging middle fingers and cursing out Democratic Party legislator Helen Wong.

Remember the Horse Carriage (Lau Ma-che)? He is back with a video about the Paris terrorist attacks.

(Apple Daily) November 15, 2015.

(1:10) I watched the news today. I see that there were terrorist attacks in France. Concert hall, football stadium, they were all fucking attacked by Islamist terrorists. A big massacre. Some dies, some were injured. A lot of fucking people.

But the main point of what I want to say is not to condemn or criticize those thugs. There is something wrong. If you hate the government there so much, then you should send someone to assassinate French president Hollande. If you hate Obama so much, you should send someone to assassinate Obama. You should not be hurting innocent citizens. This type of behavior is extremely shameful. That is to say, you should be targeting the persons in charge. You can throw bombs at the officials there, the French government officials, the Foreign Minister. How can you go after the citizens instead?

But what I want to say is that Hollande, Obama and the presidents and prime ministers of the large nations ... have they reflected on their own problems? Why don't the Islamist terrorists, Al Qaeda, ISIS, bin Laden ... they don't come after China. They don't launch attacks against Singapore. They keep going after the large nations such as France, the United States of America, etc.

That's because you bastards have done so many evil things, you bully the smaller nations.  You went to steal Middle-East petroleum. If they won't join your gang, you blow away their president. You use various methods, such as economic ones, to sanction the small nations which can't defend even defend themselves. You force them to submit. If Russia did not have a strong man such as Putin with his diplomatic prowess, even Russia would have to yield. Fortunately, this world still has Russia and China to put a brake on you.

The Americans ... whether during the First World War or the Second World War, they always show up near the end to pick up the spoils. Bastards! That is why I fucking hate Americans. The French are no better.

Therefore ... what do I want to say?  Today you are running into these kinds of situations. Well, you had it coming. Do you realize? Why do people go to the extreme with these terrorist acts, including suicide attacks? 9/11. Have you thought about it? You forced certain people to form a group to counterattack you. Obama, Hollande, wake up! Bastards! Your actions laid the seeds of disaster for your citizens and residents. There will be more coming.

I also want to say ... I can't remember ... I have developed a mental block ... eh ...

Yes, I want to solemnly appeal to Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Afghanistan to send some terrorists over to Hong Kong. I feel that Hong Kong needs to have a big massacre. That is to say, I hope that you terrorists can do something.

I feel that most Hong Kong people are lower life-forms ... lower than being low ... brainless dickheads ...  just a punch of little lambs who have never experienced any hardship or disaster, who look towards the heavens every day and who live inside greenhouses. They did not go through the Cultural Revolution. They have not gone through 3 years 8 months (of Japanese occupation). They have not gone through any great war. They don't have military service. They are so fucking lucky. But they have time for Occupy Central, fucking Hong Kong independence ... these dickheads! Fucking Billy Chiu, Joshua Wong Chi-fung (sigh) fucking bastards!

Most (70% to 80%) of Hongkongers should be sent to concentration camps. All the Hong Kong independence advocates and the Yellow Ribbon dogs should be sent to concentration camps, just like what Hitler did during the Second War. Move them all into concentration camps. I give you terrorists unreserved greetings to come here and kill every one that you see!

You really have to. These people don't deserve to live in this world. They are wasting resources, food and oxygen on Earth. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must undergo a massacre ... I say so. As for Al Qaeda, the terrorists, Syria, ... will you listen to me Lau Ma-che ... oh, you don't understand Cantonese? Damn it! ...

Sometimes you should not be superficial. Hong Kong people say "Oh, so tragic! France! So many people died!" I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! Dickface! You don't even know what is sorrow of the heart. You don't feel sorrow ...

Chip Tso Channel

France's mistake was in its leftist retard policies. They supported Edward Snowden and opposed the CIA surveillance of French leftists, and now they are looking at the bad consequences.

Where do the many guns come from? What do so few of the 5 million Muslim immigrants cooperate with the government, help in monitoring the Internet and make denunciations? The French people pay so much tax, but their personal safety is not guaranteed.

You have to fix your own country first before dealing with the outside world. The fools and idiots who advocated "love and tolerance" ... ha ha ... I hope that you can face this disaster with even more tolerance and become more cannon fodder.

(Post852, Post852) Yip Yat Chee's blog.

Today, switching the icon, adding the French national flag on the Profile Pic, writing RIP and other similar acts are bound to be criticized by certain people as "cheap expression", hypocrisy or (in their words) a "fucking waste of time."

I want to ask them, What kind of expression is not cheap? Go over there and kill a few ISIS members? Join the army and fight the ISIS in the frontlines?

Is pounding a few lines on Facebook and criticizing others for switching icons not cheap? Is that valuable?

Writing the same old Facebook criticisms again and again not cheap?

Traveling to Beijing and yelling "The Communist Party will collapse" is not cheap.

Traveling to North Korea and yelling "Down with dictatorship" and "Liberate North Korea" is not cheap.

Traveling to Syria or another Middle-east place to proclaim that ISIS is inhumane is not cheap.

These non-cheap expressions are a lot more valuable than criticizing on Facebook other people's cheap expressions. Why don't you go ahead and do it? Why do you only criticize on Facebook others for being cheap? This is just fucking useless criticism!

In a society with freedom of expression, I have my expression and you have your criticisms. We are all very "cheap." But why am I cheap for switching my icon whereas you are not cheap for making your criticisms?

P.S. Each person may have their different understand about this incident. Switching the icon may only be telling the whole world and those around us that we cannot bow to Evil. We must support. But this does not mean that we are helping France. France will not collapse because a few hundred people died. They don't need our help. They are not a poor nation. If I have to actually contribute money, I am not going to tell anyone. That is why there is nothing to worth discussing here.

"Why are you only concerned about the attacks in France? Why aren't you concerned about the attacks in Lebanon? That is because you are hypocritical and unjust."

Each time something happens in the United States of Europe, such comments surface.

That is, if you cannot fairly care about everything in every corner of the world, then you cannot care. If you care, you are hypocritical and unjust.

In other words, if you are not a saint, then you cannot fairly care. That would be even more immoral and evil than not caring.

Why did you cry over the hostage case in the Philippines? How many people die each year in hostage incidents? But you didn't care and you didn't cry. Therefore you are hypocritical.

Why did you cry over the Lamma Island ferry case? You didn't come out to commemorate the sinking of the South Korean ferry MV Sewol? Therefore you are hypocritical.

Why do you cry when you attend a funeral? So many people die each day. Why don't you cry for others? Aren't all lives equal? Therefore you are hypocritical.

When Leslie Cheung passed away, you were very sad. But were you sad when other entertainers passed away? Why do you openly rue the suicide of Leslie Cheung but not all others who commit suicide each year? Therefore you are hypocritical.

You are concerned about the terrorist attack in Lebanon today, but you were not concerned about every single terrorist attack through the course of human history? Therefore you are hypocritical.

You donate money to the Red Cross Society, but you don't donate to World Vision, Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders, etc? Therefore you are hypocritical.

You were an Orbis Moonwalker but you were not an Oxfam trailwalker? You did not participate in every single charity event. Therefore you are hypocritical.

Such stupid comments.

You were concerned about the terrorist attack in Lebanon, so why aren't you concerned about the terrorist attacks in France? You say that you very fair, and you are concerned about both. On the day of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many people commemorated. You came out to condemn these people as being hypocritical and unjust. You say that you are equally concerned? Can you say that you were concerned to the same degree?

Being concerned about the Lebanon and not carrying terrorist attacks anywhere else in the world is not hypocritical? You think that you can get a rise? You think that you can be lofty?

I will continue to mourn France, because I refuse to let the "leftist retard hegemony" interfere with my freedom.

(Hong Kong Free Press) LingnanU president warns localist prof to mind your words or suffer the consequences  By Kris Cheng. November 12, 2015.

A professor at Lingnan University has revealed that he received a letter from the Universitys president Leonard Cheng warning him that his politically charged speech has hurt the reputation of the university and that he should mind [his] words or else suffer the consequences.

Dr Chin Wan-kan, commonly known as his pen name Wan Chin, is an assistant professor in Chinese at Lingnan. Chin authored the book Hong Kong as a City-State and runs a popular Facebook account advocating Hong Kongs establishment as an autonomous city-state in confederation with China and other East Asian countries.

Chin, a major figure in the localist camp, is pro-democracy and opposes pro-Beijing parties and groups; however, he has also said that pan-democrats should be sent to hell as their methods for attaining democracy are no longer effective.

In the letter, dated March 16, Cheng wrote that he had received several complaints from alumni and the public regarding Chins words, online media Local Press reported.

Lingnan University has always defended academic and speech freedom and respected staff members right to express their opinions, Cheng wrote, but some of your words and actions are inconsistent with your role as an academic. They have crossed the line of freedom of speech and [] have severely hurt the reputation of Lingnan. I urge you to pay attention, mind your words and actions, and return to teaching and academic studiesor suffer consequences.

Before becoming the president of Lingnan University, Leonard Cheng was an advisor to Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings election campaign in 2012.

Chin also told Local Press that Cheng had previously forwarded to him letters from various groups critical of his work. Chin said that these were meant to put pressure on him, as his contract with the University is due to end in August 2016.

The warning letter from the president is graceless and vulgar, blocking scholars speech and academic freedom, Chin said on his Facebook page, The phrase suffer consequences almost sounded like words from a hooligan, bringing shame upon Lingnan University.

(Journalism.about.com) Fairness

Fairness means that reporters covering a story must remember there are usually two sides and often more to most issues, and that those differing viewpoints should be given roughly equal space in any news story.

Where is the other side of the story? Are you suspicious? And even this side of the story arouses suspicion -- the letter was dated March 16 2015 and today is November 13 2015. Why wasn't the letter immediately published upon delivery?

(SCMP) November 13, 2015.

Chin, who was criticised by complainants for his law-breaking role in the Occupy protests in Mong Kok last year, said he believed Chengs remarks had targeted his city-state theory and pro-Hong Kong independence standpoint. His guess was based on the letters and materials relating to complaints received by Chengs office, which were forwarded to him earlier this year.

Cheng might also be alluding to his remarks about mainlanders, said Chin, who has been accused of discriminating against parallel traders and insulting mainland women on several occasions. However, Chin insisted he had not been discriminatory or insulting, but had sarcastically condemned the traders for making their living out of Hong Kong.

Chin said what Cheng meant by bearing the consequences might refer to a possible termination of his employment contract, which is due to expire in August. There might be some trouble in the renewal, said Chin, who added he would protest if he felt his contract had been terminated unreasonably. He said he had already been relieved of three administrative positions at the university in August, without being consulted.

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

Our reporter contacted Lingnan University about the basis for the letter from Leonard Cheng. The LU spokesperson said that this was because Wan Chin expressed certain opinions in mid-March that were seriously insulting to women and caused mass criticisms from Lingnan University staff members, teachers, students, alumni and other members of society.

Wan Chin has a prior record of insulting women. In November 2014, Wan Chin shareda photo of Chinese University of Hong Kong female student Shek Pui-yin with the comment: "We support the cup-raising action (支持升cup行動)."

This was a play on the original "Support the escalation of action" (支持升行動), but by replacing with "cup", this says to support breast enlargement. At the time, Shek Pui-yin said that it was clearly case of sexual violence when Wan Chin made fun of her breasts. "How can a scholar be so shameless?"

Given what happened, the Lingnan University Student Union ignored the historical basis and went ahead to issue a statement that the warning letter "is violently trampling on academic freedom and free speech" while demanding Leonard Cheng to make an open explanation and to withdraw the letter.

Internet comments:

- Is Wan Chin a (keyboard) "freedom fighter"?

Wan Chin: I am providing the Hong Kong Police with a method for clearance. This is quickest: The police open fire and kill citizens, or else hire mercenaries to kill the assembled citizens. Please do so quickly and terminate the assembly. The police must do so quickly, or else the People Liberation Army will come south to massacre the assembled the citizen, which means that the police won't be able to take credit! Remember: do it quickly. As soon as the Police Commissioner sees this, he must issue the order immediately to carry it out. The police should arm themselves with sub-machineguns and immediately massacre those in the assembly.
(source: memehk)

- Lingnan University has failed to produce the allegedly offensive opinions of Wan Chin. We the People demand that they be publicly re-published because we have the right to know. As you know, the People's right to know overrides everything else.
- There are at least two parties who know what the allegedly offensive opinions of Wan Chin are. Firstly, Lingnan University received complaints from the community. Secondly, Lingnan University sent copies of those complaints to Wan Chin. So if Lingnan University wants to hide behind privacy/confidentiality, Wan Chin can publish them in order to establish his own innocence.
- There is the frivolous excuse that if the opinions had offended certain people, then they should not be re-published to repeat the hurt. That's rubbish. We want to know what those opinions and we want to know the names of those complainants so that we can make their lives hell.

- (Passion Times) Why did this March letter appear only now? Wan Chin said that at the time he had mentioned the letter on a <MyRadio> program and in his own Facebook, but the media did not pay any attention. In July, he handed the letter over to Apple Daily but there was no reporting. He said that the mainstream media do not like him, because he criticizes them for being biased on behalf of mainlanders and pan-democratic leftist retards. Wan Chin said that the university has relieved him of various committee duties in August without consulting him. He said that this is a signal that he may be dismissed anytime now.
- Ah, here this is the gist of the matter -- a man fails to perform at work and now plays politics to keep his job.

- Here is the likely target from March 11 2015. This is about the arrest of the four-eyed man who harassed a mainland woman and her daughter during Occupy Tuen Mun (#152).

Mainland people are the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Army in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong must treat them politely, or else the Hong Kong Police will prosecute. To the people of Hong Kong, get prepared to get insulted by mainlanders in the street. Do not retort or resist, or else the police will arrest you. (Note: It does not matter what the motive of the anti-parallel trader demonstrators was. This is setting a precedent to make an arrest).

The above Facebook paragraph is what exists today. It is innocuous enough, and that is because it was scrubbed clean beforehand. It used to be this (see Dadazim) (which was also reported on March 14 2015 by Wen Wei Po):

Mainland people are the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial Army in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong must treat them politely, or else the Hong Kong Police will prosecute. To the women of Hong Kong, get prepared to have your tits squeezed by mainlanders in the street; later one, please wash your vagina and get ready to provide service. To the men of Hong Kong, please get prepared to be cursed out by mainland women in the street. Do not retor or resist, or else the police will arrest you.

At the time, Wen Wei Po reported that a citizen was vexed and angered by these remarks from a university scholar, and posted an open letter to Lingnan University vice-chancellor Leonard Cheng to criticize Wan Chin for insulting both Hong Kong and China, expressing prejudicial views about mainlanders and disrespecting women. This citizen wants the university to pay attention to the matter.

- In the better days of Occupy Mong Kok, Wan Chin demonstrated a series of martial arts moves to use a converted plastic suitcase to fend off police baton attacks as well as counterattacking.

(Bastille Post) November 13, 2015.

Joseph Lam Chok is the boyfriend of Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak, and he is running in the Lung Sing district, Kwun Tong. The incumbent councilor is Mandy Tam Heung-man. She is the chairwoman of the Galaxia Incorporated Owners in that district. Headline Daily has obtained a set of Whatsapp exchanges between Tam and the building management. These included a number of closed circuit television screen captures and other photos taken by mobile phones. In the messages, Tam issued directives to the management to use the photos to file complaints with the Election Affairs Commission to the effect that Lam was campaigning on private property. In truth, these photos do not show Lam campaigning, just that he carried the banners between his Galaxia apartment and the street booth.

For example, Tam ordered: "Will the management please file a complaint against Chok with the Election Affairs Commission?" When the complaint was rejected by the commission, Tam reacted with a criticism of the management: "This is because we are relying on a management company that does not carry out the orders. This company is very disappointing." The response of the Election Affairs Committee included a statement on the collection of private data and advised the complainant to read it carefully. This means that the use of close-circuit television screen captures is dubious. In the Whatsapp messages, a management worker wrote: "It is not standard usage to take screen captures of close-circuit television recordings" and "doing so may be a violation of privacy laws."

According to another Galaxia Incorporated Owners board member, Tam often handles board matters directly with the management on her own without consulting other board members. Therefore, he was unaware that she had instructed the management to file a complaint with the Election Affairs Commission based upon private information.

(EJinsight) Novmeber 13, 2015.

Mandy Tam Heung-man, who is seeking re-election for a seat at the Lung Sing constituency in Wong Tai Sin in district council elections this month, has been accused of infringing the privacy of another candidate, Joseph Lam, by misusing her position at a private residential estate.

Tam, who is the chairperson of the incorporated owners of a Galaxia building in Diamond Hill, is facing allegations that she instructed some security guards from the Galaxia management company to monitor the activities of Lam, who lives at the same building, Headline Daily reported.

Lam, who turned a barrister this year at the age of 26, is the boyfriend of Louisa Mak, who was crowned Miss Hong Kong 2015.

Images of Lam captured from Galaxias CCTV recordings, as well as pictures taken with mobile phones, were said to have been passed in WhatsApp group chats involving Tam and several staffers from the buildings management office.

Tam is believed to have instructed management office staff to file complaints with the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) against Lam for allegedly taking his electoral campaign into the private premises. When the complaints were not accepted by the EAC, Tam is said to have vented her displeasure at the management company, saying that it is disappointing that ISS Eastpoint (the management company) cannot execute instructions.

According to sources provided to Headline Daily, several management office staff had left messages in the group chat that they would badmouth Lam so that he would lose support from residents. However, there were no mentions of any specific tactics they would use.

In a letter obtained by the newspapers reporters, which was sent from the electoral officer of the Lung Sing constituency to the management office of Galaxia, the officer acknowledged receipt of a complaint filed by the management office against Lam. However, the officer has attached a guideline on collecting personal data, which seemed to suggest that the use of captured CCTV images might not be appropriate. A management officer who didnt want to be identified told reporters that they were once told by the EAC that using CCTV captures could violate the privacy ordinance.

When approached by reporters on Thursday, Tam admitted to seeing Joseph Lams photos taken by the management office, but added that it was necessary for her to look into the matter as she was the chairperson of the owners corporation. She had to take note as there had been complaints that some district council election candidates had conducted promotional campaigns in private premises in violation of rules.

The Lung Sing constituency consists of some 19,000 residents from the HOS housing estate Lung Poon Court and the private estate Galaxia. 

(Headline Daily with video) November 13, 2015.

0:16 Headline Daily found that all copies of its newspapers were removed to a remote corner on Friday. In the past, the newspaper was distributed in every corner of the estate for people to pick up themselves. A security guard said that they received complaints that the contents have a bad influence on children.
0:29 Question: Is Headline News not distributed today?
0:30 Security guard: There is a problem. The management has to review and approve it. It affects children.
0:45 Question: Who is making these arrangements? Did you know what Headline Daily is publishing today?
0:49 Security guard: It is better that we inspect it first.
0:52 Question: It began today?
0:53 Security guard: Yes. Somebody complained today. Therefore we have to wait ...
1:00 Question: Who issued the ban order? He says that he doesn't know. Is it because of the front page story? He says that he will have to inspect it first. Another security guard came and said that the ban order applies only on this day.
1:14 Security guard: This applies only today
1:14 Question: Why?
1:15 Security guard: Because a customer complained, saying that there is some content inside that affects children.
1:20 Question: As to how they know about the contents before the newspaper was delivered, he said that they were notified by management. This directive is only good for today.

Headline Daily: Solemn Declaration

Today <Headline Daily> published a report of Tam Heung-man urging the estate management security guards to monitor her opponent in the District Council election and thus she is suspected of invading privacy. This morning the management of Galaxia where is the chairperson of the incorporate owners removed and discarded copies of <Headline News> left for the residents. This deprives the residents of their right to know and seriously damages the freedom of press. Those copies are the property of our newspaper and cannot be removed or discarded at will. Our newspaper is making a severe condemnation and will intend to pursue the matter with all those involved. We have also filed a police report.

November 13, 2015.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 15, 2015.

<Headline Daily> said that more than five hundred copies of the newspaper with the front page story on Mandy Tam violating Joseph Lam Chok's privacy were sent to Galaxia early in the morning, but the security guards stopped it. When asked by the <Headline Daily> reporter why the newspaper was not being distributed as usual, the security guard said that "there was a complaint about the contents." When asked how anyone could make a complaint before the newspaper was even delivered, the security guard said: "I am just carrying out orders."

Several security guards removed the newspapers. One resident saw the newspapers wrapped in black plastic bags and left in the garbage room. One resident was unhappy at not getting the newspaper and called the police. Others wondered if this was a case of abuse of authority to kill off unfavorable news coverage. When the <Headline News> reporter asked Mandy Tam at her street booth, she got angry and said: "I am not going to respond. Please go away!" Then she warned the reporter: "Don't make trouble." Tam and her assistant entered her office quickly and called the police to complain about being harassed. Tam took photos of the reporter from inside her office. The reporter waited until the office closed at 9pm but Tam never appeared.

Yesterday morning, Mandy Tam resurfaced as a keyboard warrior on Facebook about the newspaper delivery story. She said that she only found out afterwards that the Galaxia management had received complaints about "pornographic contents" within <Headline Daily>. According to procedure, the distribution of the newspaper had to be stopped. "It was misleading for <Headline Line> to mix the matter with the suppression of the citizens' right to know in order to malign Mandy Tam." But she avoided the question about how someone knew about the contents before the newspaper was even delivered and made the complaint about pornographic contents.

Tam explained that she was promoting her campaign as usual when "two tough men came to yell at her." "Although they claimed to be reporters, their demeanor was definitely not that of a normal reporter." For her own personal safety, Tam called the police for help. "Afterwards someone identified the two men as being possibly triad gang background." She pointed out that she has been facing a relentless barrage of attacks during this campaign, being "repeatedly smeared by many media outlets and unknown persons in a systematic fashion."

Meanwhile a "Calling for 100,000 persons to oppose the Evil Police" Facebook posted a photo of the <Headline Daily> reporters. This Facebook administrator claimed to be a retired policeman and thought that the two reporters "looked familiar ... they seem to be Sun Yee On members who are active in Wong Tai Sin." Later the administrator said that people have told him that the two are reporters, but he said that "I still strongly condemn <Headline Daily> for ordering its reporters to use gangster tactics to create news."

<Headline Daily> condemned the malicious smearing of its reporters and demand these actions to stop. The newspaper has also filed a police report.

(Headline Daily) November 16, 2015.

In the 2011 district council election, there were two voting stations in the Lung Sing district, one at the Children and Youth Integrated Services Centre in Lung Poon Court and the other at the Po Leung Kuk Mrs Maris Cheung Lifelong Learning Institute for Seniors in Bel Air Heights. Both sites are near Galaxia.

TMandy Tam was very concerned about where the second site will be located. On October 11, Tam established a Whatsapp group that included Galaxia management people. On October 12, they went to the Electoral Affairs Office and the Po Leung Kuk to petition the continuation use of the Po Leung Kuk site and the designation of the Galaxia Club House as the second site. In the Whatsapp conversations, Tam stated first that the banner should use Tam's name and stated as campaign advertisement. But in the end, the petition was made in the name of "a group of Galaxia residents."

The Electoral Affairs Office chose to keep the Lung Poon Court and not move to Galaxia. Meanwhile the Po Leung Kuk refused to let the Bel Air Heights site be used. So the Electoral Affairs Office moved the second site to Chun Tok School on Hammer Hill Road. Tam was not happy with this arrangement. On October 25, she demanded in the Whatsapp group that the management make several large banners to protest against the Electoral Affairs Office for not heeding public opinion. She said "Please call the cleaning company to send people over to assist." She told the workers to keep the action confidential. On the next day she asked the management to send two cleaners and one security guard to protest, but "it was inappropriate" for herself to participate.

According to Galaxia resident Mr. To, he has seen management workers making banners for Mandy Tam many times in the estate. He asked the workers: "What has this got to do with Galaxia?" At first they ignored him. Then he scolded them: "You are employed by Galaxia, so you cannot be working on things unrelated to the estates." Then the workers removed the banners. Previously he had seen the workers making a banner for "fighting for re-election." He angrily threatened to "report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption" before the banner was removed.

(Headline Daily) November 19, 2015.

During the district election period, candidates can obtain voter information (including name, address, email but not telephone numbers) from the Electoral Affairs Office. To do so, the candidates have to sign confidentiality guarantees.

Our newspaper obtained a number of audio recordings involving Galaxia employees. One employee named Sun said that Mandy Tam requested that "workers add the telephone numbers onto the list of voters" and arranged time schedule to call the voters to vote "under the signature of Galaxia management." Another employee questioned whether voter registration information is private and confidential, "the voters only gave the information to the Electoral Affairs Office and did not want it to go outside. Is there going to be a problem?" The employee named Sun said, "There's going to be a problem." Afterwards the employees also discussed sending out text messages. Sun said that if the messages go out under Galaxia, then it will have to be counted as campaign expenses. Therefore, Sun recommended anonymous messages.

The Galaxia management company told our newspaper that their workers should not be involved in any work that is unrelated to to estate affairs, including political or election matters. Mandy Tam did not respond to our many calls of inquiry.

(Headline Daily) November 20, 2015.

Galaxia owner Chan Yung-chin had previously helped Joseph Lam Chok to distribute flower on Mother's Day. On the evening of the day before yesterday, he went home and found a laser disk in front of his door. This disk contained several files with audio and text. He played them and was disturbed to hear his own name mentioned many times. "I was shocked. I listened and I heard my name mentioned many times." Chan went to the police. He said that the contents of the files involve someone disclosing private information to the estate management in violation of election regulations; someone abusing authority for personal gains; someone violating the privacy of Galaxia residents; someone breaking the law together with Galaxia management workers.

Our newspaper obtained even more audio recordings. One of them was made last Friday after we reported that Mandy Tam urged the security director to monitor Lam Chok. The management workers were trying to determine just who made the leaks. The workers asked the security director named Sun about the reports about Tam. Sun said: "The material is pretty accurate." Sun added: "She was surrounded by reporters in front of Lung Poon Estate and had to dodge inside her office." The workers also referred to the Whatspp contents mentioned in the newspaper report. Sun said that the Whatsapp group has many members, but the leaker is not yet known. "You cannot trust anybody except yourself."

Our newspaper have tried to contact Mandy Tam to understand the affair, but she did not respond. She will hold a press conference today.

(Apple Daily) November 20, 2015.

According to Mandy Tam, she said that the voting booth was moved away from the housing estate so the estate management has the responsibility to notify the residents. She said that Ms. Chow at the management company did not have the time or manpower, so Chow asked Tam for the list of registered voters. Tam said that she had questioned whether the estate management has the right to use voter registration data. But Ms. Chow said that she wants to use the voter registration data to identify the Galaxia voters.

As for a Galaxia owner receiving a laser disk containing communications between Tam and the Galaxia management about voters, Tam condemned the recordings as "base and shameless." Tam said that she will seek damages through legal channels over the leaks of the text messages and emails. She said that this whole actions was "premeditated and planned smearing." She said that this may be connected to her vote on constitutional reform en years ago.

As for the Galaxia management holding up copies of the newspaper that reported Tam ordering the estate management to monitor Joseph Lam Chok, she said that she did not respond because she respects what the estate management does and besides she was busy campaigning and unaware of what was happened.

Tam described herself as a harmless woman who is being besieged by the media recently, including reporters chasing her without identifying themselves or seeking appointments ahead of time. As a result, some volunteers are too scared to show up.

(LinePost @ YouTube) November 20, 2015.

At the press conference today, the Headline Daily reporter asked: The evidence shows that Mandy Tam issued an order through the Galaxia management company's internal Whatsapp group to a Miss Chow to release information of the Galaxia voters. So why are you "completely blaming others"?

Mandy Tam did not directly answer this question. Instead, she wants the reporter to "spill out" who leaked the group messages and audio recordings to the press. She pointed her finger at the reporter and asked: "Why was it leaked to you reporters?!"

The reporter said that the source of the information cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality. The conference ended this way.

Internet comments:

- I am betting on the Journalists Association giving their disappearing act with respect to this flagrant breach of the freedom of press. Why? Because Mandy Tam's nickname is "Goddess of Democracy" and she is a renowned fighter for freedom/democracy/justice/human rights/universal suffrage/universal values.

- I am betting on the Journalists Association replying initially that they do not have sufficient information yet to comment. Then they will diligently make sure that they don't seek the information.

- I am betting on the Journalists Association coming out with a statement three days later that condemns removing/discarding newspapers in general without naming Mandy Tam on the grounds that journalists must remain neutral and not become the news itself and affect the election outcome.
- This is the third day since and still nothing from the Journalists Association.

- (HKG Pao) Yesterday Mandy Tam was handing out leaflets in the street. When asked, she admitted that she has seen the photos taken by the building management. She denied abusing her powers. She emphasized that she suspected that Lam was campaigning in violation of regulations in her role as the incorporated owners chairperson and not as the opposing candidate. Then she refused to answer any further questions.

- "Calling for 100,000 persons to oppose the Evil Police" Facebook posted photos of Joseph Lam Chok with a person who is allegedly the chauffeur of Lam Wu who is a deputy director of China Liaison Office in charge of allocating votes in Kowloon. The photos were taken by an unidentified citizen and given to the Facebook administrator. Based upon this one photo, it is enough to conclude with 100% certainty that Lam is supported by the Communists!

- The lighting in these photos is not normal. And why aren't they looking at each other?
- The chauffeur of a deputy director of the China Liaison Office wears a pair of Cartier gold-rimmed glasses worth $10,000! Living must be good over there.
- Clearly the chauffeur bought fakes from Taobao for a couple hundred dollars.
- Why is a human messenger being used? Have they heard of WeChat?

- (Headline Daily) November 17, 2015. Our newspaper has determined that the individual whose photo appeared in the "Calling for 100,000 persons to oppose the Evil Police" Facebook is Kowloon East Chiu Chow Association president Yeung Yuk-sing and he is not with the China Liaison Office. We contacted Yeung and he acknowledged that he is the person in the photos. He emphasized that he is not a chauffeur for a China Liaison Office deputy director. Yeung said that he did not know Lam before, but he has heard of Lam. Since Yeung drives to the Chiu Chow Association office in San Po Kong often, he has seen Lam campaigning in the street. "This young man is exceptional. He is not haughty. He can really do things. He is not fooling around." Therefore he went down there to say hello personally. They spoke for a few minutes, but then he noticed someone taking photos with a mobile phone. The next day, the photos and the associated lies were posted on the Internet. Yeung said that smearing is pointless because you need actual accomplishments to win an election.

-  "Calling for 100,000 persons to oppose the Evil Police" Facebook said Aha Gotcha! Their misidentification of the chauffeur of the deputy director of China Liaison Office was completely ignored, but instead they have determined that Yeung Yuk-sing was a member of the Communist Party Political Consultative Conference in Anhui province and Shantou city. So?

- Mandy Tam won't answer the substantive question but demands to know who leaked those Whatsapp chats. Oh, it sounds so much like the Hong Kong University council leaks from Billy Fung! So what about the people's right to know then? Whatever happened to that?

- How dare Mandy Tam Heung-man characterize herself as a harmless woman? She is just one big fat slut.

- https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/484841565054457/
Mandy Tam being followed by photojournalists on election day. 

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL) is a legislative councilor who was elected as a district councilor. He is very busy with his legislative council work as well as other political activities (such as Occupy Central), he has neglected his District Council duties.

The Sham Shui Po District Council holds a large meeting once every two months. Over the past 24 such meetings, Fung was absent twice for a 90% attendance rate. However, he arrived late on 14 occasions and departed early on 15 occasions. He sat through the full meeting only twice.

In January 2012, the meeting started at 930am and Fung was gone by 1010am. On January 2013, Fung was gone by 1220pm when the meeting went on to 730pm. In May 2014, Fung showed up at 4pm which is 6.5 hours late. In June 2014, Fung showed up at 235pm, which is 5 hours late.

Out of six committees, Fung signed up only with the Environmental and Hygiene committee and the Housing committee. He came later and/or left early 95% of the time. In the December 2014 Housing committee meeting, he arrived on time at 930am but left at 950am after only 20 minutes, because that was the day of the clearance of Occupy Admiralty and Fung needed to be at the scene to "monitor law enforcement by the police." In the March 2012 Housing committee meeting, Fung showed up at 945am (late by 15 minutes) and left at 1010am after 25 minutes. In the April 2014 Environmental Hygiene committee, Fung showed up on time at 930am but left at 1016am after 46 minutes.

(Wen Wei Po) November 14, 2015.

Last evening Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL) issued an emergency appeal. He said that his opponent Eric Wong Chung-ki had served Lai Kok as district councilor for ten years and then gave up the job 13 years. "He gave up Lai Kok 13 years. He thinks that he can win the seat again with seven weeks' work? But given his past history with ADPL, every vote that he gets is a vote taken away from me. He only wants to take away my votes so that I lose."

Fung said that he is not in a habit of making emergency appeals. But he has to explain the situation which is more severe than any time in the past. The person who is taking away his votes is very familiar with Lai Kok and ADPL. Some voters may not even know that he left ADPL.

Internet comments:

- Frederick Fung does not have a thing to worry about because the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme found that they are the most popular political party in all of Hong Kong (see #363).
- If the ADPL is so popular, then why do they have only one (out of 70) Legislative Councilor. And legislator Frederick Fung won the position as a district councilor (District Council - Second sector). So if Fung loses the district councilor post, he will have to go back to running in the geographical constituency.

- Why does Fung keep talking as if Wong is stealing his votes? How did he become the original owner of those votes? Don't the voters have the right to decide for themselves?

- Emergency appeal? Where was Frederick Fung all year last year? He only shows up during election time.

- Frederick Fung is just having to pay a long overdue bill.

(Ming Pao) November 14, 2015.

Yesterday 33-year-old ADPL candidate Li Kwing in the Fu Cheong district, Sham Shui Po was knocking on doors at the Fu Cheong estate. When he passed by the ground lobby, a man suddenly yelled "You are ADPL! You are pan-democrat! You are a Chinese traitor!" The man rushed up and punched Li. Volunteers eventually subdued the man and took him to the front entrance to wait for the police. Suddenly the man broke away and punched Li Kwing in the face.

The police came and arrested the 55-year-old man named Chiu for physical assault. Li Kwing had bleeding lips and loose front teeth. He was taken to Caritas Hospital by ambulance.

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

Yesterday on radio, Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion) reminded people that Albert Ho (Democratic Party) was viewing sexy girlie photos during a Legislative Council session. Ho said that he has already apologized to the public and promised never to do so again. Ho said that a person needs to be evaluated in totality. "I have left this behind. I will do what I need to do. However, some people keep yelling and screaming ... I don't think it means much." Cheng responded that the incident not only reflects on Ho's personal conduct but also that "Ho never respected the trust and support of the voters in the district." Therefore, the residents need to mete out "the people's punishment."

Ho said that his periodic district council work report shows that he has accomplished many things. Yuen Wai-chung (Lok Tsui Garden Owners Association chairman) said that Ho has disappeared from the district since he ran for Legislative Councilor/Chief Executive, and he won't show up even if invited by the owners associations.

Ho said that it would be too narrow-minded just to focus on district work. He said that he has also brought up Tuen Mun issues at the Legislative Council including the Tuen Mun Hospital, the western highway, the West Rail expansion, etc. "How can these not be related to Lok Tsui?" Cheng said that while Ho boasted his vision, he was also helping newly arrived immigrants to file the judicial review to remove social welfare restrictions. Ho said that we cannot allow newly arrived children and seniors to go hungry. "Is this humane? You have studied so many books, and you still wind up like this!" Ho also made fun of the fact that Cheng had studied in Beijing before. "Which Communists are you opposing?"

When Cheng was asked about the so-called Restore Tuen Mun action, Cheng said that it was "natural and logical" for "residents to save their own ailing community themselves." Ho said that he will not allow anyone to surround and intimidate women and children, or push seniors down on the ground. "Will you be throwing bombs? Hong Kong is a civilized society. Otherwise you could be hitting them with knives and sticks!"

Cheng accused Ho misleading the public. "If sticks can be used, the Hong Kong traitors including yourself would have been punished by the people of Hong Kong!" Ho noted with a wry smile that Cheng has violent tendencies.

Junius Ho (independent) said that Occupy Central was illegal with plenty of "black gold" rumors swirling around. Albert Ho said that he was "not sure". As for a lawyer acting openly in contempt of court injunctions, Albert Ho insisted that "he was using peaceful and rational methods to resist." "You can tell them to come and arrest me. I have been arrested four times already." Junius Ho advised Albert Ho to "wipe his ass clean in preparation for jail time."

(HKG Pao) November 12, 2015.

In the 2001 district election, Albert Ho won on a slogan of "Strive unceasingly, doing everything personally" with a goal of "improving transportation." Afterwards he forgot everything and his 2012 attendance record was the worst in the entire council. In 2012, the Traffic and Transportation committee held six regular meetings and one special meeting. Ho did not attend any of them. In 2012, the Environment and Hygiene and Development committees held six regular meetings, and Ho attended two. In 2013, Ho did not attend any of the special Traffic and Transportation committee meetings; in 2014, his attendance race improved to 43% but still not enough to pull him out of last place.

(Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2015.

The post-Umbrella Revolution organization North Of The Rings posted a photo of a metal gate splashed with red paint. They said: "We have been smeared for taking money. We put up with it! Today, we are threatened for wanting to defend our homes. We won't put with the use of illegal voices to quiet our voices. This is completely beyond what we can tolerate. So far about 1,300 Facebook users have clicked LIKE and about 700 have SHARE'd. North of the Rings candidate in the Cheung Wah district election Wong Ka-ho shared this on his Facebook.

The next day, North of the Rings explained that at 850pm last Saturday, resident W left his apartment to take part in campaign work. His wife and other family members were at home. Suddenly Mrs. W heard a loud splashing sound outside the home. She ignored it at first, but then she began to sense a pungent smell of oil. She looked outside the door and found that the door was splashed by red paint. W came home from the street booth at around 10pm and saw red paint everywhere. He immediately contacted Wong Ka-ho and also called the police. There was no sign of the perpetrators. The police is investigating the case.

One Internet user said that the incident may be related to the earlier rumor about ties between the Democratic Party and triad gangsters. Another Internet user said that the deed is very similar to triad actions. According to a Facebook post, the Democratic Party was colluding with the Wo Shing Wo triad gang to establish a Cheung Wah Concern Group to monopolize the $47 million project to replace water pipes in the Cheung Wah estate. The Democratic Party had said that this post was seriously erroneous and reported the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The record shows that Wong Ka-ho had developed hostilities with the Democratic Party's Chan Yuk-ming in the district. So even though North of the Rings say that they are the victims, some Internet wondered if this is a directed play to smear the opponent. "The timing is so perfect, like a shooting a motive. Who is likely to benefit the most? That would most likely be the mastermind behind the curtain." "This is a directed play that generates sympathy (and possibly) votes for a candidate who has otherwise zero chance of winning."

(Oriental Daily) November 12, 2015.

At around 530pm today, Ha Pak Tin district candidate Sally Tang Mei-ching (Socialist Action) said that she and her male assistant named Lam were campaigning at the corner of Nan Cheong Street and Wai Lun Street. A middle-aged man suddenly came up and used foul language to curse Lam, saying "You should not be criticizing Yan Kai-wing (=incumbent district councilor)." When Lam took out his mobile phone to film, the middle-aged man slapped the phone and hit Lam on the face continuously for 15 seconds. Lam was bleeding in the mouth. He was hurt on his hand and neck. Lam was sent to the hospital and the middle-aged man named Leung was arrested by the police.

(Wen Wei Po) November 14, 2015.

Did excessive noise level led to violence in the election campaign?

Previously, Tang Mei-ching claimed that she and her volunteer were handing out leaflets when a passerby suddenly "physically assaulted" her volunteer for "almost half a minute." She called the police for assistance. The police arrived and questioned the citizens at the scene about what happened. Some of those present said that they did not witness the assault on the volunteer. Still others said that it was the volunteer who attacked the other person.

The League of Social Democrats posted photos of the volunteer who was allegedly "physically assaulted for almost half a minute." The photos showed clearly that there were no injuries on the face and left hand of the volunteers. There was only a small cut inside the lip. Meanwhile, Sally Tang with no evidence beyond "according to residents" that someone had "seen" the other party assist her opponent to hand out leaflets in the district.

The police confirmed that a 62-year-old man named Leung got into a quarrel with a 26-year-old female named Tang and a 27-year-old male named Lam over noise levels. After investigation, the police arrested Leung on suspicion of attacking and causing actual bodily harm.

(Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2015.

The post-Umbrella Revolution organization North Of The Rings posted a photo of a metal gate splashed with red paint. They said: "We have been smeared for taking money. We put up with it! Today, we are threatened for wanting to defend our homes. We won't put with the use of illegal voices to quiet our voices. This is completely beyond what we can tolerate. So far about 1,300 Facebook users have clicked LIKE and about 700 have SHARE'd. North of the Rings candidate in the Cheung Wah district election Wong Ka-ho shared this on his Facebook.

The next day, North of the Rings explained that at 850pm last Saturday, resident W left his apartment to take part in campaign work. His wife and other family members were at home. Suddenly Mrs. W heard a loud splashing sound outside the home. She ignored it at first, but then she began to sense a pungent smell of oil. She looked outside the door and found that the door was splashed by red paint. W came home from the street booth at around 10pm and saw red paint everywhere. He immediately contacted Wong Ka-ho and also called the police. There was no sign of the perpetrators. The police is investigating the case.

One Internet user said that the incident may be related to the earlier rumor about ties between the Democratic Party and triad gangsters. Another Internet user said that the deed is very similar to triad actions. According to a Facebook post, the Democratic Party was colluding with the Wo Shing Wo triad gang to establish a Cheung Wah Concern Group to monopolize the $47 million project to replace water pipes in the Cheung Wah estate. The Democratic Party had said that this post was seriously erroneous and reported the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The record shows that Wong Ka-ho had developed hostilities with the Democratic Party's Chan Yuk-ming in the district. So even though North of the Rings say that they are the victims, some Internet wondered if this is a directed play to smear the opponent. "The timing is so perfect, like a shooting a motive. Who is likely to benefit the most? That would most likely be the mastermind behind the curtain." "This is a directed play that generates sympathy (and possibly) votes for a candidate who has otherwise zero chance of winning."

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 9, 2015.

Red paint has been dashed on the offices of district councillors Alice Lam Chui-lin and Chung Shu-kun. Lams office in Siu Sai Wan Estate, Chai Wan, was vandalised with red paint on Sunday night. A note from an unknown creditor asking for their money back was stuck on the wall.

Speaking to HKFP, Lam said the creditor was not looking for her specifically, but a friend of hers. He used to be a Liberal Party member, then he helped us organise a tea party. Now he is a member of the DAB, Lam said of the friend. The DAB, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, is the biggest pro-Beijing party in Hong Kong. Lam said her friend claimed to be innocent. He said he doesnt owe anyone money.

On Monday morning, Chungs office, which is a few blocks away from Lams, was also attacked with red paint. A spokesperson from Chungs office said she doesnt know what was behind it.

(Wen Wei Po) November 10, 2015.

Yesterday morning at around 7pm, Junius Ho's volunteers clad in light blue vests began to distribute pamphlets as usual around the Tuen Mun Pier. At the time, Civic Passion volunteers were also handing out pamphlets nearby. At around 735pm, a woman wearing the same light-blue vest joined Ho's group to hand out pamphlets. This went on for about 20 minutes until a passerby who got a pamphlet from this woman spoke to the other volunteers. It turned out that this woman was handing out Falun Gong pamphlets. Meanwhile this woman left quickly.

According to photos taken at the scene, Ho's volunteers wore light-blue vests with Ho's photo on the left front side with the words "Change, very important" underneath plus a big number "1" on the right front. The back of the vests has the words "Please support Lawyer Junius Ho" in Chinese and English. Meanwhile the Falun Gong woman came with a extensible banner with a big number "1" and wore a light blue vest with the words "The Epoch Times" on the back.

(HKG Pao) November 10, 2015.

Independent incumbent Li Chun-chao received five threatening phone calls yesterday. At around 9am, a man called up her office to speak to her, and threatened "You won't die a good death. I will murder you." At past 12 noon, the office received three more phone calls. The workers got scared and did not pick up. The other party left voice messages.

At 1:07pm, the other party called Li's mobile phone directly to issue a threat. She recalled what the other party said: "Li Chun-chao, you and your family members had better be careful. Your children had better be careful, because they won't survive past the Lunar New Year and a time to celebrate will become a time to mourn. Do you know that last week, a woman was burned to death in Siu Sai Wan? ..." Li Chun-chao felt threatened and called the police.

Li Chun-chao said that someone has been launching a campaign her, including fake street posters to call for supporting "Guizhou Provincial Communist Party Political Consultative Conference member Li Chun-chao. Also League of Social Democrats members are distributing modified photos of her on the Internet.

Photo (left): Please support the party-less independent candidate Guizhou Provincial CPPCC member Li Chun-chao"
Photo (right): Councilor Li Chun-chao wants to eliminate the treets on Tai Man Street because they are an eyesore

In addition, the person Ma Chiu-sing (nicknamed "Hong Kong Bin Laden") was spreading inaccurate information on Li Chun-chao through a street booth. He even roared at one of Li's volunteers, causing her to cry in terror.

According to Li Chun-chao, there are two competing candidates: Tsang Kin-sing (League of Social Democrats) and Lun Man-kit, whom she has only seen thrice before. Any connection between Tsang and Hong Kong Bin Laden? "I cannot verify this. But some resident said that he saw Tsang and Hong Kong Bin Laden talking to each other before the elections."

Li Chun-chao had reported the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. She sighed: "Districts should be electing persons who are capable and practical. Each voter has the right to choose. I have never uttered a single bad word to attack anyone else. I believe that I may lose the election, but I cannot lose my integrity. However, someone keeps smearing me, including issuing death threats. This is intoletable."

Our reporter called up Tsang Kin-sing. He said that he has been in politics for more than two decades, and he cannot imagine who would have such a big grudge against Li Chun-chao. He even wondered if Li had filed a police report.

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

The following District Council election candidates had been arrested during the Occupy period:

Albert Ho (Democratic Party), Lok Tsui, Tuen Mun
James To Kun-shun (Democratic Party), James To Kun-sun, Yau Tsim Mong
Wu Chi-wai (Democratic Party), King Fu, Wong Tai Sin
Andrew Wan Chi-kin (Democratic Party), Shek Yam, Kwai Tsing
Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party), Shek Wu Hui, North District
Hui Chi-chung (Democratic Party), Chung Wan, Central
Lam Lap-chi (Democratic Party), Cheung Hang, Kwai Tsing
Chan Shu-ying (Democratic Party), Siu Hong, Tuen Mun

Chan Ka-lok (Civic Party), Southern Horizons East, Southern District
Leung Wing-man (Civic Party), Kornhill, Eastern District

Tam Chun-yin (Labour Party), Yau Oi North, Tuen Mun
Kwok Wing-kin (Labour Party) San Fu, Tai Po

Pius Yum Kwok-tung (ADPL), Hung Hom, Kowloon City

Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats), Wan Hang, Sai Kung

Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats), Lek Yeung, Sha Tin
Tsang Kin-sing (League of Social Democrats), Lok Hong, Eastern District

Erica Yuen Me-ming (People Power), Eastern Horizons West, Southern District
So Ho (People Power), Do Shin, Sai Kung

(Oriental Daily) November 12, 2015.

Joshua Wong posted on Facebook that, according to the Legislative Council voting records, only a couple of legislators from the big three pan-democratic parties (Democratic Party, Civic Party and Labour Party) voted on the Innovation and Technology Bureau while 13 of them who would have noted NO or ABSTAIN were absent. Wong said that no matter whether you are going to vote AYE, NO or ABSTAIN, you as an elected legislator needs to carry out your duty to vote. Wong asked what mysterious reasons caused these 13 legislators to be absent "by sheer coincidence"?

Well, this vote took place last week and it has taken Joshua Wong almost one week to come up with an analysis of the voting. It looks like he is really not up to speed with the Legislative Council business, and he still thinks that he can become one of them?

Actually, the whole world knows why the pan-democrats were missing in action. Right now, it is less than two weeks before the District Council elections, and the pan-democrats can't afford to be highlighted as "filibustering" again. If Joshua Wong really doesn't know, then he is politically naive. If Joshua Wong really knows but pretends not to, then he is cynical (but it is also too transparent to the point of being politically naive too).

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

For these District Council elections, the pan-democrats began with their "Democracy is in danger" emergency appeal very early on. They said that the "Umbrella Soldiers" have parachuted into their traditional districts and take away "1/2 votes." Interestingly, these so-called "Umbrella Soldiers" clearly have certain objectives in picking the districts to parachute into. For example, Youngspiration, North District Concern Group etc seemed to be picking on the Democratic Party, Labour Party, etc candidates while clearing skipping over the Civic Party candidates. Why?

Some people might say that this is because the Umbrella Soldiers share the same ideas as the Civic Party, especially with respect to the constitutional reform vote. But the Democratic Party, ADPL, Labour Party etc voted to veto one-person-one-vote in 2017 as well.

Actually the explanation is very simple -- the Umbrella Soldiers and the Civic Party are closely connected. In fact, some of the Umbrella Soldiers are the Civic Party's B-team. This  year, the Civic Party shortened their candidate list to 25 persons. They claim to be sending out only elite party members. But in truth, they are sending out their B-team under different brand names. Furthermore, the B-team is out there to ambush "friendlies" that they would otherwise be too embarrassed to do openly.

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

A debate was held between Yeung Hoi-wing (DAB) and Sixtus Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration), candidates in the Kwun Lung district, Hong Kong Island Western district. Yeung said that the Civil Affairs Bureau is the organization supervising building management under the law and therefore he questioned why Leung wants to establish a "volunteer monitoring team." He said that he is neither district councilor nor district councilor assistant and also does not have a rich experience in politics. His "volunteer monitoring team" will have no power, "but when something happens, they can notify the residents and the media, and stop people from doing evil things."

Yeung asked: "So which is the next building due to be repaired/maintained in the Kwun Lung district?" Leung could not say. Finally Yeung has to offer a gentle reminder: "80% of the buildings in the district have already gone through the process."

(The Stand) November 13, 2015.

The Immigration Department received complaints that the campaign volunteers for Junius Ho included a putonghua-speaking mainland Chinese. Today, the Immigration Department took this individual away. After verifying that the individual came on a two-way visa and was not being paid for work, they released the individual.

According to Junius Ho, all his volunteers were recommended by friends or friendly groups. This particular volunteer was recommended by the Guangxi Association. "It was hard to reject a friendly offer." He said that his volunteers do not receive pay or travel reimbursements. "Not one cent."

He said that there is no problem with mainlanders working as volunteers. "Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city. My understanding is that it is not against any immigration law to come here and perform voluntary services. Many Hong Kong residents travel outside to perform voluntary services such as Doctors Without Border, etc."

Ho said that the denunciation probably came from a district council election opponent. "I saw that the denunciation came from a resident named Chan. I wonder if this is just any ordinary citizen. I believe that this came from political considerations."

Internet comments:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ao2ZvYUfM Here are the volunteers for Democratic Party candidate Louis Wong Yui-tak in the Allway district, Tsuen Wan. In the video, a number of volunteers for various candidates are handling out leaflets at the bus station. Wong's volunteers (1) are Falun Gong members; (2) speak with mainland accents; (3) use foul language ("may your whole family die"); (4) raise "I want genuine universal suffrage" yellow banners.

- https://www.facebook.com/badrecord/videos/1642671482675197/ Here is another volunteer for Democratic Party candidate Louis Wong Yui-tak in the Allway district, Tsuen Wan. There is a dispute over a certain banner and this volunteer, who is wearing a Wong Yui-tak campaign vest, says that he has nothing whatsoever to do with Wong Yui-tak or the Democratic Party.

(RTHK) November 14, 2015.

Umbrella Parents, Scholarism, Hong Kong Federation of Students have issued a joint declaration to express their concern over senior citizens being lured to vote for designated candidates. According to Umbrella Parents spokesperson Wong Kit-ying, a number of groups will send members to suspected districts on voting day to monitor the situation. These members will bring telecommunications and video recording equipment to make observations at senior citizen homes and voting stations. If and when they come across large buses taking large number of senior citizens from retirement homes to voting stations, they will make recordings to hand over to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. She emphasized that the purpose of the teams is to collect evidence and not to stop the voting.

Internet comments:

- They can "occupy" all the roads of Hong Kong so that senior citizens won't be able to vote. The only people allowed to pass will be those who raise yellow umbrellas. Then the Umbrella Soldiers will win for sure.

- Many senior citizens who live in retirement homes may not be mobile and cannot walk down to the one voting station in the district. Therefore, it is reasonable for the retirement home to hire a bus to transport those senior citizens who wish to vote. If in each such case, the Independent Commission Against Corruption is going to act on the complaints and send investigators to cross-examine each and every senior citizen about their voting intentions, then this is highly intrusive and vexing. This is just designed to intimidate senior citizens to refrain from voting.

- If an ICAC investigator shows up to question me about how I voted, I would have said that the vote was by secret balloting and I don't have to say a thing. So get lost!

- I remember that when Scholarism and Federation of Students occupied the streets of Hong Kong, they said that all the people in Hong Kong support them. So now they lack confidence about what some of the people might do at the voting booths. Therefore they are resorting to voter suppression tactics.

- (Wikipedia) Voter suppression

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising the right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to influence likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.

The tactics of voter suppression can range from minor "dirty tricks" that make voting inconvenient, up to blatantly illegal activities that physically intimidate prospective voters to prevent them from casting ballots. Voter suppression could be particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.

Related link: (New York Times) Looking, Very Closely, for Voter Fraud. September 17, 2012.

- Busing people is bribery? Well, here is a case of a busload of 9wu (=Shopping Revolutionary) regular uncles and aunties getting on a bus to visit some of the other regulars who are running in the District Council elections. Who is paying for this Magical Mystery Bus Tour? Whose election expenses will this show up under?

SocRec video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VLx3Vu_4IA

(Oriental Daily) November 16, 2015.

Power for Democracy held a press conference yesterday. Convener Andrew Chiu and representatives from the 18 districts applied orange spray paint to a red-colored map to imply that they intend to stop the "red"-ification of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, they forgot to open the windows for ventilation. After the paint spray was used, most of those present felt uncomfortable and left quickly. Do they plan to use poison gas warfare against the Communists?

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2015.

Non-profit chain store Home Market has been accused of canvassing support for pro-government candidates in the upcoming district council elections. Kwai Tsing district councillor Chow Wai-hung told HKFP that the retailer has recruited supporters for pro-government candidates among its members through the New Home Association, which the councillor says is affiliated with Home Market, a claim the chain denies.

The Association has held classes for Home Market members and asked them to volunteer for pro-establishment candidates campaigns, according to Chow. The store chain also put up campaign posters for these candidates and held promotional activities at the front of stores, Chow added. A non-profit organisation being involved in such high-profile political activities? I dont think it is reasonable. Chow, a member of the pan-democrat Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre, is running for re-election in Sundays polls. He is competing against Mo Sang-tung of the DAB, independent candidate Leung Kwong-cheong and Chan Yuk-ling.

A spokesperson for Home Market told HKFP the chain is not affiliated with the New Home Association. The New Home Association and Home Market are two separate organisations. However, the spokesperson did confirm that posters promoting pro-establishment candidates had been placed in Home Market stores.

Chow also said the retailer was involved in anti-Occupy Central activities and helped the government promote its political reform bill. They even gathered signatures to support political reform, Chow said.

Home Market sells daily products at near wholesale prices to help grass-roots customers save money, its website says. A 330 ml Coca Cola can sells for HK$3.5 to non-members and HK$2.7 to members, which is considerably cheaper than the price in Wellcome and ParknShop. The two supermarket giants both offer a four-can pack of the same soda for HK$18.9, which means one can costs around HK$4.7.

Home Market was founded in 2012 by Peter Lee Ka-kit, son of property tycoon Lee Shau-kee. It is funded by the Lee Shau Kee Foundation. The retail chain boasts more than 100,000 members and has eight branches in Kowloon. According to its website, only five groups of less privileged people are eligible to become members of Home Market. They include elderly permanent Hong Kong residents over the age of 65, disabled people, low-income families, minorities and new immigrants from mainland China. To apply for membership, applicants have to provide relevant identification documents.

According to an official press release, Home Market is included in the governments Appreciate Hong Kong campaign.

(Ta Kung Pao) November 19, 2015.

At 2:13am on November 17, an Internet user named Natalia Chung posted a photo of Siu Hong district candidate Mo Shing-fung and his family and said: "Do you want to know the story of the various members of this family?" Next Natalia Chung drew black lines across the eyes of the people in the photo because "using the black lines" means that there is no invasion of privacy. Natalia Chung posted a link that is supposed to be the source of the photo, but the link doesn't work. Meanwhile another Internet user named "Do not cooperate" wrote: "Showing the photo doesn't mean anything. You cannot say that showing the photo means that you want to kill his entire family. Why can't we just be caring about his family?"

Yesterday Mo Shing-fung filed a police report. Natalia Chung responded by calling on Internet users to "actively comfort him." Mo told our newspaper that the photo was taken at his birthday early this year. He does not know how Natalia Chung got this photo. Mo said: "Although I expect to be attacked for entering the election, this is my personal decision and should not have hurt my family."

Mo also said that a 60-something-year old volunteer of his was threatened by a fat man who promised to "beat him up everything he sees him around." Mo and the volunteer have filed a police report.

Mo Shing-fung is the community director for the DAB in the Siu Hong district, Tuen Mun. Over the past four years, he has been introducing new activities such as distributing bonsai plants, book exchanges, etc. Ever since the ran and lost in the last district election, he has been attacked by Internet users Natalia Chung, "Do not cooperate" and others on the Internet. But this was the first time that his family has been brought into this. According to Internet information, Natalia Chung and "Do not cooperate" are members of Internet groups such as "Is Hong Kong independence feasible?" "Self-determination of fate" "Oppose red-ification, oppose colonization" etc, as well as being pro-Occupy Central.

Mo is running against Democratic Party incumbent councilor Josephine Chan Shu-ying.

(Apple Daily) November 20, 2015.

Hung Hom district incumbent councilor Pius Yum Kwok-tung (ADPL) found two men distributing leaflets in the street, one of them wearing dark glasses and surgical mask. The leaflet says "Don't forget the hurt from Occupy Central" and "Lawless ADPL occupied Central." Yum began filming them whereupon one of them yelled at him: "Fuck your mother! You fucking stupid moron!" Yum suspects the two men of violating the election regulations, and has filed complaints with the police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

- Alliance for Peace and Democracy poster about "Do not forget the harm from Occupy Central, be wary of the disturbances returning again."

Internet comments:

- If Yum Kwok-tung is upset with being cursed out in obscene language, then how does he fell about the Lingnan University students? (see #368).

- But this leaflet is merely stating the fact that ADPL supported Occupy Central. So why is this a smear?

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

On November 19, Leung Wing-kuen (Democratic Party) inserted leaflets into every mailbox in On Yam district, Kwai Ching. These leaflets accused Dennis Leung Tsz-wing (Federation of Trade Unions) of vote-buying, seeding votes, stealing votes, using a false resum, oppressing working-class people, etc. Yesterday Leung Tsz-wing went to file a complaint at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. He said that the leaflets were inaccurate and misleading, and were intended to smear him to sway the voters.

Previously this newspaper had reported that Leung Wing-kuen and Kwai Chung district councilor Andrew Wan of the Democratic Party distributed 5,000 packets of rice two days before the nomination for district councilor began.

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

Outside the Kwai Fong MTR station, there were a large number of posters which appear to be campaign posters for candidate Leung Kar-ming (DAB). Upon closer reading, they are actually smear jobs. The poster has the photo of Leung Kar-ming, with the candidate number and DAB party identification. But slogan used was "Give me a chance to poison your children." The poster also quoted negative reporting by Next Magazine on Leung about lead-in-water. These posters appear on bus stops and street signs. Leung's opponent is Democratic Party incumbent councilor Ng Kim-sing.

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

Yesterday at around 530pm, Mrs. Chung Shu-kun and an assistant were handling materials for the street booth in her husband's Yue Wan office in preparation of holding the street booth late. A young man in a black t-shirt and a backpack entered. He said that he was a reporter who wanted to interview Chung Shu-kun. But Mrs. Chung recognized him as a campaign member of Chung's rival Chui Chi-kin. The young man denied that and said that he had a press pass. Mrs. Chung asked to see it again and again but the young man refused to show it. The young man tried to flee. Mrs. Chung and a female assistant gave chased. Mrs. Chung fell down with head and neck injuries. The female assistant stopped the young man and called the police for help.

After the young man was arrested, he immediately called Chui's campaign team for help. Chui's team member rushed over. A female team member kept taking video with her mobile phone. When the police asked why and what she was filming, she ignored them. The police asked her if she witnessed the incident and she was tongue-tied.

Several days ago, a man ripped off the posters outside Chung's office and aimed spray paint at the workers inside the office. At the time, Mrs. Chung was doing inventory in the office. Her hair was sprayed with paint. A security guard who tried to stop the man was injured by the man. The police had to come over.

Young man who claimed to be a reporter

Chui Chi-kin's campaign team member came over to gloat over Mrs. Chung

The same woman over at Chui's street booth wearing a badge with the name "Chui Chi-kin."

Media of Hong Kong Students statement:

1. We express our deep regrets about what our reporter encountered during the process of gathering news

2. Our reporter did not use any violence or force as reported by certain media. We express our strongest condemnation and deepest regret about those allegations.

3. The reporter was gathering news as a reporter of Media of Hong Kong Students, without any orders or interests connected to any political party, candidate or group.

4. Our reporter identified himself as a reporter and stated his purpose at the office of councilor Chung Shu-kun. He cooperated with Mrs. Chung's request and clearly displayed his reporter's identification.

5. However, the persons at councilor Chung Shu-kun's office were unclear about the reporter badge and his identify and tried to prevent our reporter from departing. We are disappointed about this.

6. We condemn any acts that disrupt freedom of press and the public's right to know.

(Wen Wei Po) November 22, 2015.

After the unlawful Occupy Movement failed, a group of Umbrella Soldiers entered the district council elections in order to bring in the lawless spirit of Occupy to attack the pro-establishment candidates. In Yue Wan, Hong Kong Island Eastern District, a member of the umbrella soldier candidate Chui Chi-kin entered the office of DAB candidate Chung Shu-kun and injured Mrs. Chung.

Afterwards, Media of Hong Kong Students claimed that the young man is a "reporter" who had shown his "press card". But there is a video from the closed circuit television in Chung's office https://youtu.be/joRj5UYCyh4 showing that the young man had only flashed a card-like object. Mrs. Chung could not seen what was on the object, and so she approached him from the rear of the office. But upon further questioning, the young man fled. This young man is surely not any 'reporter.' Mrs. Chung and another female assistant chased him.

According to the police, the young man has been arrested and is now out on bail.

After the video was published, Chui Chi-kin said on social media that the matter is in the hands of the police and he himself is not familiar with the details of the incident. However, he did admit that the young was one of his campaign volunteers distributing leaflets. He said that the young man was a Form 4 student who was gathering news for his own student newspaper. He said that he was surprised but, as an adult, "I personally trust students and believe that they should be protected." Therefore, "our volunteer team is seeking help for that student."


(Now TV) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=158826 News report

Internet comments:

- Apparently any Joe off the street can become a reporter. I think I will go and start a "Hong Kong Students Media" Facebook, make up and print some reporter badges and then I will be reporter who is fully licensed to roam anywhere I want to "gather news." Anyone who stops me is violating freedom of press.

- What the hell is the Media of Hong Kong Students? I have never heard of them. I went over to their Facebook and all they carry is news about English Premier League soccer games. Any fucking guy can maintain this media outlet just by checking some sports news websites. Is the English Premier League the only thing that Hong Kong students are interested in?

- One day, you are a campaign worker handing out leaflets. The next day, you are a reporter without any orders or interests connected to any political party, candidate or group.
- On Mondays through Fridays, I go to work as a Buildings Department senior managing director. On Saturdays and Sundays, I moonlight as consultant to Sun Hung Kai Properties. I see no conflict of interests because I manage to compartmentalize myself.

- To quote Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung, this is a case of "以武制暴" (=using violence to halt tyranny). Chung Shu-kun is with the pro-establishment DAB party. Therefore it is right and just to beat his wife up. PERIOD.

- The initial release from Media of Hong Kong Students was this:

Breaking News:
Does taking photos of Chung Shu-kun lead to arrest?!?!
Our reporter was arrested by the police after the Chung Shu-kun campaign team reported him.

(YouTube) November 21, 2015.

Defend Hong Kong Movement members were distributing leaflets in Sai Wan Ho when they encountered a pro-Hong Kong independence thug who tossed a ton of obscenities at them.

(Apple Daily) November 22, 2015.

At 749am in the To Kwa Wan North district, candidate Lam Yi-lai reported being assaulted by a man at the corner of To Kwa Wan Road and Lok Shan Road. Lam said that DAB candidate Starry Lee Wai-king's volunteers prevented her volunteers from distributing leaflets. Lam used her mobile phone to film the other side. But a 76-year-old DAB volunteer used a handful of leaflets to slap her hand and phone. "He kept hitting me." Therefore Lam had to call the police.

Based upon the video the old man said that other people were not allowed to pass out leaflets there. Then he got upset by the filming and shouted "What are you filming!" Then he struck Lam's mobile phone six times. The old man said: "You don't have our consent to film us."

(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf4pphaxigw Video provided by Lam Yi-lai.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 11, 2015.

A new Lingnan University Council member stormed out forum on academic freedom at the campus in Tuen Mun after he said students swore at him and insulted his wife.

Junius Ho Kwan-yiu was recently appointed by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to the Council hence he was invited to the forum on Tuesday to debate whether Leung should be the chancellor of the university. Ho did not directly answer students questions regarding how academic freedom should be defended and whether the Council ought include more staff and students: We need to look at reports to see if its feasible. He also said he did not have the time to interfere with the autonomy of the university.

When asked by students why he claimed to be a social worker which only registered professionals may claim to be he told students to go home and study for a few more years.

The attitude you have here is not respectful of the students, you are arrogant, a student said to Ho before swearing at him. In response, Ho said he would not talk to students using foul language. He added that students may use swear words when flirting with each other.

Student Union president Lau Chun-lam then asked Ho: Would you swear at your wife when you are flirting with her? Ho slammed his microphone on the table, and left the forum, saying: You can attack me personally, but you cannot attack my wife, do you understand?

The Student Union issued a statement after the forum that read: It is unfortunate that Lingnan students have to accept such shoddy person as a Council member, that the red power can influence the administration of our school. Ho once criticised a concert organised by the universitys student union for including songs with foul language.

In October, dozens of Lingnan University students forced a Council meeting to be suspended in a protest against the appointments of Junius Ho and other new Council members who are considered pro-Beijing figures.

The Student Union launched a referendum this week on three motions:

The referendum will end on Wednesday.

(SCMP) November 11, 2015.

A high-profile appointee to Lingnan University's council stormed out of one of his first events, a forum on academic freedom, after students swore as they questioned him.

Junius Ho Kwan-yiu - who once criticised students for performing a song laden with curse words - again declared a contempt for profanity. "I cannot accept swear words in Lingnan University," said Ho, the former president of the Law Society, who was appointed to the council by chief executive Leung Chun-ying last month, prompting concerns academic freedom at the university could be undermined. He said such language might be common among students "flirting with one another".

Ho's comments came during a question-and-answer session, during which two students swore at him. They also accused him of not being able to provide views on liberal arts - the cornerstone of the university's curriculum for which it has been recently named one of the top 10 in Asia by Forbes Magazine.

Suddenly slamming his microphone on the table, Ho then accused Philip Lau Chun-lam, the student union president, of attacking his family personally. Lau later said he had asked if Ho would flirt with his wife in the way he suggested students did with one another.

Speaking after the meeting, Ho said the students' rude attitude was not something taxpayers would expect. But Lau said: "The students think he didn't respect us through the language and action he chose, despite claiming to be humble."

(Oriental Daily) November 10, 2015.

At the discussion forum, Junius Ho said that he "would definitely not interfere with academic freedom, telling people what to do and what not to do ... doing what I am not supposed to do." He also said that government appointments do not corrupt the university system. "If the universities have gone bad, society will speak up."

Towards the end of the discussion forum, a student asked Junius Ho just what is a "refined education" (=Lingnan University motto), and how Ho can help the university develop. Ho said that he is just a "newbie" and he wants to help Lingnan University get more resources in the future. But the students thought that Ho was being evasive and used foul language to accuse Ho of being "fucking overbearing." Ho said that it is definitely not "refined education" when students employ foul language. He added suddenly: "I believe that you students will use foul language to flirt around." Student Union president Philip Lau countered: "Will you flirt with your wife with foul language?" Ho put down his microphone and left quickly.

Afterwards, Lau clarified that he was not making a personal attack on Ho's family. Lau said that Ho failed as a university trustee to answer the students' questions to their satisfaction. He said that Ho was disrespectful of the students. However, the Student Union will continue to invite other university trustees to attend future discussion forums.

(Apple Daily) November 10, 2015.

A student questioned Junius Ho about the claim of being a social worker. Because Ho does not seem to understand the meaning of the term, he is unqualified to be a trustee. Ho replied: "How do you know that I won't become a genuine social worker some day?" A student wanted Junius Ho to resign as trustee. Ho pointed a finger at the students and said: "You are not a taxpayer. What right do you have to tell me to resign?" Ho kept telling the students to stop hitting the dead end. He emphasized that his appointment as trustee is a final decision. "Go home and study some more first."

Related links:

Lingan University clash
Fuck the Police


(Epoch Times) Part 1 of discussion forum
(Epoch Times) Part 2 of discussion forum
(Epoch Times) Part 3 of discussion forum
(Epoch Times) Part 4 of discussion forum
(Epoch Times) Lingnan University Student Union president speaks to the press
(Epoch Times) News report

(Speakout HK)
  0:01 Philip Lau: Junius is completely unqualified to become a Lingnan University trustee. Anti-democracy, incapable to telling right from wrong, selling his character, ignorant idiot, incapable of telling black from white. Never mind becoming a trustee, he should not even be accepted as a student.
  0:15 Radio host: I think that some of your choice of words have stepped over the line.
  0:27 Philip Lau: Firstly, he supports highly the undemocratic replacement system. He is anti-democracy.
  0:36 Junius Ho: Firstly, he spoke of the replacement system. As everybody knows, when I was the Solicitors Association president, I opposed the replacement system. On a basic matter like this, he has failed to do his homework.
  0:59: Philip Lau: In order to consolidate the support by the New Territories aborigines and to protect his votes, he opposes the government from clearing out the illegal housing structures in the New Territories.
  1:11: Junius Ho: On the matter of the ancestral houses, an illegal structure is an illegal structure. On many occasions on radio, in essays and during interviews, I have stated clearly: If it is against the law, then it is against the law; if it needs to be demolished, it should be demolished. The plan for people to report their own illegal structures motivates certain people. They may have broken the law but they reported themselves in for the illegal structures. I oppose this kind of incentive method. Student Lau, you used inappropriate terms and your research work is inadequate. I hope that you can be more diligent.

Internet comments:

- Junius Ho's statement (via Facebook)

Yesterday I earnestly attended the consultative meeting of the Lingnan University Student Union. Unfortunately the event could not be completed. Firstly, although I was forced to stop my speech against my will, I still have to apologize to the vast majority of students who really wanted serious exchange and participation.

Prior to my attendance, some friends thought that I didn't need to do so. But I thought that the students are rational and pragmatic, so that more contacts will eliminate certain small misunderstandings. That was how I happily came to this refined institution but left unhappily afterwards.

During the entire consultative session, I listened carefully to the various opinions, including some which were erroneous. I also sincerely offered my opinions. I firmly believed that humility and calm discussions can increase mutual understand and trust.

Towards the end of the discussion session, two students used foul language to criticize me. I said that this was inappropriate for an institute of higher learning and the students should perhaps keep this kind of talk private. At this time, the Student Union president Philip Lau Chun-lam said that I should keep these foul-mouthed words to say to my wife. I was astonished at the insult hurled at my wife! I think that any self-respecting person should ceased participation in this even. Therefore I stood up and said that I wanted to withdraw. A university is a place to seek knowledge. Freedom of expression should be valued. The United Nations Human Rights Charter is based upon a quest for fundamental human rights, respect for people's character and values and gender equality. In this environment where even fundamental respect is absent, what is the purpose of freedom of expression and rational discussion?

I state that I can tolerate any abuse heaped at me, and I will hold myself back. But as a responsible gentleman, I must defend the honor of my wife and family. I believe that we must respect women and not use foul language to insult any women.

Furthermore, as a university trustee, I am obliged to defend the honor of the university and stop the students from taking more inappropriate actions. Therefore, I was forced to terminate my attendance at this discussion session.

I believe that this was the result of certain individual students. I firmly believe that most Lingnan University students are excellent. Therefore I will devote myself even more into fulfilling my duties as a Lingnan University trustee.

- Caption created by Silent Majority Facebook: "You are fucking overbearing! You even dare to criticize us for using foul language!"

- A so-called university student should know some basic manners.
If you post at the Golden Forum, you can use as much obscene language as you want. If you post at the Baby Kingdom forum, you will be banned for using obscene language.
If you gather with old boys' school classmates to sing karaoke, you can use as much obscene language as you want. If you gather at your grandparents' home for the Winter Festival dinner, you should not use obscene language (unless you have a special kind of family).
If you demonstrate against a senior government official in a public event (such as the national flag ceremony), you can use as much obscene language as you want. If you invite a guest to attend a discussion forum that you are hosting, you should not use obscene language against the guest (unless this is a special kind of guest).
Just because obscene language is standard at the Golden Forum does not mean that it is appropriate everywhere else.

- Why are we surprised at what is happening at Lingnan University? Who attends Lingnan University anyway? Those who couldn't get accepted at the other universities (Hong Kong University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Science and Technology, Polytechnic University, Baptist University, City University).
- Those who are not even accepted by Lingnan University can choose between Shu Yan and the Institute of Education.
- Given their low self-esteem, using foul language is one way for Lingnan University students to establish their pre-eminence in one field.

- Freedom of expression includes being free to say terrible things about your wife. Junius Ho was interfering with the students' freedom to say terrible things about his wife. Therefore he is attacking freedom of expression. Therefore he must resign as a trustee.
- I completely agree with this argument. We will line up the entire board of trustees and we will say terrible things about their spouses and parents. Any trustee who is offended is attacking freedom of expression and must resign immediately.
Among those survive the test, we will next threaten them with physical harm. Any trustee who wants to summon the police is attacking our freedom of expression and must resign immediately.
We will see how many trustees are left.

- What were Junius Ho's options at that moment? Pick one or more from the following
(1) Get up and leave silently
(2) Get up and explain why you are going to leave
(3) Tell the other person who insulted your wife that he should reserve the use of foul language for his own mother
(4) Tell the other person: "I fuck your mother's stinking rotten cunt!"
(5) Smash the electric guitar (if there is one around) and the rest of the audio-visual equipment
(6) Toss the microphone at that other person and spit at him
(7) Charge over and beat the other person into a pulp
(8) Pick up the table and smash it over the head of the other person
(9) Other [Fill in yourself]

- Junius Ho had it coming. By accepting the invitation to attend a Lingnan University Student Union discussion forum, he is provoking the students into extreme actions. Therefore Junius Ho is responsible for everything that happened afterwards. He has no one to blame but himself. As university trustee, Junius Ho should have stayed home.
- I completely agree with this argument. That female European backpacker was provoking the men when she traveled through India. Therefore she is responsible for everything that happened afterwards. She has no one to blame but herself. As a European woman, she should have stayed home to cook and clean.

- If we overturn the existing university ordinances, what will we have instead? We love to abide by international standards, don't we? Here are the systems at the five largest American state university systems.

(Wikipedia) University of California Regents

The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University of California system. Chartered by the California Constitution, the board has 26 voting members.

The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy with limited exceptions to the Regents. According to article IX, section 9, "The University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs."

The majority of the board (18 Regents) is appointed via nomination by the Governor of California and confirmation by the California State Senate to 12-year terms. One student Regent is appointed by the Board for a one-year term. The remaining 7 Regents are ex officio members. They are the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the State Assembly, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, president and vice president of the Alumni Associations of UC, and president of the University of California.

The Board also has two non-voting faculty representatives. The incoming student Regent serves as a non-voting Regent-designate from the date of selection (usually between July and October) until beginning their formal term the following July 1.

The vast majority of the Regents appointed by the Governor historically have consisted of lawyers, politicians and businessmen.[3] Over the past two decades, it has been common that UC Regents appointees have donated relatively large sums of money either directly to the Governor's election campaigns or indirectly to party election groups.

(University of Texas System)

The Board of Regents, the governing body for The University of Texas System, is composed of nine members who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Terms for Regents are scheduled for six years each and staggered so that three members' terms will usually expire on February 1 of odd-numbered years. In addition, the Governor appoints a Student Regent for a one-year term.

(Wikipedia) State University of New York

SUNY is governed by a State University of New York Board of Trustees, which consists of eighteen members, fifteen of whom are appointed by the Governor, with consent of the New York State Senate. The sixteenth member is the President of the SUNY Student Assembly. The last two members are the Presidents of the University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges, both of whom are non-voting. The Board of Trustees appoints the Chancellor who serves as SUNY Chief Executive Officer.

(Wikipedia) Floridia Board of Governors

The Florida Board of Governors is a 17-member governing board that serves as the governing body for the State University System of Florida, which includes all public universities in the state of Florida.

The Florida Board of Governors has seventeen members, including fourteen voting members appointed by the governor, as well as, the Florida Commissioner of Education, the Chair of the Advisory Council of Faculty Senates, and the President of the Florida Student Association.

(Wikipedia) University of Illinois System

The University of Illinois is a system of public universities in Illinois consisting of three campuses: UrbanaChampaign, Chicago, and Springfield.

The system is governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of thirteen members: the governor of Illinois serves as an ex officio member, nine trustees are appointed by the Illinois Governor, and a student trustee elected by referendum represents each of the university's three campuses. One of the three student trustees is designated by the governor to have a vote.

Why are the systems so similar? Why do the faculties and students have so little power? Because (1) the university system is supported by public funds; (2) the students are transient and therefore weak at long-range planning; (3) the faculties have vested interests.  But in Hong Kong nowadays, the faculties and students want to take charge.

- (HKG Pao)

In response to Junius Ho's Facebook, the Lingnan University Student Union responded on Facebook. "Our Union is deeply sympathetic to those students whose valuable time was wasted by Mr. Ho, and we understand why our fellow students are so angry." In so doing, they justify the students for using foul language.

Within one day, several hundred comments were posted against the students. Here is a sample:

- You used foul language against someone who leaves. Then you follow up by saying that this person disrespected you. Are you Lingnan University boys shameless to this extent?

- You are shameless and  you don't deserve to be known as students. Please do not waste the love/effort/time/money that your parents spent on you. The university subsidies should be terminated. You should not be wasting taxpayers' money.

-  It is no big deal to use foul language. But after cursing people out, you require that they not walk away because it would be disrespecting you. What do you know about 'respect'? Don't make me laugh. You university students are shameless.

- I would like to  know if the Lingnan student body agrees with the actions of their foul-mouthed student union president? If the answer it NO, then the Lingnan students need to rise up and defend their university's reputation! Otherwise all of Hong Kong will know your institution as the "foul-mouthed university" and despise you!

- What is the difference between you Yellow Guards and the Red Guards? University students? You are worse than illiterates!

- As a student, you couldn't win by reason so you resort to foul language. Your performance earns zero marks.

- You only know how to make personal attacks with foul language. This essay kept referring to pro-China persons and political backgrounds, etc. There is no actual evidence of any sort being offered. This is using conspiracy theories to make a political judgment.

- You wrote such a long essay with all sorts of reasons and excuses to gloss over your ugly deed, precisely because you know that your deed was ugly.

The essay also declared: "If Mr. Ho truly has no political background and baggage, then as a member of the New Territories Concern Group and Defend Central, he has openly criticized Occupy Central many times as an illegal activity ... if this isn't political background, then what is political background?" In response:

- When a citizen makes an open criticism that the illegal Occupy Central is illegal, it means that this citizen has a political background? Are university students so arrogant and presumptuous that they cannot allow citizens to call an illegal activity for what it is? 90% of the people of Hong Kong believe that Occupy Central is illegal and should be stopped. Are they all pro-China/pro-establishment/anti-democracy according to the Lingnan University Student Union?

- Criticizing Occupy Central implies political background? Occupy Central affected the livelihoods of many citizens and it is indeed against the law (e.g. incitement and participation in unlawful assembly, etc). Any normal citizen would be criticizing Occupy Central. During that period, you will hear many criticisms if you walk into a tea restaurant that is showing television news. On the contrary here, I think that you have a thick and heavy political background when you attack the university trustees.

- Criticizing Occupy Central = political background. Fine. But does using foul language to intimidate people = triad gang background?

- You want political background? You got political background. According to (Ming Pao), the first student to use foul language against Junius Ho second-year social sciences student Chow Wai-lok. Mr. Chow is a member of the radical political party Civic Passion. Chow said that he had planned beforehand to use foul language. In saying "overbearing", he added "fucking overbearing" to make a point of emphasis.

- So it is the supporter of one political party making a foul-mouthed attack on a supporter of an opposing camp. No big deal. It happens every day. Except it is the reputation of Lingnan University that is being tarnished. It is currently being known just as "Foul-mouthed University."

- According to Chow Wai-lok, he only uses obscene language with close friends and he would never do so in front of elders and teachers. However, he was dissatisfied with Junius Ho's conceited attitude and evasive answers. Therefore he used foul language to humiliate Ho. That's great. Hereafter anyone who fails to provide an answer to your satisfaction needs to be cursed out. No wonder "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung gets cursed out everywhere that he goes (#341).
- (1) Chow Wai-lok only uses obscene language with close friends; (2) Chow Wai-lok used foul language to humiliate Ho. Therefore Chow insults his close friends with obscene language. So don't be close friends with him if you don't want to be insulted.
- I watched the video. I thought that Chow Wai-lok was overbearing and I objected to this use of foul language. Therefore I say to him: "I fuck your mother's stinking cunt!" in order to humiliate him. This message has been approved by Chow Wai-lok.
- Chow Wai-lok has just started a new meme along the line of "I am normally well-mannered and I don't use foul language, but this time [FILL IN THE BLANKS YOURSELF]".
- And if Junius Ho brushed off Chow's foul-mouthed verbal tirade, Chow will surely escalate to "stop tyranny by the use of physical force."
- Chow Wai-lok was wrong to use foul language against Junius Ho. Fortunately the student union president Philip Lau corrected Chow by telling Ho that he should go home and use foul language with his wife.

Q1. How concerned about the District Council elections?
38%: Very concerned
27%: Somewhat concerned
24%: So-so
5%: Not too concerned
3%: Not concerned at all
2%: No opinion

Q2. Do you think that the election atmosphere is excited now?
10%: Very excited
25%: Somewhat excited
47%: So-so
10%: Somewhat unexcited
5%: Completely unexcited
2%: No opinion

Q3. What is the main factor when you choose a candidate to vote for?
1%: Fame
14%: Policy platform
40%: Political party affiliation/political position
3%: Personal image
35%: Past job performance
4%: Other
4%: No opinion

Q4. Do you want your District Councilor to focus on Hong Kong-wide issues or local district issues?
30%: Hong Kong-wide issues
57%: Local district issues
13%: No opinion

Q5. How satisfied are you with your local district councilor?
10%: Very satisfied
25%: Somewhat satisfied
38%: So-so
10%: Not too satisfied
9%: Completely dissatisfied
6%: Don't know my district councilor/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q6. When will you make your voting decision?
27%: On the day of the vote
26%: Within one week before the vote
14%: Within two weeks before the vote
24%: More than two weeks before the vote
10%: No opinion

Q7. Will you vote in the November district elections?
62%: Definitely yes
22%: Most likely yes
4%: Most likely not
7%: Definitely not
1%: No opinion

Q8. Will you vote for a pro-Occupy Movement candidate?
28%: Yes
50%: No
11%: Hard to say
10%: No opinion

Q9. If the district elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
31%: The incumbent district councilor
22%: The opponent of the incumbent district councilor
41%: Undecided
2%: The incumbent district councilor is not running or is unopposed
4%: No opinion

Q10. If the district elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
13%: Candidates with pan-democratic party backgrounds
23%: Candidates with pro-establishment backgrounds
24%: Independent candidates
38%: Undecided
2%: No opinion

Q11. Pan-democratic political party support (among the 13% who said that they would vote for candidates with pan-democratic political party backgrounds.
14%: People Power
3%: Labour Party
29%: Civic Party
39%: Democratic Party
1%: ADPL
3%: League of Social Democrats
1%: Neighborhood and Workers Service
2%: Neo Democrats
8%: Other pan-democratic political groups

Q12. Pro-establishment political party support (among the 23% who said that they would vote for candidates with pro-establishment political party backgrounds)
17%: Federation of Trade Unions
51%: Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong
6%: Liberal Party
5%: Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong
14%: New People's Party
6%: Other pro-establishment political groups
1%: No opinion

Q13. What is the principal source of election information?
16%: Internet
22%: Printed newspapers/magazines
5%: Family/friends
2%: Radio
4%: Television
26%: Campaign promotional materials
16%: Other
9%: No opinion

(EJ insight) Academic freedom: what is it and is it under threat? By Michael Chugani. November 9, 2015.

Is academic freedom under threat in Hong Kongs universities?

To answer that question, it is necessary to first define what academic freedom means.

This is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines it: Academic freedom is the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure.

Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate.

For students, the basic elements include the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions.

Simply put, there are two key points in Encyclopedia Britannicas detailed explanation of academic freedom.

In the case of professors, they should be allowed to teach and research in the way they want.

In the case of students, they should be allowed to study whatever subjects they want.

Many students, professors and politicians have claimed in recent weeks that the University of Hong Kong councils rejection of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor has put academic freedom in Hong Kong under threat.

How true are these claims?

The answer lies in impartially studying the Encyclopedia Britannicas definition of academic freedom.

Are teachers and students still free to pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference even though the HKU council has rejected Chan as pro vice chancellor?

Are students still free to study whatever subjects they want and form their own opinions?

Are professors still free to teach the way they want and to publish research papers in the way they want?

If the answer is yes to all three questions, then academic freedom is alive and well even though Chan did not get the job as pro vice chancellor.

If the answer is no, then those who believe academic freedom is now under threat must give clear examples of students not being able to choose what they want to study and professors not being able to teach in the way they want.

Academic freedom is one of our core values.

It is crucial to Hong Kongs way of life.

For that reason, it is irresponsible, especially for politicians and professors, to make loose claims about academic freedom being under threat without providing credible proof.

It is dangerous, puzzling and silly to suggest that academic freedom is dependent on Chan Man-mun being made pro vice chancellor of HKU.

Academic freedom is not dependent on one person alone, regardless of how qualified that person is.

Now that the HKU council has rejected Chan as pro vice chancellor, is there any evidence that academic freedom has been damaged?

Are students no longer allowed freedom of thought and choice of subjects?

Have professors who took part in a silent protest in support of Chan been fired?

Has the HKU ordered professors to abstain from expressing political opinion or joining protests?

Has the HKU council censured, punished or thrown out Billy Fung Jing-en, the student union representative in the council, for revealing details of a confidential meeting regarding Chan?

The answer is, of course, no.

Nothing has changed even though Chan has not been given the job of pro vice chancellor.

In fact, the controversy over Chan has increased academic freedom.

Students are speaking out more.

Professors are speaking out more.

Alumni members are speaking out more.

And the general public now has a better understanding of how university policies are made.

All this new-found awareness and interest in our universities can better guard academic freedom than the appointment of Chan.

Those who warn that academic freedom is under threat justify their warning by claiming that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who, by tradition, is the chancellor of all of Hong Kongs universities, has politically interfered with university matters by blocking the appointment of Chan.

They say Leung interfered through the six members that the chief executive traditionally appoints to the HKU council.

They also claim the central government has instructed pro-Beijing members of the council to block Chans appointment.

There is a widespread but erroneous belief that Leung appointed six members to the council.

The fact is he appointed only two Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung.

The remaining four were appointed by his predecessor, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.

Did Leung instruct Li and Ki to vote against Chans appointment?

Does he have any influence over the four council members appointed by Tsang?

Would the four have followed his order to oppose Chan?

No one knows for sure, but those who make the claim that he interfered have the responsibility to provide proof.

Of the 20 members who voted, the 12 who opposed Chan are seen as pro-establishment, and the eight who supported him are seen as pro-democracy.

It is highly presumptuous and one-sided to claim that the 12 pro-establishment members who opposed Chan did so for purely political reasons on the orders of Beijing but the eight who supported him did so not for political reasons but purely because they believed he was the best person for the job.

The truth is that both sides are playing politics.

The whole issue has become a political tug-of-war.

Anyone who doesnt admit this is a hypocrite.

How can anyone deny that politics are involved when the clear fact is that all those who support Chan are from the democracy camp and all those who oppose him are from the pro-establishment camp?

Hongkongers need to face the truth that politics is involved instead of so readily believing that academic freedom is at risk.

Politics entered the tug-of-war over whether Chan should be appointed pro vice chancellor when it became known that he had a part in handling HK$1.45 million (US$190,000) given to Occupy Central co-organizer Benny Tai Yiu-ting by an anonymous donor to partly finance the Umbrella movement.

The democracy camp fully supported the Umbrella movement to fight for so-called genuine democracy, but the Hong Kong and central governments and the pro-establishment camp fiercely opposed it.

Opinion polls showed that just under half of Hong Kong supported Occupy Central and just over half did not.

The left-wing media began a campaign against Chan, claiming he was unsuitable as pro vice chancellor because he had supported Occupy Central and had mishandled the anonymous donation to Tai.

The democracy camp, led by Apple Daily, struck back by accusing Leung and the central government of interfering in academic freedom and the councils vote on HKUs selection committees recommendation that Chan be appointed pro vice chancellor.

Which side brought politics into the matter first?

Is it democracy camp members at HKU, such as Tai, Chan and the students who supported Occupy Central, or the left-wing media that said Chan was not suitable as pro vice chancellor because of his support of Occupy Central and his mishandling of an anonymous donation to partly finance the movement?

Each side is blaming the other for politicizing the matter.

It is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves who is to blame.

We also have to decide for ourselves whether the 12 council members who voted against Chan did so under orders from Beijing or whether they genuinely believed he was not suitable for the job because of his involvement in Occupy Central.

We have to decide for ourselves if the eight who supported Chan did so because they genuinely believed he was suitable for the job or if they did so because he belongs to the democracy camp.

Leungs recent appointment of five new members to the Lingnan University council has sparked a new political controversy, because two of the five had openly opposed Occupy Central.

The democracy camp and Lingnan University students have criticized the appointments with the argument that the two are not suitable as council members and will threaten academic freedom because of their opposition to Occupy Central.

It is up to each one of us to decide if only supporters of Occupy Central should have the right to become council members of universities and only Occupy Central supporters are capable of upholding academic freedom.

We should ask ourselves whether academic freedom is also under threat if university councils consist only of Occupy Central supporters.

Isnt academic freedom similarly threatened if opponents of Occupy Central are vilified and not given the freedom to think, teach and study the way they want?

The tug-of-war over Chan is not really about academic freedom.

It is in fact a proxy war between the democracy camp and Beijing.

It is a continuation of the Occupy uprising.

(Oriental Daily) November 9, 2015.

Orientail Daily front page cover
US Democratic Party leader visits Hong Kong, politicians come in greeting chorus
Pan-democrats bring in foreign forces
to interfere with University of Hong Kong affairs

US Congress Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and six other Congressmen came to visit Hong Kong. Yesterday the group met with Chief Executive CY Leung. Later they met with the pro-establishment camp led by Liberal Party honorary chairman James Tien. They also met with the pan-democratic political parties including Civic Party's Alan Leong, Democratic Party's Emily Lau, Labour Party's Cyd Ho, the accountancy sector legislator Kenneth Leung, and former legislators Martin Lee and Anson Chan.

When contacted by our newspaper, Emily Lau and Alan Leong confirmed that they met with Pelosi. They admitted frankly that they brought up the string of events at the University of Hong Kong. In particular, Lau told Pelosi that the university is an index for Hong Kong. So it there are problems at the university, it means that there are problems in Hong Kong. Leong said that he said during the meeting that Hong Kong is looking at many attempts to destroy its system and values, and that the university is Hong Kong's bridgehead for academic self-determination and freedom.

Alan Leong quoted one congressional delegate as saying that academic freedom and self-determination are the foundation of Hong Kong and that many American universities believe that it to  provide support as civic societies through institutional relationships. Leong also said that Pelosi agreed with the statement by this congressional delegate.

Martin Lee and Anson Chan's spokespersons confirmed that the two met with Nancy Pelosi and brought up the situation in Hong Kong. Martin Lee said that he told Pelosi that there is no democracy in Hong Kong. He also mentioned the appointment of the pro vice chancellor at the University of Hong Kong and the university council.

University of Hong Kong council member and Legislative Councilor Chung Shu-kan said that "the pan-democrats are making their report to their westerner masters." He said that while the pan-democrats say that they don't want other people to interfere with academic freedom, they also bring the matter up with the American politicians. This is double standards in operation. Chung Shu-kan also criticized the "civic society support" mentioned by the unnamed congressman. He asked: "Which American university uses civic society as the basis of its decisions? Which university elects its chancellor by community voting?"

Legislator Wong Kwok-kin said that "whining to the foreigners" has become a habit for the pan-democrats. He said that the University of Hong Kong matter is an internal personnel matter that has nothing to do with academic freedom. He wondered if the pan-democrats are politicizing the matter for the sake of the upcoming elections. He felt embarrassed for the pan-democrats who are whining to the foreigners. He said that if the United States truly respect academic freedom, then they should leave the matter in the hands of the University of Hong Kong and not interfere. Otherwise, matters are going to get worse and even the foundation of the University of Hong Kong may be wrecked.

Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener and education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen had said many times that he supports academic self-determination and freedom. When informed that the pan-democrats have brought up the University of Hong Kong events with Nancy Pelosi, Ip Kin-yuen said that the Hong Kong and other governments should not be meddling with the affairs of the University of Hong Kong. He insisted that there was nothing wrong with the pan-democrats meeting with Pelosi because "this is just a discussion for both sides to understand what is going on."

As for the congressman saying that American universities can offer support to the University of Hong Kong as civic societies, Ip Kin-yuen said that he is unsure about the meaning of civic society here. Since academic scholarship has no boundaries, many institutions can express opinions on matters of common concern and scholars can issue joint statements.

Hong Kong University Students Union president Billy Fung Jing-en did not respond to our inquiries.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Pan-dems slammed by Oriental Daily for inviting foreign interference after meeting US delegation. November 9, 2015.

Local media newspaper Oriental Daily has slammed pan-democrats for actively inviting foreign forces to intervene in affairs, after four lawmakers brought up the recent controversy surrounding the University of Hong Kong (HKU) during a meeting with a delegation of US Democratic Party House of Representatives members on Sunday.

The delegation, led by the US Democratic Leader of the House Nancy Pelosi, met with a conglomeration of local lawmakers and politicians during the Hong Kong leg of their China trip. These included Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Liberal Party Honorary Chair James Tien, former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, Democratic Party founder Martin Lee, Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong, and co-founder of the pro-democracy Occupy protests Professor Benny Tai.

The group also spoke to Labour Party lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, Democratic Party Chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing, Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, and The Professional Commons founder Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong for around an hour at the Island Shangri-la hotel. During the meeting, Leong raised many of the issues Hong Kong is currently facing, such as the failure of the Central Government to implement universal suffrage as promised under the Basic Law. He also said that the pan-democrats had been working hard to defend Hong Kongs existing values and systems, but nothing much had changed and he hoped Pelosi would make China aware of the situation.

Cyd Ho said that the US should not give up on the opportunity to speak for Hong Kong in the face of business deals with China. Emily Lau said that Leung Chun-ying was dividing the city, and that the Central Government was increasingly interfering in Hong Kong affairs. She also said she hoped the US would remind China to live up to its promise under the Basic Law, which guarantees that Hong Kong people would be governing themselves and enjoying a high degree of autonomy.

The pan-democrats discussed the HKU academic freedom controversy with Pelosi, which they said was very serious, because if HKU fell, Hong Kong would be finished. A Democratic member commented that higher education institutions in the US were aware of the issue and they were raising awareness about it.

The discussion on HKU was criticised by Oriental Daily, who said that the pan-democrats were actively inviting foreign intervention by the US. The article cited HKU Court member and Legislative Councillor Chung Tree Gun Shu-kun as saying that the pan-democratic lawmakers were reporting to their masters and that they were employing double standards for telling people not to interfere in academic freedom, but now raising the issue with foreign representatives. Legislative Councillor Wong Kwok-kin was also quoted as saying that the pan-democrats had made a habit of asking for help from foreign countries, and that the HKU affair had nothing to do with academic freedom.

Pelosi will be taking the delegation to China, where they are expected to meet Chinese officials, leaders and students, to discuss issues such as national security, human rights, and climate change. They will also be visiting Tibet. In the past, Pelosi has been openly critical of Chinas human right abuse record.

(Kinliu) When you become yellow ... By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 31, 2015.

I really like Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung's descritor of "Party Secretary." According to the leaked audio recording, Professor Li said that certain political parties systematically and aggressively promoted Johannes Chan, including using methods such as threats, interference, forming concern groups, judicial review etc to support Chan. So could they be acting like mainland Chinese universities to insert Chan as their party secretary in the university?

When the principals heard that, they said that this was absurd. The instigator Ip Kin-yuen said that this was incredibly ridiculous.

A drunkard never thinks that he is drunk. When you are ensnared by an evil cult, you can never understand what other people are saying.

It has been one year since Occupy Central. The Yellow Ribbons began by sit-in's and demonstrations; then they clashed and smashed; then they insulted the police; then they destroyed police vehicles and surrounded police stations; then they held up yellow umbrellas during graduation ceremonies; then they made secret recordings during meetings; ... Each case is crazier than the previous one, sometimes even going beyond legal and moral bottom lines. Strangely enough, those who still have Yellow Ribbons on their Facebook continue to issue LIKEs.

This is not called supporting. This is called blind faith.

Over the past year, I observed that many friends lose themselves as soon as they pin on the Yellow Ribbon. You can note the following: All those who wear Yellow Ribbons will agree with the following positions:

1. Primary school teachers using foul language

2. Singing foul-mouthed songs on university campus to insult the police

3. Breaking the glass doors at the Legislative Council building

4. Ousting the Individual Visit Permit visitors and the parallel traders.

5. Supporting homosexuality

6. Opposing the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao bridge, the third runway at the airport, the Liantang Boundary Control Point, developing North East New Territories.

7. Ostracizing new immigrants from mainland China, while supporting those from elsewhere who seek political asylum under false pretenses

8. Liking Denise Ho and disliking Wong Jing

9. Opening umbrellas during ceremonies, cursing out university vice chancellors/council members/trustees

10. Leaking secrets and making surreptitious recordings

You can be sure that if Yellow Ribbons were to commit murder, arson, rape or looting, they will be offering more LIKE's. That is because they only know to listen to the magical pipes of the politicians and march blindly into the dead end.

I never see Yellow Ribbons who support Occupy Central but oppose homosexuality; or who support the third runway while oppose the development of North East New Territoties; or who support Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor but deplore what Billy Fung Jing-en did. People's opinions cannot be so uniform on everything, right? I think that the Yellow Ribbon soldiers think the same way as when they buy the $10 bag of oranges in the market -- you have to buy the whole bag, with some good and some bad.

The Yellow Ribbons used to object to the "Hall of the Unified Voice" of the Chinese Communists. But they have become their own "Hall of the Unified Voice" now. Anything Yellow is going to be right. It does not matter if you steal, rob, loot or rape, you will be pronounced innocent if you raise your Yellow Flag and chant your Yellow Ribbon slogans.

The symptoms are like the Stockholm Syndrome. When the hostages spend too much time with the captors, they develop empathy and even join their captors and never return home.

The Yellow Ribbons oppose the Chinese Communists. Eventually they have become the Chinese Communists. They now have their own Red Guards, class struggles, party secretaries, etc. When you hate blindly too much, you sometimes become the person that you hate most.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 5, 2015.

Lawmaker Ray Chan Chi-chuen has said he will resume filibustering to delay the passing of the Innovation and Technology Bureau funding proposal in the new term of Legislative Council, should the government fail to improve it.

We cannot stop it, its only a matter of time, the People Power lawmaker told Ming Pao. He said that other pan-democrat lawmakers would not join the filibuster in the Finance Committee owing to concerns over the upcoming district council elections. Only three of them have put forward amendments. Chan said he will only submit some 100 amendments, therefore limiting the duration of the filibuster. In the last term of LegCo, lawmakers Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung and Albert Chan Wai-yip also waged filibuster against the IT Bureau proposal.

(The Standard) October 12, 2015.

The new chairman of the Legislative Council's Finance Committee, Chan Kin-por, said he will do what he can to facilitate dialogue between the different political parties and the government to ensure meetings can run smoothly.

The insurance sector lawmaker admitted during a radio programme that the pan-democratic camp might be unhappy with him winning the chairmanship last week, but stressed he will try his best to conduct meetings in a fair and just manner.
Chan added that he will learn from the experience of his pro-establishment predecessors, including Ng Leung-sing and the Liberal Party's Tommy Cheung, in handling meetings and disputes. Ng came under heavy criticism last year for his handling of the governments preliminary funding request for the development of the Northeast New Territories. He survived a motion of no confidence after pan-democratic lawmakers accused him of violating the committee's rules of procedure by not allowing them to file new motions to filibuster the debate.

(RTHK) October 27, 2015.

The Legislative Council's Finance Committee has received more than 1,100 motions from legislators over the government's request for funding to form an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Most of the motions are from legislators who intend to filibuster and prolong the discussion over the controversial funding. Independent lawmaker Wong Yuk-man alone has filed 700 motions.

The committee's chairman, Chan Kin-por, said that at first glance, some of the motions appeared to be repetitive and may not be allowed. But if all of them are allowed to be tabled, it would take some 28 hours for the committee to vote on the motions, meaning that a vote on the funding request may not come until around Christmas.

Chan said on Tuesday that he was still targeting Friday for the vote, but would not be forcing the issue. He stressed that he wanted to establish mutual trust with legislators. Lawmakers will be limited to making two-minute speeches when the committee reconvenes to discuss the funding request on Friday.

(SCMP) October 30, 2015.

The chairman of the Legislative Council's Finance Committee has slashed the number of motions pan-democrat lawmakers can file in their latest bid to delay a vote on funding for a new innovation and technology bureau. Five pan-democrats had earlier filed 1,133 motions targeting the government's proposal, but Chan Kin-por ruled yesterday that they could only table up to 133, or 12 per cent, at the four-hour meeting scheduled today.

Yet with pan-democrats vowing to challenge Chan's decision by seeking to adjourn the debate, the chairman conceded that his plan to hold the vote today could be thwarted. "It will take more than three hours just to discuss 133 motions and time will be spent on debating my decision," Chan said. "So I don't know when the meeting will end [with a vote]."


Independent Wong Yuk-man had filed 700 motions targeting the proposal, while League of Social Democrats chairman "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung put forward 248, and People Power duo Albert Chan Wai-yip and Raymond Chan Chi-chuen submitted 176. The Labour Party's Dr Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung filed eight motions, and Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit put forward one.

In his letter to the lawmakers, Chan Kin-por said the pan-democrats' motions could be categorised into different themes, and they had "submitted multiple motions on the same themes". "This, apart from occupying meeting time, could not achieve anything relevant to the duties of the committee and I must ensure that the meeting will be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner," he wrote. He dismissed the suggestion that he set the cap arbitrarily, saying that with the help of the Legco secretariat, he had read all the motions and grouped them under themes. "It gave me watery eyes and headaches I could have made [the pan-democrats] happy by allowing all motions and let the meeting drag on until Christmas, but that's not what a responsible chairman should do," Chan told reporters on the sidelines of a Legco meeting.

Albert Chan told the Post that Chan had "abused his power." I submitted 100 motions and he only accepted six, and those reasons he gave could hardly stand, Albert Chan said. It was impossible to group my motions We will ask him to explain his decisions in the meeting tomorrow [today].

(Ming Pao) October 30, 2015.

Independent legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man was not satisfied with chairman Chan Kin-por's rulings. So Wong approached Chan Kin-por's table, picked up the name plate of the committee secretary and legal adviser, slammed it on the table and threw it on the ground. There were plastic shards everywhere, and Wong's hand began to bleed, and he had to be bandaged by medical workers. Chan Kin-por said that Wong's conduct was disorderly and directed him to leave the chamber. Wong did not leave at first. Chan Kin-por then announced that the meeting was adjourned, which means that it was pointless for Wong to hang around. As Wong departed, he said: "I shed the first drop of blood inside the Legislative Council."

(China Daily) October 31, 2015.

Funding for the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau has once again been delayed due to filibustering and disruptive behavior by a few radical lawmakers. The Legislative Council (LegCo) Finance Committee on Friday were left unable to vote on the proposal for the third consecutive week, as filibustering and other antics held up the meeting. Most lawmakers hope they can vote for funding at the next meeting on Nov 6.

On Friday, apart from four radical lawmakers, the opposition camp largely remained silent and did not filibuster. This was out of concern that such behavior could cost them dearly at upcoming district council elections on Nov 22. However, radical lawmakers disrupted much of the two sessions, which went on for two hours each. They did this by frequently asking trivial questions related to motions and procedures in order to have the meeting adjourned.

Finance Committee Chairman Chan Kin-por responded by reducing more than 1,130 repetitive and trivial motions proposed at the meeting to just 44. This angered radical legislators Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Albert Chan Wai-yip, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung, also known as Long Hair. They loudly berated Chan Kin-por and even left their seats to confront him at the podium.

Wong threw and broke the name plates of the chairman, the committee secretary and a legal adviser. He also resorted to bad language on several occasions. Chan Kin-por said Wongs unruly behavior was indecent and asked him to leave the room.

Before the meeting, Chairman Chan told reporters he had been forced to reduce the number of motions which could be moved. The chairman said he based this decision on the advice of the committee secretary and the legal adviser, as well as past practices. He asserted that he had not made any of these rulings autocratically as alleged by the radicals.

The legal adviser added that based on various court verdicts, including the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, the Finance Committee chairman has the same power as the LegCo president. His powers include regulating committee meetings, setting limits and terminating debates.

(The Sun) November 6, 2015.

The named plates of all the legislators, government officials or secretariat workers were removed today so that Raymond Wong won't hurt himself again.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 6, 2015.

Funding for the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) has finally been approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee. In a Legislative Council session on Friday twenty-six lawmakers voted in favour of the HK$37 million application for staffing funds, while eight voted against it.

The operational funds of HK$30 million for the ITB were approved with 29 votes in favour and nine opposed.

Lawmakers against the establishment of the ITB have been trying to delay the passing of the funding by filibustering, but their attempts were in vain as Finance Committee Chair Chan Kin-por terminated more than 100 amendments from Leung-Kwok-hung, Albert Chan Wai-yip and Ray Chan Chi-cheung, despite criticisms from the pan-democrat lawmakers.

A motion to set up the ITB was passed in October 2014, but the budget plan was not approved in time. The process was restarted and it was approved to be established in June 2015, but the funding was not approved until Friday.

(South China Morning Post) November 7, 2015.

The long-promised Innovation and Technology Bureau is set to come into being in a fortnight after lawmakers gave the green light tonight to the funding request for the chief executives brainchild after more than three years of filibustering.

The industry has waited for a bureau for over a decade, said Information Technology lawmaker Charles Mok, adding that the new secretary would need to tackle government policies unfavourable to IT development, including overseas-based merchandising policies. Mok also said he lobbied radical pan-democrats, whose insistence on opposing the bureau lasted into the final moment.

All of you are bastards. This is an illegal vote, lawmaker Wong Yuk-man shouted as he stood on a colleagues desk after the vote. Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung lamented the ineffectiveness of legislative confrontation compared to peoples confrontation.


(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 18:38
(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 19:12
(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 20:03
  3:16 Raymond Wong Yuk-man charges at the chairman
  3:39 Raymond Wong yells: "This is an illegal vote. This is an illegal vote."
  3:44 Raymond Wong yells: "Why are so many people surrounding me for?"
  4:01 Raymond Wong yells: "This is an illegal vote. Did you deal with my stuff? I gave you 63 items. Did you deal with it? You pok gai. Did you deal with it? Are you bullying us? Yes or no? ..."
  4:47 Raymond Wong tells the security guard: "You move away a bit. Do not touch me."
  5:01 Leung Kwok-hung says: "Did you look at this?" Leung throws a pile of document at the committee chairman Chan Kin-por.
  5:39 Vote tally was 29 YES and 9 NO. So I confirm that the motion was passed. I thank everybody.
  5:40 Raymond Wong jumps on the table and tells everybody that they are pok gai. A female citizen in the audience gallery above starts yelling too.

(Speakout HK) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session
  0:02 Chan Wai-yip: Whether it is from citizens or legislators, anything handed over to the secretariat must be accepted. There is no reason that when something is handed in, you would toss it back out. This is utmost absurd. When I get a letter from Inland Revenue, can I toss it back to Inland Revenue? When the Police issues a summons to me, can I toss it back to the Police?
  0:20 Chan Kin-por: I think that our procedure ...
  0:20 Chan Wai-yip: You can issue rulings. You can't return it.
  0:28 Chan Kin-por: Can you find the chapter and verse which says that I can not give it back to you. Can you find it for me? I am not going to debate this with you here. Anyway, I have decided not to accept it. As to how I can return it to you so that you can be happier, we can think about it slowly.

(Speakout HK) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session
 0:01 Democratic Party legislator James To: Actually, the number of amendments has been established. If you say that one motion has 100,000 and another has 50,000 and therefore you need to combine the two, I can understand that. But how many motions are there? The number is so small. Even if you use all of them, how many are there?
  0:20 Chan Kin-por: If I accept all of them, it will be 1,100 of them.
  0:21 James To: 1,100 of them. How long will it take if each one of them takes one minute.
  0:27 Chan Kin-por: One-and-a-half minutes ... it won't be very long ... it will only take until Christmas. That's not very long, but I find it unacceptable. Okay, okay, James To, I hear your opinion. I don't want to tussle with you anymore.

(DBC.hk) October 30, 2015.
   3:00 Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Leung Kwok-hung and Chan Chi-chuen approached the chairman Chan Kin-por.
   3:19 Raymond Wong Yuk-man picks up a name plate and smashes it as plastic shards fly into the air.

(ontv) October 30, 2015.
  1:08 Reporters waiting outside the Legco chamber for Raymond Wong Yuk-man to come out after being ejected.
  1:26 Raymond Wong: These people are useless if they don't die (walks away)

Internet comments:

- After being tormented by filibustering techniques for so long, it was a revelation to see Chan Kin-por brushing them off so easily. He ruled with an iron fist and added a touch of sarcasm. Let's hope that the other committee chairpersons learn from this experience.

- Actually the best part of the Legco Financial Committee meetings was when Leung Kwok-hung fell down from his chair to the laughter of his peers.

- This was not a full-scale filibustering campaign. Only the legislators from the radical political parties (People Power, League of Social Democrats and Civic Passion) took part. The other pan-democrats knew that filibustering is highly unpopular and therefore they had to avoid it when the District Council elections are so near. The radicals don't care because they have practically no realistic chance of winning anywhere.

- To get popular support, they would need a compelling reason not to pass the motion to establish and fund the Innovation and Technology Bureau. None were offered. The news coverage focused more on Raymond Wong's bleeding hand than any substantive issues.
- They filibustering not because they oppose any Innovation and Technology Bureau. Instead, they filibuster this measure because they are more interested in pushing other measures (such as a universal pension plan). And they don't have a comprehensive plan for that either, because they can't even answer the basic question of funding.
- So this is the same Occupy Central tactic. They want their "genuine universal suffrage" so they end up blocking the roads and prevent people/cars from moving around.

- That information technology sector legislator Charles Mok is suffering from split personality. On one hand, he supports the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau because his constituency clearly wants it. On the other hand, he supports the filibustering by the radicals because they are all in the pan-democratic camp. How do you reconcile the two Moks?
- Charles Mok wants an optimal solution in which the filibustering should go on for many many months but in the end the motion still gets passed anyway. This is just reckless disregard of the social and economic costs of filibustering, which the citizens are very much aware of.

- This is inverting Karl Marx's Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1851). Marx had written: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." In this case, the first time that you watch Raymond Wong's act, it was a farce. By the n-th time that you see it, it is a tragedy (because the taxpayers' money goes to pay for his $93,000 monthly salary).

(The Guardian) Hong Kong's dirty secret: thousands of asylum seekers left waiting in squalor. March 6, 2014.

Shortly after leaving prison, Mohammed went to the grocery store where he was last arrested, and stole another item. Then he waited quietly for the police to come. "It's no good outside. It's better in prison," he said, days after his latest release. "You have food; you can work; you have a room."

Mohammed, who fled to Hong Kong from Sri Lanka 10 years ago after his father and brothers were killed, has concluded that it treats its prisoners better than those seeking protection.

When Edward Snowden surfaced here last summer, his case brought international scrutiny of Hong Kong's handling of asylum issues. The NSA whistleblower quickly moved on, but thousands of others are left in limbo in squalid conditions, even living in old animal sheds.

"Up until the Snowden case, it was apparent that the whole world turned a blind eye to the plight of asylum seekers in Hong Kong," said Robert Tibbo, the American's lawyer here and a director of Vision First, a NGO supporting refugees. "What's disappointing is that Hong Kong's government and society, despite its immense wealth and resources, is refusing recognised asylum seekers to settle in Hong Kong. This is not a proper or mature policy for such a wealthy and influential global stakeholder."

Hong Kong has one of the world's most draconian immigration systems. It only issues rulings on torture claims, and even those are rarely favourable. Just 11 people from 13,000 torture cases in over 21 years have been accepted, says Vision First, with successful applicants resettled in a third country.

Recent legal decisions mean the government has had to extend protection to those who have suffered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. But Vision First's founder, Cosmo Beatson, describes "a culture of rejection". Australia, which draws asylum seekers from relatively similar locations, accepted 74% of Pakistani applicants in 2011-12 while Hong Kong has not accepted one of several thousand Pakistani torture claims over two decades. Some applicants say they have been waiting six years or more without even being interviewed, and are confused by the repeated changes to procedures. It is illegal for asylum seekers to work, with those caught jailed for up to three years.

Beatson says extended uncertainty and squalid living conditions have led to relationship breakdowns and mental illness.

"I lost 10 years of my youth in Hong Kong," said Mohammed, who has dark circles beneath his eyes and a restless, nervy manner despite his smile. "I came as a youth and now I'm old. I'm not married. In another 10 years? I'll be 42. Better that I will die."

The government is increasing allowances and, crucially, promising to provide rent deposits for the first time. But even then the total package of support will be about 25% below the official poverty line. Rent is HK$1,200 (92) a month. In Nai Wai, in the New Territories, that buys a compartment in a former pigshed most residents are Muslim with a breezeblock base, corrugated metal walls and a metal roof covering only part of the building. There is exposed wiring under an open section.

A feverish toddler idles at the doorway, by a stray mattress with "love" spray-painted across it. The concrete floor slopes downwards from the path, guaranteeing floods in wet weather. For privacy and to keep the rain out, boards found on rubbish dumps have been nailed across windows without glass. The air is fetid. Twenty people live here, cooking in the "kitchen" a sink and burners in what used to be the pen for piglets, next to the toilet. At a building nearby, a sock is tied over the single tap in the kitchen-bathroom to filter out the worst of the dirt. There is no way to keep out rats and snakes, because a tree grows through the building.

And while the rent allowance will soon rise to HK$1,500, asylum seekers say landlords are already increasing their rents accordingly.

International Social Services Hong Kong, the NGO which oversees welfare for asylum seekers, is supposed to inspect accommodation. A spokeswoman did not respond to specific queries about the Nai Wai homes but said in general ISS-HK conducted spot checks and home visits "to assess the hygiene, home environment and safety condition" and would advise people to move if accommodation was below standard. She added that in some cases claimants decided to stay put despite such advice.

Hong Kong's levels of welfare are generally low there are life-long residents in tiny "cage homes" but asylum seekers say discrimination and hostility compounds the problem of low incomes in an expensive city. "Everyone ignores you. When you show them the paper [showing you are an asylum seeker], they don't take you seriously," said one.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's security bureau said the region's circumstances were unique: "Being densely populated, relatively prosperous and a regional transportation hub with long coastlines render a strong need to maintain a firm and effective immigration control policy to safeguard the interest of Hong Kong people against possible influx of economic migrants."

Beatson says accepting existing claims en masse and refusing any future applications would be kinder than continuing with the current system. "It would be better than the mirage of protection people are thirsty and they think there's water here," he said.

Hong Kong's anxieties about asylum may in part reflect the huge numbers of "boat people" who arrived from Vietnam in the late 1970s, although they were overwhelmingly resettled or repatriated. Tibbo argues the numbers then were far larger 200,000 according to the UNHCR and Hong Kong was much poorer. Now the government runs large financial surpluses.

"When a human comes here they have hope. A few years later, when they realise that hope is fake, maybe he gets frustrated and starts developing anger and hatred," said Cici, who fled persecution in Cameroon after converting from Islam to Christianity. "They play with us like the ball in a football match."

The well-travelled former entrepreneur, who has two degrees and speaks multiple languages, says the current system is wasteful as well as degrading. Allowing asylum seekers to work while they wait could help Hong Kong grow, he said."What's shocking and really disturbing is how the government can put a lot of money to pay [officials] and lawyers and for [slum] housing just to stop people. This is pure wickedness."

(Oriental Daily) November 7, 2015. Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZShFVJdha8 .

On Sundays and other holidays, a large number of foreign domestic helpers congregate in Central and Admiralty. More than one hundred South Asian hawkers and peddlers show up to sell clothing, handbags, battery chargers, etc. Over the course of several Sundays, our reporter has been observing these South Asian hawkers working in Battery Path, Chater Road, the Murray Road pedestrian overpass and Worldwide House. The hawkers are well-organized. They show up shortly after 7am, using vans to carry many nylon bags of merchandise to the various locations. The hawkers place their merchandise on large cloths so that they can pick up and leave immediately.

The hawkers also post scouts around the perimeter to watch for Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors. Our reporter observed one case in which more than a dozen inspectors came in for a surprise raid but the hawkers were able to disperse quickly. The inspectors were only able to confiscate one small bag of merchandise left behind by a hawker.

According to one source, "There used to be only ten or twenty South Asian hawkers. Now there are one to two hundred of them. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has only about a dozen or so inspectors." Therefore the odds are not in favor of the law enforcement agents.

The source said that many FEH inspectors have been injured during the course of law enforcement. Many of the South Asian hawkers are refugees seeking political asylum in Hong Kong. They will resist when facing arrest. "There was one time when they rushed over to assault the inspectors in order to retrieve their merchandise. By the time the police came, they had already fled."

Internet comments:

- The influx of asylum-seekers is Hong Kong is allegedly due to the existence of full-service groups. The groups will organize everything for the asylum seekers, from fake documents to airplane tickets to lawyers already present at the airport when they land in Hong Kong. After that, the petition process will go on for years with judicial reviews all the way. This is just a racket for a racket for a certain group of Hong Kong lawyers.

- The question at heart is the position of the numerous South Asians in Hong Kong, and this touches upon Hong Kong Localism.

Here is the easy way out:

(Timeout.hk) July 1, 2015.

Marcus Lau, editor-in-chief of The Undergrad, the Hong Kong University Students Unions news source ... said: [Localism] is not a far-right, fascist approach stating that only pure, ethnic Hongkongers can be counted. Anyone who embraces the values of Hong Kong and identifies themselves as being from Hong Kong can be counted as a Hongkonger.

But read on ...

(MediumRaW.org) The impact of the Localist Movement on Hong Kong. February 12, 2014.

If the Hong Kong people should attempt to exude its right to self-determination by way of the political theory of localism, we would need to ... consider the question: Who constitutes Hong Kong people and are we a people?

Unfortunately, there is no settled definition of people under international law, but we can consider two possible alternatives: (1) Hong Kong people are those who are so designated as Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24 of the Basic Law or (2) Hong Kong people are those who share a common language and culture, which would readily display the difficult in answering this question.

(1)   Hong Kong people are those who are so designated as Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24 of the Basic Law

This definition seems extremely tempting since it purports to have legal backing. Unfortunately, pursuant to Hong Kong courts interpretation of this Article, this definition would expand to PRC citizens who have little connection with Hong Kong. By including these individuals in the definition of Hong Kong people, we would undermine the meaning and the spirit of localism as a justification for sourcing sovereignty in Hong Kong people in order to make a political stand against the PRC government.

(2)   Hong Kong people are those who share a common language and culture

This definition seems also rather simple and effective, since it would provide adherents to localism a theoretical stance against the PRC government (i.e. since Hong Kong people and mainland Chinese do not share a common language and differ in culture, we are not the same people). However, here, we are also faced with several hurdles. First, Chinese culture is very much entrenched in our society, it may be difficult to articulate how the culture of Hong Kong people and those of the mainland differ. Second, perhaps the more difficult hurdle, is that this definition paints a very homogenous picture of Hong Kong and rejects the multicultural and diverse aspect of our city. Hong Kong is a multicultural and diverse society with Cantonese and English as its languages. If we were to define Hong Kong people based on a common language (for example, Cantonese) and culture (for example Chinese culture), we would disenfranchise other participants who have significantly contributed to our society.

From the above, we can already see that because localism hinges on the definition of Hong Kong people, which remains undefined, localism lacks strong theoretical support, which may result in it having a negative effect to Hong Kongs political development. The fact that Hong Kong people is ill-defined is, I would submit, localisms Achilles heel as a successful political theory.

To this date, many societies still struggle to consider what its people is composed of and what characteristics its people should bear. For example, United State continues to struggle with this issue. Recently, American society was divided over Coca-Colas advertisement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Vy3I0gJs), which displayed Americans of different ethnicities and backgrounds with the patriotic song America the Beautiful sung in various languages in the background. Some Americans responded to this advertisement negatively, suggesting that the song should be sung in English and that American society was not multicultural or diverse. Thus, these questions, identical to those that need to be resolved by our own society, are being debated by the American people to this date.

The American solution to this question, or at least for those who consider the United States to be a multicultural and diverse society, is interesting: the American people is comprised of those who subscribe and adhere to the values embodied in the United States constitution, which includes the American Bill of Rights. This basis is effective from a theoretical standpoint but it also practically entrenches the United States constitution in its people. This solution transforms the criteria needed to join American society from one which is ethnically or culturally based to one which allows anyone who is willing to subscribe to its values to participate.

This solution could readily be applied to Hong Kong. Could Hong Kong people be defined as those which subscribe to the values of the Hong Kong people defined in the Basic Law, which would allow anyone to join our society as long as they so subscribe? I would consider that to be a very good start.

If you argue that Hong Kong is meant to be for Hong Kong people with their own culture and values, then you need to define both "Hong Kong people" and "Hong Kong culture and values."

Hong Kong people should be defined as "those which subscribe to the values of the Hong Kong people defined in the Basic Law"? Let's start with Article 1 of the Basic Law: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." That's a no-go already.

And what about defining Hong Kong culture? Wan Chin said that the new Hong Kong City-State will be based upon a Renaissance of orthodox Chinese culture in opposition to the contemporary mainland Chinese culture which has deviated from orthodoxy. According to his approach, South Asians have no place in Hong Kong culture.

Hong Kong localism is said to be an unfinished political theory because "Hong Kong people" and "Hong Kong values" are undefined as yet. It wasn't so hard in the cases of the people of Catalunya, Qubec or Scotland. So there must be something intrinsically hard about the case of Hong Kong. Any test definition should include a stress test: What happens to South Asians in Hong Kong?

- "The American people is comprised of those who subscribe and adhere to the values embodied in the United States constitution, which includes the American Bill of Rights"?

How ignorant can you get?

(U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serivces)

To become a citizen at birth, you must

  • Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
  • had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirments

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

  • Apply for "derived" or "acquired" citizenship through parents
  • Apply for naturalization after a foreign citizen or national fulfills the requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In addition, members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces and their dependents may be eligible for special naturalization provisions.

If you were born in the United States, you are automatically a citizen and you are not forced to take any oaths or pledges. If you are an immigrant, you will have to take a citizenship oath (see, for example, YouTube) during naturalization.

If you want an oath of loyalty implemented for citizenship in the new Hong Kong City-State, you will encounter two sets of problems. Firstly, some of those who were not born in Hong Kong will refuse to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law (e.g Article 1). What will you do? Ship them all back to their country of origin?  Secondly, some of those were born in Hong Kong will refuse to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law. What will you do? You don't even have anywhere to ship them because this is their homeland. You may have to beg mainland China to accept them. Or you can just put them in a boat and push it off shore.

In Hong Kong right now, there is no such oath of allegiance to the Basic Law. People can even burn copies of the Basic Law in front of television cameras.

- I once attended a research conference in Hong Kong in which four persons delivered papers in English on the Hong Kong Internet. During the Q&A period, one Hong Kong audience member complimented a presenter for having good local knowledge in spite of being a South Asian. The South Asian presenter pounded his fist on the table and roared back in Cantonese: "Why do you mean!? I was born in Hong Kong, I have lived here all my life, I attended school here from kindergarten to university and I read, write and speak Cantonese flawlessly like a local. Why do you treat me as if I am a chihuahua which miraculously managed to learn human language?"

- The second clearest and loudest slogan after "I want genuine universal suffrage" that came out of Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution is "Nobody represents me." This meant that neither the Occupy Central Trio nor the students organizations nor the pan-democratic politicians were able to exercise any command/control over the movement. That's great for theoretical democracy but it also guaranteed that nothing could be accomplished in practice for lack of any set of goals that everybody could agree upon. Any proposal floated to the masses will be objected to by somebody.

In like manner, somebody is not going to want the Basic Law as it stands. See these Basic Law bonfires:

If you want to make constitutional amendments to Basic Law, that Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution experience should teach you that you won't be able to achieve consensus. But you can get a good start now. You will be very busy for several more decades until it all becomes moot in the year 2047.

- The valiant warriors of the Hong Kong Localists admire the South Asians greatly. Here are some valiant actions by South Asians.

The South Asians show our indigenous Hong Kong revolutionaries just what can be achieved by acts of bravery and valor. Even the Hong Kong Police are scared of the South Asians. That is the kind of respect that our indigenous Hong Kong revolutionaries want to get too.

- The valiant warriors of the Hong Kong localist movement would prefer to stick to harassing mainland Chinese women and children:

It is not safe to confront South Asians (see, for example, (WarmWaterFrog @YouTube October 22, 2014) A South Asian male dismantled Occupy Mong Kok barriers and stabbed a demonstrator.)

- When the mainland Chinese parallel traders pick up their merchandise in Sheung Shui to bring back across the Lo Wu border crossing, the Hong Kong localists said that this must stop in order to bring peace and tranquility back to Sheung Shui.
When the South Asian domestic helpers take over the streets in Central and Causeway Bay on Sundays and holidays, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about peace and tranquility anymore.

When the mainland Chinese women sang and danced on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the Hong Kong localists said that they are causing noise pollution and therefore this must stop.
When the South Asians sang and danced on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (see YouTube), the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about noise pollution.

When the mainland Chinese singers accepted donations from passersby on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the Hong Kong localists insist that the local ordinances must not be broken.
When the unlicensed South Asian hawkers sell their merchandise in the streets of Central and Causeway Bay on Sundays and holidays, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about local ordinances.

When the mainland Chinese migrants show up and receive public welfare payments, the Hong Kong localists said that their money must not be wasted this way.
When the South Asian asylum seekers show up and receive public welfare payments, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about how their money is being spent.

When the mainland Chinese show up and commit crimes, the Hong Kong localists said that criminals must be prevented from coming to Hong Kong.
When the South Asians show up and commit crimes, the Hong Kong localists suddenly aren't concerned about crime.

When the mainland Chinese display their traditions and cultures, the Hong Kong localists said that only authentic pure Hong Kong culture is allowed.
When the South Asians display their traditions and cultures, the Hong Kong localists suddenly aren't concern about purity and authenticity.

So it was never about peace, tranquility, noise pollution, law enforcement, public welfare, crime, culture, tradition or values. It was just a case of raw racial/ethnic discrimination against the mainland Chinese.

The point here is not to say that the Hong Kong localists should be practicing discrimination against the South Asians in addition to the mainland Chinese. The point here is say that if you want to practice racial/ethnic discrimination against the mainland Chinese, just do so directly without couching the whole campaign under the any number of other reasons (peace, tranquility, blah blah blah). You will only be caught with serial contradictions in your positions.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Pro-democracy parties top list of most prominent political groups, says HKU survey. November 4, 2015.

The Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood, The Civic Party and the Democratic Party are the most popular amongst the ten most prominent political groups in Hong Kong, according to a HKU Public Opinion Program (HKUPOP) survey released on Tuesday. However, none of the ten parties on the list have an approval rating of higher than 50 points out of 100.

The survey, which was conducted via telephone in October, first asked interviewees to name ten political groups they were most familiar with. The second stage involved asking respondents to rate the political groups using a 0-100 scale.

Results show that pro-democracy parties dominate the first three spots out of the ten on the list, with the ratings of Civic Party (CP) and Democratic Party (DP) going up five positions each to rank 2nd and 3rd. The Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood (ADPL) tops the list.

Overall, the support ratings of most political groups have gone down, with the approval ratings of The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), New Peoples Party (NPP), The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) seeing a most significant drop.

The support ratings of the NPP, which is chaired by Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, dropped to a record low since the founding of the party in 2011, but it has also replaced the Labour Party on the list by entering the ranks of the top ten for the first time. The other nine political groups retained their positions since the last survey, which was conducted during April and May this year.

(HKU POP) November 3, 2015.

POP conducted a double stage survey on the rankings of the top 10 political groups in October 2015 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. The top political groups listed in our latest survey were all those who obtained highest unprompted mentions in our first stage naming survey conducted from October 12 to 17. In that survey, respondents could name, unaided, up to 10 political groups whom they knew best. Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), Democratic Party (DP), Liberal Party (LP), Civic Party (CP) and Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) were mentioned most frequently. The 12 most frequently mentioned political groups then entered into the second stage rating survey. During that second stage survey conducted from October 19 to 23, respondents were asked to rate each political group in turn using a 0-100 scale. 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support, and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom 2 political groups in terms of recognition rate were dropped, leaving behind the top 10.

(Hong Kong Research Association)

1,115 citizens age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone on October 19-26 2015. The respondents were asked to rank political parties which hold legislative council seats according to 1=very much not support; 2=not support; 3=half/half; 4=support; 5=very much support.

The two surveys have different scales (0-100 versus 1-to-5). But we can apply a linear transformation to the HKRA data to make it comparable to the HKUPOP data. Here is the formula: If a political party has an average HKRA rating of X, then its HKUPOP-equivalent rating is (X-1) x 25.

For example, if the average HKRA rating is 5 (maximum score), then its HKUPOP rating is (5-1)x25 = 100.
For example, if the average HKRA rating is 3 (median score), then its HKUPOP rating is (3-1)x25 = 50.
For example, if the average HKRA rating is 1 (minimum score), then its HKUPOP rating is (1-1)x25 = 0.

The results are as follows:

Political Party

HKU-POP Rating HKRA Rating
Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood 46.7 36.8
Federation of Trade Unions 46.2 36.8
Liberal Party 45.2 37.3
Labour Party 45.2 28.8
Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong 44.2 38.3
Democratic Party 43.7 30.5
Civic Party 42.2 30.0
New People Party 38.5 40.8
League of Social Democrats 37.0 27.5
People Power 35.6 28.3

The correlation coefficient between the two columns of numbers is 0.71.

Here are some notes about the survey results:

How can the two surveys diverge so much from each other? Where do the biases creep in? There are three possibilities.

(1) The HKRA is correct whereas the HKUPOP is biased in favor of the pro-democracy camp.  If you don't like the pro-democracy camp and you get a call from HKUPOP, you slam the phone down. Thus, the HKUPOP is only polling its pro-democracy supporters.

(2) The HKUPOP is correct whereas the HKRA is biased in favor of the pro-establishment camp.If you don't like the pro-establishment camp and you get a call from HKRA, you slam the phone down. Thus, the HKRA is only polling pro-establishment supporters.

(3) The HKUPOP is biased in favor of the pro-democracy camp and the HKRA is biased in favor of the pro-establishment camp. If you don't like the pro-democracy camp and you get a call from HKUPOP, you slam the phone down. If you don't like the pro-establishment camp and you get a call from HKRA, you slam the phone down. Thus, the partisan polling organizations are only polling their own supporters. Of course, their poll results will be quite different then.

In addition, these surveys are actually hard for ordinary people to answer. Unless you are a political junkie, you don't know what these political parties may been up to individually. For example, if you ask the question: "I am going to read you a list of 12 political parties. Can you please tell me who is the current chairman of each organization?" Only a very small percentage of the respondents will get everything right. So what is the point of asking people about political parties that they are not familiar with?

How to distinguish among the possibilities? Technically, this can be done by getting the two polling organizations to field a question such as: How would you describe your political leanings? (1) Lean towards the pan-democrats; (2) lean towards the pro-establishment camp; or (3) lean towards the middle. And then compare the results from the two polls. For example, HKUPOP has conducted such a poll for Path of Democracy:

Table 3:
28.4% lean towards the pan-democrats
11.4% lean towards the pro-establishment camp
41.9% lean towards the middle
15.6% no political leaning/political neutral/not belong to any camp
2.7% Don't know/hard to say

HKRA does not provide such information.

Another way of looking at this is through the response rates. If both polls have 95% response rate, they must have very high overlap in their respective coverages. But if one or more poll has poor response rate, then they could be polling a biased portion of the population.

HKRA uses automated telephone methodology, so they can't even come up with a response rate. HKUPOP claims a 66.8% response rate for this poll. Case closed? Not so quickly. HKUPOP's Path of Democracy discloses the details behind the HKUPOP response rate methodology. Here is one problem:

Unable to ascertain if telephone number is qualified
  1159 busy signals
  10601 no pick-up
  1376 telephone message recording
  54 password block
  343 language barrier
  502 interviewee broke off contact during selection stage
  5 other telephone line problems

Telephone numbers which were determined to qualify but interview could not be completed
  2 family members declined to be interviewed
  6 respondents declined to be interviewed
  9509 unable to complete interview within survey period
  27 failed to complete entire interview
  6 other problems
  Total 9550

Total number of completed interviews

Response rate = (completed interviews) / (completed interviews + incomplete interviews + qualified but refused to be interviewed) = (1010) / (1010 + 502 + 27 + 2 + 6)

The 9509 cases of ("unable to complete interview within survey period") are not involved in the response rate formula. When someone is called, says that he/she is busy, agrees to a callback appointment but never picks up, it is a more polite refusal than slamming down the phone immediately but it is still a refusal. According to international standards (for example, American Association of Public Opinion Research, p35),

RR5 = 1010 / (1010 + 2 + 6 + 9509 + 27 + 6) = 9.5%.

That is not good at all. And this is before we get into the issue about allocating a portion of the 10601 "no pick-up" as refusals too, as many people will look at the caller ID first and won't pick up any unfamiliar numbers.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2015.

Last week Commercial Radio broadcast a tape of Arthur Li urging the Council of the University of Hong Kong not to appoint Johannes Chan. The governments media defenders swung swiftly into action. No smoking gun or incriminating remarks, said the SCMPs Alex Lo We know all this already, he concluded. In the Standard, Mary Ma said the content of the leaks had already been reported, and the bomb is more of a dud.

Just a minute. The content of the leaks had certainly been reported already. It was reported by Billy Fung, the student representative on the Council, now much-abused for breaching the councils confidentiality. But we did not know all this already because we were also told of Arthur Lis response, which was that Billy Fung is a liar. So those of us who supposed that Professor Li might approach normal standards of integrity and truthfulness in public life were left with two conflicting stories. It seems we are now to conclude that, at least as far as Mr Lo and Ms Ma are concerned, Professor Lis rebuttal of the initial leak was of no significance at all. They did not believe it. Professor Li now says that when he said Mr Fung was a liar he meant that he had breached the confidentiality rule.

But that is not what his hearers would have understood by the remark. The normal and natural meaning of the words was that Mr Fungs version of events was erroneous. I realise that Professor Li is a serial foot-in-mouth artist who is, as Ms Ma tactfully put it, not the type to embarrass easily. But it seems even his warmest supporters do not place much faith in what he says. This seems rather a disadvantage in a university councillor, let alone a council chairman.

But of course the university has no voice in the selection of its council chairman, which is a matter for the government. I share the pessimism of those who see no real prospect of local universities either shaking off their government appointees or divesting themselves of the automatic Chief Executive-Chancellor. But this seems to be taking the wrong approach anyway. The government has a legitimate role in appointing people to university councils, and indeed to many other bodies. The question is not whether there is a justifiable right to appoint, but whether that right is being misused.

The answer to the second question is yes. Leung Chun-ying was the first Chief Executive to recruit a politically appointed assistant for the specific purpose of polluting the government nomination machinery with politics. The government appoints hundreds of people to all kinds of courts, councils and advisory bodies. These appointments should be made on merit with a view to keeping up the quality of the deliberations of the bodies concerned.

Instead they are being used as a political reward system, and a sort of social security for superannuated members of the pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. This is a drastic change for the worse which was never publicly acknowledged, defended or explained. I expect it was the Liaison Offices idea. It is no wonder that our government has a tin ear for public sentiment. It spends too much time listening to its friends tell it how wonderful it is. This is a chorus in which the local media are increasingly willing to join. This is a recipe for long-term problems. If you cant get any attention from the government without starting a riot, then riots there will be.

(EJinsight) Why Arthur Li should not be appointed HKU council chairman. By Ip Kin-yuen. October 30, 2015.

Edward Leong is due to step down as chairman of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) council on Nov. 6, along with five members whose terms expire. These departures could lead to a major overhaul of the council.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is reportedly set to appoint Executive Councilor Arthur Li, an incumbent council member, to succeed Leong. If the reports are true, we could have another howling controversy on our hands. The HKU Alumni Concern Group called a press conference on Oct. 25, in which it gave three key reasons Arthur Li is not a suitable candidate.

Reason 1: High-handedness

Dubbed the education czar when he headed the Education and Manpower Bureau from 2002 to 2007, Arthur Li was notorious for his ruthless suppression of the autonomy of our tertiary institutions. He once tried to force the Chinese University into merging with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. On another occasion, he threatened to get Fanny Law, then permanent secretary for education and manpower, to cut student quotas for the Hong Kong Institute of Education unless it agreed to merge with the Chinese University. He also demanded that the institute reprimand lecturers who opposed the plan or pay the price.

Reason 2: Grudge against HKU

Arthur Li is widely known in the education sector for his grudge against HKU. In a July interview, HKU pro vice chancellor Cheng Kai-ming told Ming Pao Daily that Li had asked donors not to make any contribution to the university during his term as education and manpower chief.

Reason 3: Conflict of interest

As we all know, Arthur Li and incumbent pro chancellor David Li come from the same prominent family and both serve in the family business. It takes very little to figure out why people would find this arrangement inappropriate.

Unless Leung Chun-ying intends to declare war on higher education and deepen social divisions, he should not appoint such a controversial figure as Arthur Li to be the next HKU council chairman for the sake of the long-term interest of the university.

(EJinsight) November 4, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong (HKU) could see protests erupt on campus if Arthur Li is named the new head of the universitys governing body, a student leader has warned. HKU Student Union president Billy Fung said Tuesday that students will definitely take action if Li takes the chairmans post at HKU Council after its current chief Edward Leong steps down Friday.

Fung did not reveal specific plans, but said that sky is the limit for potential protest action, Apple Daily reported. Any moves deemed feasible by students will not be ruled out, said Fung, who is himself a member of the universitys governing body.

The comments came amid rumors that Li is the first choice of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to take over as the HKU Councils new chief.

Rosanna Wong Yick-ming, another Council member who has also been seen as a possible successor to Leong, is unfit for the post as well, said Fung. Wong is in the same league as Li when it comes to extreme views, the student leader said.

(EJinsight) November 6, 2015.

Its official. Arthur Li and Monique Ho are dating. Thats according to Hos boss, Digital Broadcasting Corp. chief Loh Chan. And just in case there was a problem with conflict of interest, Loh made the revelation in the spirit of corporate disclosure.

Li has been a major source of news in recent days thanks to a leaked recording of his remarks about Johannes Chan, and Ho works for a media company. Most news about a blooming romance is something to cheer about, so we hear that Li is happy about it and we understand.

But some netizens are not so forgiving. They were quick to point out the gaping age difference between the 70-year-old former education minister who could be the next chairman of the University of Hong Kong council and the charming lady executive in her forties. Father-daughter is a trending topic on social media.

Some students turned the tables on Li who once famously described them as not particularly academically gifted but love to look like heroes to their girlfriends. If they [students] can stand out, wave banners and shout slogans, they could look like heroes, couldnt they? I think theres a certain attraction in that, Li said.

Loh got the scoop after Ho told him about the relationship 18 months ago. Six months earlier, Li had lost his wife, Diana Chester, to cancer. Now that its all in the open, the romance is causing some awkward moments for the couple. They have been seen being chased by the paparazzi in and out of Cyberport where both work.

Not that its any of our business but its worth mentioning that older men dating younger women isnt news the way a man biting a dog is.

Successful academics are known to relearn the ABC of romance deep into their seventies or eighties. And younger women are attracted to older men because they see something in them they dont often find in many younger men stability and maturity.

So all is fair on that count but we couldnt resist giving concrete examples, so here you are.  

Dr. Franklin Yang, a Nobel Prize co-winner in physics, was 82 when he married his wife, then 28. Yang, pushing 94, describes his wife as a gift from heaven, his last gift from God.

Then theres Lawrence Lau, Arthur Lis successor as vice chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Lau is married to Ayesha Abbas, a partner in an accounting firm. Lau is 70, Abbas is 50.

Those who have never experienced this kind of relationship or cant imagine themselves being in one will take some doing to understand people like Arthur Li and Monique Ho. But does it even matter?

Internet comments:

- With respect to the Ip Kin-yuen/HKU Alumni Concern Group reasons against Arthur Li,

Reason 1: High-handedness -- This is only going to gain points with the public because they want someone who is more decisive. Meanwhile, the Lingnan university vice-chancellor and board chairman are losing points because they are kowtowing to a small number of exceedingly rude students.

Reason 2: Grudge against HKU -- Li asked donors not to make any contribution to HKU? How many donors did Li ask? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? This is silly, because Li doesn't have the wherewithal to reach out to all potential donors and make an appeal. The bigger question is: How many potential donors have withheld their donations because of the actions of Ip Kin-yuen and the HKU Alumni Concern Group (such as laying siege to HKU council members after the July meeting)?

Reason 3: Conflict of interest -- this sort of thing happens all the time and is simply handled by Li saying: "As the matter pertains to my brother David Li, I recuse myself from all discussions and voting due to a perceived conflict of interest." How much of the council's business concerns David Li? Not much.

- (Bastille Post) So who is in the running for HKU council chairman?

Rosa Yeung Tse-tse is well-esteemed. In 1947, Yeung entered the HKU Medical School as a 16-year-old. After graduation, she continued to work at HKU and Queen Mary Hospital until her formal retirement in 1999. She is now 84 years old. If Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is opposed because he is 70 years too old, Yeung is even older. In that case, it is better to keep 76-year-old Edward Leung Che-hung in the job.

Lo Chung-mo does not appear to want this post, because he prefers to be developing innovative surgery procedures. He might be interested in become vice-chancellor, though.

Rosanna Wong Yick-ming is indistinguishable from Edward Leung Che-hung. But HKU Students Union president Billy Fung has already declared Wong to be an extremist just like Arthur Li and the students will take unspecified actions if Wong is appointed.

In conclusion, there is no one left except for Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

- (SCMP) By demanding it all, University of Hong Kong activists may end up with nothing. November 7, 2015.

I am losing track of the demands student activists and pan-democratic politicians have made in the sorry saga of Johannes Chan Man-mun and his failed appointment to a top post at the University of Hong Kong.

The latest has some HKU students, teachers, staff and alumni planning to carry out a campus-wide vote on whether its governing council should reveal the reasons for rejecting the former law dean for the job. They are also demanding guarantees from the chief executive that he will not appoint council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung - a former education secretary and head of Chinese University - to be council chairman.

Meanwhile, the HKU student publication Undergrad has applied to be an interested party to the gag order obtained by the council following the audio leaks of its members' discussions about Chan.

On a broader front, university activists and practically the entire pan-democratic camp are demanding changes to existing laws that automatically make the chief executive the head or chancellor of the seven tertiary institutions. The role of the chancellor is largely ceremonial. But he does have the power to appoint council chairmen and some council members. The activists have even argued that this limited power amounts to a threat to academic freedom and autonomy. As you can see, it's a long list of demands. I am sympathetic to some of them, but highly sceptical about others.

On Chan's rejection, we know pretty much everything from the unauthorised leaks. So what more can we learn?

At times, the students and their supporters act like they simply want to undermine the council and its key decisions and functions. As for the chief executive being the head of universities, it involves complicated legal and constitutional issues as well as long-standing practices.

Our young freedom fighters are being overly ambitious and reaching beyond their grip. They will end up polarising the entire HKU campus and other universities.

This is a lesson they should have learned from the Occupy debacle but clearly have not: by demanding everything, the activists will end up getting little or nothing.

(SCMP) October 31, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong has obtained what one legal expert called an "all-encompassing" court order to ban media reports detailing information leaked from its governing council. It secured the injunction yesterday, hours after Commercial Radio aired the second of two audio clips in three days that apparently revealed a pair of council members criticising liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun behind closed doors over his bid for a managerial post.

The radio station, which was named in the order alongside "persons unknown", said it had removed the clips from its website but pledged to "uphold freedom of speech and of the press and the public's right to know, and to protect any source". Critics feared the injunction "threatened" media freedom in the light of public interest and concerns about possible government interference in the operations of the city's top university.

In a statement last night, HKU said the order covered Commercial Radio and "persons unknown" who had "appropriated, obtained or intend to offer" confidential information about the council's meetings. These parties must not use, publish, communicate or disclose to any other person materials including any audio clips, agenda, papers and minutes of the council. They were also barred from publishing any information that might identify any HKU members, including council members, staff and students.

The matter would return to court on November 6.

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a lawyer and HKU lecturer, described the order as "all-encompassing". "It is aimed at forbidding any more disclosure of leaked files and confidential information that will identify a particular council member," he said. "But if there is litigation, the court should take into account the public interest in HKU issues."

To Yiu-ming, a journalism professor at Baptist University, called HKU's application for the injunction "stupid and unwise". "This will threaten freedom of the press," To said. "Recently, the press has effectively monitored the HKU council, which is a public trustee to run the university."

HKU turned to the courts as revelations surrounding Chan's failed job application for pro-vice-chancellorship continued to grip the institution.

The two recordings involved HKU council member Leonie Ki Man-fung and former education chief Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, both aired on Commercial Radio, were of the same September 29 meeting. The recordings were made during a council meeting at which a search committee's recommendation to appoint Chan was voted down. Critics see political motives for that decision.

Ki was among four people appointed by Leung to the council on Friday, including Sino Group executive director Daryl Ng Win-kong, actuary Patrick Poon Sun-cheong and accountant Edward Chow Kwong-fai - deputy to the Zhejiang chapter of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

(SCMP) November 1, 2015.

Controversy surrounding the University of Hong Kong's court order banning media revelations of its council meetings grew yesterday, as the Sunday Morning Post learned HKU had also issued a summons to a radio station seeking a declaration that its airing of audio clips was "in breach of confidence". As well, the university once demanded that Commercial Radio tell it who had leaked the two clips, according to legal correspondence sent last week.

Following on the heels of the correspondence were HKU's dual actions of securing the injunction and issuing the summons, both made on Friday to clamp down on recordings of a confidential council meeting in September that voted down liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for a key management position.

The legal challenges were piled on Commercial Radio after it broadcast the pair of clips, in which council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung appeared to be speaking.

Behind closed doors in court, HKU submitted, among other evidence to back its injunction application, a post on the Facebook page of HKU students' union president Billy Fung Jing-en that revealed discussions among his fellow council members, according to legal documents seen by the Post. A full hearing will be held this Friday to further debate the interim injunction.

The university did not mention the summons - in which it also demanded the station pay its legal fees - in its media release two days ago, when it published part of the injunction order. HKU council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung conceded he did not seek the views of other members before applying for the injunction, citing a need to "safeguard the university's dignity".

Concerns over press freedom were raised as media outlets other than Commercial Radio were quick to retract part of their coverage of the clips in response to the court order.

The Journalists Association hoped the court would take into account freedom of speech, while an alumni group led by lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen was considering making itself a party in the upcoming hearing so it could argue against the injunction.

HKU's statement also did not mention this part of the injunction order: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order shall prevent the defendants from publishing, communicating or disclosing such of the information as was already in or that thereafter comes into the public domain of Hong Kong."

The order covered Commercial Radio and persons unknown who had appropriated, obtained or intend to offer confidential information about the councils meetings. These parties must not use, publish materials including audio clips, agenda, papers and minutes of the council. They were also barred from publishing information that might identify any HKU members, including council members, staff and students. Commercial Radio would not comment on inquiries because of ongoing judicial proceedings. An HKU spokeswoman said a reply was not immediately available.

Professor Chan Yuen-ying, director of HKUs journalism and media studies centre, called on both the council and Johannes Chan to agree to release all council files, including documents, minutes and other materials related to his nomination and appointment. Chan should waive privacy rights while the council should waive confidentiality stipulations, considering that the personnel matter has become a huge matter of public interest, the director said.

(EJinsight) November 2, 2015.

A court order banning media from disseminating the content of leaked recordings of a meeting of the University of Hong Kong council Sept. 29 makes an important exception, a legal scholar says. The exception is for material that has already been broadcast or published and so forms part of the public domain, Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a principal law lecturer at HKU said on a radio program Monday morning. These include the two recordings broadcast by Commercial Radio last week, Ming Pao Daily reported. HKU did not mention the exception in the press release it issued on Friday announcing it had obtained the temporary injunction.

Commercial Radio had broadcast audio recordings of council members Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fungs speeches during the meeting, at which the council rejected the unanimous recommendation of the university search committee for the appointment of former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as a pro vice chancellor. Other media outlets, including EJ Insight, subsequently published excerpts of the transcripts.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association and seven other media associations are staging a protest against the court order at HKU Monday. An online petition has been launched to gather support from journalists and teachers and students at local journalism schools.

Serenade Woo Lai-wan, Asia-Pacific project manager for the International Federation of Journalists, said she was shocked when she first learned about the gag order. She said the media is only fulfilling its legitimate duties in disclosing matters pertaining to the public interest. The court order clearly threatens the core values of Hong Kong as regards press freedom, Woo said. She called on all journalists to keep tabs on the incident and defend their rights.

The Hong Kong News Executives Association issued a statement expressing concern that the injunction could harm the free flow of news. The association called for the court, which is scheduled to hold a hearing Friday on whether to make the injunction permanent, to balance the right to information of the public with the HKU councils confidentiality principle.

HKU said in a statement Sunday night that it respects the freedom of speech and of the press. It said the measures it took were meant to protect those rights.

(SCMP) November 2, 2015.

Seven groups of journalists and teachers today urged the University of Hong Kong to withdraw a court order which bars the media from disclosing discussion of the universitys council meetings. Shouting slogans, representatives from the group gave a petition letter to an officer of the university today. The groups included the Hong Kong Journalism Association, the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, the RTHK Programme Staff Union, the Next Media Trade Union, Ming Pao Staff Association, the Independent Commentators Association and Journalism Educators for Press Freedom. They said the injunction obtained by HKU dealt a severe blow to press freedom, and deprived the public of the right to know about an important decision by the HKU council.

The injunction bars media organisations from releasing audio recordings, papers and discussions of the HKU council. It came after Commercial Radio last week aired two audio clips featuring two council members discussing the appointment of law scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-muns bid for a senior managerial position.

Hong Kong Journalists Association vice-chairwoman Shirley Yam said the injunction sought by HKU smothered the media from reporting issues of interest to the public. It set a very bad example. If other organisations follow suit in the future, the public will not be able to know important information, she said. Yam said the association was seeking legal advice to decide whether to make a plea when the matter returns to the High Court on Friday.

(SCMP) November 2, 2015.

Scholars at the University of Hong Kong expressed shock over its legal action to summon Commercial Radio to court and over the incomplete disclosure of the injunction order, as revealed by the South China Morning Post.

HKU was acting out of "utmost stupidity" when its lawyers sent Commercial Radio a letter requesting the identity of the source of the audio leak prior to seeking the injunction, said Professor Chan Yuen-ying, director of HKU's journalism and media studies centre. "It's common sense that news media will not disclose their sources," Chan said.

In the letter, HKU asked the radio station not to play the confidential recordings in which council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung were heard opposing the appointment of liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a key management position.

HKU's action - in which it also demanded that Commercial Radio disclose who made the leak before the hearing on the interim injunction last Friday - sparked concerns of a threat to freedom of the press, after the Post revealed that the university omitted at least two references to its action from its press release: the fact that it was to send a court summons to Commercial Radio, and a key part of the injunction order stipulating public-domain exception.

The latter was an important clause because it would define the obligations of other media, said Eric Cheung Tat-ming, principal law lecturer at HKU. "The public-domain clause means that other media are not bound by the injunction in that they can continue to broadcast the two recordings already in the public domain."

An HKU spokeswoman said last night it had not yet delivered the summons, clarifying that it was seeking "costs" instead of legal fees. On the allegation that the media release was an incomplete version of the injunction, the spokeswoman said it was a summary of the order "based on legal advice".

The Journalists Association also sent a letter to HKU yesterday asking it to provide grounds for making the application for the injunction; its written submissions made to the court; and supporting documents lodged. It says it is seeking legal advice on joining the petition against the application, as the injunction could "set a daunting precedent on the protection of press freedom, which is enshrined in the Basic Law".

Meanwhile, Dr Lawrence Lau Juen-yee, husband of HKU council member Ayesha Macpherson, criticised the leaking of confidential discussions, saying it was an "utterly despicable" act. In an article published in the Post today, the former Chinese University vice-chancellor says it was "certainly unethical" to record or broadcast secret conversations.

(SCMP) November 3, 2015.

The vice chancellor of the University of Hong Kong has distanced himself from a decision by the chairman of its governing council last week to seek a court order banning media revelations of its meetings. "The council chairman took legal advice before applying for the injunction; all inquiries should be directed to him," Professor Peter Mathieson said yesterday in an emailed response to the South China Morning Post, referring to Dr Leong Che-hung.

Leong had described the legal action as "necessary to safeguard the university's dignity". He also said he had not sought the views of fellow council members prior to the injunction application, which the High Court approved on Friday. He turned to the courts after Commercial Radio aired two audio clips purportedly of confidential council discussions.

In his reply to the Post, Mathieson also appeared to dismiss calls for a full disclosure of what was actually said in a September 29 council meeting that voted down Chan's candidacy for pro-vice-chancellorship.

"I support the principle of confidentiality and deplore all the breaches thereof that have happened in the time I have been in office," Mathieson said. He also commented on a mock referendum among students, held last week, that overwhelmingly rejected the man in the frame to succeed Leong - Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, council member and former education minister. Li, known as "the tsar" for his high-handed style, is believed to be the choice of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, HKU's chancellor. Leong is due to step down as council chairman this Friday. "The appointment of the next chairman of council is a matter for the chancellor," Mathieson said. "We await the announcement."

(EJinsight) November 3, 2015.

Freedom of the press is the embodiment of the right of the people to express their views and receive information freely.

Upholding the freedom of the press is far more crucial than helping the bunch of hypocrites on the University of Hong Kong council to save face.

It is also far more important than enabling our High Court judges, who are so ignorant about modern human rights, to save their face.

Anybody entrusted with public power should be subject to criticism when they do not act in the public interest, including our judges, especially when their decisions infringe the basic human rights and freedom to which every citizen of this city is entitled.

As the  fourth branch of government, the media is under a moral obligation to strongly criticize our judges for their wrong decisions and awaken them to the implications of their mistakes for society.

How strong can such criticism be?

In 1987, the British newspaper Daily Mirror was outraged by the injunction granted by three judges of the Court of Appeal prohibiting any media coverage of Peter Wright, a former MI5 counterintelligence agent, and the contents of his book Spycatcher, which revealed some serious institutional flaws inside the agency.

In protest, the newspaper published the photos of the three judges upside down on its front page, along with a headline that read: You fools!

The fact that the media in Hong Kong is still treating our judges so nicely and respectfully even when they make mistakes in their decisions will only encourage them to do so.

In fact I feel compelled to point out that some of the decisions made by our High Court judges in the past that undermined our freedom of assembly and right to protest illustrate that they not only lack common sense but are also completely ignorant about social realities and the importance of upholding human rights.

As regards the recent injunction granted by the High Court against the dissemination of audio recordings of the remarks made by HKU council members during a meeting discussing whether to appoint Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor, it is a totally wrong decision, because it directly violates our citizens right to know.

Perhaps our local papers should also publish the picture of the judge who granted that injunction upside down, along with a headline that reads: You fool!

In my opinion, the Hong Kong Journalists Association should have staged a protest outside the High Court rather than HKU.

They should also seek legal advice and be prepared to go to any lengths to defend the publics right to know, including violating the law if need be.

Besides, the injunction itself is completely meaningless, because it doesnt apply to the audio clips that are already circulating in the public domain, such as on the internet, as some in the legal sector have pointed out, let alone the countless transcripts of the tapes that have already been read by hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens.

However, as the old joke about the bikini goes, what it conceals is more interesting than what has been revealed.

What about the remarks made by other HKU council members during that same meeting?

Is the media in possession of any more tapes that have yet to be made public?

If the answer is yes, then is it willing to ignore the injunction mistakenly granted by some High Court judge and air the tapes in order to fulfill its role as social watchdog and defend the publics right to know?

The question here is, which in the following should be given priority when it comes to information that involves a huge public interest: upholding the publics right to know, defending the dignity of the press, or saving the face of some prominent people on the HKU council?

I think the question is a no-brainer.

The fact that judges in Hong Kong have independent and superior social status doesnt mean they are allowed to make decisions that are totally out of touch with social realities.

They should also stay alert at all times to any politically motivated attempt to use civil procedure as a tool to undermine our freedom, as in the case of the HKU council.

After all, most judges in Hong Kong are just a bunch of backward legal animals who have failed to keep up with the times.

They are still stuck on the same level as British judges in the 1970s and 80s and only understand the law literally rather than having a real sense of what it really stands for.

Our media, too, has done a poor job in providing effective oversight of our judges.

I really hope that before the appeal against the injunction is heard by the court this Friday, more tapes will come to light.

It might sound a bit disrespectful to the judge who granted the injunction, but what our judges need is not respect but education and a bitter lesson.

(SCMP) November 5, 2015.

Commercial Radio has agreed to be bound by an agreement with the University of Hong Kong not to publish any more information about the HKU council. This means the radio station agrees not to air previously leaked audio clips of council meetings, and also not to air any more information about future council business. This undertaking does not, however, affect other media named as persons unknown in the original injunction order. The impact on press freedom will remain to be argued in tomorrows hearing if anyone will join the litigation as an interested party.

High Court judge Godfrey Lam Wan-ho expressed concern at the scope of the ban on future publication. My concern is that you are now seeking a perpetual injunction on all meetings, future, past, and present, Lam told HKU counsel Clifford Smith SC in a hearing this morning. I can see its a little unusual. Lam cited the British case Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd, noting that the House of Lords declined to grant a part of the injunction that would ban publication of memoirs of any officers of the security service.

But since the radio station is not contesting the conditions, the court will leave it to any possible interested parties to argue against this point, Lam said. So far three people have indicated to HKU they might contest, but no formal application has been made yet, according to solicitor for HKU Brian Gilchrist.

After the hearing, counsel for Commercial Radio Mike Lui insisted his client was not backing down. We are still upholding press freedom. The client has already served public interest by airing the clips so that the public are not misled over the issue, Lui said. Commercial Radio's withdrawal could mean the injunction on it - and also on other media organisations - could "last forever", lawyers said, if no other party joined the litigation and if the court did not change its order.

Two sources with knowledge of the matter earlier told the South China Morning Post that the radio station, which earlier vowed to protect press freedom, told HKU in writing yesterday that it would not attend the court hearing set for tomorrow. "The management think they should not spend time and resources contesting the order," one of the sources said. "Having aired two leaked audio clips of the council meetings, the station considers it has served the purpose of informing the public."

The Journalists Association would decide today whether to join the lawsuit as an interested party, chairwoman Sham Yee-lan said. "The scope of the court order is too broad," Sham said. "The court has the duty to clarify what it means and how it will strike a balance between protecting the HKU council's confidentiality and public interest in HKU matters."

Last Friday, HKU obtained an interim injunction to ban the radio station and "persons unknown" from publishing information about its business, including papers and audio recordings of its meetings. The radio station aired two audio clips from a council discussion during a closed-door meeting in September. After that meeting, council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung said the council had voted down the appointment of pro-democracy scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a senior managerial post, but he declined to explain why.

Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said he was "disappointed" at the radio station's decision. If no party was joining the case, the injunction would "last forever" and "it will be very bad for press freedom", he said. The media would still be able to report council records already in the public domain, but they could be accused of contempt of court if they reported confidential information provided by council members on an off-the-record basis, Tong added.

HKU principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming said the court should treat the Journalists Association the same as the radio station if it decided to join the case, because other media would face similar consequences if the order continued to be in effect. No one would know how political considerations like licence renewal came into play [in the radio stations decision], Cheung said.

(SCMP) Get it straight - Hong Kong's self-styled democrats are always right. By Michael Chugani. November 4, 2015.

For those unfamiliar with Hong Kong's political playbook, Public Eye will provide an idiot's guide.

The first thing to remember is you're not allowed to hold a different view from our self-proclaimed defenders of democracy. Whatever they say or do is morally right by default. If you dare challenge them in any way, you'll be mocked as a pro-Beijing stooge or, worse still, derided as a "Leung fun", which means a fan of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. If you refuse to cheer their missile-hurling, name-calling and frivolous filibustering, you're on the wrong side of democracy. Don't, for heaven's sake, say you genuinely support democracy but feel the 79-day occupation that paralysed key districts was the wrong way to achieve it. Only those who backed Occupy are true democrats. All others are Beijing bootlickers.

You must applaud the person who leaked audio clips of a confidential University of Hong Kong council meeting as a heroic whistle-blower. A whistle-blower is a person who exposes illegal or immoral activities. But the leaked audios exposed no wrongdoing. Having an opinion is fine, but only if you agree at all times with the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy. They wanted Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, an Occupy supporter, as HKU pro-vice-chancellor. All those who opposed his appointment are shoeshiners who must be exposed. Even though the leaked material contained no smoking gun, it must still be regarded as a Watergate moment. Anyone who exercises his right to seek a court injunction against the leaks, as HKU Council chairman Leong Che-hung did, is muzzling the media and deserves to be smeared.

Never mind that a judge independently granted the temporary gag order ahead of a full hearing on Friday. In Hong Kong's political playbook, using our independent judiciary to legally challenge the so-called democrats is political persecution. But when the so-called democrats use our independent judiciary to challenge "Leung funs", it becomes a cherished right that must be protected.

You are not fit to be a university council member if you had disagreed with Occupy or the storming of an HKU council meeting by Chan supporters. The headlines will scream "CY appoints pro-Beijing figures to council" as if academic freedom is doomed. Academic freedom is safe only in the hands of those who storm council meetings, hold members hostage, leak meeting details and backed Occupy and Chan as pro-vice-chancellor.

Public Eye's own playbook is succinct: we will never let anyone define our democratic credentials. Anyone who tries can go stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

(SCMP) November 6, 2015.

The High Court extended a gag order sought by the University of Hong Kong yesterday to continue banning publication of information about its governing council's discussion - though the time frame it covered was curtailed. Some supporters of media freedom deemed the revised interim injunction "acceptable", but the Journalists Association, which joined the hearing as an interested party, urged HKU to drop its legal action altogether.

The order, in effect until the next hearing on November 24, now applies to "persons unknown" who possess information about the five HKU council meetings held since June. It does not protect future council business as the original order would.

Ip Kin-yuen, the education-sector lawmaker who also joined the hearing as an interested party, voiced relief outside court. "The scope of the ban is now much narrower," Ip said. "It is good for press freedom and freedom of speech, and the development of HKU."

The current order was revised from one issued last Friday that had banned Commercial Broadcasting and "persons unknown" from publishing details about the council's business.

Council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung obtained that order in HKU's name after the station aired two recordings of a September closed-door discussion about democracy supporter Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for a key managerial post that ended with him being voted down. Critics said the council's move was politically motivated.

In the two leaked clips, council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung were heard criticising Chan's academic qualifications and personal integrity.

The revised order declares those two recordings and their transcripts are already in the public domain and can be published. The ban is now confined to information that has not yet been leaked from the five council meetings between June 30 - the day Chan's appointment was first discussed - and yesterday, as narrowed down by Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho and the interested parties. No audio recordings, agenda or papers of those meetings must be published.

Besides Ip and the association, the Chinese-language Apple Daily, HKU law student Mark Lee Hei-shun and Marcus Lau Yee-ching, chief editor of HKU student publication Undergrad, joined the litigation yesterday. All five parties, sharing similar arguments, opposed HKU's request to adjourn the case. They said the order should instead be discharged because the plaintiff "has no authority" to sue. Leong had said it was his own initiative to seek legal help and fellow council members were not consulted, they noted. "We looked up the HKU Ordinance - only the council collectively could instruct counsel and solicitors to act for the university," Martin Lee Chu-ming SC, for Apple Daily, said. They also said HKU had failed to disclose key information to the court, including the principles of accountability and openness enshrined in the code of conduct for council members.

Student union president Billy Fung Jing-en showed up as an observer. After the hearing, Ip said Leong, whose term expired last night, had "left behind a mess for HKU".

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 6, 2015.

The High Court has decided that the injunction applied for by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) prohibiting the publication of leaked recordings of a closed-door governing Council meeting will continue until the next hearing. However, the scope of the injunction has been narrowed to only cover the content of meetings starting from June 30 2015.

On Friday afternoon, the judge ruled that the injunction will only prevent recordings and documents of council meetings in the period of June 30 to November 6 from being published. Those who breach the terms of the injunction will be brought in as second defendants to the case.

With regards to the two recordings featuring speeches made by Council members Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung during the meeting on September 29 already published by Commercial Radio last week, as well as comments made by student leader Billy Fung Jing-en following the meeting that day, they will be included under the public domain exception and their publication will not be bound by the injunction. The idea of public domain is also understood to extend beyond Hong Kong.

The court will adjourn on November 24.

Last Friday, HKU obtained an interim injunction, forcing Commercial Radio to remove recordings of speeches by the two Council members during a controversial session on September 29 in which the governing body rejected the appointment of former HKU law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor of the university. The interim injunction has drawn widespread criticism, with seven media unions protesting the decision and starting an online petition. On Thursday, Commercial Radio and HKU reached a consensus in the High Court, with Commercial Radio agreeing not to republish the two leaked recordings of the Council meeting.

Internet comments:

- This is awfully embarrassing. The Hong Kong University issued some press release about a court injunction and seven major media organizations are up in arms. They called for a mass demonstration and eight persons showed up to present a letter to the Hong Kong University in front of the media. Then it turned out that they never bothered to check the fine print: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order shall prevent the defendants from publishing, communicating or disclosing such of the information as was already in or that thereafter comes into the public domain of Hong Kong." Their entire protest about infringement on freedom of press just got blown to smithereens. The most important function of the media is not to take dictation but to conduct independent verification. In this regard, the media are an abject failure.
- Of course, the media empire struck back by accusing Hong Kong University of not telling them about it.

- Pity that Now TV reporter who tried to secretly take photos of the seven policemen who allegedly assaulted Kenneth Tsang inside the courtroom. The reporter was caught and his photos removed. If only the reporter was not caught, the photos would be plastered all over the Internet for a major media coup under the prevailing rules about the people's right to know. Contempt of court? Fuck that!

- (HKG Pao) Here is the inside story about what happened. In the beginning, the anonymous person offered the audio recordings. At Commercial Radio, Stephen Chan Chi-wan is the Chief Executive Officer who also hosts his own show. So when he said to air the audio recordings, nobody dared to object. Even the senior management was unaware. After the first recording was aired, there were some objections from the inside but the senior management did not issue any directives. So Stephen Chan decided to air the second recording also without consulting senior management.

Hong Kong University obtained a temporary court injunction, and then senior management saw what was happening. Their view is that Chan's program is not a news program so that this has nothing to do with freedom of press. The senior management settled with HKU and promised not to do anything more along the similar lines. This way, they avoided legal costs and the loss in advertising income.

After this episode, senior management is taking an unfavorable view of Stephen Chan. They felt that Commercial offered shelter to Chan after he was forced out of TVB for bribery. Recently, Commercial Radio stood by Chan through the appeals by the Department of Justice. However, Chan is angry that he has now be found to be guilty in the bribery case and he wanted to take revenge against the government through airing the audio recordings. Senior management is angry that Chan would use their radio station to exact personal revenge.

(The Stand) October 30, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Student Union held a referendum on two motions. A total of 5,353 students voted at a turnout rate of 33.2%. There were 5,316 valid ballots and 37 invalid ballots. The turnout rate was more than the 10% as required under the student union by-laws, so these two motions now represent the official positions of the student union.

Motion No. 1
The post of Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong must be filled by a candidate who is acceptable to the members of its teaching staff, non-academic staff and students.

There were 5,119 YES votes, 110 NAY votes and 87 abstentions.

Motion No. 2
Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to hold any position under the governance structure of the University of Hong Kong.

There were 4,785 YES votes, 178 NAY votes and 353 abstentions.

(Oriental Daily) November 5, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group and the Hong Kong Teaching Staff Union announced that they will be holding a HKU Campus Voting Plan. The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme will provide technical support and the Hong Kong University Students Union will be a sponsor. The voting will be held Monday-Friday next week. The motions are (1) expressing regret at the university council for vetoing the candidate for pro vice-chancellor; (2) expressing no confidence in university council chairman Leung Che-hung and other members for vetoing the candidate for pro vice-chancellor; (3) declaring that Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to become university council chairman.

The Hong Kong University Convocation Standing Committee announced that there will be another special meeting on November 29 to discuss and vote on five motions. In the statement, the committee also said that each such special meeting requires the investment of manpower and financial resources and therefore they want to be cautious. They have reflected these concerns to those alumni who want the special meetings. However, their concerns were ignored. The committee said that if these special meetings are abused, they may erode public trust in Hong Kong University and the HKU Convocation.

(Ming Pao) November 14, 2015.

The Hong Kong Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting on November 29 will offer alumni four motions to vote on. Those who cannot attend in person can authorize others to vote on their behalf. In the previous EGM, there were more than 6,000 proxy statements.

Yesterday Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener Ip Kin-yuen issued "an emergency appeal" because they have only 28 proxy statements so far. If too few people vote, the results will not be persuasive.

The difference is that the proxy statement last time requires only a signature and a listing of the authorizer's Hong Kong ID number, but the proxty statement this time must be either submitted in person to the Alumni Affairs Office with verification of ID or by asking another person to do so together with a copy of the authorizer's identity card.

Internet comments:

- Headline writer: "Almost all Hong Kong University students are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung." More precisely, "90% of Hong Kong University students are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung."

How was that calculated?  4,785 out of 5,316 voted voted YEA on Motion No. 2. Therefore 4785 / 5316 = 98% are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

Here is another interpretation. Total full membership of the Hong Kong Student Student Union is 16,137. 4,785 agreed with Motion No. 2. Therefore 4785 / 16137 = 30% are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. Therefore the voices of these 30% must be obeyed.

- Yellow Ribbons move the goal posts at will. When they got 780,000 signatures to support the civil nomination of the Chief Executive, they said that the voices of the people must be listened to, even if most of the other 7 million citizens did not vote for this motion. When Robert Chow came back and collected 1.8 million signatures against them, they turned around immediately and said that 5.2 million people did not sign and therefore their voices must be obeyed.

- Undergraduate students at the University of Hong Kong automatically become members of the Hong Kong University Students' Union. All  new students will pay an entrance fee of HK$100 to the Students' Union and an annual subscription of HK$140. If union membership is compulsory, how many students would actually join?  That would be an interesting motion for the next referendum because the student union leaders have made sure that this question must not be asked because they want to preserve the idea of a unified front with zero dissension.

If in the other side world, 90% of the population wanted Occupy Central to stop. Why should you think that the percent is zero among HKU students? If you asked that question, then the result will represent the position of the HKU Student Union. So it is better not to ask.

Generally speaking, those who run for student union representative are more much progressive/radical than the general student body. As WB Yeats wrote in The Second Coming: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."

- The postgraduate students at the University of Hong Kong belong to the Hong Kong University Postgraduate Student Association. They must not be allowed to hold a similar referendum because they are dominated by mainlanders and therefore they hate FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/UNIVERSAL VALUES/JUSTICE or something like that.

(SCMP, November 11, 2013)

Mainland students make up the vast majority of research postgraduate students in the city, numbering 4,586 in 2012-2013, up from 4,298 in 2011-2012, out of a total of fewer than 7,000, University Grants Committee figures show. While it is common for working professionals in Hong Kong to pursue a master's degree, the majority are drawn to one-year, full-time or two-year, part-time, coursework-based programmes that focus on practical disciplines, with few drawn to research degrees leading to a PhD.

That has to do with the practical mindset of the city, academics say. The bleak job prospects at local universities for locally trained PhD holders also discourage graduates from furthering their studies in Hong Kong.

This phenomenon is not unique to Hong Kong. See, for example, the United States:

(Science Magazine) November 2014.

According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), 42% of the 886,000 international students at U.S. universities in 2013 to 2014 hailed from China and India. China makes up nearly three-fourths of that subtotal. In fact, the number of Chinese students equals the total from the next 12 highest ranking countries after India.

If you set up a xenophobic Great Wall to keep all foreign students out, you won't get enough homegrown university students to do the research and tutoring chores. Full professors give the lectures, and the tutors help the students with the homework and grade the exams. Full professors give the general research directions, and the research assistants carry out the experiments, record the data and draft the paper for publications. Without the cheap research/tutoring slaves, the whole system would collapse.

- 70% of the graduate students in Hon Kong universities are from mainland China. Therefore we must pretend that they are lepers to be avoided at all costs.

- The results of this referendum are non-binding in the sense the student union executive committee does not have a vote on who shall become the HKU Council chairman. Under CAP 1053 University of Hong Kong ordinance, Statute XVIII The Council:

The Council shall consist of-
(a) 7 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Chancellor, one of whom shall be appointed the Chairman by the Chancellor;
(b) 6 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Council;
(c) 2 persons, not being students or employees of the University, elected by the court;
(d) the Vice-Chancellor
(e) the Treasurer;
(f) 4 full-time teachers elected in accordance with regulations;
(g) 1full-time employee in the University, not being a teacher, elected in accordance with regulations;
(h) 1 full-time undergraduate student elected in accordance with regulations;
(i) 1 full-time postgraduate student elected in accordance with regulations.

This is just another massive jerk-off.

- The HKU Students Union is calling on Chief Executive to respond on the results of the referendum. Apparent, the results are not legally binding on the students but they are binding on the Chief Executive. Previously, CY Leung has pointed to CAP 1053 and said that it is his duty to appoint the council chairman. If and when CY Leung makes that appointment, any judicial review by the students/teachers/staff members will have zero chance of success in the face of CAP 1053. The court will simply direct the complainants to seek legislative changes.

- The referendum results will be the basis of the students, teachers and staff members to call an indefinite strike later on if and when Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is appointed council chairman.

- Yet another class strike? In early October 2014, the students called for a city-wide class strike plus labor strike plus business strike. They said that unless the government accept their demands, they will stay out indefinitely. Everybody ignored them. The students eventually went back to class without fanfare. Another class strike will end up the same way.
Why? Because the class strike is only hurting the students themselves. The Chief Executive, the government and Arthur Li Kwok-cheung won't be hurting.
But the students probably don't get this, because they still think that Occupy Central was a great idea.\

- Of course, they will hold yet another indefinite hunger strike fueled by chicken soup congee, glucose and Pocari.

- No mention of the ultimate weapon -- all students will drop out, and all teachers and staff members will resign if and when Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is appointed university council chairman.

- The students did not have a motion on genuine universal suffrage of the university council chairman based upon civil nomination by the students and one-person-one-vote for the students. At least they know what they don't know. For example, can the students make an informed evaluation of the academic accomplishments of Arthur Li? So is Double Strapling Technique for Ileo-anal Reservoir Anastomosis (1991) an important paper? Or who about Distribution of Lipiodol and Its Thereapeutic Value in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (1991)?

- (Oriental Daily, October 31 2015) The series of events first started at Baptist University in May 2015 when the students rushed the vice-chancellor screening committee for "black box operation", They destroyed the lock to the door of the meeting room to prevent the trustees from leaving. It turned out that the student union was informed earlier about the selection choice but there was a new cabinet which was not told. On that day, the students accused the trustees of holding sinecures (尸位素餐). According to Merriam-Webster, a sinecure is a position that requires little or no work and that usually provides an income. That is a bizarre accusation. Firstly, university council members and trustees don't get paid. Secondly, they are trying to perform work such as making job appointments, etc but the students are blocking them.

- (HKG Pao) November 12, 2015.

The Lingnan University Student Union held a referendum on November 9-11.

Motion 1: Eliminate the power of the Chief Executive to directly appoint Lingnan University trustees
1119 votes
1013 AYE
19 NAY

Motion 2: Eliminate the automatic assignment of the Chief Executive as Lingnan University chancellor
1128 votes
1004 AYE
17 NAY

Motion 3: Increase the ratio of students, staff members and teachers in the board of trustees
1148 VOTES
1049 AYE
17 NAY

Lingnan University Student Union president Philip Lau Chun-lam said that the results are overwhelmingly one-sided and shows that the students want the board of trustees to be reformed.

According to Lingnan University, there are 2,511 students in the 4-year baccalaureate program. Therefore you can run the same calculations and decide whether 1119 out of 2511 votes is overwhelmingly one-sided.

The Student Union said beforehand that the results are not binding.

The Student Union said beforehand that the results are not binding. If these changes are to take place, Cap 1165 Lingnan University ordinance will have to be amended by the Legislative Council. For that to happen, there needs to be some reasonable arguments in support of increasing staff/teacher/student representation.

(Ming Pao) October 30 , 2015.

Previously, the Hong Kong Police was supposed to hold a forum on November 4 in Baptist University in conjunction with the Students Affairs Office. However, students posted big-character posters on the Democracy Wall to protest the presence of the police on campus. The Hong Kong Police confirmed that they have cancelled the Baptist University forum.

(Hong Kong Police) October 31, 2015.

The Hong Kong Police held its Recruitment Day at Police Headquarters and received more than 2,200 applications.

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

The Hong Kong Police received more than 2,200 applications. The Hong Kong Police has a fiscal-year target of recruiting 190 inspectors and 1,320 police officers. Compared to the summer recruit day in July, this is a 5% increase. 768 applications were for the inspection position, breaking a record for a single recruitment day. Each inspection position has about 30 applicants while each police officer position has about 10 applicants.

Internet comments:

- Ever since the Umbrella Revolution, everybody knows about the true nature of the Evil Police. Today no young person with a conscience would ever consider joining the Evil Police. That is a fact.
- I see. So the Hong Kong Police has only a bunch of old farts left ...
- Yo brother, if someone steals your wallet, you better not call the Evil Police for assistance.

- If a university student does not want to be a government worker, what are his options? Large corporations won't hire recent graduates after Occupy Central. So the options are pretty much limited to Apple Daily/Next Magazine reporter, NGO volunteer or Legislative Councilor (like Joshua Wong wants to be). However, there are only 35 directly elected Legislative Councilor positions for 20,000 university graduates. The odds are a lot worse than become a police inspector.

- Your mouth says NO but your body says YES by walking into the Hong Kong Police recruitment centre.

- The numbers in this press release may be confusing. There were 768 applications for the inspector position, for which there are 190 openings. But there are supposed to be 30 applicants per inspector position, not 768 / 190 = 4 applicants. The reason is that the Hong Kong Police recruits year-round. Cumulatively across the recruitment efforts so far, they have 30 applicants per inspection positin.

(Metro, News.china.com) March 23, 2015.

Recently Internet users allege that a certain Hong Kong Customs Office named Mike Lam King-nam participated in the anti-parallel trade demonstrations. Internet users uploaded photos of Lam harassing mainland tourists and accused him of breaking the law while being aware of the law. There was also an interview by TVB in which Lam wore a surgical mask. A Customs Officer spokesperson said that they will not comment on individual cases, but they will follow procedure in the event that their employees violate regulations.

Mike Lam responded on Facebook:

When I go to work, I keep being asked:
"Why are you still coming to work?"
"Is there an arrest warrant for you?"
"Did you take part in assaulting the grandpa?"
"When are you going to change your glasses?"
Ever since the Umbrella Revolution began, I realized one piece of truth
It does not matter how good friends and colleagues you are with,
As long as we have different positions ...
No! I just put it more directly,
As long as they are benefiting,
That is, they are salespersons, they are business people,
Or they are public servants under the old system,
They have government housing
Their children have overseas education subsidies, and they are waiting for the pension!
It is a fucking waste of time to talk to them!
In their eyes, the government is doing fine, society is doing fine,
It's only the young wastrels who are causing trouble.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
This is like you going to the Shaolin Temple and telling them to believe in Jesus Christ.
You would be lucky if you don't get into a fight!

Here are some more later responses from Mike Lam:

October 7: I am nothing to be ashamed of
September 28: Once a Yellow Ribbon, forever a Yellow Ribbon. I will never retreat, I swear that I will never bow my head.

For all the tough talk, this is what happened in the end:

Because the department refuses to relent
They are still determined to terminate my employment
Therefore I hope that all the inspectors, senior officers, sergeants and officers, all my brothers and sisters, can write letters on my behalf to the Customs and Excise Department commissioner Roy Tang Yun-kwong and Mr. Wong Hung-sun of the Division's Administrative Department to tell them that my character, conduct, trustworthiness and job performance have all been impeccable. I hope that they will change their minds and decide to accept my probationary term and rescind the decision to terminate my employment.

Internet comments:

- Doraemon: "There is nothing more pleasing than to see someone fall in the street (puk gai)."

- He wants people to testify that his character, conduct, trustworthiness and job performance are impeccable? Hahahah.

- To quote Mike Lam, "It is a fucking waste of time to talk to them!" Therefore I won't be writing any fucking letters.
- I think I will write to Commissioner Roy Tang and thank him and the Customs Department for making a good decision.

- Dear Mr. Lam, you should have known that this was going to happen. Your only option now is to become a valiant warrior, overthrow the Chinese Communist regime and their stooges and then you will become the Customs Commissioner in the new Hong Kong City-State.

- What a dickhead! If you want to oppose the government, then why do you want a government job?

- Someone says that this latest post is fake. Mike Lam resigned on his own.

Here is the situation before the November 2015 District Council elections (source)
District Area (hectares) Population Median HH Income Total # of councilors # Pro-establishment # Pan-democrats # Independent
Central & Western District 1,252 250,000 $35,000 18 14 4 0
Wan Chai 976 160,000 $34,000 13 11 2 0
Eastern District 1,890 580,000 $27,800 43 37 5 1
Southern District 3,895 280,000 $28,000 20 15 5 0
Yau Tsim Wong 655 300,000 $23,600 20 18 2 0
Sham Shui Po 1,047 380,000 $18,000 24 17 7 0
Kowloon City 997 380,000 $24,600 25 20 5 0
Wong Tai Sin 926 420,000 $20,000 29 20 9 0
Kwun Tong 1,130 640,000 $19,000 39 33 6 0
Tsuen Wan 6,000 300,000 $26,900 21 17 4 0
Tuen Mun 8,445 480,000 $21,000 34 25 9 0
Yuen Long 14,430 570,000 $22,000 42 38 4 0
North District 137 305,000 $22,300 24 23 1 0
Tai Po 14,800 300,000 $26,500 23 19 3 1
Sai Kung 12,680 440,000 $30,800 29 18 9 2
Sha Tin 6,940 630,000 $26,000 43 35 8 0
Kwai Tsing 2,230 520,000 $19,600 35 20 15 0
Islands 17,600 140,000 $25,000 21 19 2 0
TOTAL       503 399 100 4

(The Stand)  https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%8E%9F%E4%BE%86%E6%B3%9B%E6%B0%91%E5%8F%AF%E4%BB%A5%E5%A4%A7%E5%8B%9D%E5%8D%80%E8%AD%B0%E6%9C%83/ October 19, 2015. Here are the projected outcomes if the pan-democratic voters turned out at the same rate as they did for the 2012 Legislative Council elections.

District Number of seats Number of actual pan-democrat seats Number of pan-democrats according to 2012 Legco votes Predicted outcome
Central & Western District 15 4 13 Pan-democratic majority
Wan Chai 11 0 10 Pan-democratic majority
Eastern District 37 5 30 Pan-democratic majority