Occupy Central - Part 9

[872] Jury Tampering? (2018/03/07) (SCMP) March 6, 2018. The High Court judge who ruled on Tuesday that disgraced former leader Donald Tsang Yam-kuen should bear part of the costs for his misconduct hearings last year also heaped criticism on “undesirable” public relations tactics used during a second trial. After Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai explained why Tsang should pay HK$4.6 million (US$590,000) of the HK$13.7 million it cost the prosecution to mount the case, he revealed how he realised that a public relations firm had been getting prominent figures to sit in the public gallery area reserved for Tsang’s family during the retrial for the bribery charge. The individuals included former Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, former Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung, Vicar General of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese Reverend Dominic Chan Chi-ming, and radio host and political commentator Chip Tsao. Tsang and Y Communications, the firm that accompanied him during the trial that ended on November 3 also with a hung jury, would not comment on the matter. When contacted by the Post, Tsao said he turned up to support Tsang as a personal friend, and that this was not a publicity stunt. HCCC484/2015 HKSAR and Donald Tsang Yam-kuen 30. In the second trial, application was made by the Prosecution to discharge Mr Kiu, a juror from the jury service towards the end of the proceedings. After listening carefully to submissions from both sides, I allowed the application and indicated that I would give my full reasons. These are my reasons. 31. In the course of my summing up, the court was informed by the Prosecution that Mr Kiu during the lunch adjournment, was seen to approach one of the Defendant’s supporters, Mr To Kit (), a popular columnist and radio presenter for conversation and To Kit expressed on social media antipathy towards the Prosecution and also to a degree to the Judiciary and that he had made clear his views about the merits of the case.

photograph, who had publicly supported the Defendant in these proceedings. The court was further informed that Mr

32. On the day in question, Mr To Kit was brought into court by one public relations representative, unlike ordinary citizens who had to queue up for seats. He then sat in an area exclusively reserved for the Defendant’s family and friends. In fact, this was not the first time Mr To Kit had come to court. 33. Following the procedure in the investigation of any alleged misconduct of juror as set out in the English Criminal Practice Direction, Mr Kiu frankly admitted before the court that he was a follower of Mr To Kit’s radio show and that he had been listening to his programme for many years. However, Mr Kiu told us that his conversations with Mr To Kit were confined only to casual matters. Given the late stage of the proceedings, the Prosecution applied to the court to exercise its discretion to discharge Mr Kiu only on the basis that there was a potential bias. 34. The House of Lord in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 considered the question of bias in relation to the court generally and approved the test. In the case of potential bias, the court should consider whether a fair minded and informed observer could conclude that there was a real possibility, or real danger (the two being the same), that the tribunal was biased. This test was applied by the Court of Appeal in R v Poole [2002] 1 WLR 1528. In Szeypusz v UK [2010] ECHR 1323, the European Court of Human Rights said that the impartiality of a jury must be subjectively and objectively beyond doubt. 35. Mr To Kit expressed his view on social media regarding the prosecution of the Defendant (which counsel for the Defendant had made no attempt to deny). Mr Kiu sought out a known supporter of the Defendant. As such, Mr Kiu was a supporter of the Defendant’s supporter. In my view, the seeking out of Mr To Kit raised a real possibility that Mr Kiu could not be fair minded in the way that he approached the case. 36. The discharge of Mr Kiu led me at that stage to realise, for the first time, that public relations firm or consultant had been involved in this trial. In fact, they had been present, constantly in and out of court, throughout the first and the second trial but I was not aware of their identities at the time as every citizen was entitled to observe the proceedings. 37. At the outset of the second trial, there was legal argument on whether the Defendant was entitled to adduce good character evidence. Such evidence was elicited in the first trial through the crossexamination of witnesses called by the Prosecution, for example his former Cabinet Secretaries during their crossexamination by counsel for the Defendant. They spoke highly of the Defendant and I had no problem with that as that was the Defendant’s entitlement in his first trial. He had a good reputation then and more importantly he was presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the situation changed. Since the Defendant had been convicted, albeit of one count only, he was no longer entitled to have any good character direction from the court. Had the Defendant decided to introduce good character evidence, the Prosecution would be entitled to introduce evidence in rebuttal. The law on this is clear. Mr Selwyn Yu SC, counsel for the Defendant in the second trial, quite rightly accepted that that was the law and that no such evidence would be adduced on behalf of the Defendant. 38. Family and friends of any defendant in a criminal trial are perfectly entitled to be present in court to observe the proceedings and to show their support. What is not permitted is for family and friends, or for that matter any other person, to try and exert any influence on the jury. Jury tampering is not permitted because it undermines the basic foundation of our criminal justice system as that interferes with the due administration of public justice. 39. Prior to both the first and second trials, the Defendant through his solicitors sought approval from the court to reserve exclusive seats for his family and friends. His request was acceded to by the court. Throughout the second trial, especially towards the end, former colleagues of the Defendant, for example, his former Financial Secretary and former Secretary for Justice, past Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Party, present Legislative Councillors from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and prominent religious figures, were taken into the court on different days by the public relations firm or consultant sitting at the exclusive area, similar to Mr To Kit’s situation. The objective was undoubtedly to inform and impress upon the jury that the Defendant was a good person and had support from people across the whole spectrum of the society. 40. The Defendant in this case, knowing that good character evidence cannot be introduced from witnesses testifying for the prosecution, had decided to introduce such evidence through the back door. There was of course no direct evidence suggesting the public relations firm or consultant had been engaged by the Defendant himself, the inference however was overwhelming and it would be an affront to common sense to conclude that there was not some consent, acquiescence or involvement by the Defendant. Had the engagement of public relations firm or consultant been brought to my attention earlier, I might consider discharging the entire jury. 41. In England, there are specific provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which allows judge only trial on indictment where there is a danger of jury tampering. In Hong Kong, no equivalent provisions exist in our statute books, it may be high time for giving serious consideration to that. There is however nothing to prohibit the case from being transferred to the District Court for trial. 42. The present scenario is not much different from any case where a defendant has asked his friends or followers, whom not knowing the underlying reasons, to come to court, wearing black clothing and sitting in the public gallery, with the objective of intimidating either the witness or the jury. In such a situation, the court will have no hesitation in excluding all these people. Having said that, I wish to emphasise that there is no allegation against any persons who were brought into the court by the public relations firm or consultant and for that matter Mr To Kit. 43. It came therefore with no surprise that in recent years, when the wealthy and powerful were charged for criminal offences, they tried all kinds of means and ways to list their cases in the High Court before a jury. The involvement of public relations firm or consultant in our criminal proceedings is not only undesirable but may perceive as seeking to influence the jury. It does nothing good to the rule of law in Hong Kong. This serves as a warning to all public relations firm or consultant. - This ruling by a pro-Communist judge shows how far away Hong Kong is from true freedom and democracy. In the advanced democratic country of the United States of America, the trials of mafia boss routinely have courtroom seats filled by their henchmen (see, for example, The Untouchables), because the defendants have the right for a fair trial and their henchmen have the right to know that their bosses have a fair trial. Only in backward places like Hong Kong would this be disallowed. (Ming Pao) Editorial. March 8, 2018. Sentenced to imprisonment after he was found guilty of "misconduct in public office", former Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has been ordered to pay $5 million in litigation costs. In his judgement, Mr. Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai reprimanded Tsang's public relations company for lining up famous and prominent figures to sit in the courtroom late into the trial with the intention of persuading the jury "through the back door" that Tsang was a "good person" supported by people across the social spectrum. Though Mr. Justice Chan's judgement has been controversial, what truly merits attention is the fact that the rich and powerful, counting on their connections, wealth and positions, have been trying to influence the jury with PR tactics. Tactics employed by PR firms in litigation are numerous and often fall within the legal grey area. While these practices are not in violation of the law, they are detrimental to how citizens perceive fairness and justice in law, and as such are inevitably the subject of criticism for moral reasons. Society and the jury should beware of such PR tactics employed in litigation. It is debatable whether some of the wording in Mr. Justice Chan's judgment is justified. For one thing, he compares those prominent figures attending the court with people "wearing black clothing and sitting in the public gallery with the objective of intimidating the jury." Moreover, it is a civil right to attend a court to observe proceedings. However, we should focus on the fact that when the retrial started, the court decided that since Tsang had already been found guilty, the defendant should not summon witnesses again to persuade the jury of Tsang's character. Late into the retrial, a number of prominent figures and former senior government officials attended the court one after another as friends of the defendant. By expressing their trust in and support for Tsang in front of everyone in the court (including the jury), they effectively circumvented the court's order that he "cannot adduce good character evidence". In a jury system, jurors are supposed to pass a verdict only on the basis of the evidence brought forward in court. However, society nowadays is a victim of information overflow and there are all kinds of PR manipulation tactics. Even if a judge keeps reminding the jury to forget all they have read in news reports and on social media, it is still not easy to ensure that jurors are not influenced by factors aside from evidence brought forward in court. The jury system is not implemented in Hong Kong's District Courts. Many complicated commercial cases are handled by the District Court instead of the High Court. One of the reasons is that hearing these cases requires more than what the jurors are equipped with. True, it is up to the prosecution to decide whether a case should be heard in the High Court or not, but the defendant may also request that a case be heard in the High Court instead of the District Court. Mr. Justice Chan mentions that the rich and powerful have tried all means to have their cases heard in the High Court before a jury. It calls for concern how common this phenomenon is. The legal sector might want to enlighten the public about this matter. As claimed by people in charge of some PR firms, how to portray and present a defendant and a court case to the public, both inside and outside the court, by means of various PR tactics, could to a certain extent influence the verdict. For those in the PR industry, this is already an "open secret". Only the ordinary people are kept in the dark. Even if it is not against the law for PR firms and consultancies to intervene in a trial and to attempt to sway the jury openly or stealthily, the practice is not ethical, and it is not good for the rule of law.

(Oriental Daily) March 7, 2018. When the trial of five men for the Mong Kok riot began in January, Wong Fung-yiu (nickname Grandma Wong) was banned from the courtroom by judge Anthea Pang Po-kam for hollering outside. She was allowed to watch the audiovisual live broadcast on the outside. Yesterday Wong showed up with a backpack with yellow banners saying "Release the political prisoners" and "Oppose the red-ification of Hong Kong." She also wore a scarf with the words "Restore Hong Kong." Wong watched the live broadcast from outside the courtroom. A court security guard informed the judge about the situation. The judge issued an order to bar anyone from displaying any banner inside the courthouse whether inside or outside the courtroom. Violators would be guilty of contempt of court. This morning, Grandma Wong showed up again. The two yellow banners on her backpack were turned around so that the words are invisible. But she still wore the scarf with the words "Restore Hong Kong." Once again, a security guard informed the judge who asked that Grandma Wong be brought in for questioning.

When the judge saw the scarf, she said that Wong has disobeyed the court ruling and committed contempt of the court. Wong said that she does not understand what the judge was saying. Wong said that she was quite confused. She said that she had no idea what the words on her scarf were. She asked the court to give her a mirror so that she can look at the scarf. The judge said: "You put it on yourself. You ought to know what was written on it!" Wong asked for an opportunity to explain. But the judge said that she has already Wong to be in contempt of the court and the only remaining issue is the penalty. The judge asked whether Wong wishes to hire a lawyer. Wong said: "I have no money. I am a low-end grandma." Wong also said that she does not want to be bailed out. Finally the judge postponed the issue of penalty until March 29 while Wong is out on bail. She was banned from attending the court trial, including watching the live broadcast from outside the courtroom. [871] Colors (2018/03/02) (RTHK Face to Face 2018) Guanxi province Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate and artist Wong Cho Lam. (YKKZ) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 11, 2018. The Hong Kong entertainer Wong Cho Lam had said: "The political bickering in Hong Kong has reached the stage when you have to fill out 'Yellow' or 'Blue' in all your forms." He was driven to say this after he was interviewed on the program by reporter Mak Ka-wai on the government television channel RTHK. The subject was supposed to have been how Hong Kong can keep its unique characteristics and competitivity. I have always felt that interviews with successful people are intended to let young people and latecomers to appreciate the experience of the trailblazers. Such is the social meaning of interview programs. Yet, it seemed that Hong Kong has nothing left except the Colors. As Wong Cho Lam said, you must first declare whether you are Yellow or Blue before the interview can begin. For the next half hour, we saw a Yellow Ribbon reporter Mak Ka-wai failing to get anything meaningful out of Blue Ribbon guest Wong Cho Lam. This was a completely negative interview, which was a total waste of airtime. Here are the twenty questions that were posed to Wong Cho Lam. Q1. You are very popular in mainland China. You have more than 20 million Weibo fans. Actually why did you decide to develop your career in mainland China? Q2. Mainland films, television and variety programs have progressed rapidly in recent years. They have plenty of capital, talents and technology. Do Hong Kong artists and creatives have a market in mainland China? Q3. As soon as Hong Kong artists go north, they lose their Hong Kong flavor and they give up their Hong Kong market. Many of G.E.M. Tang's fans complain that she only cares about the mainland market. Will you keep your Hong Kong flavor? Q4. Your mother tongue is Cantonese. Do you think that Cantonese is being marginalized? Is this because you must speak putonghua in the mainland market? Q5. The number of Cantonese speakers is decreasing. Children in Guangzhou are no longer speaking Cantonese. What space is there left for Cantonese? Q6. The entertainment industry in Hong Kong is going downhill. Do you agree with this assessment? Q7. Creative space is very important. Are there any forbidden zones in the mainland? Q8. Your television series caused controversy over the Hong Kong-mainland China conflicts. Over the past few years, Hong Kong-mainland China conflicts have intensified. Is there any space left? Is pointing out the mainland ugliness banned? Q9. Back then many people criticized you on the Internet. Today will the official Chinese media outlets such as Global Times and People's Daily chime in as well? Q10. Are there more forbidden zones in creativity and performance in mainland China? For example, you are now allowed to portray certain people? Are there many borderlines on social and livelihood issues? Q11. In , there were many jokes about mainland ugliness. Do you think that it is appropriate to do so in mainland China? Q12. Entertainments are supposed to entertain the public. But they have more responsibility nowadays, such as making political statements. For example, you have made political posts on your Weibo. In 2015 on the 70th anniversary of the War of Resistance, you posted a photo of yourself making a salute. In 2016 on the South Sea sovereignty, you posted a map of China with the words "Not an inch less." Are there consequences if you don't make a statement? Q13. Do you remember Hong Kong entertainer Charlene Choi being criticized for posting a work photo because that was supposed to be unpatriotic? Q14. If you want to develop a career in mainland China, you must state your positions on certain issues of nationality and sovereignty. Is that a form of pressure? Q15. If your words are not consistent with state policy, you may get into trouble. Thus Hins Cheung was booted off the program. More recently Ruby Lin's television serial drama was taken off the air. Does this affect your work? Q16. In mainland China, is there a sense that the freedom of expression is being further restricted? Q17. When entertainers or celebrities become Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates, some people think that they are merely sideshows. What you do say? Q18. As a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate, you must get involved in national and regional developments. But you do not pay much attention to social or political issues in Hong Kong? Q19. Nowadays young people in Hong Kong do not believe in One Country Two Systems and they refuse to identify with China or the Chinese people. Where does this resistance come from? Q20. According to the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, only 0.3% of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 consider themselves as pure Chinese. That is less than 1%. How shall the people of Hong Kong find their own identities? How can the self-confidence of the people of Hong Kong be built up? In our generation, we had the legend of Li Ka-shing: a 12-year-old Jiaozhou boy who could not speak Cantonese properly came to Hong Kong with his parents. With $7,000 in capital, he established the Cheung Kong Plastics Factory. Today, he is the wealthiest man in Hong Kong. Today, we have the legend of Wong Cho Lam. This ordinary-looking Hong Kong boy was burdened with supporting his family when his father passed away. He said: "I graduated from the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts with first-class honors. I lived two years off welfare when I could not get a job. My income did not become steady until I got into TVB ... In the most difficult moment, my mother worked part-time at a tea restaurant and came home in the afternoon to cook for the family." Actually, Wong's "steady income" was a measly HK$8,000 per month. His career began in 2002. He did theatrical plays, children's programs and situation comedies; he recorded songs; he got popular as a comedian on TVB. In 2012, he joined a Hunan TV show and became popular by imitating other celebrities. He began by making 50,000 RMB per show. Two years later, he was making 350,000 RMB per show. In 2014, South Korea television channel SBS licensed Zhejiang TV to run the Chinese version of . Wong became a regular guest on the program. He made 2,000,000 RMB per show. The popularity of this program brought Wong other work opportunities. In 2016, Wong established the Handicraft Creative Works Company with Shaw Brothers Films. In 2017, he spent HK$160 million to buy three apartments in Taipo for his wife and sister. Previously, he had bought a HK$30 million home for his mother as a present. Today Wong is a leading star in mainland China. His fee for a reality show appearance is 1.2 million RMB per episode. In this third season of , he is commanding 6 million RMB per show. His asking price for a movie is 30 million RMB. He has a workshop in Beijing covering artist management, audiovisual production, audiovisual investment, post-production and project planning. The story of Wong Cho Lam is not just the story of one particular entertainer. It is about how to build a career in the entertainment industry. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong media only want to whine about how the times don't favor Hongkongers anymore. The frog in the well can only see darkness above its head. Internet comments: - Q20: It gets back to this survey question: (HKU POP) Would you identify yourself as a Hongkonger/Chinese/Chinese in Hong Kong/Hongkonger in China? December 4-7 2017 survey results: 38.8%: Hongkonger 29.0%: Hongkonger in China 16.1%: Chinese in Hong Kong 14.5%: Chinese 1.3%: Other 0.3%: Don't know/hard to say So unless you pick "Chinese", you do not consider yourself to be "Chinese." Even if you say that you are "Chinese in Hong Kong" or "Hongkonger in China," you are not "Chinese." P.S. Do you know what is the difference between "Chinese in Hong Kong" and "Hongkonger in Chinese"? This is just bogus science. [870] A Star Is Born (2018/02/28)





(Hong Kong Free Press) February 25, 2018 A group of KMB bus drivers participated in a three-hour strike on Saturday evening over salary reforms pledged by management in the aftermath of the fatal Tai Po crash, which left 19 dead. During the afternoon, the newly-established Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers called on drivers to stop their vehicles wherever they were at 8pm sharp for 30 minutes. When management initially failed to respond to demands for dialogue, the group said it would extend the industrial action until 12am. KMB’s human resources department circulated an internal notice prior to the strike, warning drivers not to participate: “The company will initiate serious disciplinary action against any behaviour contrary to work guidelines.” Saturday evening’s strike was mostly limited to bus drivers at the Tsim Sha Tsui bus terminus. Alliance spokesperson Yip Wai-lam told reporters she could not estimate how many people took part elsewhere, because the vehicles of drivers who announced their intention to participate had been confiscated by the company beforehand. At around 8:30pm, Yip’s own vehicle at the Tsim Sha Tsui terminus was confiscated and driven off by other KMB staff with assistance from the police. Pro-democracy activists and lawmakers such as Jeremy Tam and Lau Siu-lai then arrived on the scene to support the drivers. After the confiscation of her vehicle, she said that the Alliance would go and protest at Government House – the residence of the chief executive – if management did not respond by 1am. But at 11pm, KMB officials arrived in Tsim Sha Tsui, promising that management would meet with the Alliance to discuss their demands on Monday. The Alliance then ended the strike. (SCMP) February 24, 2018. At least a dozen Hong Kong passengers experienced a short delay in their journeys on Saturday night after a KMB bus drivers’ union unhappy with a pay restructuring exercise launched a strike that proved less disruptive than planned. Soon after 8pm, two KMB drivers lined up and parked their buses inside a terminus in Tsim Sha Tsui. One vehicle had about 10 passengers on board, and the two buses blocked the station’s lone exit. About five other buses not part of the strike were caught behind the two vehicles for 15 minutes. Passengers were mostly calm, and not everyone on board was aware of the situation. One surnamed Chan said he understood the motivations behind the strike. “But passengers should not have been used as bargaining chips,” he said, before exiting the bus to take a train instead. KMB management and police arrived on site at around 8.15pm to enable the blocked buses to get out by using the terminus entrance. The two who stopped their buses were Yip Wai-lam, spokeswoman of the “Full-time KMB Driver Alliance” that launched the strike, and an unidentified female driver. Yip expressed no regrets. “Even if I’m fired after tonight, I will support my colleagues in their fight for better benefits,” she said tearfully. The “Full-time KMB Driver Alliance” was only set up in recent days and is one of at least five unions representing 8,300 drivers under KMB. Each group holds different views on how their benefits should be improved. The alliance claimed to represent more than 1,000 full-time drivers. (Hong Kong Free Press) February 26, 2018. The KMB bus driver alliance behind a strike over the weekend announced on Monday that they will wait at the Kowloon Bay bus depot for the company’s management to respond to their demands. If KMB refuses to respond by 2am Tuesday morning, the alliance said it will take further action. It did not give details as to what the action may entail. On Monday morning, Alliance spokesperson Yip Wai-lam bowed in apology to the public for any inconvenience caused by the union action. Yip said that the company’s stance was clear in that they were disregarding the dangers faced by the drivers: “[T]hey’re adopting standard procedures… they aren’t listening to our demands,” Yip said. “I feel – the only way I can describe it is… it’s a cold business.” “They’re taking us in circles, there’s no sincerity,” Yip added. Yip initially planned to meet with company representatives on Monday, but decided not to attend after learning that the firm was intending to meet her as an employee in accordance with regular procedures, rather than as an alliance member. Yip earlier clarified that she had not been suspended – as was rumoured online – but that she was merely asked to not drive and stay in the office on Sunday. She said she did not believe it was an act of revenge, RTHK reported. “We are very happy that the company’s management has taken positive steps towards our three demands. With these demands, we have already achieved a preliminary success,” Yip said in the early hours of Tuesday morning, announcing that no further labour action will be taken by the alliance. Yip also said that she had a greeting for the company: “A single spark can start a prairie fire.” “We succeeded because… people can see your passion, your sincerity,” Yip said, adding that she only hoped bus drivers could drive without being under too much pressure and passengers could be safe. (Hong Kong Free Press) February 27, 2018. A group of KMB bus drivers behind a strike over the weekend have said they will take no further action after talks with management resulted in a “preliminary success.” The alliance were demanding that a bus drivers’ review system be scrapped; that KMB and the government do more to educate passengers on bus etiquette; and for the views of low-level bus drivers to be heard when the company formulates policies. (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. February 27, 2018. Previously small businesses in Kowloon City were upset that their street had been blocked off for MTR construction for over four years. Their income suffered even as the landlords continued to raise their rents. They decided to seek the help from Kowloon West legislative councilor Claudia Mo. Her first question was; "Are you willing to sleep in the street?" The small businesses only wanted to solve their problem, not to oppose the government or any other organization. So they declined Mo's suggestion. They went to look for a pro-establishment legislative councilor to help them. A press conference was held, and got some short reports in the back pages of newspapers. The landlords kept raising rent, the MTR continued to block off the street and their business did not improve. This is not to say the pro-establishment legislative councilors are useless. I only want to say: "The crying child will get the candy." Because you won't roll on the ground in a hissy fit, everybody knows that you will eventually calm down. Therefore they will ignore you and this affair will be forgotten soon. Or perhaps, it should be said that nobody paid any attention all along. I am bringing this up because of the recently hot KMB bus driver Yip Wai-lam. This Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers was founded five days ago. There are fewer than 10 core members and it is not known whether they are registered yet. The founder Yip Wai-lam instigated a 30-minute strike on Saturday evening. She told bus drivers to stop on the roadside at 8pm and honk for 10 seconds. This strike is holding the passengers hostage. If the buses stop on expressways, it may be dangerous. If the buses stop in a busy street, it may create traffic congestion. In the end, only five buses took part, including the founder Yip Wai-lam and her husband who is also a bus driver. There were more politicians present than bus drivers. There was Lee Cheuk-yan, who is always present at strikes. There is Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung who has almost been forgotten ever since he lost his Legco seat, there was the disqualified legislative councilor Lau Siu-lai who has moved in on bus drivers after being done with small vendors. There was the Civic Party airline pilot Jeremy Tam. There was Ray Chan Chi-chuen. There was Tam Tak-chi who has yet to make the big time ... There were also other people from People Power, Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre, League of Social Democrats, Shopping Revolutionaries, ... Once you saw this cast of characters, you understand immediately just who is stoking the fire. The next morning, the newspapers focused on female bus driver Yip Wai-lam for the failed strike. This Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts graduate is a legend already for choosing to drive a bus over singing Cantonese opera. The Yellow Media kept filing stories to promote the strike. RTHK made 9 posts in 10 hours to help promotion. RTHK even invited Yip and her husband to appear live on the television. When you have the Yellow Ribbon Media on your side, it is so easy to be red hot. First you cry, then you holler, then you roll on the ground. This is the formula for success in Hong Kong. On camera, the female bus driver cried as she said that she is psychologically prepared to be dismissed. Don't worry, because the company won't dare to dismiss you when you have the yellow-colored protective umbrella. Even if you are dismissed, it is just another step up as you become a headline figure who will sweep into the next Legislative Council. (Headline Daily) The Goddess Project. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. February 27, 2018. ... The latest God/Goddess Making projection is unbearable to watch because it is built upon the 19 dead people in the KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) bus disaster. By using Whatsapp groups, the KMB bus driver Yip Wai-lam established an Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers in a matter of five days and drew the media limelight. She was able to hijack the opinions of 8,000 fulltime bus drivers. She also held a massive strike of 5 bus drivers. Yesterday she occupied the KMB bus depot while issuing an ultimatum for KMB to respond to her demands by 2am or else she cannot exclude the possibility of escalated actions. Siege, occupation, ultimatum ... plus Yip Wai Wai-lam's closing to the remark to the press: "We won't forget our original intention." This is a familiar script. Once you add the phrase "Resister bus driver", the Goddess Project can begin. KMB has almost 9,000 full-time and part-time bus drivers. There are five active labor unions at this time: the Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch (Federation of Trade Unions), the KMB Workers General Union (Hong Kong and Kowloon Trades Union Council), the KMB Employees Union, the Staff Rights Association of KMB and the KMB Staff Union (Confederation of Trade Unions). More than 90% of the KMB workers are members of the first two, so the management has always conferred with these two unions over matters such as salary and benefits. How should management deal with the demands from the various labor unions? There are already five unions. Today Yip Wai-lam has just established a sixth one: the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers.. Tomorrow someone is going to start a Concern Group For Bus Drivers Born During the 1970's. The day after tomorrow someone else is going to start a Male Bus Drivers' Grand Alliance. If each union issues three demands, that will be 24 demands in total, some possibly in conflict with others. How is management supposed to please everybody? At the press conference, Yip Wai-lam had Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai, Jeremy Tam, Tam Tak-chi standing behind her ... Yip Wai-lam had graduated from the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts in 2014, the year of Occupy Central, and made a decision to become a bus driver instead of an actress. Everything fits. You know what that means. Whether this action succeed or fail is immaterial by now. The important thing is that the Opposition has successfully created another Goddess. (SCMP) March 6, 2018. Protesters late on Tuesday night staged a sit-in at a depot of Hong Kong’s largest bus company after KMB sacked a driver who led an impromptu strike last month. A KMB spokesman said Yip Wai-lam had stopped driving without authorisation during the strike, threatening the safety of passengers and other road users. The company said it had decided to take disciplinary action by terminating her employment. Yip’s husband, also a KMB driver, and two other drivers who took part in the strike, were also fired for “serious violations”. Yip, the leader of the newly formed Full-time KMB Driver Alliance, which claims to represent 1,000 full-time drivers, was paid compensation of about HK$76,000 in lieu of notice, but she refused to sign the agreement. Yip’s husband also refused to sign a similar agreement. Late into the evening on Tuesday, about 50 members of the public and a number of pro-democratic political parties went to KMB’s depot on Stonecutters Island to show their support for Yip. They included at least six KMB drivers and two representatives from the Staff Rights Association of KMB and the KMB Staff Union. They staged a sit-in at the depot and called for other KMB drivers to join in. “If we don’t come out, we will be finished,” Yip said. “Hong Kong bosses will be able to do whatever they like to their employees.” Yip said they were demanding KMB withdraw the decision to fire her, her husband and the other two drivers, and agree not to “crack down on unions”. One KMB driver at the sit-in said he supported Yip because she was helping others. “I’m not worried about consequences,” said the driver, who had been at the company for two years. “You can find a similar job easily but you can’t find another person brave enough to speak out for us.” Another driver, who had been with KMB for seven years, said: “[Yip] was doing the right thing in fighting for reasonable treatment for us. It’s not about money. It’s about the system and whether it’s fair to everybody.” Yip said she had not been assigned any shifts since the strike and management had told her to wait at the company premises on Tuesday before informing her she was being fired because of the strike. “I think the public can see clearly [if this is retaliation],” she said. Yip and her husband had been working at KMB for five years. They turned in their staff cards but refused to sign the agreement or accept the compensation cheque, she said. Her union would discuss with other KMB unions what to do next, and she hoped the Labour Department would intervene, she added. “Although I’ve lost a job and I will miss my colleagues, I have done my duty,” she said. “To be able to have achieved this, I have no regrets in my life.” She said she and her husband had expected the consequences of their industrial action, but they were saddened that other drivers had to suffer because of it. (SCMP) March 7, 2018. Hong Kong's largest bus company on Wednesday put on hold its decision to sack four drivers for taking part in an impromptu strike last month, hours after the dismissal prompted a sit-in protest at one of its depots. The U-turn was announced in the early hours of Wednesday after KMB management held an emergency meeting with the protesting drivers. The four drivers, who included the leader of the strike, Yip Wai-lam, were told that they would continue to receive their pay and that KMB would launch a review of the dismissal decision as soon as possible. Lam Tsz-ho, deputy head of KMB’s communications and public affairs department, said the decision to suspend the dismissal was made after the drivers appealed against the move. He said the appeal would be handled by an independent committee according to the established procedure. Announcing the decision to her supporters after the meeting, Yip said: "Justice will last and truth will be supported”. Internet comments: - But the Yellow Ribbon media won't tell you this: (TVB) February 27, 2018. The Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch with 8,000+ members met with three members of the investigative committee of independent KMB board directors and presented a list of recommendations including pay raise for bus drivers. According to Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch first vice-president Cheung Tin-kei, "$19,000/month is not asking too much. It is fair. It is just that the pay was too low in the past." Cheung said: "We post notices each time after we meet with the management. Our executive committee members are elected by our union members on a one-person-one-vote basis. We have representativeness. We are open. We do not run black box operations." Cheung said that the strike by this Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers lacked justification. The KMB Workers General Union with almost 2,000 members also met with the managemen. They presented demands such as pay raises and scheduling. The KMB Workers General Union chief executive Wong Sing-cheung said that the strike by this Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers was illegal and lacked justification. Nobody cares about the big two unions because they don't have a hysterical spokeswoman whose repertoire includes many moods (from despair to solemnity to jubilation). - (Facebook video) The screaming woman puts on a show for RTHK. Are you really going let her drive a bus carrying more than 100 passengers? - She is implying that if you don't give a hefty pay raise to the bus drivers, many more citizens will be killed. - A bravura performance indeed, but somewhat over the top for my taste. - Fans of Yip Wai-lam:

Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats), Jeremy Tam (Civic Party), Tam Tak-chi (People Power), Lau Siu-lai - (Silent Majority HK) February 27, 2018. The Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers and the KMB Employees Union called for a wildcat strike at 8pm on February 24. The action was: "Drive your bus to the roadside and turn on the emergency signal. Stay put for 30 minutes. Sound your horn for 10 seconds. During this time, you can leave one lane open for emergency and other vehicles." The instigator was intercepted at the bus terminal and her bus was taken away from her. The strike did not take place because the other four labor unions refused to support it. On the surface, this was a strike by workers to protest against the company. But this is in truth a contest among the various KMB labor unions. At present, there are five labor unions. the larest is the Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch of the pro-establishment Federation of Trade Unions with more than 6,000 members. The third largest is the KMB Staff Union of the non-establishment Confederation of Trade Unions with more than 1,200 members. Together, these two unions account for more than 90% of KMB bus drivers. The Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers claimed to have more than 1,000 members in just two to three days using Whatsapp groups. If true, then they are highly successful because the KMB Staff Union could only manage to get 1,200 members after many years. But this claim is dubious because they are saying that anyone who joins any of the Whatsapp groups are full members of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. Their nominal ally, the KMB Employees Union, is a small union whose web page is blank. The Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers said that they are taking action because the KMG management is only talking with the large unions and has not "consulted" every single KMB worker. Well, do you really expect management to talk to every single worker? If this is not feasible, then who can they talk to other than the two large labor unions who account for more than 90% of the workers? Although there is no evidence that this labor strife was manipulated by political parties, many opposition figures have shown up including Jeremy Tam, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, etc. Afterwards, the KMB management arranged for Yip Wai-lam to attend a meeting with the management and the two largest labor unions. Yip declined because KMB has not recognized the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. Well, the two labor unions are properly established and registered organizations. Do you think that a Whatsapp group should be accorded the same status as them? - (Silent Majority HK) February 26, 2018. This KMB affair was populist farce. It is reasonable for workers to strive for higher pay and better working conditions. Negotiations between management and labor over these issues take place every day all over the world. But this time, some KMB bus drivers exploited the 19 deaths from the Tai Po bus disaster to demand pay raises because "safe driving can only take place if the bus drivers are emotionally stable." They imposed a deadline for management to respond or else they would blockade the bus terminals. This is exactly the same tactic used in Occupy Central wherein you issue a demand that must be completely accepted within a short time frame or else you will "take action." The demands were issued on Friday afternoon. The bus driver strike began at 8pm on Saturday evening. In the end, about 5 bus drivers joined the strike. If there weren't any traffic police officers around, the Tsim Sha Tsui East bus terminal would have been "occupied" (blockaded) by these five irresponsible people. It is unseemly, even immoral, to leverage the passengers in order to get a pay raise for yourself. It is reasonable for bus drivers to ask for higher pay and better conditions. But they should not using the citizens of Hong Kong as their pawns in the game. The citizens are sympathetic with their demands, but not if the citizens are going to be used as bargaining chips. Yip Wai-lam of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers jumped out and started with: "Bus drivers must be emotionally stable in order to drive safely." Does she imply that if the bus drivers don't get a huge raise, then they won't "drive safely"? It is blackmail? Under any circumstance, the safety of the passengers should be the top priority for bus drivers! When someone says "Bus drivers must be emotionally stable in order to drive safely," it is actually an insult of the majority of the professional KMB bus drivers. This explained why so few bus drivers heeded the call of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers to strike. With respect to emotional stability, Yip Wai-lam ran through the gamut of emotional expressions on television. At various points, her veins were popping up, or tears covered her face, or she hollered uncontrollably. Her emotional instability really makes one question whether she is suitable to drive a bus. When her EQ (Emotional Quotient) is so poor and when she seems to have no control over her own emotions, should the lives of more than a hundred bus passengers be placed in her hands? Shouldn't KMB get a doctor to assess her emotional state first before they let her drive again? Hey, those passengers taking the 234X bus had better pay extra attention. - (Silent Majority HK) March 1, 2018. The problem with this production directed by Yip Wai-lam is that there are not enough actors. The principal actor is always herself. The supporting cast consisted of her husband and fewer than ten other faceless bus drivers. This is not enough even for three tables of mahjong. She called themselves the Grand Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. How grand can this be? What percent of the almost 10,000 bus drivers do they represent? This is the first reason why this is a farce. From the first day, Yip kept releasing to the media in the name of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. There would be a strike by bus drivers, the bus terminals would be blockaded, the action will be escalated ... It was the same as Occupy Central, only that the word "occupy" had not been invoked yet. Like Occupy Central, this was hijacking the interests of the citizens for their own purposes. Yip also dressed up to the tilt with face powder, mascara, earrings, nail polish, lipstick, etc to meet the press. This is more an entertainment show than a labor strike. This is the second reason why this is a farce. The Alliance called on all bus drivers to either blockade the bus terminals if they are there or else stop by the roadside wherever they were at the time. This is not a labor strike. This is hooliganism. They want a pay raise. Fine, but why paralyze the transportation system for the public? This is the third reason why this is a farce. The list of ever changing demands is also risible. At first, the Alliance demanded the base pay of KMB bus drivers be raised to $15,000. But it was disclosed that the base pay of KMB bus drivers already exceeds this amount. So Yip immediately switched to three brand new demands: (1) cancel the annual review for bus drivers; (2) increase cooperation between KMB and the government to promote respect for bus drivers; (3) KMB must promise to discuss important issues with the bus drivers. Well, this is like asking people to admit that your mother is a woman. This was simply pointless. This is the fourth reason why this is a farce. The worst part is for Yip to suggest that the "pay raise" is linked to "safe driving by emotionally stable drives." Most KMB bus drivers refuse to play this game, and they will not blackmail citizens with such lack of professionalism and morality. After Occupy Central, the people of Hong Kong are wary of such tactics. So the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers and Yip Wai-lam were doomed to come to a bad end. - (Ta Kung Pao) February 27, 2018. Yip Wai-lam was supposed to meet with the KMB management yesterday afternoon. But Yip said that the KMB management is taking the position that the meeting is with individual employees and not with representatives from the Alliance of Paid-Monthly Bus Drivers as such. Therefore she has angrily canceled the meeting. At around 4pm, about 30 persons who are supposedly bus drivers sat outside the KMB headquarters in Kowloon Bay to demand a meeting with the KMB management. Yip Wai-lam listed three demands and said that they will escalate action if they don't get a response by 2am. In the evening, it was said that Yip and her husband will meet as individuals with KMB management at 930pm. But before going into the meeting, Yip said that she is attending the meeting as a representative of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. KMB management told us that they will not yield to the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. The meeting was an occasion for them to re-iterate their position. They said that they will follow the normal procedures by consulting with the two labor unions before finalizing on pay raises, bonuses, etc. - (Ta Kung Pao) February 27, 2018. Yesterday a bus driver posted a placard in front of his seat: "Ms. Yip does not represent me. I will drive safely to serve the citizens." - The Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers have 1,000 members by using Whatsapp groups over just five days. But who are these 'members'? Are they really bus drivers? Or reporters? - (Ming Pao) February 27, 2018. Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch chief executive Wong Sing-cheung said that KMB management recognizes only two labor unions at this time. If Yip Wai-lam really has 1,000 supporters for the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers, she should really channel her demands through the MTWGU-KMB run to become the chief executive of the Motor Transport Workers General Union's KMB branch. - Photo taken next to the driver's seat on a KMB bus

The Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers does not represent me. I support the company's proposal to improve salaries. - (Silent Majority HK) February 27, 2018. Yesterday Yip Wai-lam had set a deadline of 2am for the KMB management to respond to the three demands made by the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers. She said that she has multiple industrial actions planned. At around 2am, she announced that the KMB management has taken positive steps, so the Alliance will stop all industrial actions. At around 4am, Yip said that she is "very fatigued" after the actions over the past several days. She needed rest, so she and her bus driver husband Lau Cheuk-hang will take a day off tomorrow to rest. She said that she will not be doing media interviews for now. Well, what could she do when nobody supports her? Two to three other bus drivers supported her attempt to occupy the Tsim Sha Tsui East bus terminal. A single hand cannot make a clapping sound. So she has unilaterally declared victory and gone back home. - What industrial actions were being planned? It is said that Yip Wai-lam and friends are going to call in sick! (Oriental Daily) February 26, 2018.

When asked, Yip Wai-lam said that some members of the Whatsapp group has proposed to call in "sick" on March 1. Yip said that she cannot stop Alliance members from thinking whatever they want to think. - What is the point of escalation? In the Tai Po disaster, it is said that the bus driver came in late and got chewed out by the passengers. So he drove very fast to take out his anger. Now, if some bus drivers call in "sick," it is going to upset some passengers who will take it out on the working bus driver who is going to get upset and then he will step hard on the gas pedal ... whatever happens will be the fault of KMB management! - (Speakout HK) March 2, 2018. The previously unknown female bus driver Yip Wai-lam became a labor movement leader overnight. She declared herself to be the convener of an Alliance of Monthly-paid Bus Drivers, which works via Facebook/Whatsapp and which does not have registration procedures or membership numbers. She demanded to speak with KMB and she organized a bus driver strike in order to leverage the passengers to force KMB to come to the table. When the bus drivers gave her the cold treatment, Yip refused to accept defeat and used the media shows to keep rising up. On RTHK, Yip held a dialogue with KMB Communications and Public Affairs deputy manager Lam Tsz-ho. She became more and more excited and linked the demand for pay raises with the Tai Po incident. She hijacked 19 deaths to coerce KMB. Then she switched the subject and took the side of the bus driver who is suspected of driving dangerously to cause the 19 deaths. She sighed: "He is only 30 years old and he has to go to jail!" Her logic is very confused. When she found out that KMB was willing to meet with her only as an individual bus driver and not as the representative of the Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers, she immediately called off the meeting and threatened to escalate the industrial actions. On the same day, she realized that KMB is not going to budge and she reversed course quickly and went with her husband to meet the KMB management. She said that the only important thing was to have a meeting and their status was unimportant. Yip Wai-lam is disgusting because she is hijacking the 19 deaths as well as passenger interests to satisfy her own interests. - (HKG Pao) March 3, 2018. Alliance of Monthly-Paid Bus Drivers convener Yip Wai-lam went on strike on February 24. On February 27, she and her husband requested three days' leave. Yesterday they went back to work and found out that they were not assigned to drive for the month of March. So they were go to the company office and sit around. Internet users praised KMB, because they felt that persons who are emotional unstable should not be allowed to drive buses. - (Oriental Daily) March 7, 2018. A bus driver named Yan has been with KMB for almost three years. He said: "We only earn about $15,000 per month. Even female dishwashers at tea restaurants make as much. The company keep repeating that we are professionals, but we make almost the same as tea restaurant female dishwashers! Wow! That's very professional." - Yet another clueless Yellow Ribbon zombie. Recently singer Hins Cheung spoke about his new restaurant in Wan Chai. His biggest complaint was that he cannot find dishwashers even at an offered salary of $20,000 per month. Why? Because the work is hard, the conditions are terrible and the hours are long. That is why their salaries keep rising. Meanwhile there are plenty of McJobs around that pay $7,000 per month. University graduates starting as interns at the big banks get $10,000, and only $8,000 as cub news reporters. - Everybody knows that the best job in Hong Kong is Police Inspector: Degree with a pass at “Level 1” or above in 'Use of Chinese' and 'Use of English' in the Common Recruitment Examination, or equivalent HK$43,350 - $80,965. - The response by KMB to the various actions can only be described as bizarre. They always come out swinging hard (e.g. dismiss Yip Wai-lam and her husband for violation of employee discipline and putting passengers/public in safety risk) and then they immediately retreat upon resistance (e.g. re-instating Yip and her husband because of protests). The simplest explanation is this: the public face of KMB is Lam Tsz-ho, KMB Communication and Public Affairs Department vice-president. Lam was a TVB reporter who has participated many times in the July 1st protest marches. So every decision by the KMB management was sabotaged by this Yellow Ribbon mole from the inside! [869] Freedom of Academic Research (2018/02/27) Here are some cases in which the human rights of academic researchers are being violated in Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily) February 27, 2018. On August 17, 2017, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal to lengthier jail terms. At the time, a number of people turned out to support the three. 40-year-old former Chinese University of Hong Kong Department of Philosophy part-time lecturer Wong Sum-lung was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer. Today the trial took place in Eastern District court. Police sergeant Tam Tsz-chung testified that he was in charge of crowd control at the scene. He observed the defendant Wong Sum-lung using his right hand to grab the right arm of a female police officer. Tam asked Wong: "What are you bothering my colleague?" Tam said that Wong turned around and pushed him. Tam felt some pain in his chest upon the contract. He went to get a medical examination at the hospital that same day, but no sign of injury was found. A number of videos were show in court. The defendant was seen in the crowd. An old lady carrying a yellow umbrella was being jostled by the police. The defendant wanted to get close to the old lady, but the police kept him away. There was physical contract between the defendant and a uniformed male police officer. During cross examination, the defense claimed that the defendant Wong never pushed Tam who wanted to go and protect the yellow umbrella lady. But Tam kept pushing Wong away. Wong was only struggling. Tam agreed that he was trying to prevent Wong from getting close to the old lady and that there was physical contact. But Tam denied that he pushed Wong. Tam also said that the videos did not show the old lady being pushed away by a male police officer in white uniform. Tam said that he did not see this himself either. Wong was arrested 18 minutes after the incident. The defense claimed that Tam did not make an arrest immediately because he was not sure whether Wong intentionally assaulted him. Tam denied this to be the case. The defense said that Wong never grabbed the arm of the female police officer. Wong only wanted the female police officer not to take away the old lady. But Wong was pushed away by Tam and other male police officers. Tam denied this to be the case. (Oriental Daily) February 27, 2018. Wong testified on his own behalf in court today. He said that he made contact with the arm of the female police officer when he tried to protect the old lady with the yellow umbrella. And then he pushed the police sergeant as an instinctive reaction in self-defense. He said that he did not intentionally commit any assault and that the police sergeant was being over-sensitive. Today the court found that the evidence exists in the case of Wong Sum-lung allegedly assaulting a police officer. Internet comments: - This is yet another example in which academic dissidents are being persecuted in and out of academia. Wong Sum-lung has been persecuted ceaselessly by the Hong Kong Communist Government Public Security Bureau over the years. Here are some previous incidents: (Wen Wei Po) May 25, 2015. On October 1, 2009, Radio Free Asia reported that a number of protestors from the China-Uyghur-Tibet Unity Association assembled in front of the Chinese Embassy, with a University of Essex student named Wong from Hong Kong saying that he "felt guilty as a Han person about the treatment of minority groups." (Wen Wei Po) May 25, 2015. On May 13 in Central, someone wrote "Immoral Evil Police" on the side of a parked police car in Central District. The police checked the surveillance videos and arrested 38-year-old man Wong Sum-lung in his apartment in Central District. The police also found a "Duty Log" used by the police in his apartment. Wong was charged with criminal damage of property and theft. According to information, Wong is a part-time staff member in the Department of Humanities and Creative Writing at Baptist University. Wong has bachelor and master degrees in the United States and a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. (HK01) August 1, 2016. 39-year-old Wong Sum-lung pleaded guilty to stealing a police duty log. The defense pleaded that Wong committed the crime in order to cause trouble for the police. His parents wrote to the judge that their son is too tense and stubborn, and that they will do their best to make sure that their son does not stray in the future. The magistrate imposed a fine of $3,000. The defendant has a prior criminal record of causing personal injury in year 2000, for which he was fined $4,000. - Wong Sum-lung is a pro-democracy freedom warrior. Charging him with these crimes is damaging Hong Kong's reputation as an international financial center with rule-of-law. - In April 2014, Wong Sum-lung held a seminar on "Foucault the Darwinianor How to Philosophize in the Wake of God’s Death" at Baptist University. This showed that his knowledge spans sociology, philosophy and religion. But Baptist University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong would only hire him as a part-time staff member and then they terminated him. - Wong Sum-lung is a 40-year-old unemployed adult male who was a part-time lecturer at Baptist University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. What has his case got to do with freedom of academic research? - Given his curriculum vitae, Wong Sum-lung probably suffers from some form of socio-psychopathology. He is not unintelligent, because he has a doctorate. But he can't seem to get a job. When he manages to procure a part-time job, the employer won't renew the contract. At this stage in life, he is unemployed and unemployable. How much longer can his parents support him? - (Oriental Daily) February 27, 2018. At a prayer meeting organized by the Justice and Peace Committee of the Catholic Church, Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee said he had visited many social activists in jail including Joshua Wong and Alex Chow. He said that "it was beneficial to them to be in jail." So what was Wong Sum-lung protesting about? Why did he want to stop a good thing?

- (Ming Pao) February 6, 2018. On the HKBU SU Democracy Wall, a marketing student Yeung Po-san posted a photo of HKBU assistant professor and HKBU Faculty and Staff Union chairman Benson Wong Wai-kwok waving both middle fingers under the subject: "Foul-mouthed university trustees: More than one!?" When asked about the photo, Wong said that this photo was taken at a private gathering. "I can't see what action the university can take. Unless the university wants to interfere with my private life, there is no reason for them to take any action." Wong said that he will seek legal assistance if he feels that any university action is infringing on his freedom of academic research. With respect to the photo, Wong said: "If anyone feels offended, then I express my deep regrets." Wong has asked the student Yeung Po-shan where she got the photo and why she posted it on the Democracy Wall. Yeung has not responded yet.

- HKBU should provide legal assistance to student Yeung if she feels that Professor Wong is interfering with her freedom of academic research. - Wong Wai-kwok is being accused of: (1) supporting Occupy Language Centre by the foul-mouthed students (2) supporting the proposed student strike (3) promoting Occupy Central in classrooms (4) linking up with pro-Taiwan independence organizations (5) promoting open discussions of Hong Kong independence on university campus This is a violation of Wong Wai-kwok's freedom of academic research as well as his personal freedom of expression. (Ming Pao) February 26, 2018. Hong Kong Baptist University Department of Government and International Studies assistant professor and Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union chairman Benson Wong Wai-kwok has just been informed that his contract will not be renewed. In 2016, Wong applied twice to renew his contract as an assistant professor. But the university changed the application to "associate professor" instead and then rejected him on the grounds that his research did not meet the university's requirements. However, Wong was given one-year contract extensions. This year, the university did not bring up his contract renewal as assistant professor. So he applied for "senior lecturer" instead. But yesterday the university informed him that his application was rejected and his current contract will not be renewed. His last day will be August 31. Wong said that the outcome was "expected." As union chairman, he has dealt with various cases of union members being "bullied." Therefore the university regards him as a thorn in the side. But he said that the university imposed a new requirement this year that anyone who wants to become Senior Lecturer must be rated as "excellent" in student evaluations, thus excluding him. He does not understand why the university terminated his contract directly. He said that his case will make his colleagues fearful to speak out. (Hong Kong Free Press) February 27, 2018. The chair of the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union has to leave his job by end of August as he has not been offered a contract extension. Benson Wong Wai-kwok, an assistant professor at the Department of Government and International Studies, said he was not surprised by the decision since he was no friend to the management. Wong is also a member of the governing council elected by staff members. “In the eyes of the university, I am a troublemaker,” he told HKFP. “If my fight for colleague’s benefits as the chair of the union offends the powerful, it is not only suppression, but revenge.” Wong supported students who were suspended for protesting against a Mandarin language requirement exam at the university, before the suspensions were lifted. Wong also comments regularly on the university’s labour issues on media. Wong had been teaching in the university since 2010. In 2016, he said that he had asked for an extension of his assistant professor role, but the university “unilaterally” changed his application to a higher-level position of associate professor, which was not approved because he did not fulfil research requirements. He then applied for the associate professor role, as well as an extension to his assistant professor role at the same time. But Wong said only the promotion request was handled. The extension request was denied again. Recently, Wong sought to switch roles from assistant professor to senior lecturer – a teaching job without research requirements: “I switched track because I refused to play the game of the academic factory anymore – it measures academic achievement only by English journal articles and research funding,” he told HKFP. “Even though the teaching burden would be higher, I could write in Chinese to create more local impact in society and communities.” But on Monday, Wong was notified that the request was denied by the Faculty Review Panel. He said superiors told him that a new requirement for the senior lecturer role demanded evidence of outstanding teaching – thus he was denied.

“If the requirements were raised, they could have recommended not offering a senior lecturer role and offered a lecturer role instead. It was not considered at all – they obviously want me to go as soon as possible,” he added. Wong said he will ask for the report to understand the reasons his request was denied. Internet comments: - Benson Wong Wai-kwok is the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union chairman who was elected by the staff members. Therefore not renewing his contract is a slap in the face for the entire academic staff, who should be rising up in anger. It is also an act of intimidation against the entire staff by punishing their elected leader who speaks out for them. Hereafter people will be fearful. - The Hong Kong trade union movement is pathetic. If we have universal suffrage in Hong Kong, we can have trade unions that are up to American standards. According to National Review, "Timothy Canoll, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, earned more than US$775,000 last year. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers President Newton Jones came close at US$756,973, while Laborers' International Union President Terence O'Sullivan made nearly $718,000 in total compensation." Furthermore American union presidents work for their respective unions, and hence cannot be personally threatened with dismissal by any employer. So the best thing here is for the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union to hire Benson Wong as their chairman the day after the current contract runs out. After all, they need someone to speak for them and Benson Wong has shown us that he is the best possible person. - (Hong Kong Free Press) February 27, 2018. A Baptist University spokesperson told HKFP: “The University adheres to its established procedures and policies in the review of academic staff members’ performance and their re-appointment, and the focus of the review includes teaching, research and service of the staff, as well as the manpower needs and financial situation of the faculty/department. The University will not disclose details of individual staff members’ reviews and contracts out of the respect for their privacy.” - This means that Benson Wong can say anything that he wants about this case without fear of being contradicted by the university. - (Ming Pao) February 26, 2018. Benson Wong said that there must be a connection between the non-renewal of his contract and the photo of his two middle fingers on the HKBU Democracy Wall. But since the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data is handling the case, Wong will not comment at this time. - What connection is there between his contract and his two middle fingers? Are his research credentials better with or without the two middle fingers? - Hong Kong Baptist University Department of Government and International Studies Benson Wong Wai-kwok Assistant Professor Degrees: B.Soc.Sci in Chinese Studies (History) Hong Kong Baptist University (1994) M.Phil.in Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (1996) Ph.D. in Politics and Public Administration, University of Hong Kong (2007) Teaching experience: Teacher Fellow, Hong Kong Institute of Education (2005-2006) Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism and Communication, Chu Hai College of Higher Education (2007-2008) Part-time Lecturer, Department of Government and Public Administration, University of Macau Assistant Professor, Department of Education Policy and Leadership, Hong Kong Institute of Education (2008-2010) Research experience: Postdoctoral fellow, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Taipei, Taiwan (2007) Centre Research Fellow, Centre for Governance and Citizenship, Hong Kong Institute of Education Here are the obvious problems that an evaluation committee will see: - The normal track for a person entering university is: four year to obtain a bachelor's degree; one year to obtain a master degree; three more years to obtain a doctorate. Wong's record is 2 years to obtain a master degree and then another 11 years to obtain a doctorate. 11 years? Really? Was he dense, or did he take time off? - To say that his research and teaching experiences before coming to HKBU is "undistinguished" is being too kind. Why did HKBU hire him with these kinds of credentials? Is the quality in the market really so poor nowadays? - We can compare Benson Wong's situation to a typical case: The normal research track for a university scholar is 3-5 years as an assistant professor first. This is a probation period for the person to realize his potential which may not be obvious before as a mere student/fellow/postdoc. At the end of the period, the person is promoted to associate professor if he/she meets the standards on research and teaching requirement. If the person fails to meet the standards on research and teaching, the contract will not be renewed. If the person is a good teacher but poor in research, he may be offered an alternate job as lecturer in the teaching track. As associate professor, the person will be given time to consolidate reputation in research. If the person attains international stature, he/she will be promoted to full professor with tenure (lifetime contract). Where does Benson Wong stand? His research as assistant professor was undistinguished in his few years at Baptist University. Therefore he could not be promoted to associate professor. If he was forcibly promoted, it will tarnish the reputations of both the department and the university. The ranking of a university factors in the quality of the research of its staff. Wong realized that his research was not strong. So he said that he wanted to continue being an assistant professor. But that would be blocking the career paths of young people who just got their doctorates. An assistant professorship is not intended for an ambitionless and talentless person to squat for several decades until retirement. If a person is not good enough as a researcher, he/she should make way for others. Therefore, when Wong applied to become assistant professor again, his application was automatically upgraded to associate professor. This is a matter of policy. And he couldn't make the cut. Wong said that he is willing to be demoted from assistant professor to senior lecturer for whom research is less important than teaching. A senior lecturer should excel in teaching. Wong received less than "excellent" in rating from his students. Why should Wong be made a Senior Lecturer over better teachers? Just because he is the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union chairman? - What can Benson Wong do? If he thinks that he has enough support, he can mobilize to "Occupy" the office of the HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong to renew Wong's contract. But that would truly be an example of rule-of-man overriding the freedom of academic studies and institutional autonomy.

[868] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 13B (2018/02/20) Previous: The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 13A (Oriental Daily) February 20, 2018. The High Court formed a jury pool of 105 citizens. About 77 of them were interviewed before a nine-person jury of 4 men and 5 women was formed. Before the process began, Judge Anthea Pang instructed the jury that this case has been widely reported in the media with plenty of online discussion. Jury members may have heard about these matters or otherwise formed their personal opinions. But as jury members, they cannot decide on the case based upon their personal views or media reports which may be inaccurate. Instead, they must decide on this case based solely upon the evidence presented during the trial. The judge said that the case is expected to last about 60 working days, ending around mid-May. A number of potential jury members asked to be excused. The successful reasons included: - a man said that he is a university professor who is scheduled to teach and the class cannot be canceled or rescheduled for the students who are all set to graduate. - a woman said that she is the witness in another ongoing case. - a woman said that a family member is a police officer and therefore she may not be fair in spite of the judge's instructions. - a man said that he is a loyal supporter of Hong Kong Indigenous since 2016 and he has donated money to the organization. He said that he cannot look at this case in an unbiased manner. Some rejected reasons included: - a woman said that her Japan electronics company requires her to be in mainland China next month to conduct job appraisals. As the human resources manager, she is the only person qualified to do so. The judge said that he believes that the company can find someone else to perform those duties. - a woman said that she is the secretary for a company that is about to be listed in the stock market. The judge said that her company must be large enough in order to get listed. However, the defense lawyers exercised their right to recuse these two persons. (Oriental Daily) February 21, 2018. The prosecutor Eric Kwok Tung-ming SC said that at about 8pm on February 8, 2016, a Food and Environment Hygiene team of inspectors was enforcing the law on Portland Street, Mong Kok district. They did not expel anyone or issue any summons. At the time, there were vendors in the backlane behind the Shui Hing Mahjong School and people were gathering on Portland Street and Shantung Street. Vehicular traffic continued to flow. At some time after 8pm, the man Ray Wong Toi-yeung wearing a blue Hong Kong Indigenous windbreaker spoke to the vendors, as recorded on video. At around 9pm, vendors began to push their carts out from Nelson Street with persons in the blue Hong Kong Indigenous following them. There was some pushing. At around 10pm, traffic was blocked on Portland Street near Nelson Street. The prosecutor showed the video segments of traffic situation taken by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department from high above. At first, there were no carts on the street. Then a cart carrying stinking tofu appeared, followed by another. When the FEHD inspectors tried to enforce the law, the men in blue windbreakers appeared and surrounded the inspectors. A taxi surrounded by people and unable to move. The prosecutor said that police PTU officers attempted to persuade the people to let the taxi pass. But Ray Wong stood on the top of the van and issued calls to the people with a megaphone. The situation began to go out of control, with some people charging at the police. At around 10pm, some people heeded Ray Wong's orders and let the taxi reverse itself out of the site. Ray Wong continued to tell the crowd to impede the progress of the police. People began to move objects onto the roadway in Shantung Street and Nelson Street. Another video showed the situation outside the SaSa shop outside Langham Place at 9pm. People wearing the blue Hong Kong Indigenous windbreakers raced towards the FEHD inspectors. A vendor pushed his stinky tofu cart at the FEHD inspectors who tried to avoid him. (Oriental Daily) February 21, 2018. The prosecutor showed a video taken at around 1020pm. Ray Wong was standing on top of an electricity box. He used his megaphone to tell the crowd to let the taxi leave, but he also called on the crowd to surround the police. Some people chanted "Evil cops!" But there was also a man who was telling the crowd to leave: "You leave, because business will be great if you leave" and "Leave, because you are not Andy Lau."

After the taxi left, the police moved a platform in to tell the crowd to disperse. People began to throw objects at the police. It was about midnight. The prosecutor retreated in the direction of Shantung Street. The crowd continued to throw objects at them. The police used pepper spray. The police stood off against the crowd at Portland Street and Shantung Street. Ray Wong repeatedly used his megaphone to persuade the crowd to charge at the police. He encouraged them to throw objects at the police. The prosecutor played the relevant video. At around 1147pm, the police attempted to bring a platform in, but the crowd blocked them. A female police officer called out: "Do not charge at the police line!" Ray Wong climbed on the roof of a parked van and used his megaphone to accuse the police of pushing citizens down on the ground. The crowd continued to push forwad. The prosecutor pointed out that someone stuck his head out from the inside of the parked van. That person is defendant #1 Edward Leung Tin-kei. At around 1152pm, the police began to retreat. Ray Wong told the police to retreat and "to stop charging at the citizens." The video showed that at around midnight, people were throwing plastic bottles and other objects at the police at the corner of Portland Street and Shantung Street. The prosecutor said that at around 1am on February 9, someone began to move shields and helmets into the van on top of which Ray Wong was standing. The police sent someone to talk to Wong in order to restore order. But Wong refused to cooperate. Ray Wong and Edward Leung used megaphones to provoke the crowd. The video shown in court has Edward Leung saying: "If you are going to be chased away by these public security/city management people, then you are not Hongkongers. If you are Hongkongers, you will stay here to defend our culture and our city ... their salaries are paid with taxes from the people of Hong Kong. They should be serving us. If you don't want to obey the public security/city management, you stay around. We the Hong Kong Indigenous will stay here." (Oriental Daily) February 21, 2018. The prosecutor said that the crowd was not merely pushing and shoving the police. Instead they were holding shields and rods and cursing out the police with foul language. Ray Wong and Edward Leung used their megaphones to incite the crowd to charge at the police. On the order of Ray Wong, people stabbed at the police with their rods and threw objects. The police took action and pushed the crowd back up Portland Street towards Argyle. The time was almost 2am.

The prosecutor showed video segments taken by the police. At around 130am, people holding shields and rods showed up. Some people were throwing objects at the police. The police issued the so-called "334" order, wherein they issued an order to disperse, then another order three minutes later to disperse or else action will be taken in 4 minutes' time. They also told a man wearing glasses, blue Hong Kong Indigenous windbreaker and surgical mask to stop inciting the crowd. The man said: "We are holding an election campaign rally." The police asked him not to incite the crowd. The man used his megaphone to respond: "We are not inciting anything. We are holding an election rally. The Public Safety Ordinance permits us to do this. Fuck your mother!" The prosecutor said that the man was defendant #1 Edward Leung Tin-kei. Another man then said: "If you want to play games, then we Hongkongers and Hong Kong Indigenous will play alone with you." The prosecutor said that this man was Ray Wong Toi-yeung. This man also said that if the police have the ability, they can arrest everybody. The prosecutor asked the jury: "You can all see that if Leung and Wong were holding an election rally, would they be telling the police to arrest everybody if they can." The prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether the words of the two were matched by their actions. (SCMP) February 23, 2018. As Hong Kong prosecutors wrapped up their opening statement for a high-profile riot trial on Thursday, their allegations against five men – including one well-known pro-independence activist – gave a vivid picture of the violent unrest that unfolded in Mong Kok two years ago. While the city celebrated the Lunar New Year, a crowd clashed with police on February 8, 2016, and the mayhem stretched into the night, only ending the next morning and obstructing Argyle Street, Fa Yuen Street, Portland Street, and Shan Tung Street in the process. Prosecutors accused Edward Leung Tin-kei, formerly of the pro-independence Hong Kong Indigenous group, together with his colleague Ray Wong Toi-yeung, of inciting a sizeable crowd at Portland Street. Wong is not a defendant in this case. Instead, Leung and four others are facing a host of charges related to the incident, which spilled over to other streets, with bricks, rubbish bins and glass bottles being launched as missiles to target police officers. Some streets were also set on fire, the prosecutors said. Here are their detailed allegations against each defendant: Edward Leung Tin-kei Charges: Leung denied two counts of rioting and one of inciting others to riot. He admitted to one count of assaulting a police officer. Allegations: In the early hours of the stand-off at Portland Street, Leung allegedly incited the crowd using a megaphone. As police intended to clear the street, he told the large crowd that they were not Hongkongers if they found it acceptable that officers from “public security” and the “urban management force” – two security departments from the mainland – could remove them from the streets whenever they wanted to. “If you are a Hongkonger, let’s protect our city and our culture,” Leung told them. Prosecutor Eric Kwok Tung-ming SC argued that Leung committed the incitement charge in a joint enterprise with Wong, the men “complementing each other” when they provoked the crowd that night. The prosecutor also played a video that he said showed Leung being part of a group to hurl a rubbish bin in the direction of police officers on Argyle Street. He then assaulted a police officer. Another officer had to fire a warning shot into the sky. Lee Nok-man Charges: Lee denied one count of rioting. Allegations: Lee, clad in black hoodie and a surgical mask, hurled verbal abuse at police officers during the stand-off at Portland Street. Kwok described his speeches as “outlandish”. When Wong incited the crowd, the prosecutor added, Lee responded positively. Lee was arrested during the incident. Lo Kin-man Charges: Lo denied one count of rioting. Allegations: Nicknamed “Bright”, Lo wore a black cap on the night and wrapped a piece of black cloth around his mouth. During the stand-off at Portland Street, he threw objects in the direction of police on more than 10 occasions, the prosecutor said. As he returned to the same street later that night, he was captured on news footage picking up objects from the floor to throw at police officers. Lam Ngo-hin Charges: Lam denied one count of rioting and one count of taking part in an unlawful assembly. Allegations: The prosecutor said police officers recognised Lam because of the “outstanding” outfit he wore on the night – a pair of grey pants that had a pattern of sea waves. During the stand-off at Portland Street, Kwok said, Lam tried to obstruct police officers when they attempted to bring in a movable stand to broadcast their messages more effectively and urge the crowd to leave. The man was also seen talking to people from Wong and Leung’s group, Hong Kong Indigenous, as he stood at the front of the crowd, Kwok said. Lam was arrested on March 4, a month after the riot. A search of his home turned up the pants and cap he wore on the night, the prosecutor said. Lam Lun-hing Charges: Lam denied three counts of rioting. Allegations: Lam’s first appearance was during the stand-off at Portland Street as caught on camera, according to Kwok. He was later captured throwing objects on Argyle Street, and later, bricks at Shan Tung Street, the prosecutor said. During a later stand-off at Fa Yuen Street after sunrise, Lam was spotted hitting a road sign pole with a brick, Kwok said. He was not immediately taken into custody but was arrested a month later on the same day when Lam Ngo-hin was arrested. A staff member from the government's Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration identified him from the news and called the police. Kwok said he had made certain admissions during interviews with the police. (SCMP) February 22, 2018. Chaotic scenes of hurled bricks, unarmed policemen being attacked and a warning gun shot fired into the sky were relived on Thursday, as prosecutors recounted the mayhem of the Mong Kok riot two years ago. At first,rioters punched and kicked police officers and threw rubbish bins and large crates at them, Eric Kwok Tung-ming SC told the High Court on the second day of his opening remarks. But the situation deteriorated further in the early hours of February 9, 2016, according to videos played in court, as rioters who had dispersed down a side street wielded bamboo sticks and hurled bricks at the officers. Another video showed streets on fire, while a third, shot from the perspective of police, captured someone saying “defeat these rioters”. “I would call it a frantic attack against unequipped officers,” Kwok said. Prosecutors alleged the riot began on the night of February 8 and carried on into the next day, covering Portland Street, Shantung Street, Argyle Street and Fa Yuen Street. Kwok continued to lay down allegations on Thursday, a day after he accused Leung and fellow activist Ray Wong Toi-yeung – who is not a defendant in this trial – of inciting the crowd at Portland Street just before 2am on February 9. He told a panel of nine jurors that they would be presented with injury reports on 13 police officers. While unequipped officers battled rioters on Argyle Street, others with helmets and shields tackled violence on the neighbouring Portland Street, Kwok said. A news clip from the scene at 2am showed about six traffic officers being attacked by a crowd on Argyle Street. One officer fell on the ground while the attack on him continued. Leung was captured launching a rubbish bin into the air before he went on to attack a police officer with a wooden board. He did not dispute his presence on the night, Kwok said. Another officer was shown firing a shot into the sky before pointing his gun at the crowd on Argyle Street. The crowd moved to Nathan Road, a major thoroughfare, while police officers tried to force them onto the smaller Shantung Street nearby, Kwok said. From there, the crowd gathered further weaponry in the form of bamboo sticks and bricks as the riot continued. The flying bricks and jabbing with sticks took place at 4am, as captured in other videos. Kwok said one of the clips was shaky, as the officer who filmed the incident had to dodge about for his safety. The unrest was still continuing at 6am as the protesters and police officers were locked in a stand-off on Soy Street, and were separated by a burning rubbish bin. The noise of the protesters hitting metal fences with bricks was caught on camera. The protesters hurled bricks at the police again when the officers rushed towards them. Kwok told the jury that after viewing all the evidence, it would “not be difficult” for them to conclude that riots and an illegal assembly took place that night. (SCMP) February 23, 2018. A high-profile riot trial involving a prominent Hong Kong pro-independence activist was temporarily disrupted on Friday, after someone claiming to be a mainland tourist took photos from the public gallery while court was in session. Photography is prohibited in all Hong Kong court buildings and so is publication of such photos. There are signs saying so in the court rooms. Any breach will result in a fine of HK$250 according to the Summary Offences Ordinance. But the man took seven or eight photos, and a short video, with his phone camera pointed in the direction of the jury. He then circulated at least one photo on popular Chinese social media app, WeChat, the High Court heard. During the proceedings on the fifth floor of the court building, a witness named Miss Chan saw a man in a red windbreaker sitting next to her take out his phone to photograph the courtroom. “He was talking to others on WeChat and has sent the photo,” she said, when the judge invited her to recount what she saw. The court bailiffs were approached for help and when they questioned the man, they did not take a clear look at the contents of the photos. Neither did they ask him for further details when he claimed he was a tourist from the mainland. The situation brought proceedings to a stop as the court convened a special session to decide what to do to avoid any possible prejudicial effects on the case. The bailiff officers, when called to give their account, said they only knew the man had taken about seven or eight pictures and a short video, and these were subsequently deleted. The officers said they had warned him not to take pictures again, but did not verify his tourist status before letting him go. Madam Justice Anthea Pang Po-kam said it appeared to be an incident caused by curiosity. But she raised concerns that the photos might later resurface on social media. She decided to inform the nine jurors, and allowed the media to report the incident. “It should be someone who is not familiar with the Hong Kong judiciary to have made [this] careless mistake.” Pang said the man also took a picture of the court before the jury entered the room. “I do not think it is targeting the jury,” she told them, asking them not to be worried In response to queries from the Post, a judiciary spokesman said the courts had referred the matter to the police. He did not say if there was a protocol for bailiff officers to follow, and refused to comment on whether the protocol – if it existed – had been fully followed. When the trial resumed after the drama, hawker control officers recalled how people teamed up with street vendors to clash with them during the incident. Lai Yau-yu said it was his day off on February 8, but he went to the scene after receiving messages from police officers telling him that members of Hong Kong Indigenous – a localist group that Leung was then part of – would be there. Assistant hawker control officer Chan Cheuk-bun said that shortly after 9pm, he saw four or five people wearing blue T-shirts bearing the words “Hong Kong Indigenous”. They put on masks at a back alley around Portland Street. He then heard someone urge street hawkers to move to the main road, before onlookers began to hurl verbal abuse at his colleagues. As the crowd later swelled, Cheung Man-ngai, chief hawker control officer, said he saw his colleagues being surrounded by people. A vendor, accompanied by others in blue t-shirts, charged at him with the mobile hawker stall. Cheung later clarified that the street cart did not hit him. (Oriental Daily) February 23, 2018. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department senior inspector Lai Yau-yu was the first witness for the prosecution. Lai testified that he was off duty that night. But at around 8pm, he went down to Portland Street/Shantung Street to visit his colleagues who were on duty. In the backlane behind Shui Hing Mahjong School, a number of cooked food vendors were set up. Due to lack of manpower, the Department tolerated these vendors as long as they did not obstruct vehicular traffic on the main streets. Lai said that there were no vendors on Portland Street at first. At around 940pm, he noticed 8 to 10 men wearing the blue Hong Kong Indigenous jackets going into the backlane behind the Shui Hing Mahjong School. Shortly afterwards, several vendors pushed their carts out onto Portland Street, accompanied by the Hong Kong Indigenous men. The surveillance video in the backlane showed Ray Wong and other persons in the blue Hong Kong Indigenous windbreakers enter the backlane and then the vendors came out on the main street with their carts. Lai followed the vendors down Portland Street to the corner with Nelson Street. There were more than 100 people gathered there. Some of them were cursing out the FEHD workers. One FEHD was injured and had to be taken away by an ambulance. Lai was concerned about his colleagues, so he called the command center to ask for the FEHD workers to be withdrawn. During cross-examination, Lai said that the FEDH workers were harassed during the Lunar New Year of 2015. In 2015, the FEDH met with the Hong Kong Police who told them that Hong Kong Indigenous people may be making trouble in Sham Shui Po and Mong Kok districts on Lunar New Year's Day. So even though Lai was off duty, he went down to Portland Street to see what was going on. Lai admitted that the FEHD did not announced its policy on cooked food vending in the back lanes. He said that the FEHD has an order that unlicensed vendors who block the main streets will be issued summons. (Oriental Daily) February 23, 2018. FEHD chief hawker control officer Cheung Man-ngai testified that he saw about 200 people on Portland Street between Nelson Street and Shantung Street at around 925pm. He called two teams of FEHD workers to stand by. At 942pm, several masked Hong Kong Indigenous members in blue jackets accompanied the vendors to the space outside SaSa on Nelson Street. One vendor selling stinky tofu pushed his cart which has boiling hot oil against the uniformed FEHD workers. The action lasted about 20 seconds. At 945pm, he received news that FEHD workers have been shoved, pushed and had their uniform caps seized. A FEHD worker reported an injury on his left hand. Cheung called 999 for police held. At 952pm, he received orders to gather the FEHD workers outside the MTR station exit on Nelson Street to get ready to leave. At 10pm, the injured FEHD worker was taken to Kwong Wah Hospital by ambulance. Cheung returned to his office. Cheung said that no FEHD workers issued any verbal warnings or written summons or arrested anybody that night. The FEHD did not chase away the vendors. The stinky tofu vendor who rammed the cart against the FEHD workers was later arrested by the police. A video taken by FEHD was shown in court. The vendor carts were pushed down Portland Street in the direction of Nelson Street, with the Hong Kong Indigenous members in tow. Some people told the FEHD workers to leave and "Let them make a living on Lunar New Year's day!" FEHD assistant hawker control officer Chan Cheuk-bun testified that he was ordered at 9pm to patrol Portland Street-Shantung Street in plainclothes. He saw about 15 vendors carts in the backland off Portland Street. About 15 minutes later, the man in the blue Hong Kong Indigenous jacket went into the backlane with more than 10 other persons. He heard people yell: "Let's go! Move them out!" Then the vendors pushed their carts in the direction of Nelson Street down Portland Street. Chan notified his colleagues. The superiors ordered the FEHD workers to retreat. Chan was asked to stay to continue to observe. Chan said people cursing out the uniformed FEHD workers still at the scene. By that time, the cooked food vendors were all over Portland Street. Traffic policemen came to help a taxi which was trapped, but the Hong Kong Indigenous people cursed them out. About 15 minutes later, the taxi backed up and left. (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2018. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department hawker management chief Lau Hong-ying testified that he was on duty in Mong Kok on the day of the incident. He said that he did not chase away, issue tickets to or arrest any hawker that day. At 943pm, Lau heard on walkie-talkie from colleagues seeking help at the SaSa shop. When he got there, he saw this colleagues being surrounded by about 20 people who were cursing in foul language. Some of these people wore blue hooded jackets. He went up to ask these people to calm down. But these people were out of control and pushed him up against the wall. Someone swiped his uniform cap and grabbed his surgical mask. Someone even hit him by hand and kicked him on the right foot. It was chaotic. Lau used his hands to fend off the blows. His left index finger was snapped back and injured. Eventually he got help to leave. He went back to Exit E1 of the Mong Kok MTR station and reported to his superior Cheung Man-ai. Cheung decided to summon an ambulance to take Lau to the hospital. During cross-examination, Lau added that he went into the crowd because he wanted to help his colleagues to leave. But he was not successful. He said that he had no idea what happened and he did not hear anyone say "Not letting people make a living on the first three days of the Lunar New Year" and "Go away." He remembered that someone grabbed his surgical mask. The defense played a video that showed Lau still wearing a surgical mask after he got away from the crowd. "Do you wear two surgical masks?" Lau said that someone grabbed his mask but did not remove it. He sustained injuries on his face. The defense said that the video did not show Lau being in a state of anxiety. Lau demurred and said that he was actually very "worried." (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2018. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department hawker management senior director Hau Ying-cheung testified in the afternoon. Hau said that there were no hawkers on Portland Street around 7pm. At 943pm, about 60 to 70 people gathered at the intersection of Portland Street and Nelson Street, and the hawkers began to come out. He told his colleague Lam Tsz-leung to record the situation with a video-camera. There were five men wearing blue jackets and surgical masks in the crowd. Hau recalled that one hawker pushed a cart carrying boiling hot oil down the street, saying "Make way! Make way!" in accented Cantonese. This person shoved the cart at Lam Tsz-leung and himself. They were forced to retreat. When the person saw them retreat, he continued to push the cart at them. A female FEHD colleague Bao Kwun-yin took over Lam's video-camera and continued to film. Eventually the three of them took shelter behind a street sign post. The hawker stopped. At 953pm, the three received the order to retreat. Hau said that they did not chase away or issue summons to any hawker. - (SocREC video) FEHD inspectors forced to leave. (Oriental Daily) March 1, 2018. Former FEHD hawker management director Yuen Shu-tong testified that he received an order from his superior at 910pm to go in plainclothes with a video-camera to take film at the intersection of Portland Street and Nelson Street. Later his superior to go to the third floor of Langham Place and film Portland Street from above. When the taxi got blocked, he went back downstairs to film until 11pm. A number of videos taken by Yuen were shown in court. At first, traffic was smooth. After 940pm, hawkers began to appear on the roadway. When the video reached 950pm, the prosecutor asked Yuen if traffic was not as smooth because people were present on the roadway. Yuen said: "There is a red traffic light, so the cars stopped! When people walk against the light, the cars will obviously be slowed down." He counter-questioned the prosecutor: "Do you have a driver's license? Do you drive a car?" He said: "Someone was walking against the light. Do you think everybody obeys the rule?" The prosecutor showed more videos, and Yuen confirmed that the cars could not move forward unless they got help. Eventually there were so many people on the roadway that one taxi was trapped and could not proceed. The video showed that the taxi had to reverse itself in order to leave. The prosecutor said that the taxi had to go against traffic. Yuen disagreed and said that this was not going against traffic. However, Yuen also confirmed that this was a one-way street and that the taxi existed using a reverse gear. Yuen said that he continued to film the hawkers until 11pm and then he returned to his office to work. Yuen said that he is sometimes asked to carry out his duties in plainclothes. He normally filmed in the street. He has no idea why his superior wanted him to film from above. (Wen Wei Po) March 1, 2018. Mong Kong district deputy commander senior superintendent Steven Tait testified that he was on duty in plainclothes at 915pm at the intersection of Portland Street and Nelson Street. About 100 persons were represent, including 10 persons in blue jackets. About half an hour later, eight to nine young men led the vendors to push their carts on the roadway. Some people surrounded the FEHD inspectors. About 50 of them yelled and screened. A police chief inspector and a senior superintendent tried to protect the FEHD workers. After the FEDH workers left, about 200 demonstrators got on Portland Street and obstructed traffic. A taxi came by and the crowd blocked its path. A senior superintendent told Tait that someone had called the police already. Traffic police officers and Police Tactical Unit (PTU) members arrived. The traffic police tried to get in, but the crowd yelled at them. Three PTU officers tried to talk to the crowd who yelled back at them. Another superintendent Mok Hing-wing arrived with more than a dozen PTU officers. Tait debriefed Mok about the situation. Mok instructed a female police officer to use a megaphone to ask the crowd to help the trapped taxi. After about 10 minutes, the crowd led the police approach. A traffic police sergeant helped the taxi to back up and leave. Tait said that the PTU officers set up a line along Argyle Street near Langham Place. Tait and Mok discussed the presence of a large group of people. Since there was no scheduled mass assembly, the police decided to use megaphones to ask the crowd to move back onto the sidewalks. The police brought out a tall platform so that the crowd can see who was speaking with the megaphone. The prosecutor asked Tait about Ray Wong's speech. Tait said that he had see Wong many times before. Tait said that he did not understand what Wong was saying, but he felt that the crowd became more excited and violent after Wong's speech. (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2018. Steven Tait continued to testify today. At around 1145pm, the PTU moved a platform into Portland Street. The crowd got angry and began to holler. They threw bottles at the police and they charged at the police line. Ray Wong used a megaphone to yell. The police used pepper spray and batons. Tait walked in between them and said "Stop! Stop!" in Cantonese. The crowd backed up and became more calm. Since the PTU were not equipped at the time, Tait directed the commander to bring helmets and shields to the scene. Tait walked towards Shantung Street where the police line also retreated to. Two more PTU squads arrived. But since the police also had to cope with other Lunar New Year activities elsewhere, there were not many officers available. The newly arrived PTU officers had helmets and round shields. The sight of them infuriated the crowd which threw more bottles at them. Tait said that about 500 people were gathered before the police line. Tait and the commander conferred and concluded that the crowd was obviously violent. So they decided to continue issuing warnings. Tait saw that there were another 70 to 100 people gathered behind the police line on Shantung Street, so that might be another front. At 1pm, that other crowd dispersed. But there were 600 in front of the police line. The crowd threw objects (including ceramic flower pots and plastic bottles) at the police. At 130pm, Tait was standing three meters behind the platform. There was a television cameraman in front of him and a citizen next to him. A piece of cement 18 inches long, 6 inches deep and 2 inches wide flew over from the crowd and hit the citizen next to him. The victim fell down motionless on the ground. Tait thought that the man had been killed. When the police came to take the man away, Tait saw his legs still moving. So the man was still alive. Then Tait heard someone say "3! 2! 1!" and he saw the crowd charge at the police line, hitting the police with rods and throwing bottles. At the time, the PTU team were issued long shields. The commander ordered the police to push towards Argyle Street. (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2018. At the time, the crowd was gathered on Portland Street. Based upon Tait's experience, pushing the crowd towards Argyle Street would make them less confident and hence disperse. The police began to advance at 130pm, and the crowd began to disperse. At 205pm, Tai heart two POP sounds which sounded like gunfire. He learned later that a traffic policeman had fired twice into the air after being attacked. Tait said that this was a serious development and the PTU supervisor asked his team to find out what was going on. The crowd was also curious and they went to Argyle Street too. When Tait got there, he saw the ambulance take away the injured traffic policeman. Tait ordered his officers to investigate and search for the bullets. Tait saw that there were barriers constructed with wooden pallets and garbage cans on Argyle Street near Shanghai Street. So he and other police officers removed. Later he saw wooden pallets and garbage bins on fire near Fife Street. There were about 15 masked young persons near the fire, but he did not see the person(s) who set off the fire. At 230pm, Tait returned to Argyle Street. He learned that a crowd was pushing south from Citibank to block the vehicular traffic lanes on Nathan Road. So he and the other police officers pushed south along Nathan Road towards Dundas Street. Some demonstrators threw red bricks at them from about 30 meters away. There were about 40 to 50 bricks on the ground. Tait arrived at Dundas Street at 330pm, and spoke to the PTU commander about their plans. 30 minutes later, Tait received a call for help from police officers at the intersection of Nathan Road and Shantung Street. He rushed over and found 30 to 40 demonstrators throwing bricks from 40 meters away at police officers near Shantung Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South. About 6 to 7 bricks came flying and hit the police officers on the feet. He led his police officers north while the demonstrators. The PTU commander was hit on the shoulder. Tait saw several police officers form a defense line but they were facing the wrong direction. Therefore they were not aware of the approaching demonstrators. Tait was concerned about them and so he led his police officers back. One young man threw a brick at a policeman next to him. Fortunately this policeman tripped and fell down. The brick missed. Tait tried to apprehend the young man but failed. But Tait arrested another demonstrator. Shortly afterwards the Special Tactical Squad arrived and took over. Tait was back at the police station at 930am. (Oriental Daily) February 2, 2018. During cross-examination, Steven Tai said that he had met with FEHD workers before Lunar New Year's Day. He said that the police would support the FEHD in enforcing law and order. But he said that the hawkers have cooking utensils (such as stoves) which will pose danger to the police as well as the public. So he was not inclined to enforcing the law. But he did not tell FEHD to withdraw if harassed. On that day, Tait deployed 16 uniformed officers to patrol the streets, with another 16 PTU officers roaming. They were not all on Portland Street. Tait said that the crowd was noisy but peaceful on Portland Street between 9pm and 10pm, and he did not ask for reinforcement when FEHD workers were surrounded. Some people blocked a taxi from leaving and another 200 people were gathered outside the cinema in Langham Place. But peace returned. He did not consider the crowd to be violent. There was no urgency to force the crowd to get back on the sidewalk. Tait said that he had about 50 police officers under his command at the time. Tait said that the crowd got excited after Ray Wong addressed them with a megaphone at around 11pm. But peace returned against. At 1145pm, Tait thought that it was time to tell the people to get back on the sidewalk. So he ordered the platform brought into Portland Street. The defense asked Tait whether he considered this action might provoke the crowd. Tait said that there was a chance, but the police cannot decide how people respond. Police training requires them to take risks. Tait said that the police is obliged to inform the crowd about the decision. In the past, certain people could not be prosecuted because the police did not inform them about what was going to happen next. So Tait had no intention of removing the platform even if the crowd became more violent. Tait said that he needed six to seven squads of PTU officers to deal with this number of demonstrators. Tait admitted that he did not realize that his initial judgment that the crowd was "noisy but peaceful" was wrong until the crowd started to charge at the platform. He said that it was unusual for people to throw glass bottles. The defense said that Tait is characterizing the crowd as demonstrators or protestors. Does Tait know what they were protesting about? Tait said that he guessed that they were protecting the law enforcement by the FEHD workers. Later on he found out that they were protesting against the police and the government. (Oriental Daily) March 5, 2018. Did Steven Tait think that forcing the crowd towards Argyle Street would cause a traffic jam? Tait explained that he considered it, but he thought that the crowd would lose confidence and disperse. Tait said that he did not send a squad of police officers to Argyle Street because he did not want to herd the crowd in the direction of a small group of police officers. He was not aware that there was a small group of traffic police officers there. He was surprised afterwards. Tait said that he did not think that the crowd would attack anyone. He admitted that he was wrong and he underestimated the level of violence of the crowd. The defense asked Tait whether the police had sufficient resources to deal with the crowd after they split up. Tait said that he thought he had it, but what happened afterwards was very different from what just took place on Portland Street. Tait never imagined that it would happen. Tait said that the police received information from the Internet that hawkers and their supporters will show up in Mong Kok or Sham Shui Po. Tait defined that there was pre-arrangement. He knew that there were plainclothes police officers posted on building roofs. His primary concern was that more than 50 people were gathered and that a taxi was trapped. He thought that this was where he should be enforcing the law. He said that nobody told him that more than 50 people were gathered for a common purpose, which would make it an unlawful gathering. Did Tait consider withdrawing the police after the taxi was freed? Tait said no. By 130am, the crowd had increased to 600 who were charging the police line and throwing objects. Therefore he decided on clearance. The police had the power to arrest these lawbreakers. He did not tell the police officers what the charges were, but he confirmed that it was an unlawful gathering. Tait said that he never imagined that the level of violence would be so severe. In his entire career with the Hong Kong Police, he had never seen anything as violent as this. (Oriental Daily) March 5, 2018. In the afternoon, Police Tactical Unit Division B commander Mok Hing-wing testified in court. Mok said that he had dinner with this family that night. At about 1010pm, he went down to Portand Street in civilian clothes. At the time, a taxi was surrounded by about 80 people. His uniformed colleagues informed Mok that there was a traffic accident and the traffic police were being obstructed. Mok sent the PTU members to assist but they were booed. Mok said that he recognized Ray Wong who made calls to the crowd which increased to 200 people. Mok reckoned that the crowd was obstructing traffic and participating in an unlawful gathering. After conferring with other senior police offices at the scene, they decided to ask the crowd to leave. The prosecutor showed videos taken between 1020pm and 1035pm when the taxi was still there. Mok identified Ray Wong as speaking to the crowd and defendant Leung Tin-kei also appeared. Mok said that the police made repeated appeals for the crowd to leave without success. Meanwhile Ray Wong appeared to be able to command the crowd. When Wong told the crowd let the taxi leave, the crowd spread to both sides to make way. Apart from hollering in excitement, the crowd also tossed obscene invectives at the police. (Oriental Daily) March 6, 2018. The prosecution played videos that showed that at around 10pm, Ray Wong called the crowd to let the trapped taxi leave. He told people that about 20 police officers are coming down Shantung street. He said: "Put your masks back on!" But someone else said: "Shut up! Exploiter! There is no command post here. Are you the big boss? Who let you be the big boss? Who let you do the talking?" Mok said that at around 11pm, he ordered his colleagues to push the platform from Shantung Street into Portland Street so that the police can call on people to get back on the sidewalks. But when the platform entered Portland Street, the crowd reacted strongly. Some people clashed with the police while others threw objects at the police. The police showed warning banners, applied pepper spray and swung batons. Mok said that the police only had handcuffs, pepper spray and batons on them. They did not have shields or helmets. The video showed at 1147pm, the police moved the platform outside the cinema in Langham Place. At the time, defendant Edward Leung Tin-kei used his back to impede the progress. There were clashes. Ray Wong climbed on the roof of his van and condemned the police for charging in and pushing citizens onto the ground. At the time, Leung was close to the van. Mok said that the situation was chaotic. The crowd threw filled water bottles and trash bins at the police. At around 12 midnight, Mok stood on the platform and called the crowd not to charge the police line. At the same time, he ordered his colleagues to retreat to the intersection of Shantung Street and Portland Street to regroup. Shortly afterwards, the police line pushed in the direction of Argyle Street. He said that the police had to take action to stop the violent action. At around 12 midnight, Mok ordered the PTU squad A and the Kowloon East Emergency Unit to take over. These were equipped with helmets and round shields. He also ordered 1.7-meter-tall long shields to be brought in from the Shek Kip Mei police headquarters. At 1230am, he ordered his colleagues to push the crowds back onto the sidewalks. He told his colleagues to record what was happening for use in future investigations and prosecutions. (Oriental Daily) March 6, 2018. PTU commander Mok Hing-wing continued to testify. He said that the videos showed that someone was transporting helmets and other materials to Ray Wong's van between 12:50am and 1:00am. Some people immediately put on the helmets. Ray Wong used his megaphone to tell the crowd to stay behind and he called the FEHD and Police as "city managers" and "public security." In the video, Wong said: "Tonight, we cannot back off. If we don't show the power of the people of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Communist government will continue to oppress our lieves" and "If you want to play, we the Hong Kong Indigenous will give you a good game." Mok said that at 130am, he ordered superintendent Mak Ning-fung to issue the 334-style warning to tell the crowd to leave. The first two warnings were issued every 3 minutes and the last one after 4 minutes. The crowd booed and then tossed water bottles and even glass bottles at the police. Hong Kong Indigenous supporters warned the police to leave. At the time, these people wore blue jackets, surgical masks and goggles. At 145pm, Ray Wong called "3! 2! 1! Go!" and the crowd charged at the police line. Mok said that when the police pushed towards Argyle Street, someone poured unidentified liquid from a metal can onto the roadway in front of the police line. He had reason to think that this was inflammable liquid, possibly kerosene. He stood on the platform and warn his colleagues to be careful. At 155pm, the police advanced down Portland Street and reached Nelson Street. Some members of the crowd charged onto Argyle Street. At 205pm, a police fired two shots into the air. Mok said that the police originally wanted to drive the crowd back onto the sidewalks. But the action has failed, and the police can only drive the crowd off in the direction of Sham Shui Po. (Oriental Daily) March 7, 2018. Yesterday (March 6) after the hearing ended, a juror wrote a notice to the judge about another person taking photos of the jury members. The judge immediately ordered all those who were still in the courtroom to stay. The judge also ordered the bailiffs to make sure that no one was using their mobile phones or other electronic equipment. The juror indicated that the suspected photographer was still in the courtroom. A map was drawn showing the location of the person. The judge asked the police to enter and take the suspect away for investigation. The prosecutor disclosed today that the police have obtained a statement from the suspect. The police checked the two mobile phones of the suspect and found no photos or videos of the courtroom. There were no records of deletions or transmissions. Today this suspect appeared in court again. The judge ordered him to stay outside the courtroom and watched the live broadcast on the fifth floor instead. After the lunch recess, the prosecutor said that the police have stopped their investigation due to lack of evidence. Nevertheless the judge refused to let the man return inside the courtroom. (Wen Wei Po) March 8, 2018. Senior Superintendent Mok Hing-wing testified that he received news that a police officer had fired shots. So he and his colleagues pushed down Portland Street towards Argyle Street to see what was going on. "Once shots were fired, it became chaotic." To stop the riot from spreading to Yau Ma Ti, Mok and a PTU team set up a defense line on Dundas Street. The demonstrators gathered once more at Wei Fung Plaza at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road. The police pushed in the direction Wei Fung Plaza, looking to form a "sandwich" to drive the demonstrators down Sai Yeung Street South. At around 230am, there were large numbers of people at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road. Cars on Nathan Road could not move freely. Mok said that PTU officers pushed the demonstrators back onto the sidewalks and also removed the debris on the roadway. There were more than 700 demonstrators at the scene. The crowd came back to occupy Nathan Road again, putting trash cans and bus stop barriers onto the southbound lane on Nathan Road. They also threw hard objects at the police. At around 330am, Mok conferred with the commander office and reached the decision to push towards Shantung Street in order to stop the rioters from heading down to Yau Ma Ti. At around 400am, the police set up a defensive line on Shantung Street to face off the demonstrators. Suddenly the demonstrators threw a barrage of bricks against the police. The police retreated. Mok said: "The rioters did not stop. They continued to threw bricks at the police. They threw a large number of bricks." Mok said that he was hit twice by bricks on the back of his right shoulder. The video showed that Mok ordered the police officer to "take down the rioters." Yesterday he explained that he "wanted to disperse the crowd as quickly as possible" and that he "wanted to disperse them." At around 600am, the police's Special Tactical Unit and other trained PTU officers finally arrived in Mong Kok to put an end to the riot. Internet comments: - (Ta Kung Pao) February 21, 2018. On Valentine's Day, our reporter went to visit the Hong Kong Indigenous office in Fotan district. The letters in the mailbox (including those addressed to Ray Wong Toi-yeung have been removed and there the "Localist Foxconn" sign has been removed. The space consisting of three rooms and one hall has nothing left except for one vacuum clear. One of the rooms smelled strongly of cat odor, and was where the Localist Cat Slaves Front kept the two dozen or so stray cats. Three months ago, the Localist Cat Slaves Front asked people to adopt their stray cats. In November, Ray Wong and Edward Leung applied to cancel the corporation registration for their Channel-i (HK) company. There is still one black cardboard paper with the words "Hard Times create Strong Men." There was also a receipt for a bank transfer of $3,780 to a HSBC account. The office is currently offered for rent at an asking price of $18,000 per month. The real estate agent said that the previous tenant paid on time: "The renter was Ray Wong. You know, the one who skipped bail." Hong Kong Indigenous wanted to nurture the youth organization StudentLocalism, so their online broadcast program was taken over by StudentLocalism in December. But StudentLocalism announced that they no longer have the resources of Channel-i (HK) to support them, so they are asking for donations via paypal in order to rent their own space. - (Ta Kung Po) February 21, 2018. In 2016, Hong Kong Indigenous explained that the riot was the result of police suppression of their election rally. Alternately, they said that they were out there to defend the rights of itinerant vendors to sell cooked food on the roadway. This year, Hong Kong Indigenous no long exists, with two leaders skipping bail and the third one jailed for assaulting a police officer and standing trial for rioting/incitement to riot charges. Out in the streets, the vendors continued to sell cooked food. This year, it was noted that they left piles of garbage around Langham Place afterwards. The Yellow Ribbon Facebook Front Line Science/Technology Workers posted an old photo of Hong Kong Indigenous members picking up garbage and commented: "Someone wondered why Langham Place was littered this year. Why? That's because the dedicated people have been sent off to jail," implying that the streets were garbage-free in the past thanks to Hong Kong Indigenous. Immediately, the backlash came. Sent to jail? Where the fuck is Ray Wong now? Wherever he is vacationing, it is certainly not in a Hong Kong jail. Garbage? The biggest piece of trash around is Hong Kong Indigenous, who tore up the pavement to throw bricks at the police and set fire to cars and stalls. - (Oriental Daily) February 23, 2018. Prior to the court session, the judge informed the lawyers on both sides that some other business has to be taken first. The judge said that the secretary has informed her that some people were screaming slogans inside the courtroom after the session on the day before yesterday. Therefore she intends to post warning notices in the lobby and wallboard. The prosecutor said that police officers had heard some men using offensive language against them. The judge said that the courtroom is a solemn place in which people should not be screaming slogans. If this were to recur, the judge can dealt with the offenders through the Summary Offence Ordinance with instant incarceration for contempt of court. She instructed the court bailiffs to detain anyone who does the same thing again. - In the next NGO report, Hong Kong will drop even further in the standings on human rights and rule of law because of what this judge did. On one hand, she is punishing people for exercising their freedom of speech as guaranteed under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27. On the other hand, other people have done the same by chanting "Dog judges" and so on without being punished. So this judge is breaking precedent under common law. Yes, this city is dying. - In the name of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW, we will march at 3pm on Sunday from Civic Plaza in Government Headquarters to the High Court. P.S. If you can't make it (and most of you can't due to other priorities), you can send money to my paypal account. The future of Hong Kong depends on your doing so! - The large number of death threats to Hong Kong judges has given me an idea of writing an app named Death Postcard. All you have to do is to enter the name of your target, and the app will attach appropriate text such as: "Impotent dog judge"

The app will automatically retrieve a photo of the target person from the official court system or government department websites. Photos, names and other particulars (such as work/school) of the target's family will be retrieved from a Facebook search. A photo of a razor will be added into the composition. Once you give approval, a postcard will be mailed from Taiwan to your target person. Why Taiwan? Because they have freedom of speech there and no extradition treaty with Hong Kong. - (Oriental Daily) February 23, 2018 Yesterday at 715pm, someone found that the Goddess of Democracy statue at the Chinese University of Hong Kong had the words "Hong Kong hero Leung Tin-kei" spray-painted at the base. At the same time, similar graffiti were found at the Tai Po train station. Across the public restroom in Tai Po train station, someone had spray-painted "Hong Kong hero Leung Tin-kei: Wisdom, bravery and benevolent." One passerby said: "I don't want to comment on what young people are thinking about." Another passerby said: "Who is Leung Tin-kei?"

- The childish calligraphy reminds me of the "King of Kowloon" Tsang Tsou Choi. But, as Karl Marx noted, "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." [867] Unauthorised Building Works (2018/02/12) (Hong Kong Building Departments) What are Unauthorised Building Works What are Unauthorised Building Works (UBWs)? Building works outside a building and additions and alterations inside a building involving the structure of the building, carried out without the prior approval and consent of the Building Authority ("BA"); or Small-scale building works that are designated as minor works carried out without complying with the simplified requirements of the Minor Works Control System under the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) ("BO"); or Addition and alteration of works carried out inside a building not involving the structure of the building but do not comply with the building standards laid down for building works in the Building Regulations. (SCMP) January 22, 2018. Buildings Department figures from the past 18 years suggest at least one in four properties has unsanctioned features. From 2000, the earliest records available, to October last year, it received 520,000 complaints about unauthorised building works in all properties (excluding village homes), or about 29,000 complaints each year. From January 2000 to October last year, the Buildings Department issued some 183,000 advisory letters asking owners to return their properties to their original state, but only 7 per cent complied. It was not until the department issued statutory orders with warnings of punishment for non-compliance – totalling 388,000 notices – that 80 per cent of owners acted. The Buildings Department usually responds to complaints and does not conduct proactive investigations. It only follows up on the case intensively if the illegal structures are found to be a safety risk. But upon issuing a statutory order, it would also register the order with the city’s Land Registry, which is expected to lower the value of the property. Prosecution can happen if the owners fail to take action within two months of receiving a statutory order. But these do not happen often, with 40,000 cases taken to court out of 388,000 orders, and only 28,000 convictions.

Public anger over illegal structures flares up every so often, especially when famous, rich or powerful owners are involved. The latest scandal erupted earlier this month when the department found 10 illegal extensions in adjoining houses belonging to newly-appointed justice minister Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah and her engineer-husband Otto Poon Lok-to. Cheng said she had overlooked the structures and had not made any alterations to the three-storey house in Villa de Mer, Tuen Mun, after she bought it in 2008. But after a copy of her mortgage deed surfaced and showed no mention of any additions, critics alleged a cover-up, questioning how Cheng, a barrister and chartered engineer, could have overlooked the structures. Cheng has issued multiple apologies, most recently on Sunday, where she also admitted that “authorised persons” were examining her other properties for illegal structures and she was “following up on what needs to be done.” In Teresa Cheng’s case, the 10 structures in both houses add up to 1,800 sq ft of space and would be worth HK$35 million, based on the value of her husband’s home when he bought it in 2012. Cheng’s fate remains to be seen but a similar scandal put an end to former number 2 official Henry Tang Ying-yen’s bid in the 2012 chief executive race, even though he was then the front-runner. The discovery of an illegal 2,300 sq ft basement – reportedly replete with a wine cellar and a Japanese bath – in his home in Kowloon Tong was believed to be the main reason for his eventual defeat in the election. Tang’s popularity nosedived after he blamed his wife Lisa Kuo Yu-chin for constructing the basement during the “low ebb” of their marriage, while a teary-eyed Kuo admitted she was guilty. Kuo was fined HK$110,000 by a court in 2013 for starting construction without permission. Other guilty parties include lawmakers, businessmen, entertainers and two former chief executives – Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Leung Chun-ying. Like Tang, the public scrutiny meant Tsang and Leung had to remove their illegal home additions. (SCMP) February 11, 2018. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday demanding that justice minister Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah step down. The demonstrators accused Cheng of “lying” about illegal structures at her properties. Civil Human Rights Front, which organised the march, estimated 1,000 people took part. Police put the turnout at 700. Front convenor Sammy Ip Chi-hin said the number was satisfactory as the Lunar New Year holiday was nearing. “So many people have come out to tell [Chief Executive] Carrie Lam that they do not want Teresa Cheng to be the justice secretary. Lam should fire her,” Ip said. Cheng has been mired in controversy since assuming office early last month. She said she had been too busy so she overlooked the illegal extensions at her properties. Internet comments: - Before the demonstration march, Civil Human Rights Front convener Sammy Ip Chi-hin declined to provide an estimate for the number of marchers. After the demonstration march, Sammy Ip claimed that 1,000 people took part which was what he estimated. Duh! - The Civil Human Rights Front is never ever wrong and never ever disappointed. - I am completely for the criminalization of UBWs. I think that these rich and lawless people should be punished, especially those who hold public positions. Here are some names in addition to Teresa Cheng: Paul Zimmerman - (Oriental Daily with video/photos) January 30, 2018. A reader told us that Paul Zimmerman began to dismantle UBWs at his home at Ng Fai Tin, Sai Kung district right after he became the pan-democrats' candidate in the 2018 legco by-election. This reader provided many aerial photos. According to the public records, Paul Zimmerman bought the house for $9.2 million in 2006. In 2008, the Land Registry recorded a statutory order from the Buildings Department. The owner was asked to remove or correct the UBWs within 28 days, or else further action will be taken. Nothing happened in the next ten years. Zimmerman told us that when he purchased the house in 2006, he built a glass roof top to enhance insulation and keep the rainwater off. In 2008, he received the removal order. He considered his needs in life, and decided that he would continue this way. He did not care about the statutory order recorded at the Land Registry because he did not intend to sell his house. Zimmerman said that he understands that the public expects more of politicians, so he decided to remove the glass roof top once he decided to enter the Legco by-election. He is arranging for a contractor to remove the other four UBWs. He apologized sincerely to the public over these UBWs. - (Oriental Daily) February 2, 2018. Previously, Mr. Zimmerman had declared five UBWs on his roof, namely a stone bench, a kitchen cabinet, a storage shelf, glass balustrades and glass roof top. Today Building Departments inspectors came to the site and found four more UBWs. - (Wikipedia) Paul Zimmerman is the District Councilor for Pokfulam district, Southern District Council. He lives in Sai Kung, which is far away from Pokfulam. Therefore what he does in Sai Kung does not affect Pokfulam apart from the image of a scofflaw district councilor. - (Wikipedia) Paul Zimmerman is running in the March 11, 2018 Legislative Council by-election in the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape sector. The first strike against him is that he does not have any professional qualifications in any of architecture, surveying, planning or landscape. The second strike against him is that he has willfully and persistently shown over the past 10 years that he has no use for the building laws, so he would not be a good lawmaker representing that particular sector. The third strike (Oriental Daily January 31, 2018) against him is that his wife Janine Leung is a city planner with the Planning Department, and she must know what the relevant building laws are. - (Oriental Daily) January 31, 2018. Pan-democrats rose up to defend Paul Zimmerman. Accountancy sector legislative councilor Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong said that people who live in standalone houses will inevitably and necessarily have UBWs on their properties. New Territories West legislator Lam Cheuk-ting admitted that his office sign was an UBW, but it was okay as long as he apologized sincerely. Information technology sector legislative councilor Charles Mok said that while he does not know how Zimmerman explained it, but he knows that Zimmerman has explained and apologized and therefore this is good enough for Mok. - (HKG Pao) February 14, 2018. According to Headline Daily, Zimmerman admitted that he is renting a government lot on which there is a massive UWB in the form of a 7-meter high semicircular platform on which he walks the dogs. He said that the previous owner had rented the land from the government and built a concrete platform. When he moved in, he continued the lease and laid down new stone bricks. This UBW is a violation of the terms of the lease as well as being dangerous. Zimmerman said that he is willing to apologize if it turned out that he is wrong. In other words, he denies any wrongdoing at this time. - (Oriental Daily) February 20, 2018. The Lands Department has confirmed that the 24-square-meter platform with lighting facility on the ground is constructed on government land. A letter has been sent to the owner to demand the removal of the lights within 14 days. Paul Zimmerman said that the lights have been removed. He said that he did not realize that installation of the lights constitutes illegal occupancy of public land.

- (SCMP) Paul Zimmerman is not without appeal. By Alex Lo. February 12, 2018. Loyalists in the legislature supposedly gave the opposition a taste of their own medicine over Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah. Using filibustering and other manoeuvres, the pro-establishment lawmakers last week scuppered an opposition plan to summon the justice secretary to Legco for another grilling over illegal structures at her luxury homes. In reality, pan-democrats are more worried about the by-election next month, in which one of their candidates has a few long-standing issues over illegal structures at home. Dragging out the public relations disaster for Cheng and the government would only invite retaliation from the rival camp. So, in a way, rather than risking mutually assured destruction, a détente has been reached between the two camps. Running on the opposition ticket for a functional constituency seat, urban development activist Paul Zimmerman has confessed to having the structures at his home in Sai Kung for a decade. While Cheng claimed she knew nothing about the structures because she had been too busy at work, he knew about it all along but preferred to keep them anyway. It’s a bit ironic that he is running for the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape sector, which has a lot to do with building construction, legal or otherwise. But it’s pointless to debate which one of the two has done worse. It’s estimated one in four private homes have some illegal structures, so most of us are throwing stones in glass houses. Cheng has already survived two no-confidence motions, thanks to help from the loyalist camp. It’s a bit rich for the pan-dems to complain about “filibustering and dragging out” – their own Legco specialities – when the whole saga has become a sideshow. The opposition pretty much has a sure-win next month with its geographical constituency candidates Edward Yiu Chung-yim for the Kowloon West seat and Au Nok-hin for Hong Kong Island. But Zimmerman is running against Tony Tse Wai-chuen, an independent former lawmaker who is trying to stage a comeback and has strong support from within the professional sector. Zimmerman, though, is not without appeal. He is politically moderate, and is primarily focused on environmentally and people-friendly urban developments. He and his associates have often come up with sensible ideas about controversial government developments such as the Central Market and harbourfront developments. But they are usually ignored. A Legco platform will give them a stronger voice. It would also be good to have a more racially diverse Legco. - Paul Zimmerman is my man! He is the embodiment of the Hong Kong core value of rule-of-law. The law prohibits UBWs. But Paul Zimmerman knows from his wife that the government won't do anything except to record the statutory order at the Land Registry. If he wants to sell the house, he will need to remove the statutory order first. But he intends to continue to live there and enjoy the pleasures of the UBWs. Therefore he ignores the statutory order. When Paul Zimmerman passes away 40 years later, his heir can remove the UBWs and sell the house. In the meantime, he will have enjoyed the UBWs for those 40 years. Everything that Paul Zimmerman does is in accordance with the law. Life is good in Hong Kong, where we have freedom, democracy and rule-of-law. - (Bastille Post) In 2006, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Tourism subsector of the Legislative Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2007, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Stubbs Road Constituency of the Wan Chai District Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2008, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Tourism subsector of the Legislative Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2010, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Pokfulam Constituency of the Southern District Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2011, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Pokfulam Constituency of the Southern District Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2012, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the District Council (Second) functional constituency of the Legislative Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2012, Paul Zimmerman ran for election as a National People's Congress delegate for Hong Kong. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2015, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Pokfulam Constituency of the Southern District Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2016, Paul Zimmerman ran for election in the Hong Kong Island Constituency of the Legislative Council. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2017, Paul Zimmerman ran for election on the Election Committee for the Chief Executive. He did not deal with the UBWs. In 2018, Paul Zimmerman runs for election in the Architectural, Surveying, Planning & Landscape subsector of the Legislative Council. He comes out and declares that he has multiple UBW problems. - I guess that Mr. Zimmerman thinks that the UBWs should not affect his performance as a district councilor or even as Tourism-subsector legislator. But it would seem brazen for a legislator for the Architectural, Surveying, Planning & Landscape subsector to have multiple UBWs on his site. So he is not stonewalling anymore. The more interesting question is that if Paul Zimmerman loses this election, then will the UBWs go back up immediately so that he can enjoy his lifestyle? - The only way to stop this kind of warped logic is to impose a daily fine of $5,000 until all the UBWs are removed at every single home where they occur. That will put a full stop to the whole practice. Does Legislator Zimmerman have the courage to advocate this? - (Bastille Post) First, the media reported that he began to dismantle the UBWs after he entered the election. Furthermore, a statutory order was entered at the Lands Department 10 years ago already. He distracted the media by volunteering that he had reported the existence of 5 UBWs to the authorities. Next, the Buildings Department sent inspectors to his home and found that there were actually 9 UBWs. So he had underreported the number before. Next, the media asked him about his backyard. He said that he was renting public land. A surveyor checked the database and found out that his rented land extends only 2.5 meters out and that his platform sits on public land outside that rented area. The platform used to have a balustrade surrounding it, but that was dismantled when he entered the election. So he knew that he had a problem already. He explained that the semicircular platform was already present when he bought the house. He applied to the government for a short-term lease and then he laid down new bricks and floor lights. He said that the Lands Department came to inspect and they reached a "consensus" that the semicircular area would not be included in the short-term lease. Anyone with commonsense would know that the Lands Department will never reach a "consensus" over UBWs. The Lands Department acknowledged that the owner had applied to rent but the application was turned down. This proves that it was public land that he did not have a lease for and that he was illegally squatting on. Yesterday the Lands Department sent a letter to order the owner to cease and desist the unlawful occupation of public land, and to remove all the facilities within 14 days. This proves that there was never any "consensus." He also told Apple Daily: "After receiving the letter from the Lands Department, I removed the floor lights on the platform. I have also notified the Lands Department that since I did not erect the platform, I will not dismantle it. The Lands Department has not asked him to do so." What kind of logic is it for an owner to disavow responsibility for a UBW just because he did not personally erect it. If the UBW poses risks to public safety, then the owner has the responsibility to rectify the problem ASAP. What kind of logic is it that when the Lands Department issues an order to cease and desist unlawful occupation of public land, it means that he does not have to dismantle his UBWs on that public land? - (Bastille Post) Headline Daily interviewed Paul Zimmerman's neighbor Shoni who said: "Of course, the 7-meter platform would be dangerous. Paul Zimmerman can enjoy his lifestyle but he should consider the safety of others too." A domestic helper Noleal said she is concerned that the platform may collapse in heavy rains. Claudia Mo Man-ching, Kowloon West legislative councilor (Oriental Daily) February 2, 2018. At Mo's Repulse Bay apartment, the open garage was turned into an enclosed apartment. Eight years ago, the Building Departments inspectors came and determined that the change was inconsistent with the original plan. They advised the owner to remove the UBWs. But since the change did not involve structural modifications or pose immediate danger, they did not issue a statutory order or prosecute. The Land Registry noted that the land deed did not limit the floor area or number of car parking space, so the modification does not violate the land deed. Today the space is still an apartment and not a garage. Mo said that the Buildings Department has affirmed that there were no UBWs there. She said that UBWs are not exactly arson or murder. She pointed out that Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng is under fire not for UBWs, but for concealing the truth from the public. Cheung Tat-ming, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Hong Kong University - (Wen Wei Po with photos) January 16, 2018. Yesterday Cheung Tat-ming criticized Secretary for Justice Teresa Teng over her UBWs. In June 2010, Cheung Tat-ming bought an apartment in Crowfields Court, Lomond Road, Kowloon City district for $4.87 million. Cheung is listed as the sole owner. In 2011, Cheung received a Buildings Department removal order for the protruding ornamental decorations over two flower beds, but has done nothing so far. In addition, Cheung's verandah was sealed by glass windows that did not appear in the architectural plan. At first, Cheung responded to our inquiry by claiming that the removal order was carried out to the satisfaction of the Buildings Department. When asked why the Buildings Department had not canceled the statutory order at the Land Registry, Cheung stuttered that he knew that the engineering company had asked the Buildings Department to inspect the work, and Cheung did not concern himself with what happened afterwards. He did not check whether the Buildings Department canceled the statutory order or not. As for the verandah, he said that he did not purchase the architectural plan when he bought the apartment so he is not aware of any problems. Furthermore he has not received any Buildings Department removal order, so he does not have to do anything. Jimmy Lai, Next Media principal owner - (Oriental Daily with photos) January 31, 2018. In 2011, it was reported that the three verandahs were enclosed by glass walls in violation of regulations. At the time, the Buildings Department said that they have sent letters to the relevant party to remove those UBWs. In 2012, the glass walls were removed and the original look was restored. In 2013, new glass walls and new glass roofs were installed. This time around, the UBWs were bigger and better. - In the United States, when someone has to decide whether to run for elective office, they usually ask themselves whether they have an illegal alien worker problem first. In Hong Kong, when someone is or wants to be a public figure, they should ask themselves whether they have a UBW problem. The cases of Henry Tang and CY Leung showed clearly that somebody with access to the Buildings Department and Land Registry databases is funneling such information out to the media outlets to inflict maximum damage. As Claudia Mo says, UBWs are not arson or murder. So why can't these people clean up their UBWs right from the beginning? Their inability to see this and take action really casts doubts about their abilities in doing anything. [866] The KMB Bus Incident (2018/02/11) (SCMP) February 10, 2018. At about 6.15pm on Saturday, a KMB bus, route 872, was travelling from Sha Tin racecourse towards Tai Po. The driver reportedly lost control of the vehicle as he was pulling into a turn near Tai Po Mei, causing the bus to flip over onto its side. Police said they had received multiple calls reporting the accident at around 6pm and it was 9.30pm by the time they managed to pull survivors and bodies out of the wreckage. Many passengers, injured and in shock, were sitting by the road as paramedics provided first aid. Many had bandages wrapped around their heads and several were bleeding as they were stretchered onto waiting ambulances. The bodies of the victims were covered and laid by the roadside, waiting to be taken to the morgue. Fifteen men and three women were confirmed dead at the scene, while 63 injured passengers were rushed to a dozen hospitals across the city. A sixteenth man was confirmed dead at a hospital later at night, taking the death toll to 19. It was Hong Kong’s deadliest bus accident in nearly 15 years, sparking a full-scale emergency operation. As of 10.30am on Sunday, 10 men and one woman were in critical condition at Kwong Wah, Prince of Wales, Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. At least 21 men were also hospitalised in serious condition and at least one woman was now in stable condition. Some survivors claimed the bus driver was “throwing a tantrum” after being criticised by passengers for being late. “He was late for 10 minutes,” a passenger recalled of the driver. “He was grumpy because some people criticised him for being late. He then started to drive the bus like he was flying a plane.” Another passenger said: “He was driving very fast, extremely fast, even if he was driving down a slope.” “It was much faster than I normally feel on a bus,” he said. “And then it was like the tyres skidded, and the bus overturned. It was really chaotic on the bus. People fell on top of one another and got tossed around from side to side.” One of the victims, who sat by the side of the road with his right leg bandaged, also suggested the driver had been speeding. The driver was arrested for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and is being detained for further enquiries. (SCMP) February 10, 2018. Victims of the gruesome Tai Po bus crash recalled seeing people with broken limbs inside the bus after the vehicle flipped on its side, while onlookers stood by taking videos. Amid the chaotic scenes, survivors said they crawled out through the emergency exits after they were unable to find a hammer to break through the vehicle’s windows. “More than 15 people had died at the scene, there were broken heads, hands and legs afterwards and I heard screams,” said Lee Ho-sang, 16, the youngest passenger. “There were many people injured, but only me and my father were helping people. A lot of passengers were laying on the ground but no one was willing to help. Those who were less injured only stood by the sidewalk, taking videos of the situation.” Internet comments: - The case of Liu Cheuk-yi (TVB news reporter) - (YouTube) (YouTube) (Apple Daily) Video from NOW TV live broadcast. A rescuer tells the media that the firemen needed room to work to pull people out of the bus and requested the media to move to a spot further up the slope. The firemen were about to use equipment raise the bus, so it is dangerous to be too close. The media said that they wanted a few more minutes because they are on live broadcast. The rescuer said: "I think that it is more important to save lives. Is that okay?" But the reporters did not leave immediately. Then a female voice was heard: "Sir, our signal is on and going out live. Can you give us three and a half minutes? We are going out live. Three and a half minutes." The rescuer said: "I ... so I ... I will coordinate with the Fire Department. I understand the importance ... do you understand? ... that is, it is hard for me to come up with a balance. Freedom of press is important, but there are human lives inside." A man said: "Two minutes!" The rescuer then came back to say that the Fire Department insists that the media evacuate immediately. The female reporter said: "We will leave." But three minutes later, the video showed a male reporter donned in TVB uniform still there. Another copy: (Facebook Video) Face of female TVB reporter appears at 0:50. The rescuer added: "The Fire Department colleagues are waiting for you to leave before they can begin." Man: "Half a minute! Half a minute!"

TVB news reporter Liu Cheuk-yi was captured in the NOW TV live broadcast and credited on TVB - Three and a half more minutes only? Why don't you let me put a bus on top of you for three and a half minutes? - You want three and a half more minutes? Why? For you to climax? - If Liu Cheuk-yi has a family member on the bus, would she still ask for three and a half more minutes? Most likely not. She would be screaming at the firemen not to stand around anymore. - For the purpose of damage control, TVB must immediately notify YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, InstaGram, SnapChat, Whatsapp, Apple Daily, Ming Pao, etc that this video is a violation of their copyright and must be removed immediately, or else TVB cannot exclude the possibility of seeking legal redress. - (Ming Pao) Our reporter called TVB Assistant General Manager Yuen Chi-wai. As soon our reporter identified himself and before any question was posed, Yuen said "I'm busy" and hung up. - Buddy, you are mixing things up. The video showing the two TVB reporters was from the live broadcast of NOW TV. TVB has no copyright claims. Do you think that NOW TV should antagonize Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, InstaGram, SnapChat, Whatsapp, Apple Daily, Ming Pao, Golden Forum, Galden Forum, LIHK, Hong Kong Discussion Forum, etc with cease-and-desist orders just to make nice with rival TVB? - When I heard that a reporter refused to cooperate, I immediately thought that this was an Apple Daily reporter. But the reporter turned out to be from TVB. Apple Daily may have missed first place, but they have jumped in with a fervor to condemn the behavior that they are in fact best known for. - I was there as a witness in this incident (February 20, 2015) that the Apple Daily reporter told the ambulance workers to move aside for him to take the photos. - (Silent Majority HK) The NOW TV video went viral. Angry Internet users scoured for information about the reporters involved. The female reporter was identified as TVB news reporter Liu Cheuk-yi. From there, the Internet users dug out her personal history. She is a journalism graduate from Shue Yan University (see 135073 Liu Cheuk-yi). Around the Occupy Central period, her journalism exercises were in praise of Benny Tai and associates. During the Copyright (Amendment) Act, she sent a letter under the titled "Oppose Internet Article 23" to the government. She accused TVB of "self-censorship" and ATV of becoming a "government mouthpiece." - Why kind of journalism does the Department of Journalism and Communication at the Hong Kong Shue Yan University teach? According to their Programme Objective (sic) section, the programme 4. increases students' awareness of ethical issues in mass communication; but somehow the Programme Learning Outcome lists no impact on ethics and morality! So the students were made to take classes on media ethics to be promptly forgotten! - The male TVB reporter Sin Chi also seen the NOW TV live broadcast. After being asked repeatedly to leave, he said: "I'm leaving. Real soon."

- (TVB) October 25, 2014. TVB reporter Sin Chi was beaten by the Blue Ribbons (police supporters) during the pro-police rally yesterday in Tsim Sha Tsui because he was asking deliberately provocative questions such as "Were you paid to come here today?". - At a time when certain persons with ulterior motives are fanning anger at the media, it is very important for the Hong Kong Journalists Association to come out and defend TVB news reporter Liu Cheuk-yi against the unwarranted criticisms. They must remind everyone that the people of Hong Kong have the right to know the truth, and the Fire Department must not be allowed to get in the way of the media. - When the police coordinator told the media to move, it means that the government is curtailing the freedom of press even further. An inch of encroachment at a time adds up to a lot over time. We must stand firm and not yield an inch. - When the authorities ask reporters to leave, it means that they have something to hide from the public. The media should never leave their posts. Freedom and democracy depends on the presence of the Fourth Estate. - The silence of the Hong Kong Journalists Association is disturbing, just like the previous occasion on which reporters blocked the emergency workers from moving an injured man on a stretcher onto an ambulance. That was also a clear case that the people's right to know must supersede everything else. The fact that the man was screaming in pain did not cause the media to move aside. - According to the thoughts of the Tai Mo Shan woman, Liu Cheuk-yi is saying that it is her life and she could choose to stand next to the bus as it is raised up. But if the bus should fall on top of her, then it is the responsibility of the rescuers to save her. And if some rescuer should be injured in the process, then that is something that comes with the high-paying job. - (YouTube) On November 19, 2012, a major traffic accident on Chai Wan Road led to 3 deaths and 57 injuries. The firemen raised a red-colored barrier to block of the view of the rescue efforts. Afterwards, the Hong Kong Journalists Association criticized the firemen for infringing upon the public's right to know. This time, the HKJA must come out and stand firmly behind the reporters against the firemen. - (Ming Pao) Tonight TVB issued a formal response. The bus accident took place at around 6pm. By 745pm, the Fire Department had removed all the injured and deceased persons in the bus. Afterwards, the police told the media that the firemen will raise the bus to see if there are persons trapped underneath. They asked the media to evacuate. The female reporter asked the police if they can have three and a half minutes for a live broadcast. She emphasized that they will leave after three and a half minutes. About a minute later, the police said that the firemen wanted the reporters to leave, because there may be dangers when the bus is being raised. The female reporter said "Fine" and said that they will move elsewhere. The firemen actually began raising the bus several hours later. "Therefore the TVB reporters did not impede the rescue work of the Fire Department at any point in time." - (HKG Pao) The discussion about media behavior is distracting from the main issue, which has been identified by pro-democracy legislator Cheng Chung-tai. The seventh day of the incident falls on the second day of the Lunar New Year. On that day, the government is holding its traditional fireworks display. In memory of the victims, we demand that the fireworks display be canceled forthwith. P.S. Chief Executive Carrie Lam must apologize for her mistakes in this case too. - Pro-democracy activist Wan Chin has declared that this incident showed that Hong Kong has been abandoned by the Heavens. - I agree. In addition, we must cancel the holidays and go back to school/work. We must not say wish each other a happy new year. We must not hand out red envelops. We must not post any red banners. We must not wear red clothes. - If we the people forego our fireworks show, then it is only fair that the pan-democrats donate all the money that they raise at the Lunar Year market to the families of the victims. On this, we stand in solidarity. - Jacob Siu's Facebook

When Tung Chee-hwa became Chief Executive, there was the bus disaster in Tuen Mun with several dozen casualties. When CY Leung became Chief Executive, there was the Lamma Island ferry disaster with several dozen casualties. When Carrie Lam became Chief Executive, there was the Tai Po bus disaster with several dozen casualties. When Donald Tsang became Chief Executive, there was no large-scale disaster. Can the various fortune-tellers see why all those Chief Executives picked by the Communist Party have been disastrous for Hong Kong? If the Chinese Communists would only stay away, there will be peace in Hong Kong and everybody will make a lot of money! - (Sing Tao Daily) February 11, 2018. The KMB Union held a press conference. They said that the KMB company and the Department of Transportation are to be fully blamed. In recent years, KMB has been cutting costs by hiring part-time bus drivers who are amateur bus fans lacking driving skills. "They are recklessly endangering the lives of the passengers!" - Yes, I am not only worried about inexperienced bus drivers, but more so the mentally unstable ones (see #310 The Case of Cheung Ray). [865] The Case of Gui Minhai (Continued) (2018/02/10) Previously: #437 The Case of Gui Minhai (2016/01/18) (SCMP) January 22, 2018. Hong Kong-based publisher Gui Minhai, one of the Causeway Bay booksellers whose disappearance two years ago caused an international storm, was snatched again by mainland Chinese authorities from a train heading for Beijing over the weekend, his daughter reported on Monday. Angela Gui told the Post that her father, accompanied by two Swedish diplomats, was travelling from Ningbo city in Zhejiang province on Saturday when around 10 police officers in plain clothes boarded their train near the capital and grabbed him. She did not go into details, but confirmed a New York Times report saying her father, a naturalised Swedish national, was visiting Sweden’s embassy in Beijing for a medical examination. In a statement to the Post, Sweden’s foreign ministry quoted its minister, Margot Wallström, as saying: ”The Swedish government has detailed knowledge of what has happened and I have summoned China’s ambassador. I have also been promised information about Mr. Gui’s situation.” The minister added: ”The situation has worsened since Saturday morning and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has been working around the clock on this matter ever since.” “I just know that things have taken a very drastic turn for the worse,” the Times quoted Angela as saying. “This group of about 10 men in plain clothes just came in and grabbed him from the train and took him away.” Gui was reportedly seeking a medical examination after showing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which attacks the brain and spinal cord. (SCMP) February 6, 2018. Beijing confirmed on Tuesday that it had detained Swedish citizen and Hong Kong-based bookseller Gui Minhai, after his daughter said Chinese police had seized him from a train last month. “Gui Minhai broke Chinese law and has already been subjected to criminal coercive measures in accordance with the law by relevant Chinese authorities,” foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said. The term “coercive measures” generally refers to detention in China. Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström said in a statement on Monday that Gui’s continued detention was a “very serious matter” and that China’s “brutal” intervention in Sweden’s attempts to help Gui, who Chinese authorities had said was free, represented a contravention of international rules on consular support. “We demand that our citizen be given the opportunity to meet Swedish diplomatic and medical staff, and that he be released so that he can be reunited with his daughter and family.” Asked about Wallström’s demands, Geng said China could not accept such “irresponsible” statements from Sweden. “Although Gui Minhai is a Swedish citizen, the case he is suspected of must be handled in accordance with Chinese law,” he said. Sweden should understand the serious nature of the case and the “disgraceful” role played by certain Swedish people, Geng said, without giving details. (Global Times) China's law not under thumb of West. February 8, 2018. Sweden's foreign ministry harshly condemned China's detention of Gui Minhai, a Hong Kong bookseller of Swedish citizenship, as "brutal intervention" and claimed "China's actions were in contravention of basic international rules on consular support." The EU and some Western countries chimed in, with German Ambassador to China Michael Clauss saying, "That China's authorities treat an EU citizen this way is without precedence." China's judicial authorities have the right to investigate persons of any citizenship who violate laws on China's soil. All EU countries have jailed foreign citizens before. Except for diplomats, ordinary people should be handled by the country where they committed crimes. This is a basic principle of international law. Consular support has its boundaries. According to Western reports, the Chinese side has long since notified Sweden of Gui's detention. China has fulfilled its diplomatic obligations. At present, Chinese authorities are taking criminal compulsory measures against Gui, with which Sweden's consular support should coordinate. Despite disputes on details, China and Sweden should reach a solution through consultations. Sweden's expectation to strengthen consular assistance to Gui cannot transcend China's legal procedures. Demanding China immediately release Gui, Germany is rudely provoking China's judicial sovereignty. This is driven by the extraterritorial mentality that was commonly seen in imperialist powers, of which Swedish and German diplomats should be ashamed. The West is still arrogant toward China. Western elites obstinately view China's legal differences with their own countries as political differences, with the West representing the world's only source of political correctness. Gui committed a crime in China and China is handling his case according to its law. Now Western public opinion defined the case as political persecution of people with foreign citizenship, arbitrarily demanding China act according to their will. With such contempt toward Chinese law, is there any room for communication? Gui came back to China often even after he changed citizenship. There are many other "foreigners" like Gui working and living in China. A few of them take advantage of their double identity as both Chinese and foreigner to seek profits and wish to shield themselves from penalties if they breach the law. European countries and the US should educate their newly naturalized citizens that the new passport cannot be their amulet in China. If they conduct activities in China, they must obey Chinese law. As China's opening-up deepens, the country will see more foreigners. It would be irresponsible of Western countries if they instilled in their citizens an extraterritorial mentality. China's rule of law is not under the thumb of the West. Anyone who violates Chinese law must face the consequences. - (Wikipedia) Extraterritoriality Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations. Extraterritoriality (without reciprocity) was first imposed upon China by the British in the Treaty of Nanking, resulting from the First Opium War. It was subsequently imposed upon China by the Americans under the Treaty of Wanghia and the Treaty of Tientsin. For relinquishment of extraterritoriality in China by the United States and United Kingdom, see the Sino-American Treaty for Relinquishment of Extraterritorial Rights in China and Sino-British Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extra-Territorial Rights in China respectively. But Sweden thinks that it extraterritoriality rights in China. - The Swedes are white-skinned blondes gods whereas the Chinese are yellow-skinned slant-eyed gooks. That is why they have to be treated differently. - Eh, Gui Minhai does not look anything like a white-skinned blonde god. In fact, he looks like a yellow-skinned slant-eyed gook.

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2018. Gui Minhai's eldest sister was interviewed by Oriental Daily today. She recalled that her brother skipped bail after the 2004 traffic incident, after which they had not seen him for more than a decade. The civil compensation of 480,000 RMB to the victim's family had to be paid by the other members of the Gui family. Gui was released and allowed to unite with the family. The 80-year-old family matriarch was very pleased. Gui rented an apartment in Ningbo city and planned to live there. He promised that he would have Lunar New Year dinner with them. With the consent of the Chinese government, Gui went to the Swedish consulate to obtain a Swedish passport. Afterwards, Gui's sister said that the Swedish consulate people came daily to meet with Gui. Because she does not understand Swedish, she did not know what they were saying. On the day of the incident, Gui left home without a word. Her family thought that he was visiting the doctor. Later the authorities informed Gui's three sisters that their brother has been placed under criminal detention again. They are very sad now, but so far they have only told their mother and young brother that Gui has returned to Sweden temporarily so as not to upset them. Gui's sister said that the Swedish authorities knew full well that Gui Minhai is not supposed to leave China, but they kept pestering him to leave. She said that they were very worried when the Swedish authorities announced that Gui Min-hai was suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, the possibility of ALS has now been ruled out. She said that her brother was dense in the head and failed to honor his promise to the Chinese government, even not informing his own family. (SCMP) February 9, 2018. Detained book publisher Gui Minhai on Friday accused the Swedish government of using him as a “chess piece” to make trouble for Beijing, claiming in an interview arranged by Chinese authorities that he did not want to leave the country. Speaking at a detention facility in Ningbo, Zhejiang province, he said: “The year 2018 is election year in Sweden … some politicians might be using me for political gains. I can’t rule out that some are trying to use me to create trouble for the Chinese government.” The 53-year-old, mainland-born but a naturalised Swedish citizen, went on: “I have seen through the Swedish government. If they continue to create troubles, I may consider giving up my Swedish citizenship.” Gui made the accusations in a 20-minute interview with several Hong Kong, Taiwanese and mainland media groups arranged by the Ministry of Public Security. The Post agreed to the interview with strictly no conditions attached after it was approached by the ministry on Wednesday. After the interview, the ministry issued a statement saying the authorities had imposed criminal coercive measures – a euphemism for detention – on Gui for leaking state secrets abroad. Gui had been at the centre of the missing Hong Kong booksellers controversy of 2015 and was in detention in China until last October for a drink-driving offence. Little was known of his movements since then except that he was living in Ningbo. But last month, reports emerged of his dramatic arrest by 10 plain-clothes policemen while he was on a train from Shanghai to Beijing, accompanied by two Swedish diplomats. The Swedish government said it was providing consular assistance to Gui as he needed medical help, and denounced his detention as a “brutal” act. However, during the Friday interview, Gui gave a different account of his decision to seek the Swedish government’s help, claiming that its officials had worked on him unrelentingly to persuade him to leave China. The Post was unable to independently verify his claims. Throughout, Gui, who had been reported by his daughter Angela Gui as showing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, sought to project a picture of calm, breaking into smiles frequently. He was in a plainly furnished room when reporters were brought in to meet him. Two security guards appeared at the end of the interview, before reporters were ushered out. Asked by the Post if the Chinese authorities had forced him to face the media, he insisted he had requested the meeting to tell the public the “truth” because the Swedish government had “sensationalised” what had happened to him. He said that after he finished serving a two-year term for his drink-driving offence, he rented a flat in Ningbo. He could then regularly meet his three sisters and elderly mother, who was in poor health, he said. He complained that the Swedish diplomats had been contacting him on a daily basis to persuade him to leave China for Sweden. He claimed they did so despite knowing that the case against him for running an illegal business – publishing gossipy books about the Chinese leadership and having them delivered to the mainland – had yet to be concluded. “Swedish diplomats secretly came to Ningbo and told me several proposals to get me to Sweden. They told me that I was just a step away from succeeding. I just needed to take this one step and I could make it to Sweden successfully. I had declined a few times. But because they were instigating me non-stop, I fell for it,” he said. Gui, who occasionally spoke slowly, went on: “Sweden offered me a plan, and that was to use my medical appointment as an excuse to get to the Swedish embassy in Beijing. And then they would wait for an opportunity to get me to Sweden.” Earlier this week, China’s foreign ministry confirmed Gui’s arrest, saying he had been detained for breaking the law, without specifying which laws. On Friday, Gui said he regretted buying into Sweden’s plans and that he felt like he was becoming its “chess piece”. He said Sweden had not told him details of his visit to the embassy, but only that he would meet a Swedish person who was a Chinese expert, as well as someone from an unnamed US foundation. “My wonderful life has been ruined and I would never trust the Swedish ever again,” he said. He said he was currently being detained at the Ningbo detention facility and could not leave China, as his illegal business case had not been concluded. Asked if he wanted to leave China, he replied: “I hope I can live in China.” On his health, he said he started to feel muscular atrophy in his left hand seven months ago. The same happened to his right hand and left leg one to two months ago. But no doctors had diagnosed him with ALS, he said. Medical examinations had found that he had problems with his spine which led to the muscular atrophy, he said. If he indeed has ALS, he said, it could not be cured anyway even if he went back to Sweden. The Post has contacted the Swedish foreign ministry for comment but has not received a response. Asked if he had a message for his daughter Angela, who lives in the UK, Gui said: “I feel ashamed about myself. I have made mistakes. I have promised my old mother that I would spend Lunar New Year with her. My message to my family is that I hope they will live a good life. Don’t worry about me. I will solve my own problems myself.” Last month Gui wrote to the Swedish ambassador to China, Anna Lindstedt, asking the Swedish authorities to stop interfering in his business. (Oriental Daily) February 9, 2018. Gui Min-hai's letter to the Swedish ambassador Anne Lindstedt.

(SCMP) Transcript of Gui Minhai’s government-arranged interview: ‘Swedish government used me’ February 10, 2018. In a 20-minute media conference arranged by the Chinese government, Gui Minhai, the detained former Hong Kong publisher, warned the Swedish government that if it continued to use him to cause problems for Beijing, he would consider renouncing his Swedish citizenship. Gui, a naturalised Swedish citizen who was born in mainland China, spoke with media outlets from Hong Kong, the mainland and Taiwan in a session arranged by China’s Ministry of Public Security. The South China Morning Post agreed to take part, provided no conditions were put on the questions it could ask, after being approached by the ministry on Wednesday. Did you request this meeting, or did the Ministry of Public Security order you to do it because they wanted you to say certain things to the media? Thank you everyone for coming here to interview me. I’m Gui Minhai. I know that Sweden has recently sensationalised things about me. I have already written a letter to Sweden’s ambassador to China, Anna Lindstedt. I have stated that I do not want Sweden to continue to sensationalise what has happened to me. But obviously, Sweden has not stopped doing so. I felt that it was necessary for me to come out and say something. I asked the public security authorities for a chance to meet the media in order to tell the public what has happened, and to tell the truth. Last October, after I finished serving the sentence for my traffic offence, I rented a place to live in Ningbo for a while mainly to be with my old mother who has not been healthy. … My three sisters could also all get together. We could even play mahjong. My mother was so happy when we all played mahjong with her. I felt like I was back in my childhood times. I felt so happy. My wife had also come to Ningbo for more than a month. Since 2004, after I ran away from my drink-driving offence sentence, I had not returned to China. For a long time, I have not had the chance to show filial piety to my mother. I did not even come back for my father’s funeral. I have felt so painful about this for such a long time. This time, I have told my sisters that I planned to spend a happy Chinese New Year with my mother. But everything has since changed. That was because, after I was released [from prison in October 2017], the Swedish side has been contacting me persistently. They contacted me on a daily basis. They knew that I have an illegal business-operation case, which has not concluded yet and so the law does not allow me to leave the country. They knew this but they kept instigating me to return to Sweden. They kept telling me how much the Swedish government cared about me and the government wanted me to be back in Sweden. Swedish diplomats secretly came to Ningbo and told me several proposals to get me to Sweden. They told me that I was just a step away from succeeding. I just needed to take this one step and I could make it to Sweden successfully. I have declined a few times. But because they were instigating me non-stop, I fell for it. Sweden offered me a plan, and that was to use my medical appointment as an excuse to get to the Swedish embassy in Beijing. And then they could wait for an opportunity to get me to Sweden. On 20 January, two Swedish diplomats drove the consulate’s car to Ningbo and took me to Shanghai. We took a train to Beijing. During the journey, they asked me not to get off the train, for fear it would catch other people’s attention. In other words, I was to be taken to Beijing secretly. I was then taken away by the Ningbo public security authorities in accordance with the law when I was on the train. I regret this very much now. The Swedish side has not told me in detail about the medical appointment in Beijing. For example, who were the doctors to see me? They told me that I would meet a Swedish person who was a Chinese expert, and another person from a US foundation. Looking back, I might have become Sweden’s chess piece. I broke the law again under their instigation. My wonderful life has been ruined and I would never trust the Swedish ever again. Some reports have suggested that you have ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). Is that so? So far, no doctors and experts have diagnosed me with ALS and I think Sweden has exaggerated this and manipulated [me]. About seven months ago, I discovered muscular atrophy on my left hand. In the past one to two months, that happened to my right hand and my left leg. Last October, I was accompanied by my family members to meet experts. [Medical examinations] have shown that I have big problems with my cervical vertebrae. My muscular atrophy could very likely be a result of my problems with my cervical vertebrae. The Swedish said that I have ALS, just because they were exaggerating and used this as an excuse to take me to Sweden as soon as possible. I know that ALS is incurable. If I really have ALS, it would still be incurable even if I get to Sweden. If the Swedish side really cared about me, then they can send doctors to see me in China. The public security authorities here have been paying much attention to my illness. They have arranged experts from Shanghai and Ningbo to see and treat me. Has the China side told you if they would let you leave China? The case of my illegal business has not yet been concluded. Thus, before that case has been concluded, I am not allowed to leave the country, according to the law. Why has the Swedish side wanted so much to take you to Sweden? Do you want to seek treatment there? When I was in Sweden, the Swedish government never paid me special attention. I have never felt that I was truly recognised as a Swedish [citizen]. When I was living in Sweden, when a Swedish friend introduced me to another person, the person would say, “let me introduce a Chinese friend to you”. The sense of recognition is one matter. The other matter is that, for a very long time, about 10 years, I did not live in Sweden. I lived in Germany. After I turned myself in and subsequently served my sentence, the Swedish government started to pay me special attention. I don’t know if they were paying me attention or just manipulating me. The year 2018 is election year in Sweden … some politicians might be using me for political gains. I can’t rule out that some are trying to use me to create trouble for the Chinese government. … I have seen through the Swedish government. If they continue to create troubles, I may consider giving up my Swedish citizenship. What’s your plan for the future? I want to live a down-to-earth life. My family said I was silly to be manipulated so easily. They hoped that I would live in China. I am willing to live a peaceful life in China. So you do not want to leave China? Yes. I hope I can live in China. Are you being detained in this detention facility? Can you make contact with your family members? I am staying inside the detention facility. Some reports have suggested that Chinese officials told Swedish officials that you met them illegally and have given them secret information. What was the nature of that information? I am sorry. I do not want to answer this question. The International Publishers Association recently gave you the Prix Voltaire award (honouring a person or organisation adjudged to have made a significant contribution to the defense and promotion of freedom to publish in the world). Do you want to go to personally accept the award? Has it been announced? I didn’t know about this. In 2017, I was nominated for this. But I did not win. It was strange that I was given this Prix Voltaire now … I do not want to receive, and will not receive, this award. Otherwise, I would be so silly to be manipulated. I hope the International Publishers Association can respect my will. In October 2017, the Chinese foreign ministry said you had been released and had walked free after serving your two-year [drink driving] sentence. Why is it that, a few months later, you have been detained? That was because I have violated Chinese laws and have made mistakes. I don’t want to get to the specifics. Thank you very much for coming here to interview me, and I have said all I have wanted to say. Do you have a message for your daughter? She cared about you very much. I feel ashamed about myself. I have made mistakes. I have promised my old mother that I would spend Lunar New Year with her. My message to my family is that I hope that [they] will live a good life. Don’t worry about me. I will solve my own problems. Secondly, I hope they will not be manipulated by anyone. What are you feeling right now after going through so much these past two years? OK, I will say a few more words. After I turned myself in and served the two-year sentence, it was a good thing for me. [Having] served my term, I am feeling down-to-earth now. I feel that I have redeemed my sin. I feel relieved. (Global Times) February 10, 2018. After the Hong Kong-based Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai was again detained by Chinese police in front of two diplomats, the Swedish foreign ministry fell silent at first and then accused China of "brutal intervention" and "contravening international rules of consular support." Taking Gui from Ningbo, Zhejiang Province to Beijing was not supposed to happen. The Swedish Embassy in China played a dishonorable role in the event. Gui was released from custody in October last year for a traffic offense. He is suspected of being involved in illegal business and the investigation is ongoing. By Chinese law, Gui is not allowed to leave the Chinese mainland and he had earlier promised the police he would not leave Ningbo or at least report his whereabouts if he traveled elsewhere. But on January 20, two Swedish diplomats took Gui from Ningbo to Beijing. Gui had violated the requirement of Chinese law enforcement authorities and broke his promise. Western media reported that Gui was taken to Beijing to see a Swedish specialist for a medical checkup but that was a lie. No Swedish specialist has recently visited China. Gui also confessed to police that the Swedish government had been plotting to take him back to Sweden. The Swedish Embassy in China knew very well that Gui was prohibited from leaving the Chinese mainland, but plotted to do so any way. They tricked Gui into cooperating with their plan. What they did is far beyond the scope of consular support. They wanted to arrange Gui's "escape" by breaking Chinese law. The Global Times has learned that two Swedish diplomats secretly picked up Gui with a consulate car and took him to Shanghai. From there, they took a Beijing-bound high-speed train. Gui was interviewed by media on Friday. Hong Kong media released the content of his interview, including that he said the diplomats asked him to not leave the car to avoid attention. After learning about Gui's trip, police contacted Gui many times and asked him to return but the diplomats accompanying him demanded Gui not oblige. Had they arrived in Beijing, they would have been in the Swedish Embassy. The plot made us wonder whether the Swedish foreign ministry was making a Hollywood movie. Sweden is a relatively small country in Northern Europe. The Swedish foreign ministry appeared to be craving the limelight in the EU and the West. The Hong Kong booksellers' case was hyped by Western media and the Swedish foreign ministry seems to want to demonstrate its diplomatic heroism by "saving the bookseller Gui Minhai." While other Western countries are merely talking, Sweden took actions and ignored Chinese law. Its role as the "special task forces" of Western human rights diplomacy is presumptuous. Swedish Embassy's show was interrupted halfway. Gui was intercepted by police at a train station in Jinan, Shandong Province en route to Beijing. China's judicial sovereignty remains intact and the Swedish foreign ministry has ended up a laughingstock. Stockholm remained silent for a few days. They probably began to cry out loud after feeling they had lost face. We must point out that the Chinese government protects the lawful rights of all foreigners in China but will not tolerate their illegal activities. Foreigners will be subject to punishment according to the law if they commit a crime. The Swedish foreign ministry wanted to muddy the waters of Gui's case by using so-called human rights logic. Some Western countries and media want to hype the case. They are obsessed with this game, but the game won't have any impact on China's governance. (Xinhua net) February 10, 2018. Gui Minhai, a Swedish national and Hong Kong bookseller, was detained again recently by Chinese police over suspected violations of Chinese law, about three months after his release from a Chinese prison. Gui was freed on Oct. 17, 2017 after completing a two-year term over his drunken driving which killed a person more than a decade ago. He turned himself in to police in the Chinese mainland in 2015. As Chinese authorities continued investigation into Gui's suspected illegal business operation, he was not allowed to leave the country according to law. "When I was released, my illegal business operation case has not been put to an end. I resume an inmate's life, for which to a large extent, my thanks should be given to the Swedish government and you," said Gui in a letter he wrote on Jan. 27 to the Swedish ambassador to Beijing. After his release, Gui said in a letter of commitment to police in Ningbo, east China's Zhejiang Province, that he would continue cooperation with authorities on the investigation into the illegal business case and would inform authorities if he leaves the city. However, on Jan. 20, accompanied by two Swedish diplomats, Gui suddenly arrived in Shanghai riding a car with a diplomatic plate, and then boarded a high-speed train bound for Beijing. According to Chinese police, Gui took with him many information materials concerning state secrets and was suspected of illegally providing state secrets and intelligence overseas and endangering state security. Police contacted him many times and demanded he return and receive investigation, but the accompanying Swedish diplomats asked Gui to refuse cooperation. When the high-speed train stopped at Jinan West Railway Station in Shandong Province, police took Gui away and put him under custody according to law. Some overseas media and Western countries such as Sweden pointed fingers at China over Gui's case, accusing China of violating international norms and interfering with consular affairs. On Feb. 9, Gui applied to authorities and asked to speak the truth before media. Xinhua reporters interviewed him at his detention place in Ningbo. "When I was in Sweden, they paid little attention to me. I felt I was not recognized by local Swedes," said Gui. "The Swedish have done this just out of their political purposes and to meet the need of some political figures for the 2018 elections in Sweden." Gui said he had a Swedish nationality, but he did not live in Sweden almost in the past decade. Instead, he lived in Germany. It was just after he surrendered to Chinese police and especially his release that the Swedish government began to pay special attention to him, according to Gui. "I do not want the Swedish side to continue hyping up my case. I have seen through the Swedish government. I may consider giving up my Swedish nationality if it continues to do so," said Gui. "Under Sweden's continual instigation, I broke the law again. My happy life was destroyed," said Gui. "I just simply hope that my family will not be taken advantage of and I can stay in China to live a peaceful life." During the three months after his release, Gui lived in a rented house in Ningbo and attended to his aged mother with his three sisters. "I feel like returning to my childhood and the life is really happy." To accompany his mother, Gui applied for a residence permit to local police and the permit was approved. Shortly afterwards, the Swedish side contacted Gui frequently and attempted to help him leave China, dispatching consulate staff to Ningbo to persuade him and offering him plans to go with them to Sweden. "They told me I was just one step away from success. As long as I take the step, I will succeed in returning to Sweden," said Gui. Gui suffered muscle atrophy in the hands. But the Swedish side claimed he suffered amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), asking him not to receive treatment in China and promising to send him back to Sweden for treatment. In November 2017, Gui's family contacted a local key hospital in Ningbo to carry out a checkup of Gui. The doctors said his muscle atrophy was caused by cervical spondylosis. Recently, five senior orthopedics and neurology doctors from Ningbo and Shanghai also ruled out the ALS disease for Gui, giving a diagnosis similar to that of the Ningbo hospital. "Helping me treat my illness is just an excuse. Their purpose is to bring me back to Sweden as soon as possible," said Gui. "I have lost trust in the Swedish government. I hope I handle my issue on my own," he said. On Jan. 20, China's public security authorities informed the Embassy of Sweden of Gui's case through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shortly after Gui's arrest. China's foreign affairs authorities also informed their Swedish counterparts about Gui's case. On Jan. 30, the Public Security Bureau of Ningbo visited the Consulate General of Sweden in Shanghai to inform Gui's case and his recent condition, and delivered Gui's letter to the ambassador. Internet comments: - (Hong Kong Free Press) February 11, 2018. Sophie Richardson, China director for NGO Human Rights Watch said that the video is solid evidence for the prosecution of Chinese official: “The cruelty and coercion here are just breathtaking,” she said on Twitter. China researcher at NGO Amnesty International, Patrick Poon, said: “This kind of video has become the China’s attempt to divert attention about arbitrary detention. If the person is free to speak, why can’t he have access to a lawyer of his own choice and proper consular access? Can only trust what people say when they’re free and outside China.” Gui’s friend, dissident poet Bei Ling, told AFP that he was very shocked and saddened by the claims: “How can we believe whether the words of someone who is oppressed — like a prisoner — are real?” Bill Birtles, China correspondent at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, tweeted: “Credibility of @SCMP_News, which has been fading under Alibaba ownership, takes another hit. Had some good scoops during 19th Congress, but this reminiscent of ‘interview’ it published w/ then-detained legal assistant Zhao Wei in 2016.” Swedish human rights activist Peter Dahlin, who was paraded on state TV in 2016 before being released from Chinese custody, tweeted: “[A]mazing what kind of rights detainees have these days in China… @SCMP_News disappoints. Again.” Senior SCMP reporter Phila Siu, who reported on the Gui media event, defended the decision to publish, saying the newspaper had sought to be as open as possible about the circumstances: “What if the person suddenly screams for help?… If we were not there, u’d nt even kw how this meeting was arranged. There’s no perfect solution to this and I did my best.” - The greatest failure of SCMP/Oriental Daily is that they did not ask the questions that everybody wanted to know: "Have the Communist secret police stopped torturing you? Just say YES or NO!" If the answer is YES, then it means that they had been torturing him but has just stopped. If the answer is NO, then it means that they are still torturing him even now. - So the Swedes want to ferry Gui Minhai from Ningbo to Beijing in order to meet with a Swedish sinologist and someone from an American foundation under the cover of medical treatment for an incurable disease at the Swedish embassy. The big X factor is this "unnamed person from an unnamed American foundation." What is Sweden's explanation? Their cover is that Gui Minhai is suffering from ALS. What, if anything, can a Swedish sinologist and an American foundation person do for him? - When Julian Assange wiki-leaked national security secrets, Sweden demanded that he be handed over to them to stand trial for "rape." Here and then, it is clear that Sweden is the poodle dog of the United States of America. - Allow me to hazard a guess: the "unnamed American foundation" must be the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA-front founded by an act of US Congress and funded through an annual allocation from the US Congress in the form of a grant awarded through the United States Information Agency. Congressman Ron Paul stated that NED has "very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ‘people’s revolutions’ overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements." Gui Minhai would be a good fit for the color revolution plans for Hong Kong. - When the second "kidnapping" of Gui Minhai became known, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying said tersely about the Swedish diplomats: "They know what they did." It can be easily inferred even then that Gui Minhai was under residential detention and the Swedes were trying to move him to the Swedish embassy in Beijing. How did the Chinese police find out? I don't even think that they were watching Gui, because they would have taken action immediately. I think that when the Swedes bought the train tickets, Gui had to produce his ID under the real-name registration system and his ID was flagged on a watch list. [In a political thriller, the Swedes would have arranged a fake ID for Gui!] The alert went out after the train left Ningbo, and the police in Jinan city were alerted to board the train to arrest Gui for violating his parole. Even if Gui Minhai made it to the Swedish embassy in Beijing, how was he going to get out of China? He cannot take an airplane using a Swedish passport, because a wanted fugitive of any nationality will be arrested. The Swedes cannot just give him a diplomatic passport, because the Chinese government won't accredit a fugitive. Gui is going to spend a long time in the Swedish embassy until his usefulness runs out. - Well, you don't understand this at all. The goal of the Swedes was not to get Gui Minhai out of China. In fact, they don't give a rat's ass about whether he lives or dies. They just want Gui cooped up in the embassy so that he can keep giving interviews while Sweden, USA, EU, UK, Germany, etc can make urgent appeals for his release all the time. This is his value to them. - It will be even better for them if Gui Minhai has some serious illness. And if he is not ill, they will even fabricate an illness for him which will disappear miraculously once he arrives Sweden. - Gui Minhai was not arrested in Shanghai, where he could still argue that he took a day trip with friends and planned to return to Ningbo later that day. Gui was actually arrested when his train stopped in Jinan city, Shandong province. Jinan is 970 kilometers from Ningbo. So it was clear that he was in flight. - It is reported that, at the time of his arrest, Gui Minhai was carrying a number of documents that contained sensitive national security information. Well, that is bizarre. Gui Minhai was released a few months ago from prison into residential detention at a rented apartment. How did he lay his hands on documents with "sensitive national security information"? Why didn't the two Swedish diplomats hold the documents on themselves? As diplomats, they have immunity from arrest and searching. Why did they let Gui Minhai hold the documents? - I am willing bet that the "sensitive national security information" is a statement from the Swedish government stating the conditions offered to Gui Minhai if he goes with the two Swedish diplomats to Beijing: money, house in the Swedish countryside, protection, etc. - Being a publisher, Gui Minhai must know the life stages of Chinese dissidents. Take the famous example of Wei Jinsheng. Stage 1: Wei Jingsheng was a worker who came to fame with his essay The Fifth Modernization in 1978. He was in and out of prison between 1979-1997. Many western governments and organizations demanded the release of this most famous of Chinese dissidents. Stage 2: Wei was deported to the United States in November 1997 on medical parole under western pressure, especially at the request of then US President Bill Clinton. Stage 3: Wei received numerous human rights and democracy awards from the west, such as the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, the National Endowment for Democracy Aware, the Robert F. Kenney Human Rights Award, the Olog Palme Memorial Prize, etc. Stage 4: In New York City, Wei established the Wei Jingsheng Foundation with the aim to improve human rights and democratization in China. But once he got going, people ignored him and treated him like a leper. To the political establishment, Wei was useful as a weapon against Communist China, but they were not interested in writing new Chinese constitutions or codes of law with an uneducated and stubborn exile with no power base in China. To the Chinese diaspora, Wei Jingsheng was competition for the limited handouts from the National Endowment for Democracy. As Gui Minhai himself noted, he was a nobody in Sweden until he got arrested. He is now suddenly a person of interest to powers both great (USA, EU, Germany, UK) and small (Sweden). If he ever makes it back to Sweden, he is going to have to keep saying what they want to hear or else be dropped back into obscurity. - Gui Minhai must surely know what his biggest problem is -- he is a 'fake.' In the west, the case of the Hong Kong booksellers represents Chinese interference with freedom of speech by pro-democracy activists who wanted to bring the truth out to the people. Gui and all those in that industry know that they are actually fabricating lies in order to make lots of money. It is not easy to get up every day and pretend to be a fighter for freedom and democracy when he is nothing of the sort. - It is as if someone working at the National Enquirer has to tell everyone all the time that he is really in the truth business. How does he keep a straight face about those UFO abduction reports? - (RTHK) February 10, 2018. Alliance To Support Patriotic Democratic Movements In China chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan said that Gui Minhai was merely following a script in his interview. He said that Gui performed like a robot and Ho thought that this was pitiable. - Is this the same Albert Ho Chun-yan who "wholeheartedly" believed in Lam ("Staple King") Tsz-kin (#775)? - (Oriental Daily) February 10, 2018. In response to Gui Minhai's SCMP/Oriental Daily interview, Sweden's foreign ministry said that whatever Gui Minhai said will not stop Sweden from continuing to demand his release. They emphasize that the United States, the European Union, Germany and others are also demanding his release. Sweden will continue to demand Gui be allowed to see Swedish diplomats and doctors, and reunite with his family. - In the CCTV interview, Gui Minhai said, "Although I am a Swedish citizen, I still feel that I am Chinese. My roots are still in China. Therefore I hope Sweden can respect my personal choice, my rights and my privacy, and let me deal with my problems." Sorry, but that is not going to happen because the Swedish government knows what citizen Gui really really wants -- to be permitted to go home to Sweden, to receive the 2018 IPA Prix Voltaire and to continue to deliver numerous speeches with his daughter Angela all over the world to advocate freedom of speech in China/Hong Kong. That is what citizen Gui really wants PERIOD. - If citizen Gui demurs, then it is just that he doesn't know what he really wants yet. The Swedish government will make him see the light, one way or the other. - Dear Gui Minhai, you and your daughter Angela have been railroaded by Sweden. The only way that you can stop them is to renounce your Swedish citizenship. - But the Swedish government will say that you were coerced into renouncing your Swedish citizenship and therefore you will always be a Swedish citizen for them. Thus, they will continue to demand your release for medical treatment of incurable diseases. - Yes, this is just like the male who won't take no for an answer. - (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China) February 12, 2018. Q: The Swedish citizen Gui Minhai was interviewed by some Chinese media at the end of last week. Can you tell us whether he was forced to accept it or freely? After this interview, the Swedish government again reiterated its request for the Chinese government to release Gui Minhai. What is China's position? A: I believe that you have all seen Gui Minhai's interview with the media. During the interview, Gui Minhai's attitude and will was unequivocal. With regard to the reaction of the Swedish side, I want to point out that as Gui Minhai violated the Chinese law, his case must be dealt with in accordance with the Chinese law. The Swedish side has repeatedly requested the Chinese side to release him, which grossly intervenes China's judicial sovereignty. The Chinese side has on many occasions lodged stern representations with the Swedish side on this. [864] The Price of Freedom (2018/02/05) (Oriental Daily) January 31, 2018.

In response to an inquiry from legislative councilor Gary Chan Hak-kan, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said that they have spent a total of $462,000 during 2015-2016 to remove banners that were illegally displayed in the country parks. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, there were 3, 4 and 3 cases respectively. On January 4, 2015, there was a 1-meter-wide 5-meter-long "I want genuine universal suffrage" vertical banner on Sharp Peak, Sai Kung. The Government Flying Service helicopter made three trips over 3.3 hours for a cost of $105,546 without accounting for salaries. On December 30, 2017, there was a 3-meter-wide, 25-meter-long "Defend Hong Kong" vertical banner on Lion Rock. The Government Flying Service helicopter made 2 trips over 1.8 hours for a cost of $81,000, in addition to four fire department vehicles, mountain-climbing gear and altitude rescue equipment. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said that the Cap 208 Country Parks Ordinance prohibits the behavior with a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or three months in jail. However, the perpetrators of these 10 cases have not been identified so far. (Oriental Daily) February 5, 2018.

There were three black vertical banners hanging down the outside of the Foo Tak Building in Wanchai, Hong Kong Island. The middle one has the words: "Don't want DQ, give me back my election right." Hong Kong Demosisto said on Facebook that this action is to remind citizens that the election is still going on but many political figures were disqualified because of the government's political screening and thought censorship. The signatures (?) showed that the people clearly opposed the government from taking away their will for freedom. According to information, Hong Kong Demosisto office is in the Foo Tak Building. Internet comments: - They said that they want their (right to

election) back. That is ambiguous because it could mean the right to vote or the right to be elected. They don't seem to realize this. So they should be using (right to run in election). But what do you expect from a bunch of

university undergraduates at third-rate schools.

- No no no, you are wrong. They meant their right to vote for whosoever they want. But their choice is being restricted by the politically motivated Returning Officers. They are saying that they can vote for Adolf Hitler if they want and you shouldn't deny them of their inalienable right to do so. - Eh, that writing on the wall is just plain awful. The proportions of the parts within the words are wrong. Who do they hire to write it? Kindergarten children? - When you take an action, you should assess its effectiveness. Have you achieved total or even partial victory by hanging out these banners? - Has the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party been shaken up after hanging so many banners over the years? Do you sense that they are worried? - Hanging out a vertical banner from your office window. I hope that you have reached agreement with the tenants downstairs beforehand. It is very bad luck to have your windows covered in black during the Lunar New Year, because it does not augur well. - Of course, everybody is waiting for the unplanned accident to happen. And it will happen sooner of later. For example, a fireman may fall off the cliff during the removal process. Or a helicopters. Or a banner falls down on the street to obscure the vision of a bus driver. If and when that happens, here is how they will respond: "This banner would not be there if the regime did not take the action that is being protested against. Therefore the regime bears full responsibility for the accident. Carrie Lam must resign! The Chinese Communist Party must apologize!" - Selfishness and irresponsibility. The hallmarks of Demosisto and League of Social Democrats. - And who gets to pay the bill? The people of Hong Kong. - It's only $500,000 or so, which works out to be only 7 cents per person. This is a very small price to pay for our FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and UNIVERSAL VALUES. - The vertical banner outside an office building is a form of vertical structure. But prosecution by the Buildings Department is reserved solely for government officials such as Teresa Cheng. Pro-democracy activists (such as Paul Zimmerman, Jimmy Lai, Claudia Mo, Demosisto etc) can do the same with impunity because of FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and UNIVERSAL VALUES. - If the Buildings Department issues a summons to Demosisto, they will go to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and complain about a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. - Actually, Demosisto is the renter. Does the landlord know? This is important because it is the landlord who will be penalized for illegal structures that pose an immediate danger to the public. - The Demosisto banner talks about the right to be elected. The disqualification was based upon the Demosisto policy platform for advocating Hong Kong independence in contravention of the Basic Law. Why won't Demosisto talk about the right of the people of Hong Kong to choose independence for themselves? Do they still harbor any illusions? They should really come out with a categorical affirmation or denial. Instead they are still wriggling around. - It warms my heart on this coldest day of the year to see Demosisto finally take up the fight on behalf of Frederick Fung who was disqualified for politically motivated reasons (see #858). [863] Theresa Maybe Visits China (2018/02/02) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) January 29, 2018. Q: British Prime Minister Theresa May is about to visit China. Can you give us more information regarding her schedule and China's expectation? A: We announced Prime Minister Theresa May's visit last week. The year of 2017 marked the 45th anniversary of the establishment of China-UK ambassadorial diplomatic ties. During their successful meeting at the sidelines of the G20 Hamburg Summit, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Theresa May reached important consensus on developing the China-UK relations in the next stage. Premier Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Theresa May also exchanged congratulatory letters with each other on the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties at ambassadorial level, reaffirming their shared aspiration to develop bilateral relations. This visit marks the first annual China-UK Prime Ministers' meeting following President Xi Jinping's historic state visit to the UK in 2015. It is also Prime Minister May's first official visit to China after she took office. China attaches great importance to it. During the visit, Chinese leaders will meet and hold talks with Prime Minister May on separate occasions and exchange in-depth views on bilateral relations and regional and international issues of mutual concern. Prime Minister May will also visit Shanghai and Wuhan, Hubei Province. As the visit draws near, the two sides are in close communication on its schedule and outcomes. We look forward to achieving fruitful outcomes, including stepping up political mutual trust, expanding practical cooperation in trade and all other fields, and enhancing communication and coordination on major international and regional issues. We stand ready to work with the British side to take this visit as an opportunity to achieve new development of the China-UK global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st century. Q: Do you think the UK has achieved its goal of becoming China's closest partner in the West now? Second, does China welcome a dialogue with Prime Minister Theresa May on human rights issues during her visit to China? A: Cooperation can always be bettered. As to whether China and Britain have become the closest partners, we may need to wait and see how Prime Minister May's visit this time plays out. The position of the Chinese side is very clear. We are willing to develop increasingly closer and friendly cooperative relations with all countries in the world, including the United Kingdom. On the human rights issue, China is willing to conduct exchanges and dialogues with other countries around the world. However, such exchanges and dialogues must be based on equality and mutual respect. No country in the world can claim to be perfect on human rights. We hope that countries could learn from each other and make progress together through equal-footed and mutually respectful exchanges, dialogues and cooperation. (SCMP) January 30, 2018. The last British governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten on Monday urged his prime minister to speak up for the city during her first state visit to China, saying the former colony faced increasing threats to “basic freedoms, human rights and autonomy”. In a letter sent to Theresa May, Patten and his fellow British peer Paddy Ashdown encouraged her to insist on “the continued validity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the principles of ‘one country, two systems’” during her meetings with President Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders. “In the past five years Hong Kong has seen increasing threats to the basic freedoms, human rights and autonomy which the people were promised at the handover just over 20 years ago,” Patten and Ashdown wrote. They said the UK should not shirk its responsibility to Hong Kong while building ties with China, which May will visit from January 31 to February 2. “We hope that ... you will be able to provide the people of Hong Kong with some assurance that our developing relationship with China, vital though it is, will not come at the cost of our obligation to them,” the letter read. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) January 30, 2018. Q: Yesterday, Chris Patten, former British Governor of Hong Kong, had sent a letter to British Prime Minister Theresa May in which he expressed concern that Hong Kong is facing increasing threats to the basic freedoms, human rights and autonomy that its people were promised during the 1997 handover. He urged Prime Minister Theresa May to address this sort of concerns during her visit here. Does China have any comment on that? A: Since the return of Hong Kong, "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy have been effectively implemented. The Chinese government exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong as mandated by China's Constitution and the Hong Kong Basic Law. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. Hong Kong affairs belong to China's internal affairs. China firmly opposes the interference of any foreign government, institution and individual in the affairs of Hong Kong. This position cannot be clearer. (The Guardian) The UK promised us Hong Kong would never walk alone – Theresa May has to keep that promise. By Joshua Wong. January 31, 2018. In 1996, on the eve of handover, the British prime minister, John Major, vowed: “Hong Kong will never have to walk alone”. With Xi Jinping refusing to respect the autonomy and freedoms Hong Kong was guaranteed after its return to Chinese control, it now falls to Major’s Conservative party heir, Theresa May, to make good on that pledge. Let me explain why. Two years ago, we founded our political party, Demosisto, hoping to strengthen Hong Kong’s youth democracy force that came together during 2014’s “umbrella movement” protests. The peaceful, 79-day demonstrations failed to win any major concessions from Beijing but they did show us the potential our generation had to make a meaningful difference. To build on that momentum, we thought it was worth trying to enter the political establishment. And that was precisely what we did when our friend and chairperson, Nathan Law, was elected in September 2016 aged 23. But two months later came Beijing’s use of its controversial power to “interpret” Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law. Two “localist” legislators accused of having separatist tendencies were barred from office for using vulgar language and waving “Hong Kong is not China” banners during the swearing-in ceremony. The following year, four progressive legislators were also removed on the same grounds. Nathan was one of them: he had quoted Gandhi and declared his refusal to obey “a regime that murders its own people” before reading his oath. The byelections, set to take place on 11 March, are supposed to fill the seats vacated by Beijing’s relentless crackdown. Nathan is unable to stand because of his recent sentencing on political charges related to the umbrella movement so Demosisto instead decided to field Agnes Chow, a fellow student activist leader. Agnes met every requirement to stand in the election and looked set to break Nathan’s record as Hong Kong’s youngest legislator. But then, last Saturday, her candidacy was declared invalid due to her support for the idea of Hong Kong’s right to self-determination. The decision was a textbook example of how unfair, uncompetitive elections – where only candidates pre-screened the government appears on the ballot – work. Advertisement What’s more, Demosisto does not even advocate separatism and has repeatedly emphasised the true meaning of “self-determination”: an opportunity for Hong Kongers to decide and determine, through democratic means, the territory’s political status and its future. There’s no doubt that the Chinese government is waging a full-fledged crackdown on Demosisto. Our chairperson was already unreasonably removed from the legislature, while several of our most prominent figures have been imprisoned over the past year for participating in civil disobedience. Saturday’s decision gives us good reason to believe that no member of our party can take part in future elections. With Beijing’s ever-tightening grip, the opposition camp in Hong Kong is left with less and less space to survive: the exact same stance deemed acceptable in 2016 is unacceptable in 2018. Agnes is hardly the first victim – and she will not be the last. As the remaining voices for civil disobedience are suppressed, the political spectrum narrows even further. Theresa May must use her time with “Emperor Xi” this week to stand up for Hong Kong’s rights, before it is too late. (Global Times) February 1, 2018. British Prime Minister Theresa May is visiting China, seeking to expand pragmatic collaboration with the country so as to pave the way for future trade and investment deals. However, some Western media outlets keep pestering May to criticize Beijing in an attempt to showcase that the UK has withstood pressure from China and the West has consolidated its commanding position over the country in politics. Certain democracy activists in Hong Kong also intervened. In an open letter published Wednesday, Joshua Wong urged May to "stand up for Hong Kong's rights," claiming that London vowed "Hong Kong will never have to walk alone" in 1996. Taking advantage of Western forces to confront the central government is a long-term illusion of the radical Hong Kong opposition. Some Western media outlets eagerly hoped that French President Emmanuel Macron would denounce China during his Beijing trip last month, but Macron disappointed them. May will definitely not make any comment contrary to the goals of her China trip either. For the prime minister, the losses outweigh the gains if she appeases the British media at the cost of the visit's friendly atmosphere. Europe's rational upgrade of comprehensive cooperation with China is an irreversible trend. Europeans must overcome prejudices and negative sentiments toward China. Radical voices are often heard in European public opinion on China-related issues, but they do not represent Sino-European relations and will gradually die down in the face of realistic needs. European governments have become increasingly clear-minded, and should guide public opinion in this regard. Developing friendly cooperation with China has become the mainstream in Europe, and major European countries are actually competing to collaborate with Beijing. A large trade volume with China is widely regarded as a political achievement, and meanwhile tensions with China have increasingly become a political burden. Some media's radical advocacy has already lost its appeal. The UK government has done work to shape public opinion for May's China trip. British Ambassador to China Barbara Woodward said ahead of May's visit that Britain has kept a steadfast and steady commitment to the "Golden Era" partnership with China, stressing that the country is a "natural partner" for China's Belt and Road initiative. May's enthusiastic and positive remarks about China have led European media's coverage of the trip in a positive direction. Like its participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Britain's joining the Belt and Road initiative conforms to its national interests. While the government is responsible for public well-being, the media tends to whip up sensations while disregarding sound international relations. Some European media pressed May and Macron on human rights, but the two leaders sidestepped the topic on their China trip. This shows that the Sino-European relationship has, to a large degree, extricated itself from the impact of radical public opinion. China's robust development has instilled impetus for Europe to overcome its prejudices against Beijing. David Cameron's government gained Britain strategic initiative by joining the AIIB. In May's era, Sino-British relations have the conditions for strategic breakthroughs. We hope May's visit this time can function as a key to future Beijing-London cooperation. (The Guardian) January 31, 2018. Theresa May has insisted she will raise human rights and Hong Kong’s political situation with China’s leaders this week, amid criticism of Britain’s “pusillanimous” response to Beijing’s increasingly hard line. Addressing reporters as she flew out to start a three-city tour of China, the British prime minister, who will dine with President Xi Jinping on Thursday, vowed to broach both politically sensitive issues. “We believe that the future of Hong Kong should be a ‘one country, two systems’ future and we are committed to that,” said May, referring to the formula that guaranteed the former colony’s political freedoms after handover in 1997. Despite her pledge to raise Hong Kong and human rights, few expect May to publicly challenge Xi on either issue. British officials are dismissive of the value of “megaphone diplomacy” and argue raising individual cases behind closed doors is more effective. Beijing will also give short shrift to any criticism, public or private. On Monday, a foreign ministry spokeswoman indicated the shape of future UK-China relations depended on May’s adherence to the party line. “As to whether China and Britain have become the closest partners, we may need to wait and see how prime minister May’s visit this time plays out,” Hua Chunying told a press briefing. Steve Tsang, the head of the School of Oriental and African Studies’ China Institute, predicted human rights and Hong Kong would rank low on May’s agenda. “[Beijing] would not tolerate that … The Chinese government’s position is very clear. It’s very hard to see the prime minister and her advisers advising her to pay the price and stand up against that.” (Reuters) February 2, 2018. British Prime Minister Theresa May landed in China earlier this week fending off questions about her future amid mounting accusations of poor leadership, boring policies, and weakness over Brexit. By Friday the 61-year old leader was basking in a warm reception from the leaders of world’s second-largest economy, while concerned Chinese citizens affectionately nicknamed her ‘Aunty May’ and worried if her legs were warm enough in the Beijing cold. May brought up awkward issues like democracy in Hong Kong, human rights and ethical concerns about Xi’s Belt and Road initiative, but was praised as “pragmatic” by the Global Times for not pressing the issue in public. “For the prime minister, the losses outweigh the gains if she appeases the British media at the cost of the visit’s friendly atmosphere,” the paper wrote in an editorial on Friday. Internet comments: - After all the hubbub from Joshua Wong, Paddy Ashdown and Chris Patten, nothing came out of Theresa May's mouth in public about freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. If she had brought it up with Xi Jinping in front of the media, she will find Xi being suddenly called away from the State Dinner due to emergency and she would be hosted instead by a Mongolianspeaking deputy undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. - (China Culture Corner) Face or Mianzi. In China and much of Asia, Face represents a person’s reputation and feelings of prestige within multiple spheres, including the workplace, the family, personal friends, and society at large. The concept of Face can be understood more easily by breaking it down into three separate components: the individual view, the community view, and actions. The “individual view” pertains to the amount of prestige individuals feel based on their accomplishments, and the amount of respect they feel they are due based on their position and status, such as in a company or the home. For example, in the modern Chinese economy there are many opportunities to buy status symbols, which help a person gain prestige. And in China’s hierarchy-focused society, the respect a person is due is determined first by status relative to another person’s, not necessarily by personal achievements. The “community view” pertains to the amount of respect individuals feel necessary to give to someone else based upon that person’s position or status, such as in a business, the family unit or within a group or friends. For example, status in a Chinese family is divided by very distinct roles; there are even separate terms used to address older and younger cousins, aunts, and uncles. Giving the same amount of respect to older and younger aunts or uncles might be viewed as a serious breach of etiquette. “Actions” pertain to the various activities that can cause an individual to gain or lose Face. Based upon one’s position relative to someone else, several different actions can be employed to either cause a loss or gain of Face. In some cases these actions might occur unintentionally, or instead be used as tactic to achieve a specific result. For example, giving someone Face (e.g. more than they might deserve) can be used to build relationships and influence decisions. Also, causing someone to lose Face can reinforce one’s own authority and status, or pressure someone toward a desired action, such as quitting their job or fulfilling a promise. - (SCMP) February 2, 2018. May told Xi when they met in Beijing on Thursday that the world had a collective responsibility to do more to tackle plastic waste “on behalf of future generations”. China is the world’s biggest producer of plastic, and plastic waste. Big bad China, then. But there is also this: China meanwhile banned imports of foreign waste from the start of the year because of environmental and health concerns. That has caused a crisis for waste disposal and recycling around the world, including the United Kingdom, which used to send two-thirds of its plastic waste – or approximately 500,000 tonnes a year – to China for recycling. - At this point, we don't know and we will never know for sure what, if anything, Theresa May said behind closed doors. My bet is that they went through the ritualized game of each side stating its position and agreeing to disagree. Thus, Theresa May said that the United Kingdom has an obligation under the Joint Sino-British Declaration to continue to pay attention to One Country Two Systems and A High Degree of Autonomy in Hong Kong. Xi Jinping replied that the matters of Hong Kong are strictly internal matters for China and that China rejects all foreign intervention. And then they sat down and have tea while discussing the fortunes of Manchester United. - Auntie May could not say more than certain generalities. She can't tell Xi Jinping that she thinks Agnes Chow Ting must not be disqualified, or that Lau Siu-lai's oath of office must be accepted, or that HK SAR Chief Executive Carrie Lam must not to criticize "foreign meddling," or that the people of Hong Kong must hold a referendum to decide their own future. If Auntie May said these things, she would really be micro-managing and meddling in Hong Kong. On the flip side, China has expressed concern about Brexit. But China will not tell the United Kingdom whether they should have done it, or how they should go about doing it, because that is an internal matter for the United Kingdom. [862] The Nobel Peace Prize for the Umbrella Movement (2018/02/02) (Marco Rubio, US Senator for Florida) February 1, 2018. Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Chris Smith, the chair and cochair respectively of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), led a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers in nominating Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow and the entire pro-democracy Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. In addition to the Chairs, the letter to the Nobel Prize Committee was signed by Senators Gary Peters (D-MI), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Representatives Elliot Engel (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), and Ann Wagner (R-MO). The entire letter can be found here and below. “This nomination could not be more timely as Hong Kong’s long-cherished autonomy continues to erode, and Umbrella Movement leaders face reprisals simply for espousing basic human rights and freedoms,” said Senator Rubio. “Joshua Wong and his fellow pro-democracy advocates have been unflinching in their peaceful and principled commitment to a free and prosperous Hong Kong. They are an inspiration and their cause has reverberations far beyond their city.” “We all owe Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement a debt of gratitude,” said Representative Smith. “In the tradition of all great Nobel Peace Prize laureates, they continue to hold up a mirror to the ugly face of authoritarianism and show us again that the desire for democracy and human rights are universal ideals, shared by all people, everywhere. How fitting would it be for Hong Kong’s champions of freedom to receive the peace prize a year after the death of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo. It would be both a fitting tribute and a reminder that the struggle for democracy and rights are not alien to the people of mainland China, but an indelible part of their great history and culture—and an important part of their future.” ________________________________________________________________ January 31, 2018 Berit Reiss-Anderson Chair Nobel Peace Prize Committee NO-0255 Oslo Norway Dear Chair Reiss-Anderson and Members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee: We, the undersigned members of the United States Congress, respectfully nominate Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Alex Chow Yong-kang, and the entire pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, collectively known as the “Umbrella Movement,” to receive the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of their peaceful efforts to bring political reform and self-determination to Hong Kong and protect the autonomy and freedom guaranteed Hong Kong in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong’s pro-democracy leaders, politicians and young people took to the streets in the fall of 2014 in response to a decision issued by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) which ruled that only candidates endorsed by a pro-Beijing nominating committee could run as a candidate for the Chief Executive position in Hong Kong’s government. Article 45 of the Basic Law—Hong Kong’s constitutional document—provides that “the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.” The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly urged Hong Kong to enact reforms to implement elections by universal suffrage, in accordance with article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which applies to Hong Kong under Article 39 of the Basic Law. Through their respective leadership roles, Wong, Law, Chow, along with other pro-democracy politicians and supporters who took part in the largest pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong’s history, demonstrated civic courage, extraordinary leadership, and an unwavering commitment to a free and prosperous Hong Kong that upholds the rule of law, political freedoms and human rights. Hong Kong’s pro-democracy advocates have made significant contributions to peace by actively seeking to safeguard the future of Hong Kong at precisely the time that Beijing has taken steps to undermine Hong Kong’s long-cherished autonomy. They have shown great courage in the face of harassment, threats, detention, and legal and financial repercussions. In their writings, speeches and political activism they have boldly challenged the central government’s steady erosion of the “one country, two systems” model prescribed in the Basic Law, which stipulates that the political system practiced in China would not be extended to Hong Kong and that its economic system and way of life would be protected. Wong, 21, founded the student activist group Scholarism in 2011 at the age of 15, and successfully organized protests in 2012 against the controversial pro-Beijing “moral and national education” school curriculum and later spearheaded efforts to garner support for universal suffrage. His efforts, buoyed by his charismatic leadership and unflinching pursuit of peaceful change landed him on TIME Magazine and Fortune lists of the most influential leaders in the world. Just this month he was awarded the prestigious Lantos Human Rights Prize by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice. Law, 24, promoted universal suffrage as a student activist at Lingnan University where he served as student union chief. He was elected Secretary General of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), the city’s oldest and largest student body, in March 2015. In 2016, Law, Wong, and other Umbrella Movement leaders formed a new political party, Demosisto. He successfully campaigned and won election to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) at age 23, making him the youngest lawmaker in the history of Hong Kong’s legislature. Chow, 27, mobilized students to peaceful protest as a leader at the University of Hong Kong and served as Secretary General of the HKFS. Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Umbrella Movement is a multi-generational effort, drawing on decades of struggle to preserve and advance democratic freedoms in Hong Kong before and after the handover from Britain to China. Such leaders include Martin Lee, Emily Lau, Albert Ho, Alan Leong, Leung Kwok-hung, Christine Loh, Benny Tai, Chu Yiu-ming, Lester Shum, Johannes Chan, Anson Chan and many others. The Umbrella Movement leaders face increasing pressure, detention, and financial penalties for their advocacy for democracy and human rights. By July 2017, Law and five other democratically elected legislators were disqualified from their LegCo seats after the Chinese central government issued an interpretation of the Basic Law deeming certain previously acceptable oath-taking behaviors undertaken by legislators as punishable by disqualification. Wong, Law, and Chow were convicted on trumped-up charges of “unlawful assembly” for their activities during the Umbrella Movement and were given sentences of community service. After Wong and Law completed these sentences, the Hong Kong government sought tougher punishments against the three, resulting in sentences of six to eight months in jail, which makes the three ineligible for running for public office for five years. The three were released on bail on appeal currently before the Court of Final Appeal and they face additional charges and tremendous legal costs that threaten to bankrupt them. Just this month, Joshua was sentenced to an additional three months in prison for his role in the Umbrella Movement. Continued harsh measures against pro-democracy advocates will no doubt have a chilling effect. While the democracy movement in Hong Kong faces tremendous opposition from the Chinese Communist Party and the Hong Kong government, these young leaders have continued their fight to improve the welfare of Hong Kong. Since their release from prison, the trio started working with LegCo members on prison reform legislation. Wong, Law, and Chow and the entire Umbrella Movement embody the peaceful aspirations of the people of Hong Kong who yearn to see their autonomies and way of life protected and their democratic aspirations fulfilled. Such yearnings are not unique to the citizens of Hong Kong. Countless others around the world, including in mainland China, aspire to the same ideals but their voices are silenced and their protests forbidden. The Umbrella Movement and its leadership are acting in the long tradition of previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates who captured the imagination of their fellow countrymen and sought principled and peaceful change from within. Joshua Wong’s sentiments on Twitter immediately after the announcement of his prison sentence capture well the optimistic and persistent spirit that animates their efforts: “The government can lock up our bodies but they cannot lock up our minds! We want democracy in Hong Kong. And we will not give up.” We deeply appreciated the Nobel Committee’s past willingness to brave the displeasure, and outright retribution, of the Chinese Communist Party and government in awarding the prize to Chinese political prisoner Liu Xiaobo, who last year became the first Peace Prize recipient to die in state custody since Carl von Ossietzky, the German pacifist and opponent of Nazism who won the prize in 1935 and died under guard in 1938. Liu Xiaobo’s unjust imprisonment, and ultimately his death, serve as a stark reminder of China’s authoritarianism and deep disregard for universally-recognized human rights—realities that Wong, Law, and Chow seek to preserve for the city they love. We can think of no one more deserving of the Committee’s recognition in 2018 than these champions of peace and freedom and Hong Kong’s entire pro-democracy movement. Sincerely, Internet comments: - Nobel Peace Prize Process of Nomination and Selection: According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories: •

Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of states

•

Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague

•

Members of Institut de Droit International

•

University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes

•

Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

•

Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent for organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

•

Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)

•

Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee

The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those persons or organizations nominated by qualified individuals, see above. A nomination for yourself will not be taken into consideration. The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigators and opinions related to the award of a prize. In recent years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for the selection of eligible candidates and the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian parliament). - The threshold for getting a nomination is pretty low. In the United States, the national assembly consists of 100 members of the Senate and 435 members of the Congress. They only need one to sign, but they actually got 12 (=2%) out of 535 to sign this letter. So this is a terrific response. It shows that the people of the United States of America are totally behind the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong. - There are many more than the cited 200 submissions each year. They screen the nominations and eliminate those who are either ineligible (Adolf Hitler is dead) or fictional (Hannibal Lecter) or prankish (Stephen Chow Sing-chi). The committee then reduces the 200 submissions to the shortlist for further consideration. What are their criteria? We don't know, because confidentiality requires this to be a black box operation. - Unfortunately, Hong Kong is not a nation or else any Hong Kong legislative councilor can nominate anyone for the Nobel Peace Prize: Martin Lee, Leung Kwok-hung, Benny Tai, Eric Cheung Tat-ming, Tung Chee-hwa, Donald Tsang, CY Leung, Ko Tat-bun, Leticia Lee, David Berkowitz, Cliven Bundy, LeBron James, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, etc. Wouldn't that be fun? - Hong Kong has 36 persons who were elected as deputies to the National People's Congress. Therefore these 36 persons are eligible to nominate someone. However, none of these 36 persons would think it to be proper to exploit the Nobel Peace Prize for selfish purposes. - The Norwegian Nobel Committee won't publicly discuss, acknowledge or deny a nomination. So you can always release the letter to the public which has the right to know, with the knowledge that you won't be contradicted. - The Democratic People's Republic of Korea can do a lot better percentage-wise because all 687 members of its Supreme People's Assembly will surely sign a letter to nominate their Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un for the Nobel Peace Prize. For the past few years, Kim Jong-un has been bringing us peace the same way as 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winners Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho did (see History Lessons). So Kim should deserves to get his own prize. - This is post #862. Post #001 began at the same time as Occupy Central with Love and Peace. With due respect, there is no much love and peace in Hong Kong between #001 and #862. And a Nobel Peace Prize should be given to whoever created this? This is even more perverse than the case of Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. - There were two revolutions in Hong Kong since 2014. The first was the Umbrella Revolution with leaders being the groups Occupy Central With Love and Peace, the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism. At the end of 79 days of Occupy, more than 80% of the population were turned against them. When the sites were finally cleared, they had accomplished nothing. They managed to sabotage one-person-one-vote in favor of a small-circle election for the Chief Executive election later. The second was the Fishball Revolution led by the group Hong Kong Indigenous on Lunar New Year's Day in 2016. During that night of rioting, 99 police officers were injured. This revolution managed to destroy the cause of Localism. Rubio-Smith are favoring the Umbrella Revolution while completely ignoring the Fishball Revolution. - Rubio-Smith can make up for this inadvertent mistake by nominating Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Edward Leung Tin-kei next year. Of course, the interesting question is whether the fugitive Wong will emerge from wherever he is hiding to receive his Nobel Peace Prize (and US$1,000,000 prize money). - Pity the Norwegian salmon producers who will have to worry about another bust. (Quartz) June 14, 2017. Norway is the world’s biggest producer of salmon. But hardly any of it goes to China, the biggest consumer of seafood. Since the Nobel Prize was awarded to human rights activist Liu Xiaobo in 2010—at a ceremony in Oslo where the award was famously placed on an empty chair as Liu was in prison in China—Norway, and its fish, have been given the cold shoulder in China. In 2010, the country almost accounted for all of China’s salmon imports, according to data from the Norwegian government and DNB Markets, a Norwegian bank. Since then, its salmon exports to the mainland have plummeted, and by 2015 even the Faroe Islands, Norway’s tiny Nordic neighbor, was exporting more salmon to China. In December 2016, the two countries made a breakthrough when they normalized relations after Norway’s foreign minister visited Beijing. China said that Norway had “deeply reflected upon the reasons bilateral mutual trust was harmed.” Last month, Norway’s seafood industry appeared to get the firmest sign yet that the Chinese market would be fully opened back to them when a delegation visited China and signed a seafood trade agreement, with the aim of exporting $1.45 billion worth of salmon to China by 2025. Ivar Kolstad, an economist, calculated in a paper for Norwegian think-tank CMI that the freeze in Norway-China relations cost Norway $780 million to $1.3 billion in exports and said that China had become “too big to fault,” according to the Financial Times. It seems to have had results—in 2015, no Norwegian government members would meet with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who is labeled as a separatist by Beijing, when he visited the country. “The Norwegian administration took some domestic criticism for submitting to Chinese pressure in recent years,” said the researcher, and if a salmon deal hadn’t been achieved “all that China-friendliness can be perceived as delivering no results.” - Previously, the Yellow Ribbon media were pushing "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower", a film about Joshua Wong Chi-fung, to be nominated as Best Feature Documentary in the 2018 Oscar Awards (see EJ Insight, November 1, 2017). 170 titles were submitted to the US Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower" did not make the final five. So now it is time to move on to the next project to make Joshua Wong a superhero. - (Hong Kong Free Press) February 7, 2018. It is very heartening that twelve United States lawmakers nominated Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow and the Umbrella Movement for the Nobel Peace Prize. The nomination comes at a time when the pro-democracy movement is under sustained attack by the Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong government. Their primary means of attack are criminal prosecutions of pro-democracy leaders and activists and disqualifications from candidacy and elected office. Through these means, they have barred all groups which grew out of the Umbrella Movement from participating in the formal political system and are attempting to destroy the groups they find the most threatening. They intend especially to intimidate young people against getting involved in politics, in the classic Communist ploy of “killing the chicken to scare the monkeys.” All three of the leaders singled out in the nomination were sentenced to prison (Joshua to 9 months in two different cases, Alex to seven, and Nathan to eight) in relation to their role in occupying Civic Square on September 26, 2014, triggering the start of the Umbrella Movement two days later. On February 6, their prison sentences were overturned by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, nearly two years after the trial began on February 29, 2016. Joshua is now awaiting the appeal hearing of his other, three-month prison sentence. In addition, Nathan was disqualified from the Legislative Council along with five other pro-democracy lawmakers after having won the seats in the only democratic elections Hong Kong had. It was especially gratifying that the US lawmakers praised the nominees for, among other things, fighting for self-determination in the very same week that the pro-democracy candidate for the Hong Kong Island Legislative Council by-election in March, Agnes Chow, was barred from running on the grounds that she and her party, Demosistō, advocate selfdetermination. She was seeking to fill the seat left vacant by the disqualification of Nathan. Self-determination is in fact a basic human right. According to the Hong Kong government, it does not comply with the Basic Law even though the international treaties which guarantee it are enshrined in the Basic Law. But being politically persecuted—prosecuted, disqualified, intimidated, vilified and physically assaulted (assailants have been convicted for attacks on both Joshua and Nathan)— is in itself insufficient grounds for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. True, the persecuted make up an illustrious list of laureates, including, just in recent decades, Liu Xiaobo, Shirin Ebadi, Kim Dae-jung, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Rigoberta Menchú, Desmond Tutu and Lech Walesa, and these, it’s safe to say, have been amongst the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s best choices. But they won not primarily because they were persecuted but because they were freedom fighters and human rights defenders under oppressive regimes. Joshua, Nathan and Alex certainly fit that description, and there are plenty of positive reasons the three young men and the Umbrella Movement should join that revered group of laureates. The US lawmakers have already written an eloquent letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee outlining those reasons, and the statement the three made in response to the nomination also makes their Peace Prize-deserving qualities abundantly clear. Following on that, there are a few other arguments in their favor, which can be summarized in the following sentence: They are young people taking the future of their society into their own hands and collaboratively leading ordinary citizens in the long, hard, nonviolent struggle for democracy and self-determination. The points in italics are discussed below. Democracy The number one issue of our times is the global battle between democracy and authoritarianism. The world hangs in the balance: In the coming years and decades, it could easily become more authoritarian or more democratic. Other issues, such as climate change, must also be urgently addressed, but the question of whether the world goes in a more democratic or more authoritarian direction will have great bearing on that and all other urgent global issues. As the most powerful dictatorship, China is the ringleader of a club of dictators who have a vested interest in ensuring the world goes in a more authoritarian direction. This club includes major countries like Russia, Turkey and Egypt. Prominent democracies, such as the U.S., India and the Philippines, have leaders with authoritarian tendencies. Brazil and South Africa, major regional powers that have shown great democratic promise, have experienced democratic crises related to corruption. In large swaths of the Middle East and Central Asia, democracy is close to non-existent, and other areas such as Southeast Asia are not much better. Even the most democratic part of the world, Europe, has experienced challenges to democracy in a number of countries, most notably Hungary and Poland. Both the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index and the Freedom House Freedom in the World report have tracked the decline of democracy worldwide for upwards of a decade. Giving the peace prize to Joshua, Nathan, Alex and the Umbrella Movement would be a recognition of the gravity of this issue and send a signal to people around the world of the importance of democracy. Hong Kong, being a “Special Administrative Region” in the world’s largest dictatorship, is on the front lines of the battle. Recent visits to Europe and the U.S. gave me the impression that Europeans and Americans don’t fully appreciate the threat that China poses to democracy worldwide. A Nobel Peace Prize to the Umbrella Movement would alert them to that. Youth Very few young people have won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is understandable: it often takes decades of work to bring about greater peace and justice. But it is important to recognize both the great contributions of young people to peace and their immense potential to bring about a more peaceful and more just world. Young people were not the only ones who took part in the Umbrella Movement, but they certainly played a leading role. At a crucial moment in Hong Kong’s history, they stood up and said, I demand a say in my own society! What’s more, since then they’ve continued to do so, demonstrating admirable persistence, resilience, creativity, determination and courage. They are Hong Kong’s future. And while often little more than a well-worn platitude, it is nevertheless true that young people the world over are the future. In order to make the world a better, more peaceful place, it is necessary to tap their energy and ideals. Awarding the Peace Prize to Joshua, Nathan, Alex and the Umbrella Movement would be an inspiration to young people everywhere. Nonviolent people’s movements Malala Yousafzai is the only recent young Peace Prize laureate. She has admirably harnessed the notoriety gained from the near fatal attack on her to fight for education for girls worldwide. But Malala received the award as an individual, sharing the prize with Kailash Satyarthi. The prize has most often gone to individuals, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and inter-governmental organizations (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Atomic Energy Agency). The Umbrella Movement came in the wake of the Arab Spring, which the Norwegian Nobel Committee has acknowledged, though with something of a sideways glance. The 2011 prize went to Yemeni activist Tawakkol Karman, together with the Liberians Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Leymah Gbowee, “for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work”. In 2015, the National Dialogue Quartet won the prize “for its decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution of 2011”. While both awards had to do with people’s movements for democracy, one focused more on women’s participation and the other on a group that, once the movement had succeeded in toppling the dictator, played a crucial role in bringing about a transition to democracy. Giving the prize to the Umbrella Movement and its young leaders would be recognition of the importance of ordinary citizens working together to peacefully bring about more just and democratic societies. The long, hard nonviolent struggle The Umbrella Movement did not achieve its main positive objective. In this, it is similar to other recent movements like the Arab Spring, the Iranian Green Movement, the Occupy movement, and the worldwide demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. An estimated 1.2 million people participated in the 79-day-long occupations of three hubs of Hong Kong in late 2014. Before that, going back to 2003, hundreds of thousands had demonstrated down through the years for basic rights and universal suffrage. And since then, the struggle continues. A Peace Prize to the Umbrella Movement would send the message that the peaceful struggle for rights is long and hard, there are no easy victories, but it is necessary to keep on fighting. It took Gandhi and the anti-colonial movement of India decades. It took King and the Civil Rights Movement of the U.S. years, and that struggle for full equality is still unfinished. How long will it take us against the biggest dictatorship in the world? How long will it take all the others struggling against authoritarian regimes the world over? It’s up to us, the people, to fight on, but a Peace Prize to the Umbrella Movement would be a beacon of hope to all engaged in the long, hard nonviolent struggle for freedom and the right to make decisions for ourselves and our own societies. Will the Norwegian Nobel Committee give the Nobel Peace Prize to Joshua, Nathan, Alex and the Umbrella Movement? This is, of course, impossible to know. There are almost certainly many other worthy nominees. The conventional wisdom is that it’s a long shot. In reaction to Liu Xiaobo receiving the Peace Prize in 2010, the Chinese government punished all of Norway. For six years, there was virtually no contact between the Chinese and Norwegian governments. During that time, the Norwegian government was pressured by its business community to come to terms with China. When the two countries signed an agreement at the end of 2016 to “normalize relations”, many saw Norway as capitulating to China, and, in doing so, betraying its own values. I was in Norway last summer before Liu Xiaobo’s death and spoke with many Norwegians about this. They felt somewhat uneasy about what their government had done but few criticized it. They thought it had made a pragmatic decision and got the best deal it could. It didn’t necessarily mean, they believed, that Norway would no longer stand up for rights abroad. I took this general attitude to be the result of the years-long lobbying effort by the Norwegian business community, lead by its fish farmers. Norway believed it needed better relations with China for the sake of trade, in spite of the fact that it is an exceedingly wealthy country, due first and foremost to oil, and it has a well-managed sovereign wealth fund that guarantees its prosperity for generations to come. If any country was in a position to stand up to China, it was Norway. And yet it didn’t. Then Liu Xiaobo died in custody. And the top leaders of the Norwegian government, the ones responsible for the deal with China, said not one word during the excruciating weeks the story of his dying played out in the international media. Even when backed into a corner by the press, Prime Minister Erna Solberg refused to utter Liu’s name, as if it were a magical incantation that would spell doom. Harald Stanghelle, the editor-in-chief of Aftenposten (Norway’s New York Times), wrote an editorial reminding Norwegians of how Norway had stood up for Andrei Sakharov, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and many more. In backing down to China, Norway was losing its identity as a small nation whose foreign policy was based on democracy and human rights. Many Norwegians I spoke to agreed, not enough to make a dent in opinion polls (the conservative coalition government was narrowly re-elected in September 2017), but awareness was growing that being “pragmatic” came with moral and political costs that should perhaps be calculated more carefully. Who would bother to take the little country that traded freedom for fish seriously anymore? In contrast to the silent government, Berit Reiss-Andersen, the chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, sent a heartfelt video message to the Liu Xiaobo memorial held in Hong Kong. She also attended the memorial service held in Washington, DC in October. It was clear Liu Xiaobo meant something to her. Now the Umbrella Movement has been nominated. The threatening rumble from Beijing began the day after that was announced. While confining its criticism to the US lawmakers, China recited the same well-worn propaganda lines it used in the case of Liu Xiaobo, against “foreign interference” and about how the movement was “illegal” and “not peaceful” and the young men nominated were “criminals”. The Communist Party’s rhetoric wasn’t nearly as shrill as it might have been, but that’s because this is meant as only the initial warning salvo. The threats are bound to pick up closer to the time in early October when the winner will be announced. Rarely has the Norwegian Nobel Committee faced such bullying tactics. Will it dare? If the people of Hong Kong can stand up to Beijing, the people of Norway, whom it costs much less, surely can too. But does it really matter? It would be a welcome acknowledgement, especially at a time when the pro-democracy movement is under sustained attack. It wouldn’t immediately change anything, and there would in all likelihood be some backlash from the dictatorship. But the Peace Prize would reiterate that the Communist Party has a formidable opponent to contend with. Its demands for basic rights will not simply go away. It will not be destroyed. It would be a reminder that the rest of the world is watching and give hope and inspiration to young people, persecuted people, and political movements fighting for democracy and other rights around the world. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo had zero effect. Since then, the regime’s doubled down on oppression. Even after his death, Xiaobo’s wife, Liu Xia, is still extrajudicially held incommunicado from the rest of the world. But that’s to be expected from a regime that controls all levers of power. Hong Kong is different. It has a modicum of freedom and civil liberties. Due to censorship, many Chinese never even knew who Liu Xiaobo was and have only vaguely heard of the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations, if at all. Everyone in Hong Kong knows of the Umbrella Movement. It has determined almost every aspect of the political moment in which we now live. Last Thursday evening, I was at the protest against the disqualification of Agnes Chow held outside the Hong Kong government’s briefing session for candidates in the upcoming Legislative Council by-elections to fill the seats of four of the six disqualified pro-democracy Legco members. Agnes, Joshua and Nathan had managed to get inside the session, which was closed to the public, as assistants to Agnes’ replacement, Au Nok-hin. I was standing near the back door when suddenly it flew open and before my eyes Agnes was unceremoniously tossed out by a clutch of security guards. At the same moment, Joshua and Nathan were similarly ejected via the front door. It suddenly hit me that the dictators in Beijing are terrified of these brave, articulate, and passionate young people. A memory followed in the train of that epiphany: In 1989, I was teaching at a university in China when, just four months after the June 4 massacre, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Dalai Lama. Some of the students at the university had been killed on June 4, others had been imprisoned, still others were on the run, wanted by the authorities. The school year opened with compulsory military training and political education for all students. They were deeply depressed and refused to work. This was back in the days when universities still assigned graduates jobs at work units, and almost all of the students were being punished for their participation in the demonstrations by being sent to the least desirable work units in rural areas. When the news broke that the Dalai Lama had been awarded the prize, the students were shocked and disappointed. They’d had years of brainwashing by the Communist Party that he was an evil separatist: why would the Norwegian Nobel Committee give the Peace Prize to such a person? I tried to explain to them as best I could who the Dalai Lama really was and why he deserved the prize, but deep down, I was disappointed too. Even while I recognized that the Dalai Lama would have been an excellent choice in any other year, the students had been hoping that their pro-democracy demonstrations would be awarded the prize, and who could blame them? They had tried to peacefully change China for the better and had been killed, imprisoned and punished in myriad other ways for doing so. Not long after that, Western democracies mostly resumed “normal relations” with the regime under cover of the cynical euphemism of “engagement”, whereby the prerogatives of capital and trade were prioritized over freedom, democracy, freedom and human rights. It’s hard not to feel, looking back, that the Norwegian Nobel Committee missed an opportunity. If the prize had been awarded to the young Chinese who’d stood up for their country, it might have set a somewhat different tone on the world stage and affected the dynamics of what was to come. Since then, China has failed to democratize. The regime has hardly changed at all. The Committee tried to make amends with the award to Liu Xiaobo, but it was arguably too late: The movement of which he’d been a part had been obliterated decades before, he was in prison, and the Party was already in the process of destroying the fragile beginnings of the independent civil society for which he stood. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Joshua, Nathan, Alex and the Umbrella Movement would be exceedingly timely, recognizing a movement that is still very much alive and still has a chance of changing Hong Kong for the better, and perhaps even positively affecting the rest of China. Beyond that, it would be a beacon of hope to people everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and human rights. - (China Daily) Nomination for activists reveals US dirty tricks. By Tony Kwok. February 7, 2018. The arrest last month of a former United States’ Central Intelligence Agency agent Jerry Lee Chun-shing, who had been living in Hong Kong, is an eye-opener for Hong Kong people. But those in the know take it all in their stride because Hong Kong, for historical reasons and being on the doorstep of the Chinese mainland, has always been an espionage hotbed. News reports said Lee was arrested in New York after flying in from Hong Kong for allegedly disclosing confidential information on spies on the mainland, resulting in the central government neutralizing 18 to 20 of them. This merely confirms a long-suspected US espionage network in the country. But the latest revelation can hardly establish the extent of this network, as agent control is strictly need-to-know; Lee surely would not know the whole picture. As for their mission, it is safe to assume they would not be limited to collecting intelligence — experts believe technology is now better at this than human agents. Instead, agents are more likely to be inciting local people to conduct subversive activities, and to give them financial or material support while they manipulate out of sight. One should not be surprised to find them hiding behind the so-called human-rights activists. This also explains why many activists ended up in the US. As with the Arab Spring, their ultimate goal is to topple the government. There is no reason to suspect this modus operandi would not apply in Hong Kong, particularly since the police special branch was dismantled before the return of sovereignty, making the city a spy haven. A group of US congressmen nominating Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang for the Nobel Peace Prize over their role in the illegal “Occupy Central” movement should be viewed from the perspective of this long history of American foreign interference, often with regime change as their covert objective, in South America and elsewhere, always with disastrous consequences for the local populace. It would be naive to believe these three young men have the resources and expertise to organize, lead and sustain such a massive and complex protest movement over 79 days without extensive logistical support and strategic guidance from sources experienced in such operations; Wong admitted he does not even know how to fold a blanket! An Oct 2014 BBC documentary on Oslo Freedom Forum, a training center for activists, revealed the “Occupy” organizers had been planning the operation two years before and received training overseas. Training included how to keep the crowd in situ by looking after them, how to speak to police, defend against water cannon and react to police arrests. It’s practically a course on subverting government. The documentary also showed Wong talking to Yang Jianli, a former mainland activist now living in the US. Yang admitted they communicated on an hourly basis during “Occupy”. At its peak, participants had an unlimited supply of free meals, water, tents, blankets, counter-police riot gear and other essentials to make camping on public spaces more bearable. Organizers have so far been unable to publish a proper audit of their movement despite promises to do so. Did the CIA orchestrate from behind? Many would think so. It should be noted that at least one of those student activists has a US passport. Then there are scandals of our politicians receiving secret funds at around that time. They were not prosecuted because of a lack of sufficient evidence but their source is so dubious that it can only be rationally speculated as from the US. In their Nobel nomination, the congressmen highlight the subsequent jailing of the trio for “Occupy” involvement. But they conveniently neglected to mention that they were jailed not for their so-called “peaceful” demonstration but for their incitement to use violence which resulted in injuries to several security guards. I wonder how these congressmen would react if other countries nominated “Occupy Wall Street” protestors? Do these congressmen know that when the court issued the eviction order for these people to leave the “Occupy” areas, it had the support of over a million people in Hong Kong who responded to the signature campaign, because many people’s livelihoods were severely disrupted by the street occupation? Yet we had Wong and his collaborators trying to obstruct execution of the court’s order and as a result, he was rightly sentenced to imprisonment for three months for contempt of court. On the other hand, the Nobel Peace Prize’s prestige has degenerated into something of a joke after it went to former US president Barak Obama before he accomplished anything meaningful. Recent riots in Tunisia show the award to current leaders was unjustified; Western powers have made the award a political tool. Let’s face it. For most of Hong Kong’s 150 years as a British Colony, democracy was an unattainable concept for our people. They had no say in the selection of the governor or Legislative Council members. Where were all those American politicians who claimed to be champions of democracy? Why are they so outspoken now? The reason is obvious: They play adversarial politics against the mainland through Hong Kong. But we need to give credit to these congressmen for being patriotic as they were united, despite coming from different political parties, in pursuing their selfish national interest. In our LegCo, one-third of members oppose their own motherland and are not willing to support national interest. The political quagmire the express rail co-location plan finds itself in shows their lack of patriotic fervor. Despite the project having obvious and immense national interest, opposition legislators resort to every possible excuse to sabotage it. - (Global Times) February 2, 2018. A dozen US congressmen and women have nominated Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang, as well as Hong Kong's "Umbrella Movement" for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. The Umbrella Movement began as "Occupy Central." The movement severely violated Hong Kong's laws and disturbed city order. Wong, Law and Chow were sentenced to jail terms from six to eight months. Wong was later given a second prison term of three months for contempt. All these jail terms were not long and can be seen as minimum sentencing to maintain Hong Kong's social stability. But the verdicts were hyped up by opposition forces. Wong and the others viewed their prison terms as mere gilding and continued to act arrogantly. Sentencing Wong and barring pro-independence activists from participating in the legislative council election safeguarded the rule of law. More recently, Hong Kong's charged political atmosphere appeared to have improved. The nomination of Wong and the other two for a Nobel Peace Prize showed the US congressmen's ill will toward China. They obviously want to send a signal that whoever opposes Beijing in Hong Kong will be supported by the US. Wong is only 21 years old. The eldest of the three, Chow, is 27. Since Occupy Central, Wong has been hailed by the West as a democracy fighter. At least this year, it is unlikely Wong or the other two will receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The political agenda behind the US congressmen's nomination is too obvious and it would be a shame if the Norwegian Nobel Committee blindly followed their directive. When the committee awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010, China-Norway relations hit a freezing point. They only began thawing in the past two years. Norway might not want to ride that rollercoaster once more. Even by Western standards, Wong and the others are too young. By nominating them for the Nobel Peace Prize, the West is adopting pets - and it looks ludicrous. Recently Americans have been boycotting Chinese "infiltration." The 12 congressmen and women are publicly interfering with Hong Kong's affairs. Giving a peace prize to the leaders of street riots is against the original intention of the prize. The US has no power to substantially change Hong Kong. Washington long ago lost the power to do whatever it wants. US protection of political antagonists was bound to deteriorate. The chance of a Chinese person benefiting from Washington's largesse and becoming a useful political pawn will peter out all in good time. From a broader perspective, even in Hong Kong this is not the direction one should choose for a life. Wong and the others have in fact become tools for anti-China forces in the West. Their views are too narrow. They cannot see the bigger trend of history and they are unable to rein in their childishness and selfishness. There is no honor to be found in pursing their wrongful path of betraying the interests of Hong Kong and the motherland. - (Bastille Post) February 2, 2018. When Occupy Central ended, the public opinion showed a 24% support and 76% opposed. The people of Hong Kong were sick and tired. Those Occupy folks may have good intentions, but their good intentions are not enough when their actions are impinging on the freedom of others. There are three lasting consequences of Occupy Central. Firstly, it had severely damaged the mutual trust between Hong Kong and China. In the first few days of Occupy Central, the Central Government had contemplated sending in the People's Liberation Army to help the Hong Kong Police put down an uprising. Foreign satellites were watching the PLA amassing on the other side of the border. The Americans initially supported Occupy Central, but two weeks later they reversed their positions and asked the protestors to withdraw. The Americans were worried that a full takeover by the Central Government will damage their commercial interests in Hong Kong. Although the PLA did not come, the Central Government could not trust Hong Kong anymore and today they watch out for any sign of separatism. Secondly, the young people became radicalized. Occupy Central rationalized unlawful activities because you can and should break the law in order to achieve justice. There was much street violence, physical clashes and foul-mouthed curses. Later on, there were the Shopping Revolution in which people provoked the police, the racism/xenophobia of the Restoration campaigns in New Territories, the sieges of the university council meetings and, most recently, the Occupy Language Centre at the Hong Kong Baptist University. Thirdly, universal suffrage for the Chief Executive was stopped in the tracks. The government made a compromise proposal for one-person-one-vote in 2017. But Occupy Central insisted that they must have "genuine universal suffrage." In the end, the Chief Executive was elected in 2017 by a small-circle election committee as before. The Occupy Central people promised that the constitutional reform will re-start as soon as the compromise proposal is voted down. To date, nothing has happened or will happen in the foreseeable future. - (SCMP) Why Hong Kong Occupy trio are my Nobel Peace Prize guys. By Alex Lo. February 3, 2018. The New York Times last year suggested the Nobel Peace Prize for Occupy protest leaders Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang. Now, Republican Senator Marco Rubio has led a group of US Congressmen to join the chorus and made a formal nomination. Of course, anyone can nominate anybody, so it’s neither here nor there. The Nobel committee receives hundreds of nominations every year, many of them frivolous, meaningless or politically tainted. The yellow-ribbon people in Hong Kong are ecstatic. The “bluer” commentators and politicians, though, have expressed outrage and bafflement. I am, however, merely jealous. If only my column had the same impact and got lawmakers to do my bidding! The Times’ proposal was a hyperbole, made by an editorialist to make a point in comparing thetrio to such 20th century giants of human rights as Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel and Aung San Suu Kyi. I doubt even the writer herself seriously thought our three young leaders were in the same league as those world figures. Perhaps she now regrets mentioning the Myanmar leader, no? But failed presidential candidate Rubio and his friendsare taking the idea seriously. Rather than arguing against it, I think it would be the height of entertainment to watch one or all of the three stand on stage in Oslo to deliver a lecture on … whatever. Would they speak in English or Cantonese? They should write their own speech. Imagine getting a Nobel for serving a few months in jail for storming the government headquarters and breaking glass? In the unlikely event that they win, it would be less a statement about them or the city, but about the prize itself and those who make the nomination. Rubio and fellow Republican Christopher Smith pursue an anti-China platform, and Hong Kong is just a convenient tool for the two to exploit. But if the committee sees fit to cheapen itself for such naked anti-China opportunism, well, what could anyone say? Many of its choices have not inspired confidence: Malala Yousafzai for being shot by the Taliban; Barack Obama for getting elected and not being George W Bush; Yasser Arafat, a self-professed terrorist; Shimon Peres, father of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme. I wish our trio get the prize. - (SCMP) The Nobel Peace Prize was always a joke; now it’s a total circus. By Yonden Lhatoo. February 3, 2018. If you look past all that hype, the Nobel Peace Prize has long been a laughing stock, but it has now, to all intents and purposes, been reduced to a total political circus, with none of the gravitas still commanded by its sister awards for scientific and academic advancement. When realpolitik power-broker Henry Kissinger won it in 1973, the celebrated American satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer famously quipped that the award had just about rendered political satire obsolete. That was because the world beyond the Norwegian Nobel Committee was calling Kissinger a war criminal for his culpability in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and ‘70s. There have been other highly undeserving winners over the years since, and even more ludicrous nominations as well. Which is why I’m not overly incredulous that a bunch of China-hating, Beijing-baiting US politicians are seeking to make Nobel laureates this year of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang – student leaders of the 2014 Occupy protests and darlings of the Western media. In a hyperbole-filled sales pitch to Oslo, the congressional nominators painted the trio, who are now the youthful faces of anti-Beijing politics in this city, as “champions of peace and freedom and Hong Kong’s entire pro-democracy movement”. “The government can lock up our bodies but they cannot lock up our minds!” they admiringly quoted Wong as declaring, unabashedly aggrandising the student activist to the lofty level of Mahatma Gandhi, the global symbol of non-violent struggle whom he borrowed and adapted those famous words from. How ironic that the Nobel committee, which rejected India’s independence icon and giant of history no less than five times for the peace prize, is now being asked to award it to a political pygmy by comparison. When will people looking at and judging Hong Kong from the outside realise that we have no martyrs for democracy here, only muppets masquerading as them. The only champions of peace and freedom in this city are the people of Hong Kong themselves who demand and enjoy it every day. Sure, we could use some more democracy and electoral reform, but we’re nothing like the oppressed, rights-starved masses that we’re regularly portrayed as by the Western narrative. How ironic that the Nobel committee, which rejected India’s independence icon and giant of history no less than five times for the peace prize, is now being asked to award it to a political pygmy by comparison. When will people looking at and judging Hong Kong from the outside realise that we have no martyrs for democracy here, only muppets masquerading as them. The only champions of peace and freedom in this city are the people of Hong Kong themselves who demand and enjoy it every day. Sure, we could use some more democracy and electoral reform, but we’re nothing like the oppressed, rights-starved masses that we’re regularly portrayed as by the Western narrative. It’s high time we had an untainted alternative for this part of the planet – and I’m glad to see the Shaw Prize and Lui Che Woo Prize laying the preliminary groundwork for such a future. In his will, Alfred Nobel envisioned his peace prize would be awarded to those “who have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. You know who would be a worthy recipient in that context? The nuclear bomb itself. God knows it’s done more for world peace than anyone else as a grim deterrent against the apocalypse. We’re all watching an annual freak show anyway. - (SCMP) Hong Kong’s silent majority must make their voices heard, and their by-election votes count. By Michael Chugani. February 7, 2018. Are you out there, silent majority? If yes, why so silent? Maybe you’re just a myth. If not, then speak up or we’ll have to accept that the loud and angry voices of protests which bombard us daily represent the vocal majority. These voices say the government connived with Beijing to disqualify Agnes Chow Ting as a Legislative Council election candidate. They say putting parts of the express rail terminus under mainland control exposes locals to China’s authoritarian laws while still on Hong Kong soil. They say the government persecuted three young activists by seeking jail terms for their storming of government headquarters, which triggered the Occupy protest. And they applaud American congressmen who nominated the trio for the Nobel Peace Prize. Are they the true voice of Hong Kong? Or is Hong Kong’s true voice that of those who say Chow deserves to be disqualified, Hongkongers have nothing to fear from joint immigration at West Kowloon, the trio who stormed government headquarters should have been jailed and US politicians should have waited until April Fools’ Day to nominate them for a Peace Prize? I must say I chuckled at the outrage over Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s just political theatre by US lawmakers, for goodness sake. I know because I have covered Washington DC for years. The trio have as much chance of winning as I have of becoming Hong Kong’s next chief executive. But the eruption of anger, including from Beijing, has eaten right into the hands of the China-bashing lawmakers who are just loving it. If US lawmakers can nominate, what’s to stop China’s lawmakers from doing the same? They have every right to, since members of national assemblies are among the eight categories of people eligible to nominate. Those who are seeing red over the trio’s nomination can ask Hong Kong members of China’s National People’s Congress to make their own nomination. I suggest Robert Chow Yung, co-founder of the Silent Majority for Hong Kong, which was set up to counter the Occupy movement. The trouble is that, while the Occupy uprising is still romanticised by many locally and globally, Chow’s Silent Majority has long slipped into silence and therefore from the minds of most. And while some here and in the West have bestowed the heroic status of political prisoners on the Occupy trio for having served a few weeks behind bars before winning their final appeal against jail terms on Tuesday, those who opposed Occupy have not proclaimed a hero among them. Do Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow and Agnes Chow speak for the majority of Hongkongers? Or is the true voice of Hong Kong lurking out there, waiting for the right moment to make itself heard? If the silent majority as defined by Robert Chow really does exist, there is no better moment than March 11 for it to be seen and heard. That’s when Hongkongers will vote in by-elections to fill four of the six seats left vacant by disqualified opposition legislators for improper oath-taking. I can’t understand why there is never any real mud-slinging by Legislative Council election candidates. Why aren’t elections fought over who supported and opposed the Occupy uprising, the Mong Kok riots, the foul-mouthed oath-taking by some, and who is to blame for Beijing’s tightening grip on Hong Kong? If candidates fight dirty over these issues, the winners and losers will clearly show which side represents the true voice of Hong Kong. It’s the final call for the silent majority. Show yourself on March 11 if you exist or forever keep silent. If the opposition handsomely wins back the four seats, then the true voice of Hong Kong belongs to those who storm government buildings, advocate self-determination and lace oath-taking with expletives. - (Bastille Post) February 3, 2018. I asked around about what people thought of this Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Someone told me to check the calendar to see what was scheduled next Tuesday. I checked. The Court of Final Appeal will issue its ruling on the appeal by Nathan Law, Joshua Wong and Alex Chow against their 6-8 months jail terms. This person said that Rubio is applying pressure on the Hong Kong courts with the message: "Are you going to send three Nobel Peace Prize nominees to prison?" - No, no, no. Rubio couldn't give a damn about what happens in Hong Kong. His action is purely for consumption by Americans. He wants publicity and he knows that a Nobel Peace Prize nomination will get media coverage. All he cares is that his name should be associated with freedom, democracy and human rights. The only real victim is the brand name of the Nobel Peace Prize, which is having enough trouble from Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rohingya crisis already. And don't forget Tunisia! - (The Guardian) January 12, 2018. Tunisia is starting to feel a lot like 2011. Then the self-immolation of a street vendor over repression and unemployment sparked an uprising that became the Arab spring, beginning with the fall of the Tunisian strongman Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. Civil society won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2015. But successive governments have failed to bring about the kind of revival Tunisians hoped for from elective government. The north African economy is lacklustre, unable to create enough jobs and with its foreign exchange earner – tourism – battered by terror attacks. It’s been forced to borrow $2.9bn from the IMF, in return for which unpopular price hikes and spending cuts are being pushed. Seven years after the dictator’s departure, Tunisians have taken to the streets over an austerity programme and rising prices. At least one demonstrator has been killed and hundreds arrested in sometimes violent confrontations. In Tunisia the Arab street ousted a dictator. It could also oust democrats. - The Nobel Peace Prize is the innocent victim in this case. As the Chinese saying goes, they were shot even though they laid flat and motionless on the ground. According to their own rules, they cannot comment, affirm of deny. - Marco Rubio's normal interests are in important issues such as Donald Trump's small hands (Vox). Rubio found Joshua Wong to his liking because Wong is even shorter than Rubio and has even smaller hands. This makes Rubio very happy. - Rubio-Smith's letter said: The Umbrella Movement leaders face increasing pressure, detention, and financial penalties for their advocacy for democracy and human rights. By July 2017, Law and five other democratically elected legislators were disqualified from their LegCo seats after the Chinese central government issued an interpretation of the Basic Law deeming certain previously acceptable oath-taking behaviors undertaken by legislators as punishable by disqualification. This is funny. First of all, Rubio-Smith found themselves unable to say: The Umbrella Movement leaders face increasing pressure, detention, and financial penalties for their advocacy for democracy and human rights. By July 2017, Law and five other democratically elected legislators were disqualified from their LegCo seats after the Chinese central government issued an interpretation of the Basic Law deeming certain previously universally acceptable oath-taking behaviors undertaken by legislators as punishable by disqualification. Can you imagine a US Senator taking the oath of office in the manner of Yau Wai-ching as in pledging loyalty to "The United Cunts of Amerika" and then accused all critics of not being familiar with his Jackson Heights accent? Or a US Congresswoman taking the oath of office in the manner of Lau Siu-lai by pausing six seconds between words and then posting afterwards on Facebook that she did this deliberately to show her objection to the contents of the oath? Using "previously acceptable" is a lie too. Never before in the history of Hong Kong has anyone called the People's Republic of China as "People's Re-fucking of Chee-na" in an oath of office. Never before in the history of mankind has anyone take the oath of office in the manner of Lau Siu-lai. If they were not disqualified, then their actions will become normalized. How is this going to bring freedom, democracy and peace to Hong Kong? - In case you missed what took place, here are the recaps: - (Video) Lau Siu-lai's oath of office in original Cantonese including extraneous protest messages at normal pace before and after the oath (13:05) - (Video) Lau Siu-lai's oath of office with simultaneous interpretation in English (10:06) - (Video) Yau Wai-ching's oath of office of office in original English (1:48) - The purpose of those oaths of office was to create divisions in society. Some people will feel offended while others will heap praises, and they will be at each other's throats. The Hong Kong Legislative Council works on a proportional representation system, which means that you will get elected if you can please 10% of the voters even if you offend the other 90%. - Rubio-Smith's letter said: Wong, Law, and Chow were convicted on trumped-up charges of “unlawful assembly” for their activities during the Umbrella Movement and were given sentences of community service. After Wong and Law completed these sentences, the Hong Kong government sought tougher punishments against the three, resulting in sentences of six to eight months in jail, which makes the three ineligible for running for public office for five years. The three were released on bail on appeal currently before the Court of Final Appeal and they face additional charges and tremendous legal costs that threaten to bankrupt them. Just this month, Joshua was sentenced to an additional three months in prison for his role in the Umbrella Movement. That is going to put Joshua Wong and friends in a quandary. The implication by Rubio-Smith is that the Hong Kong judiciary (including both the Department of Justice and the various levels of the courts) is in the pockets of the Chinese/Hong Kong Communist governments, and their actions and rulings work to meet the goals of their nefarious masters. If so, then why are Wong, Law and Chow still filing an appeal before the Court of Final Appeal? If the courts are as corrupt as Rubio-Smith say, then the only choice left is armed insurrection (after obtaining Trump-Rubio-Smith's 'reassurance' that the Seventh Fleet will sail into Hong Kong to provide defense, of course). Why did Joshua Wong draw three months in prison by pleading guilty as charged? Why didn't he plead not guilty and fight the case all the way to the bitter end if he felt that he was in the right? He did not because he knows that he is guilty as sin. The police were clearing a section of the street in accordance with a court injunction, and Wong impeded their progress. This was a open-and-shut case of contempt of court anywhere in the world. Just ask Occupy Wall Street. This is not just Rubio-Smith's problem. This problem pervades among the pan-democrats and localists. Are the courts totally corrupt? Is rule-of-law dead and the only option left in life is to immigrate to Taiwan? If so, then why keep making more court appeals and soliciting the public to donate ever more money to pay for the legal fees? This extends to the Hong Kong Police (and now, the Correctional Services Department). Are the police totally rotten running dogs of the tyrannical regime? If so, then why do the pan-democrats and localists still ask the police for protection on all matters large and small? Why do the Hong Kong independence theoreticians say that the first Hong Kong army will be the Hong Kong Police? - Why do opposite attitudes co-exist? In Chinese, there is a saying (heads I win, tails you lose). When the courts rule in my favor, I praise them for being last independent bastion of courage and resolve against Chicom encroachment against rule-of-law. When the courts rule against me, I condemn them for aiding and abetting the Chicom encroachment. Life is good for me when I own the exclusive rights to the moral high ground. Facts and circumstances don't matter; the only reality is that I am always right and you are always wrong. - Should you trust Marco Rubio if he tells that he will back you up on your armed resurrection? Just remember the Bay of Pigs. Marco Rubio continues to pay tribute to the Cuban freedom fighters who were betrayed and abandoned by the President John F. Kennedy and the United States of America. Someday he will be placing flowers over the graves of the martyrs of the failed Hong Kong Revolution who were betrayed and abandoned by the United States of America. - Rubio-Smith's letter said: Hong Kong’s pro-democracy leaders, politicians and young people took to the streets in the fall of 2014 in response to a decision issued by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) which ruled that only candidates endorsed by a pro-Beijing nominating committee could run as a candidate for the Chief Executive position in Hong Kong’s government. Article 45 of the Basic Law—Hong Kong’s constitutional document—provides that “the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.” The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly urged Hong Kong to enact reforms to implement elections by universal suffrage, in accordance with article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which applies to Hong Kong under Article 39 of the Basic Law. Let us retrieve all the relevant information. [Q: Is that because you think that politicians lie? A: Is the Pope Catholic?] What does Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) say? (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner) Article 25 Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. What is Article 39 of the Hong Kong Basic Law? Article 39 The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this Article. What is Article 45 of the Hong Kong Basic Law? Article 45 The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". What is the National People's Congress Standing Committee's decision on universal suffrage for HK Chief Executive selection? (China.org.cn) I. Starting from 2017, the selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage. II. When the selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is implemented by the method of universal suffrage: (1) A broadly representative nominating committee shall be formed. The provisions for the number of members, composition and formation method of the nominating committee shall be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the Fourth Chief Executive. (2) The nominating committee shall nominate two to three candidates for the office of Chief Executive in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee. (3) All eligible electors of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have the right to vote in the election of the Chief Executive and elect one of the candidates for the office of Chief Executive in accordance with law. (4) The Chief Executive-elect, after being selected through universal suffrage, will have to be appointed by the Central People's Government. III. The specific method of universal suffrage for selecting the Chief Executive shall be prescribed in accordance with legal procedures through amending Annex I to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China: The Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The bill on the amendments and the proposed amendments to such bill shall be introduced by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the Hong Kong Basic Law and the provisions of this Decision. Such amendments shall obtain the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive before being submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval. IV. If the specific method of universal suffrage for selecting the Chief Executive is not adopted in accordance with legal procedures, the method used for selecting the Chief Executive for the preceding term shall continue to apply. V. The existing formation method and voting procedures for the Legislative Council as prescribed in Annex II to the Hong Kong Basic Law will not be amended. The formation method and procedures for voting on bills and motions of the fifth term Legislative Council will continue to apply to the sixth term Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2016. After the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, the election of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage. At an appropriate time prior to the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, the Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage shall submit a report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of Article 7 of Annex I and Article III of Annex II to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China as regards the issue of amending the method for forming the Legislative Council. A determination thereon shall be made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The ICCPR and the Basic Law only mention the general notion of universal suffrage (in the sense of one-person-one-vote) without going into finer details (such as citizenship, place of birth, length of residence, minimum age, criminal records, term limits, etc) because they differ around the world. For example, Joshua Wong could not run in the 2016 Legislative Council because he was not yet 21 years old. He decried the restriction as a human rights violation. Rubio-Smith could not mention this in their letter, because a US Congress candidate must be aged at least 25 (House) or 30 (Senate). One-person-one-vote was offered in the NPCSC decision. But the Umbrella Revolutionaries wanted more than one-person-one-vote. They wanted "genuine universal suffrage" (as opposed to "fake universal suffrage"). For them, this means one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. How many countries in the world adopt this system of "genuine universal suffrage"? 23, of which the most prominent is Russia where most people only want Vladimir Putin. That leaves more than 160 countries (including China, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc) using "fake universal suffrage" systems without civil nomination. At the time, the United States and the European Union told the Umbrella Revolutionaries to take the deal, because they should take whatever is offered first and work on the other parts later. The Umbrella Revolutionaries said no, because they want to go all the way. They said that they will re-boot constitutional reform as soon as the Legislative Council vetoes the NPCSC proposal. This is 2018 already, and there has been no further movement after the proposal failed to pass in June 2015. The Umbrella Revolutionaries had misjudged and promised something that they are unable to deliver. This is the gravest failure of the Umbrella Revolution, but Rubio-Smith wants to give them a Nobel Peace Prize for their stupid decision. The HK SAR Chief Executive election was held in 2017 under the old rules. The pan-democrats supported the candidacy of John Tsang Chun-wah. They launched an all-out effort to obtain more than 300 seats on the 1,194-member Election Committee and thus easily secured a nomination for Tsang. According to the public opinion polls, if the actual voting was by oneperson-one-vote in accordance with the NPCSC decision, Tsang would be elected Chief Executive. Instead Carrie Lam beat John Tsang handily by 777 vs. 365 on the Election Committee. Do you think the Umbrella Revolutionaries should get a Nobel Peace Prize for their strategic genius? - There has also been no progress on the constitutional reform of the election of the Legislative Council either. The pan-democrats want a direct proportional system of representation and they want to eliminate the functional constituencies which represent special interest groups. They said that disproportional representation is anathema to democracy. Well, they should be telling that to US Senator Marco Rubio. The United States Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House is apportioned by population (if you turn a blind eye to gerrymandering), but the Senate consists of two Senators for each and every state irrespective of population. California has a population of 38 million and two senators; Wyoming has a population of 580,000 and also two senators. In the terminlogy of Hong Kong's political system, the Senate would be a "functional constituency" and therefore anathema to democracy. Have a nice day, Senator Rubio! - The US Senate is constituted such that the rights of the small states would not be violated by the tyranny of majority rule. In Hong Kong, there is no need to protect the rights of insurance companies, etc with these functional constituencies, because they are already adequately protected under the law. If they feel that they have special needs, they can always pay some of the legislative councilors to advocate their cases. [On this day, the Department of Justice had just announced that there is no case for prosecution against Next Media boss Jimmy Lai paying off legislative councilors James To (Democratic Party), Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party), Alan Leong (Civic Party), Tanya Chan (Civic Party) and Claudia Mo (Civic Party). The principals do not deny that the payments took place, but the Department of Justice said that there is no proof of wrongdoing. Long live FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and RULE-OF-LAW! - Marco Rubio would be happy to operate in Hong Kong! In the United States, if someone plunks $500,000 on his desk, he would be very scared (FBI sting!?). In Hong Kong, he can just take it. - The Nobel Peace Prize is by definition awarded to people who have contributed to peace in the world. Was the Umbrella Movement peaceful? Here is an Epoch Times video from the night of December 2, 2014 (#075). About 4,000 protestors tried to take over Government Headquarters. This action was called by the Hong Kong Federation of Students (Alex Chow and Nathan Law) and Scholarism (Joshua Wong). Where were the three future Nobel Peace Prize winners themselves that night? Joshua Wong was seen by reporters entering the Legislative Council building with instant noodles ready for all-night television watching. Alex Chow said that there was a division of labor in which he has to man the command center to give orders to be carried out in the field by others. Nathan Law was not noticeable in public. This is the perfect realization of (tell others to charge while you leave the scene). - (Economic Times x Sky Post) poll. February 5, 2018 23:45pm. The three students leaders was nominated by 12 US Senators/Congressman for the Nobel Peace Prize? Do you support it? 13%: Support 85%: Do not support 2%: No opinion HK SAR Chief Executive Carrie Lam expressed regret about this political interference. Do you agree with her? 81%: Yes 17%: No 2%: No opinion - (SCMP Editorial) Impact of Nobel Peace Prize nomination on political reform can only be negative. January 11, 2018. It is not normally known who has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – let alone who is being seriously considered – unless the nominators reveal the names to serve their own agenda. The Norwegian Nobel committee applies a 50-year secrecy rule to the nominees. Nor do we learn the reasoning behind the choice of the winner, including incomprehensible or perverse decisions. The choice of former US president Barack Obama soon after his election in the expectation he would eventually vindicate it is a case in point. The process is therefore lacking in transparency which raises questions about dispassionate, apolitical rigour. With enormous respect due to many past laureates, the latest example is the highly publicised nomination by a group of American politicians of Hong Kong radical student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, two allies and the 2014 Occupy movement for the peace prize. The political agenda is obvious and the backlash from Beijing and Hong Kong’s leaders against “meddling” in the city’s affairs is predictable. It may be an overreaction, but it reminds us that Occupy was divisive rather than unifying, as well as illegal, even if Beijing’s restricted offer on universal suffrage was part of the problem. With enormous respect due to many past laureates, the latest example is the highly publicised nomination by a group of American politicians of Hong Kong radical student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, two allies and the 2014 Occupy movement for the peace prize. The political agenda is obvious and the backlash from Beijing and Hong Kong’s leaders against “meddling” in the city’s affairs is predictable. It may be an overreaction, but it reminds us that Occupy was divisive rather than unifying, as well as illegal, even if Beijing’s restricted offer on universal suffrage was part of the problem. None of this does anything to advance the cause of democracy in Hong Kong. It also adds power to the arm of hawks in Beijing and marginalises those who are not unamenable to some degree of electoral freedom for Hong Kong. Regrettably, this reflects a monolithic perception of Beijing’s position that lacks strategic vision. It is also to be found in outright rejection of offers of political development, even if Beijing’s restricted offer of universal suffrage after the city had waited 20 years is not blameless. Though the Nobel nomination may be well intentioned the impact on the pace of democratic development can only be negative because it has riled Beijing. That said, if someone from either side can devise a way forward to reaching agreement on universal suffrage, it may be time to think seriously about a peace prize nomination. - (The Stand News) An undeserved Peace Prize nomination ought not be a distraction from Hong Kong’s democratic movement. By Evan Fowler. February 9, 2018. The news that two influential members of the US Republican Party, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Chris Smith, the respective chair and co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, intended to nominate Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang for the Nobel Peace Prize came as a surprise. My initial reaction was one of disbelief. It was a reaction shared among almost everyone I know, regardless of political persuasion. However, as is so sadly to be expected, this unusual source of unity had to be dismissed. The yellow-ribbon people in Hong Kong are ecstatic. The “bluer” commentators and politicians, though, have expressed outrage and bafflement. This according to a South China Morning Post columnist, who writes on local Hong Kong affairs but from the safety of Vancouver. As an acquaintance, it should come as little surprise to know that his social circle of mostly aged former-journalists and government officials are hardly representative of the city today. Not that he does not know this himself, as he stated in an email: No one should listens to this old hack. Unfortunately many people do. In fact, and certainly in private, the news of the trios nomination has not been greeted with anywhere near universal fanfare in pro-democracy circles. The three aspiring politicians are still that: aspiring. There are also many who whisper that Joshua, the figurehead for the political activism that the trio represent, has a righteous streak that refuses to heed the wisdom and experience of those who have learned that democracy is an ideal; and that democratic politics remains the art of the possible. There is also the worrying signs that Nathan Law, regarded by many as the more considered and intellectual of the trio, is a spent force. Many pointed to his beaten demeanour since prison, and truth be told he has been surprisingly quiet of late. When forced into the spotlight it is not only the establishment journalists who have noted the absence of a certain spark. In a manner Law has come to represent the best of this city’s youth: a well-mannered, educated and moderate young man forced to the fringe in pursuit not only of an ideal, but to uphold in spirit a promise made by Beijing and guaranteed, lest we forget, by the United Kingdom. “You will never walk alone,” was the promise former Prime Minister John Major proclaimed to the people of Hong Kong. Given that his daughter-in-law is Hong Kong born, and that her father continues to live here, is indicative of the depth of what one political researcher in his submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee termed as a betrayal. The way Law has been broken by the walls, both literal and metaphorical, erected around him by both officialdom and an increasingly rabid pro-establishment minority mirrors the situation many in Hong Kong of a more liberal and democratic leaning have experienced. Hope has been bludgeoned out of civil society not by local nativism, but by a nationalistic establishment that refuses to countenance any form of opposition. Senator Rubio and the international community at large would also do well to note is that the public spirit of defiance the trio supposedly represent, and the political party they founded, Demosistos, are no longer representative of Hong Kong’s youth. This is plain to anyone who regularly spends time at Hong Kong’s university campuses or attends school reunions. The mood has changed. Hope for genuine reform has evaporated, as has the belief that Beijing is even capable of listening to the word on the street. The strong words and actions that had once fired up the imagination of the young in 2012 no longer resonant in this new climate. “When all the chips are down, there are only two things one can do: gamble everything, or throw in the cards.” In his observations of another highly symbolic trial, Vaclav Havel was right. What is easy to overlook is the very next paragraph of his essay. He describes seeing a friend and film director on Karmelitska Street, who though sympathetic and wishing for reform just did not want to know what we all know to be important. “Apart from that, what else are you up to?” he asks Havel. This is an important point: when the chips are down the majority throw in the cards. Only the pan-democrats, having prematurely retired a generation of leadership, seem still to think obstructive activism rather than constructive politics is what the people want. By playing to what they did not understand but what they imagined to be a new, youthful and vigorous force in local politic, the pan-democrats have (yet again) let themselves down and their electorate down. To describe Wong, Law and Chow as “champions of peace and freedom and Hong Kong’s entire pro-democracy movement” Rubio and Smith do a great discourtesy to the wide spectrum of actors that constitutes Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. More importantly, their ignorance also plays into the hands of the establishment. According to the official narrative, the 2014 protests were an illegal and violent act planned and supported by foreign agents that threatens national unity. It is a line that has been used many times before by Beijing, most notably following the events of June 1989 when the party responded not with self-reflection in seeking a cause, but by establishing a new narrative. Rubio and Smith, in focusing on Wong, Law and Chow are reinforcing the official narrative. According to pro-establishment lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, from the Business and Professionals Alliance: The nomination could create more obstacles in Hong Kong’s progress towards democracy, because it could reinforce Beijing’s perception that foreign forces were involved in the Occupy movement. She is right. Though it is also worth noting her statement does by implication contradict the official claim made by former Chief Executive CY Leung and Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee that their was concrete “evidence" of foreign powers being behind the 2014 protest — evidence that both promised they would make public. By refusing to open even the possibility of any serious dialogue in 2014, Beijing and the Hong Kong administration refused to acknowledge reasonable and justifiable concerns about the nature of constitutional reform and the way the city’s unique social and cultural identity where being undermined. These were concerns that were shared by a significant majority of Hong Kong people, whether or not they supported the protests. For the establishment, the protests and what they represent — a desire to preserve Hong Kong as an open and liberal city, and to evolve, as promised, a more democratic system of political representation — became tarnished by the same brush. As a stated act of civil disobedience, the 2014 Occupy protest was a deliberately illegal act for which the government knew would happen and for which they might prepare, a point certainly not lost on the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, and the legal academic Dr Benny Tai and social scientist Dr Chan Kin-man when they proposed the idea a year before. Yet all mention of the Occupy protest in any establishment paper prefixes it as “illegal”, with the implication being it was wrong. The emotional and psychological impact of this in a society taught that for every question there is one correct answer should not be overlooked. A protest that caught both the world’s attention and admiration for its peaceful, and often innocent nature, has been rebranded and official recorded and remember as disorderly and violent. This new narrative was enacted on order as pro-establishment associations, including some triad groups, were mobilised and used not just to intimidate protestors, but to bring an aggressive tension to what was a peaceful protest. Thus, to the casual observer this new narrative seems very plausible. And so too are the conspiracies of foreign involvement. “Clearly,” as one commentator wrote recently, “the United States is keen on exporting its brand of democracy. Yale professor Amy Chua in her book World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability chastised this American self-righteousness.” A spirit of distrust and division has been fostered and continually stoked. This nomination, whether well-meant or a cynical attempt to undermine the Beijing by raising awareness of the issue of Hong Kong, has only added fuel to a fire that obscures from most a more informed, considered and nuanced understanding of the situation Hong Kong is facing, and the best way we might move forward. Wong, Law and Chow do not deserve to be nominated. They did not conceive the use of civil disobedience as a means of advancing stalled discussions on democratic reform in 2014. Joshua might be the face of the protest movement, but unlike other Peace Prize winners he yet to demonstrate either the poise, charisma nor the political acumen required to be a successful leader. Neither can it be said that the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets in protest that Sunday, September 28th, did so on their call. The police response, which certainly appeared at the time to be both disproportionate and unnecessarily aggressive, given the city’s history of peaceful protest, was arguably as much a factor in drawing people on to the streets in solidarity. Since 2014 much of the youth support has dissipated. Demosistos may be a significant force the many non-mainstream parties advocating “self-determination” for Hong Kong, but they are vying for the attentions of an increasing minority willing to gamble everything for their conscience. The decision to disqualify Agnes Chow from standing for election — a young lady who in my opinion is more eloquent and impressive a character than the three nominated — has rightly drawn considerable condemnation. However, wide condemnation should not be confused with active support. Whilst I have great admiration for Joshua, Nathan and Alex for their drive, determination and the experience they have acquired at such a young age, it is wrong that they become the focus of any anti-establishment position. The democratic movement and the liberal ideal, and the desire to protect freedom of conscience, a free press and the rule of law, is far greater than the narrow agenda of Demosistos; and the actions open to the people of Hong Kong, personal, institutional and indeed political should not be confined by the specific kind of political activism that these three young men represent. If Senator Rubio wanted to make a point, and draw attention to the challenges Hong Kong people and our institutions face when forced to integrate into an authoritarian system — challenges relevant to the international community that will too face the prospect of engaging with an increasingly assertive Peoples Republic of China — he would have been better off nominating the Hong Kong people. Just as deserving of recognition as Wong, Law and Chow are the many Hong Kong judges and lawyers who cling firmly to the precepts a common law system and the rule of law; the many journalists and booksellers who, despite intimidation, continue to tell the truth as they see it; and the many people from many walks of life who refuse to love a country because they are told they must. - (Hong Kong Free Press) February 13, 2018. Ten UK MPs have expressed support after activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow and the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. A Parliamentary motion was tabled last Monday by Fiona Bruce MP, the Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, to publicly express support for the nomination, “in recognition of their peaceful efforts to defend basic freedoms, strengthen democracy and protect autonomy for Hong Kong guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law.” It urged the House of Commons to encourage the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to give the nomination serious consideration. The motion gathered support from MPs from across the UK political spectrum, including Kate Hoey, Mary Glindon, Marie Rimmer and Catherine West from the Labour Party, Hannah Bardell from the Scottish National Party, Bob Blackman from the Conservative Party, Gavin Robinson and Jim Shannon from the Democratic Unionist Party, and independent MP Lady Hermon. Fiona Bruce MP said the Umbrella Movement was “one of the most peaceful and restrained movements of public protest that the world has ever seen.” “It was led by exceptional young people, some of whom I have met, whose fight for freedom and democracy deserves our full support. I hope the Nobel Peace Prize Committee seriously considers this nomination.” - (YouTube) Love and Peace in the Umbrella Revolution, according to Fiona Bruce MP. - (SCMP) US senator off target in backing Hong Kong protest leaders. BY Alex Lo. March 7, 2018. No American politician ever loses votes for bashing China and the easiest route to do that is to express support for the most vocal pan-democrats in Hong Kong. Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio has this down to a tee. That’s why he rolled out the red carpet for former Occupy student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung when the latter visited Washington in late 2016 and has even nominated Wong and his protest comrades Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang for the Nobel Peace Prize. He claimed the trio were persecuted but then the city’s top court had just freed them from jail on appeal. Never mind our independent judiciary is perfectly capable of administering public justice; Rubio doesn’t know or care. Here’s what I don’t get. US politicians such as Rubio say they care so much about our people, whose main problem, at least according to him, is that we don’t have full voting rights. That seems to pale in comparison with the constant dangers America’s children face as so many have been gunned down in schools across the country. Even after 17 people were killed and many wounded last month in a shooting rampage at a high school in Florida, the senator continued to voice his opposition to a ban on assault weapons and accept money from the National Rifle Association and other lobby groups that support his pro-gun agenda. Rubio’s priorities are a bit twisted, to put it mildly. I know the Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. But it didn’t say all Americans should have the right to arm themselves with AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, the weapon of choice of many mass killers, and other military-grade weapons. It’s true America’s gun control debate and the continual slaughter of the innocent at its schools is none of my business. But then, Hong Kong’s electoral system and “one country, two systems” is none of Rubio’s either. If he thinks he can comment on us, I think we are entitled to comment on him. We are perfectly entitled to call attention to this guy, who has the blood of American children on his hands, while he claims to be championing our young people and our democratic rights. Seriously Rubio, why don’t you tell Hong Kong people we should all bear arms like Americans to fight for freedom? [861] Where Are The Foreign Correspondents? (2018/02/02) (Hong Kong Free Press) January 31, 2018. The Chinese government intensified attempts to restrict foreign journalists’ access to parts of the country in 2017, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC) has said after conducting an annual survey of its members. The government is also increasingly using the visa renewal process to pressure correspondents and news organisations whose coverage it does not like, the club found. In the survey, which was conducted in December, 40 per cent of respondents felt reporting conditions in 2017 had deteriorated from the year before, compared with 29 per cent in 2016. Reporting became more difficult in many areas of China, but especially in Xinjiang, China’s heavily-securitised far west region, the FCCC said. 72 per cent of respondents who traveled to the region were told by officials and security agents that reporting was prohibited or restricted, compared with 42 per cent in the previous year. “I was detained for three hours in Xinjiang and questioned by officials with the Ministry of State Security, who told me I could not report without prior permission, and demanded access to my laptop. When I refused, they seized my laptop and tailed me for two hours back to a hotel in Kashgar. The laptop was returned 12 hours later,” the report quoted Nathan VanderKlippe from Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail as saying. Reporters from AFP were also stopped from working in Xinjiang and Tangshan while they were covering the death of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo and the trials of human rights activists. Other areas where respondents reported similar difficulties included: Tibetan-inhabited regions; areas near the border with North Korea; areas near Chinese borders with south-east Asian countries; and in industrial districts such as steel-producing districts. Respondents also reported greater difficulties in renewing their visas, with 15 per cent saying they encountered problems during the process, an increase from 6 per cent in the previous year. Twice the number of respondents compared to 2016 said the problems were related to their reporting. “The process itself was smoother than usual, but my interview ahead of picking up my press card was pretty unpleasant this year. I was scolded for writing on Liu Xiaobo. Later, when I mentioned that I hadn’t violated any foreign ministry guidelines on reporting I was told, somewhat ominously, that China has ‘other laws,’” a reporter for a U.S. media organization was quoted as saying about the renewal process. The survey was completed by 117 out of 218 of the club’s correspondent members.

(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) Regular press conference on January 30, 2018. Q: The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China just issued its annual report on the working conditions of foreign journalists in China, which found that the Chinese government has used the visa renewal process to pressure correspondents whose coverage it does not like and intensified attempts to deny or restrict access for foreign journalists to large parts of the country. I was wondering if you've seen this report and do you have any comment on that? And are there any steps China plans to take to improve the working conditions for foreign correspondents in China? A (Hua Chu-ying): I have yet to see this so-called report you mentioned, and I am also wondering whom this so-called organization could represent. Are all of you its members? Are you all OK with its report? For me, I find the accusations in this report very unreasonable. I would like to ask all of you some questions. How do you like your working environment in China? Has the Information Department of the Foreign Ministry, as the competent department in charge of foreign media organizations and journalists stationed in China, provided you with all necessary convenience and assistance for your coverage? If any of you believes that the FCCC has spoken your mind, or you find yourself approving the contents of this report, you may raise your hand and let me know. (No hand raised) No one. Then, you can tell the FCCC that foreign journalists present here today do not agree with its report's conclusion, so it has in no way reflected the genuine opinion of almost 600 foreign journalists stationed in China. We will continue with our efforts to assist and facilitate foreign journalists' report and coverage in China, as we always do. If you encounter any problem and difficulty in your work, feel free to contact us anytime. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) Regular press conference on February 1, 2018. Q: First, Xinhua News Agency today launched its Japanese-language news service in Japan. It is only natural and legitimate for national governments or media to strengthen information dissemination to other countries and should be welcomed. But in China, the webpages of most Western media and Japanese media cannot be opened. What is in question here is the principle of reciprocity. What's your response to this? Second, catalogs published by the Japanese company MUJI were ordered to be withdrawn because of faulty maps. China's map management regulations stipulate that maps to be made public must be submitted to related administrative authorities for review, but simplified maps are an exception. As far as I know, the maps used by MUJI is meant to indicate the number of its stores, containing no geographically professional and specific information. For foreign companies, this provision puts in place a very vague standard. Is the map on the wall behind you also reviewed? Third, let me say a few words about your statement on the report of the Foreign Correspondents' Club in China (FCCC)" on January 30. On that day, you asked for a show of hands if any reporter in the room agreed with the contents of the report. The thing is that no reporter from Sankei Shimbun participated in the press conference on that day. Now, I am here and I want to say that I agree with that report. Because we have personally experienced some of the situations mentioned in it, and we also expressed our hope that the Chinese side should make some improvements. This is our position on this issue. A (Hua Chu-ying): I don't know how regular you attend the press conference. At least you were not here for a couple of days. Now you show up with some rather unfriendly questions. On your first question, to be frank, I don't quite get your point. But obviously what you asked about is outside the remit of the Foreign Ministry. So, whoever is responsible for that, you may go and ask them. On your second question, I gave my reply yesterday. China's position is very clear. I noted that MUJI said in an interview that the company has dealt with this matter as required by relevant Chinese department and given a serious reading to all the laws and regulations. I also want to refer you to the notice published by the National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation of China which made it clear that it was a general survey targeting no particular foreign company. China welcomes foreign businesses' investment and operation in China, but all of them shall abide by China's laws and regulations. On your third question, I wonder how many of the nearly 600 foreign journalists in China joined the FCCC. You said you agreed with the report, then I assume you are one of its members. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Why other media haven't met the problem you mentioned? Why does Sankei Shimbun feel that way? Don't you think it is how you behave sometimes that needs to be reflected upon? I believe, when the majority of foreign journalists and press can carry out their work and coverage smoothly in China, but you Sankei Shimbun only has met problems, then you yourself need to do some self-reflection and self-examination. All the foreign journalists are our friends. We hope that what you write and what you capture on your cameras is a China that is real, multi-dimensional, and comprehensive. We hope that you, as bridges between China and the world, could help enhance two-way communication and increase mutual understanding and cooperation. We welcome and support all your positive efforts to that end. (Hong Kong Free Press) ‘Low-grade brainwashing’: Journalists react after China Foreign Min. puts foreign correspondents on the spot. February 2, 2018. ... The Guardian’s Beijing Bureau Chief Tom Phillips responded by saying: “This is how Chinese gov responds to report accusing it of trying to browbeat foreign correspondents….!” China Correspondent for Agence France-Presse Rebecca Davis said it was a “doozy of a MOFA response” and “low-grade brainwashing.” Associated Press journalist Gerry Shih said "One issue is not many active FCCC members attend Mofa. Would be good to rally and attend next time a report lands because this isn't the first time Hua has pulled this line." (Japan Times) February 3, 2018. Foreign Minister Taro Kono’s Twitter selfie with Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying has created a buzz — but not everyone is smiling. The photo was posted on Kono’s Twitter account on Jan. 28, when he held talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing. Hua, known for her tough looks, was smiling in the photo with Kono. “With a famous Chinese lady!” Kono wrote in English.

Many Twitter users welcomed the post, seeing it as a sign of friendly Japan-China ties. But Hiroyuki Konishi of the opposition Democratic Party, a member of the Upper House, criticized Kono on Twitter. “She is just a spokesperson of the Chinese government. She is a lower-ranking person, not a partner of diplomatic negotiations,” Konishi said. “Taking a photo with such a person with a flirtatious grin is not diplomacy but tributary.” In response, Kono expressed surprise that somebody might care about a person’s “rank” when taking photos. “That sounds exhausting,” Kono said in a posting. - The point is not about rank. The point is that Hua Chun-ying is famous in Japan too. - The foreign correspondents have struck back at Hua Chunying ... (Liberty Times) February 28, 2018. It is being said that the police searched the home of Hua Chunying and found US$5 million in cash plus information that she is planning to immigrate to the United States and has bought real estate property there. The police have charged her with subversion. This information has not been confirmed. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokespersons rotate on a 10-day schedule. When Hua Chunying came back for her rotation on March 1, some of the foreign correspondents gasped in shock because they had all heard the "news." Hua smiled calmly. - How dumb can this get? Why would anyone give US$5 million to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson? Do these spokespersons have access to national secrets? Of course not. They are only told what they need to know so that they cannot let real secrets slip out. Can they say something that is contrary to the main theme? If they did, they would be fired. This is obvious false information. - The charge for receiving US$5 million would be bribery and not subversion. There is nothing wrong with immigrating unless the terms of employment and/or national security forbids it. For example, Taiwan ex-president Ma Ying-jeou was not allowed to visit Hong Kong because he knows certain state secrets. The charge would not be subversion. There is nothing wrong with buying real estate properties provided the money is legitimate. If the purchase is made with "dark" money, then the charge would be bribery/money laundering or some such. The charge would not be subversion. [860] Hello To The Candidates (2018/02/01) (Electoral Affairs Commission) January 29, 2018. A total of 20 nomination forms for the 2018 Legislative Council by-election were received by the Returning Officers at the close of the two-week nomination period at 5pm today (January 29). The Electoral Affairs Commission will hold a briefing for candidates and their agents at Lai Chi Kok Community Hall, G/F, No. 863 Lai Chi Kok Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, at 7.30pm on February 1 (Thursday). The Chairman of the Electoral Affairs Commission, Mr Justice Barnabas Fung Wah, will chair the briefing session and brief candidates and their agents on the guidelines on election-related activities, electoral arrangements for the by-election and the important points to note in running their election campaigns. A representative from the Independent Commission Against Corruption will explain the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. Before the briefing, the Returning Officers or Assistant Returning Officers will determine the order of appearance of names of candidates for their respective constituencies on ballot papers and the allocation of designated spots for the display of election advertisements by drawing of lots. (Oriental Daily with video) February 1, 2018. When the Chairman of the Electoral Affairs Commission, Mr Justice Barnabas Fung Wah, came out at 730pm, Nathan Law, Agnes Chow and Joshua Wong attempted to charge to the front of the podium. They held placards with the words "Political screening is shameful" and they demanded to know why the nominees were disqualified. They chanted "Fairness and justice is not protected in the election." Security guards came forth to block their progress. The master of ceremony asked them to be quiet. The three together with Agnes Chow's election agent Choi Chun-yin were ejected from the meeting. Earlier the three pan-democratic candidates addressed the press. Edward Yiu Chung-yin said that it was illegal for the government to disqualify nominees through the Returning Officer. He said that he will complain to the relevant United Nations human rights agency in April. Au Nok-hin said that he will asked Returning Officer Anne Teng about the unreasonable disqualification. Gary Fan Kwok-wai said that the disqualification of Agnes Chow is a suppression of young people. Returning Officer Anne Teng was present on stage when the order of names of candidates was selected for Hong Kong Island.

Outside the venue, somebody left a can of stinking fish and a pile of grasshoppers on the ground. - (YouTube) Joshua Wong being escorted out of the meeting hall. - (YouTube) Agnes Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong are ejected. - (YouTube) Close-up so that you can hear the slogans clearly. Whatever. By now, nobody cares anymore. (Oriental Daily) February 1, 2018. At about 800pm, the floor was opened for questions from the audience. The disqualified nominee Ventus Lau Wing-hong said that he was able to go to mainland China today with his Home Visit Permit. So was the Returning Officer or the mainland immigration authorities derelict in their duties? Lau asked repeatedly: "Am I a Hong Kong independence proponent?" Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Barnabas Fung said that they are only responsible for appointing the Returning Officers who make those and other decisions. As such, the Electoral Affairs Commission has no role or function on any decisions. If anyone has problems with the Returning Officers, they can file petitions accordingly. At the meeting, Lau repeatedly yelled that he is a nominee. He insulted Barnabas Fung with "Fuck your mother!" and then he escalated to "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!" He was finally removed by the security guards. Afterwards Lau admitted that he brought the Swedish stinking fish and the pile of grasshoppers. He wanted to bring in inside the meeting hall and throw them at Barnabas Fung. But when his assistant opened the can, it smelled really stinky and so he threw it on fish on the ground. - (YouTube) Ventus Lau Wing-hong insisted that he is a nominee because he has a nomination receipt from the Returning Officer. - (YouTube) Ventus Lau Wing-hong posed the question to Barnabas Fung. - (YouTube) Ventus Lau Wing-hong explains the newest method of resistance: the Swedish stinky fish. Internet comments: - This road show is tiresome by now. The trailer sounded interesting, with Agnes Chow announcing that she will confront the Returning Officer Anne Teng and demand justice. This time, she said that she hoped Anne Teng will not be a no-show as was the case with the Eastern district council meeting. When the show started, the introductory remarks were made by Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Barnabas Fung. Immediately Agnes Chow and friends jumped up, shouted and got ejected. When Anne Teng showed up later for the introduction of the Hong Kong Island candidates, there was nobody left to yell or throw objects at her. - What is the purpose of all the yelling and screaming? They did not bring their own megaphones. So all I heard was some noise and the master of ceremony telling the security guards to take action to maintain order. I have no idea what they were saying, and I can only imagine. - They just don't have the imagination to come up with alternate methods. - (Wen Wei Po) February 2, 2018. About an hour before the briefing was to begin, almost 100 people from Demosisto, People Power, League of Social Democrats and pro-independence organizations gathered outside to chant slogans to oppose the disqualification of Agnes Chow, Ventus Lau and Steven Chan. Afterwards, the nominees Au Nok-hin, Edward Yiu and Gary Fan abused their positions and brought Demosisto members Agnes Chow, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong and Choi Chun-yin inside the hall as their campaign staff workers. When Barnabas Fung entered, the four Demosisto members stood up to charge at the podium while chanting slogans. Shortly afterwards, Ventus Lau gained entry with a pass given to him by Kowloon West candidate Choi Tung-chau. So this was a case in which certain candidates abused the system to provide cover for certain other people to disrupt the meeting. [859] Agnes Chow Ting Is Disqualified (2018/01/27) (News.gov.hk) January 27, 2018. The Government supports the decisions on the validity of nomination made by the Returning Officers in accordance with the law. The Government made the statement today in response to media enquiries regarding the 2018 Legislative Council By-election. It said Returning Officers have the duty as well as power to make decisions according to the electoral laws. The Government agrees to and supports the Returning Officer’s decision that the nomination of a candidate was invalid as she did not comply with section 40(1)(b)(i) of the LegCo Ordinance. The Government said the candidate cannot possibly comply with the requirements of the electoral laws as advocating or promoting "self-determination" is contrary to the content of the declaration that the law requires a candidate to make to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It said "self-determination" or changing the HKSAR system by referendum which includes the choice of independence is inconsistent with the constitutional and legal status of the HKSAR as stipulated in the Basic Law, as well as the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong, that is Hong Kong should be a special administrative region of the PRC under the "one country, two systems" principle. According to Basic Law Article 104, LegCo members must swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the HKSAR before assuming office. Upholding the Basic Law is a basic legal duty of a legislator, the Government said, adding if a person advocates or promotes self-determination or independence by any means, he or she cannot possibly uphold the Basic Law or fulfil his or her duties as a legislator. The Government all along respects and safeguards the rights enjoyed by Hong Kong residents according to law, including the rights to vote and to stand for election. It also has a duty to implement and uphold the Basic Law and to ensure all elections are conducted in accordance with the Basic Law and electoral laws. The Government said the decisions made by the Returning Officers are to ensure the LegCo election is held in strict accordance with the Basic Law and other applicable laws in an open, honest and fair manner. There is no question of any political censorship, restriction of the freedom of speech or deprivation of the right to stand for elections as alleged by some members of the community, it added. Demosistō's Statement on Barring Agnes Chow from standing in by-election.

1. The Retuning Officer informed today (27 Jan) that Agnes Chow has been barred from standing for the by-election because of her political affiliation. Demosisto strongly condemns the government's decision. 2. The Administration has already given Chow inconveniences regarding her citizenship ever since she submitted her materials, but has never challenged nor further inquired her political stance. 3. Back in the 2016 election, the office has requested candidates to provide additional information to affirm whether their stance meets election standards. The procedures this time are certainly different: Civil servants are given the power to judge candidates’ political stance when confirming nominations, without offering them any opportunity to explain. 4. The explanation offered by the Returning Officer has not given specific reference to past comments by Chow. Instead it only lists Demosisto’s platform, effectively stripping the rights of all members of the group to run in elections, barring Demosisto from the legislature. 5. Paragraph 10 of the decision clearly cites developments since the 2016 election. This indicates the decision is political, a violation of the civil servants’ political neutrality. 6. Paragraph 10 also cites the interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law. We condemn once again Beijing’s destruction of Hong Kong’s rule of law. In addition, the interpretation sets rules for swearing-in procedures, which should not have any relation to one’s right to stand for election. The office should not have the power to further interpret Beijing’s interpretation as it removes basic rights of Hong Kong citizens. 7. For Demosisto, this incident is a payback against an entire generation. Demosisto members have both been imprisoned and barred from entering the political establishment. The government’s motivation is to demolish the youth’s desire to push forward social change in Hong Kong. Momentum gained from the Umbrella Movement will be absent from the legislature. 8. The government’s removal of the right to stand for election is virtually a permanent stripping of Hong Kongers’ political rights. The UNHRC points out that one’s political positions should not be the basis of whether one can participate in the democratic process. The decision is therefore an unconstitutional, anti-human rights one. Demosisto 27 January 2018 Internet comments: - Election Affairs Commission: 2018 Legislative Council By-election: Nomination of Candidates Disqualification 4.2. To be eligible for nomination as a candidate at an election for a Geographical Constituency, a person must: (a) be 21 years of age or over; (c) not be disqualified from being by virtue of paragraph 4.5; (d) have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for the 3 years immediately preceding the date of his/her nomination; and (e) be a Chinese citizen who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China. 4.5. A person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as a member, if he/she: (e) on the date of nomination, or of the election, is serving a sentence of imprisonment; (f) is or has been convicted, within 5 years before the polling date, (i) of any offence in Hong Kong or in any other place, the sentence for which is imprisonment (suspended or not) for not less than 3 months; How to Nominate 4.18 The Candidate's Consent to Nomination and Declarations This must be completed and signed by the candidate and attested by a witness. The candidate must sign and make the following declarations and promissory oath: (i) a declaration to the effect that the candidate will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiances to the HKSAR; (ii) a declaration as to the candidate's nationality and as to whether or not he/she has a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China; 4.22. A candidate who knowingly and wilfully makes a statement which is false in a material particular in the declaration in the nomination form shall be guilty of an offence under the Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) and shall be liable to a fine and to imprisonment for 2 years. Under a s 103 of the EAC (EP) (LC) Reg, a person who knowingly makes a false statement in a material particular or recklessly makes an incorrect statement in a material particular or omits a material particular in an election-related document commits an offense and shall be liable to a fine at level 2 ($5,000) and to imprisonment for 6 months, which is a prescribed offence with the same disqualifying effect as conviction of a corrupt or illegal conduct under the ECICO. CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance Section 40. What requirements are to be complied with by persons nominated as candidates (1) A person is no validly nominated for an election for a constituency unless -(b) the nomination form includes or is accompanied by (i) a declaration to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; - With respect to Demosistō, Joshua Wong could not run in the 2016 Legislative Council elections because he was not yet 21 years old, but Nathan Law could and won a seat. Joshua Wong and Nathan Law could not run in the 2018 Legislative Council by-elections because they were convicted of incitement of and participation in unlawful gathering, and sentenced to more than 3 months of imprisonment. And now Agnes Chow Ting is banned because the Returning Officer ruled that Chow did not comply with section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Coucnil Ordinance. - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2018. The pro-democracy Demosistō party has confirmed that its legislative by-election candidate Agnes Chow has been banned from entering the race this March. It said the decision was “illegal and groundless.” In a statement, the party said the decision made no reference to Chow’s speeches but pointed to their party manifesto: “This is equal to stripping the rights of all members of the group to run in elections, barring Demosistō from the legislature,” it said. “This is the purge by the Chinese Communist Party against a whole generation.” - Demosistō: About Us Demosistō aims to achieve democratic self-determination in Hong Kong. Through direct action, popular referenda, and non-violent means, we push for the city’s political and economic autonomy from the oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and capitalist hegemony. - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2018. At the party’s launch in 2016, Demosistō co-founder Joshua Wong said they wished to hold a public vote on Hong Kong’s status: “Independence should be one of the options inside the self-determination referendum,” he said. - (Sing Tao Daily) Will Demosistō change its policy platform in light of Agnes Chow's disqualification. Secretary-general Joshua Wong refused to answer this question. Demosistō is not registered as a society in Hong Kong. In 2016, they applied to the company registry but were rejected because their policy of "democratic selfdetermination" contravenes the Hong Kong Basic Law. - (Wen Wei Po) January 28, 2018. Civic Passion faction netizen Blue Phoenix wrote on Facebook: "If I remember right, Agnes Chow Ting is a founding member of Demosistō. A few days ago, I spotted her campaigning in Tai Koo using the Demosistō name. If I want to learn about her policy platform, where else would I go but Demosistō? Or does Agnes Chow want to deny all ties to Demosistō at this time? If so, shouldn't Agnes Chow announce her resignation from Demosistō first?" - This also means that all Demosistō members will be barred from running in future elections on account of the party platform. - This is a mere technicality. Whenever a Demosistō member wants to run for election, he/she will resign from the party and renounce the party platform. After the oath of office is taken, he/she can re-join the party. This is called rule-of-law (nudge nudge wink wink). - Apart from Demosistō, there are a number of self-determination advocates who are endangered species for the 2020 Legislative Council elections or the by-elections before then for the two openings left by the disqualification of Lau Siu-lai (Kowloon West) and Leung Kwok-hung (New Territories East). The list includes: Lau Siulai, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin. - (Oriental Daily) January 29, 2018. At the official website of Demosistō, the Chinese version of the party policy platform has been revised. Previously, it said: "Demosistō aims to achieve democratic self-determination in Hong Kong. Through direct action, popular referenda, and non-violent means, we push for the city’s political and economic autonomy from the oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and capitalist hegemony." The revised version is: "Demosistō is a youthful political party promoting democracy in Hong Kong. Its main thrusts are to use non-violent resistance, building a civic society and advancing community relations in order to promote democratic self-determination, autonomy in politics and economy and realizing the idea of democratic governance in Hong Kong." When Demosistō secretary-general Joshua Wong was asked about the changes, he said that he had just gotten out of jail and he had no idea when these changes were made. He said that there have been many changes since the founding of the political party, and these have nothing to do with Agnes Chow's candidacy. He said that Demosistō has always advocated democratic self-determination. - What do you mean that Joshua Wong doesn't know who or when changed the party platform? There are always easy targets to blame: (1) Derek Lam resigned from Demosisto last November over unspecified financial misdeeds. Joshua Wong might as well as blame Lam for the unauthorized change in the party policy platform. (2) The proverbial Chinese Communist hacker army broke into the Demosisto website/Facebook. The website will be restored as it was now that Agnes Chow has been disqualified. - (SCMP) January 29, 2018. Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung admitted on Monday that his party, Demosisto, had quietly removed from its mission statement suggestions that it rejected Chinese rule, but denied the change was made to help its candidate, Agnes Chow Ting, qualify to run in the Legislative Council byelections. However, election authorities over the weekend banned Chow from contesting the Hong Kong Island seat in the March 11 polls, noting that her party had called for self-determination for the city, rendering her ineligible under rules to curb independence advocacy. Wong and fellow party leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung said the changes to the mission statement, made only on the Chinese version of the party’s website, were based on “minor shifts” after years of work and to make the statement more accessible to laypeople. The changes were made after Chow submitted her candidacy on January 18. The original Chinese version stated that Demosisto upheld “democratic self-determination” as its “highest doctrine”, opposed the Chinese Communist Party and called for a popular referendum to push for the city’s autonomy. The updated version contains the phrase “democratic self-determination” but the other phrases were dropped. Wong, on a radio programme, argued that the issue was not about whether the party had changed its doctrine but why the authorities were “vetting thoughts”. “Even if we change our doctrine, the returning officer would still think we are not genuinely upholding the Basic Law,” he said, referring to the government official appointed to oversee the by-elections. News that Chow’s nomination was ruled invalid drew criticism from opposition politicians and legal experts but Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor insisted it had been done by the book. “Any suggestion of ‘Hong Kong independence’, ‘self-determination’, independence as a choice, or self-autonomy, is not in line with Basic Law requirements, and deviates from the important principle of ‘one country, two systems’,” she said, referring to the city’s mini-constitution. As to why Law had been allowed to run for the Hong Kong Island seat in the 2016 Legco election, returning officer Anne Teng argued that each case must be considered on its own merits. She said she had taken into consideration recent developments such as Beijing’s interpretation of the mini-constitution that made improper oath-taking and failure to accept Hong Kong as an inalienable part of China punishable by disqualification. That interpretation of the Basic Law by China’s top legislative body led to six pro-democracy lawmakers, including Law, losing their seats for failing to take their oaths of office properly. Law, on the same radio programme, stressed that the party would continue to call for “self-determination”, but said it was a “slippery slope” to tighten election eligibility criteria based on new developments. “Do we need to say we uphold the Article 23 [national security] legislation in future? And further later … do we need to say we respect and embrace the rule of the Chinese Communist Party?” Law said. Wong accused the authorities of having shifting goalposts on eligibility and said this meant the chances of Demosisto taking part in future polls were slim. Since it could not enter the legislature, Demosisto would continue to be active in civil society and also alert the international community to their cause, Wong said. On a separate radio programme, a member of Lam’s cabinet, Ronny Tong Ka-wah, cheered Demosisto’s amendment to its political charter and said it was a sign that they were starting to understand political realities.olitical charter and said it was a sign that they were starting to understand political realities. He added: “We are deprived of basic human rights under Beijing’s order and the changing political restrictions.” Tong was asked whether the stricter interpretation of eligibility criteria for elections would also affect those who criticised controversial efforts to institute a national security law under Article 23 of the Basic Law. In 2003, the government was forced to scrap a plan to enact the legislation after half a million people took to the streets. He said this was possible, adding: “If you are not someone who takes part in politics or engages in political commentary, you won’t reach a position where you can challenge or threaten the position of the Basic Law. “But if this is the Legislative Council, which is part of the system, and you are advocating [the idea] that we do not have to follow Article 23, then it may be considered a sign that one is not willing to uphold the Basic Law.” - Reversing party positions. Changing party constitution. Renouncing British citizenship. Stopping talk of Hong Kong independence. Swearing to pledge loyalty to the People's Republic of China. Is there anything they wouldn't do to get that $100,000/month Legislative Councilor job? - I wonder if they would eat dog turd? - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2018. Demosistō party said that, during the 2016 election, candidates were asked about their political views: “This incident is equal to giving returning officers power to judge candidates’ political stance when confirming nominations, without giving a chance for them to explain.” The party also said the election officer explained that they “considered developments after the 2016 Legislative Council election” and the Basic Law interpretation issued by Beijing. Nathan Law, the party’s chair, was stripped of his title as a lawmaker because of his oath of office. “The interpretation only regulated and limits the form and content of oath taking, and is unrelated to rights to participate in elections. We question what power the returning officer has to explain content of the interpretation,” the party said. “This is illegal and groundless.” - If your public statements show that you do not accept Basic Law Article 1, you would be taking a false oath if you take the oath of office after being elected. So the Returning Officer is doing you a favor by sparing you the perjury charge. - I don't have a problem with eliminating all oaths (including oaths of office, court witness oaths, wedding vows, promissory notes, IOUs, etc). But I don't think that a sole exception should be made for perjury being acceptable during oaths of office of the Legislative Councilors. This is giving a bad name to the term "oath." If you want this, you are better off scrapping the Legco oath of office altogether. - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2018. Demosistō added that the electoral returning officer had questioned Chow’s nationality in her bid to run, but did not ask questions about her party’s political stance. Chow gave up her British citizenship in order to be eligible to enter the race. - Do not weep for Agnes Chow about losing her British citizenship, because there is an escape mechanism in that she has one more chance to renounce that renunciation. - (Bastille Post) January 27, 2017. Today, it was announced that Agnes Chow will be barred from the Hong Kong Island Legco by-election. So far, the two announced candidates are Hong Kong Island South district councilor Judy Chan Ka-pui (New People's Party) and Edward Yum Liang-hsien (independent). Previously, ex-Democratic Party member and current Hong Kong Island South district councilor Au Nok-hin announced that he will enter if Chow is barred. According to analysts, pro-establishment candidate Judy Chan won't improve her chances if Au Nok-hin replaces Agnes Chow. Up to this point, Chan has been leading the polls over Chow who is perceived as inexperienced and unqualified. Chow may be picking up support, but her pro-Self-Determination position means that she may not have the full support across the pan-democratic spectrum. Au Nok-hin used to be a member of the Democratic Party which is very clearly opposed to independence/self-determination. But he broke away from the Democratic Party in an acrimonious fashion. So it is not clear that the Democratic Party precinct captains and community organizers will work enthusiastically for Au's campaign. Another potential candidate sitting in the wings is Cyd Ho Sau-lan (Labour Party). She lost in the 2016 Hong Kong Island Legco elections, but she got 19,376 votes. So far she has not given any indication that she is interested. But if she enters, she may be able to unify the pan-democrats better. The disqualification of Agnes Chow may motivate the pan-democrats to turn out in large numbers for whoever that candidate might be. So the absence of Agnes Chow may not be helping Judy Chan. - (Wen Wei Po) January 28, 2018. Previously, Au Nok-hin had signed The Resolution On The Future of Hong Kong, which stated that the people of Hong Kong should united together to fight for "internal self-determination." Specifically, "the political position of Hong Kong after 20447 must be determined internally by the people of Hong Kong themselves through a sufficiently democratic and binding system." This "internal self-determination" will bring about "permanent autonomous rule." - So don't count on Au Nok-hin sailing through the nomination process either. Au filed his nomination without fanfare on Saturday morning precisely because he hoped that nobody will bring up those inconvenient facts in his history. He boasted to the press that he is Demosisto's Plan B but has clamped up since then. He will say nothing more about Demosisto until after he is sworn into office. - Lam Chung-ming: "Au Nok-hin, do you support democratic self-determination? Please tell the voters! ... If you don't support democratic self-determination, then you are not a fellow traveler of Demosisto." Ming Sum Chan: "You won't fight the disqualification. You are more interested in being the Plan B. What is your purpose other than swindling more money?" Neil Law: "The pan-democrats are feeble-minded ... Right now the citizens want to fight the disqualifications and not to come up with so many Plans so that the government has to let some of them run. You are only helping the government pre-screen the candidates." Constantine Chan: "I remember Au Nok-hin. The bastard placed a donation box for HKTV. After HKTV denied that they were soliciting for money, Au said that he would turn the money over. You must be stupid to vote for Au Nok-hin!" - (Apple Daily) January 27, 2018. The disqualified New Territories East legislative councilor Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung called on the people of Hong Kong to refuse to pay taxes. He called on the international community not to use Hong Kong as an arbitration centre because the Hong Kong SAR government has failed to live up to its promises. - The government will come after tax deadbeats, using measures such as piling on fines for late/non-payment, placing liens on your property, garnishing your wages, marking down your credit rating, forcing you into involuntary bankruptcy, holding up your immigration application, etc. When that times comes, Leung Kwok-hung will tell you to be brave and firm in the face of the coming storm. In other words, you are screwed. - A big protest rally is being called for tomorrow. The secondary goal is to rally for the alternate candidate, most likely to be Au Nok-hin. The primary goal is to get people to donate more money to help Hong Kong to fight back against the Hong Kong Communist government in this darkest day in the history of democracy in Hong Kong. - (HKG Pao) January 28, 2018. The number of participants in this rally should be the bellwether of public opinion. So let us see what the numbers are: Demosisto chairman Nathan Law: We did not count the number of participants Yellow media HK01: Several hundred Yellow media Apple Daily: No mention Yellow media Ming Pao: No mention Blue media Oriental Daily: Almost 700. Hong Kong Police: 2,000 at the peak. In 2016, Demosisto chairman Nathan Law was elected into the Legislative Council with 50,818 votes. Where have those voters gone? Why won't they turn out to support the "political prisoner of conscience" Agnes Chow Ting? - Interesting that nobody has said yet that this is time to raise more money in order to file a judicial review. I am waiting ... - Tanya Chan's Facebook on how to build up unity among the pan-democrats:

The government has issued a press release to confirm that one person has been disqualified from the Legco by-election. If this is Agnes Chow Ting, she will be the first person in Hong Kong to be "permanently deprived of her political rights." Based upon her "crime," she will never be allowed to run unless she resigns from Demosisto, shows genuine contrition and the Chinese Communists forgives her. - If Agnes Chow is the first such person in Hong Kong, then the previous six disqualified legislative councilors -- Baggio Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu Chung-yim -- are apparently not persons at all. What are they? Dogs? Pigs? - (Wen Wei Po) January 28, 2018. Faced with the criticisms of the pro-independence crowd, barrister Tanya Chan used sophistry. She said that she had meant that "Agnes Chow is the first person to be disqualified after the National People's Congress Standing Committee 2017 interpretation of the Basic Law" whereas "Baggio Leung Chunghang, Alice Lai and others were disqualified before that." Lucy Chung asked: "Why are people fighting to become the first to be disqualified aft er the National People's Congress Standing Committee 2017 interpretation of the Basic Law?" Is that a prize for heroism? WS Wong added: "Why not change this to the first person to be disqualified in 2018?" Indeed. - If you want accountability, then the decision was made by the Hong Kong Island Returning Officer Anne Teng Yu-yan. It was not made by the Central Government, or the Hong Kong SAR Government, or the China Liaison Office, or the HKSAR Chief Executive Carrie Lam, or the Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng, or by the Election Affairs Commission. The buck stops at the desk of Anne Teng. If you say that these other persons/organizations took part, you'll have to produce evidence that is more than speculation. - Agnes Chow said that she has never ever said that she supports Hong Kong independence. So the ruling was based upon the fact that her party Demosisto has a policy platform that advocates allowing the people of Hong Kong to decide by their sovereignty as well as constitutional system by public referendum. Even though Demosisto does not support Hong Kong independence, they said that democratic principles require that Hong Kong independence be one of the options on this public referendum. Teng considered this position as contrary to the Hong Kong Basic Law. Given that Agnes Chow stated her political affiliation as "Demosisto" and that there is no public information that Chow has changed that relationship, Teng barred Chow from the by-election. What should (if anything) should be done about Anne Teng? Let us have a public referendum. Here is the list of options: (1) Anne Teng shall be raped repeatedly (2) Anne Teng shall be hanged from the gallows until she is dead (3) Anne Teng shall be dismissed from her regular job as District Officer (Eastern) (4) Anne Teng shall be awarded a Golden Bauhinia award for meritorious public service (5) Don't know/no opinion/no answer/"Who fucking cares?" (6) Other answer (write in): ________________ Declaration: I am not personally advocating rape or murder in any way, shape or form, but democratic principles require that I list all the options for the People to choose from. - (HKG Pao) January 29, 2018. Apple Daily has reporters following the "DQ executioner" Anne Teng around the clock. We will soon learn everything about her and her family. - So far Apple Daily has pointed out that Anne Teng led an exchange group to visit Zhuhai city and spoke to Zhuhai City Overseas Chinese Liaison Office vice-chairman Zhang Yinglong. So this proves that Anne Teng is a Communist. - Anne Teng spells her family name "Teng" instead of the regular "Tang" (as in David Tang, Stephy Tang, Sheren Tang, G.E.M. Tang, etc). This proves that she is a Communist. - Eh, Teng is the old Mandarin spelling (as in Teresa Teng). In pinyin, it would be "Deng." - Deng? It means that she is related to Deng Xiaoping. Or Deng Yingchao (Mrs. Zhou Enlai). Now everything is loud and clear ... - (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2018. Anne Teng's regular day job is District Officer (Eastern district, Hong Kong Island). She only moonlights as Returning Election Officer during elections. At the Eastern District Council meeting today, Agnes Chow Ting, Joshua Wong Chi-fung and friends were waiting for Anne Teng. It was agreed that the district councilors would be admitted into the conference room first. Other persons were supposed to register first. But Chow, Wong and friends tried to rush in behind the district councilors and they were stopped. The usual rugby scrum took place.

The meeting was called off for lack of quorum because about six district councilors could not enter. Eastern district councilor and Legislative Councilor Kwok Wai-keung said that the demonstrators chose the wrong place and time to protest. The pro-democracy activists had their media show, but the people of Eastern district lost because the district council business was held up. By the way, Anne Teng was not there at all. - Previously, some Hong Kong Returning Election Officers have received death threats for disqualifying pro-democracy activists such as Edward Leung Tin-kei, Chan Ho-tin, etc. The Returning Election Officers are highly paid public service workers, such that death threats to their families and pets have been figured into their very very high salaries. In Hong Kong, everyone from restaurant waiters to bus drivers to police officers to legislative councilors to the Chief Executive can be and should be threatened with death/dismemberment/disfigurement in the course of their work, with the sole exception being judges/magistrates. Why? Because FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and UNIVERSAL VALUES. - (RTHK City Forum) (Facebook video) Audience member: Ms. Chow, when you were in Japan ... and there is video evidence ... you said that you cannot enter China and so why force a Chinese identity upon yourself? Since you don't believe that you are Chinese, so how do you qualify to run for election for the Legislative Council in Hong Kong (China)? The second point ... I want to make three points ... the second point, please do not say that you represent the people of Hong Kong. First of all, you certainly do not represent me. Secondly, you certainly do not represent the majority of the people of Hong Kong. Chow Ting: I never said that I represent you. Audience member: Your organization's poster says that you represent the people of Hong Kong. You can look at it yourself. If you can say it, you shouldn't deny it. Secondly, your organization people frequently cross your arms and turn your backs when the national anthem is played in order to insult the country. This is enough to disqualify you!

[halted by the program host] - (Facebook) The audience member who was cut off by the program host has provided the third point of her question: Ms. Chow, please look at the back of your Hong Kong ID card. There is the seal of the People's Republic of China. If you don't think that you are Chinese, I believe that there must be a pair of scissors in your home with which you can cut the card up! - The Hong Kong ID card is the property of the Hong Kong government. This woman is inciting the criminal destruction of government property and should be reported to the authorities immediately. - PW Comics

Frame 1: "We oppose our disqualification." "There is no legal basis." (Of course we are anxious because the job pays more than $100,000 per month) Frame 2: "Sister Chow, was there any legal basis for Occupy Central?" "Is there any legal basis for self-determination." "Professor, was there any legal basis for playing around with the oath of office?" Frame 3: "You are banned from speaking!" - (SCMP) Agnes Chow’s disqualification does opposition a favour. By Alex Lo. January 29, 2018. You would think the sky has fallen. There was feigned shock and outrage when Agnes Chow Ting of the radical localist group Demosisto was disqualified from running in the Legislative Council by-elections in March. Never mind the opposition had been talking about that possibility from day one when they put a complete novice in the running for a major Legco seat for Hong Kong Island. The way things are going, you may be forgiven for thinking they were practically asking for it, or daring the government to do it. Chow, 21, who has no experience or special training in anything – she has never even held down a proper job – is nothing more than a photogenic tool for the opposition to discredit the government and the Legco voting system. So disqualifying Chow, 21, is nothing like the political earthquake the opposition claims it to be. The decision does not amount to banning Demosisto as a political party, as Chow has claimed, and is not the start of a slippery slope to banning other opposition parties from taking part in Legco elections, according to pan-democratic lawmaker Charles Mok. Politically, the decision actually does everyone a favour, including the opposition; it’s likely to have sealed a victory for Chow’s replacement. Pro-independence advocates were barred from taking part in the 2016 Legco elections. Among them were Yeung Ke-cheong of the Democratic Progressive Party, Chan Ho-tin of the Hong Kong National Party and Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous. Why should the opposition expect this time would be different for Chow? The conclusion must be that they didn’t. The latest disqualification will enable the opposition camp to turn public opinion against the government, and gain both sympathy and protest votes in the March polls for backup pan-democrat candidate Au Nok-hin, who could never have run successfully under any other circumstances. That’s good for everyone. Instead of a complete neophyte like Chow, at least Au, 30, has experience in public policy and human rights issues as a long-serving member of the Southern District Council and of the Civil Human Rights Front, and as a former member of the Democratic Party. This whole thing doesn’t look like Plan B for the opposition, but Plan A all along. Maybe I am making out the opposition to be cleverer than it usually is. But the situation is turning out to be a no-loss for them and a no-win for the government. - (Headline Daily) The Invisible Goddess of Democracy. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. January 30, 2018. If there was a Girl of the Week to be chosen now, I believe that Agnes Chow Ting will win for sure. This 21-year-old legend should be analyzed along with the Joshua Wong Chi-fung phenomenon. Six years ago, she was just a squeaky-voiced Scholarism spokesperson. Today she is a Legislative Council candidate. I must admire the opposition for their carefully thought out planning. Like Joshua Wong, Chow was a political child star. She stepped on stage at age 15 and opposed national education along with the other Scholarism kids. Because she speak better English, she was assigned to deal with the English-language media. "You are young, you are eye-catching, you have good media points. The media will make you!" The Scholarism members told her in order get her to take the stage. Of course, the girl became an instant hit. The media even crowned her as the "Goddess of the Student Movement." "Actually I am a very ordinary person. I am not good at my studies, I don't have a lot of friends and I don't have a lot of interests." Chow recalled. So the Goddess was an invisible person. In secondary school, her classmates boycotted her for five years. Almost nobody spoke to her. She ate her lunch box alone in the classroom. To avoid embarrassment, she skipped the school excursions and the banquet to thank the teachers. The worst part were the group exercises because the teacher had to insert her into existing groups. Chow never told her about the five years of ostracization. Even the teachers did not know much. Her own pressure-reduction method was Japanese anime on the Internet. This invisible person was indifferent to politics initially. But the Liberal Studies teacher spoke abut June 4th, politics and national education and let her know about Scholarism. So she decided to join them. At first political incident. On June 3 2016, Chow got ready to attend the June 4th assembly the next day. She did not have any black clothes, so she asked her mother to lend her a black t-shirt. Her mother asked why. She said that she was going to play at a friend's place. She did not tell her mother that she was joining Scholarism. Her mother does not like China much but votes for the DAB all the same. During the campaign against national education, Chow was the master of ceremony for ten days. "I got better at speaking. I did not use any cheat sheet. My hands did not shake. I got on stage and I spoke immediately. Although it was a tough ten days, I learned so much from it." Her parents found out from the television coverage, but there was nothing that they could do. Occupy Central took place in 2014. 17-year-old Chow was the Scholarism spokesperson. The Mong Kok riot took place in 2016. Chow Ting and Joshua Wong took photos of themselves at the scene. When the riot broke out, she even ran a live broadcast on her Facebook. Once she realized the seriousness, she silently deleted all the videos. Six years of training had taught her the dirty tricks on the road of politics. - (SCMP) January 30, 2018. The European Union has warned that the barring of a pro-democracy activist from the city’s legislative by-election “risks diminishing Hong Kong’s international reputation as a free and open society.” The European Union has warned that the barring of a pro-democracy activist from the city’s legislative by-election “risks diminishing Hong Kong’s international reputation as a free and open society. It risks diminishing Hong Kong’s international reputation as a free and open society.” - Agnes Chow Ting was disqualified for advocating self-determination/independence and not because she is "pro-democracy." Meanwhile, right under the nose of the European Union, two activists Jordi Sánchez and Jordi Cuixart were sent to jail in Spain in preventive detention, without bail, on charges of sedition against the state (specifically, for Catalan independence). Why is it okay to crush separatism within the European Union but not in Hong Kong? Sánchez and Cuixart are facing a maximum of 15 years in jail. What is Agnes Chow facing in Hong Kong? The loss of a HK$100,000/month job? - Ah, by Jove, I think I've got it -- the EU statement on Hong Kong is coming from the EU's European External Action Service, which is a completely different service from the EU's European Internal Action Service. Internal European matters are held to completely different standards. - This is the same logic that allowed the British to sell opium to China but made it a capital punishment on the British isles. The logic is known as "Do unto others what you would never do unto your own self." - (SCMP) Hong Kong not unique in barring some from running in elections. By Alex Lo. January 31, 2018. Hong Kong may have barred some secessionists from running in polls to be lawmakers, but we are nowhere close, as claimed by some, to banning their parties. It’s now clear that Agnes Chow Ting, who has been disqualified from running in the Legislative Council by-election in March, and her localist party Demosisto, are committed to separatism, and violating the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, on which the “one country, two systems” governing principle is based. Their claim that they only wanted self-determination was a subterfuge to get Chow qualified for the poll. In its original party constitution, Demosisto not only called for “democratic self-determination”, but opposed Chinese communist rule and supported a referendum to push for the city’s autonomy. The revised version has dropped the references to anti-communism and autonomy, retaining only the phrase “democratic self-determination”. Demosisto co-founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung claimed the changes were minor and were made to help laypeople understand the party’s stance better. So, did Chow, Wong and Co have a change of heart and decide to moderate their stance? Hardly. These people are the ones who cross their arms and stand with their backs to the national and Hong Kong flags at formal occasions such as the annual July 1 handover celebrations, when the national anthem is played. The changes to their party constitution are naked opportunism. But is disqualifying Chow justified? Well, her party is committed to challenging the very foundations on which Hong Kong’s political order is based. It’s not unusual to ban such parties, even in democracies. In 2003, the Israeli Central Elections Committee disqualified the Israeli Arab party Balad for denying Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish state; the Supreme Court reversed the disqualification. Between 1993 and 2009, Turkey banned the People’s Labour Party and its various successors for supporting a Kurdish party branded a terrorist group. Austria banned the National Democratic Party for trying to revive national socialist ideas. Spain banned the Basque nationalist party Herri Batasuna and its successor parties. The leader of the Catalan independence movement is in exile and faces arrest for rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds if he returns to Spain. In 2002, Germany almost banned the far-right NPD party, but failed on legal technicalities. It’s always controversial in liberal societies to bar individuals from elections or ban parties. But it’s sometimes necessary to protect the integrity of the political and social order. - (Economic Times x Sky Post) Agnes Chow Ting (Demosisto) was disqualified from the Legislative Council by-election. Do you think that this is reasonable? Poll results as of 2:30pm January 30, 2018. (2150 participants) 79%: Reasonable 20%: Unreasonable 1%: No opinion [858] I Got Genuine Universal Suffrage (2018/01/24) (The Standard) January 23, 2018. Former lawmaker Frederick Fung Kin-kee who has pulled out of being the backup pan-democratic candidate for the March by-election in Kowloon West insisted today that he was not pressured in any way to drop out. Fung had come second to former lawmaker Edward Yiu Chung-yim in a primary held by the pan-democrats, but now the Democratic Party's Ramon Yuen Hoi-man, (pictured at the left shoulder of Frederick Fung) who finished third, is being touted as a likely replacement if Yiu is barred from running. Fung admitted that some pan-democrats had considered fielding a separate candidate if he was to run in the by-election. "If I insist and go on and stand for the by-election, I think there is most likely another team from coming from pan-democratic camp. That I don't want to see," he said. Fung said to avoid that, he withdrew to keep the pro-democracy camp together. (Ming Pao) January 25, 2018. WELL before the official kick-off of the Legislative Council by-election in Kowloon West, the internal conflicts within the pro-democratic camp have already been fully exposed by the so-called "Plan B" controversy over the primary election. Out of dissatisfaction with possible "backup candidates", some members of the pan-dem camp have ridden roughshod over the terms of the memorandum on the primary election mechanism in the name of "maximising their chances", in effect attempting to perform a screening and hand-picking exercise and "disqualifying" their fellows behind the scenes. The moral high ground is the source of the pro-democratic camp's strength. Disrespecting the rules of the game of the primary election is the same as disrespecting the people who had voted. The importance of a seat cannot compare with that of the core values. The pro-democrats have always placed high importance on procedural justice. They ought not let their own moral high ground be ruined and their political foundations be shaken by dishonourable political plots and rivalry between different political lines. The Plan B controversy was born out of hearsay early this month that Edward Yiu Chung-yim, a member of the democratic self-determination caucus, may again be disqualified if he runs in the by-election. Days later, the result of the primary election was released and Yiu won 70% of the vote, defeating traditional pan-democrat Frederick Fung Kin-kee by a wide margin. Supporters of Yiu suggested that the camp needs someone with "better chances" to be Yiu's replacement. But many pro-democrats wanted to stick to the original mechanism and make Fung, the runner-up in the primary, the backup candidate. Some pan-democrats mulled over finding a political heavyweight to be the backup candidate. Later, Fung ruled himself out of the byelection. He said some "progressive pro-democrats" had threatened to field a separate candidate if Fung was to run, implying that his withdrawal was under pressure and against his own will. The memorandum by the Power for Democracy on the primary election states clearly that in case the winner of the primary is disqualified by the government, they "can select the first two or three runners-up as the Plan B or Plan C candidates in accordance with their popularity". Despite the clarity in the statement, some so-called "progressive pro-democrats" have claimed that "abiding by the mechanism" should not be the only principle for deciding who should be the replacement. Saying the odds of winning should also be taken into consideration, they have asserted that the scenario of "Yiu out and Fung in" will cause discontent among many supporters of the pro-democrats. Some have even argued that since the word used in the memorandum is "can" instead of "must", there is actually "flexibility" in the primary election mechanism and so on. Now that Fung has been "forced to withdraw", according to the primary election mechanism, the Plan C should be Ramon Yuen Hoi-man of the Democratic Party. However, both Yuen and the Power for Democracy have been evasive on this subject. Yuen said "running or not should not be decided by myself alone". What the Power for Democracy has said is even more ridiculous. On the one hand it has said "there are replacement plans" in the primary election mechanism. On the other hand it has maintained it is absolutely not the "appropriate time" to discuss replacement candidates now. Meanwhile Eddie Chu Hoi-dick has further revealed the existence of a so-called "Plan D". Put another way, they are looking for an "ultimate candidate" to prepare for the dropping out of both Fung and Yuen. Whether presented as "inviting heavyweights to come out of retirement" or a "Plan D", what is going on is merely an attempt to field a non-participant in the primary. Once Yuen decides to "retreat in the face of overwhelming odds" like Fung, the replacement mechanism of the primary election will cease to exist . By then the one operating behind the scenes will have the excuse to field someone who did not run in the primary election as the "Plan D". If this is the case, how different will such a manoeuvre be from the hand-picking, screening and black-box operations that the pro-democrats have detested so bitterly? The pro-democrats should give a clear account on this and whether the replacement mechanism of the primary election exists in name only. Internet comments: - (SCMP) Unlike his doubters, Frederick Fung still has dignity. By Alex Lo. January 24, 2018. There may not be room any more in the opposition camp for an old-school pan-democrat and gentleman like Frederick Fung. The “primaries” run by the Power for Democracy, an umbrella group that helps coordinate the different parties and factions within the opposition, did so well and came up with four viable candidates last week for the Legislative Council by-elections in March. The whole idea was to eliminate infighting and rivalry that had plagued previous elections by nominating candidates acceptable to the major parties within the camp. It also offered a degree of democratic legitimacy to the candidates by allowing members of the public to cast their “votes”. Fung, who leads the labour-oriented Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood, came in second after Edward Yiu Chung-yim for the Kowloon West seat. Most people, including some government-friendly politicians, think Yiu will win hands down in March if he is not barred from running owing to his previous disqualification from Legco for his improper oath-taking. The so-called Plan B among opposition members is for the first runners-up to take their place should Yiu, and Agnes Chow Ting of Demosisto for the Hong Kong Island seat, be disqualified. So far, so good. At least that was how the primaries system was supposed to work. But, in the past few days, segments of the opposition, among them localist lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, got cold feet and thought Fung could lose the race because he is nowhere near as popular as Yiu. Other replacement names were suggested, such as political stars Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Alan Leong Kah-kit. Even pan-democrat godfather Martin Lee Chu-ming was mentioned. Well, that rather defeats the whole purpose of holding the primaries; never mind that those pan-democratic luminaries never said they wanted to run as a second choice in a byelection. In an interview on MyRadio with former lawmaker and provocateur Wong Yuk-man, Fung said people had started putting pressure on him to quit. His Facebook page and personal email accounts had been flooded with rude messages, including those with swear words directed at his wife, son and mother. Then, Fung’s supporters started to fight back. Fung said he quit before the whole controversy threatened to become a full-blown fight within the opposition. He did so with honour and dignity. Many of his doubters have none of those qualities. Actually, Plan B with Fung was pretty good. Now, the opposition will have to come up with Plan C. - (Oriental Daily) January 24, 2018. Nothing is ever so simple. By retreating, Fung is actually counterattacking the other political parties, especially the Civic Party. Fung's party ADPL is based in the Sham Shui Po district of Kowloon West. Claudia Mo won a Kowloon West Legco seat for the Civic Party in 2016, but she has resigned from the party since. So the Civic Party is eyeing the open seat in order to re-establish a foothold in Kowloon West. In particular, they are floating the idea of parachuting retired legislator Alan Leong Kah-kit to defend this seat for the pan-democrats. Fung is trying to stop this invasion. In announcing his pull-out, Fung put forward the third-place finisher Ramon Yuen Hoi-man (Democratic Party). Fung is not worried about Yuen in 2020, because the Democratic Party already has Helena Wong occupying a Legco seat in Kowloon West. If Yuen wins this time, it will be largely Wong's 2016 voters. In 2020, the Democratic Party cannot possibly win two separate seats with Wong and Yuen. Besides, Fung is actually counting on Yuen to lose the election, because the relatively young Yuen has low name recognition and finished a distant third in the primary election. Fung is using Yuen to block Alan Leong (Civic Party) or Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party) from entering. If Leong or Lee barges in by force, the Democratic Party will be offended. Furthermore, Fung is counting on Ramon Yuen Hoi-man to be rejected as "Plan C" by the self-determination/independence faction led by Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Steven Chan Chi-chuen, Cheng Chung-tai, etc. But their Plan D candidate (and Eddie Chu says that they have already reached a consensus ) cannot win without the full support of ADPL, Democratic Party and Civic Party with their community organizers and district councilors. When the Plan D candidate loses, the self-determination/independence faction will be blamed. And it will be a new, bright and rosy morning for the ADPL in 2020. - (Sze Tat Chau's Facebook) January 24, 2018.

The so-called Progressive Democrats led by Eddie Chu do not respect democratic principles at all. In order to win at all costs, they are willing to destroy the system and overturn the primary results. They are determined to force Frederick Fung to quit. They had taken part in establishing this primary system. But because they were not happy with the outcome, they decided to usurp it by dictatorship in the name of democracy. We must remember these people. We must remember each and every single one of them. They are the people who have strangled the space for democracy in Hong Kong. - (Ta Kung Pao) January 24, 2018. Frederick Fung said that certain members of the progressive democrats and other new political parties objected to his reserve status. "Someone even told me: If you run, we will run as well." Fung did not name names. Even though Fung did not name names, Eddie Chu said in the morning that Fung is making a serious allegation which is tantamount to an accusation of interference with the election. Chu demanded an explanation from Fung, who said that he will not comment any further. In the afternoon, Eddie Chu said that he is willing to give full support to "Plan B" Frederick Fung and "Plan C" Ramon Yuen under the primary election system. He denied that he wanted "one of his own" to take the place of someone else. He admitted that he had looked for a "Plan D" in the event that "Plan A" is disqualified and "Plans B and C" declined to run. But what Eddie Chu says now is completely at odds with what he said previously. On January 12 right before the primary election, he wrote on Facebook: "If Brother Kei wins the primary election, everybody loses including himself ... the primary system would lose popular support and the Kowloon West by-election will surely be lost." On January 21 after the primary election, Chu wrote: "Many pan-democratic supporters are very unhappy about the arrangement of having Fung backing up Yiu." He added: "This matter cannot be based solely on following the mechanism in the system. We must consider the probability of victory at the same time." So before the primary election, Chu thinks that Fung should not be allowed to win. After the primary election, he wants to overturn the system because Plan A may be disqualified and Plan B can run in his place. After Fung announced his pull-out, Chu pledges his full support of Fung. What a show! - (Ming Pao) By Ivan Choy Chi-keung. January 24, 2018. ... At the primary election, Fung finished in second place with 30% support in the telephone poll and less than 20% in the physical balloting. Some people began to advocate scrapping the system of using "Plan B" Frederick Fung to replaced a disqualified "Plan A." This is telling people to rip up the primary election agreement and ignoring the system. According to various media reports, the self-determination faction has been lobbying other pan-democrats to run candidates other than Frederick Fung. The latest media report is that the self-determination faction is plotting to invite Ken Tsang Kin-chiu (of Seven Evil Policemen fame) to run. Recently Edward Yiu Chung-yim's pal Eddie Chu Hoi-dick wrote on Facebook: - The democrats suggested that the system must be followed. If Yiu cannot run, Fung will replace him. I don't think that there can only be only one principle (namely, "follow the system"). We must also consider the likelihood of victory and maintain the morale of the primary election voters. Many of the primary election voters don't want Frederick Fung to represent the democrats. The various numbers make people worry that many democratic supporters won't vote if Fung stands in for Yiu. - For the same of the overall good of the democrats, I will act in accordance with three principles: (1) winning the by-election; (2) maintaining the morale of the primary election voters; (3) not destroy the yet-to-be-perfected primary system. These comments are truly an astonishing sight to behold: - The system was written down in black-and-white. But now he says that the system won't be the sole standard. - He clearly wants to destroy the primary system, but he adds "yet-to-be-perfected" on his own in order to mislead people. Do these techniques seem familiar? Aren't these exactly like CY Leung's word games? No wonder there were many critical comments at Eddie Chu's Facebook. In the memorandum for the primary election, there were two sections: 8.1. Faced with the pressure from the government and the current political situation, the primary election winner may be disqualified by the authorities through the confirmation letter and other methods. 8.2. If the above situation occurs, there were will be Plan B/Plan C based upon top two or three candidates as ranked by the support levels. So if the top finishing candidate is eliminated, the second finishing candidate will become the Plan B, and so on. But now they are saying that this "may" happen but it does not "need to" happen. How is this different from the much reviled word-playing used by Beijing on legal issues? Here I am reminded of a saying: People frequently turn into those that they detested before. I like reading Kevin Yam Kin-fung these days. After he stopped being a social activist, he is more carefree. On Monday he wrote an article titled . He said that the consequences are innumerable once the democrats lose the moral high ground. He came up with a few sample criticisms from the proestablishment camp: Democrats: We oppose pre-screening and we want genuine universal suffrage. Pro-establishment camp: You even overturn your own elections system. Instead you made your choice behind a closed door which is worse than a pre-screening. This is a lot worse than the August 31st resolution. Democrats: You pro-establishment people have no spine. You are just automated voting machines for Beijing. Pro-establishment camp: How dare you pro-democracy people talk to us about "spine"? You are so scared of just one Eddie Chu that you tossed away your own primary election system. How can you convince citizens that you have the spine to oppose Beijing? Frankly, I did not like the idea of Frederick Fung entering this by-election. For many years, he ran only for the Sham Shui Po district council seat and the Kowloon West legislative council seat. In 2012, he switched to run for a "super" legislative council seat. In 2016, he suddenly switched to run in New Territories West and lost. This time, he is back in Kowloon West. He was just picking the spot whenever an opening appears. In any case, he ran in the primary election and he finished second. The rules of the games are in place already. Whether we personally like him or not, the system should function as agreed upon. The democrats scorn the government for "moving the goalposts," "holding double standards" and "winning at all costs." The self-determination/progressive democrats are no better: - When public opinion is on their side, they demand the government to respect public opinion. When public opinion is not on their side, they said that we should ignore public opinion because it has been "distorted by fear." - When it is to your advantage, you speak of the principles. When it is not to your advantage, you speak instead of keeping morale up and needing to win. - In the past, they criticize the mainstream democrats of being too focused on winning elections while forgetting the principles. Today, they want to win the elections and therefore they are willing to abandon a written agreement and consider keeping morale up and increasing the likelihood of winning instead. If this is "progressive," then I am glad that I am "pedantic" in still believing in procedural justice, adhering to agreements and keeping my word. If "self-determination" means that a few of your own kind can ignore a written agreement and instead reach a "decision" behind closed doors among themselves, then I am glad that I am not in that faction. - (Wen Wei Po) January 25, 2018. Earlier Eddie Chu Hoi-dick changed his tune and said that he has always supported the primary replacement system. He also said that the organizer Power For Democracy was talking about Plan D very early on. This put Power For Democracy into the hot seat. Yesterday, Power For Democracy convener Andrew Chiu Ka-yin said that he could not clarify things at first because he was not authorized to speak and he wanted to maintain fairness. Chiu said that Edward Yiu Chung-yim had talked too much, and thus forced them to come out and say that the system is not "ironclad" in order to rescue Yiu. So what about the relevant clauses in the memorandum for the primary system? Chiu said that "may be based upon" is not the same as "must be based upon." Also, "not being disqualified" but "only voluntarily giving up" is not covered in this insurance policy. Why did they have to meet and discuss now? Because Edward Yiu Chung-yim did not participate in the drafting of the memorandum. As the primary winner, he should be able to hear what happens if he gets disqualified. That is reasonable. What happens now? It will up to "Plan C" Ramon Yuen Hoi-mean to decide whether he wants to run or not. In summary, Power For Democracy supports the replacement mechanism. - Wow! "Not ironclad" can be made equivalent to "strict adherence to the memorandum"! You guys are awesome with the Chinese language! If "may be based upon" does not mean "strictly adhered to", then why not write "may not necessarily be based upon" in the first place instead? - Hey, so it was all just one huge misunderstanding. Now it turns out that everybody supports the replacement mechanism totally and unconditionally. Frederick Fung should announce that he intends to become Plan B again so that he can defend the primary system because his absence would raise suspicion that some people does not support it. Fung's presence is essential to defend Hong Kong democracy! Go Frederick! - (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018. After (and only after) "Plan B" Frederick Fung disqualified himself, Power For Democracy has come out to issue an "interpretation" of the memorandum for the primary system. What if "Plan C" Ramon Yuen is also pressured by forces unknown to drop out? Power For Democracy convener Andrew Chew said that there is no "Plan D." Or, at least, Power For Democracy will play no role in selecting any "Plan D." - (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018. According to information, Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Agnes Chow Ting will be notified by the Returning Officers in Kowloon West and Hong Kong Island respectively. - The timing is going to be interesting. The cutoff date for nominations is January 29, 2018, at 5:00pm precisely. If the notifications are sent out in the afternoon of January 29, there won't be enough time for their backup "Plans" to file nominations. So those backups had better file early on Monday morning with the required number of elector signatures. If Yiu and Chow turned out not to be disqualified, then those backups will announce that they are no longer candidates even though their names will remain on the ballots. [857] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 13A (2018/01/22) (SCMP) January 22, 2018. A high-profile Hong Kong political activist admitted in court on Monday that he assaulted a policeman during violent clashes in one of the city’s busiest districts in February 2016. Edward Leung Tin-kei admitted one count of assaulting a police officer at the High Court. One of his five co-defendants, Wong Ka-kui, pleaded guilty to taking part in a riot. Both were remanded in custody after the hearing. But Leung and the four others denied a string of other charges accusing them of taking part in riots and unlawful assemblies. “I plead not guilty,” the bespectacled activist, clad in a dark suit, said in the dock when asked to make a plea for charges other than the assault. Leung, who had been on bail until Monday, appeared emotionless when he heard he would be spending the night in jail, putting the document he brought to court into his backpack and handing it to his lawyers. He regained his smile when he waved goodbye to supporters in the public gallery. He took a last sip from his bottle of water and was taken away shortly before the lunch break. He will still be brought to court to face the rest of the charges. The six are on trial over the unrest that took place in Mong Kok, a popular shopping hub, during the 2016 Lunar New Year and carried on into the early morning of the following day. It happened on Argyle Street, Shan Tung Street and Portland Street. The trial, expected to last more than two months, began on Thursday last week, but has been subject to reporting restrictions. Madam Justice Anthea Pang Ko-kam briefly lifted the restrictions on Monday for the defendants’ pleas to be reported. Leung, a former convenor of pro-independence group Hong Kong Indigenous, faces four charges: one count of inciting others to take part in a riot; two joint counts of rioting; and one of assaulting a police officer. Spelling out the allegations against Leung and Wong, prosecutors said scores of people began to gather at Portland Street on the night of the unrest. Some wore blue T-shirts bearing the name of Hong Kong Indigenous, as well as masks, they said. Over the course of the night, they occupied roads, charged police cordons and threw objects at police officers, injuring four officers in what amounted to a series of rioting acts, prosecutors told the court with allegations tailor-made for Wong’s guilty plea. At about 2am, the prosecutors said, protesters began to throw obstacles – such as rubbish bins, crates, and traffic cones – into Argyle Street to block the major thoroughfare. Wong threw a foam box at one of the officers, the prosecutors said, as the crowd began to pour into the street. He missed the officer, but later fell on top of him. He was subsequently subdued and arrested. The court heard police regained control of the street briefly until the crowd grew bigger and began throwing glass bottles and rubbish bins at officers. One policeman fired two warning shots into the air to keep the crowd under control, the court heard. Leung, the prosecutors said, threw the top part of a rubbish bin towards the officers’ direction. He later attacked a police sergeant when the policeman was trying to stop a man about to throw a brick. “He threw a white plastic bottle at [the sergeant] and kicked him with his right leg,” barrister Francis Cheng, prosecuting, said. Leung also hit the sergeant’s back with a wooden board, he added, before he was arrested later that night. The sergeant, who ended up with a swollen ear and cuts on his knees, was granted four days of sick leave. Another policeman injured during the night got 113 days of sick leave. Lee Nok-man, Lo Kin-man, and Lam Ngo-hin each denied one count of rioting, while Lam denied a further count of taking part in an unlawful assembly. Lam Lun-hing denied three counts of rioting. The court granted the four bail. Internet comments: - (Oriental Daily) January 22, 2018. In the case of Wong Ka-kui, at 2am on February 9, several dozen people were gathered around Argyle Street, Portland Street and Shanghai Street. They used trash bins, pallets and traffic cones to block the roads. Demonstrators threw objects at police officer Ho Yik-hang, who was moving in the direction of Shanghai Street. Wong Ka-kui threw a white foam box at Ho but missed. A man in black clothes held Ho from the rear while a man in a light-blue jacket threw an object at Ho, while touching Wong and causing Wong to fall on top of Ho who had fallen down on the ground. Other demonstrators attacked Ho with wooden rods. Other police officers rushed forth to disperse the crowd and arrested Wong. The rioting continued. The demonstrators threw pallets, road barriers and garbage bins at the police. Eventually a police officer fired two shots into the air and the police were able to establish a defense line on Argyle Street across Nathan Road. Under caution, Wong told the police: "I came out because other people came out. It was very chaotic at the time. There were many people. And then you arrested me." - So Wong admitted that he took part in a riot in which the rioters blocked the road, prevented the police from restoring order and attacked police officer Ho Yik-hang. However, he denied that he personally attacked Ho Yik-hang. He threw a white foam box at Ho, but missed. So it was an attempted assault that did not succeed. He fell on top of Ho because someone else pushed him. So there you have it.

Wong Ka-kui in court today (sponsored by American Airlines?) - (Oriental Daily) January 22, 2018. In the case of Edward Leung Tin-kei, at around 2am on February 9, several dozen people were gathered around Argyle Street, Portland Street and Shanghai Street. They used trash bins, pallets and traffic cones to block the roads. Some of these people wore the blue Hong Kong Indigenous jackets. The police attempted to clear away the obstacles. The demonstrators charged onto the road and attacked the police. The police dispersed those demonstrators. The demonstrators retreated towards Portland Street while throwing glass bottles and trash bins at the police. During this time, Leung threw a trash bin cover at the police. Police sergeant Man Kam-kei tried to stop a man from throwing throwing bricks, and felt a sharp pain on his left ear. The sergeant fell down on the ground and was attacked by several people, including Leung who threw a white plastic cone at him. Leung also kicked Man with his right foot, and slammed a wooden pallet on Man's back. Leung and others fled. Man was attacked by other persons. Afterwards, the police obtained media videos that showed what happened. Leung was arrested in Mong Kok for assaulting a police officer. Under caution, Leung did not say anything. Afterwards, police sergeant Man Kam-kei was found to have injuries on both knees, left ear and right shoulder. He took four days of medical leave, and has been assessed with a 2% permanent disability. - So Leung was caught on video (see TVB plus Facebook backup in slow motion) throwing a white plastic cone at a police sergeant, kicking the downed sergeant with his right foot and slamming a wooden pallet on the back too. This evidence is clear and the charge is uncontestable. By pleading guilty to assaulting a police officer, he stands to gain as much as a 1/3 sentence reduction. However, Leung denies the charges of incitement of and participation in a riot.

Slamming a wooden pallet on the back of the police sergeant

Being arrested by the police On the video when the police officer fired the two shots into the air, Edward Leung was standing right in front of him holding something in his hand. Leung fled after the shots were fired. - (CAP 212) Offences against the Person Ordinance Assault with intent to commit offence, or on police officer, etc. Any person who— (a) assaults any person with intent to commit an arrestable offence; or (b) assaults, resists, or wilfully obstructs any police officer in the due execution of his duty or any person acting in aid of such officer; or (c) assaults any person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself or of any other person for any offence, shall be guilty of an offence triable either summarily or upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for 2 years. By pleading guilty, Edward Leung is looking at a maximum of 1 year 4 months in prison. He will get a lot less because of the hundreds of petition letters from pro-democracy legislators, politicians, activists, professors, cardinals, pastors, teachers and students. My prediction is: one week in jail plus $500 fine. When he comes out of jail, he will be welcomed by hundreds of well-wishers. He will get another movie made about his life and his Epochal Revolution. - Wong Ka-kui and Edward Leung Tin-kei were remanded to custody as soon as they pleaded guilty to one charge each. The judge said that these are serious crimes which will draw jail sentences. So Wong and Leung are definitely assured of imprisonment. If they are not bailed out, they will be in custody until the end of the trial which was estimated to last 80 days before they find out what their sentences will be for this and other crimes. [856] We Are Not Threatening Us (2018/01/20) (Hong Kong Baptist Union Students' Union) January 14, 2018. A Co-signing Letter to Language Centre concerning Putonghua Proficiency Requirement for Graduation (in English) Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union held a school policy forum regarding Putonghua Proficiency Requirement in April 2017. At the event, many students and teachers expressed their anger towards the current policies, urging school authority to make changes on that. Later, in a meeting between the school representatives and student representatives, the school side promised that Language Centre would conduct an exemption test in which only the ability of simple communication with Mandarin should be tested. Once students pass the exemption test, they are considered fulfilled the Putonghua Proficiency Requirement; and when most of the students pass, the school could thus cancel the Requirement. We thought that even though the school authority had never guaranteed the halt to the evil Putonghua Proficiency Requirement, this could serve as our glimpse of our ultimate goal. Nevertheless, the school side betrayed our trusts. The exemption test was never easy and merely testing “ability of simple communication” as promised; the passing rate of the test is about thirty percent while the school side told us that they expected to see many students passing. What even absurd is that a candidate was criticized by an adjudicator that “his tone did not fit the character designated” and eventually failed in the exemption test. According to previous promise, Putonghua Proficiency Requirement could be cancelled when the passing rate of exemption test is high; in light of the promise, a direct conflict of interest was inevitable when the adjudicators were the instructors of Putonghua courses in Language Centre. A conflict of interest, unanticipated passing rate and real cases from students, make the result of exemption test unacceptable for us. Putonghua Proficiency Requirement for Graduation is fundamentally groundless, and the exemption test is never a resolution but a transition before cancelling the Requirement. The school authority can hardly negotiate with us again without making a compromise as they deceived us first. We, thereby, state our three major demands to the Language Centre. If a decent reply has not been made by 11 p.m. on 16 January (Tue), further actions will be made by us. The demands are as follows: 1. Hire the qualified adjudicators for exemption tests substituting instructors in Language Centre to avoid possible conflicts of interest, and make the Marking Guideline open to students; 2. According to Point 1, hold the amended exemption tests for the students who did not pass the previous one as soon as possible, and disclose the score break down to every candidate; 3. Outline a schedule of cancelling Putonghua Proficiency Requirement for Graduation. We hope that the Language Centre would listen to opinions from the students and respond through substantial actions. Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Economics Society Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Human Resources Management Society Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Mathematics Society Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Faculty of Arts Society Acting Committee Quaternary Societies of Faculty of Social Sciences of Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Visual Art Student Society Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hall Council of Y. P. Cai Hall of Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hall Council of C. L. Soong Hall of Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hall Council of C. N. Yang Hall of Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hall Council of S. R. Zhou Hall of Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hong Kong Baptist University The Association of Business Students Hong Kong Baptist University Chemistry Society Hong Kong Baptist University Chinese Medicine Society Hong Kong Baptist University Communication Society Hong Kong Baptist University Computer Science Society Government and International Studies Society, Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong Baptist University Humanities and Creative Writing Society Hong Kong Baptist University Music Society Hong Kong Baptist University Physical Education and Recreation Management Society Hong Kong Baptist University Religion and Philosophy Society Alliance of HKBU Student Senators HKBU Mountain God [Note: If you think the English in this "co-signing letter" is problematic, then the original Chinese version is just as problematic too, because it read like as if it was written in colloquial Cantonese. So you have a bunch of student leaders who can't write properly in either English or Chinese.] (Wen Wei Po) January 18, 2018.

When a university students fails a test, what can he/she do? He/she can study harder and take the exam again. But it turns out that they can also "occupy" the teacher's office and coerce the university to scrap the exam altogether! At Hong Kong Baptist University, all local students have been required to attain putonghua proficiency as part of the graduation requirement. Last year, the HKBU Student Union said that the putonghua classes were "too difficult as well as interfering with graduation." As a result, the university allowed putonghua testing such that those who pass are waived from taking the putonghua class. This year, about 30% obtained the exemption. But the HKBU Student Union was not satisfied. Saying that the university is intentionally forcing people to take the putonghua class, they went to the university Language Centre and "occupied" the offices. They demanded the complete elimination of the putonghua proficiency requirement. After the announcement of the putonghua test results, some failing students were dissatisfied. They formed an online Victims' Grand Alliance and issued a joint petition to the HKBU Language Centre, with the demands: (1) Set up a timetable for the complete elimination of putonghua proficiency as graduation requirement; (2) Arrange for all failing students to re-take the putonghua proficiency test and publish all marks; (3) Publish the marking system for the putonghua proficiency test. Yesterday, the HKBU Student Union escalated action by mobilizing more than a dozen students to "occupy" the offices of the HKBU Language Centre. They demanded direct dialogue with senior university administrators. The HKBU spokesperson said that more than 30% of the test-takers received waivers. Combined with other means (e.g. results from other recognized standardized tests), more than 40% received waivers. This is a big increase over the 10% or so in previous years. Furthermore, over the past ten years when the putonghua proficiency requirement has been in place, fewer than five students missed their graduation because they could not achieve putonghua proficiency. The HKBU spokesperson said that the university values the importance of the ability to speak three dialects (Cantonese, putonghua and English) and write two languages (Chinese and English). They want students to master these dialects/languages because it will be beneficial for learning, cultural exchange and social mixing. Last June, the HKBU introduced the putonghua proficiency test in order to offer the students an easier path to satisfy the putonghua proficiency requirement. Those students who choose not the take the test or fail the test can either take the putonghua course or find other ways (see HKBU Putonghua Proficiency Requirement for Graduation). Internet comments: - (Speakout HK video https://www.speakout.hk/%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E9%BB%9E%E6%92%AD/30453/-%E7%9F%AD%E7%89%87-%E5%AD%B8%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%A9%B1%E9%83%BD%E8%A6%81%E5%8F%8D-%E8%B6%85%E7%8B%B9%E9%9A%98%E6%B5%B8%E5%A4%A7%E9%83%A8%E5%88%86%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E7%99%BC%E7%88%9B%E6%B8%A3%E5%94%94%E6%83%B3%E5%AD%B8%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%A9%B1-%E8%AB%8B%E4%BD%A0%E5%93%8B%E7%9D%87%E7%9D%87%E5%85%A8%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E9%83%BD%E5%AD%B8%E7%B7%8A%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%A9%B1- ) January 19, 2018. Student: We basically feel that we don't need to learn putonghua. We believe that which languages should be learned should be based upon what we believe are our needs. [Arabella Trump reciting Chinese poem in putonghua] [Jim Rogers' two daughters speak putonghua] [French president Emmanuel Macron tries to learn putonghua] [Pakistani men learn putonghua] [Vietnamese women watching Chinese soap operas in putonghua] - Do students even know whether they will need to know putonghua once they leave school and enter the real world? Which jobs need putonghua proficiency? Let me make a list: financial advisors; mergers/acquisitions specialists; hotel receptionists; salespersons; taxi drivers; waiters/waitresses; airline stewards/stewardesses; public service workers; police officers; doctors; nurses; etc. Basically any job that has contact with the public requires putonghua. I guess if your goal in life is to wash pots, pans and dishes in the kitchen, then you won't need putonghua proficiency. - Students should have the freedom to decide what they want to learn. I myself want to be a STEM major, because the job opportunities are great. However, I don't really like mathematics. So why make me take Advanced Calculus when I don't like it? I would rather play Call To Duty for all four years. - (Silent Majority HK Facebook video) Commercial Radio talk show. Student: Of course, we must know Cantonese. English is an international language. We need to know English ... Host: This is very simple. The handover has taken place. Student: We don't understand. Why are we at Baptist University the only local students who have to learn putonghua? Host: So if the other universities also have the requirement, you will accept it? Student: We think that it is unreasonable. Host: Why don't you answer that question first. Because the handover has taken place, so Hong Kong university students should have a basic level of proficiency in putonghua. - (HKG Pao) RTHK 31 interview. January 24, 2018. Lau Tsz-kei: One reason to use English is because it is an international language. If I use English, I can communicate with people from different countries. Host: What about putonghua? Lau Tsz-kei: The only country that we can communicate with in putonghua is China. Or ... perhaps ... even others ... or ... that is, not a lot of countries. But it is useful ... that is, being used ... how shall I say? ... (pause) ... Simply put, this thing called putonghua is ... Host: Not very important? Lau Tsz-kei: ... may not work for you as an international language. Putonghua is not an international language. Putonghua cannot let you communicate with people from other countries. Putonghua will only let you communicate with Chinese persons. Host: Michael Tien, do you accept this? Or do you think that this student appears to be emotional? Michael Tien: Right now, the oddest thing is that everybody in the world ... whether their mother tongue is English, French, German, Italian ... they are actively trying to learn putonghua. Actively trying to learn putonghua. Actually, English is not the only international language in the world. I believe that within the next ten years, English and putonghua will definitely be listed side by side. - (Facebook video) Q: Is Hong Kong a part of China? Lau Tsz-kei: Eh ... this question ... this question involves some issues about political positions ... this will not help the conversation later ... so I am not going to answer it here. - Yes or no. It is that simple, but Lau Tsz-kei cannot say it. - Hong Kong university students are so keen on Hong Kong independence nowadays. But let us look at the reality of this movement in the context of the world. The movement needs international allies. The most natural allies are the respective independence movements in Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia. If there are simultaneous uprisings everywhere, the Central Government can't put down all of them. Can they? So let us liaise with each other and form an alliance. With respect to Taiwan, you don't speak Minnan/Hakka and they don't speak Cantonese. Neither of you are fluent in English. Therefore you communicate in putonghua. With respect to Xinjiang, you don't speak Uighur and they don't speak Cantonese. Neither of you are fluent in English. Therefore you communicate in putonghua. With respect to Tibet, you don't speak Tibetan and they don't speak Cantonese. Neither of you are fluent in English. Therefore you communicate in putonghua. With respect to Inner Mongolia, you don't speak Mongolian and they don't speak Cantonese. Neither of you are fluent in English. Therefore you communicate in putonghua. Your biggest financier is going to the the United States. You can try to speak English but you know that you are inarticulate. Their diplomats don't speak Cantonese (which is just an exotic dialect), but they are trained to speak putonghua at the Foreign Services Institute. So you find it easier to communicate in putonghua (see #466). Don't you think that it is important for you to learn putonghua in order to advance the cause of Hong Kong independence? - On this day, Apple Daily played up the case of a 25-year-old Hong Kong woman Sammy who gave up on Hong Kong when the pro-democracy legislative councilors were disqualified over the oath of office row. She applied to immigrate to Taiwan and was accepted within 90 days. Well, what will she be speaking when she arrives in Taiwan? Cantonese? No. She will be speaking putonghua. She can learn Minnan/Hakka eventually, but that will be much later. In the meantime, she cannot take one step without having to use putonghua. - Question: Has Sammy cut up her Hong Kong passport/ID card already? Or is she keeping them in a safe place just in case? - (SCMP) Learning Mandarin could be just the job. By Alex Lo. January 27, 2018. It is truly bizarre for some university students in Hong Kong to think it’s an unjustified burden to make them achieve a degree of fluency in Mandarin. And there are even scholars who support them. Let’s leave aside the pro- and anti-mainland politics and just ask, is having a language requirement unreasonable at a university? My background is in history and philosophy. In my days in North America, we needed an additional language to graduate in philosophy, which usually meant German or French. It was the same with history. I think it’s the same today. If you studied Chinese politics or history, Mandarin was a must. Every China specialist, those with a PhD in the field anyway, I have ever come across in Canada and the US speaks Mandarin; the only ones who also know Cantonese come from Hong Kong. However, Mandarin was and is the professional language. When I became a reporter, I met foreign diplomats and business executives working in Hong Kong and the mainland. For most of them, learning some Mandarin was a priority, though knowing a bit of Cantonese was nice too. Like it or not, for the whole world, from Donald Trump’s granddaughter and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to students at Hong Kong’s international schools, learning Chinese means learning Mandarin. More than 160,000 registered students are learning Mandarin in Britain. More than 600 British primary and secondary schools offer Mandarin classes, making it the second most popular foreign language taught at school. Imagine the awkwardness: a Brit speaks to you in Mandarin and you reply in Chinglish. Still, you may argue that even if an extra language requirement is reasonable, it doesn’t have to be Mandarin. Isn’t English good enough? It is, after all, one of Hong Kong’s official languages. That was what Baptist University student union president Lau Tsz-kei argued in an RTHK debate. “English is the international language, you can get by with it in many countries,” he said. “Mandarin is only good in China.” But we are not in other countries; we are in China. Don’t get me wrong; I think students should master both Mandarin and English. Maybe you aspire to work for Google, Apple, Facebook or Amazon. But why sell yourself short when you can aim for Alibaba, Baidu or Tencent, too? - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. January 20, 2018. Recently there was an "uprising" at the Hong Kong Baptist University. Very few people noticed it, and even fewer people discussed it. Yet this incident has a deep impact. This was an Occupy Movement with the name "The students rose up to oppose the tyranny of putonghua." There was an 8-hour live broadcast of how about 20 Baptist University students occupied the HKBU Language Centre to demand a putonghua course cancellation. The "tyranny" that the students want to overthrow is the compulsory putonghua course. In the past, HKBU students must take the putonghua course because the university has set putonghua proficiency as a graduation requirement. Things were fine until Hong Kong independence/localism reared its head. Last year, the HKBU Students Union held a referendum to demand the cancellation of the putonghua course. HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong conceded and said that there will be a "relatively simple" test such that those who pass will be waived from taking the putonghua course. Chin also promised that the test will be exceedingly easy: "You don't even have to know the pinyin system -- you can pass just by conversing in putonghua." But 70% of the test-takers failed this time. The students were angry and they charged into the HKBU Language Centre to throw a hissy fit. They surrounded the teachers, occupied the office, asked for a detailed explanation of the grading, wanted to see all the grading standards and they demanded that the test (or even the requirement) be scrapped altogether. In Hong Kong, triad gangsters surround and harass people when they want to get their way. Nowadays, university students do that. The students were so proud that they conducted a live video broadcast of their heroic actions. If you come across the video without knowing the background, you would think that these are triad gangsters extorting protection money. If people who fail exams can get passing grades by "surrounding and intimidating teachers", then we would all be Doctors of Philosophy. If a course that too many people fail should be scrapped, then the university students must be pretty useless when they graduate. We are in Hong Kong, which is a part of China. If being proficiency in the national dialect of putonghua is tyranny, then what is English? Wouldn't that be a foreign invasion? Putonghua is spoken by 1.5 billion people in the world. Knowing putonghua is a valuable asset. The university wanted the make sure that the students have wings to fly with, but the students want to chop off those wings. What can we say? - (HKG Pao) This video shows HKBU Student Union president yelling at the HKBU Language Centre staff. Facebook banned this HKG Pao video. - (HKG Pao) When HKG Pao first posted this video, HKBU students complained to Facebook about copyright violations. Although HKG Pao said that this was derivative art, Facebook deleted the video. Fortunately, the video was spread by individuals across Whatsapp and WeChat. The HKBU students are now calling for a general campaign to shut down the HKG Pao Facebook through complaints to the Facebook administrators. They said that they wanted the HKG Pao employees to receive their severance checks in time for the Lunar New Year. This is clearly another example of the intolerance of dissident opinions by Yellow Ribbons. - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. At first, nobody knew about this minor incident at the Hong Kong Baptist University Language Centre. HKG Pao edited a video and posted it on Facebook. Several hours later, the students complained to the Facebook administrator. Facebook deleted the video and warned HKG Pao that they will remove the entire HKG Pao Facebook if they post similar reports in the future. At the same time, the students also removed all traces of their live broadcasts of the incident. They naively believed that their ugly deeds can be forgotten. Fortunately, the world is not owned by Facebook alone. There are still Whatsapp, WeChat, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, ... The cover-up drew even greater public attention. When everybody heard that some piece of truth was being covered up, they wanted to find out what these thugs were up to. The mainstream Yellow Ribbon tried to help the cover-up. Ming Pao located the HKBU Students' Union president Lau Tsz-kei who said that the obscenity was merely "a slip of the tongue" in the hope that the storm will subside. When a columnist wrote about the incident, the editor said that no commentary should be made until a full investigation has been conducted. But the storm raged on. Even HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong was forced to say that he felt "pained." But he was still unable to issue a condemnation of the students. So now we know how these triad students came into being. Also silent were the education sector legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen and Professional Teachers Union president Fung Wai-wah. Teachers were insulted by student-thugs, so this is a serious educational problem. Why did the education sector representatives fail to say anything? Even Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yunhung and Chief Executive Carrie Lam Yuet-ngor have not yet uttered their favorite phrase of "zero tolerance." - How the student "consensus" was forged: (Ming Pao) April 21, 2016. The Hong Kong Baptist University Students Union held a referendum. 1,544 students voted at a 12.17% turnout. 1,382 (89.6%) agreed that the university should eliminate the putonghua proficiency requirement for graduation. This is taken to mean that "most of the students support the motion." - This is an educational issue. As usual for such issues, educational sector legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen is missing. Ip's Professional Teachers Union is a pro-democracy organization always standing for freedom and democracy. In this matter, the public opinion is overwhelmingly against the actions and purposes of these students. So if Ip Kin-yuen sides with the students, he will be on the wrong side of the public. If he sides with the public against the students, he will upset the pro-democracy crowd who will denounce him for betraying Hong Kong. Therefore Ip Kin-yuen will continue to be on winter vacation until the affair blows over. Then he will emerge and urge both sides to continue the dialogue. - Well, you don't understand the situation with Ip Kin-yuen and Fung Wai-wah. Right now, the Hong Kong Baptist University teaching staff are upset at those students and they are running a petition campaign. The teachers are looking after their own interests, because no teacher wants to be threatened by students for handing out fair grades. Ip Kin-yuen is the legislative councilor for the education sector. The electors in the education sector are teachers and administrators and not students. That is correct: zero students. If Ip supports the students against the teachers, he may face a constituency revolt. Fung Kin-wah is the president of the Professional Teachers Union. By definition, the membership consists of teachers. If Fung supports the students against the teachers, there may be mass resignations from the organization. So you will be seeing Ip and Fung coming out to say that threatening behavior by anyone is unacceptable and that we must always maintain our civility. In other words, your mother is a woman. - Ip Kin-yuen surprised us all. He came out with a statement that the students are adults, and therefore the university needs to respect them. Bwaaahhh! - (Facebook Video) 23:34 minutes of students yelling at HKBU Language Centre staff. - These students have good futures as debt collectors for loan shark operations. - Don't forget the three tools for debt collectors: (1) splash red paint at the entrance (2) splatter feces at the entrance (3) chain the metal gate shut and splash gasoline on the floor - How to obtain the perfect 4.0 Grade Point Average: Every time you get less than an A, you bring your Student Union pals to surround and shout at the professor until he/she surrenders. If there is a professor who is too stubborn, you surround and shout at the department head until the professor is fired. If the department head is too stubborn, you surround and shout at the university head until the department head is fired. If the university head is too stubborn, you surround and shout at the Secretary for Education. Well, actually the Secretary for Education does not have the authority to fire university presidents. Besides, this would be government interference with the institutional autonomy of universities. - (YouTube) You can't get enough of this stuff? Here is a 1:03:03 version. The highlight is at 12:10 when the student told the British woman from the Translation Centre: "This is Hong Kong. You must speak Cantonese." Indeed, shouldn't these students also be demanding the elimination of any trace of English from the campus? P.S. It means that even the English-language classes must be conducted in Cantonese with no English words being mixed in. P.P.S. All terms in science and technology will be in Cantonese. The scientists and engineers will have a wonderful time memorizing the Cantonese translations of chemical compounds, medicines, etc. For example, they can't say HHTDD; they must use instead. Indeed, this is Hong Kong and therefore Cantonese should be used in all communications. So why is court business still being conducted mainly in English? - Here is my personal experience which showed that putonghua is useful. I went to the Dongdaemun Design Market in Seoul. I don't speak Korean. The sellers don't speak Cantonese. I tried English. The sellers didn't speak English either (or at least anything that I can understand). Then what? The sellers all speak putonghua. Many of them are actually from northeastern China. Once that was established, it was smooth sailing. The reality is that you cannot get very far in the world with Cantonese. - I went to the world famous Galeries de Lafayette in Paris. I don't speak French at all, but a tall blonde female staff worker helped me out ... in putonghua. - (HKG Pao) January 23, 2018. Chan Lok-hang is part of this student occupying force. He majors in Chinese medicine at HKBU. According to his Facebook, he will begin a one-year internship at the Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Isn't this ironic? This young man hates China. Previously he wrote on Facebook: "Your heart becomes evil if you go to mainland China too often." Nevertheless he chooses to study Chinese medicine and do his internship in Guangdong China. Very quickly, this bit of news is being spread across Tianya, Weibo, Baidu and other forums on mainland China. Some people sent notices to the hospital to say that a Hong Kong Occupy thug is coming. Others say that Chan will be prevented from entry at the border checkpoint. Still others wondered how Chan is going to communicate with patients if he refuses to speak putonghua. - (Ming Pao) January 23, 2018. Chan Lok-hang told Ming Pao that there were many telephone calls to the Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine to demand that "Chan Lok-hang be handed over." The callers cursed out the hospital workers with obscenities. In the evening, someone called the hospital to say that they are coming to beat Chan up. He said that the Public Security Bureau is aware of what is happening. Because of concern that the authorities may take action because of the incorrect media information that Chan advocates Hong Kong independence, Chan has left for Hong Kong tonight. Chan that he has been involved any pro-Hong Kong independence organization or participated in any pro-Hong Kong independence activity. As for his internship, HKBU has said that they might be able to arrange for an internship in Hong Kong instead. - Chan Lok-hang is returning to Hong Kong with his tail between his legs. Before he left, he said that he was not worried at all. - Chan did not even dare come back on his own. He had a university teacher accompany him on the trip. - Chan Lok-hang said that he has received more than one hundred threatening messages. When Eddie Chu felt threatened, he called the police and received 24-hour-round-the-clock protection for him and his family. Chan should have gone to the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau as soon as he received the first such message. - Chan Lok-hang said that the HKBU president was indifferent to his plight. Well, he has to inform the HKBU president about this situation first. So far HKBU president Chin said that he has not received any information about this. Once informed, what can Chin do? Those threatening messages came from outside the university. So Chin can only advise Chan to go to the Hong Kong Police in Hong Kong and/or the Public Security Bureau in Guangdong. - With due respect, Chan Lok-hang bears a certain degree of responsibility. Before he departed for Guangzhou, he was asked about the Internet comments. He said that he was not going to bothered by any threats. Of course, that upsets people even more. When you provoke people, you shouldn't be surprised about any blowback. - (Facebook Video) 2:03. What were they saying? Here is the transcript: Student: You won't answer? Worker: What is the situation now? Student; Right now, we are questioning how you made the assessment as to how students pass or fail. You are saying that you won't fucking respond to our demands. Worker: Do you know how you should be speaking to teachers? Student: The students want to graduate. Worker: Of course. But we have our work too. Student: You cause us not to be able to graduate. So why can't we stop your from operating? Student: You ask all the putonghua teachers to come out and stand here to answer all our demands. We are students who have suffered from your graduation requirements over many years. How long has the Students Union pursued this case!? Worker: Yes, I also find this annoying. Student: I also find this annoying. Why don't you get rid of it? Student: Right now, you are the ones who have a problem. You are asking us not to raise questions. Student: Systemic violence. Student: You say that we cannot raise questions. You screwed the students. We are asking you what your grading standards are and you are unable to answer us. You run the test. You cannot explain the grading standards to us. What do you want? You are telling us to see someone else? Who else should I ask other than the Language Centre? You tell us to calm down? How long have you bullied us? Student: Guard ... Guard the door. Worker (in English): Please move out of the office. Student (in English): We are not going to move unless we have the answer. Worker (in English): Oh? Student (in English): You have the answer. You know. Worker (in English): Oh, you expect us to give you the answer now? Under this situation? But you are threatening us. You are threatening us, I believe. Student (in English): We are not threatening us (sic). Worker (in English): Well, we feel threatened. Student (in English): We feel threatened too. By you. You do ... n't allow us to graduate. Do you know? It is a threaten (sic). Worker (in English): Please. Over the last ten years, only 5 students ... Student (in English) walking up: Five students ... Worker (in English): Please move back. Student (in English): So poor (sic). Why? Worker (in English): Please move back. Student (in English): I am talking with you. Worker (in English) Because you are shouting. Student (in English): Why don't you move bed? You are ... Worker (in English): Because I am a teacher. Student (in English): And we are the students. Worker (in English): Yes, so you came to Baptist University ... Student (in English): This Language Centre is for students. Not students for this Language Centre. [break] Student: If you are not in that post, if you are not the department head, then you should not come over and obstruct us. The department head must answer me. The grading standards. Grading standards. Grading standards. Grading standards. I don't care. You can ignore me, or you can call the police. There is no problem. We students came in to ask a question. Students came in to ask a question and you feel threatened. This is so hilarious. Can we Baptist University students come in to ask a question at the Language Centre? Student: Do you know what the Baptist University president said at the Opening Ceremony? He said that we should be more critical. You should go back and listen to his speech again. You go back and listen to his speech. I attended the Opening Ceremony. - This video revealed that the Hong Kong Baptist University students not only lack proficiency in putonghua, but they are also appallingly lousy in English. When the female British teacher said (in English) "You are threatening us," the student answered (in English) "We are not threatening us." Oy vay! And to think that an applicant needs to have a minimum Level 3 in English language in the DSE to be admitted into Baptist University. What does this say about the DSE!? - When the teacher said that only five students were held back for lack of putonghua proficiency over the past ten years, the student said (in English): "So poor." What does "so poor" mean? Is he saying that those five students had no money? Or that they were pathetic in not being able to pass the simplest of requirements? Or that these poor sops have their lives tragically ruined? - (The Sounds of Silence HK Facebook) Here is the Hong Kong Baptist University Students Union president Lau Tsz-kei making a statement in English during the press conference: (transcript) "Bad for us to fighting for the better school policy or ... and to fight for canceling putonghua graduation requirement. That occupying Language Centre action is based on the school do not ans ... or have an answer or commitment with us on our letter to them." - (The Sounds of Silence HK Facebook) Another English statement from Lau Tsz-kei: (transcript) "More than a hundred people has supporting us for urging the school to cancel the penalty for me and for Mr. Chan. I would hope that they can see the voices of the students." - Yes, he can see voices ... - Not only this, but the students were using Cantonese poorly. They did not know how to explain their viewpoints with mainstream Cantonese. Instead, their Cantonese were aggressive, provocative and belligerent like triad gangsters. They apparently believe that the strength of an argument is calibrated by sound volume, so that they are more persuasive when they scream and yell. But when they act that way, it means that they did not come for the sake of communication. - (Ming Pao) With respect to the use of "fucking", Hong Kong Baptist University Student Union president Lau Tsz-kei said that it was an unintentional "" (slip of the tongue). Lau is willing to apologize to anyone who thought that Lau was using obscene language to curse out the teacher. Lau said that he and other students went to seek an explanation from the university. But the attitude of the university was "We don't know and we don't care." Therefore they were upset. - The students were completely off the mark here. They charged into the Language Centre to ask about the putonghua test standards. For this, they surrounded the two English-language teachers, who said that they didn't know. Of course. - Why kind of non-apology is this? "I didn't say anything. But if you insisted that you heard it, I will say 'Sorry' to make you happy." This is just designed to make people even angrier. - This HKBU SU president was elected by the student body. Therefore he represents the HKBU student body when he exercises freedoms of speech, assembly and academic research here. - Eh, the voter turnout was 11% for that lone slate of candidates including blank/void ballots. How many of the 11% were voting only because they thought that it was their duty to cast a vote? Can the HKBU SU president really claim a popular mandate? - (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2018. Lau Tsz-kei and Chan Lok-hang have announced that they will personally visit the Language Centre today to apologize to the teachers there. Previously, the two held a press conference during which they apologized. To whom? To the media? To the public? It took them about 10 days before they figured out that they should be apologizing to the actual victims. Lau told Oriental Daily that he and Chan have arranged to meet with the Language Centre teachers privately today to apologize them. What kind of private meeting is this to inform the media ahead of time? Is this an apology or a media photo session? By the way, Lau and Chan are banned from entering the Language Centre during their suspension. This only leads to more questions for Lau and Chan: -- Chan said previously that his DSE results could have gotten him into Hong Kong University or Chinese University of Hong Kong. Instead he chose to come to HKBU to study traditional Chinese medicine. Today he regrets that decision because he was punished for doing the right thing. What happens now after this "apology"? Did he do the right thing that day? Does he still regret coming to HKBU? -- The student demonstration demanded that HKBU President Roland Chin Tai-hong apologize to Lau and Chan. Is the demand still on? If Lau and Chan said the demand is off, they will be letting down their 200 supporters. But if the demand is still on, then they are not genuinely contrite. -- Pan-democrats have short attention spans. They are now busy protesting on behalf of Agnes Chow and have completely forgotten about these two guys. -- The standard slogans for the Yellow Ribbons are:

(Rather be broken pieces of jade than intact pieces of ceramic tiles)

(Fight for public justice, no fear and no trepidation!)

(Born in a time of chaos in which the people cannot make a living, the government is forcing the people into rebellion!) Being a surrender monkey is not supposed to be part of this vocabulary. -- This is the optimal stopping strategy:- They were still undecided midway through. Then they called a student class boycott which they wisely changed to a demonstration march. If 50,000 people showed up, they would feel compelled to press on to victory. But 200 people showed up. So they turned into surrender monkeys. -- The Internet version of their apology speech: "Baat Po! I want to fucking say sorry, okay. Now fuck off!" -- There is a difference between saying "I am sorry" versus "I am sorry because I was wrong." Somehow I don't think that they think that they were wrong. They are merely sorry because they need to soothe public ire. -- Many years later, Lau will say that the apology was "a slip of the tongue" which did not represent his true intentions. -- In the United States, unhappy people "go postal." In Hong Kong, we only surrender monkeys giving abject apologies. - Here is a different version with an additional video segment in front. Have you wondered where the university security staff was for the whole 8 hours? At the start of the video, the students have already entered the Language Centre. Security guards were ready to come to "do their job." Hong Kong Baptist University Department of Religion and Philosophy senior lecturer Chan Sze-chi stood outside the entrance and jotted down the names of the security guards. He told them: "Since you want to do your job, then let this university teacher tell you. You will have done your job just by standing here. You can watch everything from here. Please do not enter under any circumstance, because you can make the situation more complicated." Chan continued: "This situation should not be made more complicated, because this is a peaceful negotiation between the students and the university. The security guards don't have to do anything." A security guard answered: "Okay, that's correct." Oriental Daily contacted Chan Sze-chi. Chan said that he was with the security guards between 230pm and 300pm. He told the security guards that the students were making a "peaceful petition" and that "there was no need to enter." He emphasized that he did not prevent the security guards from doing anything. He was only "advising and recommending" the security guards to enter only if something happens. "At the scene, my judgment was that if the security guards had entered, it would be a suppression." Dr. Chan is a founder of the radical League of Social Democrats and, according to his curriculum vitae, he loves "to participate in various social movements." - (Silent Majority HK) After this incident, the HKBU security staff needs to undergo re-training. They are there to protect the personal safety of the staff workers, teachers and students. They should be able to enter anywhere on campus and find out what is going on. They should not be ordered to stand down by Chan Sze-chi. - Generally speaking, the eight universities in Hong Kong fall into three tiers. At the top are Hong Kong University, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Science and Technology. In the middle are Polytechnic, City University and Baptist University. At the bottom are Lingnan University and Education University. By failing to take action against Lau Tsz-kei and pals, Baptist University is going to fall into the bottom tier. Their failure is not about language mastery; it is about moral education. - (Sing Tao Daily) January 30, 2018. About 150 Baptist University academic staff members have signed a petition to defend the honor of the teachers. The petition said that the Language Centre teachers were subjected to "sexual harassment, racial discrimination, intimidation, threat, insult and other verbal violence." "Teachers have to defend their own dignity and not be threatened or intimidated." "The teachers should be freed from their painful memories and the betrayal of that teacher that you trusted." This was clearly a reference to senior lecturer Chan Sze-chi who stood outside the Language Centre and told the security guards not to intervene. In response to media inquiry, Chan Sze-chi said that Roger Wong Hoi-fung who started the petition letter has a "personal grudge" with him. - (HKG Pao) January 31, 2018. On Internet radio, Chan Sze-chi's good friend Stephen Shiu Yeuk-yuen told all. He said that Chan Sze-chi managed to get into Hong Kong University in 1977. Because he was not a good student, it took him 20 years to get his Ph.D. in 1997. At the time, he was almost 40 years old. He managed to get a lowly teaching job at the Department of Religion and Philosophy at the Hong Kong Baptist University. When he was in his 50's he was still ranked the lowest out of 17 teachers in the department. Today, Chan is senior lecturer. After more than 20 years of teaching, he is still not a professor. Shiu said that Chan's English is so poor that he could not write anything in English for publication. According to a 2014 report, Chan Sze-chi attracted students to his early morning class because he was handing out free breakfast coupons. Was this to bribe the students into giving him a good performance appraisal? Although Chan is undistinguished academically, he is known for his deeds and actions. As a Christian, he came out to advocate gay rights. In 2010, he helped Raymond Wong, Leung Kwok-hung and others start the five-district public referendum. Shiu also revealed that Chan Sze-chi and his wife are sleeping in different bedrooms. Shiu wondered if Chan is sexually repressed as a result. If his wife can't stand him, then can HKBU put up with this strange being? - (Oriental Daily) January 21, 2018. Another two-minute video has surfaced. HKBU Student Union president Lau Tsz-kei led a dozen students to the office of a foreign teacher. The teacher shut her office door. The students outside screamed: "Is there something about the document that cannot be seen?" The foreigner teacher said (in English): "Can you wait?" The students said (in English): "Why we have to wait?" The foreigner teacher asked the students not to shout at her. The student replied: "I no shouting at you." A student said that if she did not understand the situation, then "keep your mouth shut. I warn you. You know. I warn you." Other students concurred and said "Shut up! Don't talk to that Baat Po!" A staff member was concerned that the situation was getting out of control and asked the students to leave. The students refused. They said that the teachers can call the police. Lau Tsz-kei said that the students must see the document. Then he banged on the door of an office and screamed: "Are you still drafting the document?" A staff worker said that they have the document, "But can your attitude be better?" - (Silent Majority HK) History. In 2007, Hong Kong Baptist University instituted putonghua proficiency as a graduation requirement. An employers' survey had shown that Hong Kong Baptist University students were not as good on putonghua in comparison with other university students. Therefore the requirement was introduced in order to make HKBU students more competitive. Out of the eight universities in Hong Kong, putonghua is compulsory at Baptist University, Lingnan University, Education University, City University and Polytechnic University. It is not compulsory at Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University and the University of Science and Technology. - Putonghua is not compulsory at the top three universities because their elite students are presumed to be fluent in putonghua already. There is no need to teach them what most of them already know. If a student there is not fluent in putonghua, then he/she should know better to take elective courses to enhance himself/herself. If they didn't realize before, they will learn firsthand when they start looking for jobs at graduation time. - (Silent Majority HK) Students yelled at office workers to demand to see documents and/or persons in authority.

- Be careful what you wish for! These students demand the publication of all grading. Let us post the recordings of the putonghua speeches of each of the 345 student test-takers with names and marks. We will let the public vote to decide who should pass or fail. - (YouTube) Here is an example of lousy putonghua from a movie. - (YouTube) Actor Louis Koo is legendary for his lousy putonghua. - If you look at the sample and marking system of the HKBU Diagnostic cum Exemption Test, then you will find this to be relatively easy. They don't even care if you have a thick Cantonese accent. Basically, any sixth-year Hong Kong primary school student should be able to pass this test with ease. So why did only 117 out of 345 test-takers pass? You should be blaming the Brits for poor education planning. The Baptist University students today were born around the time of the 1997 handover. The British never planned to have teaching of putonghua after the handover while they were in charge. So the plan only began slowly after the handover. Today, putonghua instruction begins in primary school and the next generation of students will have no trouble whatsoever. It is just that this generation was abandoned due to neglect on the part of the Brits. - In English, the HKBU Diagnostic cum Exemption Test would be something like this: Section A: Read the following paragraph aloud. There once was a speedy hare who bragged about how fast he could run. Tired of hearing him boast, Slow and Steady, the tortoise, challenged him to a race. All the animals in the forest gathered to watch. Hare ran down the road for a while and then and paused to rest. He looked back at Slow and Steady and cried out, "How do you expect to win this race when you are walking along at your slow, slow pace?" Hare stretched himself out alongside the road and fell asleep, thinking, "There is plenty of time to relax." Slow and Steady walked and walked. He never, ever stopped until he came to the finish line. The animals who were watching cheered so loudly for Tortoise, they woke up Hare. Hare stretched and yawned and began to run again, but it was too late. Tortoise was over the line. After that, Hare always reminded himself, "Don't brag about your lightning pace, for Slow and Steady won the race!" Section B: Select the one standard English word from the list below and read it out aloud. (A) Morning (B) Morgen (C) Matin (D) Matinee A total of five such lists. Section C. Pick the two sentences below that are consistent with English grammar and vocabulary. Read them out aloud. (A) Me no talk with you (B) We are not threaten us (C) Can you please move back? (D) You have very bad manners (E) Why we have to wait you? Section D. Here is a situation: You are a student and you want to know why you have received an unsatisfactory grade. You have 2 minutes to state your case in English. A total of seven situations. In the marking system, having a local accent and using local idiomatic vocabulary and grammar are not problems in themselves. The important point is that the putonghua listener can make out the speech. - I let my niece (age 13, secondary school first year) try this sample test. She raced right through it. So why is it so hard for the HKBU students? 70% failure rate!? - Maybe the HKBU students were actually having trouble with Section D, because they have no empathy or understanding about other people. They are incapable of imagining themselves in other situations. They only know to scream and demand what they and only they want at this very moment. - (Hong Kong Baptist University Office of Student Affairs: Standards of Conduct) Students are required to observe the following Standards of Conduct that are considered appropriate to the educational purposes and Christian principles of the University: 1. Students are to exhibit a regard for the rights of others at all times. [The protestors went into the Language Centre and stopped operations for 8 hours.] 2. Students are to show respect for the safety and property of other persons as well as of the University. 3. Students are expected to value their personal integrity and therefore to demonstrate honesty at all times. 4. Students are expected to show respect to University administrators, faculty and staff at all times and to establish friendly relationships with other students. [The protestors went into the Language Centre and yelled at various administrators, teachers and staff members, even using obscene language.] 5. Students are expected to comply with the rules and regulations set by the University. The following sanctions are appropriate: 1. Censure, a public notice to university community as well as society at large that such behavior is unacceptable. 2. Written reprimand to the individual students to put their culpability on record 7. Disqualification from serving as office bearers of student organizations - No sanctions should be imposed, because of the usual reasons: (1) the students are still young with bright futures ahead of them so their records should not be tarnished by public or private censure/reprimand; (2) the students have noble ideals and they are not doing this for personal gains; (3) no person at the Language Centre was killed or even injured; (4) some administrators, teachers and staff members were screamed at and cursed out, but this is expected for these highly paid professionals; (5) no property was damaged at the Language Centre; (6) the only impact was that operations at the Language Centre was suspended for a few hours; (7) community service would take time away from their studies; etc etc. No harm, no foul. - Curiously, there is nothing against bringing ignominy upon the university. At present, this is the principal thought of the public who think that this HKBU Students Union president represents all the students there. Public advice to all employers: Don't hire any Hong Kong Baptist University graduate! - How did the incident end after 8 hours of siege? That is the part that the media chose to gloss over. After a few hours, an Associate Vice-President (Teaching and Learning) appeared and promised to look into the matter. That did not satisfy the Occupying Forces. Later a university vice-president appeared and promised to let the students who failed the Diagnostic cum Exemption Test (DET) this time to re-take the exam. The students were satisfied and left. Can you spell APPEASEMENT? Much more later, HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong popped in to say how he was pained by the students' behavior and promised that the matter will be pursued in accordance with the procedures. Can you spell FUTILITY? - (HKG Pao) Here is what appeasement has gotten Hong Kong Baptist University so far: April 2015: The university governing council held a meeting to appoint Roland Chin Tai-hong as the new president. Students barged into the council meeting room. The council agreed to delay the appointment pending more consultations with the students. June 2015: A restructuring plan eliminated the job of Centre for Youth Research and Practice assistant director held by pro-democracy activist Shiu Ka-chun. Students worked with outside force the university to keep Shiu. 2016: The HKBU Students Union held a referendum on the demand to eliminate putonghua as a graduation requirement. Although the turnout was a measly 12%, the union declared that "most students support the elimination of the putonghua graduation requirement." After much negotiation, the university agreed to introduce a Diagnostic cum Exemption Test that would allow students to satisfy the requirement without having to take putonghua courses. Only 30% of the testees passed the inaugural exam this year. 2017: The Hong Kong Baptist University Senate's student representatives organized a letter-writing campaign to demand the elimination of Physical Education as a compulsory course. The university agreed to rename Physical Education as Healthy Living and reduced the 3 units to 2 units. If the university lets the students have their way this time, they will merely press on with further demands. - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. HKBU vice-president Chow Wai-lap promised the students that those who failed will be allowed to re-take the test. I am perplexed. Following what Chow said, the students won't have to worry about failing any exams in future. If they fail, they will bring their machetes down to the teacher's office and then their grades will be changed to pass. Today, each local university students is subsidized by the government to the tune of $250,000 per year. Over the course of four years, a student gets $1,000,000 in subsidies. That money is coming from us taxpayers. We the taxpayers should each write a letter to HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong to give him the strength and courage to kick these immoral troublemakers out of the university. - (Wen Wei Po) January 21, 2018. The Hong Kong Baptist University Student Union asked for public support of their actions. 57 out of 59 comments were condemnations.

Herman Fong: After I watched the videos that are being circulated around, I thought that the HKBU is just clueless. This is another example of how freedom of speech is being abused. If you have an opinion about the marking scheme, you can ask for the university or the department head to explain in a fair and open manner. You can even demand a higher degree of transparency. Because you entered university, then must they let you graduate? Do you think that HKBU is a diploma mill? Eliza Lee: Why don't you protest against learning English? If you don't want to learn (putonghua), you can withdraw from school. Each school has its own rules and standards. When you entered HKBU, you should know the graduation requirements. Are you really HKBU students? You are such bullies! How many people around the world are learning putonghua. Donald Trump's granddaughter and investor guru Jim Rogers' two daughters are learning Chinese with perfect pronunciations. They love Chinese culture. You people are an embarrassment. What do you have to compete with other people? Harriet Low B: Please don't make HKBU students or even university students as a whole look bad, especially the HKBU SU president and the bespectacled guy in the grey jacket. You don't look as if you were asking questions. The whole video is about threatening people. You don't know anything about respecting your teachers. If you object to putonghua so much, you can go study overseas! President, using foul language does not make your argument more powerful. Also, bespectacled guy, you are making people laugh by saying "I am talking with you." I feel that you people would fail English too! "And I'm sorry to say" that I cannot think of any other descriptive term other than "dickheads" to characterize your HKBU SU president and the bespectacled guy!! Since some people are able to pass the putonghua test, it means that you others are not as good and therefore you failed. Instead of "asking questions," why don't you think about how to seek remedial help to perform better at the test in order to graduate. Gary Chan: The students think that they look awesome? Like "Teddy Boy" character Chan Ho-nam? They think that they can do whatever they want by their so-called "demands"? Did they ever think about whether their demands were reasonable? Did they ever think about their method is proper? Please don't lose face for yourselves as well as for Hong Kong. - The Hong Kong Baptist Union Students' Union thinks that it is being misunderstood. Therefore it has issued a memo with these points: (1) The putonghua proficiency test is supposed to gauge ability to communicate in putonghua. Instead, many students were rated by the adjudicators as "fluent" but they were failed for mysterious reasons (such as the tone does not fit the role of the person). (2) The occupation of the Language Centre was not solely because the Diagnostic cum Exemption Test was hard and many students failed. Other reasons include (1) the form of the test was not what was agreed upon; (2) the marking standards were not transparent; (3) there was no appeal system; (4) the lack of a plan to eliminate the putonghua requirement. etc. (3) President Roland Chin Tai-hong sent out an email to say that the university is willing to answer questions from the students. We disagree. In truth, the Language Centre director failed to disclose the marking standards more than five hours after the students showed up. During the time, misleading information was given to the students. (4) With respect to the elimination of the putonghua requirement, our union and its members have used different channels to communicate to the university, including open forums, referenda, open letters, academic committees, etc. None of these measures have shaken the putonghua requirement. Therefore our union occupied the Language Centre in the hope of obtaining a reasonable response. (5) Our union respects all the students who want to take the putonghua courses. We are not asking the university to cancel all putonghua courses. Putonghua is not essential to the students when they take other courses, and it is not the only foreign language option. Our union does not believe that a Hong Kong university should make putonghua a requirement for graduation. - On (1), for example, the testee is asked to play the role of a restaurant waiter. A customer comes in and orders a dish. It was sold out. Another dish. Sold out too. A third dish. Sold out too. The customer is upset and is ready to leave. The testee is asked to say something to the customer to persuade him to stay, such as recommending some great available dishes. The testee has 90 seconds to say whatever fits his role in that situation. So the testee launches a tirade: "Fuck your mother! I have enough of your kind! Go fuck yourself! Get the fuck out of here!" Yes, he is perfectly fluent with this special set of vocabulary. But do you think that the adjudicators should pass him? - On (4), the occupation of the Language Centre is said to be a way of "obtaining a reasonable response" with respect to the elimination of the putonghua requirement for graduation. What is a "reasonable response"? Well, it is their way or the high way -- the only "reasonable response" is the elimination of the putonghua requirement. Any other response is "unreasonable." - On (5), we live here today in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The HKBU Students' Union says that putonghua is a "foreign language". - On (5), given that your English sucks (as recorded on video) and you flunked the putonghua test, do you think that you can learn French, Japanese or Korean? Or are you also going to threaten any language teacher who dares to fail you? - Actually, what is missing is a point (6) to apologize for insulting and harassing the Language Centre staff. This is what upsets the rest of the world. The absence of (6) is making people ever angrier. - The Hong Kong Baptist University Students' Union has not only worked hard to eliminate the puthonghua requirement. It has also worked hard for the elimination of other graduation requirements (see Programme Requirement). - (Wen Wei Po) January 23, 2018. 3 units of Physical Education? Why do university graduates have to be physically fit? 3 units of Public Speaking? Why do university graduates need to address the public? Last year, the students started a letter-writing campaign to demand the elimination of the Physical Education and Public Speaking requirements. They said that the students should have the autonomous right to decide for themselves whether they want to take these courses. As a result, the Hong Kong Baptist University Senate changed the Physical Education requirement to 2 credits of "Healthy Living" and the Public Speaking requirement to 2 credits of "The Art of Persuasion." However, the HKBU Students' Union will continue to fight because their goal is total elimination of all requirements. - (Economic Times x Sky Post poll) Some Hong Kong Baptist University students occupied the university's Language Centre because they were unhappy that too few passed the putonghua exemption test. Do you think that the students' action was proper? (date: January 22, 2018) 5%: Proper 94%: Not proper 1%: No opinion - (SCMP) Baptist University students should go back to primary school. By Alex Lo. January 23, 2018. A group of angry students stormed the Baptist University language centre, then threatened and harassed its staff for more than eight hours. By now, you have probably seen a video clip, which has gone viral, showing how student union president Lau Tsz-kei and others physically intimidated staff and shouted obscenities at them. The students were upset that 70 per cent of those who took a recent Mandarin exam flunked it and demanded to be shown the exam-marking instructions. That piqued my curiosity about the test itself. Was it a nefarious ploy by school administers with a pro-China agenda to deliberately make it so tough that few would pass it and everyone else would be forced to take mandatory classes in the “communist” language to graduate? I downloaded a test sample. What shocked me was how easy it was as to be almost laughable. The first part is to read aloud a short passage. The sample I have is about a family taking a walk in the countryside, written at a level of Chinese you would encounter in a textbook for primary schoolers. The second involves picking out phrases and sentences that are typical of either Cantonese or Mandarin. One or the other: you would pass even if you only knew Cantonese! The third part, however, is my favourite. It presents several situations in which you are required to make a polite or presentable response in Mandarin. Examples include placating an angry customer at a restaurant if you are a waiter; and giving a short speech on taking every opportunity to practise writing Chinese words by hand instead of relying on keyboard typing, often assisted by language software. Well, given the level of rudeness and aggressiveness typical of many of our student leaders today, I can understand why some may fail this part of the test; shouting obscenities at your customer or lecture audience just won’t do. Joking aside, it’s hard to see how any university student could fail such an easy test. Perhaps they didn’t care or were boycotting a test they considered unnecessary or unjustified. Yes, the student union objected to making Mandarin mandatory. They also seemed to think the exam markers were deliberately harsh in their grading. But if the administration has bent over backwards to make the test easy, it’s hard to see why that should be true. I shudder to consider the most obvious explanation … about the linguistic competence of some university students. - (SCMP) Hong Kong students the real losers in language battle. By Alex Lo. January 26, 2018. The breakdown of communal consensus and the social fabric is a destructive and dangerous thing. The question of what constitutes the local language and the national language goes to the very heart of the matter in Hong Kong. Twenty years ago, everyone agreed that Hong Kong people should strive to become trilingual in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. It’s true that not everyone can master more than one language, but a working knowledge of the other two has long been considered desirable. Now, Mandarin is being seen by some as the language of the enemy, and so is to be rejected. The other side of the coin is the belief that Cantonese ought to be protected and promoted. That is the real reason behind the controversy at Baptist University. To outsiders, it must seem bizarre that a national language test should be considered controversial. Even if students object to it, it’s hardly newsworthy. But in Hong Kong today, it cuts right down to the localist debate over identity and its distinctive roots in the culture and history of Hong Kong. And what can be more integral to our core self than the language we speak in defining ourselves and the world? It’s hard to get a fix on the furore because the students and those who support them have put forward various extraneous arguments against the mandatory test. One is that Mandarin is useless, or at least not very useful. Another is that even if it’s useful, well, many things are useful to learn in life, so why pick Mandarin? Thus Baptist’s student union president Lau Tsz-kei, who led an eight-hour stand-off at the university language centre, asked why not make first aid mandatory since it too is useful. A prominent commentator has asked why Baptist management doesn’t make Hawaiian dance mandatory; it’s more fun! I presume most Baptist graduates don’t aspire to be paramedics or Hawaiian dancers, but many would work for corporations and public bodies that often use Mandarin. But utility is not the real issue. The struggle by militant students is against the language itself and the perceived attempt by the school administration to promote it, and by extension, to advance mainland influence. It’s part of a larger localist battle against real or perceived mainland incursion. Sadly, the students are undermining their own education and career prospects in the service of a hopeless ideology. - (SCMP) Students must stop blaming their woes on the rise of Mandarin. By Alex Lo. January 30, 2018. Last September, localist radical Alvin Cheng Kam-mun was fined HK$3,000 for dumping library books in what he considered an attempt to protect children from the “cultural invasion” of simplified Chinese characters. Today, some Baptist University students are up in arms against mandatory Mandarin courses, with widespread peer support from other universities. Many critics see such resistance as part of a youthful localist reaction against mainland cultural invasion. Those young people, they claim, see Mandarin and its simplified writing script as the language of the enemy. There is something to that observation. However, I think many university students have more than a functional grasp of Mandarin, so we may only be hearing from a vocal minority. Still, the passions and hatred displayed by some students seem to indicate something deeper and more primal. It may have something to do with what University of Hong Kong council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung calls “the loser mentality”. There is a more fanciful French word, ressentiment, used by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to denote something similar. In the past, only the most elite and gifted students went to just two universities. Employers queued up to offer them jobs. The University of Science and Technology joined the club in the early 1990s. Today, we have 10 universities taking in more than 20 per cent of secondary school graduates. University graduates are no longer considered elite. Their earnings reflect that. According to a recent survey by New Century Forum, the entry-level jobs of almost 45 per cent of graduates are low-skilled or labour-intensive rather than knowledge-based, compared to just 33 per cent in 1996. Worse, they are told incessantly by bosses and the news media that their language standards – in English and Mandarin – are not up to scratch. Michael Tien Puk-sun was in a RTHK debate last week with Baptist’s student union president Lau Tsz-kei, who led protests against the school’s Mandarin policy. The lawmaker and G2000 clothing chain founder claimed to be speaking for other employers when he said it was hard to hire new graduates proficient in English or Mandarin, let alone both. The localist stance against Mandarin in fact goes against the city’s own language trends. Since 2012, more and more Cantonese speakers speak Mandarin than English. So what you have is a disaffected minority covering up their own sense of inadequacy under the guise of a radicalised localism. - (Wikipedia) Language proficiency in Hong Kong. Cantonese: 1996: 95.2% 2016: 94.6% English: 1966: 38.1% 2016: 53.1% Mandarin: 1966: 25.3% 2016: 48.6% - (Wen Wei Po) January 23, 2018. There was a meeting between the HKBU Students Union and the university administration today on the Diagnostic cum Exemption Test for putonghua. Today HKBU Students Union president Lau Tsz-kei pronounced that this is proof that their Occupy Movement was successful. Lau said that it is sufficient for HKBU graduates to communicate in Cantonese and English only. He is demanding the elimination of the putongua requirement for graduation. - Today, it's the putonghua requirement. Then he will go after the other requirements. Public speaking: I don't think that HKBU graduates need to speak in public Numeracy: An arts major does not need to know anything about numbers Physical Education: HKBU graduates do not plan to take construction jobs History and Civilization: What has that got to do with anything? Values and the Meaning of Life: This is just plain asinine. If you don't know the meaning of life, you should kill yourself. One Science/Chinese Medicine course: Traditional Chinese medicine? Everybody knows that it is quackery. ... - When asked about the obscene word, Lau told the reporters not to "lose focus" of what really matters. To wit, the de-sinofication of Hong Kong. - Lau is still insisting that the obscene word came out due to "a slip of the tongue." I don't know much about human anatomy/physiology, but I have a hard time thinking about how the word "please" slipped out of the tongue to become "fuck." Oh, please fuck! - (Silent Majority HK) "You'll Never Walk Alone", so says disqualified legislative councilor Nathan Law. On Facebook, Law criticized public opinion as biased and the critics as "anti-intellectual and populist." He said that it is understandable that the students would be emotionally upset because the university refused to communicate with them. The university also ignored the facts presented by the student representatives and focused solely on the method of expression. Law said that mistakes are unavoidable in student activism. - This is the usual dilemma for student activism. On one hand, young people are the only ones who can see the truth and therefore we must do as they dictate. On the other hand, young people are inexperienced and mistake-prone, so we must be forgiving. Which is it really? Can you please make up your collective minds? - On one hand, Edward Leung Tin-kei announced that he will lead us to the Epochal Revolution. On the other hand, he said that he is just a fresh graduate and he cannot be expected to come up with a grand narrative. Which is it really? - (Wen Wei Po) January 24, 2018. Hong Kong Baptist University Students' Union president Lau Tsz-kei faced the press today and said: "First of all, I want to to apologize to the teachers who were affected by my personal actions and attitudes during the Occupation of the Language Centre. I was upset that day because the university had ignored the demands of the students over many years. Therefore I believe that the school must bear a certain responsibility in this matter." - As good as having said nothing ... - (Wen Wei Po) January 24, 2018. Hong Kong Baptist University president Roland Chin Tai-hong said that the preliminary evidence showed that two students threatened and insulted staff workers in violation of the student code of conduct. Therefore the university has suspended those two students (Lau Tsz-kei and Andrew Chan Lok-hang) pending the completion of the investigation by the university disciplinary committee. - Not to fear, because the university disciplinary committee is loaded with student representatives and bleeding-heart teachers. The two will be found innocent and the university will have to pay for their lost time. - The two students said that the university administration did not ask them to give their side of the story. Therefore due process was missing. Duh, you are the guys who posted several hours of videos of your heroic actions on Facebook. Should they trust your word or their own lying eyes (see Duck Soup)? - (Ming Pao) January 24, 2018. Student representatives from the HKBU school of business and school of science announced that they will initiate a student strike at 1pm on January 26, 2018. They issued four points of demand: (1) immediately lift the suspension on the two students (2) address the demand of the students to eliminate the putonghua requirement for graduation (3) HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong must apologize to the two suppressed students (4) the school must not pursue any further action against any student over this incident - A student strike? Given the historical evidence (see #440), this is a losing cause. Why? The classes will go on because some students want to continue to attend class. If you go on strike, you will miss out and then you will have a hard time making up the missed classes if and when you return. You are only hurting yourself; you are not hurting the university administration, teachers or other students. - Workers go on strike knowing that they will hurt their capitalist employers. Workers won't go on strike if they are only hurting themselves. They will have to find some other way that hurt the capitalists, such as setting their mansions on fire, sinking their yachts, etc. - What you want is a teacher strike in sympathy with the persecuted students. When a teacher strikes, he cancels class and all his students are out on "strike." But this teacher will be subject to complaints from those students who want the class to be held. That is the general situation. However, this particular case is about students threatening and insulting teachers. Do you think that the teachers will strike en masse to support this type of student behavior against themselves? - Hong Kong runs common law which is based upon precedents. If the university does not punish the student behaviors shown in these videos, then those types of action become normalized based upon the precedent. Do you think that the academic staff and teachers will accept this as normal for them in the future? - (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018. Oh, the students have changed their minds. The student strike has been called off. Instead they will hold a demonstration march on campus. Indeed, outsiders can come in and be counted in the demonstration march for the usual inflated count. They can also march to occupy the president's office. - (HGK Pao) The number that the students must exceed is 10,681, which is the number of people who have signed an online petition in support of HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong between January 25 14:00 and January 26 12:30. (Hong Kong Free Press) More than 700 alumni of the Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) have signed a petition protesting the school’s decision to suspend two students after a row over a controversial Mandarin language requirement. In a petition, alumni from the university demanded that the school withdraw the disciplinary action against the two students, suspend the implementation of the Mandarin language requirement for a comprehensive review and consultation, and follow up with the matter of Andrew Chan being threatened. It was signed by “a group of Baptist University alumni who believe in justice and have gathered on our own accord.” After being launched on Thursday, it has received over 700 signatures. - (Speakout HK) January 26, 2018. The turnout at the demonstration march was about 200. According to the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong Baptist University has about 8,300 full-time undergraduate students. So 200 / 8,300 = 2.4% of the students came out to show us their opinion today. But 100% of the 200 students support the four demands. Therefore HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong must satisfy them. - In solidarity, the Hong Kong University Students Union is retaliating against HKBU president Roland Chin Tai-hong. The union manages the Democracy Wall. There is now a post "Chin Tai-hong, I fuck your mother" on the wall in violation of the prohibition against personal attacks as well as the requirement of stating your name and major. Hong Kong University Students Union president Ed Wong Ching-tak said that this anonymous post will be allowed to stay because it is merely a slogan without corresponding physical action.

- In summary, this whole case is one about misunderstanding on the part of the students. They misunderstood the import of their actions. In fact, they conducted a live broadcast and wanted people to share the videos afterwards. They could not understand why the public is reacting adversely to threatening and insulting teachers. They ended up making the hole even deeper by making these "Chin Tai-hong, I fuck your mother" posters for their Democracy Walls. This reinforces the worst public impressions of university students as a whole. - Well, if saying "fuck" at a teacher was a slip of the tongue, then is writing "Chin Tai-hong, I fuck your mother" a slip of the hand? - Fourth-year HKBU student Agnes Chow Ting said that we should focus on the putonghua issue and not be distracted by the student behavior. Fine, I am trying to but you stick this "Chin Tai-hong, I fuck your mother" poster in my face. How am I going to concentrate on your issue when you insist on thrusting more distractions in my face? P.S. (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2018. Spray-painted graffiti were found on the walls of a private residential building across the Hong Kong Baptist University campus. The words are "Discrimination," "Don't want putongua" and "NOPTH" (for "No putonghua"). The owners association will have to pay to remove the graffiti on its property. The police are investigating this case, which is categorized as criminal destruction of property.

- Under the Theory of Occupy Central, the owners of the private residential building will blame the Hong Kong Baptist University president Roland Chin Tai-hong for not capitulating to the demands of the students. None of this would have happened if only Chin acted like a surrender monkey. - If I were one of those owners, I would be saying "HKBU students, fuck your mothers!" because I have to pay for the graffiti removal. P.P.S. (HKG Pao) January 25, 2018. Former Chinese University of Hong Kong Students Union president Ernie Chow posted on Facebook: "Communist-licking beast Chin Tai-hong, I fuck your mother! (Vice-chancellor Rocky Tuan: I am notifying you that a CUHK student is using obscenities to curse out the president of a neighboring school. Will suspension be forthcoming?)." - Dear Vice-chancellor Tuan, are you going to tolerate this like Joseph Sung did? Or will you suspend him like HKBU is doing? P.P.P.S. (SCMP) January 25, 2018. Roger Wong Hoi-fung, a member of the school’s governing council and a representative of the university’s 2,000 teaching staff, said the video indicated that staff were threatened. He said some workers had even cried when he spoke to them about the incident. Wong said he disagreed with the university president’s suspension of the pair before an investigation, but that it would help if Lau and Chan went to the language centre to apologise directly to staff. “Their ideology and objective can be very great and just, but it cannot be an excuse for their actions. It is right for students and staff to fight for [causes] but this time they really did cross the line,” he said. “From our observations, the staff did feel threatened and abused. Their perception is very important too. This was eight hours … 20 students outnumbering the staff in a small area, and most [staff] were women.” - (Speak Out HK https://www.speakout.hk/%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E8%8A%B1%E7%94%9F/30717/-%E9%AB%98%E4%B8%8B%E7%AB%8B%E8%A6%8B%E5%8A%89%E5%AD%90%E9%A0%8E%E9%99%B3%E6%A8%82%E8%A1%8C%E7%88%86%E7%B2%97%E5%85%87%E8%80%81%E5%B8%ABVS%E5%8F%97%E8%BE%B1%E8%80%81%E5%B8%AB%E6%93%94%E5%BF%83%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E8%A2%AB%E6%8D%95%E6%94%BE%E6%A3%84%E5%A0%B1%E8%AD%A6 ) January 28, 2018. On radio, Baptist University governing council member Roger Wong Hoi-fung said that the Language Centre discussed whether to call the police, but they decided not to because they did not want to see the students arrested by the police. They wanted to ask the university security guards to come and help them, but the security guards were stopped by senior lecturer Chan Sze-chi. Wong said that even if you exclude the foul language, the Occupy action that day constituted a threat on that day. - (SCMP) January 25, 2018. Hong Kong Baptist University president Roland Chin Tai-hong said the duo had posed a danger to staff at the institution during the eight-hour stand-off last week, which he said made staff feel threatened and insulted, affecting their work. Lau Tsz-kei, while admitting that the protesters could have handled the matter differently and were “a bit emotional and loud”, maintained that neither he nor any of his fellow protesters threatened staff. “We were only asking them questions and demanding a dialogue,” he said. “I don’t think this endangered their safety. In fact, they were free to enter and leave [the office], and we even helped them fetch letters ... there was no bodily contact. - If the Language Centre staff teachers told Roger Wong that they felt threatened and even cried uncontrollably, then it is their fault to misinterpret their situation. They are the ones who must apologize in public to Lau and Chan for causing the disruption in the two's study plans. - Lau Tsz-kei and Chan Lok-hang insisted that they did not do anything wrong. This is sounding more and more like the rapist's defense: "I did not think that I was doing anything wrong. She seemed to be enjoying it the whole time. How was I supposed to know that she didn't want to?" - I grew up watching all the Teddy Boy movies (see highlights). So what happened at the Language Centre is just business as usual in Hong Kong daily life. Lau Tsz-kei and Chan Lok-hang were merely doing whatever Chan Ho-nan (played by Elkin Cheng) and friends did in those movies. What is there to be concerned about? There is no need to be so "protective" of students. When they graduate, they will encounter this real world. You might as well as get them ready to act that way. If you want them to survive in the jungle, you should teach them the jungle rules as early as possible. P.P.P.P.S. (The Stand https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%86%8D%E6%92%B0%E6%96%87%E6%92%90%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F-%E6%B5%B8%E5%A4%A7%E6%96%87%E5%AD%B8%E9%99%A2%E5%89%AF%E9%99%A2%E9%95%B7%E9%AB%98%E5%AE%98%E6%B6%89%E7%9F%A5%E6%B3%95%E7%8A%AF%E6%B3%95%E4%B8%8D%E6%8C%87%E8%B2%AC-%E4%BE%86%E6%8C%87%E8%B2%AC%E5%B9%BE%E5%80%8B%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F/ ) HKBU Faculty of Arts associate dean Lo Ping-cheung wrote: "In the adult world, a senior government official for the justice department has knowingly flaunting the law and she will be prosecuting Hong Kong citizens in the name of justice and rule-of-law. Such an absurdity is being ignored. Instead public attention is being diverted against a few university students!" - Who is diverting attention here? This sentence can be reversed completely into: "Over at Lo Ping-cheung's beloved Hong Kong Baptist University, a few rotten university students falsely imprisoned and criminally threatened academic staff teachers in order to have their grades changed. Such an absurdity is being ignored by this university professor, who wants us to focus our attention instead on the illegal building structures on the properties of the Secretary for Justice." - Also being advanced forward is the thesis that the two students should not be suspended on account of a single obscenity that slipped from only one of them. The students did not make any physical contact with the staff. Hey, the charge is "criminal intimidation" (see CAP 200 Crimes Ordinance Articles 24 and 27) and not "use of profanity (disorderly conduct)" or "common assault." - (HKG Pao) HKBU Faculty of Arts associate dean Lo Ping-cheung wrote that the graduation requirement of putonghua should be scrapped because the students obviously don't like to learn putonghua. Bwaaahhh! In most Hong Kong kindergartens, primary and secondary schools (apart from the international schools), children don't like to learn English because it is so hard and unconnected to their lives. By dean Lo's logic, English should be scrapped from the school curricula. - No, the logic here is that kindergarten, primary and secondary school students are children and therefore must be told what to do. University students are adults (aged 18 or over) and therefore they have the freedom to do whatever they want. Once the putonghua requirement is eliminated, the student activists will move on to eliminate the requirements on English proficiency, physical education, public speaking, etc. P.P.P.P.P.S. (Silent Majority HK) Television actor Steven Ma wrote about respecting teachers in his Facebook. For his effort, one person commented: "What is this? Steven Ma, I fuck your mother!" and "What the fuck is this to you, Steven Ma?" Ma said that he was only stating his opinion. Meanwhile, he noted that his mother has passed away years ago due to illness and that there is no reason to insult her. He asked: "Why don't we encourage each other and remind ourselves that we should all learn to be humble and well-mannered?" - In Hong Kong, we have freedom of speech. Steven Ma can say whatever he wants, and other people can tell him to go fuck himself. Life is good here because we have freedom of speech. this is our core value. Long live FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS and UNIVERSAL VALUES! P.P.P.P.P.P.S. (Silent Majority HK) Unemployed/unemployable actor/director Chapman To wrote on Facebook: "After seeing many people criticize the students, I finally believe that Facebook is for middle-aged and old wastrels." To added: "I have beaten up my teacher before." - Chapman To's most recent movie The Empty Hands was a box office flop. It has no mainland China distribution because the actor/director Chapman To is toxic there. In Hong Kong, it grossed just over $HK 2 million, which is not enough to cover distribution/promotional costs much less production costs. In Malaysia, it grossed less than $HK 100,000. So the investors' money were written off as a total loss. Chapman To needs attention now, and he usually gets it when he gives us his obnoxious opinions. P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. (Silent Majority HK) Legislative Councilors Roy Kwong Chun-yu (Democratic Party) and Shiu Ka-chun held a press conference this afternoon. They said that if the Hong Kong Baptist University administration fails to establish an independent investigative committee to determine whether the university mishandled this incident, then the matter will have to discussed at the Legislative Council. Shiu said that as a member of Legislative Council Security Matters Committee and Education Matters Committee, he clearly knows that the Legislative Council has the power to do so. - Time for the pan-democrats to call for another demonstration march to defend institutional autonomy at the universities. Oh wait, this time it is pan-democratic legislative councilors who are intervening! Never mind, I didn't see or hear anything ... P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. (HKG Pao) Foul-mouthed ex-teacher Alpais Lam said that the HKBU incident is similar to her own incident of using foul language against a policeman. She asked the world not to cling on to this trivial matter. She advised students to avoid foul language because it gives cause for criticism. Isn't it funny that a foul-mouthed person should be teaching others not to use foul language? - Well, fuck you too, Alpais Lam! - (DotDotNews) Chan Lok-hang, what are you talking about? January 27, 2018. Female student: I don't want to disturb you. I want to give you two sheets. If you feel that you have the need, you can look me up. (Words on paper: "I am willing to provide free putonghua tutoring to you. Please stop attacking the university and its teachers.") Andrew Chan Lok-hang: "Whose is this?" Female student: "I am a student." Andrew Chan Lok-hang: "Actually, my putonghua has already met the graduation requirement. Therefore I have no need. Thank you very much. I have passed the graduation requirement. Therefore I have completed my course. I have met the graduation requirement." Reporter: "Why don't you speak a couple of sentences in putonghua?" Andrew Chan Lok-hang: "Who are you with? Global Times? Which organization are you with?" Reporter: "It is written on the microphone." [Andrew Chan peeks at the microphone but could not identify the outlet.] Andrew Chan Lok-hang: "Which organization are you with? Because I have discovered that certain leftist media have been following me every time that I make a public appearance. For example, at the press conference yesterday, there were certain media outlets with ulterior motives asking me whether I am a pro-Hong Kong independence element. " - You make a public appearance (e.g. hold a press conference) and the media show up. What is the problem with that? If the leftist media outlets don't show up, you would say that they are boycotting you. - (Oriental Daily) January 28, 2018. Yesterday on radio, Baptist University Foundation Alumni Committee chairman Wong Hak-ken posed several questions in putonghua to Andrew Chan Lok-hang. Chan replied in putonghua. Afterwards Wong said that his foreigner colleagues spoke better putonghua than Chan. - (Silent Majority HK) January 30, 2018. There is a professional political agitator among the Hong Kong Baptist University students who laid siege to the Language Centre. Liu Wai-lim is a core member of the political party Demosisto. He has many prior records, including (1) attempted intercept of National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary-general Li Fi at his hotel in 2014; (2) attempted intercept of National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang at the Hong Kong Science Park in 2016; chanting slogans at the 2017 national flag raising ceremony on October 1st. After the Language Centre incident, Liu was notified to attend a university disciplinary committee hearing as one of the students who took part in the action as recorded on video. Afterwards, Liu cursed out university president Roland Chin Tai-hong on his Facebook and called for a student class strike. He said that if he is "suspended", he will go "all the way" with the school. He said that he was only applying pressure on and not threatening the Language Centre teachers. He did not think that he did anything wrong and he refused to apologize. - (Ming Pao) Editorial. January 29, 2018. Two students have been temporarily suspended following the occupation of the Baptist University's language centre, pending a hearing by the disciplinary committee. Some commentators have linked the incident with the general decline of moral standards of young people, while others have accused the school of "political suppression" and "meting out punishment without trial". Two aspects have provoked debate in the BU administrators' handling of the matter. The first is whether the students involved threatened teaching staff, and the second is whether the university "meted out punishment before trial in breach of proper procedure". Lau Tsz-kei and Andrew Chan Lok-hang, the students involved in the incident, insist that they did not make the teachers feel threatened. Chan maintains that he did not use foul language or come into physical contact with the staff. However, as Roger Wong Hoi-fung, who sits on the BU council, has said, the two staff members involved twice said that they had been threatened, and one of them even recounted the incident later in tears. The treatment of verbal abuse, threats or arguments should involve the consideration of the context as in the treatment of sexual harassment. People in the street might intersperse their exchanges with swearing, but they do not necessarily do so with mutual malevolence. In a different context, though, a spiteful utterance could constitute a threat even if it does not contain foul language. According to the footage filmed that day, not only did Lau use bad language, but he also talked and acted in a vociferous and aggressive manner. As for Chan, he bore down on the staff several times, demanding, in a loud voice, that they explain the arrangements for the examination. It is hardly surprising that the female staff felt threatened by Lau and Chan's words and body language when they were surrounded by a dozen students in such cramped conditions. As in many sexual harassment cases, what is important is not whether the accused maintained that they were not offensive or whether the plaintiffs were "too sensitive". What really counts is whether the victims really feel threatened or insulted. Lau and Chan should take stock of their wrongdoings instead of glossing over them. Then the issue of "meting out punishment without trial". Lau and Chan criticised the school for "skipping all the procedures" and suspending them as a "punishment", preventing them from learning. It is debatable whether the school should have been more lenient. However, it is difficult to say that the mechanism was not followed. According to the university's Student Disciplinary Procedures, the school can deny a student's access to the whole campus if he or she is believed to pose a danger to the safety of other members of the University community. The BU administration has handled the matter in accordance with Article 10.1 of the procedures by temporarily suspending—instead of punishing—the students before a disciplinary hearing is completed. Procedure-wise, this is not wrong, with Roger Wong also agreeing that this should not be regarded as "meting out punishment without trial". The problem is public perception. The student unions of many universities have shown their support for Lau and Chan after they were suspended, saying that their treatment is "political suppression", "creation of a chilling effect" and "curbing the scope of free speech". Now the matter originated from the students' verbal expressions and body language which they used to threaten and insult the teaching staff. Such being the case, the matter has nothing to do with free speech. The severity of the punishment is debatable. But it can hardly be called political suppression. That the university wants students to be proficient in English, Cantonese and Putonghua is normal. It is not advisable for people from all sides to conflate any kind of disagreement with the issue of "Hong Kong-China" conflicts. - (Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2018. Baptist University student Andrew Chan Lok-hang has said he denied all disciplinary charges relating to his participation in a row over a compulsory Mandarin-language test at the school. Chan and Student Union president Lau Tsz-kin, in addition to Student Senator William Liu and another student, attended a closed-door hearing on Thursday with a five-person disciplinary committee headed by Chaplain Ip King-tak. It is unclear when the results of the hearing will be announced. Chan told reporters after the hearing that he denied all three charges against him, which include obstruction or disruption of teaching or administration, engaging in inappropriate conduct, and endangering the safety of the school body, RTHK reported. Chan said that the gathering was peaceful and that he did not threaten the safety of the teaching staff or the students. He added that he had been anxious over the matter since Wednesday and is concerned that he will face harsher disciplinary action, such as being kicked out of the school. - I am totally confused here. If, as Chan says, the gathering was peaceful and he did not threaten the safety of the teaching staffs, then why did the teaching staff said that they felt threatened and why did Chan apologize to them? - This is standard Yellow Ribbon logic here: I did wrong and I am going to apologize, after which you must let me off because I am youthful with a bright future ahead. Immediately afterwards I am going to say that I did nothing wrong and that apology means jack shit. [855] The Pro-Democracy Primary Election (2018/01/15) (Hong Kong Free Press) January 15, 2018. Ousted lawmaker Edward Yiu and ex-legislator Gary Fan have won the pro-democracy camp primary election held on Sunday in the Kowloon West and New Territories East constituencies. More than 26,000 Hongkongers voted in the primary to choose one candidate to run in each area ahead of the March 11 Legislative Council by-election. The nomination period will officially begin on Tuesday. The pro-democracy camp has agreed to run just one candidate for each vacant seat in order to avoid vote splitting and maximize their chances against the pro-Beijing camp. The Sunday vote accounted for 45 per cent of the primary results. The results also incorporated phone surveys conducted by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme – which accounted for another 45 per cent of the result. Votes from participating pro-democracy organisations accounted for the remaining 10 per cent. (Bastille Post) January 15, 2018.

New Territories East Table 1: Detailed results Rows are candidates in order of Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Gary Fan Kwok-wai and Steven Kwok Wing-kin, followed by abstention/null and grand total. Columns are by mode in order of telephone poll results, physical balloting and organization balloting. Table 2: Scoring Rows are candidates in order of Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Gary Fank Kwok-wai and Steven Kwok Wing-kin, followed by the relative weight Columns are by mode in order of telephone poll results, physical balloting and organization balloting. Right-hand column has the final score by candidate.

Kowloon West Table 1: Detailed results Rows are candidates in order of Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Ramon Yuen Hoi-man, followed by abstention/null and grand total. Columns are by mode in order of telephone poll results, physical balloting and organization balloting. Table 2: Scoring Rows are candidates in order of Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Ramon Yuen Hoi-man, followed by the relative weight Columns are by mode in order of telephone poll results, physical balloting and organization balloting. Right-hand column has the final score by candidate. The cell entries in brackets are the column rankings. Internet comments: - In New Territories East, Gary Fan Kwok-wai got 60.9% in the telephone poll and 59.5% in the physical balloting. So the results are quite consistent. But in Kowloon West, Edward Yiu Chung-yim got 48.4% in the telephone poll but 78.8% in the physical balloting. Is this the proverbial "stuffing the ballot boxes"? - If you look at the counts, then Frederick Fung received 2,036 physical votes compared to Edward Yiu's 9,780. Everybody knows that Frederick Fung's party ADPL is has its home base in the Sham Shui Po district. There were 5,387 ballots cast in the Shek Kip Mei station in Sham Shui Po district. This means that Fung could not even win on his home court. Is that reasonable? You can have your doubts, but there is no recourse for any complaints. - Frederick Fung is exactly where he wants to be. During the debates, the other two candidates attacked Fung because of his higher name recognition. Fung counter-attacked Ramon Yuen Hoi-man while ignoring Edward Yiu Chung-yim altogether. So Fung was running for second-place and that is what he got. Why is finishing second a "winning" strategy"? Because Fung is counting on Yiu to be disqualified by the Returning Officer! If and when that happens, the second-place finisher in the primary election will become the pro-democracy camp's candidate. - (Bastille Post) January 16, 2018. One legal professional believed that when Edward Yiu Chung-yim was disqualified as a legislative councilor for failing to take his oath of office, that disqualification refers to his eligibility for the Legislative Council session of 2016-2020 in any capacity. That is to say, he cannot re-enter the Legislative Council by winning the by-election of another constituency. However, Yiu may be able to run in the 2020 Legco elections in the constituency of his choice. - Don't count on Agnes Chow Ting being able to get past the Returning Officer. Her situation is even worse than Edward Yiu Chung-yim. Agnes is on the Standing Committee of the political party Demosisto, whose platform features "self-determination ." future of Hong Kong. As such, this is contrary to the Hong Kong Basic Law. Today Agnes Chow is trying to muddle her way through by changing the keyword to "autonomy ."

Specifically, this involves one or more public referenda by the people of Hong Kong to determine the

Here are a couple of exit strategies for her. On one hand, she can resign from Demosisto and thus dissociate herself from "self-determination." On the other hand, Demosisto can renounce "self-determination" and she can retain her membership. - Demosisto: About Us: Demosistō aims to achieve democratic self-determination in Hong Kong. Through direct action, popular referenda, and non-violent means, we push for the city’s political and economic autonomy from the oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and capitalist hegemony. - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 16, 2018. Former lawmaker Edward Yiu says he believes the government would not bar him from running in the Legislative Council by-election in March, given the strong mandate he obtained in Sunday’s pro-democracy camp primary election. Yiu, who was disqualified from the legislature by a court in 2016 over the additional lines he added to his oath of office, has often been asked about the risk of being barred from running again. “The government would not dare to cancel my candidacy because of the high turnout and the high percentage of support I received,” Yiu said. - In the 2016 New Territories East Legco elections, there were 975,071 registered voters. On January 14, 2018, 13,699 came out to cast physical ballots in the pro-democracy primary election. The massive voter turnout of 1.4% gave a clear mandate to the winner Gary Fan Kwok-wai. In the 2016 Kowloon West Legco elections, there were 488,129 registered voters. On January 14, 2018, 12,438 came out to cast physical ballots in the pro-democracy primary election. The massive voter turnout of 2.5% gave a clear mandate to the winner Edward Yiu Chung-yim. The people of Hong Kong have spoke out in one unified voice on January 14, 2018. Therefore the Hong Kong Communist Government must satisfy their demand. Or else there will be another Occupy Central! - (Ming Pao) January 16, 2018. Chief Executive Carrie Lam said that it is up to the Returning Officers at the Electoral Affairs Commission to determine whether a nomination is accepted or denied. She said: "The Chief Executive does not stand there and decide who gets to run or not based upon her view." Lam said that certain political parties want her to promise that she won't deprive the right of a certain person to run in the election. She said: "This is asking me to break the law. Election issues are not decided at the say-so of the Chief Executive. The Returning Officers make those decisions in accordance with the law." - What was the purpose of occupying Central for 79 days? It was to fight for "genuine universal suffrage", which means one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. One-person-one-vote was there for the taking, but it was rejected for being fake. Instead, we must have civil nomination (that is to say, anyone who wants to run will be allowed to run). After all this time, we now have the inaugural pro-democracy primary election. Indeed, anyone who wanted to run could run. Now that the winner have emerged, we go into the full elections with the candidates who will represent the pro-democracy camp: In Hong Kong Island, the pro-democracy candidate is Agnes Chow Ting. Power for Democracy did not hold a primary election, because the various party bosses had reached consensus among themselves that Agnes Chow Ting will be our Goddess of Democracy PERIOD. P.S. It is still unclear whether she has successfully renounced her British citizenship. In New Territories East, the pro-democracy candidate is Gary Fan Kwok-wai. He won based upon the results of 1,757 completed telephone calls; 13,699 physical ballots from people who showed their Hong Kong ID's and proof of address out of 975,071 registered voters; and 115 "pro-democracy" political parties/organizations. In Kowloon West, the pro-democracy candidate is Edward Yiu Chung-yim. He won based upon the results of 2,115 completed telephone calls; 12,438 physical ballots from people who showed their Hong Kong ID's and proof of address out of 488,129 registered voters; and 117 "pro-democracy" political parties/organizations. In the functional constituency for Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape, the pro-democracy candidate is Paul Zimmerman, who is not even a member of that constituency. All pro-democracy voters are asked to vote for these and only these designated pro-democracy candidates. If any other pro-democracy person is interested in running, then he/she will be attacked for hating freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values and being saboteurs on the payroll of the China Liaison Office. What ever happened to the dream of "genuine universal suffrage"? Why are our choices being circumscribed by a small number of faceless citizens and party bosses? - "Genuine universal suffrage" was the attractive slogan of a distant dream. After all, who can admit to preferring a "fake universal suffrage"? But reality is in the form of the four Legco by-elections on March 11, 2018. The point in any election is to win. In case you gloss over that, let me repeat: The point in any election is to win. "Genuine universal suffrage" allowing all pro-democracy candidates to run will surely lead to losses because the candidates will cannibalize each other. Therefore the choices must be reduced to one and only one true-blue pro-democracy candidate per election. The decisions will be guided by the sagacious and benevolent party bosses who know best. [854] The Case of Tommy Cheung Sau-yin (2018/01/12) (SCMP) January 9, 2018. A citywide police search was under way on Tuesday for two men who assaulted former student activist Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, who planned to run in a Hong Kong by-election in March. The 23-year-old former Chinese University student union president was attacked on Chik Fu Street, Sha Tin soon after 11.15pm on Monday after a late-night meal. A passer-by called police. Cheung was taken conscious to Prince of Wales Hospital, where he was treated for minor head and arm injuries. Speaking in hospital, Cheung said he noticed the two men looking at him when he left the restaurant and was on the way to pick up his car. “I thought I would be fine in the main street, but I was pushed to the floor then kicked and hit with an umbrella,” he recalled. He was discharged from hospital after treatment. Police mounted a search in the area, but no arrests were made. A police source said crime squad officers were investigating the motive behind the attack, as Cheung, who had been eating alone, said he did not have any prior run-ins with the two attackers. The source also revealed that a letter with a razor blade and a newspaper cutting of the Chinese character for “kill” had been addressed to Cheung and sent to the office of the CUHK student union in Sha Tin. The items, he said, were related to Cheung’s recent allegations of bid-rigging in the provision of estate management, cleaning and security services to local housing estates, amid an ongoing wage dispute between cleaners from a West Kowloon public housing estate and their employer. The letter was opened on Monday afternoon, but no police report was made before the attack, he said. “We are investigating whether the two cases are linked,” the source said. Police are treating the cases as assault and criminal intimidation. Detectives from the Sha Tin district crime squad are handling the investigation. (FactWire) January 11, 2018. FactWire has obtained closed-circuit television videos from a three-storey building in Tai Wai Village. The cameras were installed on the front and back gates of this building, and were pointed in the direction of Chik Fuk Street, Tai Wai district. The first video started with the time stamped at 22:33:06. However, FactWire checked and determined the camera clock was slower than actual time by 39:24. Therefore, the actual start time should be 23:12:30. In this video, Tommy Cheung was walking with a red/white/green umbrella in hand. He looked behind his shoulder as he hurried down. About 10 seconds later, two men came into few. The men are tall with dark skin. One of them wore a blue jacket, blue jeans and a light-colored long scarf. The other wore a zip-up jacket with a hood that covered his head. The two entered slowly and suddenly dashed ahead. They disappeared from view at 23:12:50. In the second video, Tommy Cheung appeared at 11:13:08 and hurried towards the direction of Chik Fuk Street away from Tai Wai Village. Several seconds later, the two men reappeared in the first video. They had turned back from Tai Wai Village to go back to Chik Fuk Street. They were about six or seven seconds behind Tommy Cheung to reach Chik Fuk Street.

FactWire went and asked Tommy Cheung about the details of the incident, including the process, positions and routes. Cheung was not aware that FactWire was in possession of the surveillance videos. According to Tommy Cheung, he parked his car outside the Tai Wai Village office and then he eat dinner at the noodle restaurant at the corner of Chik Fuk Street. At around 11pm, a private car stopped at the road by the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Sin Chu Wan Primary School and two men of Asian descent got out. The two men were dark-skinned, one of them wearing a light-colored scarf and the other wearing a hooded jacket. They crossed the street and headed in his direction. Because they started at him, he felt that they were hostile. The two went past the noodle restaurant and walked down Chik Luk Lane. About 10 to 15 minutes later, Cheung left the noodle restaurant to head to his car. Realizing that he had left his umbrella behind, Cheung returned to the noodle restaurant. When he came out, he saw the two men on the other side of the street in front of the dental clinic/hair salon. Cheung hurried off. The two men followed him. To make sure that they don't know where his car was parked, Cheung dashed into a back lane that led into Tai Wai Village to shake off the two men. But once he got into the back lane, he realized that he is more likely to be attacked inside the village. So he chose to make a U-turn to leave on the other side of the block back to Chik Fuk Street. Cheung said: "They did not follow me all the way down the lane. They intercepted me on the main street (Chik Fuk Street). One of the men pushed Cheung on the ground, and both attacked him. A foreigner came by and told them to stop. The two men fled in the direction of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Sin Chu Wan Primary School. Passersby helped him to get up, called the police and waited for the ambulance with him. FactWire then showed him the closed circuit television videos. He confirmed that those were the two men who attacked him. "Why did I remember? Because one of them wore a hood and the other wore a scarf. In that lighting, I could not remember the color of his clothes. But I remember that his scarf was beige in color, because it stood out in contrast against his clothes."

Annotated map with the events: 1. At around 11pm, Cheung was dining at the noodle shop (location 2) when he saw two men of Asian descent got out of a car in front of the primary school and started at him before leaving. 2. 10 minutes later, Cheung left the noodle shop and saw the two men across the street in front of the dental clinic/hair salon. 3. At 23:12, the closed circuit television camera recorded Cheung hurrying down a narrow lane leading into Tai Wai Village. 10 seconds later, the two men followed him. 4. The closed circuit television camera recorded Cheung coming out of Tai Wai Village and running towards Chik Fuk Street. 5. Several seconds later, the two men made a U-turn and came back out on Chik Fuk Street. 6. The two men encountered Cheung on Chik Fuk Street and assaulted him. A passerby called out and called the police. The two men fled in the direction of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Sin Chu Wan Primary School. Google Map

Right: Lam Garden Desserts/Snacks/Noodles Left: Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Sin Chu Wan Primary School

Entrance into back lane from Chik Fuk Street (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. January 12, 2018. - In the video, Tommy Cheung kept looking behind him. So he must know that he was being followed. Why did he choose to take the back lane? - Any normal person who is being chased and threatened would be running to the crowded main street and going to a business for help. It is incredible that he should rush into a back lane by himself. - Tommy Cheung said that he was realized that he was being tailed. Why did he still go into the back lane? Was he begging for a beating? - Only in TVB soap operas do actors chose the back lane instead of the main road to flee from danger. The housewives may laugh at the absurdity, but they come back every evening to watch the same trash because they have no alternatives. - Tommy Cheung even adopted the actor's routine of looking back over his should in fear at the menace following him. - Tommy Cheung was courageous and fearless. Instead of sprinting off as quickly as possible, he took the time to look back at his pursuers. - Tommy Cheung said that as soon as he realized that he was being followed, he immediately dashed into the back lane. Once he got in, he realized that it was a mistake. So he had to make a U-turn to get back on the main street. So do you trust someone who makes such a bad judgment as your representative? - It was 1030pm. There are still plenty of people in the street. If you run into danger in the street, you should be heading towards a crowded place and calling out for people to help you. Why would you race into a back lane to be beaten up? This is unreasonable. It also happens that Tommy Cheung is running for an election. Did the director screw up, or was the scriptwriter stupid? - This is clearly different from the case of Lam Tsz-kin. Whereas Lam said that he was kidnapped by (invisible) members of a powerful department, Tommy Cheung has hired real actors. This is a huge breakthrough in scriptwriting. However, choosing to run into the back lane is not what an ordinary person would do in order to flee from danger. The production team has come up with a supernatural story this time. - Here is a proposed script called The Umbrella Movement based upon the facts as provided by Tommy Cheung. (FactWire) Tommy Cheung finished dinner and left the restaurant. Realizing that he had left his umbrella at the restaurant, he turned back to retrieve the umbrella. When he came out, he saw the two men on the other side of the street in front of the dental clinic/hair salon. Cheung hurried off. The two men followed him. To make sure that they don't know where his car was parked, Cheung dashed into a back lane that led into Tai Wai Village to shake off the two men. The But once he got into the back lane, he realized that he is more likely to be attacked inside the village. So he chose to go back on Chik Fuk Street. Meanwhile, he did not realize the two men had turned back and would show up on Chik Fuk Street within seconds. [(HK01 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/147827/-%E5%BC%B5%E7%A7%80%E8%B3%A2%E9%81%87%E8%A5%B2-%E7%AB%B6%E9%81%B8%E8%BE%A6%E5%A4%96%E9%81%AD%E5%85%A9%E7%94%B7%E4%BB%A5%E5%82%98%E6%AF%86%E5%82%B7%E9%87%8D%E6%A1%88%E6%8E%A5%E6%89%8B%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5 ) According to Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, "they kept looking at me. I decided to get on the main street to avoid them. They pushed me down on the ground. They punched and kicked me. They even broke the umbrella that they used to beat me."] Once Tommy Cheung met up with the two unarmed South Asians on Chik Fuk Street again, they took away his umbrella and beat him with it so hard that the umbrella broke. - This case resolves the eternal question: Is the Umbrella An Offensive Weapon? - Tommy Cheung even provided the weapon of assault to his attackers? - (Wen Wei Po) January 15, 2018.

On January 9, Tommy Cheung said that he cannot bend his right hand. On January 10, he said that he cannot straighten his right hand. On January 11, his right hand has completely recovered. Let us pray for his recovery. [853] Fake News? (2018/01/10) (SCMP) Outgoing HKU head calls visit to Occupy protesters the ‘defining moment’ of his term. By Danny Mok. December 21, 2017. Outgoing University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson called his visit to protesters during the 2014 Occupy movement the “defining moment” of his presidency, as he highlighted the school’s improved performance in global rankings under his leadership in his final year-end message. In an eight-page letter to the campus community on Wednesday, Mathieson, who will depart next month to take the helm at Scotland’s Edinburgh University, said his challenge during the 79-day Occupy protests was to adhere to his principles and those of the university to respect freedom of speech while also respecting the law and, most importantly, to ensure the safety of all HKU members and the public. The Briton said he had no regrets about visiting the occupied site in Admiralty with Chinese University vice-chancellor Professor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu on that “famous night” on October 2, 2014. The protesters had erupted in cheers and applause at the university heads’ arrival. Mathieson urged them to keep their cool, avoid conflict and take care of themselves, winning public acclaim for helping ease tensions. In his fourth year-end message, Mathieson said: “[The visit] was a defining moment of my presidency, and if we helped to prevent escalation, as many have said we did, I am delighted.” On the influence of politics on university life, he said: “Too often, events at HKU have been politicised, sometimes cynically so by those with vested interests.” Mathieson said he hoped that the focus in the future could be on the excellence of the oldest university in the city, and of other local universities. The former dean of the University of Bristol’s medicine and dentistry faculty took the helm at HKU in April 2014, five months before the outbreak of the Occupy protests. He shocked the city in February this year with his abrupt resignation, two years before his contract expired in 2019. Mathieson’s premature departure followed years of tension and clashes between the university’s governing body and students amid allegations of political interference in academic freedom at Hong Kong’s premier higher learning institution. The outgoing vice-chancellor, who earns an estimated HK$5.8 million a year, will take a huge pay cut after moving to the Scottish university, but he will be joining a globally more prestigious institution – Times Higher Education’s latest ranking of universities put HKU at No43, while Edinburgh sits at No27. Mathieson raised the issue of HKU’s global ranking at the beginning of his message, which came with three charts showing its placing over the past years by ranking compilers Times Higher Education, QS and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Referring to those charts, he said that when he arrived in 2014, the university was falling in all three of the world’s major international league tables, but now as he was leaving, it was rising. “Let me reiterate my often-stated attitude to rankings and league tables: we must never set policy or strategy to satisfy any particular ranking’s criteria, but if we do the right things and focus on excellence in all that we do, improved rankings will surely follow,” Mathieson said. In the final paragraphs of his message, the president returned to the topic of school rankings. He said that on all three of these lists, “we are the highest ranked of Hong Kong’s universities, and in all three our position has improved in the last two years”. Mathieson also boasted of his and his colleagues’ “strong leadership” of the institution, citing the dental school as an example. When he arrived at HKU, he said, the faculty of dentistry was “a very unhappy place with a culture of allegation and counter-allegation being made between staff members”. “With some strong leadership from me and from [the faculty’s dean] Professor [Thomas] Flemmig, we addressed this poisonous culture and took steps to end it. I am pleased to say that things rapidly improved.” In final remarks, Mathieson gave thanks to students, staff, alumni and friends of the university for their help and support. “I have worked hard for the university throughout my time here. I have always done my very best to adhere to the principles of a modern, internationally credible university and to stand up for what I believe in,” he said. “Be optimistic, positive, bold, innovative, but above all be proud of HKU. This is a superb university, and it has been my honour to be part of it.” Dr William Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the university’s academic staff association, questioned whether Mathieson was trying to play up his accomplishments ahead of his Edinburgh move. Cheung criticised the president for seemingly claiming credit for preventing the escalation of the Occupy protests. “He was only speaking to a group of protesters, and there were also people who were not students there at the Occupy protests,” Cheung said. The chairman also said Mathieson was being “ignorant” for stressing rankings so much. Cheung said there was a consensus among academics that there should not be so much emphasis on rankings as they could easily change according to the weighting of different criteria used by different ranking companies. “I think he was making use of HKU’s high rankings to highlight his contributions in these four years, as he has not many achievements to speak of,” Cheung said. (Wen Wei Po) December 22, 2017. Peter Mathieson said that he found the faculty of dentistry to be a "very unhappy place with a culture of allegations and counter-allegations being made between staff members." So he worked with dean Fleming to put an end to this "poisonous culture." With respect to the finances at the HKU hospital in Shenzhen, he said that the project finances and agreements lacked transparency. But he used his medical background and relevant experience in Britain to get to the crux of the matter and then used his leadership to change the reporting structure. HKU alumnus and Education Convergence chairman Hon Hon-kuen said that it is disappointing to see a departing vice-chancellor divulge past problems: "The subtext is that Matheison wanted to show off his contributions to Hong Kong University." But it is improper for a vice-chancellor to use an exposé method to reveal internal problems, which may pose problems for the current administration and the incoming vice-chancellor Zhang Xiang. Former Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen said that "Mathieson went overboard to make himself feel good by making up a reporting card so that he can be praised by the HKU staff and students." She said that she was very "resentful." She thought that Mathieson was deliberately denigrating his predecessor Tsui Lai-chi while lifting himself up. She said Mathieson was "very disgusting, leaving me to feel angry and sad." (Wen Wei Po) January 4, 2018. The Academic Staff Association of the Hong Kong University conducted a survey of its members on December 18-January 2. Did Mathieson establish leadership in Hong Kong academia? 88% "disagreed strongly" or "disagreed." Did Mathieson meet his own standards of accountability? 86% "disagreed strongly" or "disagreed." Did Mathieson protect whistleblowers inside the university and defend academic integrity? 89% "disagreed strong" or "disagreed." The Academic Staff Association chairman Cheung Sing-wai characterized Peter Mathieson as the worst ever vice-chancellor at Hong Kong University. By resigning prematurely to get another job, Matheison set a bad example of irresponsibility for the students. Cheung said: "I have been working at Hong Kong University for more than 20 years. He is the worst vicechancellor that I have seen." Very few HKU vice-chancellor failed to finish their first term. Slightly before three years on the job, Mathieson submitted his resignation to take a job elsewhere. (Wen Wei Po) January 5, 2018. The Academic Staff Association of the Hong Kong University sent questionnaires to more than 2,000 academic staff members and obtained about 600 completed questionnaires back. The respondents gave their opinions on Peter Mathieson with respect to leadership ability, defending core values, effective communication with academic staff members, etc. Did Mathieson deliver "an excellent overall performance" during this term? 81% "disagreed strongly." Did Mathieson "understand the needs of students and workers and communicate with them effectively"? 80% "disagreed strongly." Did Mathieson "defend institutional autonomy, freedom of academic research and freedom of speech"? 78% "disagreed strongly." In the open-ended section, one staff member described Mathieson as "incompetent" with no accomplishments whatsoever to speak of. Another staff member said that "Mathieson is the worst ever vice-chancellor at Hong Kong University" and his premature departure is the "best possible gift" to Hong Kong University. (Bastille Post) January 4, 2018. After the incident with the student protestors when Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Hong Kong University, then vice-chancellor Tsui Lap-chi had to resign. At the time, the University Council decided on the strategy of hiring a foreigner to be the next vice-chancellor. After all, if your English is not so good, you would be less bold to curse him to his face. That was how Mathieson beat out certain better qualified candidates of Chinese descent. In retrospect, foreigners such as Peter Mathieson knew nothing about Hong Kong (especially politics), felt no commitment to the place and made no contributions to university operations. As a result, Hong Kong University has paid the price. So they will not be looking for any more foreigners as vice-chancellor in the future. (SCMP) A turbulent tenure: HKU vice chancellor reflects on his time at the helm of Hong Kong’s oldest university. By Stuart Lau. January 8, 2018. In his simple, uninviting office overlooking Sai Ying Pun’s old buildings and Victoria Harbour, Peter Mathieson turned his back on the sweeping panoramic view, insisting on a particular sofa seat that faced inward. “I always sit here. I feel comfortable only by sitting here,” the outgoing University of Hong Kong’s vice chancellor said, unmoved by a photographer’s seating advice. More discomfiting for Mathieson, due to step down this month, were the challenges he faced when dealing with student leaders, colleagues on HKU’s governing council, government officials and even fellow university vice chancellors. His legs resting casually on a coffee table, eyes away from the bright afternoon sun, the 58-year-old cast his mind back to the “dark moments” so remarkable and arguably inevitable in his stint of three years and 10 months in a post never meant to be free from the politics coursing through Hong Kong. “Anyone who pretends that their job is always easy, or there are no disappointing moments, I think, would be kidding themselves,” he told the South China Morning Post. “Yes, there have been some difficult times, and there have been some dark moments.” At the heart of some of his most wearying headaches: the governing council, whose members are predominantly named by the government. If the members selected had had a less strong political stance, as was the case in the early years after Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, things could have been easier. But not long after Mathieson took office, the council came under the leadership of Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, a pro-establishment politician whose words are often divisive. (As Mathieson revealed, Li’s failure to engage him on whether to renew his contract prompted him to take up the offer to become University of Edinburgh’s vice chancellor, while he also considered the recent birth of his grandchild in London and his mother’s ailing health before she died.) Mathieson’s diminished power was fully exposed in 2015, when the council repeatedly delayed and finally blocked the appointment of liberal-minded law academic Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun for a key management position, turning a deaf ear to Mathieson’s support of the candidacy. “As you know I haven’t always got my way in the council. That has led to some difficult situations,” Mathieson said. “I’m only one member of the council so I have one vote in the council, so I can’t dominate the council’s decisions.” Chan, who is Hong Kong’s only honorary senior counsel, was cast by pro-Beijing media as an unpromising dean under whom the law faculty achieved lower academic ratings and became the breeding ground for anti-government thought, including the pro-democracy Occupy movement conceptualised by, among others, law academic Benny Tai Yiu-ting. But Mathieson showed no regret in backing Chan. “Before I even started my job here, Johannes was portrayed to me as somebody that I should be thinking about promoting to a senior post. People who later didn’t support him were actively telling me in the early stages that this was somebody I should take notice of and I should meet with.” The ensuing council meetings degenerated into an unauthorised recording and leaking of supposedly confidential minutes, culminating in students storming into the venue and blocking the way out for the members. Controversially, Mathieson agreed to call police for help, a decision that alienated his earlier sympathisers. Billy Fung Jing-en, the outspoken student union leader at the time, was arrested and brought to court to face charges of disorderly conduct in a public place, criminal damage and attempted forcible entry. He has since been spared a jail term, instead receiving community service. In retrospect, though, Mathieson was content with the way the protests were dealt with, adding he would not have handled the incident differently. In a society treading a fine line between academic freedom and political correctness, trial and error seem job requirements for anyone leading a reputable university in the city. Mathieson’s stint coincided with a period when Hongkongers voiced unprecedented disapproval over the chief executive’s power to appoint council members. A three-member expert panel was subsequently set up by the council to review the university’s governance structure in 2016, but the suggestion from two of the experts to strip the chief executive’s power was snubbed. The council later endorsed another proposal from a working group made up of council members to have committees advise the chief executive on such matters, reserving the final say for the city’s top official. As he prepared to leave Hong Kong, Mathieson refused to be drawn into the debate over whether the city’s leader should continue to act as chancellor of universities, a colonial practice that former chief executive Leung Chun-ying dismissed as ceremonial in nature, prompting unease over politicians’ sway over educational autonomy. Mathieson’s peers leading the city’s other universities were uncooperative when it came to the controversial topic of Hong Kong independence. He revealed to the Post that he failed to get his way when he was “negotiating” with the vice chancellors of Hong Kong’s other publicly funded universities on whether to tolerate the discussion of “Hong Kong independence”. The topic touches a nerve with Beijing and Hong Kong officials alike, who consider it unconstitutional and secessionist. With banners calling for an independent Hong Kong appearing on some university campuses, Mathieson and his nine counterparts came under pressure to muster a response. What followed was an ambiguous joint statement in September, decrying “abuses” of freedom of speech on campus on the one hand, and opposing Hong Kong independence on the other. But the wording in the final text went against his wishes. Colonial privilege, academic freedom and chicken feet: reflections of a British veteran HKU professor “In my mind we were not condemning discussion of Hong Kong independence,” Mathieson said. “Unfortunately, the way the statement came out, those two things got juxtaposed, and people linked them. But in my head, they were two separate issues.” What he had wanted to condemn, he said, was “hate speech” as propagated in a banner celebrating the suicide of the son of undersecretary for education Christine Choi Yuk-lin. When asked why “hate speech” was not categorically condemned in the statement, Mathieson said he had put that phrase in the original draft, before it was crossed out after further negotiations. “If I’d had my own way, I probably would have issued a slightly longer and a slightly more detailed statement which would have explained the position more clearly, and that might have prevented some of the ambiguity.” The compromise was made in the interest of the university, Mathieson said, adding: “I felt there was a case for us to make a statement for HKU to be part of the joint statement.” The setbacks he faced in and out of the university would have been unexpected in October 2014, when Mathieson, barely six months after leaving the University of Bristol as medical dean, was hailed as a hero. During the Occupy protests, he walked into a crowd of tens of thousands of protesters, urging for calm and patience amid rumours of police escalating their use of force. “Various people said [Chinese University vice chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu and I] may have helped by going there – we may have helped prevent escalation,” Mathieson said. “If that was the case I’d be very happy about that.” He added he was satisfied that the university came through that period with its principles intact, even though there was “no rule book to consult as to what to do or what to say”. In his parting message to students and staff, Mathieson planned to hail HKU’s rising global rankings in recent years. He also called it a “very lasting contribution” for new deans to be chosen for seven of the university’s 10 faculties during his tenure, taking pride in the “quality of people we have managed to recruit”. If anything, his message was a veiled rebuttal to all the humiliating remarks he suffered before starting his HKU position, when veteran professors openly doubted his fitness for the job. He hoped his successor – Professor Zhang Xiang, a mainland-born mechanical engineer at the University of California, Berkeley – would be treated fairly. “Please just give him a chance,” he said. “I was in that same situation – all I wanted was to be given a chance. “I felt there were some people here who prejudged me without knowing anything about me. And I don’t want them to do that to my successor.” Already, Zhang has raised eyebrows with his call to obtain funding from mainland authorities, leaving staff and students in doubt about his ability to defend institutional autonomy. Mathieson said it was not unusual for HKU to receive funding from the mainland government. “I think all universities in Hong Kong are very interested. As you know, most access to mainland research funding has to be done in collaboration with a mainland university or other mainland entity. We have explored how we can benefit from that in the same way as everybody else.” As political observers noted, the city is set to be subject to even stronger attention or even policy direction from Beijing in the coming few years. How far academic integrity can be preserved is a matter of concern for those in and out of the campuses. In offering advice to Zhang, Mathieson said: “Decide what you believe in, decide what you want to achieve with the university, and make use of all the fantastic resources that you’ve got, particularly in terms of people and facilities and funding. I said to him, if you want to be a university president, this is a great place to do it.” For Mathieson, however, his efforts had not proved a source of considerable joy. Asked to name a bright spot during his tenure, he could not identify one. “I think all of my bright spots for my whole life, and especially for the last four years, were personal and connected with my family,” he said. “To be honest I have had very little relaxation time in Hong Kong. I feel like I’ve worked very hard whilst I was here. It’s a busy job – it’s a seven-day-a-week job – and I’ve always worked hard and I’ve given it every ounce of my energy. And I’ve always tried to do the best.” (SCMP) Outgoing HKU chief says Beijing officials meet him ‘all the time’ and wishes higher education ‘wasn’t so politicised’ By Stuart Lau and Olga Wong. January 8, 2018. The outgoing head of the University of Hong Kong has described his tenure as filled with “pressure from everybody”, saying that apart from local officials, he was also given advice “all the time” by Beijing’s liaison office. In a frank, wide-ranging interview with the South China Morning Post, Professor Peter Mathieson also revealed his premature departure was prompted in part by Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, a pro-establishment politician who also chairs HKU’s governing body. Li did not discuss the possibility of a second term with him despite, Mathieson claims, his entering “the fourth year of a five-year contract”. Mathieson, who will take up the post of vice chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, called on Hong Kong’s leading university to continue its international approach, rather than focus solely on ties with mainland China. Due to step down later this month, Mathieson is leaving at a time when HKU’s global rankings have risen, but with the Hong Kong public harbouring suspicion that officials are interfering in academic affairs. “I wish higher education was not so politicised,” he said. “I think it would be simpler for people like me if politics wasn’t such a complicating factor.” Mathieson claimed to have conversations “all the time” with Beijing’s liaison office in the city – an organisation that some in Hong Kong perceive as tending to meddle in local administration. “All the university leaders have had contact with the liaison office, and the office takes an interest in education in Hong Kong, as in other affairs,” Mathieson said. “I consider that part of my job.” Other officials who talked to him included Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, her predecessor Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s education secretaries as well as representatives from the mainland’s Ministry of Education. He said he felt pressure from “everybody” – politicians across the spectrum, alumni, students, staff and the media. “They can tell me what they think I should do, but basically I do what I believe to be in the best interest of the university,” he said. “Yes, there has been pressure, but I don’t regard that as unreasonable.” Mathieson conceded he sometimes held a minority voice on the university’s governing body. “I haven’t always got my way in the council, and that’s led to some difficult situations.” He dismissed any “interpersonal difficulties” with council chairman Li, but admitted to feeling uncertain when Li made no effort to discuss what would follow when his contract as HKU vice chancellor was due to expire in 2019. “I was coming into the fourth year of my five-year contract and … there had been no discussions with the council chairman about whether I would be offered a second contract,” he said. “Facing that uncertainty, when it became clear that Edinburgh was interested in me, I had to decide whether to participate in the contest. “When the search firm first approached me, my initial reaction was: ‘I don’t need a job. I’ve got a perfectly good job and I’m quite happy here’,” he recalled. “But as time went on, I thought about it a lot ... and it became obvious that I should at least consider it.” Mathieson argued that while it was important for HKU to seek mainland funding, it was equally important to keep an international profile. He cited his busy schedule meeting academics from “super partners” such as Stanford University and Johns Hopkins University, and also HKU’s dual degree programmes with University College London and Science Po in Paris under his leadership. “For HKU, we have this great position of being able to work with China but also being able to work with the rest of the world,” he said. “It’s a symbol of international collaboration between similar universities. It’s a sign of respect for each other.” (RTHK) January 8, 2018. Based upon Peter Mathieson's description, Education sector legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen said that the China Liaison Office may be seriously interfering with the universities in Hong Kong. He said that there is no problem with the China Liaison Office or the HKSAR Government communicating with the universities for information purposes. But if they are offering leading opinions, then it would be interfering with the school and taking away their autonomy. He said that Peter Mathieson should disclose the contents of those conversations and state clearly whether there was interference. The China Liaison Office and the HKSAR Department of Education should also detail those conversations as well as promise not to interfere with the universities. He said that Mathieson should have said so earlier. (Bastille Post) January 8, 2018. After the survey results by the Academic Staff Association came out, Peter Mathieson sought out South China Morning Post for another interview to relieve the pressure. Mathieson also revealed his premature departure was prompted in part by Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, a pro-establishment politician who also chairs HKU’s governing body. Li did not discuss the possibility of a second term with him despite, Mathieson claims, his entering “the fourth year of a five-year contract”. Clearly, Mathieson did not want the negative staff opinions to herald his appearance at the University of Edinburgh. Wait a minute here! Peter Mathieson showed up at Hong Kong University in April 2014. He announced his resignation on February 2, 2017, which was 2 years 10 months later. He had resigned already, so what does he care if Arthur Li won't offer him a contract by the fourth year? (Wen Wei Po) January 9, 2018. The University of Edinburgh was the first to announce that Peter Mathieson will be their new vice-chancellor. How long does it take to hire a university vice-chancellor? In the case of Hong Kong University, the vacancy for the vice-chancellor position was made known on February 2, 2017. The University Council met on February 28 to form a search committee and then a selection committee. The process was completed on December 15, 2017 when Zhang Xiang was announced to be the 16th Vice-Chancellor. So it took more than 9 months. In the case of the University of Edinburgh, they began looking for a new vice-chancellor in mid-2016. At the time, Mathieson has only been at Hong Kong University for just over 2 years. So the timing is all wrong. Somewhere about 2 years 6 months after arriving in Hong Kong, Peter Mathieson hooked up with the University of Edinburgh. But now he blames Arthur Li for not discussing contract renewal almost four years into the job? (Wen Wei Po) January 10, 2018. Before making his exit, Peter Mathieson threw dirty water at the China Liaison Office by hinting that the China Liaison Office often applied pressure on him over Hong Kong University matters. But the truth is that the Hong Kong University has a campus, a research institute and a hospital in Shenzhen, and therefore requires the China Liaison Office to mediate between HKU and the various Shenzhen government departments. Mathieson must know that this type of contact is normal and essential. He gave no hints about any likely problems during his whole time here, but tossed out a bomb on his way out. (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. January 9, 2018. - When the university won't extend your contract, it means that your abilities are limited and you failed to do the job. It is better for all concerned that you should leave. So why bring this up? - Does it mean that the China Liaison Office is not allowed to communicate with the university vice-chancellors? - Given the results of the Academic Staff Association survey are objective and reliable, it is logical that Mathieson's contract should not be extended. - It was smart not to extend his contract. He does not do enough to justify his salary. - Mathieson was the one who abetted the students' law-breaking activities. - He contradicts himself all the time. A decent worker does not badmouth his ex-employer when he leaves. His ill-considered comments meant that he is unfit to be a vice-chancellor. (SCMP) HKU council chairman calls Post interview with outgoing vice chancellor Peter Mathieson ‘fake news’. By Su Xinqi. January 10, 2018. The chairman of the University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) governing body, Arthur Li, on Wednesday repeatedly accused the South China Morning Post of publishing “fake news” in its interview with the institution’s outgoing vice-chancellor, Peter Mathieson. Li alleged that the article misquoted Mathieson as saying Beijing’s liaison office in the city regularly interfered with his work, even though this was not how the Post reported the university don’s remarks during a recent farewell interview he gave to the paper. Mathieson was appointed in April 2014 for a five-year term but announced his resignation last year. In a frank hour-long interview conducted in December [see below for an excerpt of the Q&A], he told the Post that like all university leaders, he had conversations with Beijing’s representative in the city. He also revealed that he felt pressure from “everybody” – politicians across the spectrum, alumni, students, staff and the media. However Li, in a live webcast on Wednesday, said he was shocked to read the article, as it “seemed to me that Mathieson had been under pressure from the liaison office all the time but he never told me about those communications”. Li added that when he quizzed Mathieson about the article, the outgoing vice-chancellor denied saying there was “interference” from the liaison office. During the interview, hosted by former lawmaker Emily Lau Wai-hing and with reporters from the city’s media organisations present, Li took out his mobile phone and read out his exchange of text messages with Mathieson. “Peter, you didn’t tell me that there were interferences from the liaison office. Please elaborate and clarify for me. [From] Arthur,” Li said. He continued: “Peter said ‘SCMP typically misquoted me. They asked if I was put under pressure. And I said, all the time. They asked if the liaison office talked to me. And I said yes. They then conflated the two. I never called it interference. I talked about advice.’” However, the two articles featuring Mathieson’s comments and published in the Post on January 8 neither carried the word “interference” nor at any point conflated the pressure Mathieson claimed he faced with interference from Beijing. According to the audio recording of the interview reviewed by the Post again on Wednesday, Mathieson’s response to the question on whether he had contact with the liaison office was: “Oh yes, several times. That’s part of my job. All the university leaders have had contact with the liaison office. And the liaison office takes an interest in education in Hong Kong, in the same way as it does in other affairs. I consider that as part of my job. If there is a meeting that involves political officials that I’m invited [to], then I usually go and try to contribute.” The original article had incorrectly reported Mathieson as saying he had conversations “all the time” with the liaison office. The question was a follow up to Mathieson’s admission that he had received advice from senior government officials in the city. He had said: “Yes I’ve talked to senior officials. I’ve talked to chief executive, both chief executives that I’ve worked with, education secretaries, UGC [University Grants Committee], the liaison office, the Ministry of Education in Beijing, the various press offices and all sorts of people, I have all sorts of discussion and that’s my job.” But during Wednesday’s studio session, Li, a member of Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s Cabinet, acknowledged a reporter from the Post in the audience and said: “The article made me feel that the liaison office was interfering in our university. You wrote the article in that way. That is why I called it fake news.” He repeated the term “fake news” nine times in both Cantonese and English during his one-hour session in the studio. The Post has contacted Mathieson for his response but has yet to hear from him. On the webcast, Li also disputed Mathieson’s claim that he considered another job after Li did not begin a discussion with him on the possibility of a second term, despite him “coming into the fourth year of [a] five-year contract”. Instead, Li claimed Mathieson had requested an extension in 2016, when he was “a bit into his second year” at HKU, but it was a university “rule and convention” to discuss such matters only after the vice-chancellor had completed at least three of the five contracted years. To Lau’s question on whether he had intended to renew Mathieson’s contract, Li merely said: “It is difficult to remove a university head unless he made a huge mistake. Mathieson was doing not bad. He put in much effort, especially on international affairs. I think most people would agree to renew his contract. We only needed to have a longer period of his performance on the post for review to make the decision.” Mathieson, 58, will become Edinburgh University’s principal and vice-chancellor next month. He told the Post that several factors made him respond to Edinburgh University’s interest in him – Li’s failure to engage him on a possible contract renewal, his mother’s ailing health before she died and the recent birth of his grandchild in London. The incoming vice-chancellor of HKU is Professor Zhang Xiang, a mainland-born mechanical engineering expert at the University of California, Berkeley in the United States. Peter Mathieson on the pressures he faced at HKU On December 18 last year, outgoing HKU vice chancellor Peter Mathieson gave an hour-long interview to the South China Morning Post where he spoke of the highs and lows of his tenure, which began in April 2014. Two articles based on the interview were published on January 8. Here is an excerpt of the Q&A where he talks about the politicisation of higher education and the pressures he faced at HKU. Q: Of course it has become such an overpoliticised issue of who to appoint as vice chancellor, and what he should do, how he should behave. Would you be able to tell us a little bit more about how you feel [about] this kind of overpoliticisation or whether it’s good for Hong Kong’s academic development? A: I’ve spoken and written about this publicly, I wish education and in particular higher education was not so politicised because I think there is a place for politics in the university, but it shouldn’t ever get in the way of the university dealing with its core mission, delivering excellence in teaching, research and knowledge exchange. That’s our job and politics is ever present and it’s not just in Hong Kong. There is a bit of a tendency in Hong Kong sometimes to think that some of these phenomena are only happening in Hong Kong, but actually higher education is being politicised all over the world and you got any number of examples of that. So I think it would be simpler for people like me if politics wasn’t such a complicating factor, but we also have to be realistic. We live in a very politicised world, and Hong Kong is a very politicised place and everything in Hong Kong is politicised, so to have the idea that you could exist in some sort of vacuum where you don’t have to take any notice of the political context I think would be unrealistic. I do think that people like me – I’m a kidney doctor, medical researcher and teacher by background. I’m not trained to be a media expert, I’m not trained to be a politician, and I’ve had to learn and do things that I’ve probably never expected as a university leader. But again I don’t think it’s only true in Hong Kong. I think you’ve seen this happening with the universities all over the world, so we have to recognise that that’s the reality, and we have to try and take advice where we can get advice. We have to stick to our principles, we have to try and do whatever we think is best for the university and for the society and I’ve always tried to do that. Q: There is a very fine line between politicians expressing their views on academic affairs and actually interfering in academic affairs. In your time here at HKU was there any moment that you felt [you were] subject to some kind of interference either directly or indirectly? A: People say to me, have I been put under pressure? My answer is yes. I’m put under pressure by everybody. So I’ve been put under pressure by politicians all the way across the political spectrum. I’ve been put under pressure by staff, by alumni, by students, by media, by everybody. My job is to soak up pressure and to make sure that I always do what is in the best interest of the university. Yes, there have been pressures, but I don’t regard that as unreasonable. My job is to lead the organisation the best I can. If people want to give me their opinions, if people want to tell me what they think I should do, they are very welcome to, but it doesn’t mean I [am] necessarily going to agree with them. But obviously I will listen to people’s opinions and together with my team I will do whatever is in the best interest of the university. Q: Back to political interference in academic affairs, are you saying you have not encountered any such incidents? A: I did not say that. I told you everybody puts me under pressure. I’ve encountered all sorts of statements or advice or comments by various people about all sorts of the aspects of the university, including sometimes the most mundane aspects of the university … members of the public write to me, people stop me on the street ... even taxi drivers giving me advice on how to run the university. So I get advice from everybody and that’s my job. Q: But any advice from senior officials? A: Yes I’ve talked to senior officials. I’ve talked to chief executive, both chief executives that I’ve worked with, education secretaries, UGC [University Grants Committee], the liaison office, the Ministry of Education in Beijing, the various press offices and all sorts of people, I have all sorts of discussion and that’s my job. Q: But you don’t regard that as academic interference? A: No. Because they can tell me what they think I should do but basically I do what I believe to be in the best interest of the university. Q: So you actually had contact with the Liaison Office? A: Oh yes, several times. That’s part of my job. All the university leaders have had contact with the liaison office. And the liaison office takes an interest in education in Hong Kong, in the same way as it does in other affairs. I consider that as part of my job. If there is a meeting that involves political officials that I’m invited [to], then I usually go and try to contribute. (Ming Pao) January 11, 2018. HKU Academic Staff Association chairman Cheung Sing-wai said that he was shocked by the revelation that Arthur Li communicates with the China Liaison Office. This proves that Hong Kong University has regular communication with the China Liaison Office over a long period of time. Cheung said that Hong Kong University is subsidized by the Hong Kong Government and not by Beijing, so it is "completely unnecessary" to "report" to the China Liaison Office. (Education18.com) 71 out of 450 secondary school principals responded to a mailed survey in May-June 2017. Q1. On a scale of 0-10, please evaluate the overall performance of each university after taking into consideration its local and international reputation, facilities and campus environment, qualification of its teaching staff, academic research performance, conduct and quality of students as well as its learning atmosphere, diversification and level of recognition of its courses, with 0 representing the worst, 10 representing the best and 5 being half-half. (Average scores reported) 8.27: Chinese University of Hong Kong 8.00: University of Science and Technology 7.89: Hong Kong University 6.94: Polytechnic Universtiy 6.74: City University 6.45: Hong Kong Baptist University 6.34: Education University of Hong Kong 5.51: Lingnan University 5.32: Hong Kong Shue Yan University 5.16: Open University of Hong Kong In 2008, HKU was first at 8.49, CUHK second at 8.38 and HKUST third at 7.69. This year, HKU has clinched third place this year. Cheers for the magnificent leadership of Peter Mathieson. (Wen Wei Po) According to a HKU-POP poll of the general public, the top three Hong Kong universities are University of Science and Technology, Chinese University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong University. According to a HKU-POP of university graduates, University of Science and Technology is first, Chinese University of Hong Kong is second and Hong Kong University is fourth. Q4. Why do you think are the qualities which most Hong Kong university students lack? 62.0%: Work attitude 59.2%: Commitment to society 52.1%: Social-interpersonal skills 50.7%: Conduct honesty 42.3%: Global prospect/foresight 36.6%: Emotional stability 31.0%: Critical thinking and problem-solving ability 23.9%: Communication skills 23.9%: Job opportunity 22.5%: Proficiency in Chinese, English and Putonghua 16.9%: Social/work experience 16.9%: Creativity 12.7%: Academic and professional knowledge 11.3%: Financial management 9.9%: Self-confidence 7.0%: Others (Hong Kong Free Press) Maligned, befuddled and misunderstood: HKU’s Peter Mathieson exits just how he entered. By Kent Ewing. January 15, 2018. Outgoing University of Hong Kong Vice Chancellor Peter Mathieson appears to be leaving the city pretty much the way he came in—maligned, befuddled and misunderstood. His troubled, abbreviated tenure as head of Hong Kong’s oldest and most prestigious university can only be described as a failure during which HKU’s standing and reputation have been diminished. The fact is, however, the accomplished, previously much-honoured English nephrologist never stood a chance in the shark-infested waters of Hong Kong. He was simply eaten up by the city’s polarised politics—at which, even now, as he prepares to depart this month less than four years after he assumed his post in April of 2014, he remains a hapless ingenue. The biggest shark, of course, was HKU governing council chair Arthur Li Kwok-cheung—aka “King Arthur” and “The Tsar” for his domineering personality and autocratic leadership style—who outmanoeuvred and undermined Mathieson at every turn. This relationship was a one-sided mismatch from the get-go. The 58-year-old Mathieson, formerly dean of the faculty of medicine and dentistry at the University of Bristol, came into his HKU post as a mild-mannered academic with a liberal democratic political worldview and little knowledge of the inner workings of Hong Kong. Li, on the other hand—although, like Mathieson, a Cambridge University-educated doctor of medicine— is the scion of a prominent Hong Kong banking family steeped in the city’s power politics both prior to and following the 1997 handover from British to Chinese sovereignty. Li, 72, grandson of Bank of East Asia founder Li Koon-chun, has been hobnobbing with Hong Kong’s political and business elite for decades. He currently sits on the chief executive’s Executive Council and during his time as vice chancellor of Chinese University (1996-2002) and secretary for education (2002-2007) built a reputation for an imperial management style that often flattened opponents and left underlings cowed and dispirited. While technically Mathieson, as HKU president, was not an underling, that is certainly how he was treated by Li on the governing council. The most vivid example of this occurred when, on September 29, 2015, the council voted to reject the appointment of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice chancellor after Chan, who served admirably as dean of the faculty of law from 2002 to 2014, had been unanimously recommended by a selection committee headed by Mathieson. During the prolonged Chan controversy, Li acted as the council’s hatchet man for the central government’s liaison office and then Chief Executive Leung Cheung-yun, who had appointed Li council chair for situations precisely of this nature. The powers that be in Beijing did not want anyone like Chan—a prominent human rights and pro-democracy advocate who had supported the student-led, 79-day Occupy movement in 2014—to assume such a prominent position at Hong Kong’s best-known university. Thus, aided by a concerted anti-Chan campaign in pro-Beijing media outlets such as Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, Leung and Li went to work behind the scenes. After much wrangling, rowdy student protests and repeated delays, a secret council ballot was taken, and Chan was voted down, 12-8. Mathieson—who, along with then CUHK Vice Chancellor Professor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu, had won cheers and applause from student protesters when he stepped into the streets during the Occupy campaign to urge them to eschew violence as they exercised their right to free speech—never regained his authority following the Chan fiasco. In the end, he wound up speaking out of both sides of his mouth, expressing respect for Li and council decisions while at the same time claiming to uphold the interests of faculty and students who felt their university’s institutional autonomy had been compromised and academic freedom put under threat. In the ensuing years, the rising support for Hong Kong independence on university campuses clearly bewildered Mathieson. His liberal inclination to support freedom of speech conflicted with the central government’s pronounced “red line” against advocacy of independence. Under pressure from all sides, he agreed last September to sign an ambiguously worded joint statement issued by 10 Hong Kong universities condemning “recent abuses” of freedom of expression while opposing “Hong Kong independence, which contravenes the Basic Law.” In an extensive interview with the South China Morning Post published last week, Mathieson said that he signed on to the statement to avoid isolating HKU even though he disagreed with its wording, which he thought wrongfully conflated abuses of free speech with discussion of Hong Kong as an independent city-state. In the SCMP interview, Mathieson also stated that he had intended to stay on at HKU but became discouraged when, approaching the fourth year of his five-year contract, Li had not mentioned the possibility of renewal to him. So when the University of Edinburgh came calling, he jumped at the opportunity to be vice chancellor there, albeit at a lower salary than he earned at HKU. If Mathieson had hoped to escape all the maddening pressures of his job in Hong Kong as he transitions to Scotland, he was sadly mistaken. Indeed, his checkered HKU legacy has preceded him to Edinburgh and is already fodder for British media and no doubt a hot topic of discussion among faculty and students at his new place of employment. The exceptionally poor ratings Mathieson received in a HKU Academic Staff Association survey conducted in December through early January drew particular attention in The Guardian. In that survey, 78 per cent of the respondents did not feel Mathieson had “effectively protected academic freedom” while 80 per cent said he did not understand “the needs of the students and the staff.” In Mathieson’s defence, only 609 of the 2,060-member staff responded to the survey, but nevertheless the results are damning and surely raise alarms in Edinburgh prior to his arrival. Mathieson may also have hoped that he could leave town after finally, via the SCMP interview, getting the last word in his fraught relationship with Li, but he should have known King Arthur would never let that happen. Appearing on an Internet radio show hosted by former Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing last week, Li dismissed the SCMP interview as “fake news” and read out text messages he had received from Mathieson saying the Post reporter had misquoted him about political pressures, including calls from the liaison office, that he was under as HKU chief. The SCMP later corrected a sentence in the article stating that Mathieson was offered advice by the liaison office “all the time” to read “several times,” but that correction did not alter the overall impression given by the article of a vice chancellor under siege from the beginning to the end of his time at HKU. “I wish higher education was not so politicised,” Mathieson told the reporter at one point. “I think it would be simpler for people like me if politics wasn’t such a complicating factor.” Will things be any different for HKU’s incoming vice chancellor, Zhang Xiang, a mainland-born naturalised American citizen who created the world’s first “invisibility cloak” as a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California at Berkley? Like Mathieson in the immediate aftermath of his appointment, Zhang, 54, has come under attack for the scant knowledge of the city and its politics that he displayed during his December visit. He was also very cautious, if not downright dodgy, in his answers to media questions about threats to HKU’s institutional autonomy and academic freedom. With many observers worried that Hong Kong itself is gradually losing the autonomy it was promised under the “one country, two systems” agreement determined at handover, Zhang’s mainland background and academic connections are an additional source of concern. Daggers are already out among the staff association and student body, so Zhang should expect no honeymoon period and will require a steep learning curve to navigate the increasingly politicised world of Hong Kong’s universities. And, of course, King Arthur aims to be his guiding light. (SCMP) Let's bid good riddance to Peter Mathieson. By Alex Lo. January 12, 2018. Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is barking up the wrong tree. His beef should be with his departing colleague Peter Mathieson, not this newspaper. Mathieson, the outgoing University of Hong Kong chief, has often tried to have it both ways. Now that he has prematurely resigned from HKU to take up the top job at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, he has hinted that he was being squeezed out by Professor Li, chairman of the HKU’s governing council. In a controversial interview with the Post, he said Li did not discuss renewing his contract after it had entered the fourth year of a five-year term. That was why when Edinburgh came calling, he jumped at the chance. Whatever the truth, Li should be pretty upset to hear such a public claim from Mathieson. But who cares! Professor Mathieson is clearly less than fully committed to HKU or our city, though he has claimed otherwise. His departure is not to be regretted. He said Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong had contacted him “several times”, as did local government officials and politicians of all stripes. “Basically, I do what I believe to be in the best interest of the university,” Mathieson said. I think it was this claim about the liaison office that upset Li and led him to accuse the Post of reporting “fake news”. Li read it as claiming that Beijing was interfering in HKU affairs. But the report made no such claim, though Ip Kin-yuen, the troublesome pan-democrat lawmaker for education, did try to fan the flames and called on Mathieson to spill the beans. But Mathieson wasn’t trying to be a whistle-blower. He has been under criticism, though, from the yellow-ribbon media and Academic Staff Association at HKU for supposedly failing to stand up for free speech by joining the heads of nine other universities in a joint statement stating “freedom of expression is not absolute” and describing calls for Hong Kong independence on campuses as “abuses”. I thought it was rather brave of the university chiefs, even though Mathieson’s action had been reported by anti-China British newspapers like The Guardian in less than flattering terms. In an interview with The Scotsman, he had tried to play down his involvement and claimed he signed the joint statement to avoid “isolation”. Whatever, professor! We hope you do better in Scotland than you did in Hong Kong. [852] Hong Kong University's Own DQ6 (2018/01/10) (Hong Kong Free Press) January 8, 2018. No candidates have applied to run in the cabinet elections for the Hong Kong University Student Union. It may become leaderless for the first time in eight years. The nomination period expired in December with no candidates vying to run for any posts in the 14-member central committee. Nominations were then re-opened in accordance with union regulations, but the deadline passed on Friday, again with no candidates. In recent years, the union has been led by student activists such as Yvonne Leung, a leader during the Umbrella Movement, and Billy Fung, who was sentenced to community service over protests against university council governance. Incumbent union president Wong Ching-tak told HK01 that few people are willing to stand in the elections because the union is at the forefront of social movements, and leaders could get arrested: “Not everyone is willing to stand at the front.” He added that the recent Department of Justice appeal to lengthen the sentences of Northeast New Territories and Umbrella Movement protesters discouraged students from joining social movements and becoming involved in student affairs. (SCMP) No candidates for HKU student union leadership as fear of political repercussions cited. The nomination deadline was extended once but still no one applied. January 8, 2018. For the first time since 2010, the University of Hong Kong’s student union could be left without an executive committee, with some believing a fear of political repercussions has chilled participation. Student magazine Undergrad announced on its website on Saturday that no nominations were received for the union’s 14 executive positions, including that of president, when the deadline passed at noon Friday. The nomination deadline was extended once, from December 27, after no one applied for the posts. Current president Ed Wong Ching-tak has said he will continue to serve in the role in an acting capacity until April, when the body will hold another election to try to form an executive committee team. But he said he would need to step down by April even if no one submitted a nomination in order to focus on his studies, which he had taken a year off from. If no executive committee was formed by April, the union’s council would appoint members to various posts, he said. Two to three students had expressed a willingness to help out. Wong believed the general lack of interest could stem from students not feeling prepared to face political consequences, with the union taking part in many political activities and “many discouraged by the oppression they faced”. Union executives usually step down by February each year as new members are elected during the union’s annual election. Mak Tung-wing, union president in 1987, believed the recent court convictions of student leaders could be deterring people from running for the executive committee. “When you’re a student union leader, it’s expected that you’ll take a critical political stance,” he said. With the unions increasingly involved in local political movements, including the 79-day pro-democracy Occupy protests of 2014 and Hong Kong independence advocacy in 2016 and 2017, student leaders have been thrust into the spotlight and come under criticism. Last August, high-profile activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang – a former external vice-president of HKU’s student union – were jailed for between six and eight months for their actions in the Occupy movement. After a few months in custody, the three were freed, pending appeals to the city’s top court over their jail terms. In September, former HKU student union president Billy Fung Jing-en was handed a community service sentence of 240 hours for leading hundreds of students in besieging a university governing council meeting in 2016. They were pressing for an immediate review of the institution’s governance structure, which they believed was vulnerable to political interference. Mak recalled that nobody ran for executive posts at the HKU body in 1988 when his team was slated to step down. He said he also had to serve as acting president beyond his term until a committee appointed four members to take up executive posts. According to Undergrad, a similar situation transpired in 2010 when the only cabinet running for the leadership comprised eight members and they failed to obtain a majority vote of confidence. That resulted in the union council appointing students to several posts. If you believe in so much as 10% of what Undergrad reports, both your eyes will go blind! Here is what really happened: (Line Post) January 9, 2018. The fact of the matter was that there were six applicants before the deadline of noon on January 5, 2018. Shortly afterwards, Undergrad rushed out to announce that there were no applicants. All the media reports on January 6, 2018 were based upon what Undergrad reported. For example, HK01 said: "According to Hong Kong University Students' Union publication Undergrad's website, the nomination period for the election ended on January 27, 2017. However, 14 executive positions had no nominations, so the nomination period had to be extended until yesterday. But still nobody applied." Here is another media report:

Eight years later, the Hong Kong University Students' Union once again won't have a cabinet. After the nomination period ended yesterday for the new elections, 14 executive committee positions had no nominations. HKU Students' Union president Ed Wong Ching-tak said that he will stay in the position until April, but he is afraid that he won't be able to do so for the rest of the year. Here are the facts: 1. The extended nomination period was supposed to end at noon on January 5, 2018. At around 11am, six students were down at the office to submit their nominations. The two mainland students who were in front of the queue did not have all their documents. So the Students' Union staff had to make some calls to get instructions about how to handle their nominations. In the end, the two nominations were rejected and the two mainlanders were told to go back and fetch the missing documents. Meanwhile, there were four Hong Kong students still waiting. The workers told them their nominations will be processed. The fastest of the four Hong Kong students finished the processing at 12:05, which was after the deadline. Nevertheless these four students were given the "Receipt of Nomination Form for Annual Election 2018" to indicate that their forms have been filled in appropriately and the documentation is complete.

2. By that time that the two mainlanders came back, the nomination period had expired and their nominations were rejected. At 3am on January 6, 2018, the four Hong Kong students received emails from the Annual Election Commission to the effect that they have been disqualified because their nominations came in late and that there were mistakes in the way that their forms were filled out. 3. In the past, the time of nomination is the moment when the applicant entered the office, so that the applicants are not prejudiced because of the presence of a long waiting line or other complications. At the time, the Students' Union staff told these applicants that their nominations will be accepted because they had entered the office ahead of the deadline. Furthermore, the workers gave them each a "Receipt of Nomination Form for Annual Election 2018." Nevertheless, the Students' Union went back on its promises and disqualified the applicants. 4. When the Students Union staff issued the "Receipts," it means that they have confirmed that there were no technical problems in the applications and that the nominations were accepted. They should not be disqualifying people on the basis of minor technical issues detected afterwards. At a minimum, the Annual Election Commission should be consulting with the applicants instead of issuing a unilateral and uncontestable verdict of disqualification. 5. As for the technical flaws, one applicant was disqualified because the form was not filled out in BLOCK LETTERS in accordance with the requirement. Instead the student used both capital and small letters. When the student filled out the title of the nominated post, he/she would flip to the back of the nomination form where the titles of the posts are listed and copy the title over. Guess what? The titles are not written in BLOCK LETTERS! So if you copied it word for word, you will be disqualified!

Regardless of procedural justice, even more problematic are the announcements: 1. At 3am on January 6, the Election Commission sent emails to the four Hong Kong students that they have been disqualified. At 635am on January 6, the Hong Kong University Students Union publication Undergrad announced that there won't be a cabinet next year. But Undergrad chose to gloss over the fact that there had been applicants for the executive posts on January 5.

2. In the past, major news from the Students' Union is usually reported first by Campus TV with additional commentary from Undergrad. In this case, Undergrad usurped the role of Campus TV with a breaking story at 635am while ignoring to report that there had been several disqualified applicants. After reading the Undergrad report, the four applicants were duly disheartened by their "disappearances." 3. This leads to the question as to whether even more applicants had been disqualified for whatever reasons. At 5pm on January 7, 2018, the four applicants sent letters of complaints by email to Annual Election Commission 2018 chairman Michael Fung Kei-lap and members of the Students' Union Council.

How did the Hong Kong University Students' Union handle the complaint? At 635pm on January 7, its publication Undergrad published the letter and listed the name of one student (Hua Sulin) and the respective department.

At 11pm on January 7, Campus TV published the names/departments of all four students.

Every HKU student becomes a member of the HKU SU automatically, with the rights to vote as well as be elected. They have the right to complain. The HKU SU has the responsibility to safeguard these rights. The HKU SU should be handling the complaint in accordance with the procedure which includes the Students' Union Council hearing testimonies at the January 16 meeting.

- Ughhh! How did Alex Chan Ho Man get accepted by Hong Kong University? Before the process is complete, the HKU SU should protect privacy and maintain silence. Instead, the HKU SU has published their names/departments and thus create public pressure against them. This is reckless and irresponsible. Why did the HKU SU do this? There may be political reasons, or there may be technical issues, or there may be individual misconduct. At this time, we don't know yet. If they are doing this over technical reasons, then this HKU SU is acting like an unresponsive bureaucracy. If there is misconduct, then the HKU SU must explain how it happened and apologized to the four students as well as the student body as a whole. Internet comments: - Hong Kong University is a bastion for the cause of Hong Kong independence, with Undergrad as the outlet for theory and praxis. Therefore the HKU SU and its media outlets cannot be allowed to be taken over by the minions of the China Liaison Office. In recent years, famous HKU SU presidents included Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok who was one of the student leaders of Occupy Central. She was all set to be arrested until law school exams intervened. Yvonne Leung was succeeded by Billy Fung Jing-en, who led the siege of the university council. Fung was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for threatening to kill university council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, criminal trespassing and criminal destruction of property. Billy Fung was succeeded by Althea Suen, who began her term with an avowal for the cause of Hong Kong independence. During Suen's term, nothing happened with Hong Kong independence at HKU SU. Althea Suen was succeeded by Ed Wong Ching-tak, who began his term with an avowal for the cause of Hong Kong independence. He promised to take a year off in order to devote all his time to the HKU SU. During Wong's term, nothing happened with Hong Kong independence at the HKU SU. For the year 2018, there are no candidates for HKU SU president. Ed Wong will continue serving as president until April 2018, when he wants to resume his studies. If there is no pro-independence president, then HKU SU is better off headless. - The HKU SU will not become headless. A president will be appointed by the Students' Union Council. As long as the virtually faceless council is loaded with pro-independence warriors, the appointed president will still be pro-independence. - The HKU SU elections would be less controversial if the election rules are made more explicit with a "No Mainlanders or Dogs Allowed" sign (see No Chinese or Dogs Allowed). The reasoning was made very clear in the Case of Eugenia Yip. Yip was a mainland HKU student running for the post of social secretary. The fact that she is from the mainland means that she is a member of the Communist Youth League/Communist Party and that means she cannot be allowed to take up any position in any organization in Hong Kong. As social secretary, she may turn the Students Union-sponsored parties into brainwashing sessions. Or something. - I am very curious as to what the missing documents were for the two disqualified mainland students. - Undergrad reported that the name of one of the four students was Hua Sulin. That is a pinyin spelling, which means that the student is either a mainland student or else a Hongkonger who was born in mainland China. As such, a reason had to be found by any means to disqualify him/her/it. - (Hong Kong Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. January 16, 2018. My friend is an exchange student from Taiwan. He went into a convenience store to buy something the other day. As he was leaving, he heard the worker whisper: "Another mainlander ..." My friend understands Cantonese. He could not help turning around to say: "Actually, I am Taiwanese." Around the world, putonghua is becoming more and more popular. Young people are learning to speak "bo po mo fo". In South America and Africa, Chinese is listed as the second language taught in school ahead of English. But in Hong Kong today, putonghua is a virus language. If you speak putonghua, you will be brainwashed! So anyone who speaks putonghua is a Black Five Type who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party/Communist Youth League. This type of attitude is arguably plausible before 1997. But this is 20 years after the handover, and we are still wary of people who speak putonghua or have "red backgrounds." This is political censorship, this is political oppression, this is discrimination. Recently the Hong Kong University Elections Committee announced that there are no nominees for the student cabinet posts. Everybody is saying that the HKU Student Union has done things that alienate the students such that nobody wants anything to do with it. In truth, there are at least six candidates. Two of them are mainland students. Three of them come from 'patriotic' schools; they are new immigrants and do not speak fluent Cantonese. So these labels caused them to lose their right to be elected. They handed in their forms, but they were disqualified and excised from the records. I attended a 'patriotic school." The Black Five Types label has stuck on me and continue to stick on the many generations of our kind. When I was in secondary school, I wanted to be a police officer. My teacher told me: "Don't even think about it! Nobody from this school has ever managed to join the Disciplinary Services or the public service." I refuse to accept fate. After I graduated, I applied to become a police inspector. One year. Two years. I was never accepted. At the time, the economy was booming and no university student was interested in the "blue collar"-type of work in the police force. Basically, the police was taking in any physically capable university graduate. My extracurricular activities included basketball, table tennis, swimming and dancing. It was clear that I was rejected because of my "red background." Several decades later, Hong Kong has been handed back to China but having a "red background" is still a sin. - (Wen Wei Po) January 17, 2018. At the meeting of the HKU Student Union Council, union president Wong Ching-tak admitted that he witnessed the four students submitting the application at 1150am. But he said that when the student unions staff finished confirming the information, it was after 12 noon. Therefore Wong insisted that the applicants were 'late.' Undergrad editor-in-chief Tse Hiu-sing said that the personal information of cabinet candidates is disclosed to the general membership. Those four students were not cabinet candidates because they were disqualified. Nevertheless their names and departments were published without their permission. Tse said that Undergrad obtained the information through "legal channels" and they published the information to defend "the public's right to know." He said that it was a "huge achievement" to not publish their personal telephone numbers and student ID numbers. - (Hong Kong Free Press) January 17, 2018. The governing council of the University of Hong Kong Student Union has ruled that it will not accept the nomination forms for four students to run for office, as their information was submitted incorrectly and late. The team did not directly answer questions about connections the applicants allegedly have with Beijing officials in Hong Kong. Hua Sulin, one of the team of four applicants, said that they submitted their form to stand in the union elections before the deadline. It was accepted by a staff member at the student union office. However, when the process was complete, it was already ten minutes past the deadline. They also did not write down the positions they were running for in block letters as required. After they were disqualified, they filed a complaint with the student union council. But Michael Fung, chair of the annual election commission, said at a council meeting: “There were no political considerations.” Former student union chief Althea Suen said any error on the form would make it invalid. She said students should have enough time to fix the mistakes before submission and bear the risks of submitting in the final moments before the deadline. The four students refused to attend the council meeting on Tuesday night, but Hua and another member – Huang Zhiyi Daniel – held a press conference in the afternoon. The pair responded to three questions during the 25-minute press conference and refused to answer more questions owing to “time constraints.” When asked if they have connections to the China Liaison Office in Hong Kong, Hua said: “I don’t know where this information of connections with the Liaison Office came from.” She said that they were running for students’ welfare. Hua also criticised HKU Campus TV and Undergrad student magazine for releasing her team’s names without authorisation. Huang said Undergrad was “fake news,” claiming it falsely reported that no candidates had applied to run in the cabinet elections. Hua was asked why she hosted the press conference if she was afraid of her information being released. She refused to answer citing time constraints. The president of Campus TV and the chief editor of Undergrad both said their information could be obtained from public information released by the council and the election commission. The outlets did not release their student numbers, emails or phone numbers, they said. Both Hua and Huang studied at the pro-Beijing Heung To Middle School. Hua joined the Military Summer Camp For Hong Kong Youth in 2014 which was co-organised by the Education Bureau and the People’s Liberation Army Garrison in Hong Kong. - The fact that Hua Sulin was in the Military Summer Camp For Hong Kong Youth automatically disbars her from joining the HKU SU cabinet, or running for district/legislative councilor posts, or any public service job, or teaching at all levels from kindergarten to university. She should go back to her own kind in mainland China. We the people of Hong Kong don't want her here. [851] Insulting Judges (2018/01/07) Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association in Response to Personal Attacks on Magistrate (2018.01.06) The recent conviction and sentencing of a former police superintendent has aroused much public attention. There are reports of personal and insulting attacks (and worse still with racial overtones) made against the Magistrate concerned. We repeat what we stated in our statement dated 20th February 2017 which arose out of sentencing of seven policemen arising from the Occupy Central incident. Whilst everyone enjoys freedom of expression and may comment on any judicial decision or ruling, personal attacks against the court or the judicial officer concerned, as in this case against the Magistrate with insulting and racist or xenophobic words and actions, undermine the respect for the court, and the due process of the law and the course of justice, which should be shown by members of the public in a society that abides by the Rule of Law. Such conduct may even constitute contempt of court. The Hong Kong Bar Association strongly condemns such conduct, and invites the relevant authorities to take swift action to deal with such serious and offensive conduct. Internet comments: Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association in Response to Personal Attacks on Judge (2017.02.20) A recent judgment in a criminal case concerning seven policemen has caused much public attention. Whilst everyone enjoys freedom of expression and may comment on the judgment, personal attacks against the Judge with insulting and threatening words and actions are of no assistance to any rational discussion, but undermine the respect for the court which should be shown by members of the public in a society that abides by the Rule of Law. Such conduct may even constitute contempt of court. The Hong Kong Bar Association condemns such conduct, and urges people with different views to express them in a manner conducive to rational debate. - Relevant links: #675 Martyrs of the Umbrella Counter-Revolution - Part 1 (Seven Evil Cops) (2017/02/16) This is the case that the HKBA statement of February 20, 2017 refers to. This is great reading on the history of the crime of "scandalising the judiciary." #818 Martyrs of the Umbrella Counter-Revolution - Part 2 (The Case of Frankly Chu King-wai) (2017/11/07) This is the case that the HKBA statement of January 6, 2018 refers to. - I don't object to punishing those who insult judges/magistrates. But I want to see rule-of-law and not rule-of-man. Here are some other well-known cases: 2015.07.30: At the sentencing of five Restore Yuen Long defendants, their supporters chanted that the dog judge was shameful. The judge said that he had been threatened. 2016.10.25: After Raymond Wong was found guilty of throwing the glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung, he called the judge "a dog judge from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet." His supporters wished death upon the judge's entire family. 2017.08.15: The 13 defendants of the New Territories East development protests were re-sentenced. Some supported cursed the judges as "dog judges." 2017.08.17: The 3 students who led the charge into Government Headquarters were re-sentenced. Some supporters cursed the judges as "dog judges" and "may all t heir family members be paralyzed from the waist down."

Why haven't these people been prosecuted under the same laws? - How come the Hong Kong Bar Association has nothing to say about these other cases? Why are these not an existential threat to the Hong Kong judiciary? - If you ask the HKBA, they will say that they are not aware of the specifics of the case and therefore they cannot comment. Then they will make sure that they never ever learn about the specifics of the case and therefore they won't ever have to comment.

- (SCMP) Bar association condemns insults directed at non-Chinese judge in Hong Kong who jailed senior policeman. January 7, 2018. The Hong Kong Bar Association slammed recent personal attacks on the non-Chinese ethnicity of a magistrate who jailed a retired senior police officer for three months for attacking a bystander at a 2014 protest, urging authorities to take swift action. Releasing a statement on Saturday, the association said it had documented insulting, racist or xenophobic words and actions directed at Indian-born principal magistrate Bina Chainrai. Educated in Hong Kong, Chainrai was called to the bar in 1982 and appointed a permanent magistrate in 1990. I get it totally. This is only about racism/xenophobia. It is unacceptable to call Bina Chainrai an "Indian bitch" or David Dufton a "white-skinned pig." But it is acceptable to call Chan Pik-kiu and Sham Siu-man "yellow-skinned Chee-na running dogs" because this is a statement of fact and not racism/xenophobia. Oh why oh why didn't they make this clear before? - Hong Kong's legal system is based upon common law, which relies on case precedents. If they prosecute the critics of David Dufton and Bina Chainrai, they would have to prosecute those in the other cases. That means more business for the lawyers. Life is good for lawyers here in Hong Kong. - Why do judges get preferential treatment? In Hong Kong, you can freely criticize everybody else from the restaurant waiter to the bus driver to the police officer to the school principal to the Chief Executive, but you cannot criticize judges. This is a violation of freedom of speech under Article 27 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. - It is a cinch to win a judicial review. But I won't file one because there are legal fees. Instead, I will find a 79-year-old illiterate and indigent grandma to file (and I will assist her to get legal aid, of course). (Hong Kong Free Press) January 16, 2018. A woman has been arrested for allegedly insulting a magistrate following a series of protests against the recent jailing of retired superintendent Frankly Chu. The 63-year-old woman, surnamed Kwok, was arrested Monday on charges of contempt of court. A police spokesperson said she allegedly made insulting remarks against judicial personnel outside the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on January 3. Kwok was accused of making the remarks outside court, where Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai sentenced Chu to three months in prison for hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. Dozens of Chu’s supporters hurled insults at the Indian-born magistrate, calling her a “dog” and uttering racial slurs against her. They said foreign judges were not welcome and that it would only be fair if “Chinese people were tried by Chinese judges.” The protesters said the judiciary was being unfair and called the jail sentence “an international joke.” Kwok has been released on bail and is required to report to the police next month. - (SCMP) Those who criticise our judges should be ashamed of themselves. By Alex Lo. January 8, 2018. When retired police superintendent Frankly Chu was jailed for three months for assaulting a passer-by mistaken for an Occupy protester, the worst elements of the blue-ribbon, pro-government mob were out in force denouncing the sentence. Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai has been called by all sorts of nasty and racist names, many of which are unprintable in a family newspaper. Some are calling for an all-Chinese bench. Chu has launched an appeal and may yet have the sentence overturned. But assuming the judgment stands, the punishment is quite lenient, considering the offence could carry a heavy sentence that counts in years rather than months. Of course, the real punishment is not the jail time, but Chu’s expected loss of his pension. In a rare consensus, not only the yellow-ribbon media and the Bar Association but also some of the bluest pro-government news outlets such as HKG Pao and Speakout.hk have all rounded on those who attacked the judge. Those who made the most offensive remarks may have committed contempt of court. If a few of them are ever charged, no one would shed a tear. But the blue-ribbon mobs haven’t been the only ones going after judges. Yellow-ribbon thugs were doing the same thing when their own people were jailed. Last year, 13 pro-democracy activists were sent to prison for their violent protest against a government development plan in the northeastern New Territories. Likewise, three former student leaders of the Occupy protests had their community service penalties toughened to jail terms after government prosecutors appealed against their sentences. In response, the opposition went into a paroxysm. Some of its more uncouth supporters were calling the ethnically Chinese judges in the two cases “Chee-na men” and “communist running dogs”. Meanwhile, some of the most respected Western publications and some former senior foreign government officials were calling for the release of the trio, as if it were a political decision rather than something that required due process, and that our judiciary was some kind of kangaroo court. The worst and most extreme elements of the blue and yellow-ribbon mobs behave in much the same despicable way. Those who shout loudest about threats to the rule of law in front of foreign media are helping to undermine it. Our judges, who maintain a dignified silence and diligently administer justice, are the real heroes of Hong Kong. - (Oriental Daily) January 6, 2018. Judges are humans. They have emotions and desires and they have political positions. In Hong Kong, everything is politicized. It is clear that judicial decisions have political leanings. After the reacting to the sentences given to the seven police officers, the public is now reacting to the three month sentence given to retired police superintendent Frankly Chu. Both cases are sideshows to Occupy Central, and the defendants were jailed over their actions during law enforcement. Meanwhile the instigators of Occupy Central, including Next Media boss Jimmy Lai and Hong Kong University professor Benny Tai, have still not faced any legal consequences. So enforcing the law is a crime whereas breaking the law is not; loving Hong Kong is punished, but causing chaos in Hong Kong goes unpunished. It is a joke to say that we are all equal before the law. There are many examples of injustice. As one example, someone caused others to charge at the Legislative Council building by falsely proclaiming the enactment of an Internet Article 23 law. Many persons were arrested and found guilty of unlawful gathering and criminal destruction of property. In his infinite wisdom, the judge decided that the defendants were indigent and rejected the prosecutor's request for economic damages. As another example, the 13 defendants in the New Territories East development protests were sentenced to community service. In his infinite wisdom, the magistrate praised the defendants as "speaking out for the oppressed people" and "defending public justice." Even more absurd was the case of the three students who led the invasion of Government Headquarters that precipitated Occupy Central. They had clearly broken the law. At the trial, the judge heaped praises on them: "They are still young, they are filled with ideals, they genuinely care about society and they did not do this for personal interests." It was as if the defendants were heroes and the court was holding an awards ceremony. Dear judges and magistrates, did you think that the seven police officers, or Frankly Chu, or even the three persons who threw pig entrails at Jimmy Lai did not care about society or are not filled with ideals? Which of them did it for personal interests? How come the Blue Ribbons are always punished and the Yellow Ribbons are always let off? - The answer to the rhetorical question is obvious: Because the judges/magistrates are Yellow Ribbons who help their own and punish their enemies. - (HKG Pao) January 6, 2018. Yesterday was the police recruitment day for the winter season. The 2,300+ applicants was the second highest number on record. So there was no fall-off in spite of the smears on the Hong Kong Police by the Yellow Ribbon media. (Oriental Daily) January 7, 2018. At Hong Kong University, the Students Union election had 14 posts with no candidates, including all the cabinet members. In recent years, the Hong Kong University Students Union has been embroiled in political issues such as Occupy Central, Hong Kong independence, etc. Alex Chow was sentenced to 8 months in jail for the taking of Government Headquarters. Billy Fung was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for criminal destruction of property and forcible entry. - More generally, if your resumé shows that you were on the Students Union executive committee, you are assumed to be a radical pro-independence violence-prone law-breaking agitator. That limits your employment opportunities. - The above is an assumption. There are no data to support this hypothesis one way or the other. But it provides an explanation as to why there is little or not interest in the cabinet openings. - The situation may be so, but your language of description is wrong. The correct description should be along the line of "There are no Students Union candidates due to the unprecedented suppression of student activism by the Hong Kong Communist Government under the orders of the China Liaison Office." - Twelve steps for Color Revolution 11. Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become “delegitimized” by the international community. There are job openings for martyrs and butchers for the Umbrella Revolution. Any takers? [850] The 69C Bus Passenger (2018/01/06) (Oriental Daily) January 5, 2018.

At the Discussion Board of Bus Facebook, there was a photo of a man sitting on the stairwell of the 69C double-decker bus this morning. This man was listening to music while standing there. The bus driver stopped the bus and approached the man to remind him that the operating rules do not permit standing in the stairwell. The man immediately sat down and asked the bus driver: "Is that okay?" The man refused to budge from the position. The bus driver was forced to arrange for all the passengers to transfer to another bus. Internet comments: - CAP 230A Public Bus Service Ordinance 13A. General conduct of passengers and intending passengers (1) No passenger or intending passenger shall (a) willfully obstruct, impede or distract the driver or the bus or any authorized person; (c) willfully do or cause be done with respect to any part of the bus or its equipment, anything which (i) obstruct or interferes with the workings of the bus or causes damage; or (ii) causes injury, discomfort, annoyance or inconvenience to any other person; (2) No passenger shall stand (a) on any part of a bus other than the gangway; (b) on the upper deck of a bus; or (c) on a single-decked bus or on the lower deck of a double-decked bus, forward of the rearmost part of the driver's, while the bus is moving. 13. Power to remove passengers etc. (1) Any person who is an employee of a grantee and who is in uniform and on duty may remove from a bus any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe has contravened these regulations. (2) Any person who is an employee of a grantee and who is in uniform and on duty may require any passenger whom he has reasonable cause to believe has contravened these regulations to give his name and address and produce proof of identity. (3) Any person who is an employee of a grantee and who is in uniform and on duty may arrest without a warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe has contravened these regulations and may detain such person until he can be handed over to a police officer. (4) A police officer, to whom a person is handed over under subregulation (3), shall take such person into custody without a warrant and thereafter sections 51 and 52 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) shall apply. - Facebook comments: What to do? - All the other passengers should band together and curse the fucker out! - As soon as the bus driver spoke, all the other passengers should have started to curse. - He made all the passengers get off this bus and take another bus. They should curse him out! The only issue is whether they do it to his face, or on the side. - Why is there still an option to do it on the side? He should been shown a red card and ejected. - Not everybody is as courageous as you are. Some people are afraid of being cursed back. - It would have been better if he was the only one to take another bus. - Why is this discussion being restricted to cursing the man or not? The bus was filled to capacity, so there were more than 100 other passengers. They should have acted together and tossed the guy out of the door! Instead they marched meekly to get on another bus. - This isn't the whole story. When the other passengers transferred to another bus, what happened to the man? Did he go with them and continue to sit in the stairwell? That would show that he is a righteous civil rights activist. Or did he charged ahead first and grabbed a seat for himself? That would show that he is a selfish prig. - Many drivers won't speak out. But since he had already stopped the bus to speak to the man, he should finish the job by telling him to get off. If the man refuses, the driver should summon the police. - What can the driver really do? They have to follow the rules of operation, for which they are often criticized for lack of flexibility. They make just over $10,000 a month. Is that worth being cursed out by various passengers for all sorts of reasons over the entire shift? - The driver is being criticized for speaking out to the man and then making the passengers switch buses. If he did nothing, there will be a different Facebook post about him letting people stand/sit in the stairwell. And if there should be an accident in which someone is injured on the stairwell, he faces criminal liability. - We need to issue an APB (All-Points Bulletin) to identify this man, his family members and his business associates. We need to find out where his son goes to school and then the classmates will get to ask the son about the behavior of his father. We will ask his employer whether this type of selfish behavior stands for standard operating behavior and corporate image over at the company. - This is the after-effect of Occupy Central -- it's all about what you want and the hell with everybody else! - "I want genuine sitting on the stairwell" and the hell with the other passengers! - So what if I violated some law or the other? Benny Tai said that this is just civil disobedience. - Hong Kong University law professor Benny Tai tells us that we can break the law to achieve justice. - The Public Bus Service Ordinance prohibits standing on the stairwell of a double-decked bus. It does not say anything about sitting on the stairwell. Therefore the man will surely win his case in court. - Occupy Central taught everybody to fight for their rights. In this case, the man on the stairwell had the absolute right to sit there. His action is just like Rosa Parks, who exercised her absolute and inalienable right to sit in the front of the bus. - Even if the Public Bus Service Ordinance explicitly prohibits sitting on the stairwell of a double-decked bus, the man should be fighting against such an unjust law. There is no reason why a person cannot sit on the stairwell. The bus was in motion and nobody was going up or down the stairs. - It will no doubt be argued that it was dangerous to stand/sit in the stairwell. If the bus has to swerve suddenly, a person in the stairwell may lose balance and fall down. That is utter nonsense. It is my fucking life and I will bear the consequences of my actions. If I should get hurt in this manner, I will sue the bus driver for reckless driving and the bus company for imperfect safety features. It won't cost the public a cent. Just let me be. - Occupy Central also taught us that the maximum penalty for breaking the law is just a few hours of community service, if that. More likely, if the bus driver summoned the police to arrest this man, charges would be dropped before trial anyway due to chronic understaffing at the Department of Justice. Three years after more than 200 persons were arrested for contempt of court during the clearance of Occupy Central, only 9 have been charged. When you ask Chief Executive Carrie Lam, ex-Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen or current Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng for an update, they turn their backs and flee. - Here is what I just did. I was on a Number 1 bus going to Star Ferry. At Tak Shing Street, nobody asked to get off. Since the preceding bus was a Number 1A going down the same route to the same destination, my bus driver was not going to stop. A man dashed out of nowhere and wanted to board my bus. Fortunately the bus driver braked in time and let the man on. This man proceeded to curse the bus driver out and promised to lodge a complaint. Some passengers argued with this man. I was too much of a coward and I shut up. But as I got off, I told the bus driver that I had already called the Bus Customer Service Center to tell them what just happened. I do what I can and I hope that this will help the bus driver. [849] New Year's Day Demonstration March (2018/01/01) (Hong Kong Free Press) December 29, 2017. Hong Kong pro-democracy marchers are “not ruling out” an overnight protest at Civic Square following the annual New Year’s Day rally on Monday. The Civil Human Rights Front has been granted a letter of no objection from the police to end its march at the symbolic area outside government headquarters. It was closed by then-leader Leung Chun-ying in 2014, but was re-opened by current Chief Executive Carrie Lam on a limited basis on Thursday. Known formally as the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices, the area is open to the public from 6am to 11pm daily, but protesters will only be allowed to gather there on Sundays and public holidays. The march on January 1 is scheduled to end at 6:30pm after beginning at 2pm in East Point Road, Causeway Bay. “We don’t worry [about being cleared out by the police],” Civil Human Rights Front convener Sammy Ip told RTHK. “Firstly it depends on the headcount. If many people turn up, [the police] don’t have an excuse to clear us out, because our march will not have ended. Secondly, it’s clear that re-opening Civic Square is a piece of political engineering by Carrie Lam. I don’t think she would want to do something ugly at the very first large-scale protest.” The police told RTHK that they have not yet assessed the risks of Civic Square being “re-occupied”. They cited the march’s organisers as estimating that around 2,000 participants will turn up. (RTHK) January 1, 2018. The Civil Human Rights Front is organizing a demonstration march from Causeway Bay to the east wing forecourt of Government Headquarters. They estimate that 10,000 will participate. According to Civil Human Rights Front convener Sammy Ip said that the recent controversy over the Co-location Arrangement may drive up participation. If the demonstrators don't want to leave at the destination point, they will continue to stay. (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2018. The Civil Human Rights Front vice-convener Carlos Hung said that they have set up a stage outside the entrance of the East Wing Forecourt of Government Headquarters and the demonstrators can use the East Wing Forecourt itself. He said that the assembly will last one to two hours with various guest speakers. At around 1pm, Tam Tak-chi (People Power) claimed that a man dressed in black has destroyed their demonstration tools. The police arrested a 56-year-old man named Chan on suspicion of criminal destruction of property. The march began at 225pm with 500 people assembled. The end of the queue departed at 306pm with a total of 1,200 participants in the march. There were flags of more than 20 organizations. Apart from the traditional political parties, there were many university social work students. However, the university student unions were not present. During the march, the police stopped the procession several times in order to let citizens and cars pass. The demonstrators were upset and hollered that they be allowed to proceed. Videos: RTHK - Viu TV - TVB - NOW TV Epoch Times Internet comments: - Another vertical banner was erected on Mount Parker yesterday morning. The first banner on Lion Rock on the day before said: "Safeguard Hong Kong." This second one on today said: "Safeguard Hong Kong, New Year's Day march." There was no time for the third most crucial one: "Safeguard Hong Kong, New Year's Day march, Donate money to Lau Siu-lai."

- The baseline should have been double the 1,200 figure but half of the regular marchers are participating in the Falun Gong march in Kowloon. The Civil Human Rights Front could have used the Falun Gong's hired marching bands and dancers as well as the airlift of Taiwanese demonstrators. - (Apple Daily) 14:32 January 1, 2018. At least 2,000 people are gathered at the assembly point. East Point Road is completely filled, with spillover into Cannon Street. - (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2018. The Civil Human Rights Front announced that 10,000 citizens marched today. The police said that the peak number was 6,200. Last year, the Civil Human Rights Front announced 9,150 while the police said 4,800. - (Wen Wei Po) The Hong Kong Police estimated that 360,000 persons watched the fireworks display on both sides of Victoria Harbour at midnight on New Year's Eve. - This is clearly a plot by the Hong Kong Communist Government to reduce turnout at the Safeguard Hong Kong demonstration march. - (Oriental Daily) Thousands of people came to the Tsim Sha Tsui Cultural Centre to watch 300 lion-dancing teams perform at the Eighth World Lion Dance Festival on New Year's Day.

- This is clearly a Communist plot to reduce turnout at the Safeguard Hong Kong demonstration march. - (Wen Wei Po) On New Year's Day, the Hong Kong Jockey Club held 11 horse races at the Sha Tin Racecourse. Total attendance was 85,124 persons who placed a total of $1.65 billion in bets. - This is clearly a Communist plot to reduce turnout at the Safeguard Hong Kong demonstration march. - Here is a photo of the people who drove attendance down: The pro-Hong Kong independence people who want to return to British rule. (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2018.

(YouTube) Pro-independence demonstrators chanting "Hong Kong independence" and "I am a Hongkonger." All five of them. - They are obviously being paid by the China Liaison Office to provide the justification for Article 23 National Security Legislation. - (SCMP) Hong Kong returning to ‘Great’ Britain? You are having a laugh. By Niall Fraser. January 2, 2018. Over the years I have witnessed more political protest marches in more places about more things than you can shake a placard stick at. In fact, if protest miles were a thing, my place in the Che Guevara Lounge of Revolutionary Airways would be assured. After nearly 40 years, starting as a student agitator against “[Margaret] Thatcher the Milk Snatcher’’ in late 1970s Scotland to journalistic observer of the mass tumult which toppled and led to the execution of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 and countless Hong Kong pro-democracy marches, if asked today “What do we want?” and “When do we want it?” my most likely answer would be: a toilet, now! Over the years, the banners brandished and slogans shouted have ranged from the downright rubbish and hopelessly unachievable to the incredibly effective and laugh-out-loud funny – my personal favourite being the absurd “Free Bill Posters” However, at the New Year’s Day pro-democracy march in Hong Kong this week, being held aloft was a placard that took the ridiculous biscuit, crumbs and all. Unless, of course, the person carrying it was a foot soldier of the agent provocateur wing of the Chinese Communist Party. It read: “Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again.’’ Putting to one side the not insignificant faux pas of plagiarising the campaign slogan of a semi-literate president of the United States for whom democracy represents a means to nefarious authoritarian ends, if whoever penned the words on this placard was serious, I suggest they stem the flow with a double dose of verbal Imodium and read on. As a British passport holder as well as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, I will no doubt be considered a treacherous turncoat to Queen and country for what I am about to say. But say it I will and to anyone who wants to shoot the messenger, you know where to find me and I can supply the gun if you aren’t tooled up. Any country which feels the ongoing need to prefix its name with “Great” – whatever the etymology of that word in this context – is by definition nothing of the sort. So, as was the case for incumbent British Prime Minister Theresa May not so long ago, your slogan is starting to fall apart. In any case, Hong Kong never was and never will be Great Britain. It was like so many other places around the world, a stolen plunder of empire, an empire over which generations of schoolchildren were taught the sun never sets. As has been said by greater men and women than I could ever imagine to be, the real reason eternal pink daylight shone across the British imperial map was because God could never trust the Brits in the dark. Our placard-waving friend would do well to ponder that sentiment, given that two decades after your shining white knight left Hong Kong, it has shown absolutely no sign that your trust and love will ever be reciprocated, not as long as there is a deal to be done and money to be made. I certainly don’t have ready-made solutions for the difficult and deep-rooted problems this city faces, but I know one thing for certain, they do not lie in clinging to a past which is well and truly in the past and placing your trust in the untrustworthy. And if you think that treachery is a trait the British establishment ditched as the letters of their empire dropped off one by one, read the official documents released by the Irish government last week. They revealed that British intelligence sought the services of a loyalist terrorist gang in Northern Ireland to murder the democratically elected prime minister of Ireland, Charles Haughey, in 1987. Be careful what you wish for. Perfidious Albion indeed. - (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2018. At around 4pm when the demonstrators arrived at Government Headquarters, People Power, Neo Democrats and Co-location Concern Group members took turns to charge at the flagstaff platform. A security guard was injured and taken to the hospital.

The action began with People Power member Chin Po-fun charging up the dais. She was stopped by a large number of security guards. Several minutes later, People Power member Tam Tak-chi charged up the platform to demand to see if Chin Po-fun has been injured. Another man successfully climbed onto the platform. During the struggle, a male security guard was injured and taken away by stretcher. The man who climbed onto the platform claimed to have sustained injuries on his finger and neck; in fact, he said that he felt pain all over this body. Ten minutes later, another man charged up and was blocked by the security guard. - (Video) - (Video) - This is what I saw: The bespectacled guy named Wong grabbed a female security guard by the collar and buried his head into her breasts. She screamed and pushed him away. He took a dive onto the ground and screamed "police brutality." - ... and therefore you must donate even more money. - This is what I saw: The dark-blue-uniformed security thugs roamed the scene looking to pick fights with citizens. They pounced upon the bespectacled guy named Wong. They tried but failed to break his arm. They picked him up from the platform and threw him onto the ground below. They went over and tried to stomp on him. A blond-haired white dude threw his own body to cover the assault victim. Outraged citizens condemned the thugs, who just stood there smirking. This is the darkest day for democracy in Hong Kong. - ... and therefore you must donate even more money. - (The Stand News) Civil Human Rights Front convener Sammy Ip said that the police and the security guards have greater numbers and therefore have greater responsibility to handle any clashes. He said that they will maintain contact with those protestors and provide assistance to them if required. - ... and therefore you must donate even more money. - (The Stand News) Nathan Law (Demosisto) said that this was only a "fake re-opening of Civic Square but actually a stage show." He told citizens to distinguish truth from lies. He emphasized: "We cannot tolerate being ordered about by the North. The people of Hong Kong have their own dignity." - That's about right. Xi Jinping ordered Civic Square closed before and re-opened now. After all, Hong Kong is the center of the universe and Nathan Law is the center of the center. - ... and therefore you must donate even more money. - (SCMP) January 3, 2017. Officials released two pictures showing Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung visiting groups of security officers of the Tamar site. According to the captions, Cheung was “thanking them for their dedication and professionalism in assisting to maintain order at [the government headquarters]”. “[Cheung] also expressed concern for two security guards injured while carrying out duties in the East Wing Forecourt and wished them a rapid recovery,” the captions stated. Sammy Ip Chi-hin, convenor of Civil Human Rights Front, the organiser of the New Year’s Day march, said the move showing Cheung interacting with the guards was “provocative”. “Hong Kong people are unhappy about governance and they took to the streets to protest and now a top official comes out to praise those who have tried to suppress the protesters,” Ip said. - ... and therefore you must donate even more money. - After all the bellicose posturing, it ended with a whimper: (SCMP) At about midnight, only four protestors remained, and security guards moved in. Three protestors left without incident, and the fourth had to be carried out. - The number of demonstrators was never the point. This is really about the amounts raised by various organizations. This is one of the three most important money-raking days of the year, together with June 4th and July 1st.

Justice Defense Fund: $370,000 League of Social Democrats: $260,000 Demosisto: $220,000 Teacher Siu-lai's Democracy Classroom: $120,000 Civic Party: $80,000 Democratic party: $78,000 - (HKG Pao) January 3, 2018. One slogan in this New Year's Day march is that the Hong Kong government is "destroying the rule of law." Of course, it is also the law that anyone soliciting donations from the public must apply for a permit from the Home Affairs Bureau. On this day, the only two organizations (People Power and Power for Democracy) had those permits. All other political parties (including the Civic Party, the Democratic Party, the Labour Party, Demosisto, etc) did not have permits. Under the law, violations can result in a fine plus 3 months in jail. - ... but since these people are "pro-democracy", the normal laws cannot be applied to them. Or else Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch/Hong Kong Watch will scream about political oppression. - (Oriental Daily) January 3, 2018. Over the past several demonstration marches, the political parties had pledged their takings to the Justice Defense Fund. But the practice has been discontinued this time. League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng said that their members have enough legal problems of their own, so they are keeping their receipts to "defend their own justice." The Civic Party, Democratic Party and Demosisto are doing likewise. The problem with the Justice Defense Fund is that the goal posts kept being moved. At first, they were there to support the DQ4 legislative councilors. Then they added the Occupy Central Nine to the list. Who knows how the list is going to be augmented again in order to extend the project? No wonder the political parties are walking away. - Karl Marx used the term "permanent revolution" to describe the strategy of the revolutionary class to pursue its class interests independent and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society. The Hong Kong pro-democracy movement has evolved and refined "permanent revolution" into "permanent crowdfunding." History has shown that this is a green, sustainable and self-perpetuating movement. [848] HK Bar Association vs The Central Government and The People of Hong Kong (2017/12/30) (Hong Kong Bar Association) Statement of the HKBA dated 28 December 2017 on the Decision of the NPCSC of 27 December 2017 on the Co-operation Agreement 1. The Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA) refers to – (a) The Decision of the Standing Committee of 12th National People’s Congress adopted on 27 December 2017 at its 31st Session on Approving the Co-operation Agreement between the Mainland and the HKSAR on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Colocation Arrangement (the NPCSC Co-location Decision); (b) The Explanations given by Director Zhang Xiaoming of the State Council Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office to the NPCSC Session on 22 December 2017 in respect of the Draft NPCSC Co-location Decision (the Explanations); and (c) The Co-operation Agreement between the Mainland and the HKSAR on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement (the Co-operation Agreement) that the HKSAR Government published on 27 December 2017. 2. The HKBA notes that the Co-operation Agreement provides in – (a) Paragraph 2 that the HKSAR provides to the Mainland the Mainland Port Area of the Port at the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station (WKS) of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) for use and exercise of jurisdiction by the Mainland in accordance with the Co-operation Agreement; and that the acquisition, duration and fees for the use of the site of the Mainland Port Area shall be provided by a contract between the said parties. (b) Paragraph 4 that the Mainland Port Area shall, from the date of its commencement of operation, be subject to Mainland jurisdiction in accordance with the Co-operation Agreement and Mainland laws (including judicial jurisdiction), with the Mainland Port Area being regarded as within the Mainland for such purpose. (c) Paragraphs 5 and 6 that Mainland authorities shall be stationed at the Mainland Port Area to carry out duties under Mainland laws in respect of entry/exit border check, customs supervision and examination and quarantine. (d) Paragraph 9 that passengers bound for the HKSAR shall be treated as within the Mainland before they leave the Mainland Port Area and if any one of them contravenes a Mainland law, the Mainland authorities stationed there shall take appropriate legal measures according to the law and the specific circumstances. (e) Paragraph 10 that passengers bound for the Mainland shall be treated as within the Mainland after they have entered the Mainland Port Area and if any one of them contravenes a Mainland law, the Mainland authorities stationed there shall take appropriate legal measures according to the law and the specific circumstances. (f) Paragraph 12 that HKSAR officers may enter the Mainland Port Area to assist in respect of sudden and emergency incidents only at the request and authorization of the Mainland authorities stationing there. 3. On 19 October 2017, the HKBA issued a statement indicating that it has been monitoring the development in respect of the "Three-step Process" closely and will publish its views if and when appropriate. Now that the HKBA has access to the details of the first two steps of the "Three-step Process" following yesterday’s events, we consider it necessary to state our views on the legal and constitutional issues involved. 4. The HKBA refers to the Explanations and considers that its claim at page 5 that the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the HKSAR is the source of authority for the HKSAR to enter into the Co-location Arrangement with the Mainland is erroneous in material respects. The HKBA makes the following observations on the provisions of the Basic Law used to support this claim: (a) The HKSAR’s authority to maintain its own immigration control system pursuant to Article 154(2) of the Basic Law is the reason for the HKSAR, not the Mainland authority, to maintain exit control check for Mainland-bound passengers using the XRL and entry control check for Hong Kong-bound passengers using the XRL. (b) Although the directions in Articles 118 and 119 of the Basic Law for the HKSAR to formulate appropriate policies to promote and co-ordinate the development of various trades and to provide an economic and legal environment for encouraging investments, technological progress and the development of new industries may suggest or make it desirable for the adoption of certain policies by the HKSAR Government to promote, co-ordinate or facilitate economic development, they do not authorize the HKSAR Government to act inconsistently with the systems provided for under the Basic Law. (c) While Article 7 of the Basic Law may enable the HKSAR Government to enter into an agreement with another person in respect of the granting of the use of a piece of land within the HKSAR, it does not authorize the HKSAR Government to divest all institutions of the HKSAR (including the HKSAR courts) from having the jurisdiction they have pursuant to the various provisions of the Basic Law over that piece of land. 5. Accordingly, the HKBA is of the firm view that none of the Basic Law provisions referred to the Explanations provide the source of authority for the Co-location Arrangement in the Co-operation Agreement, the implementation of which will clearly mean the disapplication of the systems of the HKSAR provided for by and under the provisions of the Basic Law, pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and Article 11 of the Basic Law, in respect of the land within the HKSAR at the Mainland Port Area at WKS. Given that Article 11(2) of the Basic Law provides that not even legislation of the HKSAR can contravene Article 11 of the Basic Law, the Co-operation Agreement (being an agreement entered into between the HKSAR Government and the Guangdong Provincial Government), by itself, has no authority to override Article 11. 6. In this regard, the HKBA considers that the suggestion in the Explanations that the Co-location Arrangement does not contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law because Mainland laws only apply to a part of the HKSAR (i.e. the Mainland Port Area) – which will be regarded under the Co-location Arrangement as being situated in the Mainland – and not the entire HKSAR, goes against any plain reading of the Article. Such logic, if extended, is capable of authorizing the application of Mainland laws to any part of the HKSAR designated by the HKSAR Government (e.g. the High Court Building) as long as it does not cover the whole of the HKSAR, and completely by-passes and emasculates the requirement under Article 18(3) of the Basic Law that only national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law shall be applied to the HKSAR. 7. The HKBA is appalled by the NPCSC Co-location Decision, which merely states that the NPCSC approves the Co-operation Agreement and "confirms" that the Co-operation Agreement is consistent with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law without stating how this is so. This is followed by a provision phrased in terms of an "obligation" of the HKSAR to legislate to ensure the implementation of the Co-operation Agreement. This plainly amounts to an announcement by the NPCSC that the Co-operation Agreement complies with the Constitution and the Basic Law "just because the NPCSC says so". Such an unprecedented move is the most retrograde step to date in the implementation of the Basic Law, and severely undermines public confidence in "one country, two systems" and the rule of law in the HKSAR. 8. The NPCSC does not exercise power out of a vacuum. Its functions and powers are provided in Article 67 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, and its functions and powers are prescribed (and circumscribed) in Articles 17, 18, 20, 90, 158, 159 and 160, and Annexes I and II to the Basic Law. The NPCSC must abide by these provisions of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law when it makes a decision in respect of the HKSAR. 9. The HKBA considers that the assertion in the NPCSC Co-location Decision that the stationing of Mainland authorities at the Mainland Port Area at WKS to exercise their duties under Mainland laws there is different from the situation under Article 18 of the Basic Law of national laws being implemented in the whole of the HKSAR begs the question of how this is different. The assertion that it is appropriate to make provision under the Co-operation Agreement to provide for the division of jurisdiction and the application of laws in the WKS Port and to confirm that the Mainland Port Area (a part of the HKSAR) shall be regarded as "being in the Mainland" again begs the question of why this is appropriate. The assertion that the establishment of the Mainland Port Area in the Port at WKS does not alter the extent of the HKSAR, does not affect the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR enjoyed according to law, and does not limit the rights and freedoms the Hong Kong residents enjoy according to law, plainly begs the question of how and why they are so. 10. The NPCSC Co-location Decision is both wholly unconvincing and unsatisfactory in achieving its purported purpose, namely to provide a firm legal basis for the Step 3 local legislation being the last of the "Three-step Process". The Co-location Arrangement’s disapplication of the systems of the HKSAR provided for by and under the provisions of the Basic Law means that the Step 3 local legislation will, by reason of Article 11(2) of the Basic Law, appear to be inconsistent with specific provisions of the Basic Law, including Articles 4, 11, 19, 22(3), 31, 35, 38, 39, 41, 80, 87. The HKBA does not regard as a satisfactory explanation any reliance by the HKSAR Government of the NPCSC Co-location Decision in answer to any of the above questions of inconsistency. 11. The HKBA considers that the NPCSC has, by reason of the NPCSC Co-location Decision and the way the NPCSC has adopted it, generated a strong perception among the legal community in Hong Kong and in the wider legal and political communities outside Hong Kong that the NPCSC is prepared to make decisions at the request of the Chief Executive of the HKSAR and the HKSAR Government under her leadership just because the subject matter concerned "is a good thing", without due regard and respect for the provisions of (and restrictions in) the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law. The HKBA notes, with utmost concern and regret, that such a strong perception will surely impair and undermine the confidence of the local and international communities on the maintenance of the rule of law and the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong, both of which are provided for by the Basic Law, which was enacted pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Through the combined efforts of the HKSAR Government, the State Council and the NPCSC in producing NPCSC Co-location Decision, the integrity of the Basic Law has now been irreparably breached. Internet comments: - History: September 16, 2017. Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association (“HKBA”) in Response to News Reports Regarding HKBA’s Stance on the Co-location Arrangement 1. The HKBA is deeply concerned about certain news reports on the alleged disclosure of the discussion within the Bar Council concerning the Co-location Arrangement ("News Reports"). These news reports, which appeared in the past 2 days, include references to an internal paper prepared for the Bar Council’s consideration by the Bar Council’s subcommittee on Constitutional Affairs & Human Rights ("Paper"). 2. The HKBA is aware that a Court hearing has been fixed towards the end of this month for argument to be heard on legal issues arising from the Co-location Arrangement. In these circumstances, the Bar Council has resolved that it is inappropriate to comment on the relevant legal matters at this stage. Further, in light of the fact that discussions of the Bar Council are confidential, the HKBA will not be making any substantive response to the News Reports. HKBA wishes to emphasise that all decisions of the Bar Council (including the decision to issue this Statement) are the result of the collective deliberations of the Bar Council with the benefit of full and candid discussions. 3. However, in order to dispel any misunderstanding in relation to the HKBA’s position on the Co-location Arrangement and for the avoidance of doubt, we must emphasize that the Bar Council is still considering and discussing the various complicated and multi-faceted legal issues arising from the Co-location Arrangement, and the Paper forms part of this continuing process. The HKBA emphasizes that it has not yet made a decision or adopted a position on whether the Co-location Arrangement is or is not permissible under the Basic Law. 4. News Reports of what transpired in the Bar Council’s discussion are incorrect and misleading. The HKBA strongly denounces the misrepresentations made to the media and the disclosure of HKBA’s internal material in breach of confidentiality. It is deeply regrettable that this may have caused the public to misunderstand the HKBA’s position on the Colocation Arrangement. October 19, 2017. Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association (“HKBA”) in Relation to the Co-location Arrangement 1. The HKBA notes the public discussions concerning the legal and constitutional issues in relation to the Government’s Proposed Co-location Arrangement. 2. The HKBA urges the Government to keep the general public timeously informed of the details of the "Three-step Process" to facilitate a proper, constructive and rational discussion on the legal and constitutional issues involved. 3. The HKBA is monitoring the development closely, and will publish its views if and when appropriate. (SCMP) Legal eagles led by Philip Dykes to run in Hong Kong Bar Association polls, vowing to ‘stand fearlessly’ for judicial independence. December 23, 2017. Shock waves were sent through Hong Kong’s legal circles on Friday after it emerged that a star-studded line-up – led by prominent human rights lawyer Philip Dykes SC – will contest the Bar Association election next month amid criticism that the legal body has recently been less vocal in defending the city’s rule of law. Dykes – who was chairman of the Bar Council, the association’s governing body, in 2005 and 2006 – will run for the same post again after a decade. Joining him are several legal heavyweights aiming for council membership, including Lawrence Lok Ying-kam SC and Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, the former law dean of the University of Hong Kong and the city’s first and so far only honorary senior counsel in Hong Kong. Barristers Erik Shum Sze-man, Joe Chan Wai-yin and Randy Shek form the remaining three on the six-person list, which has the campaign slogan: “A strong bar, a strong rule of law”. “Our vision is a strong bar that stands up fearlessly for the rule of law and judicial independence,” the group said in a statement. “We want to work closely with our young members who represent the future. We believe in healthy competition.” Dykes is set to run against incumbent chairman Paul Lam Ting-kwok SC, who earlier hinted at securing a second term. It is rare for any incumbent chairman to face competition, with an unspoken rule that the person stays in the post for two years. The Bar Association courted controversy in October for issuing only a three-paragraph statement responding to the controversial joint checkpoint plan for a cross-border express rail link to mainland China. A number of lawyers and scholars, including Johannes Chan, questioned the legal basis for the proposal, which would for the first time allow mainland officials to enforce national laws in part of the rail terminus in Hong Kong. In the statement, the Bar Association only “noted” public discussions concerning the legal and constitutional basis of the joint checkpoint arrangement, and “urged” the government to keep the general public informed to facilitate a constructive discussion, pledging to “monitor” developments closely. Shek said they decided to run as they foresaw several controversial legal issues that could arise from coming events in the current political climate. These included the enactment of a local version of the national anthem law and the introduction of national security legislation. “We hope the Bar Association can contribute to society by issuing a clear stance [on these issues] as Hongkongers have great expectations of the body,” Shek told the Post. “The association has the duty to be seen by society as a professional body that would defend the city’s principles, rule of law and judicial independence.” Shek, also a member of the Progressive Lawyers Group, said most of the current Bar Council members focused on civil law with very few specialising in criminal law and public law. “There will be a lot of debates on constitutional matters in the coming two years and we hope we can bring our knowledge and experience to the council,” he added, describing Dykes and Johannes Chan as “impeccable” in their knowledge of public law. When asked if Paul Lam’s performance was the catalyst triggering them to run, Shek said they were neither targeting anyone nor planning to take over the council, which consisted of 20 members. “We are not focusing on what has [been improperly done] in the past, but more on what we can do in the future.” The Bar Council election will take place on January 18. - Election campaign consultants and pollsters tell "leftist" candidates that they should "move to the right" and "campaign to the center" with positions that are "between the 'left' and the 'right'." This is the way, they say, to "attract swing voters." For example, let us suppose that the voters are divided into 33% leftists, 34% centrists and 33% rightists. Campaigning as a true-blue leftist will get you 33% + 17% = 50%. Campaigning as a centrist and positioning your opponent as an extremist whacko rightwing thug will get you 33% + 34% = 67%. That is the calculus. In the Hong Kong Bar Association elections, the incumbent Paul Lam has to move to the left in order to defang his opponent. And that is why the December 28th 2017 statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association has such a belligerent tone. Lam may just win the HKBA election, but only at the cost of losing popular support for his organization. - People who overdo triangulation usually end up losing because they are perceived as insincere and cynical. - What is the end game of this fight against the Co-location Arrangement? In the short term, the Co-location Arrangement may be shelved via judicial reviews in Hong Kong and the High Speed Rail will not depart from West Kowloon Station as scheduled even though the service will be ready to go. Hongkongers who want to use the High Speed Rail can take local transportation (bus/subways) to Guangzhou South. But instead of 48 minutes via High Speed Rail, they take more than 3 hours. They will know that their time is being wasted for which they will blame the pan-democrats and the Hong Kong Bar Association with their politicking. - Economic Times/Sky Post online poll

Yesterday, the National People's Congress Standing Committee voted unanimously to pass the Co-Location Arrangement. Do you believe that this arrangement is consistent with One Country Two Systems and the Basic Law? (1120 respondents) 79%: Yes 19%: No 2%: No opinion In the long term, the National People's Congress Standing Committee may introduce an amendment to the Basic Law to enable the Co-location Arrangement. Since the NPCSC is the highest legislative authority in China, there will be no possibility of judicial reviews by Hong Kong courts. High Speed Rail users will applaud this development. The amendment will open the way for further NPCSC actions including the enactment of Article 23 National Security. - According to Cable TV, HKSAR Basic Law Committee deputy chairperson Elsie Leung noted that Basic Law Article 158 is relevant to any judicial review of this National People's Congress Standing Committee decision: when the courts of Hong Kong consider affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, they shall, before making their final judgments which are not appealable, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through the Court of Final Appeal. When the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of the provisions concerned, the courts of the Region, in applying those provisions, shall follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee. - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 30, 2017. I have not previously written about the Co-location Arrangement because I felt that it was an unnecessary question: "Would you like to haul your luggage and be inspected once or twice?" What kind of stupid question is this? ... A couple days ago, legislative councilor Tanya Chan led the Co-location Concern Group to demonstrate outside the West Kowloon Station. On that day, there was a total of nine demonstrators (seven men and two women). In mathematics, this is a single digit number. NOW TV gave this group a 90-second on-air report. They described the size of the group as "about 10 persons" so that the count was now a two-digit number. Still, NOW TV considers a 9-person demonstration to be a newsworthy event. ... And then we have the government television station RTHK. The National People's Congress Standing Committee has just passed a resolution on Hong Kong. Immediately, the RTHK Facebook posted a 1:44 minute Commercial Radio interview of legislative councilor Tanya Chan. We have no idea what Li Fei, or Carrie Lam, or Rimsky Yuen think or say. We only have 1:44 minutes of Tanya Chan. Worse yet, this video was made not by RTHK but by its competitor Commercial Radio. Why is RTHK running promotions for a politician and its rival station? As Tanya Chan likes to say, the government is forcibly raping public opinion with the Co-location Arrangement. But wouldn't it be really forcible rape if the government decide to foist the preference of nine persons (seven men and two women) upon the people of Hong Kong? - If the pan-democrats and the Hong Kong Bar Association cannot beat the National People's Congress Standing Committee on their home ground, they will have to seek international help. But both United Staes and United Kingdom will be embarrassed because they have their own co-location arrangements up and running for many years already. How are they supposed to argue against themselves? - Any comments by the United States or the United Kingdom will be rebutted by Hua Chun-ying as interference with the internal affairs of China. So this is just shadow boxing. Besides, even American and British politicians know to pick issues that they can sell to their own constituents. In this case, how they tell their constituents that Hong Kong travelers should be forced to get off in the middle of their journey for customs/immigration/quarantine? As much as the Hong Kong Bar Association wants to, they cannot go to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, because the latter does not have jurisdiction over Hong Kong affairs. If the United Kingdom goes to the United Nations over the apparent violation of the Joint Sino-British Declaration, there is no case because both signatories must agree to be heard. - High Speed Rail did not exist in 1984, so how could the Joint Sino-British Declaration have anything to say about it one way or the other? It gets back to common sense: "Which would you prefer -- hauling your luggage to be inspected once or twice?" If your reading of the Joint Sino-British Declaration leads you to conclude that the answer must be twice, then you should seek an appointment with a psychiatrist. - (HKG Pao) December 30, 2017. In the legend of the Gordian knot, Alexander of Macedonia untied the intricate knot by a simple stroke of his sword. This is often used as a metaphor for solving a seemingly intractable problem by creative thinking ("cutting the Gordian knot"). In the matter of the Co-location Arrangement, "thinking inside the box" would mean debating the texts of Basic Law articles 2, 18, 20, 118 and 119 with the pan-democratic legislative councilors and senior barristers. Do you think that you will ever get anywhere with them? They will enjoy it and they may even be handsomely paid for their work in the judicial reviews. But you should not expect to ever reach resolution. "Thinking outside the box" requires just answering a few questions with obvious answers: (1) Under One Country Two Systems, which stands higher: the Country or the HKSAR? Answer: The Country. (2) China is a rule-of-law and not rule-of-man country. Which is the highest legislative body in China? More pertinently, which legislative body has the highest power of interpretation under the Basic Law? Answer: The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. (3) The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has discussed and voted to pass the Co-location Arrangement. Does that imply legal authority? Answer: Yes. (4) As Li Fei said, the decision of the highest legislative body of the country is the law. Does that imply legal basis? Answer: Yes. (5) When the highest legislative body in the People's Republic of China voted to pass certain laws for the HKSAR, can it be overruled by a bunch of pan-democrats and senior barristers in Hong Kong? Answer: No. - (SCMP) Hong Kong lawyers can oppose the joint checkpoint plan for the high-speed rail, but they should not deny its legal basis. By Ronny Tong. January 2, 2018. I have been a member of the Hong Kong Bar for over 40 years and have the highest respect for its council. I also firmly believe that when a professional body deals with an important issue, it must do so in a fair and professional way, and always be on guard to avoid using emotive and intemperate rhetoric. This is particularly so when it comes to interpreting a constitutional document like the Basic Law. You can therefore imagine my shock and sadness at reading the Bar Association’s statement on the co-location clearance proposal of the Hong Kong government for the cross-border rail link, and on the corresponding decision by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee relating to that. Don’t get me wrong; I respect the association’s view and do not expect it to coincide with mine. But I also expect a more restrained and measured statement, much in the vein of the statements that previous Bar Councils – the governing body of the association – have issued in the past. The dispute over the legality of the co-location proposal comes down to one question: is it in contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law? This article, which defines the very essence of “one country, two systems”, reads, “National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong SAR except those listed in Annex III to this law … [which] shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the region as specified by this law.” But what does it mean? Our Court of Final Appeal has said on many occasions in interpreting the Basic Law that it is an aspirational document and one must adopt a purposive interpretation. This means the Basic Law is forward-looking and not enslaved by dated concepts. When we read the Basic Law, we must read it as a whole, try to discern its purpose, and give effect to it in accordance with such a purpose. Adopting this approach, at least one reading of Article 18 is that its purpose is to prevent Chinese national law from applying to the whole of Hong Kong, thereby undermining “one country, two systems” and, in particular, the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. On this reading, if the proposed co-location clearance arrangement has no such effect but, on the contrary, is necessitated by economic development, then Article 18 is not contravened. In any event, there is a separate legal argument for the proposal. If local law is eventually passed “deeming” the immigration and customs clearance area that has been leased to mainland authorities as being outside the borders of Hong Kong, then Article 18 will not be engaged either. If so, it follows that the other provisions of the Basic Law will provide the necessary powers to the special administrative region government to set up the co-location border control. Such is the legal basis of the proposal. You can say this legal basis is weak, or even wrong. But you cannot say there is no legal basis at all; nor can you say Article 18 admits of no such reading at all. Nor can you then build on this restricted view to make the accusation that the rule of law is being “severely undermined”. There is another disturbing aspect. If there is a legal basis for the proposal – albeit one you do not agree with – then there was a procedure whereby the arguments in support were put forward openly in writing, and officials from the SAR government were invited to participate in meetings where the proposal was discussed, then voted upon by the NPC Standing Committee. Thus, one cannot say this is a case of “mere say so” by the NPC Standing Committee. One may disagree with the procedure, challenge its representativeness, or disagree strongly with the final decision, but it was no “mere say so”. Besides, the NPC Standing Committee is the highest executive, constitutional and legal authority in the land and its decision on any view deserves some measure of respect, even if you strongly disagree with it. This is all the more so under “one country, two systems”. Not respecting the NPC Standing Committee is akin to not respecting the “one country” of “one country, two systems”, and if we don’t respect the “one country”, how can we expect the “one country” to respect the “two systems”? - Johannes Chan's argument is that the international financial community will have lose its confidence in Hong Kong if they see how the National People's Congress Standing Committee can intercede so freely. The counter-argument is that the international financial community will lose its confidence in Hong Kong if they see that the Hong Kong legal eagles are powerful enough to cut off the economic benefits of a High Speed Rail service against all economic rationale. - Former Bar Association chairman Paul W.T. Hsieh said that the whole NPCSC decision was built upon "air". Well, actually, how did he think One Country Two Systems came about? Was there any basis within the Constitution of the People's Republic of China? Were there any precedents anywhere else in the world? No, it all came because one person (Deng Xiao-ping) thought so and ordered a Basic Law Draft Committee to proceed. That was about as rule-of-man as possible. Will the Hong Kong Bar Association challenged the lack of a constitutional basis for One Country Two Systems/Hong Kong Basic Law? - (SCMP) December 23, 2017. In 2003, the Bar Association – then led by Civic Party veteran Alan Leong Kah-kit SC – played a key role in opposing legislation on a national security law. The bill was eventually shelved after 500,000 people took to the streets, fearing their rights and freedoms would be curbed. - In 2003, it was the Bar Association and the People vs. the Central Government/Hong Kong SAR Government. Fearmongering against the national security law lined the People up with the Bar Association. In 2017, it was the Bar Association vs. the People and the Central Government/Hong Kong SAR Government. Any normal person can see that the Co-location Arrangement will make travel easier for common folks and that this will be good for the long-term economic prosperity of Hong Kong. If the law stands in the way, it should be brushed aside. It is impossible to argue against travel convenience and economic prosperity. - (Bastille Post) When Paul Lam's team faces Philip Dykes' team next month in the HKBA elections, it will be just like the moderate pan-democrats running into the extremist Localists in a Legislative Council election. Under pressure from the radicals, the moderate incumbent Paul Lam has to be just as radical as the radicals. - In 2017, the poster boy for the fearmongering campaign against the Co-location Arrangement was Howard Lam Tsz-kin (#775 and #778).

Lam does not want to be forgotten, so here is his latest missive:

I have been maligned for too long; I have almost lost my opportunity for advanced studies at Yale University. This has hurt the bodies and minds of me and my family. Today, the Hong Kong court may not be able to render justice on my behalf. But some day you will eventually find out that I was innocent and framed. This has been thoroughly a case of cross-border enforcement, including torture, imprisonment, etc. (*I hope that when the case officially to try, you will carefully scrutinize the so-called evidence. If you just look at it superficially, it will be like a blind man feeling the elephant and make you believe the superficial evidence. You must think carefully and then you will perceive the absurdity!" *** I think some of my genuine friends for believing and supporting me! I will keep my promise to continue even if I have to die! This is not my personal issue; I have the duty to be faithful to Hong Kong history. - Indeed. That is why we must all get together on New Year's Day to march to stop the Co-location Arrangement. Our slogan will be "We are all Lam Tsz-kin!" - How not to mobilize public opinion: (Oriental Daily) December 30, 2017.

At around 6am, a citizen call the police that there was a vertical banner (3 meters by 25 meters) hanging down from Lion Rock. Because the banner was not securely fastened, the top fell down. This means that the banner was hung backwards and upside down. There were concerns that the banner could fall down on the road underneath and endanger traffic safety. The words on the banner were "defend Hong Kong." Several firefighters were taken to Lion Rock peak by a Civil Aviation Department helicopter to remove the banner. - In Chinese custom, hanging a banner upside down means that you support the anti-message. Like the thumbs-up and thumbs-down signs. [847] Un-Green Un-Peace (2017/12/25) (SCMP) December 21, 2017. A Greenpeace protest ended in a fiasco on Thursday as 19 members involved in a plot to storm the 60-metre-high observation wheel at the Central waterfront were arrested by police. The recently reopened attraction was forced to cease operations for the day, prompting disappointed visitors to criticise the green group for being “selfish”. Eleven women and eight men were arrested. Five were at the site taking part in the event, according to police. They were arrested for causing a nuisance in a public place. Superintendent Chan Hin-kwan of Central Police Station said the activists were on the wheel for more than six hours. They climbed down soon before 1.30pm. Chan said the force condemned the activists’ act for endangering their own safety as well as that of bystanders and for causing disorder in a public place. Some metal objects fell to the ground while they were climbing the wheel, police said. Detectives from the Hong Kong Island Regional Crime Unit are handling the case. Greenpeace campaigner Andy Chu Kong said the original plan was to hang a banner on the wheel in the early morning as a protest against uncontrolled plastic waste pollution and to remove it by 11am, when the wheel was open to the public. “But there was a sudden wind, which damaged the large banner. That was unexpected. We needed to consider the safety of our [climbers],” Chu said. “We would like to apologise to all affected citizens and visitors. But we hope Hongkongers, businesses and the government can understand that the problem of plastic pollution cannot be left unrestrained any more,” he added. On Thursday morning, Chu told the Post that the group had considered the legal risks before their protest and would be responsible for what they did. Twelve Greenpeace members in orange suits and safety helmets were spotted climbing the wheel on Thursday early morning. A man alerted the police at 7.15am. More than 40 firefighters, including those from the high angle rescue team, paramedics and police officers were sent with an air cushion to handle the situation described as “persons in dangerous position” in the incident report. A Greenpeace spokesman said the climbers were trying to hang a banner 12 metres high and 30 metres wide on the wheel. On the banner were four large Chinese characters saying “Plastic-free Now”. The action was designed to raise public awareness on plastic use “in a most straightforward way, on a landmark of the city and during the morning traffic peak when people are on their way to work,” Chu said. The observation wheel would not open at all on Thursday due to the action of Greenpeace, chief operating officer Robyn Joseph said. The operator previously anticipated that the wheel might be able to resume services at 6pm and visitors holding tickets could take their rides until 11pm, the normal closing time for the attraction. “Representatives from the Fire Services Department and our technical staff are still in the wheel cutting free the banner, and ropes that Greenpeace’s protesters were incapable of removing,” Joseph said on Thursday evening. A full assessment of the wheel, which could take a few hours, would be carried out after the banner was removed, she added. Disappointed visitors criticised the activists for being “selfish”. “Originally I supported them, but now I oppose them … Greenpeace can protest below [the observation wheel],” said Jacqueline Yan, who has lived in Norway for more than 30 years and recently returned to Hong Kong for a month-long holiday. She arrived at 11am and planned to take the wheel with her husband, but left disappointed after waiting for more than two hours. “They can freely express their opinion to the government but should not affect others,” Yan said. Lo Pak-kai, who had come from Sheung Shui to Central to ride the wheel with his wife on their day off, was also very disappointed. “I think the protesters are very selfish,” Lo said. He had chosen to take the ride on Thursday as ticket prices were reduced when the wheel reopened on Wednesday after a dispute between the former and current operators. The fare was cut from HK$100 to HK$20 per person. (Agence France Presse) Greenpeace attempts to display banner on Hong Kong ferris wheel. December 21, 2017. Members of environmental group Greenpeace attempt to display a banner that reads "Plastic Free Now" on the 60-metre (196-foot) high ferris wheel in Hong Kong during a protest against single-use plastics, but are taken into police custody after they came down. Comments: - (Speakout HK) Yesterday Greenpeace members climbed the Central ferris wheel to hang out a "Time to skip plastic" banner to call the government to pay attention to the plastic pollution problem. But the banner was damaged by high winds and the action "failed." Nineteen persons were arrested by the police for creating a "public nuisance." In this age when protests are as regular as meals, even Greenpeace supporters don't support them. When I was in university, my sociology professor invited the Greenpeace director to speak to us about 'resistance.' At the time, the speaker said that Greenpeace use "creative" methods of resistance to air their demands. As a 20-something-year-old, I was very impressed by these innovative and attention-grabbing ideas. In recent years, Greenpeace actions often involve "creative" methods such as having members/volunteers climb to high spots to hang out banners. This may be "creative" but it is also risky. For example, when the Greenpeace members climbed up the ferris wheel this time, they may have accidents even though they have received professional training? Or they may affect the structure of the ferris wheel when they get up there? Or they will place others persons (policemen, firemen, emergency service workers, etc) in danger? Is this necessary? Meanwhile the citizens have become inured or even hostile to such methods which no longer arouse public attention. I suggest that Greenpeace and other environmental protection groups find some legal but not dangerous ways to express their demands. If they don't think this is enough, they can run more online campaigns which should get even more attention. The notion of "creative resistance" is outdated. I don't mean to say that "resistance" is outdated. I mean to say that using dangerous methods to resist is wrong. Nobody wants to see resisters or innocent others get injured in dangerous situations or even die. - (SCMP) ‘Liking, sharing Facebook posts won’t bring change’: Hong Kong Greenpeace activist urges city to wake up ... and smell the wasteJune 24, 2017. - The people of Hong Kong are just pigs that must be led to the trough in order to be fed. That is why we need Leninist vanguardism such as Greenpeace to lead the pigs. - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 24, 2017. I have always supported environmentalism. I donated money regularly to environmental conservation/protection groups. But ever since the environmental protector Eddie Chu Hoi Dick was elected Legislative Council, I began to re-think about whether I should give money to those who sabotage society while claiming to be "protecting society." Eddie Chu was elected with the highest number of votes in New Territories West more or less because people were sick of the business-as-usual ways of the pro-establishment and non-establishment camps. They wanted to give the "rookie" a try. All along, this "rookie" had been hiding in his dream cave without competing in the cruel world. So once he came out, he only knew to CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE!, and his actions were even more unthinkable than the traditional opposition camp. The bull spirit has extended into the entire environmental protection movement. A few days ago, 19 Greenpeace demonstrators climbed up the Central ferris wheel to hold an "Occupy ferris wheel" movement. As a result, the ferris wheel was shut down for the entire day and several thousand visitors were turned away. Interviews at the scene as well as online opinions were united unanimously against the Occupy people, who were said to be selfish and indifferent to safety considerations. The people wanted the operator to seek civil damages and the police to press criminal charges. After watching this "Occupy ferris wheel" incident, I have made the decision to discontinue all donations to environmental conservation/protection groups. Today Greenpeace is no longer peaceful; they are the same ilk as the oppositionists. When 19 persons climb up the ferris wheel, how much manpower, resources and money had to be spent to bring them down safely? How much time and money have they wasted of tourists, lovers, children and families? I don't know what they mean to express when they shut the ferris wheel down for the day. I only know whom they had harmed. From the Copyrights Bill (Amendment) to the Medical Registration Ordinance to the Co-location Arrangement to the amending of the Legislative Council rules of procedure, the oppositions used filibusters so much that the citizens hate them and even their supporters are demoralized. One after another mass mobilization yielded paltry responses. Public opinion had been the oppositionists' main weapon in their arsenal but they are losing it now. This time, they risked their lives to occupy the ferris wheel. They couldn't buy a LIKE if their lives depended on it; instead, they got a ton of boos. People are turning away from them now. Recently Chinese University of Hong Kong Department of Government and Public Administration senior lecturer Ivan Choy Chi-keung wrote: Filibustering has been over-used and become routinized. As such, it has been overspent with no aura left ... the pan-democrats have always been a minority within the Legislative Council. In 2003, they did not win because of the Legco voting, but because they were able to join with the society outside to form a massive opposition front. If the pan-democrats lose public backing, they have nothing left." By comparison, Joshua Wong announced immediately after he came out of jail: "How come there are only several hundred people at these assemblies? ... Nowadays the assemblies are more like press conferences than mass assemblies." At least Ivan Choy was willing to reflect on the causes and consequences. But since the oppositionists chose to make a bunch of Yellow Guards lead the way, will anyone listen to old farts like Ivan Choy anymore? - Greenpeace took this action in order to draw public attention. They drew a lot of public attention. Greenspace was looking for a huge public reaction. They got a huge public reaction. Mission accomplished? Not really. Not when the huge public reaction was mostly negative (as in, "I will never ever donate another cent to any environmental conservation/protection cause.") - The Greenpeace action was directly based on the Occupy Central modus perandi. Occupy Central has the goal of "genuine universal suffrage". Greenpace wanted to stop plastic pollution. The government won't implement "genuine universal suffrage" or ban plastic use. Occupy Central took Central (plus Causeway Bay and Mong Kok) hostage. Greenpeace held the Central ferris wheel hostage. When the victims in Central (plus Causeway Bay and Mong Kok) got angry, Occupy Central told them that it is the government's fault. When the ferris wheel visitors got angry, Greenpeace told them that it is the government's fault. Actually the people ended up hating Occupy Central and whatever their causes were. And now the people are hating Greenpeace and whatever their cause was. Same old noble goals, wrong methods and bad consequences. - And they never seem to learn because they keep recycling this failed model. - Well, actually, the most important thing is to have skin as thick as a dinosaur's hide. Look at the case of Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je: - (NDTV) October 14, 2014. Taipei City mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je said about Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement: "If the government chooses to suppress this pursuit for universal values, then it is wrong as well as unworkable. More suppression will only lead to greater resistance by the people. Therefore from my personal angle, I think that the Hong Kong government has taken certain measures that are failures." - (The Stand News) December 25, 2017. In Taipei, labor groups organized a demonstration march. The organizers said that the march would be over by 6pm, but the demonstrators refused to leave. They occupied the roads outside the Executive Yuan as well as in Ximending to continue to protest. Early morning, the police cleared the scene and took away 80 persons including lawyers. Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je insisted that he respects the right of the people to protest. But blocking the streets and paralyzing traffic is more than what he can tolerated. "This is not allowed." So all you have to do is to declare victory regardless of the actual circumstances. - Greenpeace needs to imitate the Tai Mo Shan Woman. Instead of apologizing to the policemen, firemen and emergency workers, they should be attacking them: "On one hand, it is my life and the Basic Law says that I have the freedom to go wherever I want. If I want to put my life in danger, then I am fully responsible for it. On the other hand, you are highly paid public servants. It is your job to save me if I get in trouble." [846] HK01's Tiananmen Square Report (2017/12/24) (Hong Kong Free Press) December 22, 2017. The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) said it was extremely concerned over news site HK01 allegedly pulling reports on details of the Tiananmen massacre recorded in declassified UK files. The files contained telegrams sent by then-British ambassador Alan Donald to the foreign office. Donald cited a member of the Chinese State Council as estimating that at least 10,000 civilians were killed in the crackdown on June 4, 1989. HK01 published two reports on the documents on Wednesday morning but they were taken down within hours. HKJA said the reports were only republished at 5 pm after demands from HK01’s news department, and after multiple changes had been made, including the Chinese translation for “member of the Chinese State Council.” The Association said it understood that HK01 planned two days of coverage, but Thursday’s coverage was pulled.

“We are extremely concerned about self-censorship owing to the political sensitivity of the reports,” HKJA said in a statement. “It is suspicious for HK01 to publish the first batch of reports, retract them, and republish only after modifications. It is also unusual for the second batch of reports to be shelved, causing worries over political factors.” The HK01 website was launched in January 2016 and its weekly publication was launched in March of that year. Often carrying breaking news, investigative reports and political gossip stories citing unidentified sources, the site has been criticised for its conservative, if not pro-Beijing editorials. It courted controversy after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was spotted at the newspaper’s launch party. In one of the reports republished on Wednesday, the phrase “over 10,000 civilians dead” was removed from the headline, and “27 Army shooting soldiers” was changed to “27 Army shooting – students and soldiers both shot.” Among the paragraphs removed in the updated version of the report was a quote from the documents: “Students understood they were given one hour to leave square but after five minutes APCs [armoured personnel carriers] attacked. Students linked arms but were mown down including soldiers. APCs then ran over bodies time and time again to make ‘PIE’ and remains collected by bulldozer.”

The updated version also removed information from the document including the name of the commander of the 27 Army of Shanxi Province, the troop responsible for the massacre. Its commander was Yang Zhenhua, the nephew of Yang Shangkun, China’s president at the time. “[The 27 Army] were kept without news for ten days and told they were to take part in exercise,” another quote removed from the report said. HKJA said Lung King-cheong, chief editor of HK01, denied that the news site pulled the first batch of reports. He said they made changes after considering news angles. He also told HKJA that he did not know about the second batch of reports as he never saw them. HKJA also said that Chik Pun-yip, HK01’s executive chief editor, did not directly confirm whether the second batch was shelved. He said two reports were already published on Wednesday and there was no plan to publish more related reports. Apple Daily cited unnamed “HK01 internal sources” as saying that the outlet’s owner Yu Pun-hoi ordered the reports published on Wednesday to be retracted. Comments: - With respect to the media nowadays, the rule is to always go to the source and then you can re-read the readings and interpretations imposed by the reporters/editors. For example, you should always read the judge's reason for a verdict instead of the newspaper's 100 word summary written in accordance with the political position of the newspaper. In this case, HK01 has provided the photocopy of the original document written in English. (HK01 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/140801/-%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E5%AF%86%E6%AA%94-%E8%8B%B1%E5%BC%95%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E5%9C%8B%E5%8B%99%E9%99%A2%E6%88%90%E5%93%A1-27%E8%BB%8D%E6%8E%83%E5%B0%84-%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E5%A3%AB%E5%85%B5%E7%9A%86%E4%B8%AD%E6%A7%8D )

- (Hong Kong Citizen News https://www.hkcnews.com/article/8972/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF01-%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B-%E4%BA%8E%E5%93%81%E6%B5%B78972/%E3%80%8A%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF01%E3%80%8B%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E8%A7%A3%E5%AF%86%E6%96%87%E4%BB%B6%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93%E4%B8%80%E5%BA%A6%E4%B8%8B%E6%9E%B6%E5%A4%9A%E8%99%95%E4%BF%AE%E6%94%B9%E5%A2%9E%E5%88%AA%E5%BE%8C%E5%86%8D%E5%88%8A%E5%87%BA ) December 21, 2017. The HK01 report first issued at 830am had the heading: 27 (British cited State Council personnel: 27 Army shooting; students, soldiers both shot).

Chinese State Council information; 27 Army shooting soldiers; more than 10,000 civilians dead). At around 11am, the link went to "404 OOPS! Can't locate web page." By night, the link was restored to a revised report with the heading 27 (British cited Chinese

HK01 editor-in-chief Lung King-cheong said that the reason had nothing to do with any HK01 position with respect to the June 4th incident. Instead, there were problems with the reporting. "The report was not well-written." He said that the original report contained misleading content. A comparison of the two versions (morning versus evening) showed these major differences: (morning title) British cited Chinese State Council information; 27 Army shooting soldiers; more than 10,000 civilians dead (evening title) (British cited Chinese State Council personnel: 27 Army shooting; students, soldiers both shot (morning version) The HK01 reporter read several thousands of declassified files at the National Archives (United Kingdom) and restored history (evening version) The HK01 reporter read declassified files at the National Archives (United Kingdom) (morning version) In one of the files dated the day after the bloody suppression by the People's Liberation Army, the British ambassador Alan Donald received information from a committee member of the Chinese State Council (member of State Council) with details on the clearance mission of the 27th Army, including "random" shooting" to kill students, civilians and unarmed soldiers of the Shenyang Military Region. The internal estimate of the State Council is that at least 10,000 citizens died. (evening version) In one of the files dated the day after the clearance by the People's Liberation Army, the British ambassador Alan Donald received information from a member of the Chinese State Council about the clearance mission of the 27th Army. During the process, some students, civilians and unarmed soldiers of the Shenyang Military Region were shot. (morning version) The identity of the source who cited the information from the Chinese State Council was blacked out. (evening version) The identity of the source of information was blacked out, and therefore so far unknown (morning version) In another telegraph from Donald to London, there is a detailed description of how a committee member of the Chinese State Council (member of State Council) provided information to a source for the British. (evening version) In another telegraph from Donald to London, there is a detailed description of how a member of State Council provided information to a source for the British. Compared to other United Kingdom Foreign Office files, information from ordinary workers is most often attributed to "staff" and "member" can be translated as "member" or "staff." (morning version) At the time, there were 14 committee members within the Chinese State Council, including the premier, vice premiers and the Foreign Affairs Committee members. (evening version) [This entire sentence was deleted] (morning version) Donald's telegraph said that the information from this senior Chinese person has proven to be accurate in the past. The source also classified individual information as FACT, SPECULATION or RUMOUR. (evening version) Donald's telegraph said that the information from this senior Chiense person has proved to be accurate in the past. The document also listed clearly that the Chinese source has classified individual information as FACT, SPECULATION or RUMOUR. (morning version) The document pointed out that the "atrocities" were carried out by the 27th Army from Shanxi. 60% of those soldiers are illiterate. The commander of the 27th Army was Yang Zhenhua, the nephew of State Chairman and Central Military Commission vice-chairman Yang Shangkun. That is, he is the son of Yang Baibing. The 27th Army soldiers were told that they were on a training mission in Beijing to be filmed. They were not allowed to watch news for the ten days preceding the clearance. (evening version) [The entire paragraph was deleted.] (morning version) The armored vehicles arrived and opened fire. Unarmed soldiers and students were shot to death. (evening version) The armored vehicles arrived and opened fire. Unarmed soldiers and students were shot. (morning version) Students understood they were given one hour to leave square but after five minutes APCs attacked. Students linked arms but were mown down including soldiers. APCs then ran over bodies time and time again to make quote PIE quote and remains collected by bulldozen. (evening version) [The entire paragraph was replaced.] During the clearance on June 4th, there were reports of army tanks running over students, including the student Fang Zheng who narrated his own experience. But there has rarely been any information, reports or oral narration of tanks running over soldiers by mistake. (morning version) "The cruel and bloody night" 10,000 estimated dead (evening version) There are multiple versions of the number of deaths (morning version) The source inside the Chinese State Council confirmed that Yang Shangkun is friendly with Deng Xiaoping (evening version) The person quoted in the document confirmed that Yang Shangkun is friendly with Deng Xiaoping. (morning version) Finally the document pointed out that the State Council estimated that the minimum number of civilian deaths is 10,000 (minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000). (evening version) Finally, that State Council person estimated that the minimum number of civilian deaths is 10,000 (minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000). (morning version) Over the years, there have been many versions of the number of deaths. The Chinese Red Cross estimated between 2,600 and 30,000. In 2014, cited declassified White House files which cites an informant within the Chinese martial law forces who cited internal Chinese documents to say that 8,726 persons were killed at Tiananmen and Changan Avenue. Together with the 1,728 killed in Beijing outside of Tiananmen, the total number of deaths should be 10,454. This is similarly to the estimate from the Chinese State Council source cited by the British. (evening version) [The entire paragraph was replaced.] In 2008, Tiananmen Mothers representative Ding Zilin summarized that the total number of dead was 188 after 19 years of searching. Of these, 71 were students. She emphasized that this was surely not the total number of dead, and the bodies of 13 of these have not been found yet. ... HK01 editor-in-chief Lung King-cheong said that the original report was inaccurate and misleading in places. For example, the "member of State Council" is not necessarily a "committee member " as in the original report. Even the "staff " in the revised report is not necessarily accurate but at least it can be interpreted as a "member". Since this was the principal source of information, it must be accurately presented. Who decided to make these changes? Did the HK01 owner Yu Pun-hoi take part? Lung King-cheong replied: "I don't want to tell you because this is an internal matter. Why should I tell you? Yu Pun-hoi, Lung King-cheong and Ernest Chi (Executive Editor-in-Chief) will bear the responsibility for these revisions." He added: "Whether Yu Pun-hoi took part or not is unimportant. Because I told you what I just said as the Editor-in-Chief. I am good enough to tell you. This is the way HK01 is." Does this case involve editorial independence? "What is editorial independence? I want to ask you just what is editorial independence? If this same essay were to be placed in either Wen Wei Po or Apple Daily, then Wen Wei Po and Fat Man Lai will have their own ways of handling it. If Wen Wei Po does it their way, is that editorial independence? If Fat Man Lai does it his way, is that editorial independence? Come on! Is that what you think editorial independence is about? Can the reporter or the editor act independently? Or is it decided by me as the Editor-in-Chief?" Why was the estimated number of civilian deaths excised? Lung King-cheong said that the archived file presented one version. "We believe that you can have other versions that you can bring out. When you write this way, you are merely referring to one archived file. As a reporter, you should treat the archives ... you can say so at the time, you can say so in 1989, but today many other facts have emerged. You must be able to make a judgment about this. As a reporter, you cannot treat the archived filed as the whole truth." Our reporter tried to contact the reporter who wrote this report, but he declined to respond. - With respect to the three-page document sent by British Ambassador Alan Donald: 1. (BLACKED OUT SENTENCE). He was passing on information given him by a close friend who is currently a member of the State Council. This source has previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumour. So immediately the WHO in the WHO WHAT WHY WHEN WHERE HOW is blocked off for the sake of confidentiality. In the original HK01 report, the reporter took "member of the State Council" to be a member of the standing committee of the State Council, which at the time had 14 members "including the premier, the vice premiers and the Foreign Affairs Committee members." As such, these persons have the right and need to know all levels of information. But more generally a "member of the State Council" could be any staff worker ranging from a janitor to a secretary to a minister and all the way up to the premier himself. So who is this BLACK OUT person? What is his level and access to information? You can't tell. So you cannot trust this person based upon any credentials. Instead, you will have to scrutinize his information. First of all, does it make sense? Secondly, has it been corroborated? If it could not be validated at the time, this is 2017 now. Has anything on these issues emerged from other sources in the 28 years since? - This person was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumour. 9. FACT. Beijing MR commander had refused to supply outside armies with food, water or barracks. Source said many barracks in Beijing but note TV pictures of tents. 27 Army were using dum-dum bullets. 27 Army snipers shot many civilians on balconies, streetsweepers, etc for target practice. Beijing hospitals ordered had been ordered to accept only security force casualties. So far 6 foreign students and 23 foreign journalists had been killed in the fighting (note: We have no evidence of this). What is this rubbish!? This reliable source promised to separate fact from speculation and rumour. Under FACT, he reports: "6 foreign students and 23 foreign journalists had been killed in the fighting." The British ambassador Alan Donald noted that they have no evidence of this. Nevertheless Donald forwarded this telegraph as being FACT from a "reliable source." This is 28 years later now. Nobody has ever come up with anything about the 6 dead foreign students and 23 dead foreign journalists. So how much trust can we have in this anonymous source's FACTs now? - Did the Beijing Military Region commander ostracize the 27th Group Army? Our source said yes, because he saw TV pictures of tents. That is classified as FACT and not SPECULATION/RUMOUR. - 6. 27 Army ordered to spare noone and shot wounded SMR soldiers. 4 wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted. A 3 year old girl was injured but her mother was shot as she went to her aid as were six others who tried. 1000 survivors were told they could escape via Zhengyi Lu but were then mown down by specially prepared M/G positions. Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up as was a Sino-Japanese hospital ambulance. With medical crew dead wounded, driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces with anti tank weapon. In further attack APCs caught up with SMR straggler trucks, rammed and overturned them and ran over troops. During attack 27 Army officer shot dead by own troops apparently because he faltered. Troops explained they would be shot if they hadn't shot officer. - This particular item was not classified under the FACT, SPECULATION or RUMOUR scheme. I personally pick RUMOUR, because the entire sequence sounded like a movie script with too many actors and too many viewpoints. The "member of the State Council" could not have witnessed all of this. So he must be relying on the reports from others. Who are these others? The 27 Group Army is not going to write a report to the State Council about how they specially prepared M/G positions to mow down civilian survivors, or massacred Shenyang Military Region soldiers, or blew up ambulances, or executed their own officer. [Oh, don't forget about bayoneting the four wounded schoolgirls.] And if the report comes from various other sources such as students, civilians or journalists, how does the State Council assess the their reliability then? If a member of the State Council Standing Committee does not know how to process information from multiple streams and sources, he/she should not be in that decision-making position. It is 28 years later now. How would you assess the veracity of this list of atrocities? Not a scintilla of evidence! 1,000 survivors were mowed down in Zhengyi Lu by the 27th Group Army machine guns? They have no families? - 11. FACT. Yang Shangkun and Deng Xiaoping were very close friends. Some members of the State Council considered that civil war is imminent. Qin Jiwei was forced unwillingly to appear in background on TV programme on 20 May to give aura of unity. Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000. - There are four items in this enumeration of "FACTs." The first item is social gossip. The second item is hearsay. The third item is social gossip. The four item is the sexiest quote that made this a news story now: "Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000." How about a little more of WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE HOW to make this more credible? Let me help you: "According to an urgent report submitted by the Beijing Public Security Bureau to the Ministry of Public Security which was forwarded to the Standing Committee of the State Council, the number of known deaths (including civilians, military, police and other government workers) within the Beijing city area between 00:00 June 3rd and 12:00 June 5th was 10,454." So now you know who said what for where and when. - And what about the Butcher of Tiananmen Square Yang Zhenhua? Where did he go? There is no information on Yang Zhenhua anywhere either before or after June 4th 1989 -- nothing about him becoming the commander of the 27th Group Army, or leaving the post anytime afterwards. Was he rewarded or punished for his actions? There is no clue. The biographies of Yang Shangcun and his half-brother Yang Shangzheng (aka Yang Baibing) do not refer to any Yang Zhenhua. - People refer to the June 5th 2015 article in Next Weekly on declassified files from the White House Situation Room (see Boxun link) as corroboration of this latest declassified British document. Yes, it is a corroboration of some sort because the facts, speculations and rumours are largely IDENTICAL! This leaves two choices: either British ambassador Alan Donald copied an American report, or else the Americans copied Donald's report. In any case, plagiarism is not corroboration. For example, the American documents reported this shocking story: About 1,000 students were told by the army that they can hide at Zhengyi Lu near the Peking Hotel. When they got there, they were shot by soldiers waiting in ambush. Sounds exactly the same, doesn't it? But no one has ever offered the names of the students killed there. - The Human Rights in China listing of 155 victims included 31-year-old Sports News employee Yang Yansheng (#014) who was hit by an exploding bullet on Zhengyi Road in the early morning of June 4, 1989 while trying to assist those wounded. He was taken to Beijing Hospital, but attempts to save his life failed. He was cremated and his ashes are at Wanan Public Cemetery. Nothing about 1,000 dead students. Why? - More authoritative sources of information: (Central News Agency) December 23, 2017. With respect to the minimum estimate of 10,000 deaths, former student movement leader and now US citizen Xiong Yan declared: "I think that this is reliable." Hong Kong Baptist University professor and China scholar Jean-Pierre Cabestan also thinks that this number is credible. He said that the recently declassified American files also have a similar estimate. He said: "Two independent sources said the same thing. Cabestan was in Beijing a few days before the crackdown. "Considering the number of people who were mobilized and how crowded Beijing was at the time, this report from the British ambassador is not particularly surprising." Former student leader and American resident Feng Congde pointed out that British ambassador Alan Donald sent another telegraph three weeks later that the number of estimated deaths was between 2,700 and 3,400. He said that this estimate is quite reliable because it is close to the estimates by the Chinese Red Cross and the student committee based upon hospital reports. [845] Scrooge (2017/21/21) At a time when Freedom and Democracy are gravely threatened in Hong Kong, we must all open our wallets to give money generously. Here are the most urgent causes. Without money, these pro-freedom/democracy organizations will be extinct.

(Wen Wei Po) December 21, 2017.ram The main Mong Kok riot trial is due to start in January 2018. Defendants Ray Wong Toi-yeung (convener of Hong Kong Indigenous) and Li Tung-sing (member of Hong Kong Indigenous) failed to appear a pre-trial hearing, whereupon the judge has issued arrest warrants for them. Meanwhile Hong Kong Indigenous announced that spokesperson Edwad Leung Tin-kei has resigned from the party in order to spend more time with his family. According to Ta Kung Pao, Ray Wong applied to the Companies Registry to cancel the registration of Channel i(HK). That company was formed by Ray Wong and Edward Leung in 2015 to receive donations and handle finances for Hong Kong Indigenous. Ray Wong and Edward Leung are listed as the company directors. Hong Kong Indigenous' online website is named Channel i too. Recently our reporter visited the headquarters office of Hong Kong Indigenous in Fotan district. There were two large plastic bottles of distilled water outside the door. The door bell had been dismantled. There were many letters stuffed into the mailbox downstairs, including letters addressed to Ray Wong. There was nobody to accept anything. Our reporter checked with the local real estate agency. This office unit is not listed on the rental market. Our reporter watched the office for a long period of time. Nobody came in or went out. It appears that the office has been vacated. Last year a Ta Kung Po investigation revealed that the founder of Hong Kong Indigenous is Chow Chun-kin. His recent whereabouts are a mystery. Of the three cars registered under his name, two of have just been sold. In July 2017, Chow applied for a bank mortgage loan to buy a $8.8 million apartment in De Novo (Kowloon City). Our reporter could not spot Chow's car in the parking lot. After three days of observation, our reporter did not see Chow. Previously Chow had resided in Manning Garden (Tai Po). That particular unit is currently under renovation. - (Wen Wei Po) Spending more time with his family? This is coming from the guy who said that he does not get along with his parents, because they disapprove of his activities. YK Keung: "You fucking bastard! You are exploiting your parents to gain the sympathy of the judge!" - When Ray Wong was arrested, he was found with $530,000 in crisp new bills, 100 Viagra bills and a small amount of marijuana. When he ran away this time, what did he take with him? - Don't tell me how Hong Kong Indigenous needs money to survive! Tell me first about their finances -- whatever happened to the money that they raised and keep raising in order to pay for the legal fees of the Valiant Justice Warriors? Have Ray Wong and Li Tung-sing taken the money and run, leaving Edward Leung to hold the bag (which explains why he resigned)? Until they get make a cleaning accounting of what went on, I won't give them one extra cent.

(Silent Majority HK) December 20, 2017. Passion Times founder and ex-Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat made an urgent appeal this morning on his online programme. He said that Passion Times has a serious financial problem. Therefore he is making the "last angry roar" to raise $300,000 in order to continue to operate. Wong Yeung-tat said that if they cannot raise $300,000 by today, they won't make it past Christmas. Just recently, Wong Yeung-tat had collaborated with the Teddy Boys manga series to run a class on script-writing. The tuition fees was $16,000 for 10 classes. Wong explained that the financial hardship came from the legal fees to support Yeung Ka-lun's appeal of his conviction (#725). Yeung had been sentenced to four years and nine months for rioting and arson during the Mong Kok riot. His appeal was not approved, but Passion Times had to pay for the (huge) legal fees. Internet comments: - It is necessary to revive an old post: (HK Nuts Power Facebook)

Here are the 11 vacations that Mr. and Mrs. Wong Yeung-tat took over the past 5 years: May 2017: Osaka February 2017: Tokyo October 2016: Vancouver/Toronto September 2016: Taipei April 2016: Taipei October 2015: England February 2015: Taipei December 2014: Osaka May 2014: Seoul October 2013: Portugal August 2013: Kenting (Taiwan)

Here are the Cartier rings that Mrs. Wong bought ($12,600 for white gold, $25,900 for platinum) Where does the money come from? Civic Passion member Chan Pak-yeung was sentenced to 9 months in prison for participation in the Mong Kok riot. Civic Passion asked people to donate money, noting that Passion Times will keep 30% of each donation to cover daily operational costs. - (HKG Pao) Mrs. Wong responded on Facebook: "My only thought is that two trips per year is too measly. Over the past decade, the many trips to France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, England, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere have been great ." This is an insult to those who cannot even afford to visit a wilderness park in Hong Kong once a year, or have fewer than 7 days of vacation per year. There is nothing too unusual about two trips per year. What is astonishing is that Mr. and Mrs. Wong keep wanting the Civic Passion supporters to donate money which is always in short supply, and then they take vacations and buy jewelry for themselves. Don't the Passion Times supporters feel foolish about how their money is being put to use? - Why do Wong Yeung-tat want $300,000 before Christmas? Because Mr. and Mrs. Wong want to go on vacation! And they need you to pay for their trip. - Passion Times is an online content farm/chat show with near zero audience. What is the difference to the world if it lives or dies?

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 19, 2017. Local investigative news agency Factwire has made an urgent request for HK$3.8 million in donations to cover their operating costs in the coming year. In a Facebook post on Tuesday, the news agency said that in the face of financial difficulties, they will leave Factwire’s fate for Hong Kong people to decide. “If Factwire can raise HK$3.8m by the end of January to cover its operating expenses for a year, we promise to continue pursuing the truth in news,” it said. The announcement came after various local media outlets reported on Monday that Factwire faces imminent closure and will appeal to its readers for money. Factwire said that in-depth investigative reporting requires manpower, time and resources. It added that, in the course of 21 months, the news wire has published 56 investigative reports on 20 topics. “These reports are the result of lengthy investigations by our reporters, all with the aim of defending the public’s right to know,” Factwire said. The news agency said it had hoped to sustain its operation via a paid subscription scheme targeted at local and overseas media. It said that its client list consists of 80 per cent local media outlets and some authoritative overseas outlets, but the subscriptions were not enough to cover its expenses. It added that, in order to maintain editorial independence, it does not rely on investors or financial backers. Factwire added that its monthly expenses are around HK$300,000. The amount covers the wages of its ten reporters, rent, electricity and water bills, overseas investigation fees, professional evaluations, and so on. It has raised HK$7.8 million in total since its establishment. Factwire said its current funds are insufficient to cover one month of operating expenses. “Perhaps the road to seeking truth has come to an end. Looking back, our team of reporters have faced harassment from unknown forces and the threat of lawsuits; we’ve made mistakes and accumulated invaluable experience.” According to Factwire’s subscription programme, those who give yearly or one-off donations of HK$2,555 or above will automatically become subscribers and receive breaking investigative reports via email; so far, only 139 have signed up. The news wire was founded two years ago following a successful crowdfunding campaign that raised HK$3 million. It is the first investigative news agency in the city, and has published reports on defects in a Chinese nuclear power plant, the alleged “kidnapping” of pro-democracy figure Howard Lam, and sub-standard electricity cables. Internet comments: - Factwire is an anti-democracy news outlet. Their coverage of the kidnapping of pro-democracy activist Lam Tsz-kin torpedoed the campaign to stop the Co-location Arrangement at West Kowloon. As a result, many more Hongkongers will be kidnapped through cross-border law enforcement. Factwire must apologize and retract those reports before I will give them a cent. - We already have Epoch Times doing in-depth investigative reporting. Why do we need Factwire? - Giving money to Factwire means fewer resources are available for other progressive pro-democracy groups. We must be very careful about where our $1 is going to. - There are many more other more urgent causes than Factwire. Here is a partial listing: (1) Lau Siu-lai is looking at huge legal bills for her appeal against her disqualification as Legislative Councilor. If she doesn't get enough in donations, she may have to sell her house(s). (2) Tommy Cheung Sau-yin is running in the pro-democracy primary election for the New Territories East legislative council by-election, and he says that he is the only candidate endorsed by Hong Kong Indigenous and Youngspiration. It will be a huge blow to the cause of Hong Kong independence if he doesn't win. Of course, Cheung denies that he is proindependence (nudge nudge wink wink you know what I mean). (3) Frederick Fung is running in the pro-democracy primary election for the New Territories East legislative council by-election. His political party ADPL is effectively finished if he doesn't win. (4) Gary Fan Kwok-wai is running in the pro-democracy primary election for the New Territories East legislative council by-election. His political party Neo Democrats is effectively finished if he doesn't win. (5) Kwok Wing-kin (Labour Party) is running in the pro-democracy primary election for the New Territories East legislative council by-election. Joshua Wong (Demosisto) has endorsed Kwok as the most progressive candidate in the by-election. (6) Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party) wants more money for the Alliance to Support Democratic Movements in Hong Kong because remembrance of June 4th 1989 is now more important than ever. (7) Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have to pay their salaries and operating expenses back to the Legislative Council. If they don't get enough in donations, they may have to declare bankruptcy. (8) Alex Chow, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong are appealing their sentences for unlawful gathering. If they fail, they will have to go back to jail and serve out their sentences. (9) The New Territories East 13 are appealing their sentences for unlawful gathering. If they fail, they will have to go back to jail and serve out their sentences. (10) The Civil Human Rights Front is calling for a demonstration march on New Year's Day. This is not the business-as-usual perfunctory event, because the future of Freedom and Democracy really and truly hinges on it this time. Really. ...

[844] The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 8B (2017/12/19) Background: The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution - Part 8A (2017/04/26); compilation of news videos Video: Apple Daily (SCMP) December 18, 2017 Eight Legco employees – seven security officers who saw the chaos and a technology officer who provided surveillance footage of the incident – were due to testify in the trial. But after the five defendants, who are all aged 30 and below, agreed to the facts of the case at a pre-trial session in July, the prosecution added four other Legco employees to its witness list. It did not ask for special permission from Legco, like it had with the eight witnesses. The Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance stipulates that no Legco officer can give evidence elsewhere without the council’s special leave. As the trial was about to begin on Monday, barrister Douglas Kwok King-hin, representing Leung and Yau, raised the issue of the four new witnesses and asked for part of the agreed facts of the case to be withdrawn. Kwok said: “We agreed to the facts because we believed that the prosecution would not be making such mistakes … But the prosecution did not do their job well.” Kwok also sought to clarify the process of granting special leave, as the Legco secretariat’s assistant secretary general Dora Wai had informed the justice department of its approval to summon the eight witnesses. However, Legco house rules state that the secretary general, Kenneth Chen Wei-on, should be responsible for telling the department. The department’s senior assistant director of public prosecutions, Jonathan Man Tak-ho, initially argued that special leave was not required for the four Legco officers and said “the agreed facts must not be withdrawn so easily”. But Man later backtracked and asked for the trial to be suspended for the day so he could address Kwok’s points. Magistrate Wong Sze-lai agreed and adjourned the trial until Tuesday morning. The five defendants in May pleaded not guilty to one joint count of unlawful assembly over the storming which took place outside a conference room at Legco on November 2, 2016. They also denied a second joint count of forcible entry. As the second charge is an alternative to the first, the defendants can only be found guilty of one of the two charges. The charge of unlawful assembly carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, while the charge of forcible entry carries a maximum fine of HK$5,000 or two years in prison. - CAP 382 Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance Evidence of proceedings in the Council or any committee not to be given without leave (1) No member or officer of the Council, and no person employed to take minutes or keep any record of evidence before the Council or a committee, shall give evidence elsewhere in respect of the contents of such minutes or record of evidence, or of the contents of any document laid before the Council or committee, as the case may be, or in respect of any proceedings or examination held before the Council or committee, as the case may be, without the special leave of the Council. (2) During a recess or adjournment of the Council, the special leave referred to in subsection (1) may be given by the President or, if the President is unable to act owing to his absence from Hong Kong or incapacity, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. In this case, nobody is being asked about any minutes or records of evidence or documents or proceedings or examinations held before the Council or committee. The security guards are going to be asked about what (if anything) they saw, heard or experienced (such as being kicked in the shin) in front of the Conference Room Number One on November 2, 2016. (SCMP) December 19, 2017. A female security guard collapsed and a few more were injured when two ousted pro-independence lawmakers and their three assistants stormed a meeting in the city’s legislature last November, Hong Kong prosecutors said on Tuesday. Yau Wai-ching allegedly kicked and kneed a security guard in the leg while Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang tried to jump over the guards multiple times to grab hold of the door to a room at the Legislative Council on November 2, 2016. Prosecutors added that the five individuals, including the assistants – Yeung Lai-hong, Chung Suet-ying and Cheung Tsz-lung – used their bodies to push past the guards to enter a conference room, with some among the group hurling verbal abuse. On Tuesday, the second day of the group’s trial for unlawful assembly, the Kowloon City Court was told of the sequence of events that led to the chaos. Yau and Leung were banned from taking part in the meeting on November 2 last year after they displayed anti-China antics during the Legco swearing-in ceremony for lawmakers elected earlier in September. They attempted to re-take their oaths on the day but Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen rejected their request. When council members gathered in the Legco chamber, Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau entered the chamber around 11am, despite signs at the door warning them not do so. Footage by news media played in court showed former lawmaker Lau Siu-lai – who was this year disqualified from Legco over improper oath-taking – then taking her oath. Yau and Sixtus Baggio Leung then strode to the front of the chamber, with Yau speaking into what appeared to be a microphone that she had brought along. At the president’s request, security guards tried to escort the pair away, only to be blocked by pan-democrat lawmakers Claudia Mo and Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, and now-disqualified legislator “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung. Other pan-democrats also subsequently offered their help. Andrew Leung then adjourned the meeting in the chamber and said it would resume in the conference room. Chaos ensued when the meeting in the conference room began at 12.55pm. The five defendants were joined by 10 others, with the defendants then trying to break through a cordon line set by security guards. Sixtus Baggio Leung, Yeung, and Cheung chanted “one, two, one, two” when they attempted to enter the room, prosecutors said. “Hit me!” Sixtus Baggio Leung allegedly yelled. He, Chung, and Cheung then hurled verbal insults at the guards, with the two assistants giving him a boost as he tried repeatedly to jump and grab hold of the door. Kwan Yiu-kee, then an acting security officer at Legco, testified on Tuesday that all five defendants eventually stopped scuffling. Yau and Sixtus Baggio Leung told the media last year after the incident that they did not want to injure the guards. But Kwan also recalled that after the fracas subsided, “all the injured [guards] were lying on the ground”. Lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki, a doctor by profession, then tended to them. The five defendants earlier this year denied one count of taking part in an unlawful assembly. They also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of attempted forcible entry. But prosecutors maintained that they had flouted the law and “conducted themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner” that might cause people to fear peace had been breached. The case continues before Magistrate Wong Sze-lai on Wednesday. (Oriental Daily) December 19, 2017. In the opening statement, the prosecutor stated that the Legislative Council president had issued an order to bar Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from entering the chamber on November 2, 2016. However, Leung and Yau forced their way in. The president moved the meeting to Conference Room Number One. Leung, Yau and the three other defendants charged violently at the security guards in order to force themselves in. Apart from jostling the security guards, they also kicked and kneed them. They insulted the security guards and dared them to hit back. Leung and Yau were not able to enter the conference room. Many security guards sustained injuries, including a female security guard who fainted. The first witness was Legislative Council security director Kwan Yiu-kee. He said that they had planned the day before that if Leung and Yau were to use force to enter the chamber, they would let them in without making physical contact. They also arranged the alternate meeting location. At the meeting, Leung and Yau forced themselves in. The Legco president asked them to leave, but they refused. The president ordered them removed. The security guards approached to carry out the order. The two resisted. Other legislators intervened on their behalf. Eventually Yau left, but Leung continued to tussle with the security guards. The president announced that the meeting would be moved to Conference Room Number One. The security guards kept guard outside. Leung and Yau attempted to enter again. A number of videos were shown in court. The five defendants were seen charging at the Conference Room Number One. They had physical contact with the security guards. There were quarrels, including obscene curses. Leung Chung-hang pointed at the security guards and told them: "Hit me!" (Apple Daily) December 19, 2017. The prosecutor played videos from televisions stations, newspapers and Apple Daily. Legco security director Kwan Yiu-kee identified the five defendants. In the Apple Daily video, someone was heard yelling: "Protect Ms. Yau's breasts." Someone was said to have fainted. The female security guard Chan Suk-han yelled: "I am dying!" Kwan testified that he learned over the walkie-talkie that female colleague Chan Suk-han had fainted. So he came out of the conference room into the corridor to rescue her. He asked the crowd to make away. But Leung Chung-hang's aide named Chin told him: "Legislators cannot even attend the conference room. So how am I going to make way for you?" Later Kwan learned that Chan had already been rescued. He went back into the conference room and saw Chan and two other colleagues lying on the floor, being attended to by legislators-doctors Kwok Ka-ki, Lee Kwok-lun and Chan Pui-yin. (Oriental Daily) December 20, 2017. Under cross-examination, Kwan Yiu-kei said that he regarded Leung and Yau as legislators when the Legco president asked them to leave the chamber. Kwan said that he did not know the basis under which the president asked them to leave. The defense asked Kwan: "The president unlawfully expelled Leung and Yau, and Kwan is carrying out the unlawful order of the president. Therefore Kwan was unlawfully preventing Leung and Yau from entering the conference room." Kwan disagreed with this statement. The defense said that there were many people outside the conference room. The defendants could not find a handle, so they used the door frames to propel themselves forward. At the same time, they counted "One Two One Two" to create a rhythm. Should the security guards allow this? Kwan said that the security guards would not stop them if they were allowed to enter the conference room. The prosecutor then summoned female security guard Chan Suk-han to testify. She said that when she asked the defendants not to push, they booed and insulted her. Someone told her that she was breaking the law. Yau said that she will be taking legal action. In addition, Leung grabbed the door frame twice in order to hurdle the defense line but he failed. Chan described her as being sandwiched and she eventually passed out and was hospitalized. She received injuries in the waist muscles that require physical therapy. (Apple Daily) December 20, 2017. Under cross-examination, Kwan Yiu-kee agreed that Legco president Andrew Leung addressed Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching as "Legislators." The defense said that Legislators are entitled to enter the chamber regardless of any ordinance or administrative order. Kwan said that the Legco president Andrew Leung had ordered Leung and Yau to leave. Therefore he and his colleagues were carrying the order of the president. Kwan said that he regards all orders to be reasonable unless it involves assaulting or injuring people. Does he worry about the legal basis or the rules of procedure? Kwan said: "The president will be responsible for whatever he says. I will carry out the order as long as it does not involve assaulting or injuring people." Kwan said that he was in the police force for more than a decade before joining the Legislative Council. Does Kwan agree that Andrew Leung's order for Leung/Yau to leave is unlawful? Kwan said that he does not know how to answer. He denied that he acted unlawfully by carrying out the order of the Legco president, or that he was unlawfully exercising his authority as a Legco officer. He disagreed that he and his colleagues unlawfully prevented Leung, Yau and their assistants from entering the conference room. On the news videos, Kwan was able to identify the Legco public information department manager Chan Yin-hei and senior director Chan Ka-ming. When Leung and Yau entered the chamber, those two asked the reporters in the corridor to make way. According to information, Chan Ka-ming was a TVB reporter before joining the Legislative Council. The female Senior Security Assistant Chan Suk-han testified that she saw Leung and Yau attempting to gain entrance to the Legco chamber. So she pointed to the notice posted outside the door. The two read the notice which barred them from entering, but they entered nevertheless. Chan followed them and tried to get Yau to leave. Legislator Claudia Mo blocked her while Yau grabbed the collar of another female security guard. Chan said: "Yau kept wriggling and she kept kicking. She wriggled her body about." In the end, they succeeded in removing Yau from the chamber. (Apple Daily) December 20, 2017. Female security guard Chan Suk-han testified that the atmosphere was tense after the meeting was moved to the Conference Room Number One. There were many reporters in the corridor. Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and more than ten assistants shouted "One Two One Two" and charged at the human chain formed by the security guards. Chan asked them not to press, but they booed and insulted her. Someone said: "Nobody told you to be here. You can just walk away!" Chan said that Yau Wai-ching told her impatiently: "I took down the names of you three security guards. If necessary, I will take legal action." Chan said that after some jostling, Leung Chung-hang suddenly lost control of his emotions. He grab the frame of the side door and lifted his body up to hurdle the security guards. He did not succeed. She said that the security guards were unarmed and she was sandwiched within a wall of human flesh. She was afraid that Leung might harm the security guards. Chan said that when the crowd wanted to break through the wall, she put her hand in front of Yau Wai-ching's breasts out of protectiveness. Someone said: "Don't fondle her breasts!" She replied in explanation: "That was my hand. I want to protect Miss Yau's breasts." Someone said: "Who the hell needs your protection?" Shortly afterwards, Chan yelled "I can't breath" and passed out. When she came to, she was inside the conference room. At the time, she felt great pain in her spine and she could not booth. She was taken to the hospital where she stayed overnight. The doctor told her that she tore her waist muscle. She obtained nine days of sick leave, followed by two months of physiotherapy. The video showed Chan being taken out on a stretcher. She wore a neck brace and her eyes were shut. (Apple Daily) December 21, 2017. The defense asked female security guard Chan Suk-han whether she agrees that Leung and Yau walked over to her as opposed to charged at her. Chan disagreed. She said that the two approached them in quick steps, looking as if they want to break through the defense line. The defense said that the formation that Chan put in place was extraordinarily firm. Chan agreed that this was the first time that a human chain was deployed. But she did not think that it was excessive to unlawfully stop Leung and Yau. Chan said that she has worked at the Legislative Council for nineteen years, but she has never gone through any close physical encounters as this time. "People charged at us during Occupy Central and National Education. But we never had any close physical encounters." She said that the security guards were the victims of his incident. Chan said that she saw Leung, Yau and their assistants charged ferociously at the defense line formed by the security guards. She was close to Yau Wai-ching but did not see any obvious physical movement on the part of Yau who occasionally turned her head. But she heard fellow security guard Lau Kin-wai yell "Don't kick anymore!" Chan said that she did not have the chance to look at Yau's lower body. Chan said that she was not kicked herself. Chan does not know who kicked Lau or whether Yau kicked anybody. Chan said that an unwritten rule at the Legislative Council is that once a legislator is expelled by the president, he/she is not allowed to attend the meeting on the same day. Chan was shown the news video. She agreed that Legco president asked Leung/Yau to believe on the basis of Rule #1 as opposed to the usual Rule #45 for inappropriate conduct. Chan said that she has read that Rule #1 pertains to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. She guessed that Andrew Leung did not allow Leung/Yau to attend the meeting because they had not completed their oaths of office yet. Chan emphasized that she was "not at that level" to make Andrew Leung explain the basis of his decision to her. Chan said that a frontline worker cannot challenge the order of the Legco president, nor is she qualified to question whether the order was proper. "If he says no, then it is no go." Another security guard Lee Yuk-wah testified that when Leung grabbed the top bar of the door frame, a man and a woman yelled: "Get up! You get up! We will push you up!" But Leung ultimately failed to cross. Lee said that she felt numbness in her hand afterwards. She was taken to the hospital for a medical examination. She was given 5 days of sick leave. (Apple Daily) December 21, 2017. The prosecution summoned 180-pound, 1.7m tall security guard second-grade security director Lau Kin-wai to tesify. Lau testified that he and his colleagues did their best to hold the defense line against the charging crowd. Yau Wai-ching used her hands to push and pull. They were also kicked and rammed. The physical confrontation lasted between 10 and 15 minutes. The defense asked Lau to detail Yau's actions. Lau said that he does not know who kicked the security guards. Yau alternated her arms to try to pull the security guards. Then Yau used one hand to push him backwards. Lau said that he was held stationary and he was not allowed to push back. Therefore it is not surprising that Yau could move him. The defense cited the case of Cheung Kwai-choi and Chow Ngok-hang being charted with disorderly conduct and assault at the Legislative Council in 2014. The magistrate found Lau's testimony impossible. Cheung and Chow were found not guilty. The defense suggested that Lau's testimony here was also fictive and dishonest. Lau disagreed. (Oriental Daily) Decembe 22, 2017. Male security guard Cheung Shui-sing testified that the defendant Chung Suet-ying hit him on the hand in order to make him loosen his grip on the door frame. After female security guard Chan Suk-han passed out, Yau attempted to force her way by putting her leg into the space between Cheung's thighs. Yau rammed Chan's thighs several times. The defense asked Cheung whether he heard anyone yell: "Don't touch the breasts"? Cheung said that he heard it and the speaker was security guard Lau Kin-wai. The defense asked Cheung if Yau Wai-ching looked like as she was about to faint with difficulty in breathing. Cheung said no. The defense asked why Cheung did not visit a doctor afterwards. Was it because Yau Wai-ching did not deliberately knee him? Cheung explained that he did not feel any pains and therefore there was no need to visit a doctor. Male security guard Chow Kai-ho testified that he saw someone yanking the identification card of female security guard Chan Suk-han as if they wanted to take a photo. Male security guard Chan Tak-yin testified that Leung Chung-hang pressed his collar and attempted to push him away. Chan said Leung would bump into Chan each time that Leung moved his body. Chan said that Leung may not have done so deliberately. (Oriental Daily) December 27, 2017. Under cross examination, male security guard Chan Tak-yin said that Leung Chung-hang pushed him while attempting to enter the conference room. Chan characterized the amount of force as somewhat big. Did he feel offended? Chan said: "It was acceptable." Chan said that when Leung tried to climb over him, he put his weight against Chan. But he felt that Leung did not do so deliberately. The defense claimed that defendant Chung Suet-ying grabbed the door frame only because she was about to fall down. Chan disagreed. He said that Chung leant forward and pressed her body against the defensive line. Male security guard Chan Chi-chiu testified that when Leung, Yau and their assistants attempted to enter the conference room by force, he saw female security guard Lee Yuk-wah painfully being pressed by defendants Chung Suet-ying and Cheung Tsz-lung. So he left with Lee. Under cross-examination, Chan agreed that Chung did say: "I am not pushing. I am being pushed from behind." Cheung also asked the people behind not to push. But Chan said that the two pushed at other moments. Male security guard Lo Pui-fong testified that Leung Chung-hang did yell: "Hit me!" Lo believes that Leung said so because he could not get his way. The defense asked whether Leung yelled "Hit me!" to Lo or in Lo's direction. Lo said that he was not sure. The defense asked whether Lo said: "Don't touch the breasts!" Lo denied so. Lo is unsure if other security guards said this to Leung. But he agreed that the video showed that Leung reacted strongly after hearing it. Female security guard Choi Yiu-man said that she was lifted off her feet during the clash. She felt as if she was going to faint. She tried to hold onto the the door frame, but she was pushed aside. She ended up injuring her wrist. Male security guard Lau Kin-wai waited to help the unconscious female security guard Chan Suk-han. But Chung Suet-ying scolded him: "What rescue! You get lost!" Cheung Tsz-lung also blocked Lau and used obscene curses. Chung and Cheung pushed Lau against the wall. The defense said that Chung had asked people to make way for Lau to rescue Chan and Cheung did not use any obscenities. The defense said that neither Chung nor Cheung pushed Lau against the wall. Lau disagreed. (Headline Daily) December 27, 2017.

Today a person who claimed to a witness to most of the happenings in the case and an informant applied for a judicial review at the High Court. She accused the Kowloon City magistrate presiding over the case of Leung-Yau as well as the prosecutor of failure to summon certain other persons who accompanied Leung Chung-hang and had very important evidence. The magistrate failed to take action over the information that she had presented directly. She asked the High Court to issue a direct order to the Kowloon City magistrate to stop the proceedings and follow its orders instead. The appellant is named Doris Leung Kit-hing. She claimed to represent most of the voters for Leung Chung-hang and some of the voters for Yau Wai-hing. The other defendants Yeung Lai-hong, Chung Suet-hing and Cheung Tsz-lung were also listed as persons whose interests are affected by this application. - (Oriental Daily) Doris Leung Kit-hing is allegedly the aunt of defendant Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang. (Oriental Daily) December 28, 2017. Legislative Council Secretariat assistant secretary-general Wai Pik-yiu testfieid that her duties include preparations and follow-ups for Legco meetings. Wai confirmed that she issued a series of special permissions to security guards to testify in court. The defense said that Wai cannot testify in court because she did not apply for special permission for herself. Wai explained that as long as her testimony does not involve Legislative Council meeting minutes or documents, she does not need any special permission. Since her testimony today does not involve any meeting minutes, she did not need to apply. The defense said that only the deputy secretary-general can act on behalf of the secretary-general. Since Wai is merely an assistant secretary-general, she cannot so act. Wai disagreed. (Oriental Daily) January 2, 2018. With respect to the admissibility of evidence coming from the Legislative Council (including the videos and the testimonies of the eight security guards), the magistrat e pointed out that the Legislative Council has given special admissions. Previously, the defense had questioned whether the court is biased on behalf of the prosecution. The magistrate said that this kind of talk is disrespectful and baseless. Both the prosecution and the defense have the duty to assist the court in settling disputes over the law, so the defense is acting inappropriately. The defense asked the magistrate to find that there is no evidence on the charges against the five defendants. The defense said that when judge Au Hing-cheung refused to issue an temporary injunction against the re-taking of the oath by Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, he had supposed that the Legislative Council president will allow them to take the oath again. Therefore, the two should be able to continue to function as Legislative Councilors. However, the two were not able to re-take their oaths because the pro-establishment legislative councilors left the chamber together and caused the oaths to be postponed. Thus, Au's ruling should stand regardless of what the National People's Congress Standing Committee decided later. The defense said that if a legislative councilor was expelled for "disorderly conduct" under Article 45 of the Legislative Council Rules of Procedure, he/she may not attend this meeting anymore. But Legislative Council president Andrew Leung expelled Leung and Yau that day without specifying the particular article. Therefore, the prosecution cannot show that Leung and Yau are not allowed to enter Conference Room Number 1. Instead, the security guards were the ones who were unlawfully blocking the two and their assistants. The prosecutor said that Leung and Yau were not legislative councilors at the time of the incident. High Court judge Au Hing-cheung had stated in his ruling in October 2016 that it was still undecided whether Leung and Yau have lost their positions. But in his ruling in November 2016, Judge Au ruled that the two have been disqualified, and therefore the Legislative Council president cannot oversee their oaths of office. The Court of Final Appeal also agreed that the two were not legislative councilors at the time of the incident. The magistrate rejected the argument of the defense and ruled that the evidence exists for the charges against the defendants. On Thursday (January 4 2018), Leung and Yau will decide whether they want to testify on their own behalf. (Apple Daily) January 4, 2018. Today defendant #1 Baggio Leung Chung-hang testified on his own behalf. He said that the security guards stood firm outside the conference room on November 2. Leung told them that he wanted to attend the meeting, but the security guards claimed to be carrying out the order of Legislative Council president Andrew Leung. Leung put his hand on the shoulder of the security guard to indicate to make way. But the security guard was unresponsive. Leung said that he was pushed from the front as well as from the back, and could barely stay on his feet. Therefore he reached out for the door frame to steady himself. Leung said that the pressure on his stomach made him want to vomit. "I was unable to talk reason or the Legislative Council rules of procedure. Leung denied that he chanted "One Two One Two" and he did not did anything according to the beat. Leung denied charging ahead. But he admitted that he grabbed the door frame to scale over the security guards unsuccessfully. As for the angry "Hit me!" shout, Leung explained that the security guard in front of him warned him: "Don't touch the breasts!" Leung thought that it was "character assassination". So he pointed his finger at the security guard and said angrily: "What are you talking about! Hit me!" Under cross-examination, Leung clarified that the co-defendant Cheung Tsz-lung was merely helping him clean up the election bills and not actually hired formally as an assistant. On that particular day, Cheung was in the Legislative Council building as a visitor. Leung disagreed that Cheung's job that day was to help him to charge at the security guards. (Oriental Daily) January 4, 2018. The prosecution said that the closed circuit television video showed that the 5 defendants and 11 other assistants took two elevators from the tenth floor to the second floor. They regrouped at the scene of the clash. This showed that they had planned to do this. Leung Chung-hang denied that this was the case. He said that he intended to go to the meeting room, but he had no idea what the others wanted to do. (SCMP) January 4, 2018. An ousted localist lawmaker in Hong Kong on trial for storming a Legislative Council meeting took to the witness box on Thursday to accuse a security guard of “character assassination” during the incident. Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang said the guard accused him of “touching someone else’s breasts” during the chaos on November 2, 2016, even though he had kept his arms by his side at the time. Leung, his ally Yau Wai-ching – also an ousted lawmaker – and their three personal assistants are accused of forcing their way into a meeting despite obstruction from security guards. Referring to the comment he claimed was made by one of the guards, Leung said: “It was character assassination.” In response that day, Leung said he shouted back angrily: “What are you saying? Hit me!” Prosecutors had cited the last comment in their opening speech, but did not include Leung’s version of the context of the remark. Leung, Yau and their three assistants – Yeung Lai-hong, Chung Suet-ying and Cheung Tsz-lung – denied one joint count of taking part in an unlawful assembly. They also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of attempted forcible entry. As prosecutors wrapped up their case, Leung on Thursday took to the witness box to rebut their allegations. The court heard that Yau and Leung had tried to enter the chamber earlier on that morning to be sworn in after their oaths in October, which contained anti-China antics, were rejected. Chaos then ensued, causing Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen – who held firm he would not entertain the duo’s attempt to retake their oaths – to adjourn the meeting to a later time at a conference room. The prosecutors said Baggio Leung used his body to push guards preventing him from entering, and chanted “one, two, one, two” before storming the place. Leung refuted the allegations. He said he turned up outside the meeting room that day, not expecting such resistance from the guards because he believed it was against the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for anyone to obstruct lawmakers. He said he felt “a force pushing him backwards for two or three steps” when he tried to advance. He admitted he sought to jump through the mass of bodies by grabbing the top of a door, but the attempt failed and he was sandwiched between a crowd shoving him from the back and security guards pushing him from the front. “I merely used some force to balance myself,” he said, denying pushing back at the guards. The chaos resulted in one of the guards fainting. Leung said he tried to alert other guards about their colleague, but he had difficulty speaking at the time because his abdomen was pressed against the masses and he felt like vomiting. The scene was packed with reporters, he recalled, and it took a while for them to eventually retreat from the back. In a cross-examination, senior assistant director of public prosecution Jonathan Man Tak-ho, who argued Leung had teamed up with others to carry out the offence, said video footage showed 16 people, including Leung and Yau, taking the same lift to the meeting room in two groups. Leung said he did not find this information particularly “special” and denied devising a plan in advance with the others. The trial continues at Kowloon City Court before Magistrate Wong Sze-lai on Friday. (SCMP) January 5, 2018. An ousted pro-independence lawmaker told a Hong Kong court on Friday the law was on her side when she tried to bypass security guards to take part in a Legislative Council meeting two years ago. Yau Wai-ching took to the witness box to tell the Kowloon City Court that she was only fulfilling her responsibility when she demanded to enter a conference room of the legislature on November 2, 2016. The Youngspiration lawmaker was stopped by security guards on the day, after they were ordered by Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen to stop her and her fellow localist lawmaker-elect, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, from entering. At the time, the pair had not yet been disqualified from the body. But neither one’s oath had been accepted after their earlier efforts laden with anti-China antics were rejected. Magistrate Wong Sze-lai had heard they were trying to retake their oath on the day. But the two are now being accused of storming the meeting with their assistants. They and their three assistants – Yeung Lai-hong, Chung Suet-ying and Cheung Tsz-lung – denied one joint count of taking part in an unlawful assembly, while pleading not guilty to an alternative charge of attempted forcible entry. Testifying on Friday, Yau said: “I have sufficient legal reasons, but they don’t.” She was referring to the security guards who stopped her. On Thursday, Leung testified that he, Yau and their team were issuing a warning to security guards during the chaos. He claimed they told them it was against the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for anyone to obstruct lawmakers. But the prosecutors argued that Yau resorted to kicking and kneeing a security guard, while using her body to push her way through. On Friday, Yau denied ever pushing the guards or using her hands to shove them aside. The scene was chaotic and packed with reporters, the court heard earlier, with one security guard passing out. “I might have hit others with my knees when I lost balance,” Yau said. She stressed that, as a lawmaker-elect at the time, it was her duty to attend the meeting. “I couldn’t just give up just because there was a huge crowd,” she said. Yau recalled trying to enter the Legco chamber to take her oath during an earlier session on the day. But she was removed by the security guards, as Andrew Leung adjourned the meeting to a conference room. She recalled hearing Baggio Leung say “I am heading out” before the move to the conference room. But when pressed by the prosecutors, who argued she teamed up with others to storm the meeting, she denied ever discussing with her Youngspiration ally where to go before he headed out. Yau described the situation as “pro-establishment camp over the law” when told by Andrew Leung he would not monitor their oaths because he feared the pro-establishment camp would cause the meeting to adjourn. (Apple Daily) January 5, 2018. Leung Chung-hang denied that he occupied the space that was just vacated by the female security guard Chan Suk-han who had passed out. He explained that he was being pushed by powerful forces from behind. He believed that those were reporters. He said that he did not push forward himself. Leung denied that he discussed with Yau Wai-ching or the assistants about how to charge the human chain of security guards." He said that he did not feel that he had the authority to order the assistants to do so. He denied that they had planned to charge together. Yau Wai-ching testified that she heard Leung Chung-hang say "I'm going out" in the office and she followed him. She did not think that they would be going to the conference room. She did not tell anyone to leave the office either. She said that she has the bad habit of lowering her head to use her mobile phone while she walks, and therefore she has no idea that other people were following her to go downstairs. Yau said that did not attack or push anyone outside the conference room. After the chaos, she felt dizzy and her hair was all knotted. The group did not disband eventually at the behest of either Youngspiration or Leung Chung-hang.

(Apple Daily) January 5, 2018. Yau Wai-ching testified that she did not discuss with the assistants about what actions would be taken that day. "I don't know what they were thinking about" and "they can decide for themselves whether to follow us or stay at the office." The prosecutor asked, "Shouldn't such employees be dismissed?" Yau replied: "But they did show up for work." Yau denied that she kneed any security guard. But she said that she might have made physical contact with other persons when she lost her balance. Defendant Yeung Lai-hong, Chung Suet-ying and Cheung Tsz-lung did not testify on their own behalf, nor did they summon other witnesses. Summation will be heard on February 28, 2018. - (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2018. During summation, the prosecution said that Leung and Yau are not ignorant and they clearly knew that they could not be sworn in that day. They knew that matters could not be resolved by using force. Even if they thought that they have the right to barge into the conference room, they should not be using excessive force. The court found the oaths of Leung and Yau to be invalid in October 2016 and the Court of Final Appeal ruled that they were no longer legislators after failing to take their oaths. Therefore Leung and Yau were not legislators at the time of the incident. The defense said that Leung and Yau had not yet been stripped of their legislator status, so they had no means of guessing that this would happen down the road. If they did, they would not need to enter the conference room or carry any of the actions seen. The defense said that it is an inalienable principle that criminal law cannot be applied retrospectively. The National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 is in conflict with this principle, such that the defendants cannot get a fair trial. Therefore this hearing should be terminated forthwith. However, the defense clarified that they are not seeking a termination of this hearing. The defense also said that when Leung Chung-hang grabbed the door frame, he only wanted to cross the defense line of the security guards without making physical contact. Thus he was not behaving violently. (Oriental Daily) March 1, 2018. The defense said that Yau Wai-ching pushed a security guard over only because she was pushed from behind by persons unknown, and there is no evidence that she kicked anybody. According to the Legislative Council Ordinance, Yau was a legislator at the time and therefore the three aides were merely helping them to enter the conference room in order to take their oaths. The verdict is scheduled to be issued on May 11, 2018. Internet comments: - Short summary of the testimonies of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching: Leung decided to take a walk and Yau followed him. They had no idea that 14 other persons were following them too into the elevator because they were too busy using their mobile phones with lowered heads. When they got to the corridor outside the conference room, they were pushed powerfully from behind by unknown persons against the cordon of security guards. So there you have it. - This tall tale comes from the people who said that they pronounced "People's Republic of China" as "People's Re-fucking of Chee-an" because of their Ap Lei Chau accent. If you so much as believe 10% of what they say, you will go blind in both eyes. - So a few low-end security guards got hurt while carrying out unlawful orders. Here is what Yau Wai-ching thinks:

- (Oriental Daily) More "Who Fucking Care" irrelevant facts. February 8, 2018. The Hong Kong Police raided a country house on Ting Kok Road, Tai Po district and found 3 grams of suspected cannabis flower, 37 suspected cannabis capsules, two tubes of suspected cannabis oil and a small amount of suspected cannabis seeds. 26-year-old Chung Suet-ying has been arrested on suspicion of possession of prohibited drugs. - The Chinese Communists are desperate, so they are escalating their White Terror campaign of political persecution of pro-democracy activists. We must all unite behind Chung Suet-ying. If we don't, then the Communists will be coming for us next. And then we all die. Or something. - Chung Suet-ying is breaking the law in order to achieve justice. Or something. - Chung Suet-ying should be counter-suing the Hong Kong SAR government. After all, she had a cozy do-nothing job as the companion of Yau Wai-ching. When that job was suddenly and unfairly taken away by the HK SAR government, Chung got depressed and resorted to use marijuana to forget her troubles. Therefore, the HK SAR government is responsible for her downfall. - The magistrate will release Chung for her noble ideal of sacrificing her own self to consume all the marijuana products so that others won't have the opportunity to violate the draconian drug laws. - Or the magistrate will release Chung because all she did was to conduct scientific experiments to identify the optimal use of marijuana for medical purposes. - Or the magistrate will say that Chung has noble ideals and she was dealing drugs in order to raise money to pay for the operational expenses of her political party Youngspiration. Indeed, Chung is an inspiration to young people all around the world. When they grow up, they want to be able to smoke marijuana joints just like Chung. - Agents from a powerful department in mainland China crossed the border secretly and planted the drugs in the home of a pro-democracy activist. - The house was searched by the police on a tip. Who was the rat fink? We know that Chung Suet-ying is a pro-independence activist who worked for ex-legislators Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Who are enemies of Leung-Yau? Clearly it must be the traditional pan-democrats. The top of my suspect list is the League of Social Democrats! It is probably not their ex-chairman Leung ("Long Hair") Kwok-hung who is usually too drunk at the Club 64 bar. It is most likely LSD vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming who is currently sitting in prison and trying to make himself a better Buddhist practitioner. - As legislator aide, Chung Suet-ying followed Yau Wai-ching around all the time when Yau was a legislator. Was Yau really not aware that Chung was high on marijuana all the time? Or did Chung share some of her goodies with Yau? - With respect to the case of Chung Suet-ying on marijuana possession, all the pan-democrats are saying that they are not familiar with the details of the case and therefore they should not comment. Meanwhile, all the pan-democrats are familiar with the role of Carrie Lam in bringing Xiaomi to be listed on the Hong Kong stock market in exchange for some unnamed favors for her son, and therefore they are commenting liberally. - Is there a stock market anywhere in the world which does not want to have Xiaomi listed there? And what influence does Carrie Lam have on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange? - (HK01) February 9, 2018. Yau Wai-ching said that, based upon her understanding of Chung Suet-ying, the latter is not likely to consume cannabis. Yau said that Chung is well-organized and maintains a good lifestyle. The news reports are saying that the police found cannabis products in Chung's home, but Yau does not think that Chung actually holds them. At this time, Yau cannot exclude the possibility that Chung was framed. - Marijuana has been legalized within the United States. Hong Kong is still in the stone age by comparison, although it is more progressive than Malaysia where Dadah Is Death. [843] Graduation Day: Zero for Conduct (2017/12/17) (Oriental Daily) December 17, 2017. The Hong Kong College of Technology held its graduation ceremony yesterday. When the national anthem was played, some graduands refused to stand up. After about ten seconds, the music was stopped and a college representative announced that the ceremony was halted because certain people disrespected the national anthem and violated the regulations. The offenders were asked to leave. The two offenders left in the company of more than ten others who supported their action. The graduation ceremony resumed after a delay of almost 20 minutes. The students who left chanted slogans and displayed placards outside the hall. They demanded a response from the administration. Hong Kong College of Technology president Chan Cheuk-hay said that the graduate ceremony is a grand and solemn occasion for the graduates and their teachers/friends/families. He said that the Hong Kong College of Technology is known to be a patriotic school. He said that students should respect the occasion as well as the school's position. On the Hong Kong College of Technology website, there is a photo of the graduates with the note that they want to have a solemn ceremony that is not subject to disruption. (Wen Wei Po) December 17, 2017. According to information, the Hong Kong College of Technology began this year to require students stand at attention during the national anthem at the graduation ceremony. In the rules and regulations for the ceremony, it is clearly stated that any disrespectful or inappropriate action by a graduand during the playing of the national anthem may result in the graduand not being allowed to get on stage for the conferment ceremony. This was reiterated during the rehearsal. However, two graduands from the social work department were upset with this arrangement. They thought that the conferment of the diploma should not be linked to the national anthem. Furthermore respect for the country should not be conditional on whether one sings the national anthem or not. Therefore they refused to stand at attention and they even crossed their arms to show their disrespect for the national anthem. Based upon the rules and regulations, the school asked the two graduands to leave. About 10 more graduands also walked out because they support the two. The ceremony was held up for 20 minutes as a result. Afterwards those students who knowingly violated the rules and regulations stood outside the hall with placards "Those who won't want to be slaves" and shouted "High-pressure regimes lead to high-pressure schools" so as to continue to annoy the other students and families. After the graduation ceremony, HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay went to speak to the protestors. He said that he loves the students and therefore he made sure that the graduate ceremony would be completed. He emphasized that the graduation ceremony is a solemn occasion, and therefore he stuck to his principles and made sure that it would be so. He asked these students to reflect: "You want the school to respect your views. Why can't you respect the position of the school about respecting the national anthem?" Chan shared the history of the Hong Kong College of Technology with the students. He said that the Hong Kong College of Technology was already a patriotic school before the 1997 handover. From the 1960's they were already hoisting the People's Republic of China fives-star national flag and singing the People's Republic of China national anthem. As a result, the school was suppressed by the British colonial administration, which took away financial subsidies and even the school campus. But the school never gave up its patriotic stance. "There is no room for compromise on this." He said that he respects the views of these students, but he wishes that they would continue to get to know society and China. The HKCT spokesperson added that the graduands were given the rules and regulations for the graduation ceremony beforehand. The school always respects freedom of speech, such that everybody has the right to express personal opinions on all matters. But in so doing, they must do so in the appropriate situation while respecting others. As an institute of higher learning, the HKCT has the responsibility of teaching the students to know right from wrong and accept responsibility for their actions. Videos Speakout HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwa-OpKTcb0 Incident coverage including the national anthem and the expulsion of the students. Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsj6SFM5TSY HK01 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/141929/-%E5%9C%8B%E6%AD%8C%E6%B3%95-%E6%B8%AF%E5%B0%88%E7%95%A2%E6%A5%AD%E7%94%9F%E6%8B%92%E9%B3%B4%E5%A5%8F%E6%99%82%E7%AB%99%E7%AB%8B%E9%81%AD%E8%B6%95%E9%9B%A2%E5%A0%B4%E6%96%A5%E6%A0%A1%E9%95%B7%E7%8E%87%E5%85%88%E6%8E%A8%E5%9C%8B%E6%AD%8C%E6%B3%95 Sing Tao/Headline Daily https://www.facebook.com/fatBhasasay/videos/843882449151719/ Speakout HK https://www.facebook.com/speakouthk/videos/987874831360596/ https://youtu.be/d63cRLwZdmU HKCT President Chan Cheuk-hay spoke to the "troublemaking" students Sina Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_j8xs0Ic5A Chan Cheuk-hay speaking to the students, including what happened at last year's ceremony. Ta Kung Pao http://www.takungpao.com.hk/hongkong/video/2017/1218/133860.html Interview with Hong Kong College of Technology chairperson Priscilla Lau Scoring: In the dialogue between the college president and the students, the student speaker loses many points because he comes across as shrill and hysterical in tone and volume. In the video in which the student named Yu explains his reasons for so doing, the commentators are more fascinated by his facial features. Internet comments: - (HKG Pao) President Chan Cheuk-hay acted with reason. (1) The most basic thing in life is to know to respect other people. When President Chan saw those students disrespecting the national anthem and the 1.3 billion Chinese people whose anthem it is, how can he not act to stop them? What kind of teacher wouldn't? (2) Some Yellow Ribbon media said that the Hong Kong College of Technology is enforcing the national anthem law even before the Hong Kong Legislative Council has enacted the relevant law. But we should be respecting the national anthem with or without any law. Why should such commonsense be required to have a legal basis? (3) Some of the student troublemakers said that they disrespect the national anthem because "the political regime in China is unstable and not there to serve the people." This shows that they are filled with prejudices and hate for the motherland. President Chan really needed to wake them up. (4) For most of the graduands, the graduation ceremony marked an important milestone in their lives. It does not matter what those student troublemakers want, for they have no right to deprive the other graduands of the right to have a solemn and memorable graduation ceremony. (5) For those student troublemakers, they have lost the opportunity to attend their own graduation ceremony, but they got a chance to reflect on their mistake. (6) When President Chan corrected them, they have a chance to look carefully at what is happening in China. The Hong Kong College of Technology provides many mainland trips throughout the year. Why didn't they go there themselves? Why do they insist on believing the unreal China that is being presented in Apple Daily and social media? Why do they insist on being frogs at the bottom of the well? (7) If they don't rectify themselves even after this, then they will be despised because they don't know how to respect the country, their teachers, their fellow students and themselves. - Before today's graduation ceremony, the college administration had already given the rules and regulations to the students. This was a reaction to what happened the previous year: (Ta Kung Pao) November 27, 2016. Yesterday the Hong Kong College of Technology held its graduation ceremony at its Ma On Shan campus. The media were not invited. Afterwards some participants forwarded videos to Apple Daily showing some students raising placards and chanting slogans during the national anthem and while on stage. They chanted: "Oppose National People's Congress interpretation of the Basic Law, thus destroying rule-of-law in Hong Kong." There were also people upset at the behavior of these students, and they shouted "Support the National People's Congress interpretation of the Basic Law" and "Down with Hong Kong independence dogs." Hong Kong College of Technology president Chan Cheuk-hay spoke. He said that he was born and raised in the British colonial era. He was oppressed by imperialism. "Young kids were bullied and assaulted by foreigners. We were afraid to speak up until our national anthem sounded and our five-star national flag was raised." Now our country is leaving behind those days of being bullied and abused. He said that many western countries are still trying to blockade China militarily and economically. "Those leading imperialists cannot stand the sight of our country being strong and they want to continue to keep us down." Chan said that no country in the world can "send civilian airplanes out to war zones to extract our citizens." He said that China sent warships to war zones to extract our citizens. Japan even has to rely on us to transport their citizens out. Chan said that he felt bad when he saw some of the students did during the playing of the national anthem today. He asked: "When you travel outside and encounter manmade or natural disasters, who is going to help you?" Former Demosisto vice-president Oscar Lai was one of the protesting graduands from the department of social work at the College of Technology. He told Apple Daily that 40 to 50 fellow students wore yellow ribbons and held up "Oppose National People's Congress interpretation of the Basic Law" placards. More than 10 students shouted slogans on stage too. - (HKG Pao) HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay told those students about how the school was a patriotic school oppressed by the British colonial government. "If you weren't aware of this when you came here, you are in the wrong school!" - (Wikipedia) The HKCT was originally established as the Mongkok Workers' Night School in 1957 to provide education opportunities for working-class families. - (Bastille Post) The dozen or so graduands went outside and then chanted: "President! President! Come out and meet with us." So Hong Kong College of Technology president Chan Cheuk-hay came out to speak with them. The graduand shouted: "Just because we sat down does not mean that we do not respect the national anthem. Just because we won't sing the national anthem does not mean that we are unpatriotic. We don't understand why that on account of a national anthem, we social work students for whom so much effort was already spent to teach us were excluded from the graduation ceremony ... I want to ask you why you treat students this way." Chan waited for the student to finish before he replied solemnly: "The Hong Kong College of Technology is a patriotic school. We must hold the patriotic flag high. There can be no compromise on this. Even during the British colonial era, we have never retreated. The Hong Kong College of Technology is a patriotic school. It has been a patriotic school long before 1997. From inception, we have raised the five-star national flag and sung the March of the Volunteers. For these actions, we were suppressed by the British colonial government. Our subsidies were canceled, and our campus was repossessed. But we never gave up our patriotic position. (Pointing to the students) If you did not know this when you came here, you chose the wrong school!" The student replied: "Just because we won't sing the national anthem does not mean that we are unpatriotic. It is precisely because we know China that we know that the regime is unstable and not serving the people. We also see that the Hong Kong government is deeply influenced by the Chinese regime. As social work students who have to face those who use public services, we know better how this regime ignores the demands of the people. We should be coming out and speaking up because we are patriotic." Chan said: "My position is clear. But I respect your views. I hope that you can continue to explore the problems of the country, and make changes as students ... I love the students, and that is why I will continue with the graduation ceremony in spite of the disruptions. You want the school to respect your views. But why don't you respect the position of the school and respect the national anthem? The graduation ceremony is a solemn occasion. We must adhere firmly to the principles during the ceremony." Chan then went back inside. A university teacher said that many teachers and presidents are afraid of the 'valiant' attitudes of the students. Even if they disapprove of the student methods, they are too afraid to speak out for fear of being criticized and bullied. Very few are like Chan Cheuk-hay who was unafraid to tell the students about the school's position and point out that the disruption was wrong. Chan's courage is admirable. - (Speakout HK https://www.speakout.hk/%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E8%8A%B1%E7%94%9F/29360/-%E5%BC%B7%E7%83%88%E8%AD%B4%E8%B2%AC-%E7%8D%A8%E5%AE%B6%E5%8F%AF%E9%9D%A0%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF%E6%A0%A1%E6%96%B9%E6%B2%92%E6%9C%89%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%B3%E5%AA%92%E6%8E%A1%E8%A8%AA-%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E5%AE%89%E6%8E%92-%E8%98%8B%E6%9E%9C%E8%A8%98%E8%80%85%E4%BB%A5%E7%95%A2%E6%A5%AD%E7%94%9F%E8%A6%AA%E5%8F%8B%E8%BA%AB%E4%BB%BD%E9%80%B2%E5%85%A5%E6%9C%83%E5%A0%B4 ) December 17, 2017. According to information, the Hong Kong College of Technology did not arrange for media to cover the graduation ceremony. Instead, the graduands arranged for the Apple Daily and HK01 reporters to receive passes to attend as their friends/relatives. Furthermore, these graduands had printed the slogans on white paper to bring to the ceremony. This showed that the whole incident was preplanned. The rules and regulations were made known to these students beforehand, and they knowingly violated them while making sure that friendly media would be there. This was not a spontaneous occurrence.

- If the action was decided at the spur of the moment, where would they make up the banners after being ejected? Instead this graduand raised up two pieces of white A4 paper on which is printed: "Students, those who don't wish to be slaves." The pieces of paper showed fold marks. In particular, this graduand isn't even aware that the piece in his right hand was folded such that the sentence read: "Students, not the original slave people." These pieces of paper were printed beforehand, folded and put into the pocket to bring into the hall to use. - There are "normal" ways of expressing your displeasure at the fact that the national anthem would be played at the graduation ceremony. For example, you can just stay home and explain your reasons on social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc). But that wouldn't make you a public hero. Therefore you choose to interrupt the graduation ceremony and meet the press (whom you had contacted beforehand) after being expelled in accordance with the announced rules. - Well, I don't see you expressing your displeasure at (1) the national flag flying at the Hong Kong College of Technology and many other institutions; (2) the Hong Kong passport showing the People's Republic of China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as the issuer; (3) the Hong Kong ID showing the logo of the People's Republic of China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; (4) the presence of People's Liberation Army barracks in many locations across Hong Kong; etc. - Once again, you don't protest these other things because it won't be media sensationalism that will make you a public hero. - (HKG Pao) Priscilla Lau Pui-king is the chairman of the Hong Kong College of Technology. She has been a Hong Kong delegate to the National People's Congress since 1998. She said that the school was aware that some students were planning to start trouble and that they had given two admission tickets to reporters. Therefore the school hired 10 security guards to maintain order. They also told the students that the graduation ceremony will be held up until any troublemaker leave. Lau said that the troublemakers came from the social work department. There was a social work teacher who "gave them bad ideas." This teacher has resigned earlier. - In this video, the student leader said that they merely refuse to stand up solemnly. Instead they merely sat quietly. They did not make any obscene gestures or raise any banners. But the video showed that he raised two pieces of white paper with a slogan. In this other video, Hong Kong College of Technology chairperson Priscilla Lau said that the national anthem was interrupted because two individuals crossed their arms to indicate rejection. So it is not true that they sat silently. - The case of the Hong Kong College of Technology brings up the issue of self-determination/autonomy at educational institutes in Hong Kong. According to HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay, their school has been "patriotic" ever since it was founded in 1957 as the Mongkok Workers' Night School -- they have always flown the Chinese five-star flag and played the March of the Volunteers anthem. The question is just who represents the Hong Kong College of Technology which is a private school. Is it the board of directors who were not elected by universal suffrage with civil nomination? Is it up to HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay who was hired by the board of directors? Or is it up to the students who spend two years there and move on? Or is it up to the dozen social work graduands? Or should the matter be left to a student/teacher/staff referendum? - Who knows more about the Hong Kong College of Technology, including its mission, history and operations? Students who will spend two years there to obtain an associate degree? Or Chan Cheuk-hay who has been college president since 1978? - HKCT has been 'patriotic' since inception. How did these 'pro-democracy' students end up there in the first place? What were they thinking? Caveat emptor! - (Wen Wei Po) December 19, 2017. HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay: "Before 1949, the British colonial government was afraid that the KMT may take back Hong Kong. Therefore they supported the leftists (Communists) against the rightists (KMT). With the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the British colonial government flipped position to support the rightists (KMT) against the leftists (Communists). Around 1950, they told the Workers' Night School (founded in 1946) that they must hang up the portrait of the King George VI and raise the Union Jack flag with nothing else being allowed. The Workers' Night School refused. The government cut off the subsidies. They also said that the Mong Kok Government School would be repurposed and ordered the Workers Night School to move out. The school was unable to pay its teachers, some of whom worked for no pay and even gave money to keep the school going. The school solicited donations and raised more than $200,000. Under public pressure, the government allocated a plot of unregulated cemetery in Ho Man Tin to the school. It was a time of economic depression after the Korean war, and the $200,000 was hardly enough to build a school. The school went through another round for fund-raising and finally in 1957 built the Mong Kok Workers' Children Secondary School that was shared with the Mong Kong Workers' Night School." - (Ko Chi Sum's Facebook) If these students are upset at finding themselves at a 'patriotic' school, it is never too late. They can always refuse to accept the diploma for the associate degree and enroll at some 'pro-democracy' institutions elsewhere. Will they? - What happened here is consistent with the theory behind Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution. There you want something from the government but you can't force them directly. So you hold the general public hostage by blocking the streets and create mass inconvenience. When the public gets upset, it will surely blame the government and not you. Here some students don't want the school to play the national anthem at the graduation ceremony. So they caused a disruption. When the other students and their friends/relatives get upset at the delay (or even the cancellation of the ceremony), they will surely blame the school administration and not the troublemakers. Of course, that was not the way that it worked out, back then and now. - No, it was not an equivalent situation. In the YouTube video, the national anthem was played for several seconds. Then a college administrator in the front raised his hand to stop the playing. He read from a script: "There was disrespectful behavior of the national anthem among those present. This is a violation of the rules and regulations. The graduation ceremony today could not be held in a solemn manner." The man said next: "Earlier we spotted at least two persons present were disrespectful of the national anthem. Can you please leave? Or else the graduation ceremony today will officially end as of now." As the dozen or so graduands left, others applauded. The college administration was completely prepared for this eventuality. They had a pre-written script and a hand signal system for stopping the national anthem. - The troublemakers' plan was to create a media circus, but the administration put the onus back on them: Either they leave or the graduation ceremony will be canceled immediately. They blinked. If they stayed, they would have to face the wrath of the other graduands. This was a simple and brilliant counter-plan. - The Hong Kong College of Technology graduation ceremony was targeted this year after what happened last year. It was an improvised action last year and the video was taken by participants and passed onto Apple Daily. This year, the troublemakers gave guest passes to Apple Daily and HK01 reporters, thinking that they would make an even bigger splash. But the college was completely aware and had a contingency plan in place. - (SCMP) Pan-democratic legislator Shiu Ka-chun, who opposes the anthem legislation, said educators should not serve their political ends over educational goals. “The biggest problem here is that the school is covering up the educational missions with their political missions,” Shiu said. “Should a Catholic school demand all students convert?” - Is letting students insult the national anthem an educational goal? - Should a Catholic school permit its students desecrate the statue of Jesus Christ on the crucifix? - (Ming Pao) December 18, 2017. Hong Kong College of Technology student Yu Kai-to told our newspaper that the school had established a new rule about standing solemnly during the national anthem or else face expulsion. Before the graduation ceremony, the school also announced that the graduate ceremony will be canceled if students won't stand solemnly. Yu and some other social work graduands believe that the Hong Kong government has not done enough public consultation on the national anthem law, so this violates "procedural justice." The school is going ahead with the national anthem law even before its enactment. This was holding the guests and family members of the graduands as hostages in order to force the graduands to comply. Therefore they decided to sit down during the national anthem and also raise placards in protest. Three students did not stand up during the national anthem, and the school asked them to leave. Ten other social work graduands left with them in protest. All these graduands received their diplomas afterwards. Yu said that he is not a Localist and he has no political party affiliation. His parents are from mainland China. "I have Chinese blood." Like his fellow students, he cares about current affairs. But the more he learned about current affairs, the harder it was to identify with China. "There are many unjust things in China, but the leaders won't acknowledge or change them. For example, the forced eviction of the low-end population showed that they are not there to serve the people. It is hard to identify with the country." - (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 19, 2017. This performance was planned beforehand. The college did not invite any media. But some students obtained parent admission tickets for Apple Daily and HK01 reporters to film. Afterwards, these Yellow Media followed college president Chan Cheuk-hay around. A female student was heard to issue directions: "Film more of him! Film more of his disgusting appearance!" Things worked out differently. The filmed dialogue between college president and the students made the students look "disgusting" instead. Social work graduand Yu Kai-to said: "Just because we didn't sing the national anthem does not mean that we are unpatriotic. It is because we understand the situation in China that we know that the Chinese government is unstable and not truly serving the people. As social work students, we should come out and be heard ..." Using "unstable" to characterize the China of today proves that they don't understand much. So it is not so shocking for them to find out only on graduation day that they had been attending a patriotic school. The Hong Kong College of Technology began as the Mong Kok Workers' Night School. In the 1950's it provided language and technical education to deal with lack of education and good jobs among workers. After the handover, it has become an institute of higher education for occupational training. I attended primary and secondary schools which were 'patriotic.' These were known as "leftist schools." They were the abandoned children within the Hong Kong educational system. The government didn't give them a cent in subsidy, so their operational funds come from the meager tuition fees. As a result, their teachers were paid poorly and the students had dim futures. Back then the government and the disciplinary services did not accept students from 'patriotic' schools. Patriotism was an original sin, just like criminal records and mental illness. The colonial administration screened such people out. So our graduates could only find work at Chinese emporia, China capital banks, the China Travel Services, etc. When I was young, I wanted to join the Girl Scouts and the Junior Police Call. But none of the uniformed groups wanted to cooperate with "leftist" schools. We were excluded from all extracurricular activities outside of our own school. Self-reliance has its advantages. Although we had no government subsidies and no famous coaches, we were always among the top in dancing, Chinese music and gymnastics. A fellow male student was the all-round gymnastics champion for many years, representing Hong Kong at the Asian Games against the likes of Li Ning. These schools were finally able to procure government financial subsidies after the 1997 handover. Hong Kong College of Technology went through a long road of political persecution to wait for the day when the five-star flag now flies high. Doesn't this national anthem have a special meaning? - (Speakout HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 23, 2017. Hong Kong College of Technology president Chan Cheuk-hay is being targeted by Yellow Ribbon media. Over the past several days, they trailed him everywhere that he went. When they cannot find anything unbecoming, they began to provoke him. On this day, the trailing reporter kept bumping into him and kicking him while holding the mobile phone in hand. Clearly, the reporter wanted Chan to get upset and start cursing. The same thing happened to the family of Frankly Chu. At the courthouse, the reporters followed them closely and kept provoking them: "Is Chu going to apologize to the victim?" "Is he sorry for assaulting people?" Those were not questions. Those were verdicts. The reporters had come with pre-established positions to provoke the family. Finally a male family friend (note: not a family member) had to curse them out. So the reporters got their assignments completed, and they rushed back to post the headline: "The son of Frankly Chu hurls obscene curses at reporters." Today, if you stand up and oppose the Yellow Ribbons, your entire family will be buried under White Terror. Over the past three years, the family of Frankly Chu has been harassed by the paparazzi. Whether they want a cup of milk tea or a bowl of beef noodle soup, someone is filming them secretly. Even his son in junior secondary school has been tailed by the paparazzi. What is the news value of Frankly Chu's family? What does the private life of HKCT president Chan Cheuk-hay matter to the general public? What do these reporters think they were getting into when they joined the profession? - According to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the people's right to know trumps everything else (including any laws, rules, regulations, norms, morals and ethics). - But if you report on the doings of Jimmy Lai's family, you would be causing grave harm to freedom of press in Hong Kong. - They are only doling out what their audiences want. Even if something didn't happen (such as Frankly Chu's son was not cursing), it should be reported as such because that is what the audience wants to see. This is a win-win outcome, because the audience and the media are both happy. - (SCMP) Keep Hong Kong schools out of political shenanigans. By Alex Lo. December 28, 2017. Young people may demand democracy, Hong Kong independence or fight the government for alleged corruption and failing the city. I can understand their impulse. What baffles me is why, to fight for those goals, so many have decided to take on their own schools and go after their teachers in the hope of turning educational institutions into political battlegrounds. Most students are there to study and learn, not to carry out political struggle. Less than two weeks ago, several students invited undercover reporters to cover their protest against the proposed national anthem law at their graduation at Hong Kong College of Technology. After the students were kicked out, they confronted the college head, thereby giving the reporters the headline they needed. It became such a big news story – I don’t know why – that some paparazzi even tailed the principal and his family members for several days as if it were a major political scandal. In the past few months, a handful of students at Our Lady’s College in Wong Tai Sin, an all-girls secondary school, have been advocating Hong Kong independence on campus by handing out fliers and disrupting school anniversary events. When they were told not to do it, they invited the news media and cried political censorship. The doings of such students are not accidental. Under two groups called Studentlocalism and Hong Kong National Front, which openly advocate the city going it alone from the mainland, separatist student groups at 18 schools and universities, possibly more, have been set up this year alone. Their express agenda is to bring separatism into campuses, not just at universities and colleges, but also secondary schools – and not just for discussion, but as a political cause, described in their own literature as “the only option” for Hong Kong. Now if young students want to be politically committed, who are we to stop them? But there are many places to do it. How about in front of government buildings or the residence of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor at Government House? There is no obvious relationship between advocating for a political cause and disrupting whatever school you happen to be a student at. Don’t other students have the right to be left in peace? No wonder the Education Bureau, usually the government department I have the least respect for, has instructed schools not to tolerate separatist activities; and mainland-funded scholarships now require applicants to swear by their patriotism. [842] A Suicide (2017/12/16) (The Standard) December 15, 2017. A university student who fell from a height in Kowloon Tong today has died. At about 7:43am this morning, the 22-year-old man was found lying unconscious after falling from the Academic and Administration Building at Baptist University Road. He was rushed to hospital and later certified dead. The young man was a fourth-year Hong Kong Baptist University student, who studied social sciences, Headline Daily reported. What is the coverage in the Yellow Ribbon media of Hong Kong? (Apple Daily) December 15, 2017. Before jumping off the building, the deceased had posted on his Facebook: "Please do not believe that there is no cross-border law enforcement under the Co-location Arrangement. Goodbye, everybody!" According to information, the student used to be in a family of four. He lived in Wong Tai Sin with his father, mother and younger sister. Some years ago his mother passed away and his father re-married and had a daughter who is 12-years-old mother. The relationship between the student and the stepmother was bad. One year ago, they got into a fight and the police came to investigate. The student rented a room in To Kwa Wan and moved out. Recently the police completed the investigation and arrested the student and her stepmother (Ming Pao) December 15, 2017. Before falling from a height, the deceased posted on social media Facebook: "Please do not believe that there is no cross-border law enforcement under the Co-location Arrangement. Goodbye, everybody!" (HK01 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/141517/-%E6%A0%A1%E5%9C%92%E8%87%AA%E6%AE%BA-%E6%B5%B8%E5%A4%A725%E6%AD%B2%E7%94%B7%E7%94%9F-%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E6%A8%93%E5%A2%AE%E6%A8%93%E4%BA%A1%E6%A0%A1%E6%96%B9%E7%B1%B2%E9%81%87%E5%9B%B0%E6%93%BE%E5%8F%AF%E6%B1%82%E5%8A%A9 ) December 15, 2017. According to information, the deceased is a 25-year-old fourth-year local student named Hung. Before falling from a height, he posted on Facebook: "Please do not believe that there is no cross-border law enforcement under the Co-location Arrangement. Goodbye, everybody!" Internet information indicated that Hung studied for an associate degree in Humanities (History) at Lingnan University School of Continuing Education at first. Last year, he was able to qualify for the History department at Baptist University. At the graduation class, he encouraged those who had failed to gain university admission through the DSE exam to follow his own example. The police have checked the CCTV recordings at Baptist University. The deceased was seen to be using his telephone and then he fell down. He did not carry any letter on him, so the reason for the suicide is unknown. - Here is how anti-Yellow Ribbon media covered this story differently: (Oriental Daily) December 16, 2017. (1) More than 10 years ago, the father remarried a mainland woman who gave birth to a daughter. (2) Hung and his stepmother got into a fight after a dispute over priority to use the bathroom. (3) At 737am, he said goodbye to his good friends on Facebook. The phrasing was 'peculiar' with an emoji of waving his hand. Internet Comments: - This is typical of Apple Daily by quoting a Facebook comment without offering any evidence. Who is to know whether their out-sourced reporter made this up? After all, the reporter is being paid on the basis of "hits" to the story. - The video in the Apple Daily story contained a screen capture.

But I grant you that this is so easy to forge. I can easily use Photoshop to change the text: "Donald Trump killed me because I have evidence that he is an alien from outer space." - Textual analysis: There is a glaring mistake in this one sentence. Normally one would use which curiosities." Very curious, indeed.

literally means "One thousand prayers." Thus, I say one thousand prayers for you in the hope that you won't believe that there is no cross-border law enforcement under the Co-location Arrangement. However, he used instead the homonym , which

literally means "One thousand

- Not curious at all. After all, when Joshua Wong sent out an annotated map of his prison cell, he managed to misspell 6 words out of the 10 named items (see #786). Nowadays in Hong Kong, the young people are semi-illiterate. - I firmly believe that Cross-border Law Enforcement is taking place and will continue to take place with or without the Co-location Arrangement. We are all Lam Tsz-kin! - Why was the young man was wary about the Co-location Arrangement? Here is a blog post by someone else at The Stand News: As soon as the High Express Rail becomes operational in Hong Kong, large numbers of soldiers and munitions will immediately saturate Hong Kong. Shenzhen and Hong Kong will become one city. Hong Kong and China will become a single body. The Hong Kong Dollar will be displaced by the RMB, for this is the reason why High Speed Rail tickets can only be purchased with RMB. Meanwhile, you must take special note that the High Speed Rail has a stop near the Shek Kong Barracks. According to Internet information, legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick has revealed that there is an underground tunnel leading from the PLA barracks to the High Speed Rail station. Ex-legislator Gary Fan Kwok-wai has released information that there is even a surface passageway. When the High Speed Rail becomes operational, there is nothing to stop the Chinese Communist and their armies from coming into Hong Kong. Just think about it, the Chinese Communists will have full control of the Hong Kong section. Not even the Hong Kong Customs Department or the Hong Kong Police can do anything. They can do whatever they want? It is amazing that people can believe this nonsense. The People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison has been present in Hong Kong since July 1, 1997. They are here to defend Hong Kong, so they must surely be armed already. If they want to move 1,000 Type 95 light machine guns here, they can just drive a few trucks over. If they want to move soldiers down, they can do so by land, sea or air at will. Why do they need the High Speed Rail? It takes more time because you have to transport to the train station, load onto the train, run the train, unload at the destination train station and transport to the final destination. Why not just drive directly to the final destination? If agents of "a powerful department" need to kidnap Hong Kong citizens and take them back across the border, they can go by land, sea or air. For example, they can travel by speedboat or even use a PLA Navy boat. Why do they need the High Speed Rail? How do they clear the kidnap victim through Hong Kong Immigration/Customs there? - No matter how you look at it, it was mainland China which killed his young man. On one hand, the young man's death note was about the Co-location Arrangement. Thus, he became the first victim of the Co-location Arrangement. There will undoubtedly be many more tragic deaths to come. To save those lives, we must immediately scrap the Co-location Arrangement. On the other hand, the young man came under family pressure because his mother passed away and his father had the nerve to marry a mainland woman and have another daughter. A year ago, the son and the stepmother got into a fight over bathroom priorities. The police was summoned and may yet charge them with common assault. The son was forced to move out. Whenever a mainland woman marries down to Hong Kong, there are always family as well as socio-economic problems. We must immediately stop all immigration from mainland China or else even more lives will be lost. - The suicide took place at Baptist University. Hong Kong Baptist University students must be depressed and fearful of the sight of the People's Liberation Army Kowloon East Barracks (formerly known as Osborn Barracks) right across the street from their campus. Every day when they walk down Waterloo Road or Junction Road, they see this symbol of foreign colonialism. It is imperative that these barracks be demolished and replaced by something more sightly (such as a shopping mall) or else even more student suicides will take place. - Valiant resistance does not mean killing oneself in the face of impossible odds. It means strapping a suicide bomb on oneself and shouting "Long live Hong Kong independence" as one rushes at the sentry post. The People's Liberation Army should vacate the premises before the Valiant Martyrs take action. - A death is a personal tragedy which should not be exploited for political purposes. Shame on all those exploiters! - (Daily Beast) The Werther effect: A new study provides the strongest evidence yet that sensational media reporting of a teen suicide plays into the tendency of other kids to imitate the tragic act. Unfortunately, the priority for the media is to capture eyeballs and make money. A lot of money. They are not in the business of saving lives. [841] The People of Hong Kong Rise Up! (2017/12/13) (Oriental Daily) December 12, 2017.

At around 6pm, almost 100 pan-democratic legislators, politicians and supporters gathered at the Legislative Council demonstration area. They erected about 10 tents and declared that they intend to stay overnight. They called on citizens to come down to voice their opposition and prevent the pro-establishment from amending the rules of procedures by laying siege to the Legislative Council. At around 1130pm, Legislative Council security guards began clearing the site of tents and people. However, as soon as a person is carried out of the area, he/she would turn around and immediately re-enter the area. At around 1210am, the Legislative Council secretariat called the police for assistance to complete the clearance. (Hong Kong Free Press) December 12, 2017. Pro-democracy demonstrators have been removed from outside the legislature amid a protest over the pro-Beijing camp’s attempt to amend the LegCo’s rules in their favour. Around 300 attended Monday’s protest, including lawmakers. Democrats had initially intended on camping overnight and surrounding the Legislative Council Complex on Wednesday. However, after repeated warnings from the police, they were removed from the site just before midnight. Earlier in the evening, the protesters were ordered by a LegCo security guard to “behave in an orderly manner” and “comply with directions given by officer of the Council” under section 11 of the legislature’s administrative instructions. Protesters were forbidden from putting up tents, and were requested to retrieve any tents that had been erected. “I have a right to protest,” demonstrators chanted. They were also told that, under the law, those who assault, interfere with or obstruct a Legislative Council officer are liable to a HK$10,000 fine and 12-months behind bars. “Hong Kong is finished after the LegCo rules are changed,” one protester shouted outside the police barricade. “How can one person [LegCo president] has so much power?” According to the Legislative Council rules, the demonstration area is only open for use between 7am and 11pm. At around 11:30pm, the camps were peacefully pulled to the sidewalk, while the protesters were removed one by one from the site by guards. Some demonstrators had to be carried out by Legislative Council security officers. The guards asked for police assistance at around 12:10am on Tuesday to move more protesters. (Oriental Daily) December 13, 2017. Early this morning at 2am, the police cleared the site. The demonstrators moved out to Tim Mei Road outside the demonstration area. Tonight, there were about 20 tents and more than 200 people gathered outside the demonstration area. Legislators Alvin Yeung, Jeremy Tam, Wu Chi-wai and Chan Chi-chuen stayed in the tents last night. At 830pm tonight, the police found that a 16-year-old Studentlocalism member named Lau with a facsimile air gun. Lau was taken down to the police station to assist in the investigation. - Video Lau Hong and the police (Oriental Daily) Wednesday. December 13, 2017. At 615pm, a number of pan-democratic political parties amassed in the Legislative Council demonstration area to declare that they are laying siege to the Legislative Council.

When the assembly began, there were less than 100 persons, including Occupy Central founder Benny Tai, disqualified legislator Leung Kwok-hung, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng and vice-chairman Raphael Wong, district councilor Ho Kai-ming (ADPL) and Neo Democrats' Gary Fan. There were about 30 tents on the roadside, some with banners such as "Oppose the amendment of the rules of procedures" and "Please do not dismantle." By 730pm, there were almost 200 people present. At 745am, about 20 pan-democratic legislative councilors, plus the disqualified legislative councilor Yiu Chung-yim, showed up. They declared that they were ready for a sustained battle. Benny Tai said that the passage of the amendment of the rules of procedure will weaken the restraining power of the pan-democrats within the Legislative Council. Therefore the pandemocrats must united and continue to resist even if the space is restricted. Tai admitted that more assemblies won't be effective, because too few people are participating. But nevertheless resistance must continue. Video: Chin Po-fun vs the police (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. Last night, the number of tents outside the Legislative Council building increased from about 30 to more than 40. The number of protestors stayed around 200. The pan-democratic legislators came out after their session to make speeches. By 830pm, the protestors began to leave. (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. On the evening after the vote, the pan-democratic legislators went to the Legco demonstration area to apologize to their supporters for failing to stop the amendments to the rules of procedure. They called on their supporters to vote for pan-democrats in the by-election next yar. At the time, there were about 300 people present, including both pro- and con- protestors. The two sides cursed at each other across the barricades. By 930pm, there were about 100 persons in the demonstration area. The assembly ended at around 10pm. Another group of protestors stayed at the tents on the sidewalk of Tim Mei Road. There were about 30 tents. After the assembly ended, some of these people began taking down the tents to leave. Internet comments: - Here is the activity log at the Legislative Council: 1:55 police clearance at legislative council building accomplished. 1:51am The next protester's (man, DQ legislator, DQ legislator, legislator, legislator, legislator) willingly walks out. 1:48am The next protester (man. former legislator) willingly walks out. 1:47am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:43am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:42am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:41am The next protester (man) willingly walks out. 1:39am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:38am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:35am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:32am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:29am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:26am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:25am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1:20am The next protester (woman, DQ legislator) willingly walks out. 1:16am The next protester (man) willingly walks out. 1:13am The next protester (man) willingly walks out. 1:12am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:08am The next protester (man) is carried out. 1:05 am One protester (woman) is claiming to be ill and fainted. 1:03am The next protester (woman) is carried out. 1am The next protester (woman) willingly walks out. 12:58am The next protester (man) willingly walks out. 12:57am The next protester (woman) willingly walks out. 12:55am The next protester (woman) willingly walks out. 12:52am. The next protester (man) willingly walks out. 12:50 am One protester (man) is claiming to be ill and fainted. The police appear to not know what to do to remove him. He is finally carried out and removed motionless. 12:44am First protester carried out now by arms and legs. 12:37 am The police are now setting up barricades to carry the protesters out, Guessing once carried out they will get each protester's i.d. information to possibility charge them with a crime (unauthorized public assembly of 30 people or more) at a later date. 12:32am The police and Legislative Council security has withdrawn. The protesters remain. 12:13am Police now moving in to arrest all the protesters who are sitting or laying down with locked arms. Numbering about 50 protesters with 50 media. Many of them have been arrested multiple times before for protesting and are hardly afraid of another arrest or the police. The oldest protester is 95 year's old. @ Legislative Council. Occupy Central founder Benny Tai pointed out that if 10,000 people come out and lay siege to the Legislative Council building or Government Headquarters, there won't be enough police manpower to remove or arrest them. So how do we get 10,000 people to come and lie on the ground for two days? - Let's see: If you pay them $1,000 each per day, then the total cost for two days of work is $1,000 x 10,000 x 2 = $20,000,000. This is a drop in the bucket for Jimmy Lai given that his company is losing hundreds of millions a year already. - On this Wednesday night, hundreds of thousands of people rushed off from work and hurried over to Happy Valley and the Off-Course Betting Branches to follow the Hong Kong Jockey Club horse races. - (HKG Pao) Here a group of protestors leave linking arms. They chanted: "Tonight they arrest 10 persons. Tomorrow 100 persons will come." Well, what has been happening is that 100 persons came around tonight. Nothing much happened. Tomorrow only 10 persons show up. - The yet-to-be-finalized talk is that the pan-democrats will raise the ante by calling for a hunger strike. At first, the participants will be the disqualified legislative councilors and the second-tier pan-democrats, because the frontline pan-democrats have to be energized to fight inside the Legislative Council. - (SCMP) Lesson for Hong Kong’s politicians: this is how you do a hunger strike. By Yonden Lhatoo. August 11, 2016. We have hunger strikes here in Hong Kong too, but they’re feeble publicity attempts by veteran and budding politicians who are prone to separation anxiety when they’re kept away from food for too long. Our so-called hunger strikes can be farcical exercises in futility, with the concept of marathon fasting morphing conveniently into a relay system, in which participants working in shifts pass on the starving baton to reinforcements while they take a break to tank up. Remember student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung’s “indefinite hunger strike” during the Occupy protests of 2014? It lasted all of four days, and he gave up citing “strong doctor’s advice” and “extreme physical discomfort”. Government officials sat it out, smug in the knowledge that it would never get to the stage where they would be forced to the negotiating table. Democratic Party heavyweight Albert Ho Chun-yan, no pun intended, also staged an “indefinite hunger strike” for universal suffrage in 2014. It lasted all of 100 hours as a bout of “diarrhoea” combined with a “mild headache” prompted him to throw in the towel and pick up a plate. This is not an attack on the heroes of the pan-democratic camp. At least they try to go hungry in the name of democracy on occasion. Their pro-establishment rivals should try it, too – for health reasons if not for politics. The amount of fasting involved in the cases of Wong and Ho was probably good for them in terms of detoxification. My Muslim friends do it all the time as part of their faith. They tell me it rejuvenates your body and helps you think clearly. - (Silent Majority HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 13, 2017. The decisive moment for the amendment of Legco rules of procedure has arrived. The pan-democrats have erected large numbers of tents outside the Legislative Council. They are calling upon their supporters to join their resistance effort. They said that they will stay until Christmas. The first time that an idea is introduced, it is a "new idea." When it is used again, it is a "old idea." After it is used a few more times, it is a "worn-out idea." The same people are using the same method in the same place to oppose the same enemy. Three years ago, the numbers of tents and persons were "uncountable." Three years later today, the numbers are easily countable. The reason is simple: When a confidence man uses the method in the same place to run the same confidence game, can there still be suckers around? According to Sing Tao Daily, there were several dozen citizens present when the assembly began. By midnight, there were over one hundred persons present. There were about ten tents which were erected by the political parties. You might say that Sing Tao Daily intentionally understated the numbers! So I checked the Yellow Ribbon media. Oddly enough, Apple Daily and Citizen News did not report on the numbers at all. They only said "about 20 tents stayed to hold fort" and "50 persons were removed during the clearance." HK01 said: "More than 20 tents remained outside the Legislative Council, with more than 100 persons gathered now." When I taught journalism, I would always ask when I see a homework report that the number was "about 10." About 10? So was that 8, or 9 or 10? And twenty-something? Was it 21 or 29? News reporting should be accurate. This is not having to count to 2,900 or 29,000. What can't you count 100-something accurately? 10 or 20 tents. 100-odd persons. How come no reporter cared to count accurately? Three years ago, "10,000 persons Occupied Central" was a landmark. Three years later today, "20 persons Occupied Central" should be the ending of the story. This is a very important number, and it is surely countable. Why don't the reporters make an accurate count and tell the public? Please! - (Silent Majority HK) The numbers are telling us that filibustering is unpopular. The pan-democrats had called on their supporters to "lay siege to the Legislative Council." What were the results? A couple of days ago, the tent city consisted of about 10 tents, most of which were unoccupied. Last night the peak attendance at the "siege" of the Legislative Council was just over 100, most of them being the regular troublemakers. After a couple of hours, they lost interest and went home. The pan-democrats joined hands with the independence/self-determination activists to oppose the amending of the Legco rules of procedures. But they looked on the edge of defeat even as they got started. The reason is simple: filibustering is unpopular with the people. Denial merely makes the defeat look ever uglier. Eddie Chu Hoi Dick has run out of dirty tricks, so he doesn't look so smug now. Hui Chi-fung tried attacking the security guards who were doing their jobs. Public opinion was firmly against him. Everybody knows that amending the Legco rule of procedures is intended to stop filibustering. The Legislative Council needs to hold regular meetings, construction workers need to have work, and livelihood and economic packages need to be passed on a timely basis. The only way to do this is to change the Legco rules of procedure. The pan-democrats were addicted to filibustering. As long as the rules remain the same, they won't be able to restrain themselves from filibustering. The people of Hong Kong can see this clearly. Even the pan-democrats' supporters can see it. That is why there are so few protestors apart from their pan-democratic legislators and their aides. - It is not true that they are shopping the same old worn-out ideas. This time they have mobilized the "scholars." Objection to amending the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure to weaken its deliberation and oversight powers ( Petition for the academics) In recent days, pro-establishment legislators proposed to amend the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure, at a time when the democrats had lost their veto powers as a result of the oath-taking controversy. We object to the amendment proposals because once such amendments are passed, they stand to gravely weaken the Council’s power to monitor the government, already minuscule as they are, and allow the all-powerful executive authorities to escape legislative oversight even further, rendering a much increased chance of Hong Kong heading towards an authoritarian system. Reasons for the above understanding are as follows: First, the pro-establishment camp claims that the purpose of amending the Rules of Procedure is to deter filibuster. But detailed examination of their proposals shows that some of the suggested amendments have actually nothing to do with filibustering, for example, the proposal to raise the quorum from 20 to 35 for investigations of public officers. The democratic camp has in the past presented three petitions for investigating public officials, including the entertainment expenses and overseas visits of Mr. Tong Hin-ming Timothy when he was Commissioner of the ICAC, delays and cost overruns of the express train project, and the payment deal between Mr. Leung Chun-ying and UGL. All the petition proceedings took about five minutes and neither necessitated nor constituted filibustering. Raising the requested number of petitioners to 35 before petitions can be presented is tantamount to dictating a pro-establishment camp endorsement before petitions can be referred to select committees. This would mean the similar, investigative committees would have little chance of being set up in future. The Legislative Council will have even greater difficulty in initiating investigations into suspected dereliction of duty by officials while costs to officials and public officers for abuse will be even less. In addition, the pro-establishment camp proposes lowering the quorum for the Committee stage of the whole Council on a bill from 35 to 20. Attending Legislative Council meetings to deliberate on bills is legislators’ duty. The pro-establishment camp’s suggestion to lower the quorum rather than encouraging legislators to fulfil their duty of attending Council meetings is putting the cart before the horse and lowering its own standards. The suggestion is also in contravention of Article 75 of the Basic Law which stipulates that “[t]he quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be not less than one half of all its members.” Furthermore, the pro-establishment camp proposes a change on motions to adjourn debate or of proceedings of a committee of the whole Council. When the Chairman is of the opinion that the moving of the adjournment of proceedings is an abuse of procedure, he or she may decide not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate. The passage of this revision will make legislature’s members unable to compel the withdrawal of unreasonable or draconian bills. The Chairman will be able to order a vote on a draconian bill and substantially weaken legislators’ capacity to reduce administrative abuse and mistakes. When legislators lose the power to deliberate and the Legislative Council cannot rely on legislative procedures and powers to exert pressure and scrutinize the government, costs to the government for poor governance and pushing poor legislation will be much diminished and the government will not need to respond to the legislature or to public opinion. If the pro-establishment camp succeeds in amending the Rules of Procedure, when the government decides to push through draconian legislation that breaches public interests and human rights, including legislation of Article 23, the Legislative Council will have greater difficulty in deterring such moves through legislative scrutiny and mobilizing for public support. The government will be more likely to become the representative of a dictatorial regime not subject to any checks to its powers, and all Hong Kong people will suffer. * Scholars' Alliance for Academic Freedom * CHAN Ka Lok, Kenneth (HKBU, Associate Professor) * CHAN, Stephen C.K. (Lingnan U, Professor) * CHAN Sze Chi (HKBU, Senior Lecturer) * CHAN Yin Ha (CUHK, Senior Lecturer) * CHEUNG, Chor Yung (CityU, Senior Teaching Fellow) * CHOI Po King (CUHK, Adjunct Associate Professor) * CHONG Yiu Kwong (EdUHK, Senior Lecturer) * CHOW Po Chung (CUHK, Associate Professor) * FU King-wa (HKU, Associate Professor) * FUNG Wai-wah (Senior Lecturer, CityU of Hong Kong) * HO Chi Kwan (Caritas Higher Institute of Education, Research Professor) * HUI Hon Wing (EdUHK, Lecturer) * KWOK, Rowena (HKU, former Assistant Professor) * KUAN Hsin Ki (CUHK, Emeritus Professor) * KUNG Lap Yan (CUHK, Associate Professor) * LEUNG Chi Yuen (PolyU, Teaching Fellow) * LEUNG Yan Wing (EdUHK) , Adjunt Associate Professor * LEUNG, Yuk-ming Lisa (Lingnan U, Associate Professor) * LI Chin Wa (EdUHK, Senior Lecturer) * LUK Kit Ling (HKCC, PolyU, Lecturer) * MA, Ngok (CUHK, Associate Professor) * NGO Hang Yue (CUHK, Professor) * POON Eric (CUHK, Associate Professor of Practice) * SING Ming, Dixon (HKUST, Associate Professor) * SO, Alvin (HKUST, Chair Professor) * TO Yiu Ming (HKBU, Assistant Professor, retired) * WONG Wai Kwok, Benson (HKBU, Assistant Professor) * WONG Chi Wai, Paul (CC City U, Lecturer) * YAU, Joe C.K. (HKBU, Lecturer) (SCMP) Our scholars need a lesson in honesty. By Alex Lo. December 12, 2017. A group of more than 25 university lecturers have formed an alliance and declared themselves against rewriting the rule book of the Legislative Council – while exploiting the prestige of their academic titles. As citizens, they have every right to express an opinion for or against the overhaul, which aims to curb the ability of the opposition to launch filibustering and other delaying tactics in Legco. But why do they think their individual university employment titles and collective identity as professional academics matter – unless, that is, to create a false and elitist impression that they have special insights and knowledge and we don’t? “We, the undersigned scholars, …” they wrote, then listed their university titles. Chinese traditionally have a special respect for scholars. In the contemporary world, this means someone with a PhD and/or employed at a university with a professorial title. Here, I include assistant and associate professors, and honorary lecturers on temporary contracts. We still seem to assume such people possess special knowledge and insights. And they do, but only in their particular scientific and literary fields. Some of them no doubt think they are special. But if you think about it, are they really any more insightful than a well-informed taxi driver who spends all day listening to the radio and hourly news in his car? Professional scholars are rarely superior when it comes to matters that concern ordinary citizens. The fact that many spend their entire lives in an academic setting should give you pause. The online statement published by the group of academics essentially repeats the same arguments against rewriting the Legco rules and procedures that have already been voiced by the opposition. In fact, if you look up those names, some of them are card-carrying party members of the opposition and/or long-time supporters. Why not just be honest and declare yourselves writing as or for the opposition? The problem with this battle is that the government-friendly lawmakers, for once, have managed to present a simple and coherent message, which is that for years, the opposition is opposing for its own sake and holding up important legislative business. The opposition, however, has made a complete mess of it; worse, it reinforces the pro-government message by creating more disruptions and chaos in Legco to try to stall the rule overhaul. But it’s late in the day and they have already lost the battle. - (SCMP) Hong Kong pan-dems now reap what they have sown. By Alex Lo. December 14, 2017. When opposition lawmakers called for an Occupy-like overnight rally against rewriting the rule book in the legislature, only a handful of supporters showed up. Legislative Council security and police cleared the area in no time. So much for what they have called “a struggle to the death”. More humiliating for the lawmakers is that instead of sympathy, they were mercilessly mocked – by localists. Wong Yuk-man, former lawmaker and “father of Legco filibustering”, might be expected to support the pan-dems’ efforts against curbing filibustering and other delay tactics in Legco. Instead Wong spent no fewer than three segments on his online radio show ridiculing and shouting obscenities at them. Ernie Chow Shue-fung, the former Chinese University student union president who acquired citywide notoriety on YouTube for shouting racial slurs at fellow mainland students, said the pan-dems had no credibility among street protesters. Chow, who also has his own radio show, labelled the pan-dems “Legco self-castrators and sinners of a thousand epochs”. Lewis Loud, the English pseudonym of a localist who is sometimes called the pen of the radical movement because of his literary flair, took a more regretful tone. “We came out for you during the Occupy protests (in 2014) … confronted the government over its development plans in the Northeastern New Territories … fought police to protect hawkers (during the 2016 Mong Kok riot),” he wrote on Facebook. “You criticised our actions as too extreme … Many of us were put on trial and sent to jail, but we barely had any legal assistance … You insist on calling your own people ‘prisoners of conscience’, yet you never say a word about those of us who have been jailed.” You can hardly blame the trio for their animosity. The last time the Legco rule book was rewritten in 2011, the pan-dems fully supported it. The major change was to extend the power of the Legco president to eject members from the chamber for misbehaviour to chairmen of Legco committees. It was overwhelmingly voted in by the Civic Party’s Tanya Chan, Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, Alan Leong Kah-kit and Ronny Tong Ka-wah, and Democrats Albert Ho Chun-yan, Fred Li Wah-ming, James To Kun-sun, Emily Lau Wai-hing, Lee Wing-tat and Kam Nai-wai. That rule change clearly aimed to shut up Wong and his filibustering partners Albert Chan Wai-yip and “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung. Now the pan-dems are reaping what they have sown from radical localists. - The stated goal is to mobilize the general population to oppose this grave threat to freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. However, public opinion polling suggests that the general population actually wants to see an end to the shenanigans at the Legislative Council. So in order to make the general population become more aware, the pan-democratic legislators have provided more ammunition to the other side: - (Hong Kong Free Press) December 15, 2017. A pro-democracy lawmaker has been kicked out of the Legislative Council chamber as the battle over the controversial changes to the legislature’s house rules nears its end. Before the meeting started on Friday, pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu attempted to charge into the president’s seat, but he was stopped by security guards who backed him against the wall. Following that, Democratic Party lawmaker Ted Hui put a rape alarm into his drawer, allowing it to buzz. LegCo President Andrew Leung asked him to hand over the key of his drawer, but he refused. Hui then left the chamber, and Leung banned him from the chamber for the day over “serious misconduct.” The device was removed by guards using a backup key. The incident came after a similar one on Thursday night, when lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun took out a rape alarm, saying that he hoped to give a “final warning” to Hong Kong people. He said the current battle to strip lawmakers of their power was akin to the 1933 Enabling Act of Germany, which gave Adolf Hitler his dictatorial power. The Communist and Social Democrat members of the German legislature were not able to vote after the infamous Reichstag fire. “We have to wake people up,” he said, as pro-democracy members passed the alarm around. Guards tried to block lawmakers Ray Chan and Ted Hui from passing it. The meeting was suspended for ten minutes when lawmaker Claudia Mo fell to the ground after she clashed with guards. - (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. At 1:08pm, legislator Eddie Chu raised another procedural question. Then he brought out a banner with the words "Don't want to be the People's Congress" and chanted slogans. Next he brought out a rape alarm and set it off. After multiple warnings failed, chairperson Starry Lee banned Chu. Legislators Shiu Ka-chun, Cheung Chiu-hung and Claudia Mo stood by Chu who had chained himself to his seat. The security guards used cutters to cut off the chain and carried Chu out. - (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. Previously, pro-democracy legislator Chan Chi-chuen had said that the pro-establishment camp has dog eyes. He corrected himself today and said that the comment was an insult to dogs. Instead, he said that the pro-establishment camp uses their "butt holes" to see. The pro-establishment camp ignored the insult and refused to waste any time to object. Chan Chi-chuen was the last pro-democracy legislator to speak. Afterwards, it was the turn of pro-establishment legislator Martin Liao to speak. While Liao spoke, Chan stood and hollered the whole time. Chairperson Andrew Leung warned Chan to no avail. Leung then ordered Chan removed. The security guards approached and found that Chan had chained himself to his seat. So the security guards used cutters to cut the chain and then carried Chan out. - Video (Speakout HK via YouTube) Claudia Mo fell down to the ground and other pan-democratic legislators demanded that the session be immediately suspended in order to summon an ambulance to take her the hospital. Shortly afterwards she bounced back up from the ground and immediately asked for a quorum count. - James To, Roy Kwong and Leung Yiu-chung were tossed out together. Why these three? They were elected in the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency by voters all over Hong Kong, with To getting 243,930 votes, Kwong getting 491,667 votes and Leung getting 303,457 votes. They came out and told the press that the wishes of 1,039,024 (=243,930 + 491,667 + 303,457) voters had just been disrespected. - 1,039,024 voters voted for To, Kwong and Leung last year. Last night, 100 or so people showed up to demonstrate outside the Legislative Council. Please reflect on how your actions over the past year has alienated your voter base. - All of these incidents are telegenic and therefore replayed endlessly on the television news programs and social media. This is definitely going to move the public even more to the other side. - (SCMP) The opposition has truly lost the plot. By Alex Lo. December 16, 2017. Actions speak louder than words. That’s why the antics of opposition lawmakers causing chaos and disruptions in the legislature have overshadowed the arguments they have made against rewriting the rule book to curb filibustering and other delaying tactics as legitimate legislative methods. In so doing, they are confirming the pro-government bloc’s argument that they have nothing constructive to offer than being disruptive for its own sake, so curtailing their ability to interrupt legislative business is perfectly reasonable. As if to prove this point, the first thing Democrat Ted Hui Chi-fung did yesterday in the legislative chamber was to set off an ear-splitting alarm. He then confronted security staff and refused to hand over the device. At the same time, for no apparent reason and without provocation, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, an independent localist lawmaker, rushed at the Legco president before being stopped by security. Last month, while trying to stop another meeting on the rule book overhaul, Chu even tried to introduce a motion to kick out members of the press and public from the chamber, just to stall and waste time! Is there anything that’s more against the democratic principle than keeping away citizens and journalists? Afterwards, Chu’s allies explained that they would have all voted against the motion, even Chu himself! But surely the first rule of political theatre is that symbolism and sending the right message matter. It’s not just what you do but how you do it. But Chu’s actions are by no means the worst. On this week’s 80th anniversary of the Nanking massacre, Chan Chi-chuen of radical People Power suddenly tried to introduce a motion to debate the historical tragedy and Japan’s failure to properly apologise for it. It was not that he had suddenly become patriotic. He made no bone that it was all an attempt to delay debating the Legco rule book change. Sometimes the ends justify the means, especially if you are trying to win. But in this battle, the opposition has already lost. Not only do the pro-government loyalists have the voting numbers to succeed in rewriting the rule book, they also have solid public support. The opposition should have taken the moral high ground and sent a clear message that it’s fighting for a democratic principle. But merely to delay the inevitable, it has shown there is no line it won’t cross. It has truly lost the plot. - (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. Five reasons why the pan-democrats lost this one: (1) Six pan-democratic legislators were disqualified earlier. This means that the pan-democrats did not have the numbers to veto the proposal within the directly elected geographical constituency. The implication here is that the pan-democrats must win all three geographical constituency seats in the Legco by-election in March 2018 in order to take back veto power. (2) The pro-establishment camp was united. They canceled all overseas trips and local activities. They stayed at the Legislative Council in case of quorum calls. They voluntarily refrained from speaking and they ignored insults and provocations from the pan-democrats. Legco chairman Andrew Leung also stood firm. (3) At first the government insisted on advancing a bill about the banking industry, which was used by the pan-democrats to stall for time. More than 10 hours were wasted on that bill. The government withdrew that as well as most other proposals, thus clearing out the Legco agenda for this amendment of rules of procedure. There was nothing else that the pan-democrats could filibuster with. (4) The pan-democrats positioned the amendment as "self-castration," "authoritarianism" and "oppression" that are paving the way for Article 23 legislators. But most citizens appear to be genuinely tired of the filibustering. The CUHK public opinion poll showed that more than 50% oppose filibustering with only 20%-30% supporting it. By the time that the pan-democrats tried to get scholars and supporters to come out for them, it was too late. In the absence of widespread public support, the "siege" of the Legislative Council melted away silently. (5) The pan-democratic camp is divided into the traditional pan-democrats and the localist/independence/self-determination group. The traditional pan-democrats were on their own, because the localists do not seem to think that this concerns them. Most of the participants in the demonstrations outside the Legislative Council building were middle-aged and senior citizens, with very few young people or "masked men." - Even before the Legco vote took place, the pan-democrats have moved on to the next great battle for Freedom and Democracy in Hong Kong. The Civil Human Rights Front announced that they plan to hold a Defend Hong Kong demonstration march on New Year's Day. Last year, they stated a figure of 50,000 to the police in their application for a letter of no-objection. This year, they stated a figure of 2,000 to the police. Of course, this has never been about any issues or attendance figures. It has always been about raising money. So please remember to go down, open your wallets and give generously! Freedom and Democracy in Hong Kong are counting on you! - (Silent Majority HK) January 11, 2018. At the first meeting of the Legislative Council after the Xmas/New Year break, the pan-democrats went through their usual routine under the newly passed rules of procedure. First, pan-democrats Charles Mok, Claudia Mo, Alvin Yeung and Wu Chi-wai handed in a petition to turn the Co-location Proposal to the Internal Affairs Committee for "in-depth discussion." This would have stalled the progress of the proposal. Only 21 pan-democrats/pro-independence/pro-self-determination stood up support this petition. So it was rejected because it did not reach the newly established threshold of 35. Next, the pan-democrats went for the quorum count. During the discussion over the budget proposal, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick asked to checkquorum. Legco president Andrew Leung rejected his request. Under the new rules of procedure, only 20 legislators are required to be present instead of 35. So the $8.3 billion additional budget request was passed. Afterwards the pan-democrats lined up to meet to press and shouted slogans to tell how terrible the rules of procedure. They failed to elicit any public reaction. - Could it be that the public approves of the amendment of the rules of procedure? [840] Hong Kong's National People's Congress Election (2017/12/13) (SCMP) December 13, 2017. Nine Hong Kong democracy activists have been banned from the race to elect 36 deputies to China’s National People’s Congress. The move is in line with an unprecedented new rule that says candidates aspiring to represent the city in the country’s legislature must swear to uphold the Chinese constitution and the “one country, two systems” principle under which Hong Kong is governed. Civic Party lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki, pro-independence activist Yeung Ke-cheong and seven supporters of Hong Kong’s Occupy democracy protests of 2014 had their candidacies invalidated. A 10th candidate was disqualified because he did not hand in any nomination forms. The decisions were made on Wednesday morning by the 19-member presidium that oversees the poll, which will be held on Tuesday next week. The body is chaired by Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and its members include two of her predecessors, Leung Chun-ying and Tung Chee-hwa. In total, 49 candidates will run for the 36 seats. They include two pro-democracy figures, Roger Wong Hoi-fung and Henry Lam, who in March joined Hong Kong’s pan-democratic camp in nominating John Tsang Chun-wah and Woo Kwok-hing to contest Carrie Lam in the city’s leadership poll. In the NPC poll five years ago, two pan-democrats, Paul Zimmerman and Fong King-lok, were allowed to run but they both failed to get elected. In March, the national legislature endorsed new rules for the election of Hong Kong and Macau deputies, making it mandatory for candidates to sign a declaration that they would uphold the Chinese constitution and Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law. Among the nine activists who had their candidacies invalidated, Kwok was the only one who refused to sign the declaration. Asked why Yeung and the seven Occupy supporters were not allowed to run, the presidium’s spokesman, Ambrose Lau Hon-chuen, said the ruling was made according to recommendations by the NPC Standing Committee. “In accordance with the regulations, authorities related to the Standing Committee collected material on some aspirants’ public remarks and acts. They were widely reported by the media and contravened the content of the declaration,” Lau said, declining to disclose details. Last month Lau warned that candidates who failed to make their declarations “genuinely” would be disqualified. Kwok said the disqualifications demonstrated the “ridiculousness and falseness” of the election, which he called “just a show”. “Why do they have to set so many bars to screen candidates? It doesn’t help the integration between the mainland and Hong Kong,” he said. A panel of 1,989 Hong Kong voters, including about 300 pan-democrats, will choose the 36 deputies by block vote on December 19. Among the 49 candidates, 26 are seeking re-election, while 23 are currently not NPC deputies. The 23 include lawyer and opponent of the 2014 Occupy movement Maggie Chan Man-ki, former constitutional and mainland affairs minister Raymond Tam Chi-yuen, and Tam Yiu-chung, a former chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the city’s largest pro-establishment political party. Tam is tipped to replace the retiring Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai as the sole local delegate to the NPC Standing Committee.

The case of Kwok Ka-ki (Hong Kong Free Press) November 28, 2017. Civic Party lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki has said he will run for the National People’s Congress (NPC) to combat its “unreasonable” decisions on Hong Kong, and to promote “genuine freedom and democracy” in China in accordance with the ideals of late Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo. Kwok is the only major pro-democracy figure to run. But he will not sign a required form declaring that he upholds the Chinese Constitution, and admitted that he will likely be disqualified from running. He said he hopes to scrap Beijing’s 2014 decision to impose a restrictive framework on Hong Kong’s chief executive elections and invalidate its five interpretations of the city’s Basic Law. He also said he hoped to bring the Charter ’08 manifesto into China’s top legislature – Liu was jailed for 11 years for co-writing the pro-democracy document. He said he has no issues with other items on the declaration form – such as upholding the Basic Law and pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region – but said the Chinese Constitution should be amended according to Charter ’08. He quoted the charter as saying: “… amend the Constitution, deleting clauses in the current Constitution that are not in conformity with the principle that sovereignty resides in the people, so that the Constitution can truly become a document that guarantees human rights and allows for the exercise of public power, and become the enforceable supreme law that no individual, group, or party can violate, establishing the foundation of the legal authority for democratizing China.” He said he expected that he will be disqualified from running: “It is very difficult for me to uphold a Constitution that cannot protect the democracy and freedom of Hongkongers and all Chinese people.” “Disqualification is now the norm… But if we give up opportunities, I am afraid in the future we won’t be able to run for anything.” - (SCMP) December 13, 2017. Kwok said the disqualifications demonstrated the “ridiculousness and falseness” of the election, which he called “just a show”. - Indeed, Kwok's announced candidacy coupled with the failure to sign the declaration form is "just a show." He got plenty of media coverage for this non-event.

The Case of Yeung Kecheong (#519) May 6, 2016. The Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong was founded by former League of Social Democrats member Yeung Kecheong. Today at 6pm at the party press conference, Yeung announced that there are many options for self-determination/autonomy, including: (1) Hong Kong becomes an independent nation (2) Hong Kong joins the Republic of China in Taiwan as a county/city (3) Hong Kong becomes a territory of the United States of America, either as a state (such as Hawaii or Alaska), or an unincorporated organized territory (such as Guam, Northern Marianna Islands, Puerto Rico or the United States Virgin Islands), or an unincorporated unorganized territory (such as American Samoa). (4) Hong Kong forms a federation with the Guangdong and Guangi provinces of China. All these options will still allow Hong Kong to elect its own leader by universal suffrage. Yeung admitted that he has not discussed these options with the relevant authorities in Taiwan, the United States or Guangdong/Guangxi. Yeung Kecheong said that when National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang visits Hong Kong next week, he will try to get close to Zhang and express these demands. Yeung said that he was prepared to bear responsibility for his actions. He said that the Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong will participate in the Legislative Council elections in September. The Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong claims to have several dozen members, and they adhere to "peace and rationality," and "localism without valiant force." (SCMP) July 31, 2016. Pro-democracy localist candidate Yeung Ke-cheong was disqualified from running in Hong Kong’s upcoming Legislative Council elections after he did not pledge to uphold the city’s mini-constitution. “I was disqualified as I deliberately stated that I would not uphold the Basic Law and thus did not sign the relevant statement,” Yeung wrote on his Facebook page on Sunday. Section 40(1)(b) of the ordinance states that a person’s candidacy will not be validated unless his nomination form includes a declaration that he will uphold the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Instead, Yeung submitted to the watchdog a separate statement asserting that the city’s mini-constitution no longer applied to Hong Kong’s current situation and thus it would be difficult for him to sincerely uphold it. “I fully understand such a move does not comply with the requirement laid out by section 40 of the relevant ordinance and could ban me from running,” Yeung wrote in the statement he submitted to the commission. “But I think the relevant legal clauses have violated basic human rights and freedom of speech and unreasonably limit my right to run. On this basis I will launch a judicial review.” (Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong) March 4, 2017. The Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong was unable to achieve quorum for its annual meeting. Therefore it will cease all activity effectively immediately.

The case of the seven Gao-wu (Shopping) Revolutionaries (Wen Wei Po) (Ta Kung Pao) December 11, 2017. Gao-wu (Shopping) Revolutionaries Chin Po-fun, Ku Po-ching, Wu Kin-wah, Yip Hing-cheung, Cheung Tak-wing, Yuen Yuet-hing and Ho Suk-yu declared their candidacy for the Hong Kong National People's Congress delegation. They signed a declaration that they support the Chinese constitution and the Hong Kong Basic Law, that they support One Country Two Systems, that they pledge loyalty to the People's Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that they have not received any form of direct or indirect aid from foreign organizations or individuals for the election. These are clearly false statements given their previous support for Hong Kong independence and opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, the Central Government and the Hong Kong government. In September this year, Ta Kung Po reported that Chin Po-fun led other Shopping Revolutionaries to Chinese University of Hong Kong to hold up a red placard with the words "Hong Kong independence" to show passersby. Another Revolutionary held up a Lion-Dragon flag for Hong Kong independence. The Ta Kung Pao reporter called up Chin Po-fun and asked her why she violated the Constitution/Basic Law by calling for Hong Kong independence. Chin said: "I am busy ... I am in the street ... I can't hear you clearly." Then she hung up. Does she support Hong Kong independence? The closest she got to an answer was: "The people of Hong Kong don't have any guns. What is there to talk about independence then?" The Ta Kung Pao reporter went down to the home ground of Sai Yeung Choi Street South to speak to these Shopping Revolutionaries. Ho Suk-yu explained her view of Hong Kong independence: "Daddy and mommy want to oppress their son who wants to be independence. We can't stop them." "Why do young people talk about 'Hong Kong independence' all the time? Because they feel that their parents are too oppressive." What about Chin Po-fun and others pushing for "Hong Kong independence" at the Chinese University of Hong Kong? Ku Po-ching, Wu Kin-wah and Yip Cheung-hing said: "Someone sneaked in. We don't know those people" and "We can't control what other people do." How can they support the Constitution while opposing the Communist Party? Wu Kin-wah said: "In the Constitution, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is mentioned only in the foreword, not in article something or the other within the main text. If you think that I violated the Constitution, you should tell me which article it was. It can't be about the foreword. You are talking about the table of contents? Can there be a crime based upon the table of contents?" Yip Hing-cheung said: "We support the People's Republic of China. This is a republic for the people of China. It is a republic for all of the people. It is not a People's Republic of Communist Party China. If that were the case, I have no comments. If it is about supporting the Communist Party, I have no comments. In July this year, Chin Po-fun talked about stopping the Co-location at West Kowloon West Station. She called for resistance against the governments of China and Hong Kong: "The people of China and the people of Hong Kong rise up together to resist." The Democracy Street Mong Kok Gao-wu Group Facebook has also published numerous pro-independence, anti-Communist and anti-mainland posts. For example, "China is an evil ghoul country," China is a county of swindlers," "China only knows how to persecute its citizens" and "being born a mainlander means having no freedom." According to legal professionals, these seven persons made false statements when they signed their declarations.

[839] Martyrs of the Umbrella Counter-Revolution Part 3 (2017/12/13) Background: #639 A Tale of Two Cities (Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017. Five individuals are on trial today. The five face one count of unlawful assembly each. In addition, four of them face one count of common assault each. The five are transportation worker Giok Kheng (53), retiree Tong Fat-cheung (72), housewife Lam Kam-sheung (68), retiree Lau pit-chuen (71) and housewife Kwong Kwai-sim (67). Today Nathan Law testified in court. He said that he was returning from Taiwan by airplane and he had arranged to speak to reporters about his activities in Taiwan. As soon as he stepped into the lobby, he was surrounded by 20 to 30 persons from "patriotic organizations." These people were excited and cursed him out as "Chinese traitor", "running dot", "traitor", "get out of Hong Kong." It was chaotic. Someone grabbed his collar. He was punched and kicked. In addition, someone hit him with placards and poured identified liquid on him such that his eyeglasses fell off. He was supposed to be escorted by security guards to meet with the press. But the plainclothes police officers had to take him down the stairs to leave. Law went to the hospital and confirmed that he had bruises and scratch marks on his neck, chest and arms. Law believed that these people caused the injury. The bruises on the inside of his thighs were believed to have been caused when he slid down the stairs. At the police line-up, Law was able to identified three male defendants. (Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017. Under cross-examination, Nathan Law said that he had encountered demonstrators when he left Hong Kong for Taiwan. There was no physical clash, but he filed a police report. He believed that the police arranged plainclothes officers to protect him when he came back. Law said that Hong Kong International Airport is an air traffic hub, and should be the safest place in the world. Law said that he trusted that the police can provide personal safety for me. The defense questioned if Law deliberately went among the demonstrators and caused things to spin out of control. Law disagreed. He said that the demonstration was fluid, and the demonstrators can surround him no matter where he was. He said that he "should not have been treated this way." Like all other passengers, his personal safety should be guaranteed no matter which exit he took. Law said that he felt pain in his lower legl, probably after being kicked. He agreed that the medical examination did not reveal this. He said that he was kicked and punched, but he was unsure who did it and he could not tell if it was intentional. As Law counted his injuries, a spectator commented: "Just say yes." The magistrate expelled this person from the courtroom for interfering with the testimony of the witness. (Oriental Daily) November 2, 2017. Under cross-examination, the defense asked Nathan Law whether he "cursed back" or "hit back" at the demonstrators. Law said that he did neither. He only told the demonstrators: "I will not let my beliefs recede on account of this." Defendant #4 Lau pit-chuen did not have legal representation. He had gone to the airport because he learned from television about what Nathan Law was doing in Taiwan. "I wanted to ask why you did it. If you weren't a legislator, I wouldn't mind." Lau said that he was being held around the neck by security guards and did not know that Law was attacked. He questioned whether Law fantasized being attacked. He denounced Law was a untrustworthy witness. Senior Superintendant Fu Chung-wai testified that he arranged for defendant #4 Lau pit-chuen to come down to the police station for a line-up. Lau refused to cooperate, so Fu arranged for a one-to-one encounter between Lau Pit-chuen and Nathan Law without obtaining Lau's permission. When Lau saw Law, he shouted "Chinese traitor!" Law pointed at Lau and said: "I recognize him. I recognize him." Lau said that he refused to participate in the police line-up because: "He is a Hong Kong independence activist. It is shameful. I have no reason to let him identify me." Lau said that Law is trying to set him up. Before the court session began, the prosecutor said that Nathan Law complained that defendants #2 and #4 and a member of the public cursed out Nathan Law yesterday. The magistrate said that it was important that the defendants not have contact with prosecution witnesses. He warned the defendants not to have any more contact with prosecution witnesses. During the hearing, the prosecutor indicated that videos will show defendant #3 Lam Kam-shueng and defendant #5 Kwong Kwai-sim poured liquid on and slapped Nathan Law. The magistrate asked the defense lawyers just what they will argue about. At first, the lawyers refused to say. This caused the magistrate to say that the defense lawyers are wasting the court's time. Besides it would help their clients if the magistrate was told about the points of debate and can focus on them. Finally the defense lawyers said that they had originally intended to argue whether their clients intend to commit crime. But now that they saw the paucity of evidence against their clients, they intend to argue whether their clients had been properly identified. The defense played the news videos. Defendant #3 was clearly seen to pour liquid on Nathan Law, while defendant #5 hit Law's head with a cardboard sign. The magistrate found that the evidence exists for the charges against defendants #1, #2 and #4. He will decide tomorrow about defendants #3 and #5. (HKG Pao) November 2, 2017. 72-year-old Tong Fat-cheung chose not to be represented by a lawyer. With the help of the magistrate, Tong cross-examined Nathan Law. Tong said that there wasn't any tussling, punching, kicking or tossing unidentified liquid. He accused Law of being an unethical witness. Tong admitted that he shouted slogans such as "Chinese traitor" and "running dog." He said excitedly: "I am angry. I am very angry right now!" and "God sent me to clash with him!" (Oriental Daily) November 3, 2017. Today, the magistrate said that the evidence exists for all five defendants. Summation then took place. A verdict will be rendered on December 6. Defendant #1 Giok Khengtestified for himself. He said that he went to the airport by himself, because he wanted to ask Legislative Councilor Nathan Law why he went to Taiwan to promote Hong Kong independence. "He was elected from 7 million Hong Kong citizens. How can he sell out the citizens?" He denied that he knows the other defendants. He said that he does not know Nathan Law either. He said: "How would I know any Hong Kong independence activist?" Ko admitted that he went into the crowd of demonstrators. Three times, he pulled at Nathan Law's collar with "normal strength." Law did not resist. Ko said that this showed that Law felt guilty. Ko said that he did not intentionally pull Law. Before defendant #2 Tang Fat-cheung testified, he took the oath in thickly accented Cantonese. The magistrate was worried that he might not understand what Tang says. The defense lawyer said: "He has a slight accent, but it should be okay once you get used to it." Tang testified that Nathan Law is a troublemaker who worked against the country. He admitted that he wanted to shame Nathan Law. So he pushed his way through the crowd and used one finger to tug at Nathan Law's backpack. During his testimony, Tang cursed Law: "It is the greatest shame in life to be a traitor." During summation, the defense lawyer said that Nathan Law's testimony was unreliable because even Law said that his memory might be faulty. Defendant #4 Lau Pit-chuen who had no legal representation cried and said that there was no reason for him to be charged with unlawful assembly because he did not know the other defendants. He also said that the screen captures from the scene were selectively edited. (Oriental Daily) December 6, 2017. Previously, Giok Kheng, Tong, Lau and Kwong were found guilty of one count of unlawful gathering. Ko, Tong and Kwong were found guilty of one count of common assault. In their plea, the defense pointed out that Giok Kheng was tall and strong. During the incident, he restrained himself or else "Mr. Law would have suffered serious injuries." Giok had "noble ideas" to preserve the territorial integrity of the People's Republic of China. Giok was upset by Nathan Law meeting with pro-Hong Kong/Taiwan independence proponents and committed the crime. The defense pointed out that Toang Fat-cheung had a cardiac problem with his left artery being completely blocked already. The defense asked the court to consider sentence on humanitarian grounds. The defense pointed out that Kwong was a first-time offender who should be sentenced leniently. Defendant Lau Pit-chuen had no legal representation but he said, "I don't need to ask for mercy." He said that Nathan Law is a pro-Hong Kong independence person and that the court will have to face up to the matter of Hong Kong independence. There were some random noise coming from the audio system, such that the session was adjourned to fix the technical problem. During the adjournment, Lau told the prosecutor that "he will be punished by the Heavens for persecuting good people." Tang yelled "Citizens are forced to act because the government won't", "zero tolerance for Hong Kong independence because it is a dead end," and "pro-Hong Kong independence is not a crime but opposing Hong Kong independence is a crime instead." The magistrate accepted that Nathan Law was a trustworthy witness who did not give consent to be assaulted. He believed that Giok, Tong and Kwong had pulled Law's collar, pulled Law's backpack and hit him with a placard respectively. With respect to the two female defendants, the prosecutor had only videos as evidence. The magistrate ruled that Lam's hairstyle and glasses were different, and therefore he cannot be sure that Lam was present at the scene. Kwong looked exactly the same now as before, so he ruled that Kwong took part in an unlawful gathering with the three male defendants. The magistrate said that Hong Kong has rule of law. The four defendants have the freedom to express their views, but they must obey the law and not use violence. The four defendants used violence to assault Nathan Law and caused injuries. Since the four defendants showed no remorse, the magistrate sentenced them to three months in prison each. Members of the public reacted strongly against the sentence. They yelled "Rule of law is dead," "Dog judge!," "Impossible!" etc. A person claiming to be from the Senior Citizen Journalists Association told them to calm down while saying "The same thing happened to the seven policemen. Two years!" At first Lau Pit-chuen refused to apply for bail to file an appeal. He said, "I will appeal to the supreme court of the People's Republic of China", "Hong Kong is finished." After 15 minutes, Lau changed his mind because he wanted to go travel with his wife. The magistrate approved his application. (SCMP) December 6, 2017. Four pro-establishment supporters convicted of taking part in an illegal protest that saw pro-democracy student activist Nathan Law Kwun-chung being assaulted were jailed for three months on Wednesday. The magistrate in the case applied the same new sentencing principles that sent Law and his fellow Occupy protesters to jail earlier this year. Delivery man Giok Kheng, 53, retired nurse Kwong Kwai-sim, 69, retirees Tong Fat-cheung, 72, and Lau Pit-chuen, 71, were among a wider crowd who attacked Law at a protest at Hong Kong International Airport when he returned from a trip to Taiwan on January 8 this year. They were found guilty of taking part in an unlawful assembly. Giok, Tong and Kwong were also each found guilty of one count of common assault on Law. West Kowloon Court heard at least three of them attended the assembly because they wanted to protect the unity of China, unhappy that Law, then a lawmaker, flew to the strait to attend a pro-independence forum. But sentencing the defendants, Magistrate Edward Wong Ching-yu said although Hong Kong had freedom of expression, there was a line that cannot be crossed, citing the Court of Appeal. He was referring to the appeal court’s earlier judgment on Law and two fellow activists, Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Alex Chow Yong-kang, when they sent them to jail for storming the government headquarters two days before the Occupy protests on September 28, 2014. The trio was originally given suspended sentences or community service, but the appeal court strengthened the punishment at the prosecutors’ requests under new sentencing principles it handed down. It said when violence was involved in protests, it crossed the line and hence an immediate jail sentence would be inevitable – a decision hailed by pro-Beijing supporters at the time. Wong adopted the higher court’s approach, before concluding the violence, or at least threats to use violence, were some of the elements in the present case. “[Law’s] safety was endangered and he was injured,” he said, adding that the case was serious, and the defendants showed no remorse. “An immediate custodial sentence is inevitable,” he said. Their supporters in the public gallery immediately jeered at the magistrate. “Blind judge,” one yelled, before another compared the magistrate to a dog. Lau vowed to appeal to the highest court in the People’s Republic of China, even though the highest jurisdiction in the city is the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. They were all given bail pending an appeal. The court previously heard Law was punched, kicked and had liquid poured on him by the mob the day after returning from Taiwan. The trip was made prior to Law being disqualified as a legislator over a legal bid lodged by the government. Although Law failed to identify all of the defendants, the magistrate had viewed footage taken at the scene and found that the four were present and had breached public order. While Giok and Tong pulled Law, Wong said, Kwong used a placard to hit him. Police and security guards were required to stop them, including Lau, who rushed towards Law. During the trial, Giok testified that by not resisting, he believed Law consented to the violence because Law felt he had done some wrong. But Wong rejected the claim, saying that it was obvious Law was under protection, and that the activist had never asked the guards to stop protecting him. The magistrate accepted Law as an honest and reliable witness. He acquitted Lam Kam-sheung, who faced both the assault and unlawful assembly charges, as he was not able to confirm her presence through the videos. In mitigation, Foster Yim, for Giok and Tong, said they committed the offence because of a noble belief. “He thought Law who received pay [as a lawmaker] attended pro-independence activities in Taiwan and may even bring that to Hong Kong,” he said, referring to Giok. They only cared about the future of the mainland and Hong Kong and wanted to protect its unity, he said. (HKG Pao) Interview with 72-year-old Tong Fat-cheung. In thinking about his own history of social activism, Tong said that he was already supporting Regina Ip over the Article 23 legislation in 2003. He thought that the people of Hong Kong must defend national security. In retrospect, Tong said: "If Article 23 were enacted back then, Hong Kong independence would be less of an issue today." "I read in the newspaper that Chief Executive Donald Tsang wanted to have a showdown with the pan-democrats. I thought that this was inappropriate. Hong Kong is a part of China, so how can the Chief Executive want to create 'opposition'. So I went to Government House to remind him. Tsang would not see me. So I told the police guard outside to relay my message. I kept talking and talking until my tongue started to bleed. Accidentally, I coughed blood on the white shirt of the police guard. I wanted to be a good citizen who reminds the Chief Executive not to do things that are inappropriate and harmful." Tong came to Hong Kong in 1962. At the time, he was only 17 years old. Tong was the fourth child out of seven siblings. Because his high school record was not recognized in Hong Kong, he had to work at whatever jobs that he can find: "I have been a packer, a dye factory worker, a metallurgy apprentice, etc. I have worked in more than a dozen jobs. I had to suffer so much to reach where I am today. When I see China become stronger and stronger, I have an indescribable happiness." "That is why I think that some of the young people in the opposition have no idea how lucky they are. They don't know the hardships in China. They don't know how parents shower affection on them. They only know how to enjoy themselves. Hong Kong was developing nicely. Nothing came easy. So why do this? Why harm the nation? Why harm Hong Kong? That is why I have misgivings." Because of those misgivings, Tong became an activist. He said that the pro-independence people are basically anti-social and therefore he must point out their harm. "Because I love my country and I love Hong Kong even more, I detest the spread of pro-independence ideas. I went to protest at the airport in order to contribute my feeble efforts." In retrospect, Tong was very sorry. "If I had to do this all over again, I would never have gone! I am retired. I own two flats in Hong Kong. I own a property in Shenzhen too. I have a little bit of money on hand. Things should be very nice. Why did I have to come out and do this? It does me no good whatsoever." "Thinking about it again, I went to show the anti-independence position of the people of Hong Kong. I was doing something for everybody, for the country. I am proud even if I have to make sacrifices!" Tong wants to thank the patriotic friends for their concern: "The friends over at the Jiznshu Compatriots Association and the Suzhou Compatriots Associations were very concerned. Many friends said that they will raise money to support me. I told no. I want to say thanks to all those who want to help me." "Today even China says that it will have zero tolerance for Hong Kong independence. So why are those pro-independence people not in jail, but those anti-independence people are in jail? If the Hong Kong government won't react to this situation, aren't they abetting Hong Kong independence?" Tong said: "Fame and fortune depend on the circumstances. You can eat or spend as much as you like. I am a nobody, but I want to do the right thing for the public good. Oh!' (HKG Pao) Interview with 71-year-old Lau Pit-chuen. Lau was born in Shanghai. Because his family was capitalist, he was sent down to work in Xinjiang. So he knows what grassroots citizens have to go through: "It hurts when I see those opposition legislators create trouble in the Legislative Council to ruin workers' livelihoods." Lau came to Hong Kong in 1981. At the time, he was 36 years old. He had to start from scratch. Eventually he opened a knitting factor. At the peak, he owned four companies. He is happiest not about his business accomplishments. He is happiest about family harmony. His family supports his social activism. "I have one son, one daughter and five grandchildren. They all support me. In 1996, I went to defend the Diaoyutai Islets. At first, my wife won't let me. Eventually she understood and she supported me." "At first, I was actually in the pro-democracy camp. In 1989, I supported the student movement. When the government pushed for Article 23 legislation in 2003, I thought that they were wrong and I joined the protest march. When Occupy Central began in 2014, Lau no longer that the democrats were pro-democracy any more. They are no longer for democracy and they won't even let the people of Hong Kong lead stable lives. They want to cause trouble for the people of Hong Kong. So Lau began to oppose them: "I had to come out because I cannot allow them to destroy Hong Kong's prosperity." "What happened in Occupy Central is that this was Benny Tai wanting to overthrow the government. I saw them controlling the scene over walkie-talkies. This was a planned coup. But he cannot succeed because the ultimate authority lies with the Central Government which will never compromise. They can even send out the PLA to quell any trouble." After Occupy Central, Lau was disgusted with the chaotic situation at the Legislative Council: "I saw those pan-democratic legislators such as Claudia Mo filibuster endlessly to stop the government. Maybe you don't believe this, or maybe someone don't want to believe this. But I have kept the pan-democrats company for so many years. Even now I am still a member of the Alliance to Support Democratic Movements in China. I can clearly see that they are deliberately causing trouble in Hong Kong. They do so deliberately and not inadvertently." Lau continued: "I went through the Cultural Revolution in mainland China. I suffered. But I do not believe that one can pursue personal interests alone. One must also be concerned about the nation. This is how I am different from them. I don't believe that pro-democracy means anti-nation. Even during the 1989 student movement, I supported the students because they opposed corruption and wanted the nation to become better. How can there be democracy without a nation?" Patriotism made Lau come out: "With respect to this Hong Kong independence thing, nobody is going to do anything unless the people come out. We are different from pan-democrats such as Lau Chin-shek and Albert Ho, whom I knew from the Alliance. I saw that they only incite others to do thing for them. I think that if something has to be done, then I should do it myself." Lau said that those pro-independence people are putting Hong Kong into a bind. "Everybody knows that Hong Kong cannot take care of itself in terms of military and foreign affairs. Hong Kong independence is impossible. We see how the European Union is treating Great Britain after Brexit. How can Hong Kong be so stupid as to leave China? Even if the Central Government lets you, you can't do it!" The reason why Lau went to the airport to protest against Nathan Law was that he wanted to protect Hong Kong, which is the same as protect his family. "I will give up my life to defend my family." As for his legal troubles, Lau said: "At first I did not to file an appeal. But they said that this means that I admit guilty. I am not guilty, so I will file an appeal. My only plea is for the judge to think about the issue of Hong Kong independence. With respect to his assertion in court that he will appeal to the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China, Lau said: "Of course I don't really think that the Supreme Court will take the case. I only want the people in China to know that there is a phenomenon of an anti-China judiciary in Hong Kong whereupon the judges are persecuting righteous citizens." Lau said: "An old employee from more than 30 years ago suddenly called me a couple of days ago. I am very touched. Actually I don't even remember her. She said that her name is Ah King and she worked at my factor. She had seen me recently in the news and thought that I might be unhappy. Therefore she called me up to tell me that she supports me." (HKG Pao) Interview with Giok Kheng. The first half of the story is plain. Giok Kheng and his wife lived steadily in Hong Kong. The husband worked as a delivery man and the wife worked as a tourist guide. They didn't care about politics. They used their hands to earn money to buy daily necessities. They were happy. Along came Occupy Central. The livelihoods of the Gioks were impacted. They watched television and they were angry at what was going on." "I saw how they went too far. They wore surgical masks and they occupied the streets. They refused to let cars use the street. They curse out the police. How absurd can this be! What did the police do wrong?" So Giok rushed out to demonstrate at Sai Yeung Choi Street, Mong Kok. He attempted to remove the barricades. He asked the demonstrators to have mercy on the police and the people's livelihoods. After the defeat of Occupy Central, their livelihoods did not recover. The Gioks only had part-time work. When he learned that Nathan Law was flying to Taiwan to meet with pro-Taiwan independence activists, he thought: "How can this person be so audacious? How can he ignore history? We the Chinese people were always bullied until today. We should be proud of ourselves. How can he forget history? Furthermore he is a legislator paid for by the people's money. How can he do something like this?" The series of questions made him angry and led him to meet Nathan Law on his return. Everybody knows what happened next. Giok emphasized that he went there to express his dissatisfaction: "I can't help if the Honorable Judge wants to send me to jail. Actually I am not afraid of jail. But there are other people in trouble. They are 60- or 70-years-old. Think about it. Actually I am most concerned about those other three. Therefore we are appealing our sentences together. If I were the only one, I would not have appealed." People wanted to donate money to him because they know that court proceedings cost money. Giok turned them down: "Actually I have gained a lot besides money. Most of all I see that my wife has changed her mind, because she knows that I am going the right thing for the country. When I went down to Mong Kok to remove the barricades, she objected. But now she is supportive." (HKG Pao) Interview with 69-year-old Kwong Kwai-sim. Kwong Kwai-sim is a registered nurse for all her life. In the 1970's she graduated from secondary school to study nursing. After qualifying to become a nurse, she went on to specialize in pediatrics. Kwong is 150cm (4'11'') tall and 37 kg (86 lbs) in weight. "Only when I was pregnant did I reach 98 lobs. Given what happened at the airport, it is surprising to find Kwong is actually so short and petite. By comparison, Nathan Law is about 166cm (5'6"") tall. People call Kwong by her nickname "steel beam." In the 1970's, there was no MTR service yet. Kwong commuted from her home in To Kwai Wan to work at Prince Margaret Hospital. She works up at 5am in order to begin work at 630am. "I took the 6C bus to Mei Foo, and then I switch to another bus to Prince Margaret Hospital." Her shift runs from 630am to 130am first, followed by another shift from 900pm to 700am. Since there are just a few hours between shifts, she did not get any real rest. Instead she made up for her sleep during the sleeping day after the two shifts. When I asked for these details, Kwong said: "Oh, don't write about this. I don't want any exaggeration." She added: "People were like that in that era." Between the 1960's and 1970's when Hong Kong's economy had not taken off yet, people were all like that. They never minded the hardship. Any work was good work for them. Kwong enjoyed being a nurse because she can increase her knowledge as well as help other people. She has never thought of changing jobs. Kwong retired in 2009. Her husband is a public service worker who also retired recently. If there were no Occupy Central, she would be a content retired housewife. After retirement, her husband started to learn singing Cantonese opera. Today he is competent enough to teach students to sing. After the incident at the Hong Kong International Airport, Kwong was taken by the police at 7am down to the police station to take a statement. She felt sorry because her husband was performing that night and she wanted him to get enough sleep. She finished at past 1pm and she went home to change and then watch her husband perform. They did not discuss the airport incident, because they knew each other well enough. While Kwong was down at the police station, a friend called up their home to express concern. Her husband said: "My wife has always done the right thing. Why should I be concerned?" The petite Kwong left her housewife role after Occupy Central. All citizens, including housewives, have a duty to defend the country. "Patriotism is innate!" You don't have to be patriotic, but you should not be harming the country. "China is developing and getting better day by day." Of course, Kwong knew about the Cultural Revolution. She also supported the Democratic Party and Alliance to Support Democratic Movements in China after June 4th 1989. "You can get bogged down if you like, but you should not be stopping the country from moving ahead." With it came to talking about national sentiments, Kwong was bright-eyed and spirited. So I would never have to worry the petite Kwong. In front of me is a meticulous, serious and magnanimous woman. Irrationality and emotional distress are not party of her vocabulary. (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 9, 2017. I am an ignoramus as far as the law goes. Like many Hong Kong citizens, I look up to the judges. If I were to receive a summons from the court, I would be scared. I have been brought to think that the judges are sacrosanct. I was once curious: Do judges have likes and dislikes? Do they take positions? Do they commit errors? I was even more curious: Which newspapers do the judges read? Who were their teachers? In an information-filled society, I don't think that there are any saints who have no feelings. If a judge reads Apple Daily every day and his mentor is Martin Lee, how can there not be prejudices under the wig? In certain folklores, the judges are the bringers of justice. When I grew up, I began to discover that the law is just a money game. In recent years, the myth about judges have been unveiled. With one after another unfathomable court ruling, I begin to wonder if Hong Kong is under rule-of-law, or rule-of-man, or rule-by-judges? After Occupy Central, almost every case involving Yellow Umbrella soldiers end up with not guilty verdicts or light sentences. "Community service" and "suspended sentence" are the hottest legal terms of the year. At the same time, all the cases involving anti-Occupy Central, anti-violence and anti-Hong Kong independence end up badly. I wanted to make a list here, but I found so many cases in my research that I can write an entire thesis. So I gave up. Over these years, I have heard these pleas in court: "He is merely a student," "they are enterprising young people," "they broke the law to achieve justice," "they have nobles ideals," "he has both good character and scholarship" ... someone even used "he was only 18 when he broke the law," "he wants to run in the Legislative Council election, so please don't destroy his dream" as excuses. So the judges gave mercy: $2000 fine for assaulting a police officer; $500 for causing injury to another person; community service for occupying the streets for 79 days; etc. These penalties are even lighter than spitting in public. But I wonder how these excuses change color as soon as the defendants become senior citizens? Why do the outcomes become the complete opposite? The term "breaking the law to achieve justice" is fashionable nowadays. "Justice" also includes "opposing Hong Kong independence." Even Chairman Xi is saying that he has zero tolerance and therefore a full effort must be given. So why are full efforts directed against those who oppose Hong Kong independence? Judges are humans. All humans commit errors. When a judge commits an error, where can the citizen seek recourse? The answer is: No way. Cap 433 Judicial Officers (Tenure of Office) Ordinance states that judges who misbehaved will be judged internally by other judges with the results being held confidential. I am an ordinary citizen. I don't know if the judges protect each other. I do know that the judges know each other. The statue does not topple with a sudden burst of wind. It was eroded over many years before it turned into a piece of rotten wood. Judges are sacrosanct only because there is nobody watching over them. [838] Our Lady's College (2017/12/11) (SCMP) December 10, 2017. A Catholic school in Hong Kong was forced to shut its doors during an open day on Saturday after students distributed leaflets, accusing teachers of suppressing freedom of speech. The school closed its gates as students chanted slogans through amplifiers while others distributed leaflets claiming they had been “suppressed” by Our Lady’s College in Wong Tai Sin and listing what, in their view, was wrong with Hong Kong society. Although they were not on campus, teachers asked them to cover their uniforms to avoid giving the impression the school endorsed their actions. On live footage on their Facebook page, the students claimed the school had prevented them spreading political messages, such as opposition to government legal action against Occupy movement leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung, by drafting new rules against the distribution of leaflets. Further away, a dozen supporters from two fledgling pro-localism groups – Hong Kong National Front and Studentlocalism – gathered to support the students. Plain-clothes police took ID card numbers, according to Tony Chung Hon-lam, convenor of Studentlocalism. “We will wait and see how Our Lady’s College deals with the students in order to assess the effectiveness of our action,” Chung said. The school could not be reached for comment. Videos: Apple Daily Open Day at Our Lady's College Nexus olr The student association cabinet at Our Lady's College 2017-2018 Internet comments: - (LIHKG)

[A certain girls' school] I am currently a teacher at the Our XXXX's College. Recently there was a huge stir over the distribution of pro-Hong Kong independence pamphlets. I am very disappointed. My disappointed was not at the behavior of the students; rather it was the lousy way by which the school handled the matter. Everybody knows that the senior administration of the school is pro-China. They had criticized the students at the teacher/staff meeting. They said that they will do everything possible to persecute the students, including summoning the parents. They encouraged the teachers to heap scorn on these students, and use various divisive tactics to break up the Concern Group. When an attendee asked the principal to clarify which school rule was violated, the answer was: "It does not matter. Anyway, we won't permit this because it is unlawful." Anyone who knows anything would know that the Basic Law does not restrict people's behavior. As long as there is no legislation, any action or thought that contravenes the Basic Law is still not yet unlawful. I do not support Hong Kong independence. But I believe that the students have the absolute right to promote their political ideas. This is freedom of speech. The school administration are barbaric and want to impose their own political positions on the students. They use unethical tactics to deal with the students. They make sarcastic comments. It makes me wonder if they conduct themselves in a professional manner. I am alone in the school and I cannot change things by myself. Therefore I am using this platform to express my support for the students. I hope that the students will persist bravely. Democracy will surely win. - Duh! Yet another anonymous post. Hey, I can easily write ten of these posts every day. - This was not a very good piece of fictional writing. I would have made up some details in order to make it more convincing. - This guest post has been deleted by the Facebook group administrator. - (LIHKG)

I am a student at Our Lady's College. Before I express my personal opinions, I would like to provide some background first. On November 23, the school's student association president and some other students forced themselves into the classrooms during lunchtime and stuffed a pamphlet with the title "Is there any more freedom in Hong Kong?" into the drawers of all the students. At the time, a number of students witnessed the members of the Our Lady's College Concern Group reached through the opened windows to open the locked doors and put pamphlets in the drawers of all the students. Afterwards, the teacher summoned these students who had forcibly entered the classrooms. But those students exaggerated the matter and distorted the action of the teachers as "suppression of freedom of speech." Today is open day on the 65th anniversary of the founding of our school. These students once again took action by linking up with several dozen outsiders to lay siege to the school and cause a disturbance. Our student association president used a megaphone to express her opinion that many of our teachers are carrying out "brainwashing" in order to turn students against students. What are the facet? First of all, the student association president was not elected by us on a one-vote-one-person basis. She does not stand for our voices. During this year, she was the only candidate for student association president. Therefore she automatically became president. Unfortunately, she failed to live up to the duties of a student association president. Instead she imposed her own views upon us. Is this supposed to be freedom of speech? Secondly, I saw a large group of people outside the school entrance. They filmed with their mobile phones, and they kept hollering. We were very afraid. Our teachers did not retreat! Instead they fulfill their duties as teachers and they protected us. They told us to leave because they can handle the matter themselves. But we are part of Our Lady's College, so how can we sit still and ignore this? Spontaneously we came out to defend our school grounds. We rolled up paper to form make-shirt megaphones and we sang our school song. We told them to leave. When they saw that practically the entire school was united against them, they had to back off. Out of safety consideration, we closed the school gates. But they hung around outside and refused to leave. Thirdly, we were not happy with them forcing their way into our classrooms. Can you break the rules in the name of freedom? But they tried to rationalize their action and communicated misleading information to the press in order to exaggerate things. Fourthly, they said that our teachers are "Education Animals" who are brainwashing us. Must we agree with their ideas in order to show that we are not "brainwashed"? When the teachers protect the students, they are called "Education Animals"? Are the teachers good only if they do nothing when the Open Day is ruined and the students are filmed and harassed? Why do you want to distort the goodwill of the teachers? Fifthly, I want to ask everybody just what is freedom of speech. In my humble opinion, a democratic society with ideal freedom of speech should be tolerant of diverse ideas. When you express your views, you should consider the feelings and opinions of other people. If you think that exercising that freedom allows you to do inappropriate things, then I am afraid that you are wrong. Why were you summoned to a meeting at the school? I think that you know very well -- you had forced your way into the classroom of others and made a mess out of their things. While you exercise your freedom and rights, have you thought about the freedoms and rights of the other students? Sixthly, if you think that we have already become 'puppets', then you couldn't be more wrong. There are many young people who support democracy and rule-of-law in Hong Kong! I am one of them. Why won't we support you? You have to ask yourself whether your behavior was proper. The school has never suppressed our freedom of speech! You are distorting the facts. So whenever we express our views, you accused us of being brainwashed. Sorry, you are jumping to conclusion without known the causes and effects. I think that if things continue to develop in this manner, it would be very unfair to us, to our teachers and to the school. Dear Fellow Student Tse (president of the student association), I don't know if you will make it into the newspapers. But given your ability to twist the facts about you fucking the tutor, I already admire you. - (SCMP) How one school is harmed by media circus. By Alex Lo. December 11, 2017. A group of students hand out fliers without permission in their secondary school and put a copy on the desk of every one of their classmates. School authorities warn them not to do it again. In the following weeks, they switch to putting up banners and passing out the same copies, with the support of outsiders, at the main entrance and the street outside their school. They are then advised not to wear school uniforms while doing it and to avoid disturbing fellow students and parents visiting the school. This is especially a busy time as the school is celebrating its 65th anniversary with an open house this week. For the life of me, I cannot tell in what way the school has done wrong. I would not even consider it a news story, certainly not something worth commenting on. The school did not punish or even reprimand those students. However, those fliers are about Hong Kong independence, produced and handed out by students who openly advocate it. Suddenly, the unfortunate school, Our Lady’s College in Wong Tai Sin, becomes a political news story. Its authorities are accused by the student group, which calls itself Our Lady’s Localist Concern Group, of censoring and brainwashing students with the ban on fliers. Such accusations are duly repeated and exaggerated by anti-China publications such as Apple Daily and Stand News. I don’t blame the student activists; young people will always be full of passion and enthusiasm rather than sense and restraint. I only wish they had been more tolerant and respectful of others. But it’s the shameless manner in which the “yellow ribbon” media have invented, exploited and manipulated what ought to concern only the school itself into a political struggle. Activists shout slogans with loudhailers outside the school, then news photographers show up, along with the police. In the current affairs section of lihkg.com, a popular online forum, there is an excellent account and critical analysis of what actually happened, written by a student of the school. She explains how her activist classmates disregarded school regulations, disrupted classroom routines, denounced teachers who tried to stop them for political censorship, and dismissed schoolmates who disagreed with them as being “brainwashed”. “Many of us support democracy and the rule of law, yet we may still disapprove of your actions,” she wrote of her activist schoolmates. “This doesn’t mean we have been brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves.” This student does her school proud. - Now the whole world wants to know about the details behind the small footnote. Absent the details, this is a smear. - Well, if Fellow Student Tse is over 16 years old, then she can fuck anyone she wants under Hong Kong law. - What was the distortion of facts about that case? Well, it is alleged that Fellow Student Tse fucked her tutor and brought the condom to show the other students afterwards. - What could the alternate version be? Someone came up with these news stories: - (Apple Daily) November 13, 2017. 43-year-old tutor Tsang Kui-man was accused of having sexual intercourse with 12-year-old X on August 6 2011 in a Wong Tai Sin apartment, and again in May 2012 the 13-year-old X in a tutor school. In 2011, X's parents were divorced and she went to receiving tutoring at Tsang's school. On August 1, X and Tsang fell in love. Five days later, Tsang invited X to watch movies at his apartment. During this time, Tsang kissed X and took her into the bedroom to have sexual intercourse for about half an hour. Afterwards X continued to watch movies while Tsang cooked. About 2 months later, X felt uncomfortable in her genitals and her mother took her to visit a doctor. In September 2011, X stopped her tutoring lessons. However, she continued to visit the school. Tsang got married in March but continued to see X. At around 8pm on a certain day in Day, 13-year-old X went to the school to pllay with the computer. She sat on Tsang's thighs with her legs spread. The defendant took off X's panties and had intercourse with X who was dressed in school uniform. On May 25, X admitted openly to her mother that she had sexual intercourse with her tutor. Her mother filed a police report. Tsang was arrested three days later. - (Shuonline) December 16, 2012. Tsang Kui-man was sentenced to 32 months in jail. The judge noted that Tsang did not use a condom to prevent harming X with sexually transmitted diseases and/or pregnancy. The judge cited the report that X's self-respect was hurt. She showed signs of depression, anxiety and sleeplessness. She was defensive at school and social circles. She lost interest in the opposite sex. Her father said that he was angry and upset at himself for not being able to protect his daughter from harm. There are two discrepancies: (1) X was 12 years old as Form 2 student in August 2011. This is now December 2017, and X is 18 years old. Can she still be in Form 6 now? (2) The judge noted that Tsang did not use a condom. But Fellow Student Tse went around school showing off a condom. So this linkage may not be right. - (Elite School Secrets Facebook)

Recently my secondary school came to public attention. I was one of the students present at the scene. I want to point out certain actions directed against our students, and the reactions of our teachers and students. This essay does not take any position on Hong Kong independence. At first around noontime, the members of a certain political group (Our Lady's College Concern Group) went past the school's front gate with flags in hand. The teachers only stopped them from filming the interior of the school. They did not do anything else. The members of the group attempted to enter the school grounds but were stopped by the staff and teachers. After failing to entering, a tall man cursed out the teachers with obscene language. They told passersby that the school is refusing to let them enter. At the time, I was one of the students present. When the man began cursing, I was very scared. The teachers told us not to mind them. Next, certain students used megaphones to demand a certain teacher to explain certain speeches. Meanwhile the other members of the group blockaded all the exits from the school. Certain members of the Love Society used their group chants to cover up the megaphone. Soon almost every student in the assembly area went to the front gate to chant. You can see this on Facebook. You can hear clearly that these chants were in English and not obscene language. The reason why we chanted was not because we opposed Hong Kong independence. Their leader even included someone who supports Hong Kong independence. They were objecting to members of a certain group not allowing people to enter or leave the school. Their actions had laid waste to the stalls that were put together by the workers over the past month. The reason why the school called the police to send plainclothes officers to the school was because a certain group that they were going to distribute pamphlets here on Open Day. Our Lady's College is a girls' school and most of the staff are women. They won't be able to fend off strong and able men. I admit that the teacher said that it was easy to divide students. I admit that it was wrong to say that the students learned incorrectly. Yet, did you have to block all the entrances/exits in order to force the teachers to make a statement? Have you ever considered the feelings for the students who were in the school, as well as the neighbors and other children? You told the media that the school would not let you leave the gate. But you omitted to say that you prevented all the students in the school from leaving. Frankly, I was supportive of the student who distributed pamphlets in November. Yet on Open Day, you came across to me like triad gangsters. If you had used regular methods, I believe that I would still be supporting you. The students began wanting to watch this as spectators. Yet, your actions have repelled them. Finally, I want to say that the teachers did not brainwash us. You can say that they want to avoid responsibility. At the most they discussed the matter of the pamphlets during one morning assembly. But they did not intend any insults. We were touched by the teachers protecting the students to leave. I hope that outsiders won't make rash judgment without knowing the truth. Every word and every action of yours will affect us. Actually, do you think really think that we can be so easily brainwashed? Like other secondary school students, we don't like our teachers. But you gave them the chance to show they care about us. Although I may not pay attention in class in the future, at least I am now proud to be an Our Ladian. The video shows us chanting our society slogans together. - Are you wondering how many people are in the Our Lady's College Concern Group? (The Stand News) The Our Lady's College Concern Group was never a big organization. The group was formed after the Legislative Council elections in September 2016. At first, there were a few more students than now. But ever since the actions of the Concern Group drew the attention of the school administration, some members left due to the pressure. Basically there are only two students left now: Form 5 student Vivian and Form 4 student Hazel. So there you have it. Only two students are active in the Our Lady's College Concern Group. One of them (Vivian) is the current student association president who won the post by default because there were no other candidates. However they have the backing of two outside groups: Studentlocalism (#570 which has only one active founding member (Tony Chung) left) and the Hong Kong National Front. [837] Stocks Not To Own (2017/12/8) (Webb-site) The Enigma Network: 50 stocks not to own. May 15, 2017. Sometimes, a picture is really all you need to know why you should not invest in a company, or in this case, 50 HK-listed companies in what we will call the "Enigma Network". In the diagram below, some of them are known bubbles, on which the SFC has issued concentration warnings. It is remarkable that despite those warnings, the listed companies which own those shares continue to hold them. They will probably do so until the bubble bursts, because the gains on such stocks are not actually intended to benefit their shareholders. The people who engineer such bubbles have other plans. In other cases of non-bubbles, there are multiple holdings below the normal 5% disclosure threshold which when aggregated, provide significant voting power when the companies seek approval from "independent" shareholders to do something that might not make sense to others. (The Standard) December 7, 2017. Rosetta Fong Sut-Sam, the deputy chairwoman and executive director of financial advisers, Convoy Global Financial Holdings, (1019) has left the headquarters of the Independent Commission Against Corruption after being questioned for about five hours in connection with an on-going investigation. In the operation involving about 50 officers today, a dozen people including the company's executives were driven to the anti-graft agency's headquarters for investigation, Headline Daily reported. Sources told the sister daily of The Standard that some employees were suspected of using the Hong Kong-based company to solicit an advantage of about HK$47 million between March and June 2015. Earlier today, Fong was escorted from her Sai Kung home by anti-graft officers to the ICAC offices in North Point. Officers also searched her home and removed some documents. The Headline Daily reports that Fong and Christie Chan Lai-yee, an executive director, were arrested by ICAC officers. They also searched Convoy's head office in North Point. Chairman Quincy Wong Lee-man and another executive director Cho Kwai-chee are both targets of the investigation, according to the report, but Wong is currently in Taiwan. At this time, Quincy Wong Lee-man is a person of great interest to the Hong Kong Internet.

Convoy Global Holdings Limited thinks that an area of great potential is Mainland China.

But Quincy Wong is also a die-hard Yellow Ribbon Pro-Democracy/Freedom warrior. He has scaled Lion Rock to look at the "I want genuine universal suffrage" banner. He has photos taken with Joseph Zen and Martin Lee. When he and his team finished the North Pole Marathon in 2013, they unfurled a "I want genuine universal suffrage" banner.

(HK01) November 7, 2017. When news of the ICAC raids became known, the media immediately went looking for Quincy Wong. His Facebook indicated that he had just been eating fried chicken in Taipei with his wife. HK01 left a comment at the Facebook. Quincy Wong replied: "Sorry, but it is inconvenient to respond at such a sensitive time. Thank you for your concern." HK01 wrote: "I understand. I am very grateful for your reply. One thing else, do you plan to come back to Hong Kong as quickly as possible to deal with the company matters?" Quincy Wong replied: "The travel itinerary has not been decided yet." HK01: "Got it! Thank you, Mr Wong." Quincy Wong added: "Whatever has to be dealt with has to be dealt with."

So will Quincy Wong follow the footsteps of Lee Sin-yee who fled to Taiwan after being charged with rioting? Will Quicncy Wong apply for political asylum because Carrie Lam through the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Securities and Futures Commission are persecuting him for his political beliefs in freedom and democracy? (The Standard) December 8, 2017. Extra! Quincy Wong has been arrested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption for suspected corruption when he arrived at the Hong Kong International Airport at about 430pm today. New banner: "I want genuine arrest/charges"

(Oriental Daily) December 8, 2017. A key figure in the Convoy affair is executive director Roy Cho Kwai Chee. In the ongoing negotiations of the sale of (#766), it is rumored that the financier behind apparent buyer Kenny Wee is in fact Roy Cho Kwai Chee. At this time, the sale of has been stalled for unexplained reasons, with a number of deadlines apparently missed already. Are those troubles related to the Convoy affair? Who knows? [836] The Case of Chang Tieh-chih (2017/12/7) (Hong Kong Free Press) December 6, 2017. Taiwanese political and cultural commentator Chang Tieh-chih has said he was denied entry to Hong Kong after arriving at the airport on Wednesday. The former editor-in-chief of prominent Hong Kong lifestyle publication City Magazine, Chang lived in the city and moved back to Taiwan two years ago. He said on Facebook that he was planning to come to Hong Kong to attend a cultural conference. “I watched as my wife passed through,” he wrote on Twitter Wednesday afternoon. Chang’s wife is a Hongkonger. Chang said in another post that he had a Hong Kong resident identity card, but border officials told him it was expired when he produced it. He then tried to apply for a visa online at the airport, but it was rejected. “I have always cared about the cultural exchange between Taiwan and Hong Kong – it is a very sad thing if I cannot go to Hong Kong,” he said. A columnist with a range of publications in Taiwan, Hong Kong and mainland China, Chang has been vocal in supporting democracy and social movements on both sides of the strait. According to Stand News, however, he is not affiliated with any political party. (Hong Kong Free Press) December 6, 2017. “This is the first time that a Taiwanese person who holds no government post and is not part of the political system [has been denied entry],” said Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Kwok Ka-ki on Wednesday evening. “He’s just a private citizen.” “Firstly, this damages ‘One Country, Two Systems’,” added the Civic Party lawmaker. “Secondly, this causes great damage to the international reputation of Hong Kong. This will have an effect on the judgement of Taiwanese people who want to come to Hong Kong for work or tourism.” (SCMP) November 7, 2017. Hong Kong lawmaker Dr Kwok Ka-ki, of the opposition Civic Party, said he was shocked to learn of the news and said he had written to Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, demanding an explanation. “Chang holds no government post and is not a member of any political party,” Dr Kwok. “His wife is a Hong Kong resident and he had worked in Hong Kong for long time. He can be said to be a half-Hongkonger. This hurts Hong Kong’s international image.” Kwok believed Chang might have written something in the past that had angered Beijing. - Really? What did Chang Tieh-chih write? The Seven Lovers of Xi Jinping? Or what? Can Kwok Ka-ki tell us? Or has he never read anything by Chang Tieh-chih? (SCMP) November 7, 2017. Chang Tieh-chih, also former chief editor of Hong Kong’s popular lifestyle and cultural monthly City Magazine, broke the news on Wednesday afternoon with a message on his Twitter account: “Finally, I was denied entry at the Hong Kong airport.” But he wrote that his wife, Amy Cui, was allowed to enter. Cui is a Hong Kong resident. “I watched as my wife passed through,” he wrote on Twitter. In a Facebook message posted on his return to Taiwan on Wednesday evening, Chang said he had plans to come to Hong Kong for a cultural exchange conference but was told his travel document had expired and that an online application for a landing visa was rejected. He claimed he was used to using his Hong Kong identity card to visit Hong Kong but this time was told his card had expired. ““I tried to apply for a landing visa online at the Hong Kong airport but the application was rejected,” Chang wrote on Facebook page. “I thought I might have filled in some information improperly and I filled the form again but still [the application] was rejected.” He claimed he had asked an immigration officer and was told “not everyone’s application can be successful”. He added: “So, I could only return to Taiwan.” He expressed “deep regret” and said he was still looking forward to seeing “more freedom and normal exchange” between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Chang has been vocal in supporting democratic campaigns and social movements. (SCMP) November 7, 2017. A spokesman for the Immigration Department of Hong Kong said it would not comment on individual cases. “In handling each immigration application, the Immigration Department will consider all the factors and circumstances related to the application so as to decide whether an individual application is approved or not in accordance with the Hong Kong law and prevailing immigration polices,” the spokesman said in a statement. (SCMP) November 7, 2017. Chang said he was coming to Hong Kong for the City-to-City Cultural Exchange Conference. Organised this year by the Hong Kong Institute of Contemporary Culture, the forum is a gathering of cultural sector workers, officials and academics from Taipei, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen, with the cities taking turns to host the event. Taipei is usually represented at the forum by a member of The General Association of Chinese Culture (GACC), of which Chang is the deputy general secretary. The head of GACC is Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen, of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The GACC was founded in 1967 by late Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek to promote a revival of Chinese culture on the mainland. The association has always been headed by either an incumbent Taiwan leader or someone appointed by him or her. The association itself took the centre-stage of a political brouhaha earlier this year (2017) when there were speculations that Tsai could rename the association by removing the word “Chinese”, and replace it with the word “National”. When Taiwan’s former president Chen Shui-bian, also of DPP, was in power from the 2000 to 2008, the word “Chinese” was removed from the name of the association, but the word was restored after Liu Chao-shiuan became the president of the association in 2010 with the approval of Taiwan’s former leader Ma Ying-jeou. - Is The General Association of Chinese Culture political or not? (SCMP) November 7, 2017. A source familiar with the matter said that although Chang’s wife is a Hong Kong resident and Chang holds Hong Kong identity card, he is not a permanent resident and has to renew his dependent visa from time to time. “He was not allowed to leave the gate at the e-channel because his visa has expired,” the source said. “Immigration staff asked if he had any other valid travel documents. He displayed a [Republic of China] passport, but it is not regarded as a valid travel document because he did not have a mainland travel permit for a Taiwan resident. He also did not register online before travelling to Hong Kong.” The source said he was then transferred to the airline to see if the carrier could help him with the travel documents but the airline decided to send him back to Taiwan. “That is what an airline should do when a passenger failed to show any valid travel document to enter a place,” the source said. (Ming Pao) November 7, 2017. According to Chang Tieh-chih, an immigration department worker told him that the visa on his Hong Kong ID had expired in April this year. Yesterday, he did not have his "Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents" ( Registration for Taiwan Residents." However the system indicated that the application was "denied" for unspecified reasons.

aka ). However he had his Republic of China passport with him. So he immediately went online to apply for the "Notification Slip for Pre-arrival

Ways for Taiwan residents to visit Hong Kong (1) If the spouse of the Taiwan resident is a Hong Kong permanent resident, it is possible to become a Hong Kong resident as a "dependant". The Hong Kong ID will have a date of issuance. The normal period of stay is two years. The holder should proceed in person to the Immigration Department to apply for an extension of stay before the expiration date. The holder is normally entitled to use the e-passage with this Hong Kong ID Case of Chang Tieh-chih: The period of stay for his Hong Kong ID ended in April 2017. (2) If the Taiwan resident holds a Republic of China passport, then he/she should apply for a Pre-arrival Registration for Taiwan Residents (PAR) at the website of the Hong Kong Immigration System. The applicant will be informed of the result instantaneously. If successful, the applicant must print the notification slip, sign it and present it to the immigration officer. If unsuccessful, the registrant may apply to the Immigration Department for an entry permit. Case of Chang Tieh-chih: He had a Republic of China passport with him. When he applied online, the result was "denied." (3) If the Taiwan resident holds a Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents (aka "Tai Bao Zheng"), he/she may enter the HKSAR as visitors and stay for up to 30 days. Case of Chang Tieh-chih: He did not bring his Tai Bao Zheng with him when he came to Hong Kong. Internet comments: - (Hong Kong Future Concern Group Facebook, Taiwan) We strongly disagree with the unreasonable decision of the Immigration Department in Hong Kong, and we hereby urge Taiwan to take the following actions, 1. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen should lodge solemn representations to Hong Kong's chief executive, Mrs Carrie Lam. 2. For the applications of admission to Taiwan made by disciplinary services personnel in Hong Kong, their applications should be rejected unless they otherwise show their disagreement towards the decision made by the Immigration Department. 3. Erick TSANG Kwok-wai, who is the Hong Kong Director of Immigration, should be listed as an unwelcomed figure of Taiwan, until the end of his tenure in the position. 4. As the incident represents that Hong Kong is further controlled by Beijing, we once again request the Taiwan Legislative Yuan to refer to the current "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Bill" currently under discussion in the United States for establishing punitive mechanisms for Hong Kong and China government officials that suppress fundamental freedoms of Hongkongese, including admission refusal and asset freezing. Comments: - (1) If "Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen" were to write to Hong Kong's chief executive Mrs Carrie Lam, she would be lowering her grade. Tsai is the President of Taiwan, a de facto and soon-to-be-actual independent sovereign nation. Lam is the Chief Executive (i.e. mayor/governor) of a special administrative region (i.e. city) of China. By writing to Lam, Tsai has lowered herself to be the governor of the Taiwan special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. (2) If you want to exclude the Hong Kong disciplinary services personnel from entering Taiwan, you should at least ask the relevant question in your National Immigration Agency's Arrival Card. Right now, the closest thing under 'Occupation' is 'Government Officer' (which was translated from the Chinese word for 'public This is going to include hospital nurses, office building janitors, street cleaners, sanitation inspectors, computer network administrators, traffic cops, postal office mail delivery men, etc.

service worker').

(2) The Hong Kong Disciplined Services include the Hong Kong Fire Services Department and the Correctional Services Department. Do you want them excluded too? (3) If you want to exclude Erick Tsang, it should be forever and not just while he is the Hong Kong Director of Immigration. And it is not about him personally, because he is unlikely to have any personal involvement in the case of Chang Tieh-chih. A better target would be whoever is the Hong Kong Director of Immigration who oversees the policy of excluding Freedom/Democracy fighters from Taiwan. (4) "Hong Kong is further controlled by Beijing." (Hong Kong Free Press) On December 5, 2017, Wang Zhenmin, the legal chief for the China Liaison Office, said: "Since July 1, 1997, Hong Kong's political colour undoubtedly became red, meaning it has become part of red China. So there is no question of whether Hong Kong is 'becoming red' because Hong Kong has already been red since 1997, when it came under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party." Wang was referring to a local colloquialism, “reddening” – also known as “mainlandisation” – referring to the growing influence of mainland China on Hong Kong’s politics and culture. So please do not delude yourself that this is a gradual process that can be stemmed or even reversed. It has been so since July 1st, 1997. (4) "The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Bill" The assumption behind the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (#611 and #743) is that the targets want to visit the United States and/or invest money over there. I don't think that Taiwan is particularly attractive in both regards, so that there is no deprivation. What good is a threat when it has no teeth? - (Immigration Department, The Government of the HKSAR) Pre-arrival Registration for Taiwan Residents Chinese residents of Taiwan who were born in Taiwan can make use of this online service to apply for pre-arrival registration to visit the HKSAR. After the required information has been inputted, the computer system will process the registration automatically. The registration result will be made known to the registrant instantly. If the registration is successful, registrant should print the “Notification Slip for Pre-arrival Registration for Taiwan Residents” (the notification slip) generated by the computer system on an A4 size blank white paper. Registrant must check the inputted data on the notification slip to confirm they are true and correct and tally with those of his/her travel document for re-entry to Taiwan before signing on the notification slip. In case the online pre-arrival registration cannot be completed, registrant may apply for an entry permit to the Immigration Department under the existing entry arrangement, if necessary. Arrangements for Entry to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) for Overseas Chinese and Chinese residents of Taiwan 16. Taiwan residents holding a valid "Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents" may enter Hong Kong as a visitor and stay for up to 30 days irrespective of whether they are transitting through Hong Kong to/from the Mainland or coming to Hong Kong for visit, provided normal immigration requirements are met. 16. They may also apply for a single entry permit or a multiple entry permit through the authorised airlines, provided that they are not in possession of any travel document issued by other authorities outside Taiwan (except the “Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents”, and an entry permit issued by the Immigration Department), but they must hold a travel document valid for at least six months for re-entry to Taiwan. 21. It normally takes four weeks to process an overseas entry permit application and two working days for a multiple entry permit submitted through authorised airlines in Taiwan. - Why is the airline being held responsible? Well, it was the airline which permitted Chang to get on the airplane with an expired Hong Kong ID. Therefore it is the airline, not the Hong Kong Immigration Department, which is accountable for this slip-up. As a result of this incident, the airline will pay for Chang's return fare. As well, there will be a hefty fine for negligence. - (EJ Insight) Chang said he was told by the immigration department that his identity card had expired. But he noted that he had had no problems entering Hong Kong for similar purposes using his ID card before Wednesday. Chang said it will be very sad if he cannot visit Hong Kong as he has deep feelings for the city. You have to admire these intellectual types who find it so hard to figure out the simple facts of life: (1) Chang's Hong Kong dependant visa (normally for 3 years) expired in April 2017. (2) Chang was able to enter Hong Kong in January 2017 because the visa was still valid. (3) Chang was unable to enter Hong Kong in December 2017 because the visa is no longer valid. Duh! Why act surprised? How else can it be? There is an alternative. Chang could use his Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents (Tai Bao Zheng) to enter Hong Kong. Of course, he left it at home (or so he says). There is yet another alternative. Chang immediately went online to apply for a Notification Slip for Pre-arrival Registration for Taiwan Residents. Hey, what does "pre-arrival registration" mean to you? It means "before arrival". It does not mean "post arrival" after you land at the Hong Kong International Airport. Duh! It would be a system bug if this was approved. There is yet another alternative. (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Visit Visa/Entry Permit Requirements 9. If you are a Chinese resident of Taiwan, you should submit your application for an entry permit through one of the authorised airlines. Duh! It means that you cannot Do It Yourself. And besides it takes two days to process. Is Chang going to sleep in the airport meanwhile? Now has Chang gone back to Taipei and sulk at home through Twitter? Or is he coming back to Hong Kong with his Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents in hand? Will he also apply for a Notification Slip for Pre-arrival Registration for Taiwan Residents before arrival just in case? - Guidebook for Entry for Residence as Dependants in Hong Kong 12. A dependant may apply for extension of stay for resident in the HKSAR within four weeks before his/her limit of stay expires. Apparently Chang Tieh-chih never paid attention to this. Perhaps he was too busy fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. Or maybe he thinks that such mundane details can always be ironed out with the help of legislator Kwok Ka-ki. - Relevant link: #505 We need the airline unions to come out and insist that all security/immigration procedures must be followed to the letter with no exceptions. Or else we all die. Or something. - (Apple Daily) December 7, 2017. Hong Kong Baptist University School of Communication senior lecturer Bruce PK Lui said that Chang Tieh-chih is a moderate who has resided in Hong Kong before. Therefore this action was not directly against Chang personally. Instead, it is the Central Government which is tightening control over Hong Kong-Taiwan links. - Yes, the Central Government made Chang Tieh-chih forget to renew his Hong Kong visa and to leave his Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents at home. Those Commies are really nefarious. I would never have guessed until this HKBU School of Communication senior lecturer brought this to my attention. - (EJ Insight) December 7, 2017. A Taiwanese official said the Hong Kong government should treat civil exchanges between their two places with an open mind and a positive attitude so as not to hurt the city’s image in the eyes of Taiwan people or affect their relationship built over many years. - ... but no Taiwanese officials have come out to remind their citizens to always bring valid travel documents when they going overseas. [835] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/12/5) (Chinese University of Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies) 722 Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or over were interviewed November 21-25, 2017 by telephone. Q1. Do you support filibustering on principle? 50.8%: Do not support 30.3%: In-between 14.0%: Support 4.8%: Don't know/hard to say Q2. Do you agree with changing the rules of procedure in the legislature in order to reduce the change of filibustering? 30.1%: Disagree 16.6%: In-between 49.4%: Agree 3.9%: Don't know/hard to say Q3. Are you worried that changing the rules of procedure at the legislature will end up weakening the speech rights of legislators? 44.0%: Not worried 16.0%: In-between 35.2%: Worried 3.0%: Don't know/hard to say Q4. Do you agree with filibustering over the Co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station? 58.6%: Disagree 14.1%: In-between 22.2%: Agree 5.1%: Don't know/hard to say Q5. Statements on filibustering Filibustering hinders governance and slows down social development in Hon gKong 19.8%: Disagree 23.1%: In-between 53.2%: Agree 3.9%: Don't know/hard to say Filibustering only represents a chance for a political show by the legislators to increase public exposure 31.9%: Disagree 26.3%: In-between 37.4%: Agree 4.4%: Don't know/hard to say Filibustering can raise public awareness on the issues and make the government face up to the demands 43.9%: Disagree 22.0%: In-between 31.7%: Agree 2.4%: Don't know/hard to say Legislators filibuster because there is no full universal suffrage at the legislature 40.9%: Disagree 21.3%: In-between 30.7%: Agree 7.1%: Don't know/hard to say Internet comments: - (Oriental Daily) December 6, 2017. The pan-democratic legislators met with the press today. With respect to the CUHK-IAPS poll, legislator Chan Chi-chuen said that the poll will not affect the future actions of the pro-democracy camp. - Who fucking cares about what people think!? We are pro-democracy and we certainly don't have to care! - (HKG Pao) Actually, the pan-democrats care a lot. Here is Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) offering his explanation:- Filibustering is a non-violent form of resistance. If filibustering is disabled in future, then there is only violent resistance left. He said: "First of all, we wouldn't want to hurt the security guards who are blameless. I feel that this is the most essential. From this premise, we have to think about what we can do to achieve our goals." (see video of violence in the Legislative Council chamber) - Short summary: If you won't let us filibuster, we are going to have to assault security guards. If and when they get hurt (and they will), you will bear full responsibility because you stopped filibustering. - (HKG Pao) Lawmaker James To (Democratic Party) told the press that "Amending the Rules of Procedure" = "Eliminating One Country Two Systems." What is the line of reasoning? One Country Two Systems means that the two systems are different. If the two systems converge, then One Country Two Systems is dead. Therefore, the two systems must continue to be different. The Hong Kong system allows filibustering right now, but they don't do so in mainland China. If we eliminate filibustering in Hong Kong, it means that the two systems will be alike. Therefore we must keep filibustering in Hong Kong, or else One Country Two Systems is dead. In like manner, this argument can be extended to any number of other fields. For example, mainland China has the High Rail Express. Therefore Hong Kong must not allow the High Rail Express to come in or else One Country Two Systems is dead. Instead Hongkongers must continue to take the cow train. - Who is going to be happiest after the rules of procedure are amended? [ ] The pro-democracy camp [ ] The pro-establishment camp [ ] The Hong Kong SAR government [ ] The Central Government/Chinese Communist Party [ ] The Legislative Council secretariat (including the security guards) [ ] The media [ ] The people of Hong Kong (Hong Kong Free Press) Lawmaker Paul Tse, who is the chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, said, "The public must be the happiest ones." - (SCMP) Hong Kong’s opposition leaders only have themselves to blame. By Alex Lo. December 9, 2017. The irony is hard to miss. The opposition is using protests, disruptions, quorum counts, filibustering and any and all delaying tactics it can come up with to stall changes to the rule book of the Legislative Council to restrict such tactics. The chaos we have just witnessed in the Legco chamber this week will only get worse. But the opposition is just digging a bigger hole for itself – and confirming for the public that it has nothing constructive to offer other than opposing for its own sake. Filibustering and stalling in general have a place in any legislative assembly that doesn’t want to be just a rubber stamp. But they need to be used sparingly and wisely. Unfortunately, such tactics became the weapon of first rather than last resort for opposition lawmakers during the years of the Leung Chun-ying administration, which they hated and despised to an almost hysterical level. Opposition leaders like to claim they oppose only unjust bills and “white elephant” infrastructure projects. But, whether intentional or not, their indiscriminate, scorched-earth tactics have caused tremendous collateral damage. In local construction, an estimated HK$180 billion of works, of which about 40 per cent is funded publicly, is needed each year to sustain a 400,000 workforce. Last year, the government sought HK$67.5 billion for 72 construction projects, yet only a handful were approved because of disruptions to funding in Legco. The vast majority were minor works, not large-scale “white elephants”. More ridiculously, opposition legislators have been happy to hold up funding approval they themselves support just to spite the government. That was what happened in July when a popular HK$3.6 billion additional recurrent funding in education was not approved until the last minute because of protests against the disqualification of localist lawmakers. It should surprise no one that more than half of those questioned in a recent Chinese University survey opposed filibustering and other delaying tactics, while only about a third expressed support. The loyalists in Legco are no doubt exploiting a rare opportunity to curb the ability of the opposition to block government bills with the disqualification that has left six Legco seats vacant; they would be foolish not to. Opposition leaders have no one to blame but themselves to have used questionable tactics to such an irrational and destructive extent as to squander public goodwill, understanding and forbearance. - (EJ Insight) Is it time for the opposition to throw in the towel? By SC Yeung. December 12, 2017. The democrats appear to be fighting a losing battle in their effort to prevent changes to the Legislative Council rules. Public opinion is not on their side. Neither is time. The establishment camp is keen on pushing through with the changes, which would stop filibusters and lower the quorum, weapons the opposition use to either delay or stop the proceedings to tackle controversial government bills. The administration of Chief Executive Carrie Lam is solidly behind the move, although under the principle of separation of powers, the executive branch is not supposed to meddle with the affairs of the legislature. Something must happen before Lam leaves for her duty visit to Beijing later this week, and nothing would please her boss, President Xi Jinping, more than the news that the Legco rule changes are in the bag. There is no better time to pass the proposed changes than now, when six of the pan-democrats have been disqualified after the court invalidated their oath-taking, and the pro-Beijing camp has gained control of Legco. All that the opposition can do to block the changes is to resort to delaying tactics, disrupt the proceedings, and prevent a vote. Is there really nothing the opposition can do to sway public opinion to their side, to convince the public that the changes would turn Legco into a rubber stamp like the National People’s Congress in Beijing, that the changes are inimical to their interests? The democrats want to resort to action similar to the Occupy campaign in 2014. They want their supporters to camp out in front of Legco to oppose the proposed changes, which could be approved as early as next week, before the legislature adjourns for the Christmas holiday. But would such an action be enough for the opposition to win the hearts and minds of the people, and turn the tide in their favor? The opposition’s message is too simple. They are saying that the rule changes would lead to the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law, and restrict the freedom of speech that we currently enjoy. But the public view is that the rule changes would give order to the Legco proceedings, put a stop to the long delays that to them are simply a waste of time and people’s money. In short, the public has had enough of the opposition’s old tricks. One of the proposed changes is to lower the minimum number of legislators present in a meeting to establish a quorum to 20, from the current 35 or half of the entire body. The opposition has used this rule to stop the legislature from voting on controversial bills and also to criticize pro-Beijing lawmakers who are often absent from sessions. If the proposal is approved, it would no longer be difficult for the establishment camp to start a meeting and facilitate the enactment of controversial government bills. But such a proposal is itself controversial, and may be a violation of the Basic Law. According to Article 75 of our mini-constitution, the quorum of the Legislative Council shall be not less than one-half of all its members. In fact, the government may need to ask Beijing for another interpretation to make the law effective in Hong Kong. Former Legco president Andrew Wong on Monday weighed in on the controversy, noting that both the establishment camp and the pan-democrats have gone overboard. He said most of the proposed rule changes are unnecessary, but some rules, such as the one that allows the removal of the press from the chamber, are indeed outdated and should be scrapped. Wong urged lawmakers to handle the matter more carefully and to spend more time to arrive at a consensus. But the entire pro-Beijing camp, including Legco president Andrew Leung, wants to set a deadline to have the rule changes approved as soon as possible. Leung, in fact, has extended the Legco sessions to have the proposals approved. In truth, the Legco leadership has shut the door to any further deliberation on the proposals or to reach a compromise with the democrats. Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung admitted that the democrats‘ options to block the proposed rule changes are quite limited. He did urge both sides to sit down to work out a plan to restore normal Legco functions. “We should not keep fighting against each other at Legco,” Yeung said. In the face of defeat at Legco, what else could the democrats do? Would they now throw in the towel and return to the parliament of the streets? (Ming Pao) December 13, 2017. In countries and regions with a representative political system, the use of filibuster by minority lawmakers in the legislative body is part of its business. In this light, pan-democratic lawmakers' use of filibuster in Hong Kong to advance their proposals and demands is not a big issue. However, what is different between Hong Kong's Legislative Council and the legislative bodies in other countries and regions is that Hong Kong does not have a mechanism for handling filibuster. As a result, pan-democratic lawmakers, though in the minority, get to hijack the Legislative Council, paralyse the deliberation of issues and undermine almost all of its functions as a legislative body. According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the CUHK, of the 722 respondents over 18, 49.4 per cent supported the amendment of the Rules of Procedure in order to curb filibuster, while 30.1 per cent were against the move. As for whether lawmakers should filibuster against controversial issues to prevent related bills or motions from being adopted, 50.8 per cent of respondents said "no", while only 14 per cent said "yes", showing an even greater discrepancy. In the past, citizens were neutral towards filibuster. Now their preference is clear — they are obviously against filibuster. This is believed to be the result of the pan-democrats' overuse of filibuster, so much so citizens feel that their interests have been harmed. Hence the change of the tide of opinion. In the same survey, respondents were also asked about the "Co-location Arrangements". It was found that 58.6 per cent of respondents did not think that lawmakers should filibuster against the motion, while only 22.2 per cent thought they should. The pan-democratic camp had invented many scenarios to frighten citizens, trying to paint a horrifying picture of the Co-location Arrangements. As shown by the survey, their strategy has not been successful. The finding, together with citizens' stance on filibuster, demonstrates that pan-democratic lawmakers are now at the opposite of public opinion. In spite of this, some of them, however, have said they will not pay attention to the survey and will continue to do what they want to do. It is uncertain whether the pan-democrats as a whole will filibuster to the end. [834] 300 (2017/12/3) (YouTube) King Leonidas: Spartans! Prepare for glory! Daxos: Glory? Have you gone mad? There is no glory to be had now! Only retreat, or surrender or death! King Leonidas: Well, that's an easy choice for us, Arcadian! Spartans never retreat! Spartans never surrender! Go spread the word. Let every Greek assembled know the truth of this. Let each among them search his own soul. And while you're at it, search your own. ... King Leonidas: Children, gather round! No retreat, no surrender; that is Spartan law. And by Spartan law we will stand and fight... and die. A new age has begun. An age of freedom, and all will know, that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it! (Oriental Daily) November 30, 2017.

The League of Social Democrats, Demosisto and other groups announced today at a prses conference that they will hold a demonstration this coming Sunday. The theme shall be: "March with the activists, resist authoritarianism." The march will begin from Southorn Sports Ground in Wanchai and end at the Court of Final Appeal in Central. League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng said that they have applied for a letter of non-objection from the police with an expected crowd size of 2,000. Earlier in August, several days after Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow went into jail, several organizations marched to support the "political prisoners." Many pan-democrats, localists and students showed up. This was one of the few times when the organizers did not provide a crowd size estimate. Former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general said that this was the largest crowd since the 2014 Occupy Movement and that they raised $2.5 million in donations. Less than two months later, the same group held an Anti-Authoritarian March on October 1 to demand the resignation of Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen. The organizers claimed that 40,000 persons marched and donated more than $1.1 million. Previously the Justice Defence Fund hijacked the marches. At first, they said that they were raising money for the four disqualified Legislative Councilors. Then they said that the money would be used to help Occupy Movement people. Now the Imprisoned Activists Support Fund said that they want to help the imprisoned activists in the North East New Territories development case. This latest march is set to raise money for the Justice Defense Fund and the Imprisoned Activists Support Fund. Apart from the previously stated aid recipients, we now have Joshua Wong ready to be sentenced next week for contempt of court in the Mong Kok clearance and the sentence appeal for Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow in January. It is highly likely that Wong, Law and Chow will go back to jail. So is this latest march an attempt to raise more "family settlement" money for them? (Oriental Daily) December 3, 2017. The Anti-Authoritarianism demonstration march by the League of Social Democrats, Demosisto and other organizations started out at 235pm from Southorn Sports Ground in Wanchai and arrived at the Court of Final Appeal in Central at 320pm. About 300 persons started the march. They changed slogans including "Defend the disqualified legislative councilors," "Oppose political prosecution," "Oppose political persecution," "We don't want Article 23," "Release the political prisoners", "No fear of authoritarianism," "I want genuine universal suffrage," "The people should be in charge," etc. Most of the marchers held donation boxes to raise money for the Justice Defence Fund. Among those present were Joshua Wong and Nathan Law of Demosisto, the four disqualified legislative councilors (Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law and Yiu Chung-yim), Occupy Central trio member Benny Tai, Avery Ng and Raphael Wong of the League of Social Democrats and some members of the North East New Territories 13. Joshua Wong said that he expects to be sentenced to jail on Thursday for contempt of court during the Mong Kok clearance. Therefore this will be his last march this year. He said that this march will be a shot in the arm for social activists. He said that the the crowd size is unimportant. He believes that all the marchers have firm will. He hopes that this march will show the government that they oppose political persecution and that the people of Hong Kong have a spirit of never giving up. Internet comments: - If I want to make a charitable donation, I would have given it last night to the Tung Wah Charity Gala on TVB. At least I know where the money to going to. - Who are these people anyway? Joshua Wong: unemployed Nathan Law: unemployed Avery Ng: unemployed Raphael Wong: unemployed Leung Kwok-hung: unemployed Yiu Chung-yim: consultant Lau Siu-lai: University lecturer Benny Tai: Associate professor, School of Law, Hong Kong University - If they claim to have raised another $1 million, then the average donation per person is $1,000,000 / 300 = $3,333. And most of these people are unemployed. Who is going to believe that? - It is not true that they are unemployed. They are all professional social activists whose income depends on the donations. - 300? The next day, Apple Daily's headline will be the usual ("the whole city rose up and roared in anger"). - Joshua Wong said that the crowd size is unimportant. Oh. Why couldn't he make it clear beforehand and then everybody can just stay home? - (Oriental Daily) December 4, 2017. The issue is less than the absolute number '2000.' More importantly, these same people claimed 40,000 came to demonstrate the last time. What happened to the other 38,000 today? - Turnout was impacted today by the non-appearance of those in the localism/independence/self-determination movements. The reason is that Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) has just jumped bail and gone missing (see Hong Kong Free Press). So the normally verbose leaders of the localism/independence/self-determination movements hiding from the press, and the rank-and-file members are under gag orders. - The Justice Defence Fund has never counted the Mong Kok rioters (including Ray Wong and Edward Leung) among those ineligible for its aid. So why would the localism/independence/self-determination movements show up at a fundraiser for the Justice Defence Fund? - What can the localism/independence/self-determination say about the case of Ray Wong? On one hand, if they say that Wong was right to jump bail so as to avoid political persecution by a rigged judicial system, their words will be used against them when they apply for bail some day. On the other hand, if they say that Wong should turn himself in, they would be colluding with the three powers (executive, legislative and judicial) to persecute a comrade. So at the most they can only say that they don't know the facts here and therefore cannot comment. - (SCMP) December 3, 2017. Event organisers said 2,000 people joined the march from Southorn Playground in Wan Chai to the Court of Final Appeal in Central over a series of recent court cases, including the imprisonment of the pro-democracy movement activists and the disqualification of four opposition lawmakers. Police estimated 1,800 people attended the protest. - Normally, the Civil Human Rights Front produces a number which is 5 to 10 times larger than the police number which tends to be close to the numbers from the university pollsters. What happened here? Has Civil Human Rights Front discovered honesty? [833] Check Kiting (2017/11/30) (Hong Kong Free Press) November 22, 2017. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has said that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is “absolutely valid” in response to a parliamentary question on freedoms in Hong Kong. At a British Parliament session on Tuesday, Labour Party MP Geraint Davies said: “[I]n Hong Kong freedom of the press, freedom of expression and assembly is guaranteed by Article 3(5) of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Yet last week, Beijing said they would basically imprison people up to three years for booing or disrespecting the Chinese national anthem.” “President Trump said nothing about this during his visit, what is he [Johnson] going to do about this to uphold fundamental values that we are legally obliged in the United Kingdom to uphold?” In response, Johnson said: “We have made it absolutely clear to our Chinese partners that the Joint Declaration is absolutely valid and operative, and the One Country, Two Systems enshrining all the values that he [Davies] rightly draws attention to. One Country, Two Systems remain in force.” Hong Kong Watch, a new London-based advocacy organisation focused on Hong Kong, said on Twitter: “Thank you Geraint Davis MP for raising important concerns about freedom of expression, and press freedom in Hong Kong.” The group has the support of patrons from across the political spectrum, including former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, former Labour Shadow Foreign Minister Catherine West MP, former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Paddy Ashdown, independent cross-bencher Lord David Alton, and former prosecutor of Slobodan Milosevic, barrister Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. (Hong Kong Free Press) November 27, 2017. Lord Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, says Britain has a duty to Hong Kong. He said the Sino-British Joint Declaration is an enshrined international treaty: “It is up to all to make sure that they preserved that and protect it.” “The British government has a duty here too. Britain sadly is obsessed with Brexit at the moment, but you know this is our engagement. I think it was John Major, the British prime minister, who said to the people of Hong Kong: ‘You’ll never walk alone’.” “Chris Patten has said Britain risks selling her honour if, in order to get a decent trade deal we’re all desperate to get, Britain forgets her obligations in Hong Kong.” (The Foreign Correspondents Club Hong Kong) Britain should offer right of abode to BNO passport holders, says Lord Ashdown as he sets up Hong Kong Watch. November 28, 2017. The former Royal Marine, in Hong Kong on a fact-finding exercise, said he would “favour very strongly the BNO being extended to the right of abode if it is the case that the conditions in Hong Kong are created by whatever force that enables those who hold the BNO passport to feel so vulnerable that they can’t live here any longer”. However, the SAR passport “is probably a better travel document than the BNO”, he added. The BNO (British Nationals Overseas) passport was created in 1987 and is issued to permanent residents of Hong Kong. Holders can visit the UK for up to six months. Internet comments: - (Wikipedia) British National (Overseas) Passports British Nationals (Overseas) are British nationals but not British citizens, and hence do not have the right of abode in the UK. Holders of BN(O) passports can only visit UK for no more than six months (or three months when arriving from the Republic of Ireland). For longer stays or other purposes of visit, holders of BN(O) passports need to apply for the appropriate visas at the UK diplomatic missions overseas. British National (Overseas) status is not recognized by the Government of China, so BN(O) passports are not recognized by Mainland China ports of entry controlled by Ministry of Public Security. Plus, the Government of Hong Kong does not allow BN(O)s' withdrawal of Chinese citizenship pursuant to the Nationality law of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, BN(O)s who wish to visit Mainland China must obtain Mainland Travel Permit for Hong Kong and Macao Residents in advance. - (Wikipedia) Check Kiting Check kiting is a form of check fraud, involving taking advantage of the float to make use of non-existent funds in a checking or other bank account. In this way, instead of being used as a negotiable instrument, checks are misused as a form of unauthorized credit. Kiting is commonly defined as intentionally writing a check for a value greater than the account balance from an account in one bank, then writing a check from another account in another bank, also with non-sufficient funds, with the second check serving to cover the non-existent funds from the first account. The purpose of check kiting is to falsely inflate the balance of a checking account in order to allow written checks to clear that would otherwise bounce. If the account is not planned to be replenished, then the fraud is colloquially known as paper hanging. According to Wikipedia, Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, known as Paddy Ashdown served as Leader of the Liberal Democrats from 1988 to 1999. So what? This only makes him a used-up battery with no power today. Lord Ashdown is in no position to promise UK citizenship to BNO passport holders. He has nothing in his bank account. He can write another check to promise that he will bring the subject up if the situation so warrants at a later time, but that is the covering check from another bank account with no money in it either. - (The Stand News) November 29, 2017. At the FCC, Lord Ashdown said: “On BN(O), you will not be surprised to know that I would favour very strongly that the BN(O) be extended to right of abode, if it is the case that the conditions in Hong Kong are created by whatever force that enables those who hold the BN(O) passport to feel so vulnerable that they can’t live here any longer, I think as a backstop assurance that should be provided.” “…I don’t say we should do it now, but if it is the case that those who have BN(O) passports feel so vulnerable that they can’t live here any longer, and that is proven to be a case, then I think Britain should certainly be prepared to show generosity in that matter.” There are two key issues: (1) Does Lord Ashdown have sufficient pull in British politics to make this happen? (2) Will British politicians and general public accept this? Given the preoccupation in the United Kingdom with Brexit, I am pessimistic. Previously, former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten said during his visit to Hong Kong that he will bring this topic up for parliamentary debate. So far, we haven't seen him done anything yet. Last month during the Benedict Rogers affair, the British government even summoned the Chinese ambassador to protest. But the matter seemed to have faded away by now. We are neither surprised nor disappointed, because this was just what we expected. In the end, this is as Professor Simon Shen Xu Hui wrote: "The British will only express their concerns verbally, but they will never take any concrete action. Such is the unspoken political reality." - (Simon Shen's blog) October 10, 2014. Individual Hong Kong politicians seem to want the British to intervene in Hong Kong. Even the last governor Chris Patten said that the British government is being "irresponsible" by not intervening. But this is just wishful thinking. First of all, why is the Joint Sino-British Declaration a "declaration" and not a "treaty" or "agreement"? That is because China refused to sign a treaty with the United Kingdom lest they looked as if they are accepting the unequal treaties such as the Treaty of Nanking or the Treaty of Peking. They don't want the United Kingdom to have any say in Hong Kong after the handover. After the Declaration was signed, a number of legislators such as Chung Sze-yuen suggested that the Declaration be entered into the United Nations in order to gain international recognition. What does that mean? In the era of the League of Nations before WWII, the registration of such documents make them legally binding. After WWII, the newly founded United Nations removed this requirement. This means that all other treaties, agreements and declarations not registered are treated the same way. The so-called "registration" refers to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations: 1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it. 2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations. This has nothing to do with the legal status of the document. The Joint Sino-British Declaration is a bilateral declaration, so that only those two signatory nations can have a say. It is wrong to think that just because it was entered into the United Nations means that the United Nations can take over and monitor the implementation. If either the British or the Chinese thinks that the other side has broken the promise, can they complain to the international community? In theory, yes. But the problem is that the Declaration does not say what recourse is available in such a situation. For example, the Declaration does not say what happens if China took Hong Kong back before 1997 or if the United Kingdom refused to hand Hong Kong over in 1997. The United Nations might be able to intervene in case of war, but its scope of action is limited in other matters. In theory, the United Kingdom can sue China at the International Court of Justice to seek a binding arbitration. But an arbitration requires bilateral agreement, and China would never agree to enter into arbitration. The United Kingdom can imitate the Philippines to sue China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration but that decision is non-binding as well. Besides the United Kingdom has slim chance of winning because the wording in the Joint Sino-British Declaration is deliberately vague (maintaining "basic policies", preserving the "lifestyle", "the chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally") in order to give maximum flexibility to the sovereign nation. Today, the United Kingdom needs Chinese capital investment and trade. The British will only express their concerns verbally, but they will never take any concrete action. Such is the unspoken political reality. - When Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is “absolutely valid”, he is kiting a check. He has nothing to back up that statement. - (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) June 30, 2017. Q: British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said on June 29 that the rule of law, an independent judiciary and a free media have all been central to Hong Kong's success. Hong Kong's future success will depend on the rights and freedoms protected by the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The spokesperson of the US State Department also said that the US remains concerned about any infringements of civil liberties in Hong Kong, including intrusions on press freedoms, and supports the further development of Hong Kong's democratic systems. What is China's comment on that? A: We can tell whether Hong Kong is successful or not based on its development over the past two decades since its return to the motherland, rather than any outsiders' irresponsible remarks. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has achieved all-round progress over the past 20 years under the energetic support of the central government and the mainland. From 1997 to 2016, GDP annual growth rate in Hong Kong averaged 3.2%, ranking among the top developed economies. Hong Kong has kept its unemployment rate below 3.5% over recent years, while the world average is 5%. For 23 years in a row, Hong Kong has been rated by the Heritage Foundation as the freest economy in its Index of Economic Freedom Report. According to the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) World Competitiveness Yearbook 2017, Hong Kong topped the list of competitive economies for the second consecutive year. The successful practice of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and the prosperous and contented life of people in Hong Kong have made people of the SAR and the entire China happy, although it seems to have made some others sour. As for the remarks made by those from the US and the UK, I want to stress that Hong Kong is China's SAR, and Hong Kong affairs belong to China's domestic affairs. The Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) clearly marks the transitional period off from China resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. It's been 20 years now since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, and the arrangements during the transitional period prescribed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration are now history and of no practical significance, nor are they binding on the Chinese central government's administration of the Hong Kong SAR. The British side has no sovereignty, no power to rule and supervise Hong Kong after the handover. It is hoped that relevant people will come around to this. - Every few weeks, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pops up to say that the Joint Sino-British Declaration is as valid as ever. By auto-rote, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson says that Hong Kong matters are internal Chinese matters. What is the point of this pantomime show? - What, if anything, can the British do? Cut off all economic ties with China and get the rest of the world to do so too? Send their aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth II to Hong Kong if and when it is ever battle-worthy? Bring a motion to denounce Hong Kong's national anthem law before the United Nations General Assembly and lose by a vote of 1-157 with even the United States abstaining? - (Wen Wei Po) November 30, 2017. No sooner did Paddy Ashdown finish his speech than Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) immediately issued the call: "All those who have not renewed their BNO passports should do so immediately, so that the correct number can be used for effective legislation." Melody Lam: This is a waste of time. If the Brits wanted to do this, they would have done it a long time ago. Io Va Chu: This is not the first time that you heard from the the Brits. If the people of Hong Kong become boat people, the United Kingdom will be among the first wave of nations to shut the gates! Vincent Or: The Brits would be stupid to pay any attention to you! Caleb Lam: This is just a way for the political hacks to come out and get some attention. Kam Lau: Each time they bring out some bit player to make statements that they won't take responsibility for. Meanwhile those who have the real power to effect things never say anything. William Lai: Ha ha ... he talks big but he doesn't have to pay the bill. Nevertheless many people actually believe him and give him applause. It is so easy to be a politician. - The British voted for Brexit because they don't want all those Eastern Europeans coming to their beautiful homeland. And they also don't want the hordes of Middle Eastern refugees waiting in Calais (France) to come. What are the chances of them welcoming a couple of million Hongkongers to come to the British Isles to collect welfare and use the National Health Service? - India, a former British colony and still a member of the British Commonwealth, has a Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act with a maximum sentence of 3 years in jail. This Act of the Parliament covers the desecration of the National Flag, the National Anthem and the Constitution? Why doesn't the United Kingdom complain? Where is Lord Ashdown when he is needed? - Hong Kong already has a National Flag law in place, with a citizen being sentenced to 9 months in prison for flag-burning (see SCMP). Why can't they have a National Anthem law too? Why is it different? - Is the argument that the National Anthem law would not preserve the "life-style" that is enshrined in the Joint Sino-British Declaration? That's funny, I don't remember that the British colonial administration allowed the booing of the British anthem or the burning of the British flag. - (Bastille Post) December 1, 2017. When Paddy Ashdown said that the British government is being hypocritical on the Hong Kong problem, I think that the only thing true is the word "hypocritical." Not only is the British government hypocritical, but the British politicians (including Paddy Ashdown) are hypocritical too. Not only this, but all politicians who have to survive electoral politics (including the pro-establishment and pro-democracy camps in Hong Kong) are hypocritical. The Liberal Democratic Party is a small party that is the third or fourth largest party in the United Kingdom. After the 2010 elections, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party formed a coalition government, and their head Nick Clegg served as the deputy prime minister. If the Liberal Democrats cared so much about Hongkongers, then why didn't they fight for the right of abode for BNO passport holders when they were actually part of the ruling coalition? When the British left Hong Kong, the BNO passports were intended to be a travel document. The cover may be identical to the British passport, but the BNO passport states clearly inside that the bearer does not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. At the time, certain Hongkongers held actual British passports. But after the handover, the British government immediately amended the law so that those Hongkongers who hold British passport but are not normal tax-paying residents in the United Kingdom will have to pay full overseas tuition for their children. When a government wants to claw away even at student tuition, what are the chances of this government giving right of abode to about 150,000 BNO passport holders? Right now, the refugee crisis in the European Union had caused the Brexit referendum to succeed. So what room is there for the British government to act on the right of abode for more outsiders? So why did Lord Ashdown tell Hongkongers about something that he can't deliver? This is the common problem for politicians -- they will go to different places to tell different peoples whatever those people want to hear. He came to Hong Kong and knew that some Hongkongers don't like the Chinese government. So he said things that they wanted to hear, such as granting the right of abode to BNO passport holders. At this time, the Liberal Democrats hold only 8 seats in Parliament. They aren't even part of any coalition government. So they can say whatever they want without accountability. Lord Ashdown goes even further than most politicians, because he even wants to appease Hongkongers who are not British voters. Well, he can say anything that he wants to but he actually cannot deliver on any of it. - (SCMP) Britain needs to truly let go of Hong Kong. By Alex Lo. December 1, 2017. It’s both amusing and infuriating to watch British grandees flying in and out of the city making pronouncements about our future and how China should behave. On a practical level, when will these very important people realise their country is now irrelevant on the international stage and their government has little influence anywhere in the world, including in Hong Kong? This negative assessment of Britain’s international standing, is not my own judgment, but that of Jonathan Powell (see his Guardian op-ed), Tony Blair’s chief of staff from 1995 to 2007, and of Steven Erlanger, chief diplomatic correspondent of The New York Times, who just completed four years as the paper’s London bureau chief. People like British peer Paddy Ashdown, who has been on a “fact-finding” tour here like we are some kind of war-worn Bosnia and Herzegovina, his old haunts, are entertained by members of the local opposition and their expatriate supporters grasping at straws. But even their most fervent fans know deep down they will make no difference whatsoever, whatever happens in Hong Kong now and forever. China must honour the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Ashdown solemnly declares. But why wouldn’t China when this international treaty, from the very beginning, focuses on preserving “the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong” and “upholding national unity and territorial integrity”? It sounds like some opposition members and Hong Kong secessionists are the ones working to undermine this treaty. “Our duty to Hong Kong is non-negotiable,” Ashdown said. “Britain does need to understand that it has a very special duty to Hong Kong and it needs to fulfill that duty. We have a legal duty. We have a moral duty. We have a duty of friendship.” I am sorry, but doesn’t anyone feel embarrassed hearing him speak like that? Not British peers, evidently. And preserving Hong Kong’s freedoms, too. Presumably that means achieving full democracy and universal suffrage. But there is no mention of any of that in the Joint Declaration. It’s all in the Basic Law. I would join the opposition this minute if they start respecting the city’s mini-constitution in total, including Article 23, which calls for Hong Kong to enact national security legislation. In a disaster or war, do you think Britain or China would rush all available resources to help Hong Kong? Oh wait, that would be mainland interference. Better call the Brits for help! - Flashback! (New York Times) July 23, 1989. The controversy surrounding Britain's refusal to allow holders of British passports in Hong Kong to settle here has fed a long-running debate over this nation's policies toward immigrants. Since the Communist repression of the pro-democracy movement in China last month, London has reaffirmed several times its decision not to give Hong Kong's 3.25 million Chinese who hold British passports the right to live in Britain after the colony's scheduled reversion to China in 1997. Sir Geoffrey Howe, British Foreign Secretary repeated this last week. He told the House of Commons that the Government would be as ''generous as possible'' in admitting people from the colony but that a commitment to take in all of them was ''impossible.'' ''It would be wrong to raise expectations we could not possibly meet,'' Sir Geoffrey said, adding that the authorities were working on a plan to admit some people from both the private and public sectors on the basis of the value of their service to Hong Kong, as well as their connections with Britain. Both Conservative politicians and their Labor opponents have supported the Government's decision. But The Sunday Times, in a recent editorial, accused the authorities of not standing by the colony's people. ''To most British politicians, Hong Kong is a place out of sight, out of mind,'' the newspaper said. ''On both sides of the House their attitude is, at best, clouded by ignorance; at worst, warped by racism.'' Opinion polls suggest that the public is divided over the immigration issue. Under the headline ''No! No! No!'' The Sun, a national tabloid, published a survey recently that indicated that 65 percent were against a mass immigration of people from Hong Kong. A Gallup Poll published last month in The Daily Telegraph, just after the Chinese Army crushed the pro-democracy protest, showed that the crackdown had not changed attitudes on giving the colony's people the right to settle here. The poll indicated that 42 percent of Britons favored extending the right, 46 percent opposed it and the rest were undecided. When Gallup asked the same question in November 1983, it got almost identical results. Behind the statistics is the reality of Britain today. In the early 1950's, the nation had 35,000 nonwhite residents, compared with 2.5 million today out of a total population of 57 million. Huge waves of immigrants, many of whom were encouraged to settle here to fill the lowest paying jobs, arrived in the 1950's and 60's from Africa, India, Pakistan and the West Indies. They settled in a class-oriented country that had previously known the newcomers only as colonial subjects. Sociologists say Britain remains socially and politically uncomfortable as a nation of diverse cultures and cannot easily contemplate a commitment to accept a new influx of immigrants. Government figures show that a total of about 49,000 immigrants were allowed to settle in Britain last year and, in the last four years, fewer than 1,000 a year were allowed in from Hong Kong. Critics of the Government position say it should undertake research before embarking on its stated course of asking the rest of the world to help Hong Kong residents in the event that the colony's people are forced to flee. Paddy Ashdown, leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats, has condemned the political consensus over the Hong Kong issue. In a letter to The Independent newspaper, Mr. Ashdown said Mrs. Thatcher had added to the impression that concessions to Hong Kong would greatly strain the nation by giving Parliament a ''savagely simple'' answer to a question about the hardships that families faced when immigration regulations caused them to be separated. ''Her case, she said, rested on the fact that we are already admitting 40-50,000 immigrants per year and could not absorb any more,'' Mr. Ashdown wrote. ''In other words, issues of justice and morality are overruled by the numbers game. ''This fawning before unstated popular prejudice does no credit to our leading politicians. It may not in itself be racist - but it feeds off and adds to the already dangerous level of racism within our society.'' (The Independent) March 4, 1995. As he strolls through the leafy grounds of the Governor's country residence and relishes the colonial splendour of Government House today, John Major may well reflect that this is could be the last time a British prime minister sets foot on Hong Kong soil as a British colony. When he flies out of Hong Kong this evening, what will John Major have concluded there is to be proud of? What indelibly good British values will we leave behind in June 1997? This ill-gotten little slice of a faraway land, so ignobly acquired in the Opium Wars, will be just as ignobly deserted. The final and abiding symbol of our shabbiness will be 13 elderly war widows who have been denied British passports - (well, who wants to be "flooded" with widows?). The number of widows goes down with every article written about them, for the obvious reason; not long ago there were 50. A small concession is expected from the Prime Minister: 2 million Hong Kong Chinese, holders of the Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) passports will have the same right to visit Britain without a visa that the 3.5 million entitled to British National Overseas passports will have after 1997. But none of them will have the right to live or work here. Even this paltry gesture was vigorously opposed in cabinet by the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, afraid it might be a back-door route to illegal immigrants. A few months ago Governor Chris Patten bravely called for the Government to grant passports to all 3.3 million born and bred in Hong Kong. The furore he caused was all the more disgusting for being so entirely predictable. Michael Howard's blunt refusal was enthusiastically endorsed by Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who said that it was neither "appropriate or practical to offer automatic admission to three million Hong Kong overseas citizens." Only Paddy Ashdown has honourably advocated their cause. Some 50,000 of the best-heeled Hong Kong families are to be allowed passports that will let them live in Britain. The rest of the 3.3 million who were born in the colony will be left to their fate. Late in the day, when many of the richest Hong Kong residents had already made other arrangements to live in countries that welcome them with open arms - Canada, Australia and New Zealand - Britain added on a tacky little proviso to our No-Chinky-Chonks-Here policy: they can come in if they have pounds 1m and promise to invest it in treasury bonds. There has not been a noticeable stampede. Racism is deep-dyed in British politics, with a left-right consensus on immigration that endorses the meanest foreigner-hating spirit of British prejudice. Of the many MPs who have spoken out against Hong Kong immigration, I decided to talk to the relatively insignificant but typical Tory backbencher David Wilshire. He has his finger on the pulse of some of the nastier national attitudes towards immigration, a view of the world from which you, gentle reader of this liberal newspaper, may sometimes be over-protected. "Just say to them we're full up. I'm ever so sorry, there isn't any room left!" he told me. "We haven't the housing for them, we haven't the jobs." But these are skilled people and unlikely to be unemployed or to need council housing. Wouldn't they rekindle the torpid housing market? "I don't believe that guff about them all being entrepreneurs. Sorry, just no room." He adds: "I'm by no means a racist but mixing does cause huge problems. We have a very serious racial problem already. It's just about under control, but it could get out of control, God forbid!" He is in favour of voluntary repatriation for anyone wanting to leave. "Only too pleased to help them go." Mr Wilshire represents Spelthorne, one of Britain's safest Tory seats, which abuts Heathrow airport: 35,000 pilots, flight crew and skilled mechanics live in his 97 per cent-white patch, while the poor Asians who work at the airport live in Hillingdon, to the north. "In my pubs immigration and customs officers tell their stories, and maybe with Chinese whispers they get a bit exaggerated. One will say he's just picked up someone saying they're coming on holiday, when they've got a letter from Staines in their luggage offering them a job starting next Monday. Another has Christmas decorations in her case, at Easter. How long is she planning to stay?" He fulminates about the 40,000 asylum applications a year. I point out that in 1994, only 825 were actually admitted. "You don't need facts for prejudice," he replies wisely. "It's what people think that matters. I know how my people think." Why do people think what they think? Partly because their prejudices are fuelled by politicians. Language matters. Lord Dubbs reports an eight-year-old Ethiopian girl in her school playground asking her teacher what "bogus" means because the other children keep calling her "bogus", as in "bogus refugee" and "bogus asylum-seeker". Nice white Britain, ethnically clean, colourless, tasteless and lifeless as a thick-cut loaf of Mighty White - imagine a Britain that had never allowed immigration. The list of cultural riches is too long to contemplate and when would you begin, since "we" are and always have been a mongrel island? A recent report from the London Research Centre celebrated the success of London as Europe's best multi-racial city, where nearly a third of the people will be from myriad ethnic minorities in 15 years' time, cosmopolitan and largely at ease with itself. Our attitudes towards Asia have become curiously contradictory. The Tiger economies are admired by both Blair and Major. Industrious, studious, ambitious, their people never strike, never divorce, save and prosper. Crimelessly obedient, they are the perfect citizens - if only we were more like them! Personally I am quite glad we are not. For one thing, these homogeneous cultures have a narrow, closed outlook themselves, often intensely racist and hostile to outsiders. It would be hard to match Japan's deep-seated contempt for foreigners, while the Chinese have never given citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese. However, both main parties extol the various virtues they find in these societies, yet how do they square this admiration with an adamantine refusal to let these paragons of virtue into Britain? Gibbon blamed the decline of Greek civilisation on its racial restrictions on citizenship. "The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of ancient citizens had checked the fortune and hastened the ruin of Athens and Sparta." Rome, on the other hand, thrived by embracing the talents of "slaves, strangers, enemies and barbarians" if they would make citizens of merit. Time and again we are told that real gold lies in human resources - people, education, talent, brain, inspiration and intellectual capital. We live in a world where the successful economies are driven by the best ideas, designs and inventions. Turning away these Hong Kong citizens, sending them elsewhere about the globe, may begin to look like throwing away a treasure trove as valuable as North Sea oil. The brightest and best of Hong Kong, rejected by us, are heading instead for the sun-rise countries. We shall miss their talents as the sun finally sets over the British empire. The Sun

(SCMP) January 16, 2018. The city’s leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor hit out at the latest report of UK-based group Hong Kong Watch on Tuesday, slamming it as interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs with “unfounded and unfair” comments. The 10-page report, compiled by British peer Paddy Ashdown, suggested that recent events had raised concerns over the city’s rule of law, including the joint-checkpoint plan which would grant mainland officers almost full jurisdiction in part of the West Kowloon terminus of the cross-border rail link. “I take great exception to the comments and conclusion in that report. Those comments are totally unfounded and unfair,” Lam said on Tuesday morning before the weekly meeting of her cabinet. “To attack the rule of law in Hong Kong and to allege that China … this is the words they use, ‘continues to erode Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms thereby breaching an international treaty’ is totally unfounded.” The chief executive added: “We have seen no evidence of that. Quite the contrary, the central government has been fully backing Hong Kong and supporting Hong Kong in our economic and social development.” She slammed Hong Kong Watch for “interfering in Hong Kong’s internal affairs” and said it was worrying that some people in the city only attacked the central government liaison office yet followed the comments of foreign organisations. Hong Kong Watch was set up by British human rights activist Benedict Rogers, who was refused entry to Hong Kong in October last year. Reiterating that the core values of the city included the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, Lam again pledged: “I will do my utmost to safeguard those core values.” Ashdown, who sits in Britain’s House of Lords, wrote in the report that the decision of the National People’s Congress to push through the joint-checkpoint arrangement, “despite objections from Hong Kong lawyers that such a move is unconstitutional as it breaches Article 18 of the Basic Law, sets a dangerous precedent”. Article 18 states that national laws shall not be applied to Hong Kong except for those listed in Annex III of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. He also feared that the recent change in the Legislative Council’s rule book – which would effectively curb filibusters – would further reduce the power of pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong, and lamented the lack of progress in the city’s democratic development. Ashdown, who was in Hong Kong for a two-day fact-finding mission in November, said the enactment of the national security law had the “potential to breach human rights” and the government should ensure the draft would be in line with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. He also called on China to uphold the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the “one country, two systems” principle, while Britain should also continue to monitor the human rights situation in Hong Kong. (SCMP) January 17, 2018. Hong Kong let Lord Ashdown in and he acted like a Justice of the Peace of olden days to listen to the little people. The report for his political group, Hong Kong Watch, is titled: “Hong Kong 20 Years On: Freedom, Human Rights and Autonomy Under Fire – A report on Lord Ashdown’s trip to Hong Kong: November 2017.” He didn’t seem to recognise the irony, though. “I met with fellow legislators, legal experts and political activists in Hong Kong,” the British peer wrote. “It was my intention to listen to diverse voices during my trip in order to provide a balanced account.” So he met lots of people and gave many speeches. His local friends such as Democrat Party lawmaker Ted Hui Chi-fung have been busy promoting his report, so much so that even Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor yesterday had to defend Hong Kong against allegations made in the report. It looks like it’s still a free city. But is the report balanced? Well, that depends on whether you are “yellow” or “blue”. It claims the Department of Justice may be interfering in the legal judgments of courts. That’s way out there. Even the government’s fiercest critics have so far only claimed that the department’s decision to appeal against the sentencing of several Occupy protest leaders was politically motivated, not that the judge’s subsequent decision to toughen their sentences was interfered with. The report urges us to introduce universal suffrage. We tried in 2015, but it was voted down by the opposition, along with any hope to phase out or abolish the functional constituencies in the Legislative Council election in 2020. Hence the current stalemate. The report says Beijing must uphold the Basic Law, then goes on to warn against the dangers of legislating a national security law under Article 23. How does one decide which articles in the Basic Law are more important than others? Or is it just cherry-picking? And British National (Overseas) (BNO) passports: “Consider reviewing the status of BNO holders, and taking steps to protect BNO passport holders if the human rights situation in Hong Kong significantly worsens.” Go further, Lord Ashdown. Why not urge your government to grant right of abode to all BNO passport holders now? Let’s have a beauty contest between post-Brexit Britain and post-1997 Hong Kong to see how local people choose to live in one or the other place. Everything else is just words. (Hong Kong Free Press) Carrie Lam, Lord Ashdown’s report is not ‘foreign meddling’ – it reflects Britain’s commitment to the Handover. By Benedict Rogers. January 17, 2018. On Monday, one of Britain’s most distinguished parliamentarians and a long-time friend of Hong Kong published a report. Lord Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and one of the leading proponents of the rights of Hong Kong people at the time of the Handover of Hong Kong, wrote his reflections based on a visit in November for Hong Kong Watch. He articulated genuine concerns that the rule of law, democracy and the human rights of people of Hong Kong are under threat. The report was not the ravings of a radical politician with an agenda to undermine Hong Kong, but the measured reflections of one of Britain’s most experienced politicians and a long-time friend of Hong Kong. It was not anti-China propaganda, but concludes with Lord Ashdown’s firmly held conviction that ‘it is in the interests of Britain, China and Hong Kong to continue to uphold the rights enshrined at Handover.’ In light of this, I was shocked by the strength and animosity of Carrie Lam’s response on Tuesday morning. Without addressing any of the major concerns raised in the report, she said that the report was ‘totally unfounded and unfair’. This is an inadequate response to serious questions raised by one the UK’s most experienced politicians, particularly given the fact that the Sino-British Joint Declaration remains in force. Ms Lam described Lord Ashdown’s comments as an ‘attack on rule of law’ in Hong Kong, but failed to mention the balanced way that Lord Ashdown approached the topic. Lord Ashdown repeatedly emphasised that the Hong Kong judiciary is still largely ‘intact and independent’, but also expressed concern that rule of law is under increasing pressure by citing a long list of examples. Foremost among these is the implementation of mainland law at the new West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus. Lord Ashdown is not alone in describing this as a breach of Basic Law. The Hong Kong Bar Association have said that they are ‘appalled’ by a plan which is the ‘most retrograde step to date in the implementation of the Basic Law’. The former head of Hong Kong’s legislature and pro-establishment heavyweight, Jasper Tsang, wrote in a column that the government should “admit frankly” the arrangement does not comply with the Basic Law. Another example is the case of booksellers who were abducted in 2015, a serious violation of freedom of expression and rule of law. Angela Gui tells me that her father Gui Minhai is still in custody in mainland China over two years later. Lord Ashdown also expressed concerns about the disqualification of lawmakers based upon a ‘reinterpretation’ or modification of the Basic Law by the Chinese government which appears politicised. Such incidents raise justifiable questions about the status of Hong Kong’s rule of law. The rule of law is still intact, but appears under threat. Ms Lam made no reference in her remarks to democracy in Hong Kong, despite it being a major focus of Lord Ashdown’s report. Lord Ashdown said in his report that ‘despite being promised in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, there is still a considerable way to go before universal suffrage is realised in Hong Kong.’ He described the functional constituencies as ‘the worst legacy left behind by Britain’, saying that: ‘The functional seats were acceptable in the transition but should gradually be removed. They are a major barrier to the realisation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong.’ He continued to highlight that recent changes to the rules of the Legislative Council have undermined Hong Kong’s limited democracy. Contrary to Carrie Lam’s allegation that this is ‘foreign meddling’, Lord Ashdown’s report reflects the extension of a hand of friendship and the commitment on the part of British people to honour the international treaty signed in 1984. Lord Ashdown has repeatedly said to me that he believes it is in the interests of both Britain, China and the people of Hong Kong for the rights protected by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong Basic Law to be upheld. That includes all of the rights laid out in the United Nation’s International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, as is stipulated by Article 39 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. At this critical juncture in Hong Kong politics, with the legislation of Article 23 potentially on the horizon, he believes that this is a time when all signatories to the Sino-British Joint Declaration must reaffirm their commitment to upholding human rights in Hong Kong and ensuring the gradual transition towards democracy. I am pleased that the UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has communicated his commitment to ‘one country, two systems’ at multiple points in the last year. In the conclusion of her statement, Carrie Lam said that she has: ‘time and again stressed that Hong Kong’s core values are rule of law and independence of the judiciary’. I am very pleased to hear her affirm the vital importance of these two pillars of Hong Kong’s society. Hong Kong Watch exists to be a friend to Hong Kong, and we exist to protect these core values, alongside other rights enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. If Carrie Lam is sincere in her desire to protect Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial independence, then we hope that we will be able to have a constructive working relationship with her administration as we stand in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong. (SCMP) January 18, 2018. The British peer who published a damning report about the former colony last week has dismissed as an overreaction the Hong Kong leader’s claim that he had interfered in Chinese affairs. Paddy Ashdown, a co-founder of the London-based Hong Kong Watch group, insisted on Wednesday that it was “absolutely within the terms” of the Sino-British Joint Declaration for him to speak out. The former Liberal Democrats leader, who is lobbying the UK government to consider giving British National (Overseas) passport holders citizenship in the long run “if things go really badly”, also called on eligible Hongkongers to claim their BNO passports. Speaking to the South China Morning Post in the House of Lords on Wednesday, Ashdown said: “I understand the pressures that the administration in Hong Kong is under, I understand that. “But British parliamentarians have a right to identify when the British government isn’t doing what it said it would, and when the Beijing government isn’t doing it either.” Ashdown was responding to Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who on Tuesday said the report amounted to an interference in China’s and Hong Kong’s affairs. Her assertion that Hong Kong matters were China’s business only was “manifestly not true”, Ashdown said. “This is Britain acting absolutely within the terms of the Joint Declaration, which is a treaty,” he said. “And this has been scrupulously and carefully done.” “I am sure Carrie Lam or those who represent Hong Kong are big enough to be able to look at an assessment and analysis in a rational and objective way,” he added. Speaking to dozens of audience members in parliament and from the public as he introduced the report, Ashdown said Lam’s remarks were “unhelpful” and an “overreaction”, adding: “Perhaps the kind of overreaction [that] would only serve to give the report more publicity.” “I am not … saying that the rule of law has been undermined,” Ashdown said. “I have not said anything more than ‘keep a close eye on this’.” He added that judges in Hong Kong had “maintained strength” in upholding an independent judiciary. - I completely agree with Lord Ashdown that everybody should "keep a close eye" on everything. - ... and then what? (China Daily) Lord Ashdown - hollow mouthpiece for opposition. By Tony Kwok. January 18, 2018. When I read Paddy Ashdown's report on Hong Kong based on a visit in November last year, entitled "Hong Kong 20 Years On: Freedom, Human Rights and Autonomy Under Fire", my first thought was "who paid for his trip and for the report"? Lord Ashdown said he visited Hong Kong for a week in November, "to gather information about human rights, the rule of law and democracy". A business class airfare from London to Hong Kong costs about 5,200 pounds (HK$71,650), while hotel accommodation and daily expenses for a week in the city could come to at least HK$100,000. Was he doing this freely or was he engaged as a consultant to produce the report? If it is the latter, the minimum daily rate of honorarium for international consultant is 1,000 pounds. Therefore, Lord Ashdown's mission could cost over HK$240,000 - a very attractive sum compared with the daily allowance of 300 pounds he would receive for attending one House of Lords' meeting. I believe he has an obligation to declare his sponsor or employer - to see whether or not there is any conflict of interest. If it is someone associated with the opposition camp in Hong Kong or an US organization, people will then understand why the report is so biased. I would not even be surprised if it was drafted by a member of the opposition camp - as it merely repeats all the publicly known accusations leveled by opposition politicians and activists toward Beijing and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government in recent years. I have visited many countries in my capacity as international anti-corruption consultant to assess corruption problems. In each case, I ensured I had the opportunity to speak to all stakeholders before coming up with my recommendations. This would include anti-corruption officials, senior government officials, public prosecutors and judges, political parties, NGOs, chambers of commerce and academics. Lord Ashdown claimed he had spoken to "fellow legislators, legal experts and political activists". But he did not identify them; one cannot help wondering whether he only spoke to those from the opposition camp, considering the obvious bias of his report. For instance, he said the rule of law in Hong Kong has been eroded because "elected lawmakers were thrown out of the Legislative Council". But he did not check the much-reported facts that these lawmakers were subsequently disqualified upon a court ruling after failing to take their oaths of office "solemnly, sincerely and in its entirety in accordance with the law". These lawmakers only have themselves to blame! Would Lord Ashdown expect a member of parliament to be allowed in the House of Commons if he or she refused to swear allegiance to the Queen, or mocked the Queen during their oath taking? He complained that "student protest leaders were imprisoned" but did he bother to read the judgment of the Court of Appeal? This clearly stated that they were not imprisoned because of their public protests but because they had incited people to use violence and caused injuries to a number of security guards. It is also pertinent to ask what was Lord Ashdown's reaction to the well-publicized protests in 2010. At the time students in the United Kingdom demonstrated against the government's planned increases in tuition fees for universities. This resulted in riots in many cities in Britain and resulted in injuries to hundreds of police, students and citizens. Does he think the students involved in these riots should not be punished? Lord Ashdown alleged that "Hong Kong's democracy has been further damaged by recent changes to the rules of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong". I wonder if this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Indeed, he ought to know about the disgraceful and often violent behavior of opposition lawmakers within the LegCo chamber. I am also interested to know what Lord Ashdown, who claims to be a champion of the press, thinks of opposition legislator Eddie Chu Hoi-dick's motion evicting the media from the LegCo chamber as a filibustering technique to delay voting. When I watched House of Commons debates live, I often saw only a handful of MPs present late at night. They are never interrupted by frivolous quorum calls. So how can Lord Ashdown criticize the change of rule in our city which aims to minimize such interruptions so legislators can carry on with their duties? Does he know that for just one year alone, the opposition legislators called quorum counts on 95 occasions! This has led to delays in legislation which held back commencement of much-needed infrastructure projects. This resulted in losses worth billions of dollars due to rises in costs. Incidentally, the rule change enjoys overwhelming support according to a public opinion survey. He criticized Beijing for imposing its "decision to implement mainland law at the new West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus", implying jurisdictional trespassing. How is it we never hear of such complaints in joint customs border checkpoints in other parts of the world? He alleged that Hong Kong has deteriorated since the 1997 handover under the "one country, two systems" principle. On the contrary, the city has continued to thrive in economic terms, overtaking many leading cities around the world, including London - which is expecting an exodus of expatriates as Brexit looms. In Hong Kong, our expat community is voting with their feet in support of us. The SAR has seen a near doubling of US and a tripling of French nationals since 1997. Businessmen and worldly professionals are hard-nosed individuals. They are not blind to the facts - for instance, Hong Kong's latest annual GDP growth rate is 3.6 percent compared with the UK's 1.7 percent. The unemployment rate for Hong Kong is now 3 percent, compared with 4.3 percent in the UK. Corruption is generally regarded as the best benchmark for the rule of law. For the past 20 years, Hong Kong has remained one of the least corrupt places in the world. The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 ranked Hong Kong as 15th most corruption-free place in the world with an assessment mark of 77, the highest mark in the past four years. In another authoritative assessment, the Trace International Trace Bribery Risk Matrix 2017, which measures corruption risk, under the "Anti-bribery Laws and Enforcement", Hong Kong's risk score is 5, better than UK's score of 7. That means UK has a higher risk of bribery occurring than Hong Kong! The World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators project put Hong Kong at the 94.7 percentile for rule of law in 2015, compared with UK's 93.8. I find it ironic that with UK losing out to Hong Kong in most of the international rankings, we have a prominent British public figure lecturing us on our shortcomings! So I cannot help suspect that it is the UK's underhand way of interfering with our internal affairs! So at a time when UK is confronted with the Brexit crisis and other serious problems, we can tell this fleeting visitor from UK: "Mind your own business!" (SCMP) January 22, 2018. Andrew Heyn, the British consul general who took up his post in 2016, said Paddy Ashdown, the veteran British politician was not a member of the country’s government and his findings should be seen in that context. But Hong Kong, as a global city, must expect people to comment on its developments, and the city’s chief executive was entitled to respond, he added. Asked if he was disappointed by Lam’s criticism of the report, Heyn said: “Given that it was addressed to somebody not in government, somebody who was commenting from a position of knowledge of Hong Kong but not super close to it, it’s not for me to get upset about that or not.” He said: “The chief executive is perfectly entitled to give her view. Paddy Ashdown is entitled to give his. That’s the way it is when you are a global city.” But the British government continued to have an obligation to monitor developments in Hong Kong under the Joint Declaration, a treaty it signed with China in 1984 to provide for the city’s return in 1997, he added. “When you have signed up for a treaty like that, the monitoring part is, where you feel that things are going well, you should say so publicly,” Heyn said, adding that the one country, two systems arrangement “has probably worked better than almost anybody could have envisaged”. On calls for Hong Kong to be independent, Heyn stressed that Britain’s position was that this would not be realistic or desirable for the city. “The Joint Declaration says one country. There is no argument about that from anyone in the UK,” he said. As for two systems, Heyn said “we will do everything we can to support that”. Asked what action Britain could take if it thought the treaty was not being honoured, Heyn said it had spoken out publicly in the one case in which it felt there had been a breach. This concerned the disappearance of Hong Kong booksellers who later emerged in detention in mainland China. “Without going into detail about what happens behind the scenes in a case like that, it was an incident where we spoke out and made our views clear. That is one of the tools available. You can speak out publicly or privately. But usually we have found our preference would be to go for private diplomatic means,” he said. The British government expressed concern last year about a refusal to allow British human rights activist Benedict Rogers, founder of Hong Kong Watch, to enter the city, amid suggestions from China’s foreign ministry that he intended to meddle in Hong Kong’s affairs. Heyn said the two countries had exchanged letters on the matter, but the contents of those letters would remain private. “We have had a reply as to why, to our letter about the fact that Ben Rogers was refused entry. It lies there at the moment. There has not been a similar problem since. We continue to hope there will not be,” he said. [832] The Main Event (2017/11/28) Everything else until now is foreplay ... and now it's time for you to open your wallet and give to the Cause. Once more. (Hong Kong Free Press) November 28, 2017. The Legislative Council Commission on Monday sent letters to former lawmakers Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu, asking that they repay HK$2.7 to 3.1 million each in salaries and operating expenses, as they were never legally considered lawmakers. The votes they cast at the legislature, however, will remain valid. The LegCo Commission – an administrative body which comprises mostly of pro-Beijing lawmakers – decided to send the lawmakers demand letters following a special meeting on Monday. “Considering the legal advice, as public money is involved, it is the Commission’s duty to recover the funds,” Leung said. “According to the interpretation of the Basic Law, no entitlements shall be enjoyed if they are not lawmakers.” (EJ Insight) November 28, 2017. Four former pro-democracy lawmakers said the Legislative Council Commission’s decision to demand that they pay back the salaries and allowances they had received prior to their disqualification was absurd and obvious political oppression. Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the four – Dr. Lau Siu-lai, founder of Democracy Groundwork; “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats; Nathan Law Kwun-chung, chair of the political party Demosistō who was jailed for his role in a 2014 protest but is currently free on bail; and Dr. Edward Yiu Chung-yim, who represented the architectural, surveying, planning and landscape functional constituency – said they will seek legal advice while hoping that the commission will be able to reconsider its decision. They were disqualified by the High Court in July for improper oath-taking last year. Their disqualification is effective from Oct. 12, 2016, the day the swearing-in ceremony for Legco members took place. Based on the ruling, the commission decided after a special meeting on Monday morning that they have to return a combined HK$11.74 million in salaries and operating allowances they earned during the period, ranging from HK$2.7 million to HK$3.1 million each, Apple Daily reports. Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, who also chairs the commission, told media it is the commission’s duty to recover the funds as public money is involved. The former lawmakers will be given a notice first and then they will have four weeks to provide a reply to the commission, the Legco chief said, adding that it will then consider the next move after receiving their replies. It is understood the commission might reconsider its decision if the affected parties could come up with a strong defense, an unnamed source told the newspaper. According to the Legco president, the decision was made after taking reference to legal opinions, although the votes the four had cast at Legco during the period were deemed effective. Lawmaker Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan, who is vice chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, urged the four to communicate with the commission as soon as possible, while Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said he will write to the commission to ask for reconsideration. Law said they had served the public at Legco diligently, and as such, they should not be asked to return their salaries and allowances they had been paid in the months preceding the court’s decision, saying their “sweat deserved the pay”. The commission’s decision reflects Beijing’s wish to deter them from joining any election in the future by forcing them to enter into bankruptcy, Law said, adding that it could be considered as a deprivation of their political rights. Leung Kwok-hung said the government should first sue the Legco president because it was he who had called the four lawmakers’ oath-taking valid. Lau urged the public to join a demonstration scheduled for Sunday to protest against the political persecution. (Oriental Daily) November 28, 2017. Here are the amounts requested: Lau Siu-lai: $860,000 in salary, $400,000 in advanced office expenditure, $1,870,000 in office expenditure with receipts, total of $3,130,000. Yiu Chung-yim: $860,000 in salary, $460,000 in advanced office expenditure, $1,800,000 in office expenditure with receipts, total of $3,120,000 Leung Kwok-hung: $860,000 in salary, $370,000 in advanced office expenditure, $1,520,000 in office expenditure with receipts, total of $2,750,000. Nathan Law: $860,000 in salary, $460,000 in advanced office expenditure, $1,420,000 in office expenditure with receipts, total of $2,740,000. (Silent Majority HK) November 28, 2017. This morning, Nathan Law got on radio and said that he does not have any way to repay $2,740,000 to the Legislative Council. If he cannot repay the money, he will have to declare bankruptcy. But a bankrupt person won't be allowed to run for Legislative Council for the next five years. After weighing the pros and cons, he has decided to begin a crowdfunding campaign. Nathan Law argued that in the 2016 Legislative Council elections, the pan-democratic candidates received 180,000 votes. If each one of these voters donate $17 each, he will have $3 million to repay the Legislative Council. Even if the base is restricted solely to the 50,000 who voted for himself only, each one of those voters need only donate $60. And if the voters are willing, they can help Architectural, Surveying and Planning sector's Yiu Chung-yim repay his $3,120,000! But will the voters continued to be fooled? The oath antics of the DQ4 were very disappointing already. Over these years, they have contributed nothing useful. They only know how to stir up trouble. There are also any number of crowdfunding projects, such as the Justice Defence Fund, the Imprisoned Activists Support Fund, the Hong Kong Federation of Students' Resisters Support Fund, etc. Do they think that the citizens will donate more money to them? That is a joke. (Commercial Radio) November 28, 2017.

Who can bail out the four disqualified legislators? That should be the voters in their respective constituencies who voted for them or other pan-democrats. In the case of Nathan Law, 181,148 persons voted for Christopher Lau, Cyd Ho, Cheung Kam-mun, Hui Chi-fung, Tsui Chi-kin, Paul Zimmerman, Tanya Chan or Nathan Law. Therefore each voter needs to contribute only $2,740,000 / 181,148 = $15.12 In the case of Leung Kwok-hung, 335,907 persons voted for Lam Cheuk-ting, Wan Chin, Leung Kwok-hung, Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, Alvin Yeung, Cheung Ka-foo, Gary Fan Kwok-wai, Wong Sum-yu, Chan Chi-chuen or Baggio Leung Chung-hang. Therefore each voter needs to contribute only $2,750,000 / 335,907 = $8.18 In the case of Lau Siu Lai, 161,506 persons voted for Avery Ng, Ho Chi-kwong, Claudia Mo, Jeremy Tam, Raymond Wong, Helena Wong, Lam Yee-lai, Lau Siu-lai, Yau Wai-ching or Lee Wing-hon. Therefore each voter needs to contribute only $3,130,200 / 161,506 = $19.38. In the case of Yiu Chung-yim, 2,491 voted for him in the Architectural, Surveying and Planning constituency. Therefore each voter needs to contribute only $3,120,000 / 2,491 = $1252.50 Of course, this assumes that these voters do not object to the childish antics during the oath ceremonies. - You may think that you are donating money to Lau Siu-lai to help foot the Legco bill, but please read the footnote at Teacher Siu Lai's Classroom: "The donation will be used totally on office operations and not be used to pay back the salary." Why does an out-of-office ex-legislator still need to run an office?

- (EJ Insight) Is it right to order ousted lawmakers to return their salaries? By SC Yeung. November 28, 2017. Barely had the opposition camp finished celebrating its better-than-expected showing in Sunday’s district council bypolls, it was hit with some bad news from the legislature authorities. On Monday, the Legislative Council ordered four pro-democracy lawmakers who were stripped of their seats in July to return the salaries and allowances they received prior to their disqualification. Letters were sent to the disqualified lawmakers — Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu — that they must pay back amounts ranging between HK$2.7 million and HK$3.1 million. As the High Court ruled in July that the four should be barred from office as they didn’t take their oaths properly last October, they are deemed illegal occupants of the Legco seats for nine months and must hence repay all the money they received during that period, authorities argued. It is the duty of the Legislative Council to recover the funds as public money was involved, Legco president Andrew Leung said, adding that the decision was in line with legal advice. The order, not surprisingly, was met with howls of protest from opposition groups, who accused Legco’s administrative body, which is dominated by pro-Beijing figures, of political persecution. Youth activist Law, one of the four former lawmakers who was asked to repay millions of dollars in salaries and allowances, slammed Legco’s demand as “ludicrous” and said he suspects the decision is part of a game plan to prevent him from running in upcoming by-elections. If the political activists are unable to repay the huge amounts, they may be forced to declare bankruptcy, rendering them ineligible to contest fresh elections. Lau and Leung have filed appeals against their disqualifications, while Law and Yiu chose not to. By-elections to fill seats vacated by Law and Yiu, as well as those formerly held by Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching — two Youngspiration lawmakers who, too, had been ousted earlier for improper oath-taking — are scheduled to take place in March next year. Setting the bypolls factor aside, one must say it is quite ridiculous for Legco to order the former lawmakers to repay the money they received while performing their duties for nine months. From October last year until their disqualification this July, Law, “Long Hair” Leung, Lau and Yiu attended Legco sessions and participated in debates and voting. Having performed their duties, they have a right to be compensated in salary and allowances, just as any other lawmaker in the house. But now, they are being penalized in a retroactive way, ordered to cough up the money already spent on activities such as hiring aides and other personal expenses. The action reeks of pettiness and vindictiveness, with the Legco Commission seen bent on punishing the anti-Beijing lawmakers as much as possible. One thing to note here is that while the lawmakers have been disqualified, the votes they cast during the nine months are still valid, a fact that Legco chief Leung himself admitted on Monday. Looking at the whole issue, one suspects it is a political decision backed by Beijing authorities, with central authorities staying behind the scenes and intervening in the Legco business. As some ousted members have filed appeals against their disqualifications, why did Legco not wait at least until the outcome of the appeals before seeking to recover the money from them? From an outside perspective, it appears that Legco’s decision was short-sighted and driven more by politics, rather than the need to play by the law. Law told reporters on Monday that the demand for repayment is absurd, given that he and the three other ousted lawmakers had faithfully served the public for nine months. An order now to repay the past remuneration amounts to a cruel political joke on the pro-democracy activists, who were backed by tens of thousands of votes in the 2016 election. “Those being asked for the repayment, including myself, would definitely be bankrupt,” Law said, adding that “this means the government is actually blocking me from running” in coming bypolls. Also, Law remarked that Legco chief Leung should shoulder part of the blame. If Leung had decided not to recognize their oaths at the very start, the newly-elected members wouldn’t have got a chance to perform their lawmaker duties, and things wouldn’t have come to such a pass. It was Leung’s decision to allow them to take their oath again and formally become lawmakers. Despite a law interpretation by the National People’s Congress in Beijing, which set the standard for oath-taking for all public officers, Leung can’t escape responsibility for the chaos last October. As such, Leung owes the lawmakers and the public an apology for a wrong political judgment. If the four lawmakers are forced to return their salaries, Leung should also make some amends so as to take responsibility for a wrong decision he had made. Because “he was the one who passed our oath-taking and also granted us the right to act as [legislators], so… he shall be the one to bear the responsibility instead of the four of us,” Law said on Monday, according to RTHK. Beijing is using all kinds of means to bar the opposition activists from running in elections again, said Law. While debate rages over the clawback of salaries of the lawmakers, the controversy threatens to spark another round of legal wrangling between the government and the pan-democrats. As for the Legco, given the domination of establishment figures in the house as well as its various panels, concerns will grow that it has become a rubber stamp, implementing whatever orders flow from Beijing. With the Communist regime advocating zero-tolerance against those who it sees as crossing the line, expect its proxies here to step up their bizarre games and strong-arm tactics. (EJ Insight) November 29, 2017. On Monday, the Legislative Council Commission officially demanded that the four ousted Legco members — “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Dr. Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Dr. Lau Siu-lai — return all their salaries and reimbursable allowances they had received during their term of office before they were disqualified, ranging from HK$2.7 million to HK$3.1 million each. The next thing the commission will do is to send every one of them a written notice demanding payment, and they will be given four weeks to reply. The pan-democrats denounced the decision as “political persecution”. The four ousted lawmakers held a press conference to protest the decision, saying it is aimed at ruining their political career by forcing them into bankruptcy. However, according to sources, even though Legco President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, who is also chairman of the commission, said that the commission decided to recover every single penny from the four ex-lawmakers because taxpayers’ money is involved, the decision is just a formality. There is a lot of room for discussion and bargaining when it comes to the actual amount of money the four ousted lawmakers eventually have to return to Legco, according to some sources. However, whether the commission would go easy on them depends largely on their attitude as well as the legal grounds they are going to cite in their written replies, sources said. In fact, it is said that it just took an hour for members of the commission on Monday to reach consensus over the decision to recover funds from the foursome. During the meeting, it is said that even some pro-establishment members pointed out that the situation with the four ousted lawmakers is fundamentally different from the Youngspiration duo, in that they did fulfil their official duties as lawmakers during their term in office prior to their disqualification by the court in July this year. Given that, they suggested that they only need to return their unspent operating funds rather than all of their salaries and allowances. If members of the commission finally agree on this suggestion and then successfully hammer out a deal with the four, then all they need to pay back eventually could only be somewhere around HK$300,000 to HK$400,000 each. Nevertheless, some in the pro-establishment camp criticized the four ousted lawmakers for holding the press conference to condemn the commission’s decision, saying their comments were unreasonable and unacceptable. - So they run crowdfunding campaigns and raise $3 million each and then Legco comes around to inform them that they only have to pay one-tenth of that amount. What happens to the remaining money? It goes down into a Black Hole. - They will divert your attention by starting another brand new crowdfunding campaign for some other issue that poses a grave threat to democracy in Hong Kong. Or something. Anyway, you should keep donating and stop raising questions. Okay? - Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown - It's called division of labor, in which we should all do individually what we each do best. So they are best at calling on people to give money to them, and you are best at giving your money to them. It's a win-win setup! [831] The Horse That Harms the Team (2017/11/28) (HK01) November 25, 2017. Chief Executive Carrie Law attended the graduation ceremony at the Hong Kong Police Academy and quoted Chairman Xi Jinping on "the glory of one is glory for all, the infamy of one is the infamy for all" to remind the police that they should watch their actions and words. Although Commissioner for Police Stephen Lo Wai-chung tried to excuse her by saying that her words were intended only for the rookie police officers, many frontline police officers understood that Lam's words damaged the reputation police. "Was she hinting that some police officers have horses that harm the team?" (Ming Pao) November 26, 2017. Commissioner for Police Stephen Lo Wai-chung was asked if Carrie Lam is saying that there are "horses that harm the team" within the police force. He disagreed and said that Lam was trying to remind the new graduates about the important of public trust. He said that even the most perfect organization can have "horses that harm the team." One such case is too many already, so the police will follow up seriously on any case. The record shows that many police officers were embroiled in criminal cases recently, such as the Case of the Seven Police Officers and the Case of Frankly Chu during Occupy Central, the bribery case of superintendent Ng Wai-hon, etc. According to the HKU-POP survey this May, the Hong Kong Police Force has a satisfaction rate of only 64.1%, the lowest among all the Disciplinary Services. (Apple Daily) November 26, 2017. Civil Human Rights Front ex-convener Au Ngor-hin said that Carrie Lam's speech meets that the senior government officials are aware that the image of the police and police-civilian relationships have gone to a dangerous low. Ever since the Umbrella Movement, police powers have expanded. The many court trials have revealed that the police think that they are always right and all those who obstruct law enforcement are rioters. Meanwhile there are many other cases of police officers abusing their offices and knowingly breaking the law. These are not isolated instances. Rather there are major problems with police culture which require systemic reforms including an open, transparent monitoring system. (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 28, 2017.

There is a popular foreign cartoon with this scene: A is clearly chasing after B with a knife in hand, but the camera cropped the scene and made out as if B is trying to kill A. This cartoon is annotated with the words "It's media." Today, I saw the same scene in our media. Earlier Chief Executive Carrie Lam attended the graduation ceremony at the Hong Kong Police Academy. She delivered a speech to encourage to the graduates. Out of the 2,400-word speech, the media chose eight words ("the glory of one is glory that harms the team").

for all, the infamy of one is the infamy for all") and then summarized the speech about as being about the ("the horse

When I read that, I began to wonder why Chief Executive would say such negative things on a day of celebration for the graduates? Nowadays, you just can't trust the news reports that you read. You must spend some time to dig out what is behind. Normally, when I have doubts, I would look up the source. With the Internet, I can get into the government news website and retrieve the entire speech of Carrie Lam at the Police Academy. It turns out to be something quite different. In her speech, Carrie Lam used 2,200 words to encourage and praise the police. For example, she said that 8,200 companies have set up regional offices in Hong Kong because we have "firm rule of law," "a non-corrupt society" and "a high degree of security." The police are the ones who help us maintain rule-of-law, stop corruption and keep public order. "It is no exaggeration to say that the Hong Kong Police has contributed greatly to the economic development of Hong Kong. Every colleague in the Disciplinary Services should be proud of this." Towards the end, Carrie Lam cited Chairman Xi Jinping on "the glory of one is glory for all, the infamy of one is the infamy for all." She said: "I hope that every colleague who is graduating today will remember firmly in your future years that the actions and sayings of each one of you will affect the reputation of the Hong Kong Police directly. I hope that we all continue to uphold this constantly improving disciplinary force." This is a standard speech of encouragement but the media took what she said out of context. The media reported "Carrie Lam felt that the police force has more horses that harm the team nowadays and that is why she said so ..." Then they took the statement to ask the Hong Kong Police commissioner for comments. The commissioner was caught unawares and answered: "One horse that harms the team is one too many. If there is one, we will definitely follow up seriously ..." So these two sound bites completed the reporter's perfect script. To magnify a few words to trigger social conflict, even to stir the members of the Hong Kong Police to resent the Chief Executive. This is what this kind of misleading news reporting is meant to accomplish. "The glory of one is glory for all, the infamy of one is the infamy for all." This is a truism everywhere in the world. After all, isn't the dropping of one rat falling into the pot of congee of all reporters enough to spoil the whole pot? [830] District Council By-elections (2017/11/28) (Hong Kong Free Press) November 27, 2017. The pro-democracy camp enjoyed a mini-victory on Sunday, regaining a District Council seat from the pro-Beijing camp after six years. Democrats, however, failed to take The Peak – though there was a drop in the number of voters in the pro-Beijing stronghold. In the Tung Wah constituency of Sheung Wan, the Democratic Party’s Bonnie Ng won with 1,034 votes, beating her main rival, primary school principal Ambrose Lui who gained 909 votes. Former Labour Party member Olivia Lau, got 20 votes. In The Peak constituency, the Liberal Party’s Jeremy Young won with 1,378 votes, beating hedge fund manager and pro-democracy activist Edward Chin, who gained 394 votes. The by-elections were caused by the resignations of their former pro-Beijing district councillors Kathy Siu and Joseph Chan, who joined the government in the middle of their terms. Each area has more than 5,000 voters. The turnout rates in Tung Wah and The Peak were 38.81 and 33.41 per cent respectively, lower than the 46 and 40.77 per cent recorded in the 2015 District Council election. Tung Wah was held by Democratic Party’s Frederick Ho until 2011 when Kathy Siu, of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), took over. The Peak was once taken by Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan between 2008 and 2011, but was lost to the Liberal Party’s Joseph Chan in 2011. In the 2015 District Council election, Kathy Siu won 1,352 votes, beating Frederick Ho who gained 980 votes. Although Ambrose Lui declared as an independent candidate, he received support from numerous pro-Beijing figures. However, he received some 450 fewer votes when compared to Siu. Tung Wah’s Bonnie Ng said that voters had focused more on candidates’ political views and efforts to serve the district, but she expected the race to be close: “I expected the difference to be around 100 votes, but it was difficult to tell who would win.” Ng said: “The DAB did not field any candidates after [Siu] joined the government. The voters may think that the party has abandoned them. I can’t rule out that this was the reason some voters did not support a pro-Beijing candidate this time.” But Lui said the result proved that he did not have the strong backing of political parties, and said he hoped his campaign would set an example for his students – to pursue what they believe in. Olivia Lau denied her campaign was an an effort to snatch votes from Ng, saying that anyone with enough nominations could run. In The Peak constituency, the pro-Beijing camp also saw fewer votes compared to 2015. Jeremy Young received almost 500 fewer votes when compared to party colleague Joseph Chan in 2015. The pro-democracy camp received 77 more votes when compared to 2015. Young, the political assistant to the education secretary between 2008 and 2012, said the drop was normal as turnout is usually lower in a by-election. (SCMP) By-election results leave us with a clouded crystal ball. By Alex Lo. November 28, 2017. The latest district council by-election showdowns were supposed to be a prelude to those for the legislature in March. After all, Sunday’s elections were the first held since the controversial disqualification of six opposition lawmakers over improper oath-taking. As it turned out, the results were ambiguous and voter turnout was low. People just weren’t enthusiastic about neighbourhood elections at The Peak and the Tung Wah constituency in Sheung Wan. The opposition and the government-friendly camps each secured a win. Perhaps the most interesting result was the decisive defeat of Edward Chin Chi-kin at The Peak, by Jeremy Young Chit-on, a former political assistant with the government and rising star within the pro-business Liberal Party. Young secured more than three times as many votes as Chin, who was a core member of the 2014 Occupy protest movement. Chin received only 394 votes despite campaign support from such opposition godfathers as Martin Lee Chu-ming, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun and Alan Leong Kah-kit. Young’s victory is seen as a stepping stone to running for a seat in the Central and Western district in the crucial Legislative Council election in 2020. Chin ran on his Occupy credentials. Predictably, that hardly endeared him to voters at The Peak, one of the city’s wealthiest and most conservative neighbourhoods. A more moderate pan-democrat might have fared better. That was indeed the case in the Tung Wah by-election, where the mainstream Democrat Bonnie Ng Hoi-yan won a narrow victory with 1,034 votes against the 909 secured by Lui Kam-keung. Ng, wisely, focused on livelihood issues at the district level rather than running a politicised campaign. Her rival Lui was described as an independent, though he was supported by pro-establishment heavyweights such as former Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, Executive Council and Legco member Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and former secretary for food and health Dr Ko Wing-man. He reportedly campaigned in a car that belonged to the state-owned Cofco Group, the mainland food-processing giant. Given the kind of support he had, Lui might as well have run on a ticket with the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the city’s dominant pro-establishment party. The DAB didn’t field any candidate, even though the seat Lui was fighting for was vacated by one of its members. Those hoping to use Sunday’s by-election results as a crystal ball to what will happen in March have been disappointed. (InMediaHK) November 27, 2017. After the election results were announced, Edward Chin said that there has been a lot of changes at The Peak in recent years. For example, the rich people are getting closer to political parties and many residents have acquired foreign passports: "They have either given up on Hong Kong or else they choose to put up with it." He sighed that he entered this election in order to defend Hong Kong core values because Hong Kong is crumbling. He said that he did not expect to win in a one-on-one confrontation. - Let us say that Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee actually entered this election too. Now it does not matter how you split up the 1,378 votes, either Jeremy You and/or Regina Ip will get more votes than Edward Chin's 394. For example, Ip at 1,000 votes and Young at 378 votes. Or Ip at 700 votes and Young at 678 votes. There is no way that 394 votes can win. (Wen Hui Po) November 28, 2017. Cantonese saying Literally: “a dead chicken props up the lid of a rice pot”. Meaning: to refuse to admit failure even when the truth is obvious

Edward Chin's group 2047 HK Monitor declared on Facebook that they did not lose even though they were defeated. They reasoned that the Liberal Party lost 459 votes (7.52%) compared to the last year (actually, it was two years ago) but 2047 HK Monitor gained 77 votes (7.51%). They concluded that "we did not win the election, but we won hearts and minds." Wow! Hong Kong University Undergrad magazine ex-deputy editor-in-chief Wong Chun-kit immediately posted a photo of Edward Chin with the comment: "I laughed my heart out" and "You are already jerking off after losing by a thousand votes -- it would be the darkest day for Hong Kong democracy if you had won." "Brother kidney" Lewis Loud expressed admiration at the "masturbatory act." The "Chronic Complainer" Facebook said that when the pro-establishment camp loses an election, they analyzed the reasons and then they will plan to come back. But when the pan-democratic Yellow Ribbon leftist retards lose, they find it impossible to admit defeat. "'Failure is the mother of success.' How many of them can really bring themselves to say that? A defeat by 1,000 votes is not just a defeat. This is really ..." Charles Low: Edward Chin was one of the ten Occupy Central "dare-to-die" warriors. "He lost but he did not lose. So it is natural that this 'dare-to-die' warrior did not die." Lee Ka Fai Hilton: Edward China is an investment fund manager. These fund guys are best a fudging numbers. So 1378 vs 394 is not a loss. Quentin Cheng: These fund guys' specialty is selling false hopes. (Wen Wei Po) November 28, 2017. Brian Yau: Edward Chin is doing a handstand with one hand while masturbating with the other hand. How else can he interpret things that way? Hati Li: Masturbation is acceptable, but it is strange to be hung up and beaten first, and then masturbating. Chio Tsang: The operation was a success, but the patient died. Leung Tak Man: This was a stage victory, so he should applaud himself. Charles Lok: Didn't this guy say before that a low turnout = people have abandoned Hong Kong? Now he says that his participation in this election is a small victory? So is people abandoning Hong Kong a victory? Fuck, I am very confused! Choi Wai Tak: His opponent lost 459 votes, but he only picked up 77 votes. Where did the other 382 votes go to? (Oriental Daily) November 27, 2017. Before the elections, experts assessed the Tung Wah district election as 50-50 chance for the two main candidates with a margin of victory with 100 votes or so. Bonnie Ng was able to preserve the pan-democratic base with 1034 votes. Ambrose Lui managed only to get 909 votes, more than 400 votes fewer than Kathy Siu (DAB) got the year before last. Before the election, Lui had received support from numerous pro-establishment heavyweights such as former Food and Environmental Hygiene secretary Ko Wing-man. But on election day, none of these people showed up, leaving only Lui and his team to canvass votes on their own. It was noted that former legislative councilor Ip Kwok-him (DAB) was spotted driving past without bothering to stop and keep Lui company. It may be that Ip Kwok-him will be held accountable for this loss. The traditional wisdom is that low voter turnout favors the pro-establishment candidates. But Lui did not benefit at all from the low sub-40% turnout. The conspiracy theory is that the DAB did not put out a total effort to transfer their iron-clad votes to Lui. As a result, the DAB will be able to field their own candidate two years from now. Internet comments: - (Oriental Daily) October 17, 2017. When Edward Chin filed to run in the District Council by-election, he compared himself to Donald Trump. No, Chin did not mean that he supports racism, gropes beauty queens, or disrespects universal values such as freedom and democracy. He meant to compare himself with Donald Trump who upset his rival Hilary Clinton in the US presidential election. So while he is not favored in this election against the Liberal Party candidate Jeremy Young, he thinks that he can still win. He emphasized: "How would you know until you've been in the election?" Of all people, is it politically smart to compare oneself to Donald "Mad Man" Trump? - Edward Chin's main claim to fame is that he is one of the ten "dare-to-die" Occupy Central martyrs. But for this election in the Peak district, his issues are not "genuine universal suffrage", Hong Kong independence/self-determination, or the overthrow of the Chinese Communist regime. Instead, his issues were traffic, public security and wild boars. Clearly even he knew what to touch and not to touch. - (Oriental Daily) November 27, 2017. The Democratic Party is happy with Bonnie Ng's victory, with the exception of their legislative councilor Hui Chi-fung. Previously Hui had his own idea of his own candidate for this district which is his base, but the party endorsed the South Island faction's choice of Bonnie Ng. So now the South Island is encroaching on Hui's home turf. More open- and closed-door intra-party clashes are expected to take place. - Why didn't the DAB field their own candidate in Tung Wah? Doesn't Kathy Siu have aides who are familiar with the district? Well, Kathy Siu Ka-yi gave up her district council post in order to become the political assistant to Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung. As such, she will be perceived as abandoning her constituents in Tung Wah district in the middle of her term. A DAB candidate may be punished by the voters for that abandonment. Those voters may vote for the other candidate or just simply don't vote at all. The Liberal Party candidate this time Jeremy Young got several hundred votes fewer than Joseph Chan (Liberal Party) who quit to become Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. That is the punishment. But since Chan had won his district council seat for The Peak by margin of 1837-317, the margin was so large that a small amount of bleeding can't hurt. But Kathy Siu's margin of victory in Tung Wah was only 1,352-980. That was too close for comfort. So DAB ducked this one. [[829] Holy Moses! (2017/11/26) (Wen Wei Po) November 26, 2017.

After Hong Kong University Student Union ex-president Billy Fung watched the movie featuring Edward Leung, he posted on Facebook that Leung is a hero just like Moses. He said that people held too much expectation for Leung and therefore Leung was abandoned because he could not do what people expected him to. The truth was that Edward Leung told people that he wanted to start the Epochal Revolution for which he is willing to die in the process. People had to be duly impressed. But then he scooted off to study overseas. People had to be duly disappointed. Alan Fung: Don't insult Moses by comparing him with a lawbreaking rioter. If Moses went to protest at Sai Wan, he would not have given an interview with Apple Daily Action News and then hop on a taxi to leave the scene of the riot. Ashworth Nina: Don't insult Moses. Moses was not a deserter. Billy Fung: Moses killed an Egyptian and fled to Midan (Exodus 2). Was Moses a deserter? Ashworth Nina: Moses became a hero after he saved an entire people. Did he commit the murder before or after he saved his people? Billy Fung: I wanted to ask if Moses was a deserter. You said that he wasn't a deserter. Ashworth Nina: He wasn't, because he was trying to evade responsibility for a personal crime. He was not avoiding Nation Building. Edward Leung was the opposite. He has not evaded his personal crime (that is, he did not skip bail and flee). But he avoided Nation Building. Billy Fung: If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5) Ashworth Nina: Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3). A leader or someone who wants to become a leader should imitate Moses by being humble. Did Moses call the Israelis pigs? (like the localists calling the people of Hong Kong pigs) Prince Louise: When you put forward someone who failed to do what you want, he is supposed to be avoiding Nation Building? Then how come the Democratic Party still exists? Ashworth Nina: Let's make this clear. Which "you" are you talking about? Who wanted him to do something? As a New Territories East voter, I did not vote for him in the by-election. He does not represent me. I never wanted him to do anything. [Edward Leung was the one who came forth to pronounce the Epochal Revolution]. When I say "Nation Building", I am using in the sense of the localists without any quotation marks. I am sorry that my negligence has created misunderstanding. Ken Ng: You are all wrong. Edward Leung was never a soldier. He was an excellent master of ceremony. (Wen Wei Po) November 26, 2017. Dickson Ho: I don't think of Edward Leung as a hero. The Hong Kong independence movement does not seem able to get democracy for Hong Kong. Instead it is causing destruction. Hugo Leung: Edward Leung: An adult; twenty-something-years old. Drives an Audi. Lives in Kornhill Apartments. Studying in Canada. Giving talks in the United States/Europe as a representative of the Hong Kong democracy movement. But he claims to be a child in order to sell his fragility. Ashworth Nina: When he is in trouble and needs help, he says that he is a student and wears that halo. When he wants to act like the hero, he becomes the spokesperson for the Localism movement. Ken Ng: What is the agenda behind the promotion of Edward Leung by certain media? Alternately, can you tell me just what Edward Leung has ever accomplished? Shirley Au: Edward Leung split up the Hong Kong democracy movement! Ken Ng: But now he is buddies with certain pan-democrats. This is really chilling. Some pan-democrats are afraid of the fucking stupid young voters who support Hong Kong independence, so they can't openly sever all ties. Related link: #620 Edward Leung Tin-kei Resurfaces (2016/12/06) (Speakout HK) November 27, 2017. ... Edward Leung, Ray Wong and others are not heroes. At this time, they are merely crime suspects. Perhaps you disagree. But let us think about whether having a noble purpose allows you to break the law? Or incite others to riot? In the case of the Mong Kok riot, even if those rioters have political demands, why did they have to attack the police? Do they become heroes by harming the police as well as society? I disagree no matter what. The gist of the matter is that is wrong to build your political demands upon the pain and suffering of other people! No matter how noble their ideals are, it cannot mean that they can hurt innocent people. Perhaps Billy Fung feels an affinity for Edward Leung because they both attended Hong Kong University. But at his own trial for laying siege to the University Council, Billy Fung said that he believes now that the more extreme methods cannot solve problems and that he regrets having harmed the university? Isn't it funny that Fung should be glorifying Leung now? Now Billy Fung wants to compare Edward Leung to biblical figures who persist even if the citizens gave him the cold treatment. But has Fung noticed how Leung has betraying his own supporters? In the Mong Kok riot, several dozens of people were arrested and some are already serving jail time. But what happened to Edward Leung, the man who told these people to charge ahead? During media interviews, he is saying "I am very much a coward" and "I don't want to be remanded in custody instantly." So it does not seem right to say that Leung as being so noble. [828] The 2018 Legislative Council By-Elections (2017/11/24) (Electoral Affairs Commission) September 14, 2017. The Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) announced today (September 14) that a Legislative Council by-election is planned to be held on March 11 (Sunday) next year. "This by-election will be held to fill four vacant seats of the Legislative Council, including the vacancies for the three geographical constituencies (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon West and New Territories East); and the vacancy for the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape functional constituency," a Commission's spokesman said. (Ming Pao) November 22, 2017. Over the years, the pan-democrats have always managed to win in the by-elections of the geographical constituencies in the Legislative Council. So it is natural that the pan-democrats will think that they can continue to pick up the three geographical constituencies under the 60:40 Golden Rule. But this is simplifying things, because there are three assumptions: (1) The pan-democrats will not field two or more candidates to split the votes for the same seat and create an opening for the pro-establishment candidate. (2) The candidate chosen by the primary election system is someone who is acceptable across the entire pan-democratic spectrum; (3) The various pan-democratic political groups will work together to canvass votes for this candidate. These assumptions were met in 2000 for Audrey Eu and in 2007 for Anson Chan in Hong Kong Island. But in the 2016 New Territories East by-election, the mainstream pan-democrats reached a consensus to support Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) to replace the departing Ronny Tong (Civic Party). But the Localists insisted on fielding Edward Leung. In the end, Leung obtained 15.4% of the votes. Alvin Yeung was able to squeak through with 37.2% of the votes, just 10,000 ahead of Holden Chow (DAB). In Kowloon West, the interested pan-democrats include Frederick Fung (ADPL), Yuen Hoi-man (Democratic Party), Yuen Kin-yan (who has been publicly endorsed by Yau Wai-Ching (Youngspiration) as a 'fellow traveler'), former Civic Party member Kenneth Tsang and Socialist Action chairperson Tang Mei-ching. The disqualified Lau Siu0lai is ambiguous about her intentions. In New Territories East, the interested pan-democrats include Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats), former Scholarism member Tommy Cheung, Au Chun-wah (Democratic Party) and the new Labour Party chairman Kwok Wing-kin. The uncertainties for the pan-democrats include: - If the coordination fails, the pan-democrats may lose the seat because multiple candidates split the votes. - Even if a candidate was selected by the process, that person may not have the support of the other pan-democratic groups. For example, the enmity between Gary Fan and the Democratic Party is well-known in politics. It would be hard to imagine that the Democratic Party will canvass votes for Gary Fan. Frederick Fung has a similar relationship with the Democratic Party. And even if they give verbal support, they won't actually go out and knock on doors to remind people to vote. - Even if the pan-democratic groups give 100% effort for the candidate, that person may not be able to appeal to the entire political spectrum. For example, if that person is with the Democratic Party or ADPL, then the localists won't vote for him; if that person is a localist, then the moderate pan-democratic voters won't vote for him. This is the dilemma for the pan-democrats in recent years. This is the so-called fragmentation of the political spectrum. Not only are there more and more groups, but their interests and ideologies are very different. Harmonization is not up to two large political parties sitting down to make a deal. After the Umbrella Movement, it is now fashionable to "take down the Grand Stage" and think "Nobody represents me." By contrast, the pro-establishment camp has reached consensus early on. They will field Cheng Wing-shun (DAB), Tang Ka-piu (Federation of Trade Unions) and Judy Chan (New People's Party) to run in Kowloon West, New Territories East and Hong Kong Island respectively. They are already actively working on their campaigns already and they will be better prepared than the pan-democrats. In Hong Kong Island, the situation is clearer. The pan-democrats have reached the consensus to let Demosisto field a candidate to take back their seat (Nathan Law). According to media reports, that candidate is likely to be Agnes Chow Ting. Hong Kong Island has the highest education and income levels in Hong Kong. So the electors are "picky". In past by-elections, the pan-democrats fielded candidates like Audrey Eu and Anson Chan. These are people with excellent backgrounds and careers, and are accepted by mainstream society as successful figures. Such choices have greater chance to attract middle-of-the-road electors. However, Agnes Chow does not have the profile and caliber of Audrey Eu or Anson Chan. In fact, she is the complete opposite. So it is unknown whether the electors will accept her. In the 2016 Legislative Council elections, Demosisto won a seat in Hong Kong Island with 13.49% of the votes. Can they catch all the remaining pan-democratic votes? That is unknown. In recent years, the share of pan-democrat votes has shrunk with the retirement of heavyweights such as Martin Lee and Audrey Eu. Against them are figures like Regina Ip and Ricky Wong who are regarded as successful figures by mainstream society. In 2008, the share was 60%; in 2012, 50%; in 2016, 48%. Thus, Agnes Chow and Demosisto have plenty to worry about in Hong Kong Island. (Oriental Daily) November 23, 2017. Earlier the disqualified Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration) disclosed that she may be giving her support to a fellow traveler to contest the Kowloon West constituency in the Legislative Council by-election. This Plan B was the social activist Yuen Kin-yan, the son of the so-called Occupy Central pastor Yuen Tin-yau. Today Yuen announced that he will not enter this by-election. He said that the reason was very simple: "Rather than infighting, why don't we work together to fight the enemy." He is thus calling for a united front of resistance. In other words, he is opposed to the pre-election plan of the pan-democrats. Power for Democracy is the organization responsible for coordinating the by-election for the pan-democrats. All those pan-democrats who want to run can apply to them to run in a primary election. The winner of that primary election will become the solo candidate for the pan-democrats. However every aspirant has to share the costs of the primary election. In Kowloon West, this is going to cost between $50,000 to $60,000. In New Territories, this is going to cost $100,000. So if you want to run, you better have the money; if you don't have the money, you can forget it. Yuen Kin-yan said that there are four known interested parties/persons: one from the Democratic Party; one from the ADPL; former Civic Party member Kenneth Tsang; and himself. None of these four are receiving broad support across the pan-democratic spectrum. No matter who wins the primary election, that person will not receive enough support to win the by-election. Is this why Yuen Ki-yan would rather save $50,000 as well as not waste his time. Internet comments: - Power for Democracy is proposing that the primary election shall consist of three components: 45% weight given to a public opinion poll; 45% weight given to actual voting at their voting booths; 10% weight given to voting by political organizations. The public opinion poll clearly favors people with high name recognition (e.g. Frederick Fung (ADPL) who was a legislative councilor between 2000 and 2016). The paper balloting favors people who can mobilize voters to travel to the few voting locations. This proposal has not been accepted by the potential candidates as they mull over the details. - As is normal, the pan-democrats have double standards. In Hong Kong Island, they gave the choice of candidate to Demosisto, because the party's chairman Nathan Law was the one who was disqualified. In Kowloon West and New Territories East, they did not leave the choice to Youngspiration, even though it was that party's Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang who were disqualified. - (Silent Majority HK) November 28, 2017. After being asked by the Legislative Council to cough back more than $3 million in salary/expense payments, Lau Siu-liu is indicating that she may be interested in participating in the March 2018 by-election after all. Previously Lau had said that she would not participate. She offered a "noble and magnificent" reason in that the seat belonged to Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration) who is therefore entitled to designate a successor. So why is she changing her mind now? Clearly, she is worried about having to sell one or more or her apartments to pay the Legislative Council. So by announcing her candidacy, she can begin yet another crowdfunding campaign. - (Oriental Daily) November 6, 2017. Previously a woman named Leung Kit-hing claimed that she had filed appeals to the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council over the disqualification of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from the Hong Kong Legislative Council. She said that the Hong Kong Elections Affairs Commission should not be holding by-elections to fill the two Legco seats until the appeals have been exhausted. Today, Leung Kit-hing applied to the High Court for a judicial review. She is requesting that the court issue an injunction to order the Elections Affairs Commission to halt the by-election. Previously it was reported that Leung Chung-hang's father had a sister named Leung Kit-hing. Our reporter called the applicant for confirmation. The applicant insisted that this was a privacy matter. However, she said: "I will neither admit nor deny this." In her application, she claimed that she is the representative of most of the voters for Leung Chung-hang and some of the voters of Yau Wai-ching. The applicant bases her legal reason on the CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance article 36(1)(e)(ii): 36. By-election to be held to fill vacancy in membership of Legislative Council (1) The Electoral Affairs Commission must, in accordance with regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (Cap. 541), arrange for a by-election to be held in the following circumstances and not otherwise— (d) subject to sections 70A and 72(1A), on the Court’s making a determination under section 67 that a person whose election is questioned was not duly elected and that no other person was duly elected instead; (e) if an appeal against a determination referred to in paragraph (d) is lodged to the Court of Final Appeal— (i) on the Court of Final Appeal’s making a determination under section 70B that a person whose election is questioned was not duly elected and that no other person was duly elected instead; or (ii) on the termination of the appeal proceedings in other circumstances. - All along, Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching have been suspected of being moles working for the Chinese Communists, because their actions objectively destroyed the Localist movement. Now Leung Chung-hang's aunt comes along to derail the March 2018 Legislative Council by-elections. Does she know what she is doing? Right now the battle over at the Legislative Council is over the amendment of the rules of procedure. If allowed to pass, filibustering will be curtailed at the Legislative Council. The pan-democrats don't have enough votes to stop passage, so their tactic is to filibuster/delay until after the March 2018 by-election when they expect to muster enough votes to prevent passage. Objectively, the postponement of the by-elections until the resolution of these "appeals" at the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council means that the pan-democrats will have to filibuster/delay until then. Objectively, then, Leung Kit-hing's judicial review will help passage of the amendments to the rules of procedure at the Legislative Council. Therefore she is acting as a Chinese Communist mole, whether she knows it or not. [827] Salute To A Martyr (2017/11/23) (Born In A Time of Chaos) Facebook

Salute to a martyr Earlier on, Chief Executive Carrie Lam attended a Ming Pao student reporter event. A Secondary School Form 5 student successfully "ambushed" her by raising a mobile phone screen with the words "Hong Kong independence" during the group photo. (Studentlocalism) Facebook

... On Friday during class, the student was summoned to meet with school representatives for more than 3 hours. During this time, the school representatives kept poor attitudes, warning the student not to promote any issue on school grounds, in school uniform, during school functions or in the name of the students. Studentlocalism issued two calls to the Methodist School in Kwai Chung: (1) Write a formal letter of apology to the student openly (2) Withdraw all inappropriate statements Studentlocalism said that the Methodist School must provide a reasonable response by noon on Wednesday, or else Studentlocalism does not exclude the possibility of further action. Studentlocalism absolutely will not allow the freedom of speech of students be suppressed again. Therefore Studentlocalism and the Hong Kong National Front will promote Hong Kong independence ideas along with that student outside the school tomorrow at 4pm. Once again, we demand the school to apologize openly to the student, to write a formal letter of apology and to withdraw all inappropriate statements. We urge all Hongkongers who support and defend the freedom of speech to join us tomorrow. (Oriental Daily) November 24, 2017. About ten persons from Studentlocalism and Hong Kong National Front showed up to protest outside Methodist College (Kwai Chung). Some of them were dressed in school uniforms. They demand an apology from the school because students have freedoms of speech and expression. About twenty persons from the Treasure Group showed up to support the school. They opposed the advocacy of Hong Kong independence. The two sides shouted at each other across barriers set up by the police. In the end, the school arranged for the students to leave through the back gate. The protestors left at around 615pm. Studentlocalism convener Mr. Chung said that the action was a failure because the school ignored their demand for an apology. They also did not see the student who was involved in the incident. He said that that he does not exclude the possibility of coming back to the school at a later date.

Internet comments: - A martyr is a person who is killed for their religious or other beliefs. Is Lau Hong dead yet? - No, there are several meanings for the word. (Dictionary.com) 1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. 2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. 3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches. 4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc You were thinking about (1), but Lau Hong is actually (4). - If every Hongkonger is as brave as this kid Lau Hong, then there is hope for Hong Kong. - Lau Hong has a bright future ahead of him. May he lead a colorful life (as Alvin Yeung says)! - Those who keep sharing the photo of Lau Hong as a martyr actually want him dead. I know the Revolution needs some dead martyrs to revive morale, but it is a demoralizing sight. - Is showing his photo going to get him into trouble? Hey, he is the one who is posting his own photos all over the place.

Lau Hong with Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous)

Lau Hong with Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) - Lau Hong looks a bit like Singaporean Amos Yee, who has been given political asylum in the United States. The U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong is located at 26 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong (phone (852) 2523-9011, fax (852) 2845-1598). Appointments can be made online beforehand.

- The Chinese fortune teller summarizes: a long neck like a giraffe; cockeyes; acne; cardboard-thin body.

Are there really no normal persons among the Yellow Ribbons? Are they all Zombies? Is this what the warriors for the Holy War of Hong Kong Independence look like? - This middle school Form Five student wants to foist Hong Kong independence on the rest of us. He has never held a job or paid any taxes in his life. He has to ask his mom for lunch money before he goes to school in the morning. Why, oh why, do we have to do as he says? - Was this supposed to be the First Great Battle in the War of Independence for Hong Kong? There were 10 pro-independence youngsters versus 20 counter-revolutionary uncles and aunties. This is embarrassing even for a prelude. Videos Part 1 An older StudentLocalism/HKNF man explains that he is doing all this because he wants to keep the Communists away. The Treasure Group told him that if he is so scared, he should just stay home. Part 2 A 13-year-old boy uses megaphone to respond to the Treasure Group but cannot explain why he is here Part 3 The megaphone of Treasure Group overwhelms Studentlocalism Part 4 Methodist College students leaving by back entrance - (Wen Wei Po) December 13, 2017. Several dozen protestors were camped outside the Legislative Council building to "protest" the amendment of the rules of procedures. The police announced that a 16-year-old male named Lau has been arrested for possession of a facsimile air-gun. The Studentlocalism Facebook said that one of their members was arrested at around 830pm in the Legco demonstration area on suspicion of possession of a facsimile gun. According to media reports, the arrested 16-year-old is Lau Hong from the Methodist School in Kwai Chung. - Studentlocalism showered support on Lau Hong by having convener Tony Chung tell the press that their group had no scheduled activity last night and that they did not tell their members to participate in the pan-democrats' protest. They said that they did not know that Lau Hong was down at the Legislative Council and that they have no idea what he was doing with a facsimile gun. - Video Lau Hong and the police [826] Here Come Da Judge (2017/11/23) (Hong Kong Free Press) November 21, 2017. Democracy activists and lawmakers have submitted official complaints to the Correctional Services Department and called for improvements to the correctional system. Bailed activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow were joined by lawmakers Shiu Ka-chun and Fernando Cheung and the Juvenile Prisoners Human Rights Concern Group at a rally outside the department’s headquarters on Tuesday. They protested the alleged physical and psychological abuse of inmates and requested to meet with the head of the department to express their concerns. The three activists were given jail sentences of six to eight months in August for their participation in the Civic Square clashes which led to the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement. They were recently released on bail pending their appeals. In his complaint, Joshua Wong specifically targeted an alleged practice at the Tung Tau Correctional Institution where he and the other prisoners were forced to strip, squat naked on the floor and answer staff members’ questions. He said it was an unnecessary form of psychological abuse that served only to strip prisoners of their dignity. “Even those in prison have basic human rights. Why is it that in prison, when answering staff members’ questions, we have to take off all our clothes and let staff members use a commanding, forceful tone, and force every person… to crouch on the floor and look up – like a dog – to answer their master’s questions?” Wong added that he was also pressured by five different staff members to retract complaints that he had made while in juvenile detention. Alex Chow said that they did not intend to throw the entire prison system into doubt, but wanted to make suggestions to improve the system. He said he met some officials who were very good people during his time in Pik Uk prison, but that the humanity of prison officials is often “obscured” and they often used swear words to yell at prisoners. (HKG Pao with video) November 22, 2017. Caller Mr. Poon: Faced with the one-sided criticisms over the past several months, the colleagues around me are actually very unhappy. Why are you doing this? I don't want to speculate. But I wish that you would do one thing -- you can be a bit fairer. To seek justice for the prisoners ... to seek justice for us (at the Correctional Services department) ... when an incident takes place, you should refer it to another law enforcement agency to follow up. In truth, our department has been facing up to every single thing that you have mentioned and referring the cases to the law enforcement agencies. I hope that you understand this. (HKG Pao with video) November 22, 2017. Caller Mr. Poon: Frankly, as a representative of the frontline workers (at the Correctional Services department), we don't want to see those present naked or to use our hands to go through feces. Actually, it is alright if this kind of work can be taken over by science and technology. In future, if you are genuinely so concerned about things over at the Correctional Services Department, why don't you fight for upgrading the prison technologies. Such being the case, then why don't we used a more advanced technology? Since technology involves resources, I wish that the legislative council would be more lenient during the budget allocation process. (HKG Pao with video) November 22, 2017. Caller Mr. Poon: First of all, one complainant has posted on Facebook that he will publish certain prison diaries. He is soliciting monthly subscriptions for a fee. He will use the money so earned to edit the articles into a book that will be translated into English and sold. The profit earned from selling the book will be used for politicking. Under such circumstances, we should not be promoting on his behalf in the media. Host: Who are you talking about? Who? The second issue is that this friend has already lodged a complaint. Yesterday, he lodged a complaint in a high-profile manner. We should not be discussing the details over the air. Caller Mr. Poon: One of them. I don't want to name names. Or even pose questions to this ... Joshua Wong: That is to say, you feel that RTHK should not invite this complainant to discuss ... Host: Let us listen to what Mr. Poon has to say. Caller Mr. Poon: I feel that we should not be discussing this over the air. We should not be discussing matters within the cases. Everybody is talking about fairness. Everybody is talking about procedural justice. If you only allow one-sided statement, then the principal cannot offer an explanation. There was no way to tell the steps before and after the incident, to explain what happened before and after the incident, to present the entire case so that the authorities can understand that this is a unfair process. (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 23, 2017. Ever since Lee Wai-ling proclaimed: "When I say something, that's evidence. I am the witness!" after being fired by Commercial Radio, it has become fashionable in society to declare "I am the witness!" As long as you are willing to face the media and declare "I am the witness", you own the media field and the Internet users will unthinkingly line up on your side, because everybody thinks that they are helping the weak to fight the strong. Several more recent social incidents have caused me to think that people are being led by the media and a few complainants to the point of losing their own sense of judgment. In the German fable, the pied piper used his magic pipe to lure the mice to drown themselves in the river and the children to be lost in the cave. Our sanity is being led by the media flashlights off the cliff down into the valley. The hottest item now is Joshua Wong's complaint against the Correctional Services department. While on bail waiting on the appeal of his sentence, he has denounced the Hong Kong prison as a hell in which corrections officers abuse prisoners. This is a completely one-sided presentation. But the Yellow Ribbon media were willing to coordinate, and RTHK invited him to provide a detailed 30 minute description. So these became "facts" wherein whatever he said is evidence and whatever the Corrections Services department does is cover-up. The other news item is the bullying at the Tuen Mun primary school. Seven-year-old Hin Chai's parents told the media as well as filed a police report. They said that their son was bullied by classmates last week, including inserting an eraser into the ear and poking the eye with a pen. Since the "defendants" and the school were not present at the "trial", the whole world believes than Hin Chai was violently bullied by a female classmate. Even the Secretary for Education is articulating his concerns. Yesterday, the school called a press conference. The principal said that they have asked the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrators, the students in the classroom, the teachers, the school bus chaperones and the students riding in the school bus, and they have looked at the closed circuit television videos. They have found no evidence whatsoever of any bullying incidents. So this is a Rashomon case. But the media rendered the judgment before the investigation was made. Has anyone wondered whether a six- or seven-year-old has any idea of what "bullying" is? When everybody condemns the female student before any trial, isn't this another case of bullying her and her family? Hong Kong is a rule-of-law society. The principle of rule-of-law is "Go tell it to the judge" and not "Go tell it to the media." Today, Joshua Wong lodges an official complaint first and then gets on radio to enumerate the problems over at the Correctional Services department; the parents go to the media first, and then everybody denounces the "bullying" of Hin Chai. Who is the judge in our system of rule-of-law? The person wearing the wig? Or the person holding the camera in one hand and a pen in the other hand? Is trial in absentia rule-of-law? I have my doubts. (Oriental Daily) November 23, 2017. After politics destroyed the court system, it is now moving to destroy the corrections system. After Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were released on bail, they got together to demonstrate against the violation of the human rights of prisoners by the Correctional Services department. They talked about physical punishments, torture, 30-second showers, etc. Joshua Wong said that the prisoners have to be strip-searched, squat on the floor and answer questions for 3 minutes. He said that "it was like a dog looking up at the master and answering questions." Oddly enough, his previous communication from inside the prison said that he has adapted to prison life and learned many things already (such as how to fold his blanket). What kind of dog it this? Meanwhile Alex Chow described his time in prison as a "fantastic journey." The three said in various media interviews that they learned how to think, to read, to absorb ... this is not quite anyone's idea of how dogs live. The truth is easy to ferret out. The prisoners are allowed to receive visitors. Given that Hongkongers complain about anything and everything, they are not going to hold back. The prison system is also visited by Justices of Peace. The Correctional Services officers cannot possibly stop all information from getting out. A prison is a prison. As the Correctional Services officers point out, the major work/function of the department is (1) punishment and (2) rehabilitation. If you won't allow punishment and rehabilitation, then the prison become a dormitory/hotel paid for by the taxpayers. I don't think that that the people of Hong Kong want to see this. (Speakout HK) November 22, 2017. Interview with retired Correctional Services director Eddy Ng: On "collect payment" (the legendary custom of administering a beating upon admission) "Collect payment." No. Definitely not. "Collect payment." I can say boldly. Yes, some people will "collect payment." But it is not common. Because we teach our disciples that if you beat someone up, you will have to pay. In the course of history, some officers were sent to jail as a result for assaulting people. We always teach the officers: You will have to pay. You don't command everything. On calling a prisoner by his number and not by his name: No. Actually this is a minor misunderstanding. We want to have convenience in our management. Everything that we do is based upon the number. That is a fact. This is like our Hong Kong ID number. But when we have to have face-to-face contact with him, we usually call his name. The prisoner's garb has a white name plate upon which his name is written. This allows us to identify him easily. On the movie (1987): When came out, our morale was as low as it can get. Because everybody thought that it was real. At that time, it was hard on us. We have to explain to everybody. We have to talk to them about the movie. This is especially for us in the management echelon. We were disheartened. On Joshua Wong: When Joshua Wong entered the correctional system, I can guess from his character just what he will do. I really guessed right. The first thing that he asked about was the length of the hair. Why does it have to be so short? He talked about it the other day. You asked him what his answers were. "Yes Sir, Sorry Sir." There isn't any "No Sir." This is how we train the kids. If you are right, then it is "Yes Sir." If you misspoke, then it is "Sorry Sir." We placed them under a very high discipline. Or maybe we demand a parade march. One parade march per day. That is, we hope that they will know that being in prison is not so simple. From this, we reduce that the likelihood of recidivism is low. - The Hong Kong Correctional Services employs about 7,000 workers to look after a prison population of about 8,000 persons. According to the 2016 statistics, there were 4,104 acts of indiscipline, 527 violent cases, 18 assaults against CSD officers and 79 cases of self-harm of persons in custody (PICs). This is with the present level of searching already. Why would you advocate the removal of searching in the name of human dignity? - (Hong Kong Correctional Services) The Complaints Investigation Unit (CIU) is an independent establishment appointed by the Commissioner of Correctional Services (CCS) to handle and investigate all complaints within its purview expeditiously, thoroughly and impartially under the ISO Quality Management Systems aiming at redressing grievances, preventing similar complaints and bringing continual improvement in overall service quality. For check and balance, Correctional Services Department Complaints Committee (CSDCC) is vested with the authority to examine all investigation findings handled by CIU. CIU will endeavour to complete its investigation of a complaint within 18 weeks. After endorsement of the outcome of the investigation by CSDCC, the complainant will be informed of the outcome in writing accordingly. A complainant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the CIU investigation may apply in writing for appeal to Correctional Services Department Complaints Appeal Board. - The trick here is that once you file a complaint with the Complaints Investigation Unit, the Correctional Services and its workers cannot comment on that complaint in public. So you have effectively gagged them, such that the entire media domain is yours. You know, "All your base are belong to us." - (Silent Majority HK) November 22, 2017. Every year, thousands of people are sent to jail in Hong Kong for breaking the law. They range from a former Chief Executive to the grassroots, and they are equal before the law. But these three "revolutionaries" won't be happy unless they get preferential treatment. The most annoying thing about Occupy Central is that those people think that their way is the only way, to the point where they can override and hurt the interests of all other persons. This is no democracy. This is hegemony. This is hypocrisy. Every nation in the world has prisons for those who break the law. At every prison, the prisoners lose their personal freedom and are subjected to disciplinary supervision. The prisoners are in prison to bear the legal consequences of their actions. The prison is a penal institution; it is not a five-star vacation village. Have Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law watched too many television commercials such that they think that the prison should be a five-star home? Nelson Mandela spent 30 years in jail. Mahatma Gandhi was thrown in jail countless number of times for civil disobedience. Have we ever heard them whine about food and dignity in prison? But our young lords spent just over one month in prison and they come out screaming and complaining about this and that. The difference between hero and bum is clear to see. - (Oriental Daily) November 22, 2017. The Chinese name of the Correctional Services is . The word means "punishment" and the word "philosophers." If the system is tailored for individual needs, then it would be unfair.

means "teaching." For committing a crime, the prisoner was sent to prison by a judge. In prison, he will be punished for his crime and he will be taught not to repeat his mistake. All prisoners are treated the same way, with no exceptions being given to "politicians" or

Is it undignified for a prisoner to be asked to strip down and squat? This is a security requirement. Prisoners are known to hide weapons and drugs on their bodies, with the most likely place being the anus. Therefore prisoners used to have to undergo cavity searches. Nowadays it is mostly done by electronic scanning. Unfortunately not all prisons have the equipment yet. Therefore it is unavoidable to have to strip and squat. When it was not done, the robber king Yip Kai-foon concealed a sharpened toothbrush handle on his body and attacked someone with it. This system is imposed for the personal safety of everybody, including Joshua Wong. If Joshua Wong bothered to read the Chinese classic , he might learn something about the , which refers to the cane strokes that are automatically administered upon

entry into the system. Or he might read about how democratic United States of America treat its prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. If so, he may find that it is a blessing to be in a Hong Kong prison.

- What kind of world is this? Now we have criminals who demand human rights, respect and dignity in prison. They want to take away discipline. They want to forbid correctional officers to give orders to the prisoners. And if they don't get their way, they will threaten to take industrial action, with the head of the Correctional Services being hauled in front of a Legislative Council committee and asked to explain. - Many pennies for his thoughts: Joshua Wong's Facebook

Subscription targets: The encouragement from you plus the income from this project will support me to continue to write and get engage in political work. Here are the subscription targets that I am setting up with you. I hope that your support will enable me to go further. NT$30,000/month: Initiate the Mailbox project. Readers can send me letters to ask questions. I will do my best to answer in letter form. In addition, I will select three questions that will help the public most to think about and write three detailed essays in response. NT$50,000/month: Initiate the Notebook project. I will record my thoughts during the Resistance Movement and give you the real me outside of the flashlights. NT$100,000/month: Face the international community by publishing English-language books to share my thoughts and experiences. How can you support me? I have designed different subscription options at different prices. I welcome you to give me your support based upon your ability. Your subscription will allow me to continue to affect everyone, so that more people can understand why Hong Kong deserves people giving to. - Why does Joshua Wong want his money in Taiwan currency? The superficial reason was that his political party Demosisto does not have a bank account. If he uses his personal bank account for this purpose, the bank might shut him down for money laundering. That is why he wants to be paid in Taiwan which is beyond the scrutiny of the Hong Kong/Chinese authorities. - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Book IV, aphorism 341: What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!" Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." Here is life with Joshua Wong: Give him more money so that he can tell you his thoughts and do more political work. Then what? Then you can give him more money so that he can tell you his thought and do more political work. Well, it is an eternal recurrence of the same thing over and over again. - Can I give him money so that he will just shut up and go away? Eh ... no answer? ... guess not ... - (Wen Wei Po) November 23, 2017. So far, the number of subscribers to over at SOSReader is 17 for a total income of NT$4,252 (about HK$1,000). I am worried about these subscribers. First of all, if Joshua wrote the entries himself, then will the subscribers understand what he wrote? If they can read it, will their Chinese language skills retrogress as a result of the reading? After all, when Joshua Wong sent out an annotated map of his prison cell, he managed to misspell 6 words out of the 10 named items (see #786). Secondly, where is the subscription money going? The Derek Lam case is still a mystery because the Demosisto members are gagged. All we know is that Derek Lam was forced to resign. In Hong Kong, Demosisto is not registered and does not have a bank account. The donations are going into the personal accounts of various members. There are obvious management and moral hazards. Thirdly, the subscription offer was made almost a month ago. So far not a single update has been made at SOSReader. Where are Joshua Wong's prison diaries? In Hong Kong, this would be a straightforward case of false advertising. - Well, let us not complain about slow news days because we've been having a great month:

Yellow Ribbon Zombies: - Edmund Leung (one of the North East New Territories 13) was transferred from the regular Tong Fuk Correctional Institution to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Hospital because he has mental problems. - Legislative Councilor Eddie Chu Hoi Dick motions to expel the press and the general public from the Legislative Council building. - Localist Ho Loy became a goat when she declared that a goat carcass outside a restaurant was a dog carcass. - The King of Judicial Review Kwok Cheuk-kin is bankrupt because he can't pay the legal fees. Before immigration to the United Kingdom, he is lodging some more complaints at the Independent Commission Against Corruption when there is no filing fee. - Legislative Councilor Tanya Chan marched with 40 people against the Co-location at West Kowloon Station and declared that they (and only they) represent the People of Hong Kong (7.3 million of them). - Apple Daily columnist Ko Wai-yin wrote a column about the shortcomings of Alipay. The essay made her famous overnight in mainland China for her ignorance. For example, she said that Alipay cannot be tied to credit cards which are used exclusively by upper-class people. In fact, Alipay is limited to linkage to a maximum of only 18 bank cards and/or credit cards. Does upper-class person Ko Wai-yin own 18 cards? - Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow complained that they were treated like dogs by the Correctional Services officers in prison. After spending several dozen days in prison, they think that they know enough to reform the entire prison system. - (Facebook) Here is the famous quote from Joshua Wong: "I don't think that I look like a man. I looked more like a dog." [825] Fear of Brainwashing (2017/11/18) BEFORE: (Hong Kong Free Press) October 25, 2017. Local schools have been encouraged to cancel classes so students can watch a live broadcast of a Basic Law forum to be attended by a top Beijing official. The forum on November 16 will include a speech by Li Fei, deputy secretary general of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. The topic will be “Hong Kong’s role and mission under the country’s constitution and the Basic Law as a Special Administrative Region.” The Education Bureau said it has invited schools to watch the live broadcast and encourages government schools to make arrangements to improve students’ knowledge of “One Country, Two Systems” and the Basic Law. However, participation is purely voluntarily and schools will make a final decision. (SCMP) November 6, 2017. The Education Bureau has invited schools to play the live broadcast of the speech on the Basic Law next week by Basic Law Committee chairman Li Fei, to deepen students’ understanding of the mini-constitution, and some people are quick to see this in a negative light. Whenever anything related to national education is mentioned, some critics go on the offensive. However, in countries all over the world, national education is a compulsory part of the school curriculum and serves the purpose of instilling a sense of national identity in students. Hong Kong is part of China, so it follows that pupils should learn more about their home country, where our traditions, culture, systems and uniqueness are formed and passed down through generations. We ought to have faith in the bureau, which is comprised of professionals who know the education system inside out; they would take into account the needs of different stakeholders before they launched any national education course, ensuring that it was beneficial to the overall well-being of students. As for broadcasting a speech on the Basic Law live to secondary school students, I don’t see any harm in doing that from an educational standpoint. While students may not have ample knowledge of the Basic Law, the speech might get them more interested in the subject and lead to them learning more about our mini-constitution. Concerns often arise from ignorance and lack of understanding of a subject, so absorbing a little more knowledge about the constitution may go a long way towards starting a healthy discussion on national identity and citizens’ responsibility. Some people say broadcasting the speech amounts to indoctrination of students, which I think is totally unfounded. In this digital age, information flows freely on the internet in Hong Kong society and students are known to have developed critical thinking skills, thanks in no small part to the new senior secondary curriculum. Tech-savvy millennials are adept at accessing information, reflecting on their learning experiences and discussing with peers on a range of issues. They may not readily accept ideas spoon-fed to them, so to claim that the 45-minute speech would brainwash them with ideology is a weak argument. If brainwashing worked, teachers would not be having such a hard time asking students to revise material for exams. It’s unnecessary to be overly worried about the broadcast. (Hong Kong Free Press) November 16, 2017. Around 50 schools accepted the Education Bureau’s invitation to broadcast the talk live for students. Many of them were government schools. The pro-democracy People Power party handed out red cloths to students in Kwun Tong, Sha Tin and Shau Kei Wan, in response to Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who previously said students can cover their eyes if they did not want to watch the broadcast. The party’s Tam Tak-chi said a school searched a student’s bag after they accepted a red cloth. Tam said he will follow up to see if the student received any unnecessary pressure or punishment. The League of Social Democrats also protested outside the Exhibition and Convention Centre, the venue of the speech. AFTER: (SCMP) November 16, 2017. For 120 secondary school pupils at Lions College, the live broadcast of Li Fei’s speech on Thursday inspired a mix of yawns, drowsiness and head-scratching. The school’s principal admitted there had been a language barrier for pupils listening to the 50-minute speech on the Basic Law made in Mandarin by the chairman of the Basic Law Committee, but stressed the event was a valuable experience. The school in Kwai Chung was one of 50 that accepted the Education Bureau’s invitation to stream the broadcast in an attempt to deepen students’ understanding of the city’s mini-constitution. “Since the speech was rather long and made in Mandarin, there might be a language barrier,” said Lions College’s principal Lam Yat-fung. “It is not surprising a few students lost their focus as they are young and their attention span may not be long. Still, it is valuable to experience a seminar on such a large scale. I am sure students might respond better in other activities, such as a visit or outing, but this is a learning process and we are trying to arrange a different chance for them.” A student representative, assigned by the school to speak to the press, said he found the activity helpful for his studies but language remained an issue. “Since it was in Mandarin, I could not fully understand it,” Jacky Chan, in Form Five, said. “The event was quite good as it fits the subject we are studying. It was helpful as Li Fei explained the purpose and meaning of the Basic Law, and I listened to it intently. Personally I am against the Hong Kong pro-independence movement as I do not think it is workable, so I agree with what Li Fei said.” Another student representative said she was more confused after Li’s speech. “He said that Basic Law is secondary to China’s constitution law, so I am now a bit confused about the purpose and status of having it in Hong Kong in the first place,” Stacey Lau, who is in Form Six, said. She said she could only understand about 70 per cent of what Li said. Before the speech, the pupils gathered in an assembly hall at 9.30am for the additional class that began with a 30-minute briefing by a liberal studies teacher about the background of the Basic Law. Ten minutes into the speech, some of the blank-faced pupils began to rub their faces, scratch their heads, and yawn, despite the presence of the cameras. Only a few were seen jotting notes, but no one dared to chat among themselves. A few closed their eyes, appearing to be dozing off, only to be elbowed awake by neighbouring pupils. The teacher gave out worksheets after the speech, with questions about how the Basic Law contributes to the prosperity of Hong Kong, its relationship with China’s law and so on. Principal Lam promised to pass their questions to Li if the pupils had any doubts about his remarks. Education sector lawmaker, Ip Kin-yuen, the only pan democrat lawmaker at the seminar, said Li’s speech was too difficult for secondary school students to understand. “After Li finished, I told him I disagreed with having his speech broadcasted … Even Li said it was difficult for him to take care of both students and the people at the scene, who knew more about the matter than students,” Ip said. (Speakout HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 18, 2017. Li Fei comes to Hong Kong. The media did not flock to the Wanchai Convention Centre where Li Fei was. Instead, they rushed over to the Lions Club College in Kwai Chung. The Education Bureau had invited Hong Kong middle schools to hold live broadcasts of Li Fei's speech. The Yellow Ribbon media and politicians denounced this as brainwashing. Fortunately, the Lions Club College principal Lam Yat-fung was bold enough to open his school to let the media film the live broadcast at the school. This was enough to dispel all talk of brainwashing. A few days ago, it was announced that 50 schools had accepted the invitation to broadcast Li Fei's speech. The Yellow Ribbon immediately sought to compile the names of the 50 brainwashing schools who sucked up to the Central Government. Why are they so nervous about a one-hour live broadcast of a speech? They are upset that the students can listen to a Beijing official directly without being distorted or twisted by the Yellow Ribbon media. I admired the openness of principal Lam Yat-fung and the Lion College students. They were listening to a speech and not breaking any law. What is there to hide? So what if the 50 schools are named? Parents will only get to find out which schools are going the right thing. If you want denunciations, then why not tell us which 20 schools had pro-Hong Kong independence pamphlets distributed in front of them? As a parent, I would really like to know why those schools are so scared that they won't do anything about the troublemakers outside their front gates. If you can brainwash someone with a one-hour talk, then this technique deserves a Nobel Prize as an innovative teaching technique. In future, teachers won't have to teach hard subjects such as trigonometry for the school term. They only need to hire a senior Central Government official to deliver a one-hour lecture on the subject and the students will have the material etched into their brains forever. The next day, Ming Pao came up with this heading: "Non-government school aired Li Fei's speech live; Lam Yat-fung denied that he was trying to ingratiate himself." Nobody ever says that they do something in order to ingratiate themselves with someone else, because this term has negative connotations already. What happened was that the reporter asked Principal Lam : "Are you ingratiating yourself?" When Principal Lam said "NO", the reporter wrote down duly: "Lam Yat-fung denied that he was trying to ingratiate himself." So this was a trap. At least the reporter did not ask: "Did you want to mentally rape the students?" and then the headline next day will be: "Lam Yat-fai denies that he raped students." Apple Daily's heading was "Bored to tears with live broadcast of Beijing official's speech; the students shut their eyes like Carrie Lam said." But can brainwashing still take place if you close your eyes? Actually I thought that this lesson was not about the Basic Law or putonghua. This is about learning what is first-hand material. These two hours are the best education for the students. We let them listen to Li Fei's original speech and then we compare the various news reports and reactions from scholars and politicians. We can teach the students how to ferret out the truth in this age of information explosion. This was not a lesson in politics. This was a lesson in media studies. (EJ Insight) Boring for the nation is not the same as rallying the nation. By Stephen Vines. November 17, 2017. Only a bunch of deluded bureaucrats and equally misguided democrats could possibly have expressed concern over the fact that a (admittedly worrying) speech by Basic Law Committee chairman Li Fei was broadcast live to some 50 schools last Thursday. Comrade Li does not have a reputation as an electric orator and a speech on constitutional issues is hardly the stuff that sets the average school student’s heart racing. The additional fact that Li spoke in Mandarin made it even less likely that close attention was paid, as students had a struggle to understand the language, especially in the stilted and formal style employed by Li. However, certain members of the democratic camp have got all het up about this on grounds of our old friend “principle”. They say that in principle, political indoctrination speeches should not be foisted on school kids and question whether the authorities even had the right to initiate a broadcast of this kind. The principle of the matter may be important but the reality is that a speech like this is almost certain not to have gained a scintilla of attention from a bunch of school kids forced to watch it when they had far more pressing things on their minds, possibly including finishing off a vital video game or maybe they used the time to think about how much homework was piling up. However, an indoctrination session may well have provided precisely the push needed to get students to pay more attention to those giving out leaflets arguing the case for Hong Kong independence. The leaflet disseminators have re-emerged recently and were probably met more with puzzlement than interest but when a school forces its students to sit through a lengthy dirge on the Basic Law, it sure helps to ignite the fires of rebellion. Most students, however, probably greeted this interruption to normal lessons with a shrug of indifference. I base this not only on vague memories of my own ability as a school student to simply switch off when being harangued by some boring teacher but also on my experience as a reporter. In this context, my most vivid memory is of traveling to Guangzhou shortly after the violent suppression of the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square. I wanted to find out how these events had impacted a part of the country far removed from Beijing. One of the people I interviewed was a female factory worker who told me that all work on the shop floor had been brought to a halt so that employees could watch a number of television address giving the government’s version of what happened. How long did that last, I asked. “I’m not sure,” she replied. “It seemed like hours.” And what were you told? She looked at me in amazement and said, “I have no idea; of course I didn’t listen.” I would take a bet that if you asked any of the school students to provide a summary of Li Fei’s address, the overwhelming majority would similarly not be able to do so. This raises the question of why they were subjected to this mind-numbing experience in the first place. Lamentably, the answer is easy to supply because these days the Hong Kong government is displaying a kind of sycophancy that would be amusing if it were not so troubling. Officials who want to get noticed and get promoted know full well that this is most likely to happen if they can think of ways of pleasing their masters in Beijing. And nothing pleases the masters more than efforts by local sycophants to promote so-called patriotic initiatives. They just love it when one of the kowtowers quotes a Chinese leader, preferably Xi Jinping, or bemoans the lack of patriotic spirit among the young (you can tell this is important because CY Leung is especially assiduous in this regard) but, by and large, they will settle for more or less anything that indicates enthusiasm denoting subservience to the central authorities. The brown nosers are acutely aware of Xi’s insistence that the central authorities exercise “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong and want to demonstrate their support. What better way to do this than by insisting that Li Fei’s address should be beamed directly into schools? The flag wavers can and will do much worse than this; the democrats should have kept their powder for such an eventuality. Internet comments: - Question: At what point were you brainwashed into thinking that there is such a thing as brainwashing? (Wikipedia) Brainwashing. Brainwashing (also known as mind control, mind break, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is a non-scientific concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject’s ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject’s mind, as well as to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs. The concept of brainwashing was originally developed during the Korean War to explain how Chinese captors appeared to make American prisoners of war cooperate with them. Advocates of the concept also looked at Nazi Germany and at some criminal cases in the United States. The concept of mind control was later expanded and modified by psychologists including Margaret Singer and Philip Zimbardo to explain conversions to some new religious movements (NRMs). This resulted in scientific and legal debate; with Eileen Barker, James Richardson, and other scholars, as well as legal experts, rejecting at least the popular understanding of the concept. The concept of brainwashing is sometimes involved in legal cases, especially regarding child custody; and is also a major theme in both science fiction and in criticism of modern political and corporate culture. However, in the view of most scholars, it is not accepted as scientific fact. - Brainwashing may not exist as such, but it is very useful for scaring people. - (Apple Daily) November 16, 2017. The title of Li Fei's talk was “Hong Kong’s role and mission under the country’s constitution and the Basic Law as a Special Administrative Region.” Li said that there are three levels of discussion: (1) Where did the Hong Kong SAR come from? (2) What is the position of Hong Kong in the national system? (3) What should the Hong Kong SAR be doing? Li said that "Where did the Hong Kong SAR come from" is the question of "Where do we come from?" This leads to the three questions: "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" The future of Hong Kong depends on answering these questions properly. - Why should the three questions (Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?") come in together? That's because they form the title of a famous painting by French artist Paul Gauguin (Wikipedia).

In the upper left corner, Gauguin inscribed the French title: "D'où Venons Nous /Que Sommes Nous / Où Allons Nous." The inscription has no question mark, no dash, and all words are capitalized. Gauguin indicated that the painting should be read from right to left, with the three major figure groups illustrating the questions posed in the title. The three women with a child represent the beginning of life; the middle group symbolizes the daily existence of young adulthood; and in the final group, according to the artist, "an old woman approaching death appears reconciled and resigned to her thoughts"; at her feet, "a strange white bird...represents the futility of words." The blue idol in the background apparently represents what Gauguin described as "the Beyond." Unfortunately, the initial reception of this painting was just like the reception of Li Fei's speech. Gauguin reflected: "Seeing they see not, hearing they hear not." - How to answer Li Fei's three questions:

Apple Daily's brainwashing answers: 1. Where do we come from? Hong Kong 2. What are we? Hongkongers 3. Where are we going? Anywhere but China. A normal Hongkonger's answers: 1. Where do we come from? Hong Kong 2. What are we? Chinese 3. Where are we going? We stand in Hong Kong backed up by China and face the world - Actually the best sound bite came from someone else. (SCMP) November 17, 2017. A Beijing official based in Hong Kong on Friday mocked local critics of the Communist Party regime as having “brains made of granite”. Wang Zhenmin, the legal chief of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, also criticised Hongkongers for “getting stuck on unfortunate historical events”. The city, which unlike the rest of China is entitled to free speech under its mini-constitution, the Basic Law, has held annual vigils for Beijing’s bloody military crackdown in Tiananmen Square 28 years ago. Wang, a former law dean at the prestigious Tsinghua University in Beijing, was speaking at a seminar on the Basic Law held in the city on Friday. Those who criticised the Communist Party and the central government, Wang said, “have brains made of granite. They have not changed after several decades, they always live in the past, they get stuck on unfortunate historical events, and they open up scars already healed from time to time.” Wang went on to reject some of Hongkongers’ recurring criticisms of China. “Some say our state leaders are nationalistic, but which state is represented by leaders who don’t love their nation? Some say Chinese judges are appointed by the Communist Party, but doesn’t the US government appoint its own judges as well? If China doesn’t have freedom of speech and freedom of communications, why does China have Alibaba and Tencent, but not in other countries?” Wang said, citing leading Chinese tech giants. Wang called on Hongkongers to learn more about China’s past and present, with a key topic being the Communist Party’s leadership of the country. - The popular understanding of brainwashing comes from the 1962 American Cold War suspense thriller The Manchurian Candidate (remade in 2004). During the time of the Korean War, North Korea and China were considered to be backward nations ruled by totalitarian regimes. So the first question must be: How can these backward nations develop such powerful techniques for psychological warfare? The answer is that these are evil techniques that only evil regimes can conjure up, experiment with and bring to perfection. By contrast, the United States respects human rights and can never bring itself to use such evil techniques. The next question is: Once the United States discovered that the Chinese/North Koreans/Russians were using psychological warfare, did it try to study the techniques and come up with defensive measures? For example, did they develop tests that can be applied on returned prisoners-of-war to detect signs of brainwashing and then to de-program brainwashed persons? The official position of the American Psychological Association is "we do not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." Here is the truth of the matter: If brainwashing works, the United States would be the most proficient nation in the world already because it can amass more resources to develop and refine such weapons than the rest of the world combined. - The United States is the leading practitioner of the art of waterboarding. People can be made so say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear. [824] Graduation Ceremonies (2017/11/18) (Hong Kong Economic Times) November 17, 2017

The Chinese University of Hong Kong helds its 81st annual graduation ceremony for several hundred graduates. The diplomas and awards were handed by CUHK board of trustees chairman Norman Leung and CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung. When the national anthem was played, almost 20 graduates raised placards with the words "Democratic Freedom; National People's Congress law interpretation; separation of powers; fairness with rule of law" as well as a photo of CY Leung which was torn up immediately afterwards. Graduates also raised placards with the word Interpretation crossed out to express their opposition to the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. At the time, Leung and Sung were on stage. When Leung began to hand out diplomas for the School of Social Sciences, the graduates stood up, raised placards and ripped up CY Leung photo again because he was supposed to split up Hong Kong. Some CUHK students were also upset that CUHK vice-chancellor delivered his speech in putonghua, Cantonese and English in that order. They wondered if they went to the Shenzhen campus instead. Afterwards, Sung said that the graduate ceremony is an important and solemn occasion at which protests are inappropriate. He expressed his regrets and hoped that people can understand and respect each other. On Thursday, about 50 social science graduates wore face masks and held up banners as they received their degrees. The signs said “Safeguard freedom of speech in academia” and “Don’t silence me”. Social work department graduates had initiated the protest, saying they aimed to draw attention to threats to freedom of speech, which is protected under the Basic Law. One of them told the Post that the university should tolerate all expressions of political views. “The democracy wall dispute made us feel that freedom of speech was threatened on campus,” the graduate said. “We just want to grasp the last chance to convey our views,” former student union president and fresh graduate Tommy Cheung Sau-yin said. Asked why they had decided not to act when the anthem was being played, Cheung stressed he and his peers were more concerned about the democracy wall episode than the looming anthem law. (SCMP) November 16, 2017. A group of youngsters staged a silent protest and held up signs calling for the protection of free speech during Chinese University’s graduation ceremony on Thursday, but when the national anthem was played, they did not boo or cause a scene. Instead, most of them at the degree conferment ceremony got to their feet, with some singing along to March of the Volunteers and taking photos, a surprise given that Chinese University’s campus had been ground zero for pro-independence campaigning by tertiary students just months ago. (Facebook video) Why do these School of Social Sciences people wear surgical masks when they hold up protest placards? What are they afraid of?

(Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2017.

The Progress UST Facebook urged: "If you hear a song that is to be respected for who knows what reason today or tomorrow, remember not to do anything unlawful." Yesterday at the University of Science and Technology graduate ceremony, the graduates entered at 315pm. Nobody refused to stand up for the national anthem. But towards the end of the national anthem, there were some low-volume noises. When asked, the University of Science and Technology said that they don't know what it was. Under-secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung said when university students or others want to express their opinions, they should consider the appropriateness of the occasion as well as the impact on other people. A university graduation ceremony is not just your occasion, but it is an occasion for other students and parents. Many of these other people want to have a solemn and dignified ceremony.

(Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2017.

Education University people Civil Disobedience The Education University will hold its graduate ceremony on November 17 and 18. The Education University Freedom of Speech Concern Group announced that its members will be protesting on one of those days. The Concern Group urged the students to "cross their arms high in the air and boo or their own methods when the national anthem is played." They also asked people to post the so-called "unlawful" banners everywhere." There was no action during the November 17 action. (Silent Majority HK) November 19, 2017. Former Education University Student Union vice-president Hui Fung-ming displayed a Hong Kong Is Not China banner and shouted "Defend freedom of Hong Kong independence speech" at the graduation ceremony. Hui said that several other students had told him that they would join him, but they didn't. So he was a solo act. Hui refused to stand or sing during the national anthem. Instead he sat and played with his mobile phone.

- That fool even held the banner upside down. What school is going to hire him to teach? - He inverted the banner? This means that he opposes "Hong Kong is not China." - This was the biggest day of his life in which he could finally showed the world what he is capable of. But he screwed up.

(The Standard) November 13, 2017. Catholic Bishop Michael Yeung Ming- cheung said it is only natural for people to sing the national anthem but resisting to sing it is against social norms. Yeung, speaking on the sidelines of an event yesterday, supports the patriotism behind the national anthem, saying that as a citizen "what's the big deal on singing the national anthem? It's just natural." He believes people should not be too sensitive. He personally found no Hongkonger would reject the view that he is Chinese. "If somebody insisted on not singing the anthem, then it's against the social norm." Yeung also said many Catholic schools have been voluntarily playing the national anthem since the handover, and it was not compulsory for students to stand straight. He believes it would backfire if students were coerced into standing up, and things would not turn to the negative side if education "let nature takes its course." (SCMP) November 16, 2017. Chaos broke out at a graduation ceremony in Hong Kong on Thursday as students protested against a bishop’s support for a controversial national anthem law. Bishop Michael Yeung Ming-cheung, the chairman of the board of governors in Caritas Institute of Higher Education, had earlier said singing the anthem was a very natural thing and people who refused to sing along were “violating the social norm”. A group of about 10 graduates had planned in vain to stage a protest at the ceremony in the Tseung Kwan O institute, with a black banner reading: “Singing the anthem is not a social norm”. Clashes broke out when Yeung, flanked by security guards and staff, ignored students who were chanting, trying to hand him petitions and blocking his access to a lift. After a short deadlock, Yeung responded and clarified his remarks: “I did not mean I would force students to sing the national anthem.” He asked the students to hand their letters to the university management. “Yeung’s remarks are stifling the students’ chance to discuss our national identities … I would not say I am a Chinese at this moment,” Janet Chan, a social work graduate said, referring to Yeung’s earlier remarks that most people would not reject their Chinese identities. Chan also opposed the anthem law, saying she did not know how to express respect and “the appropriate emotion” towards the anthem without having heartfelt approval. (Silent Majority HK with Cable TV news video) November 17, 2017. Previously Catholic Bishop of Hong Kong Michael Yeung Ming-cheung voiced his support for the national anthem law. Today he was surrounded by Caritas Institution of Higher Education students at the graduate ceremony. Michael Yeung: You say that you are Chinese. I respect you. You say that you are Hongkongers. I respect you. I don't have a problem. Female student voice: What about all the Hongkongers who won't sing the national anthem? Why do you think that this is the social norm? Michael Yeung: I said that it is the social norm for the citizens of a nation to stand up when the national anthem is played. Therefore I said that this was no big deal. Female student voice: What about Hong Kong? Michael Yeung: Hong Kong? If a Hongkonger wants to sing the national anthem, he can sing it. I am not forcing them to either sing or not sing.

National anthem ‡ Social norm - These Caritas students hold a banner to protest the statement that standing while the national anthem is played is the social norm. Fair enough! But this photo is receiving wide circulation because the writer wrote the word "social" incorrectly. It is one thing to have an illiterate college student make a primary school mistake, but what about the other students who failed to detect this error and actually posed with the banner and took photographs? Are they all illiterate? Or do they know that the word was wrong and simply don't care? - Fuck! If these students are any good, they would be in a proper university instead of this Caritas Institute of Higher Education. - What is freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. In this case, Bishop Michael Yeung spoke his mind. On this day, he was surrounded by a bunch of students who demanded that he repent and retract his previous statement. What happened to freedom of speech?

[823] H & K's MP5s (2017/11/17) (Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2017. German firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch has refused to sell MP5 submachine guns to the Hong Kong police force. Several news outlets cited unnamed sources as saying that the police sought to buy the gun and its accessories at the start of this year, but the request was rejected. A police source told Ming Pao that Germany had recently banned firearms companies from selling to non-NATO countries, but the police were able to buy equipment from other EU states and the US. Internet comments: - Does it matter to the Hong Kong Police? (Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2017. Security Secretary John Lee refused to comment on the reports on Thursday afternoon. But he said there are many choices available in the market: “The supply of firearms will not affect the operations of the law enforcement agencies.” “We will not rely on a single type [of gun] or a single manufacturer. So in terms of our work, especially in counter-terrorism, it will not be affected,” he said. Asked if there will be any issue when switching equipment, Lee said: “This is not the first time. Every law enforcement agency has its own experience in using and maintaining guns. Also there are some alternatives in the market. Thus, in every review we do, law enforcement agencies will procure new guns or look into new supplies, to ensure our operations are not affected.” Veteran lawmaker James To, who focuses on security, said the police will need time to train with new gear: “After all they have used German [brands] for so long, trained for some time… In the fight with terrorists, either they die or you die in a split second – if you use new guns, training has to be done all over again.” - Duh! If the Hong Kong Police needs H&K MP4A4's, they have a reliable supplier on standby: (TheFirearmBlog) Norinco NR08 No one remembers the day when China acquired from Heckler & Koch a license to manufacture an automatic rifle H & K MP5A4. However, in the Chinese domestic market and even in some export offers, a clone of the above model appeared – the Norinco NR08. By the way, the “novelty” already has the first buyers – the Philippines bought Norinco NR08 for the needs of law enforcement agencies at a price of $ 2,500. Surprisingly, the Chinese have chosen MP5 for cloning – it is already being reproduced in Pakistan (POF) and Turkey (MKE) Equipment. In this case, the products are cheaper than the Chinese are asking for unlicensed copies. H & K’s attempt to sue the manufacturer failed – the Norinco company belongs … to the PRC government and is inviolable. Germany is not ready to go to a diplomatic scandal with China because of the illegal production of MP5. James To told Ming Pao that around six to eight years ago, a German consul asked him about Hong Kong’s Special Duties Unit procuring German submachine guns. He said the consul asked what the unit was and if they would crackdown on people, because EU members cannot sell guns to countries or regions who suppress their own people. To said he replied the unit was the police’s elite unit for dealing with violent criminals, and the unit does not use firearms for crackdowns. He added that he did not know the reason for the ban on sales this time, but it may be related to the decline in human rights and right to peaceful assembly in Hong Kong. - Everybody, especially James To, knows that the Hong Kong Police operates on the tactical philosophy known as "One Plus": they use a level of force that is always one higher than that used by their opponents. If the opponents charge, the police will use pepper spray. If the opponents attack without arms, the police will use batons. If the opponents attack with arms (bamboo poles, etc), the police will fire rubber bullets. If the opponents attack with lethal arms (machetes, axes, etc), the police will fire small arms. If the opponents fire small arms, the police will fire shotguns and rifles. If the opponents fire rifles, the police will fire submachine guns. If the opponents fire submachine guns, the police will fire rocket-propelled grenades ... So to get the Hong Kong Police to buy more MP5's, H&K needs to sell small arms to the Hong Kong rebels. - Why is the German company Heckler & Koch getting a whitewash now for not selling to the Hong Kong Police because they are an ethical company which protects Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights? Here is what they want you to ignore: (The Guardian) September 8, 2017. Heckler & Koch, the German weapons manufacturer whose guns are estimated to have killed more than 2 million people since the company was founded in 1949, has quietly adopted the most ethical sales policy of any gunmaker in the world. Over the past 65 years, Heckler & Koch guns have been licensed to – among others – Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Myanmar, from where they have made their way into conflicts in virtually every part of the world. There are an estimated 15 million of the firm’s G3 rifles in circulation alone, and it is estimated that one person gets killed by a Heckler & Koch bullet every 13 minutes. The company has pledged no longer to sell arms into warzones or to countries that violate corruption and democracy standards, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, or any African countries. Heckler & Koch – sometimes called Germany’s deadliest company by activists – said it would now sell only to “green countries,” which it defined according to three criteria: membership of Nato or “Nato-equivalent” (Japan, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand); Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index; and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index. - In 1984, Union Carbide killed at least 3,787 in Bhopal, India. That is considered the world's worst industrial disaster. But Union Carbide is not in H&K's league with 2 million kills. However, H&K is still far behind Big Tobacco with 100 million killed in 20th century and 1 billion in the 21st century. - Do the NATO countries even allow H&K guns in? (see TheFirearmsBlog, H&K does not hate you: Import and Export Laws vs. the People, September 2, 2013) - And H&K used to rail against the German government export restrictions the argument: "If we don't make and sell these guns to all comers, someone else in the world will do so anyway. So we won't save any lives and we will only lose German jobs (in Oberndorf)." Today, H&K is not necessarily getting out of the business. Instead, they have found one national market which is bigger than the rest of the world combined. So this globalized company is perfectly happy to move the jobs from Oberndorf, Germany to Columbus, Georgia, USA. Now they don't have to be bothered with small buyers like the Hong Kong Police. - If H&K won't sell to the Hong Kong Police, the latter won't have replacement parts and bullets. Assuming that they have no other weapon, their existing stock will run down. So when the Big Uprising occurs, the Hong Kong Police will have no firearms to use. Game over? Not quite. If that occurs, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will pick up the phone and ask for the intervention of the People's Liberation Army. That would be the real Game Over. - (HKG Pao) November 19, 2017. What is the MP in "MP5"? It stands for Machine Pistol. Heckler and Koch's 9mm MP5 was introduced in 1966 and was adopted widely by police forces in western countries. In the late 1970's, the Hong Kong Royal Police's Special Duties Unit (SDU) bought MP5's to replaced their antiquated WWII Sterling 9mm submachine guns. The Airport Security Police and the VIP protection unit also bought various versions of MP5 for various situations. So the MP5 has been used by the Hong Kong Police for 51 years already. No matter how excellent the design of the MP5 was, it is being challenged in the market. There are many competitors, such as the 9mm MPX from the German company SIG Sauer. A couple years ago, the Hong Kong Police purchased some MPX's for testing and evaluation. There is plenty of information about MP5 vs MPX on the Internet (see, for example, YouTube). Most Hongkongers won't appreciate the technical differences, but they can surely appreciate the fact that the MPX costs half as much as the MP5. As for Heckler & Koch restricting their sales to the European Union only now, this is a joke! First of all, the patent on the MP5 has expired and anyone (such as Norinco) can clone it. Secondly, the Hong Kong Police Crime Investigation Unit is equipped with P250 semi-automatic pistols from SIG Sauer, a Swiss/German company. Is SIG Sauer also going to stop selling to the Hong Kong Police because of freedom, democracy and human rights? Thirdly, Germany and China appeared to be on good relations diplomatically and economically. Is this so-called "ban" another episode of cold war mentality from brains that have been frozen in granite rock? [822] How To Filibuster (If You Must) (2017/11/12) Hong Kong Legislative Council: Members' Biography

Hon Shiu Ka-chun Constituency : Functional Constituency - Social Welfare Education and professional qualifications : Master of Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University Bachelor Degree in Social Work, Hong Kong Baptist University Registered Social Worker Occupation : University Teacher (HKG Pao with video) November 2, 2017. Legislative Council session. 0:01 Chairman Andrew Leung: Legislator Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). 0:04 Shiu Ka-chun: Chairperson! 0:05 Andrew Leung: What procedural question? 0:06 Shiu Ka-chun: You mispronounced my name. My name is Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1), not Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). 0:07 Andrew Leung: I called out Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1). I called it. I did not call you Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). 0:14 Shiu Ka-chun: You called me Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). I want to watch the video. 0:15 Andrew Leung: I called out Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon1). If you don't get it, you can go and listen to it. 0:20 Shiu Ka-chun: I want to request to watch the video. I heard you call me Shiu Ka-chun (sound of zeon3). 0:23 Andrew Leung: You can go out and ask to watch the video. 0:25 Shiu Ka-chun: Go out to where? May I ask, chairman? 0:27 Andrew Leung: You can just ask the Secretariat. Alright? 0:28 Shiu Ka-chun: Where is the secretariat? May I ask, chairman? 0:30 Andrew Leung: Do you have any questions about procedure? 0:32 Shiu Ka-chun: I want to ask how I can locate the Secretariat to watch the video? 0:37 Andrew Leung: This is not a question about procedure. Internet comments: - The Legislative Council is a zoo and the Legislative Councilors are monkeys putting on a circus show. What have these people really done for the people of Hong Kong? - Andrew Leung clearly pronounced Shiu Ka-chun's name correctly, but the latter kept pestering Leung with irrelevant questions. When videos such as these get circulated all over the place, public opinion will accumulate towards the revision of the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council to cut off these types of antics. - Knowingly or unknowingly, these pan-democratic legislators are fulfilling certain roles and functions. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching served to let the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpret Basic Law Article 104 and stop all future shenanigans around the oath of office. A by-product was the ouster of a total of six pan-democratic legislators. Cheng Chung-tai served to highlight the National Flag law and thus facilitate the introduction of a National Anthem law. Shiu Ka-chun is now serving to empower the pro-establishment camp to revise the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council so as to cut off filibustering. Afterwards, the search begins for designated stooges to enable (1) the enactment of Article 23 national security laws; etc. - For the passage of the High Speed Rail Co-location motion, the task was sub-contracted to unemployed Democratic Party member Lam ("Stapler King") Tsz-kin. Once he held his press conference, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

- (YouTube) October 14, 2017. During Occupy Central, Shiu Ka-chiu addressed the assembly from the Grand Stage: "Tear gas has been fired at Lung Wo Road. That friend excitedly came over to inform us. Tear gas been fired. So those friends who want to offer support there, bring your towels ... wet towels ... goggles ... goggles must be brought." - No such thing had happened. Shiu said that someone came and whispered in his ear, and he was merely repeating the information. Those who heeded his call rushed over, charged the police, got clobbered and some were arrested. - (YouTube) Shiu Ka-chun at his oath of office at the Legislative Council. Everything was normal until 0:44 when he struck a tambourine several times and yelled: "Umbrella Movement may have failed but it has not dissipated. It will persist strongly. WE ARE BACK!" - Shiu Ka-chun is a hero of the Umbrella Revolution. At the very beginning, he was presented by the Occupy Three Trio (Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming) as one of the ten supporters who were given the name (Ten Occupy Central warriors who are ready to die for the cause). - Is he dead yet? [821] Of Dogs And Lambs (2017/11/11) (Apple Daily) October 27, 2017. Ho Loy, a volunteer for the Animal Life Guard Action Group, reported this morning that a certain restaurant on Kam Fai Path, Yuen Long district was slaughtering dogs and selling dog meat to the public. They cited residents who heard "the tragic cries of dogs being slaughtered almost every day." However, the restaurant was smart because they always cut off the head and claws." The volunteers have filed reports with the Hong Kong Police and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. A person who claimed to the daughter of the restaurant owner left a message at the Facebook of the volunteer and claimed that they were only selling black goat stew and accused Ho of defamation. "On account of your ignorance, our manager has to go and make statements at the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the police station for the investigation. He has to do this three times this week already, and he cannot conduct business meanwhile. Our losses have been huge." Three photos of the restaurant are being circulated. One of them showed a grown-up dog sitting on a chair. Another showed a headless carcass (believed to be a dog) on a table. It looked very gruesome. After the initial post, the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook, posted an update: "The fifty-cent gangers are coming to work. They are trying to persuade people that the carcass is that of a lamb and not of a dog. Or the people of Hong Kong should regard this as a trivial manner. They mean to say that the people of Hong Kong should shut up, not harbor any doubts and conduct no investigation?" At 3pm, the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook updated at 3pm that they have given the photos to three animal experts to examine, and all three agreed that this was the carcass of a dog.

The Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook noted that if a restaurant is forthright in its business, it should not be afraid of any investigation. They called on Yuen Long restaurants to pay attention to the area around Kam Fai Path, especially looking for animal body parts such as heads and claws. If they hear animals crying, they should immediately hold a Facebook live broadcast. In the afternoon, the daughter of the restaurant owner commented at the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook that the sound of dog barking comes from the dog kept by the laundry store next door and is completed unrelated to the restaurant. "You can criticize the taste and texture of our food. We listen to all opinions. But we completely reject any comments about things that we have never done." Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) is a Hong Kong legislative councilor as well as a Yuen Long district councilor. He said that he received citizen complaints this morning and he has made inquiries with the police. His office has sent people to gather evidence at the scene. They have verified that the restaurant exists, but they haven't found any dogs. He said that the veracity of the photos has not yet been established. He said that now that winter is here, some people may be exercising their habit to eat dog meat for better health. "But this is too cruel and unacceptable." The Hong Kong Police responded to Apple Daily and said that they have received a complaint that a Yuen Long restaurant was selling dog meat. Police officers have visited the scene and have asked the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to follow up. If a crime took place, they will enforce the law accordingly. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department responded that they have received complaints and have sent inspectors to the restaurant. The restaurant claimed that it was cooked lamb. The inspectors went into the kitchen and saw two pots of cooked meat. The department has taken a sample of the meat for analysis. They will wait for the analysis results to decide what to do next.

The Society for Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals said that they have received complaints this morning and sent an inspector to the scene. The restaurant owner said that it was cooked lamb meat. The inspector went into the kitchen and found two pots of cooked beat. "Although it is not yet determined whether this was dog meat of not, the restaurant owner has shown us the invoice for black goat meat dated October 26, 2017." The society said that the inspector also looked around the neighborhood but did not find anything else. The society has show the Internet photos to a veterinarian who was unable to determine the kind of animal due to the absence of a head, limbs and internal organs. (Ming Pao) October 27, 2017. Our newspaper interviewed the boss lady Mrs. Chan of the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant. She said that the restaurant had been accused of selling dog meat earlier in the year and they have clarified that it was goat meat. "We absolutely don't sell dog meat." The so-called noise of "slaughtering dogs" is actually the barking of the pet dog Shiu Bing of the neighboring store. Mrs. Chan said that Shui Bing frequently comes over to pay. The Chan family owns a beagle named Bobby. "We love dogs too, so how can we butcher dogs?" Why are they being accused of selling dog meat once more? Mrs. Chan does not know why. She does not know if she has offended someone. (HK01) October 27, 2017. Our newspaper interviewed the boss Mr. Chan Sei-kon. He complained that the carcass in the photo was that of a black-skinned goal from Hainan Island. When delivered, the head, limbs and internal organs have already been removed. Due to limited space, he cooked the lamb and put it on the roadside table to cool down. The sound of dog barking comes from the pet dog in the laundry store next door. Mr. Chan said that he and his wife started this small restaurant three years ago. They work 16 hours and they barely eke out a living. Last year there was a similar complaint but business volume plunged. (Wen Wei Po) October 31, 2017. Roy Kwong's Facebook

"I have a beagle myself, so how can I slaughter dogs?" The boss Brother Kon smiled and said: "I only want to concentrate on being a chef." Last Friday, a lot of Internet users sought our help to investigate a suspected dog meat restaurant. Many people wanted to know the truth, so we opened an investigation. Today, we met with Brother Kon to have dinner at his restaurant. Over the meal, we sensed that Brother Kon is a kind man. Brother Kon said that he is a dog lover too. He does not mind being misunderstood by many Internet users as being a butcher of dogs: "Actually we all care." The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has taken away a sample and their report will be issued shortly. He said that this was the second time that such a misunderstanding has occurred. He smiled and said: "Fortunately we have a Legislative Councilor/District Councilor to help us determine the truth this time. I don't believe that there will be another misunderstanding ..." Without verification, Roy Wong posted on Facebook that he and the police are investigating a Yuen Long restaurant for selling dog meat, and he wants everybody to help spread the news. Many Internet users went to curse this restaurant, causing the restaurant loss to go sleepless and to close the premise down for two days. Now more details have surfaced to suggest that the case was fictional. For two days, Roy Kwong stayed out of sight while his Facebook post stayed on. Perhaps Roy Wong finally sensed the public outrage. So he has deleted his original post, went down to the restaurant and made a new post to completely reverse himself. Now he refers to the restaurant owner as Brother Kon instead of a butcher who was too cruel to describe. Throughout all this, there was no apology or even a mention of the harm that his original Facebook post had caused Brother Kon. (Sing Tao Daily) November 7, 2017.

Yesterday the letter arrived from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to say that the lab analysis showed that the sample was goat meat. Today, Mr. Chan showed us the letter and thanked citizens for supporting him. 64-year-old Mr. Chan said that he has been vexed and lost 10 pounds over the past two weeks. He hopes that the rumormongers will stop. He said that people should tell the truth. Mr. Chan thanked the citizens who drove from Aberdeen just to buy his lamb stew. He said that there is still human warmth left in Hong Kong. He will continue to prepare good food for the people of Hong Kong. Mr. Chan's daughter posted the FEHD letter on the restaurant's Facebook. Many Internet users who condemned Mr. Chan earlier came to say "Sorry" about their actions. (TVB) Interview with Man Lok Restaurant owner Mr. Chan Sei-kon. "An old man was defamed without evidence, causing him great distress. So far the instigator has not said apologize, even though she claims to be defending the weak and vulnerable! ... What is the purpose of maligning a small neighborhood restaurant selling dog meat?" (Wen Wei Po) November 8, 2017. Previously, Local Actions member Ho Loy reported that the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant was selling dog meat in Yuen Long and Democratic Party member Roy Wong asked everybody to spread the news. On the day before yesterday, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department reported that their lab analysis showed that it was goat meat. Today, Internet users want Ho Loy and Roy Kwong to acknowledge their mistake and apologize to the restaurant owner. But experience tells us that the chance of that happening is ZILCH, because everybody knows that you cannot wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep. People who wanted to comment at the Animal Life Guard Action Group Facebook found that the comment function has been disabled. So they are left to howl in the wind. Some Roy Kwong supporters continued a rearguard reaction. One of them said: "Roy never said that it was dog meat; he asked people to help to investigate." What!? Roy Kwong told everybody (1) that nothing has been confirmed yet; and (2) to join the investigation and (3) to spread the news everywhere. What everybody spread was that the Man Lok Cuisine Restaurant is selling dog meat. Who was responsible for that? Another Roy Kwong supporter said: "Before Roy Kwong did anything, Ho Loy was already telling people to spread the news. Why don't you go after her? Instead more than one hundred thousand people used hashtags to get Roy Kwong to take action. Once he did, you criticize him ... that's a bummer!" Indeed, Ho Loy was inexcusable for telling people to spread the news. But Roy Kwong is a Legislative Councilor who was elected with 490,000+ votes! The destructiveness of his Facebook post is far more than anything that Ho Loy can conceivably do! Who else should we blame for what happened? Shouldn't legislative councilors be very careful about what they do because of their tremendous influence?" Internet user Johnny Chong drew an analogy: "First he said that he suspects you of raping a grandma. He says that he will be conducting an investigation. Meanwhile everybody should help spread the news that you raped a grandma. When things go awry, he comes over to put his arm around your shoulder for a photo-op. He says that you look like a nice guy, so you are unlikely to have raped the grandma ... only the Honorable Legislative Councilor Roy Kwong have such thick skin!" Internet users urged the restaurant owner to take legal action against Ho Loy and Roy Wong for defamation. (Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2017.

Legislative Councilor Claudia Mo posted on her Facebook the hashtags #The_truth_is_now_known, #Say_sorry_to_restaurant_owner, #Hope_he_understands_why_we_are_running_scared. Internet user Aiden Chan: "After you defame someone, shouldn't you compensate their damages? It was your problem that you were running scare. In the absence of evidence, you told the public that they were selling dog meat. This is not running scared; this is defamation. How can a legislator malign someone without evidence and then claim to be running scared afterwards?" Internet user Keyman Hor: "After you apologize to them, you should see how you can help them revive their fortunes! Do you know how hard it is to build a business that can feed the family? Do you know anything about poverty?" Internet user Wong Ka Man: "Before the truth was known, you were leading the cyberbullying already? It is easy for you to point your finger at someone, but they are hapless and defenseless against the horde. Have you ever thought about their plight?" Internet user Edmund Siu: "I know when Hong Kong began to have more people who respect animals and fewer and fewer people who respect other people ..." Henry Lee said: "Please don't make people misunderstand those who care about animals as if they will accuse people of slaughtering dogs all the time ..." Naturally Claudia Mo manages to ignore all the criticisms that came with her post. Instead she continued to post her thoughts on the governance report and plenty of photos too. (Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2017. Now that the smoke has cleared and the truth is know, legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion chairman) posted on Facebook: "I did not want to resort to populism, so I waited to learn all the facts before deciding whether to follow up or not. I don't believe that one photo plus some text will allow me to tell whether it was a dog or a lamb. The restaurant is a small business. If I exercise my authority and pressure the government departments to crack down, I may be hurting innocent people. Therefore I was willing to put up with the initial criticisms against me for I won't cater to the taste and standards of the public." This is obviously a dig at Roy Kwong and Claudia Mo. "I want to have face. I find it totally unacceptable to oppress small businesses, and then share the news as if nothing had happened. Or even going down to patronize them for a meal." Internet user Roy Tsang quoted the very same Cheung Chung-tai: "This was unavoidable, because the public are idiots. They are not as smart as Civic Passion." Jeffrey Yeung added: "Fuck you, Worm Tai! Those who supported you are idiots too! You have no fucking right to criticize others!" Ex-Civic Passion member Pierre Cheung pointed out that Civic Passion has done its share of defaming small businesses in the past. "Dear Chairman Cheung Chung-tai, your Civic Passion member Becky Mok was one of those who maligned Man Lok with selling dog meat. Even now she has not given up her defamation." This comment was 'disappeared' quickly. (TVB via HKG Pao) November 17, 2017. Reporter: Although there is a Food and Environmental Hygiene Department report that the suspicious meat comes from a lamb, Ho Loy still doubts the credibility of this report. Ho Loy: First of all, this certificate is not proven to be the laboratory analysis of the first carcass. Secondly, when we released the photos that night, the carcass was left there overnight. When the FEHD came to take the sample the next morning -- even if they went immediately -- it is still possible that it was not the same carcass. Uncle Kon: I can't accept this. Reporter: Why? Uncle Kon: My misgivings are that I have to put up all this for so many days. I cry every day. I am afraid that I will be beaten up if I go outside. I am Uncle Kon. I am Ah Chan. Yes, perhaps I made procedural mistakes in what I do, or perhaps my procedures were incorrect. But have you tried to understand why Uncle Kon does it this way? Have you checked Uncle Kon's documents? What you people say on the Internet ... professors, all sorts of people ... how long will you malign me. When I have slept? Do you know how hard it is on me? Do you know how difficult it has been for me? Internet comments: - Why should Ho Loy, Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo or Cheng Chung-tai apologize? Here is a classic phrase from a movie.

- The most precious thing in Hong Kong is Freedom of Speech/Expression. Ho Loy was exercising her freedom of speech/expression. If Mr. Chan sues Ho Loy for defamation and wins, it will be a huge blow to Freedom of Speech/Expression because it will create a climate of fear and loathing. If Mr. Chan loses a few days of business, then it is a price worth paying for. - Maybe Mr. Chan feels that he has been defamed and the law should be on his side. But the central message from Occupy Central is this:

This is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second." What comes first is whatever you need at the moment: Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights, Universal Suffrage with Civil Nomination, Animal Rights, Opioids, whatever. In this case, there is a much more serious issue at stake than the reputation of a small restaurant in the middle of nowhere. We are talking about Freedom of Speech/Expression here. Mr. Chan needs to Shut The Fuck Off and not be exploited by the Hong Kong Communist Government in their relentless effort to take away our Freedom of Speech/Expression. To show our defiance, Ho Loy should repeat those accusations every day. The day that she is stopped is the day when we have lost our freedom. - What is the point of Mr. Chan suing Ho Loy for defamation? Ho Loy lives off $6,000 a month in public welfare payment. Mr. Chan will not get a cent out of Ho Loy. He will only wind up losing his legal fees. - I think that this is very unfair. Ho Loy lives off public welfare because her full-time job is social activist. She works on historical preservation (Star Ferry, Queen's Pier), environmental protection (Hong Kong International Airport expansion plan), urban planning (stopping the Central Market revitalization), education (her daughter's right not to attend public school), animal rights (the dog meat restaurant in Yuen Long), etc. These projects don't pay, so she needs the public welfare payments to support her. In addition, her indigent status allows her to obtain legal aid to file the related judicial reviews. - Can Mr. Chan even sue Ho Loy since she is not using her real name? Ho Loy literally means "coming from where?" She does not want to remember where she comes from or what her real name is. Mr. Chan doesn't even know what the name of the defendant is. - (HKG Pao) Ho Loy: When I saw the photo, I wondered why the restaurant would put a carcass out on the street. This is actually seriously offensive. Comment: Offensive? Do you know what you are talking about? There are any number of BBQ meat restaurants all over Hong Kong hanging out roasted chicken, roasted ducks, roasted geese, roasted suckling pigs, cow tongues, pig intestines, etc in the windows. Are these more or less offensive to you? Ho Loy: But I still hope you understand that many neighbors tell us that they are scared by a carcass put out in the street. Is there any way of making the carcass less scary? Comment: Scared? Uncle Kon said that he is scared that he could be beaten up if he goes out in the street. How come you are speaking up for him? - Ho Loy's non-apology was an insinuation that Mr. Chan switched the carcass from that of a dog to that of a lamb before the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspector arrived. This drew these comments (HKG Pao): Nicole Lo: Fuck your mother! You go eat shit! Kirsten Tsang: You defame people for eating dogs. When you died in your previous life, your body must have been tossed out in the wilderness to feed the dogs. Gutsy Hung: Anyway this is not how dog meat is sold. If you want to know, you ought to take a trip to the wet market in Guangzhou. - (InMediaHK) November 16, 2017. Ho Loy said that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department report did not convince her that the photos were that of the carcass of a dog. But she said that she saw the genuine outpouring of emotions of the owner Brother Kon on television and believed that he was truthful. Thus, she was willing to apologize to him. She asked him to be magnanimous and appreciate animal rights protection. Ho Loy especially emphasized that she does not believe in the FEHD report: "The FEHD only knows how to bully small vendors and protect businesses." ... Hoy Loy said that she hopes that the owner Brother Kon would understand that putting the carcass out on the street makes people uneasy. It is also offensive for animal rights volunteers. Ho Loy said that vegetarians have physical reactions against animal carcasses, including discomfort. But they have to put up with this in Hong Kong. With respect to the Internet criticisms, Ho Loy said that she does not care about the costs of social activism, including jail time and judicial reviews. "I have no need to seek exposure. I am sufficiently well known. I have no political or economic interests. I have enough things to do already." Ho Loy believes that she is being targeted. "A lot of people want me dead." Ho Loy is a vegetarian. When asked about the difference between eating dog meat and eating lamb meat, she said that there is no difference because both are cruel and unethical slaughter. - Vegetables are living things too. If that head of lettuce was not picked out of the field, it would still be living nicely. Instead you are stuffing it into your mouth. This is so cruel and unethical. If you respect life, you should only ingest inanimate lifeless things (such as pebbles). - Many days of many critical comments at his Facebook finally led Roy Kwong to issue an "apology" that is a non-apology. Negative comments continued to flood his Facebook to demand his resignation. (Roy Kwong's Facebook) November 15, 2017.

Here is the signs that the public is angry at Roy Kwong:

- (SCMP) How hard can it be to simply say sorry? By Alex Lo. November 20, 2017. Sorry seems to be the hardest word. That’s especially so with Democrat lawmaker Roy Kwong Chun-yu and veteran “yellow-ribbon” protester Ho Loy. The two were instrumental in “exposing” a Yuen Long restaurant for selling dog meat for mutton. Thanks to their involvement, what could have been a minor incident was turned into a major news story in the Chinese-language media in the past few weeks. It turns out that no one was selling dog meat; the “mutton” really was mutton, according to a laboratory analysis of samples taken from the restaurant by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. After two weeks of silence, Kwong finally posted a short apology last week, but it was buried in his Facebook page, where he admitted his “handling of the incident was less than ideal”. That’s small comfort for the elderly restaurant owner who was reduced to tears after being chased by reporters. He said not only was business affected, he was afraid of going out ever since the exposé. Meanwhile, Ho offered an apology of sorts that sounded more like an accusation during a TVB interview. She said she regretted the incident, but questioned the accuracy of the government report. She said photos of the animal carcass in question that started the whole furore looked more like a dog than a sheep, even to “experts” consulted by her animal welfare group. Because she is a vegetarian, she said it was “not appropriate” for her to apologise. It’s not clear what she meant, though she did plead for understanding – for herself. “We in the animal welfare sector are very sensitive, though we never thought the whole incident would have gotten so serious,” she told TVB. “We hope [the restaurant owner] will understand that many of our citizens love Hong Kong and its core values. So let our citizens continue to treasure animals and treasure life.” What has this whole incident to do with our love of Hong Kong and its core values? How about the value of taking responsibility when you screw up or giving someone the benefit of the doubt before flaming them in public and making unsubstantiated accusations? The irresponsibility of people like Ho and her gang actually give animal welfare activists a bad name. The moral of this whole sorry saga? Woe to any ordinary citizens who find themselves in the cross hairs of our freedom-loving activists. [820] The Hole In The Cashier's Drawer (2017/11/11) (Wikipedia) In the past, the cashier puts all the money in a drawer. After the shop closes, the money is taking out of the drawer and taken to the bank. Money is proverbially stolen when someone opens a hole at the bottom of the cashier drawer through which money is dropped to the waiting hand. Today are many other methods to steal money from the company, so the term is now used to refer generically to crimes of defalcation/ embezzlement/misappropriation/peculation even though no cashier's drawer is involved. (SCMP) November 9, 2017.

Hong Kong’s youngest political party Demosisto, co-founded by student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, removed a core member from its standing committee on Thursday after he was found to have violated the group’s financial rules. Derek Lam Shun-hin, 24, also resigned from the party, which approved his application to withdraw from membership. No specific reason was revealed regarding Lam’s decision to quit. Demosisto was founded last year with Wong and disqualified lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung as its leaders. Lam was one of the eight standing committee members of the party and viewed as a core member after Law, the chairman, and Wong, its secretary general, were jailed in August over an unlawful assembly in the lead-up to the 2014 Occupy movement. In a short statement posted on its Facebook page on Thursday afternoon, Demosisto said Lam had violated party rules on financial matters. But the party said it did not suffer any financial losses. “After an internal investigation, the party found Lam had violated the conduct for party members and removed Lam from his duty as a standing committee member immediately,” the statement said. It added that Lam then applied to quit the party and the move was approved. “From now on, Derek Lam Shun-hin is no longer a member of Demosisto and his acts have nothing to do with the organisation,” the party said without elaborating on what Lam had done. Sharing the statement on his own Facebook page, Lam said he owed the party “too many apologies and thanks”. “No matter what, today is the beginning of a new journey,” he wrote. The theology student from Chinese University could not be reached for comment. Internet comments:

Greedy pig Derek Lam (spoof) - (Wen Wei Po) November 10, 2017. Derek Lam Shun-hin had "violated party rules on financial matters." This is going to be one of two things: (1) receiving outside donations personally without reporting it to the party; (2) using party financial resources without authorization. This is likely to have occurred while Nathan Law and Joshua Wong were in jail and left Demosisto leaderless. The only other recognizable name is Chow Ting, who does not have the stature to assert party leadership. If someone was taking advantage of this situation to profit personally, then his political morals are suspect and his political career is basically over. Demosisto has been raked with financial problems even before its founding. Previously Joshua Wong had the student organization Scholarism with a hefty war chest raised from donations since 2012. But since Joshua Wong and other members were getting older, they shut down Scholarism and transferred the money to the political party Demosisto and a student organization. (#492: What Happened To My Money? (2016/03/21)) Since then, nobody has heard from that other student organization. Meanwhile the money going to Demosisto is supposed to help pro-democracy activists who are in legal trouble. Of course, the first two priorities are Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong and chairman Nathan Law. So this is people helping themselves. Demosisto always raises money from the public 365 days a year. At the important dates (for example, July 1st), they usually raise the large amount of donations among the political parties. Since Demosisto does not have a bank account, all the money is deposited into the personal accounts. And they never explain where all the money is going. When you run a black box operation with zero transparency and accountability, it is a temptation to enrich yourself. - (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. November 10, 2017. - The imagination runs wild with the statement that party rules on financial matters have been violated. The unexplained problem is so grave as to warrant immediate (dismissal from the standing committee) + (resignation from the party). - Derek Lam must have done something to upset the Big Two (Joshua Wong and Nathan Law). Rather than an low-keyed exit with the standard excuse of needing to spend more time with the family, Demosisto told Lam that they will be taking the very public action of announcing the expulsion of Derek Lam from the standing committee due to financial irregularities. If Derek Lam wanted to stay, it would only be as an ordinary member who would not be allowed to speak for Demosisto. This forced Lam to resign. - What? They were so upbeat a couple of weeks ago, but now they boot Derek Lam out of the party? There has to be something going on behind this party with the biggest halo. - Power corrupts, money corrodes. The kids are fighting over power and money. - As you expect, the principals made their Facebook statements and have collectively gone underground and refused to answer all telephone calls, emails and text messages. - This is the Hong Kong definition of "shouldering political responsibility." In Cantonese, there is a saying . Literally it means that when you have to carry a heavy load, you can try to slope your shoulder down so that the load drops off and you are free! According to the Cantonese dictionary, this term is used to mean (1) shirt responsibility; shift the blame; (2) to get around the rules or avoid responsibility without it being obvious to the observer. The principals want to go underground for a few days. When they re-emerge, they will say that they have said everything that can be said about the old topic which is so passé already. Instead, they need to deal with the more urgent issue of Co-location (or whatever) because Hong Kong democracy is under imminent threat of extinction. Or something. - They can't wait that long. (Oriental Daily) November 11, 2017. They have already floated the news that Agnes Chow Ting intends to run in the Hong Kong Island Legislative Council by-election for Nathan Law's vacated seat. Previously the rumor was that their candidate would be Nathan Law's girlfriend Tiffany Yuen Ka-wai. - When Demosisto was founded, the big names were chairman Nathan Law, secretary-general Joshua Wong, deputy secretary-general Agnes Chow and vice-chairman Oscar Lai. This year at the annual Demosisto elections, Joshua Wong barely made the vote of confidence while Agnes Chow failed to be re-elected as vice secretarygeneral. Previously Oscar Lai had resigned from Demosisto. Ivan Lam ran for vice-chairman but failed to get enough votes. Joshua Wong and Nathan Law may be going to jail to complete their sentences. They have more cases coming from (such as Joshua Wong for the contempt of court case in Mong Kok). Demosisto is a deeply troubled organization. - Yes, it is time to talk about Agnes Chow's hairdo again: (Wen Wei Po) June 4, 2016. In the past, people have made fun of Agnes Chow's greasy hair. For this protest, Agnes Chow brought a professional photographer. The mission was highly successful because the ten or so photos on her Facebook drew a lot of attention. These photos managed to remove even any reflections under the noontime sun. The photos were taken the day before, and it took one day's professional handling before they got posted on her Facebook yesterday. For her effort, Agnes Chow got blasted by Internet users for insincerity and showboating. - There is a Chinese saying

(We can only be friends in times of trouble, but not in good times). When we have next to nothing, we can share whatever we have; once we start having money, we can start squabbling over how to share the wealth. Do we agree on what are fair shares? Is anyone stealing from the till?

- Violation of party rules on financial matters? No financial losses were suffered? ... This can mean anything -- it can be outright embezzlement but paying back after being caught; it can be writing a check but jotting down an incorrect check number; it can be putting the donation money into his own personal banking account and forgetting to tell the treasurer (as was the case of Leung Kwok-hung); ... What is it that cannot be told publicly? Inquiring minds want to do but they will never tell. - In Hong Kong, the most typical "improper financial handling" situation is that the restaurant manager closes shop at night, takes the day's receipt out, rides the late night Turbo Jet to Macau, plays at the casino, takes the morning Turbo Jet back to Hong Kong, puts the money back in the safe and opens shop. - Alternately, somebody just gave you a sure-win stock or horse tip and you "borrowed" the money from the company for a short time. - (SCMP) After visiting New York with Wong in August this year, he wrote an article for The New York Times titled “I won’t make Jesus bow down to Xi Jinping”, which earned him foreign attention. - (Apple Daily) October 1, 2017. While the two big Demosisto honchos Nathan Law and Joshua Wong were stewing in jail, Derek Lam traveled to England. At an Europaeum forum on academic freedom in Oxford University (chaired by Oxford University chancellor and former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten), Derek Lam spoke on behalf of Joshua Wong. Lam declared that Hong Kong has become an authoritarian, even dictatorial, city. Young people there only wanted freedom of expression and democracy, but they are facing punishment and jail. The other speaker was former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski. He said that the results are more important than great ideals. Today many western countries support the One China principle. If the people of Hong Kong reject Chinese sovereignty in Hong Kong, they will lose the support of these western democracies and thus set back the progress of democracy in Hong Kong. The Polish people learned only after many setbacks that the most radical elements among them were in fact deliberately instigated by the government. - "The most radical elements were in fact deliberately instigated by the government"? Indeed, how else can you explain the rise of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching/Edward Leung and the demise of Localism? - Does the financial problem of Derek Lam have to do with this trip to England? He may have used Demosisto money for the trip, got reimbursed by the sponsors but neglected to pay back Demosisto. When the question came up a month later, he had no plausible excuse. He can pay them back, but the trust is forever lost. - Or perhaps it was just jealousy at how Derek Lam became elevated from "gofer"/"hanger-on"/"bit player" to "Leader of the 'Umbrella Movement'" while the Big Two were in jail.

- (SCMP) Lam was charged over the Mong Kok clashes last year but walked free after prosecutors cited lack of evidence and withdrew the charge of rioting. - What was more interesting is what happened afterwards, because it illustrates Derek Lam's financial management skills (=nil): After the charges were withdrawn, Derek Lam filed for legal costs against the government. (Weixin.qq) On May 10, Derek Lam appeared in court to file for $700 in legal costs covering transportation costs to the courthouse ($600) and photocopying ($100). The magistrate noted that Lam's lawyer Alvin Yeung (Civic Party legislative councilor) had submitted bills in the previous court appearance for two trips (both from the Chinese University of Hong Kong to the Kowloon City Court House) (see map).

However on this day in court, Derek Lam himself submitted bills for two trips (both from Sai Wan to the Kowloon City Courthouse) totaling $600 (see map).

The magistrate expressed his skepticism because the costs and points of origins were so different. Derek Lam was sworn in as a witness and stated that his memory was faulty. He said that the most recent bill is the correct one. However, the magistrate pointed out that on the first trip in the most recent bill, Lam had been transported from Sai Wan to the Kowloon City Court House by the police so that there cannot be any question of taxi charges! The defense then revised the transportation fees from $600 down to $450. The magistrate was incensed by the nonchalant attitude of the defense, and said that there was no way to tell which version was true (or maybe all the versions were lies!). The magistrate said that Lam's credibility at this time is nil. In the end, the magistrate allowed only $190 in legal fees, covering photocopying charges and one trip from/to Sai Wan by public transportation (either bus/mini-bus). Afterwards, Derek Lam met the press and gave this statement (Oriental Daily): (Verbatim translation) Actually I ... the magistrate also said ... that is, I am not credible ... or making false testimony ... I am also ... let me put it this way ... I am somewhat concerned that such a conclusion may come about. I think ... eh ... of course, I must admit that I made a mistake ... that is, I was not emotionally prepared ... that there is some discrepancy in the documents that were submitted ... I was in a situation of making a sworn testimony to testify ... actually, I believe ... that is, I gave sworn testimony in order to testify ... actually, I feel that this is completely different from making false testimony ... yes ... that's my conclusion ... actually, today ... today, I especially said that I took a taxi from Sai Wan to come here ... it was also around $150 ... $147 ... actually ... what I gave ... the figures that I gave my lawyer to hand in ... they are completely accurate. This is vastly different from giving false testimony ... the so-called intentional deception of the court ... of course, I need to admit that I do have a mistake in this ... the documents that were submitted the last time had not been rigorously prepared ... that was my problem. [819] AP: Joshua Wong On China Rise (2017/11/08) (Associated Press) November 1, 2017. Young Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong warned Wednesday that China's rise means human rights are in increasingly greater danger of being overshadowed globally by business interests. He was responding to questions about his expectations for an upcoming Asian tour by U.S. President Donald Trump, who will visit China and four other countries. The 21-year-old Wong, Hong Kong's most famous activist, is out on bail while he appeals a prison sentence related to his involvement in massive 2014 pro-democracy protests. "Business interests override human rights," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It unfortunately seems to be a common trend in the world" under a rising China. During Trump's Asian trip, he said there's likely to be "a lot of uncertainty. No one can expect what will suddenly be published on his Twitter." But he urged Trump to not let human rights lose out to commercial considerations, hinting that U.S. business interests could also someday be directly affected by China's rising clout. As an example, he referred to the recent case of British human rights activist Benedict Rogers, who was barred from entering Hong Kong on what many suspect to be Beijing's request, and said it might happen again. "The day may come for U.S. politicians to be blocked from entering Hong Kong and when politicians or businessmen from the U.S. might not be possible to enter such an international financial center, how can they keep silent on the erosion of Hong Kong autonomy?" he said. Beijing promised to let Hong Kong maintain wide autonomy and civil liberties after its 1997 handover from Britain under the "one country, two systems" blueprint, but pro-democracy activists and lawmakers fear that China's Communist rulers are reneging on their pledge. Wong urged the U.S. and other Western countries to pay closer attention to "how the China model threatens Asia-Pacific stability." The China model is a reference to economic development without corresponding democratic reforms, as well as the name of a controversial booklet praising China's one-party rule that the Hong Kong government planned to distribute in 2012 to schools as part of "moral and national education." Wong helped lead protests that forced the government to shelve those plans. Internet comments:

(TIME) How China’s Economy Is Poised to Win the Future. By Ian Bremmer. November 2, 2017. President Trump has plenty of work to do during his 10-day tour of Asia in November. In Japan and South Korea, he must reassure nervous allies that an “America first” foreign policy does not mean the U.S. has ceded regional dominance to China. In Vietnam and the Philippines, he has to communicate deep U.S. interest in balancing China’s influence in Southeast Asia. But the most important stop will be in Beijing, where Trump will meet President Xi Jinping for the first time since the Chinese leader heralded a “new era” in global politics at his pivotal party congress in October. Trump will try to project strength while calling for closer cooperation on North Korea and on resolving trade disputes. But he arrives at a moment when China, not the U.S., is the single most powerful actor in the global economy. The Chinese authoritarian-capitalist model wasn’t supposed to survive in a global free market, let alone thrive. As recently as five years ago, there was consensus that China would one day need fundamental political reform for the state to maintain its legitimacy and that China could not sustain its state capitalist system. Today China’s political and economic system is better equipped and perhaps even more sustainable than the American model, which has dominated the international system since the end of World War II. While the U.S. economy remains the world’s largest, China’s ability to use state-owned companies to boost the party’s domestic and foreign influence ensures that the emerging giant is on track to surpass U.S. GDP in 2029, according to the Center for Economics and Business Research. The U.S. is hardly irrelevant. The dollar remains the global reserve currency, an exorbitant privilege that will likely last for years to come. Wealthy Chinese continue to invest in U.S. real estate and send their kids to U.S. schools. But the pillars of U.S. power–its military alliances, its trade leadership and its willingness to promote Western political values–are eroding. At the same time, the leaders of other emerging powers–not just Russia but also democracies like India and Turkey–are following China’s lead in building systems where government embraces commerce while tightening control over domestic politics, economic competition and control of information. This process has been in motion for many years, but China now has its strongest leader in decades, and the U.S. has its weakest. Americans and Europeans have always assumed that the long arc of human development bends toward liberal democracy. What if they’re wrong? ... To argue that China’s system is better able to withstand the shocks of today’s world is not to claim that it’s better for those who live within it. Political repression and the lack of rule of law in China create injustice at every level of society. As local governments and companies in China struggle with debt, the state’s ability to bail them out is not inexhaustible. Despite its investments in new technologies, automation and machine learning will displace large numbers of Chinese workers over time, creating long-term risks of social unrest. But for the foreseeable future, China is likely to remain strong and stable. Its international presence will continue to grow, and it is not short of ambition. In October, Xi said it was time for China to “take center stage in the world.” The China striding into that spotlight is not guaranteed to win the future. In this fragmenting world, no one government will have the international influence required to continue to set the political and economic rules that govern the global system. But if you had to bet on one country that is best positioned today to extend its influence with partners and rivals alike, you wouldn’t be wise to back the U.S. The smart money would probably be on China. - (Bastille Post) November 7, 2017. Here is an interesting issue to ponder. Is a democratic system with balance of powers (executive, legislative and judicial, plus press) good at monitoring the government? Or is a highly-efficient dictatorial political party more effective at monitoring itself? So far, we have seen that Asian countries such as Thailand and the Philippines have implemented western democracy for decades without being able to root out corruption or bring about rapid economic development. Meanwhile China's self-correcting Communist Party is able to make huge progress in cleaning out corruption while leading the world to economic progress. Those who want to see China fail are going to be more and more disappointed. - Donald Trump was elected by universal suffrage (without civil nomination and with Russian help). Here is what he has done or plans to do: - (Washington Post) January 23, 2017. President Trump’s cancellation Monday of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with Asia began recasting America’s role in the global economy, leaving an opening for other countries to flex their muscles. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations said: “It leaves our allies and trading partners in the lurch. It does create strategic opportunities for China.” - (Fortune) November 3, 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a massive overhaul of the tax code and spending priorities—and nothing short of a boon to the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It was just a week ago that House Republicans passed a budget proposal that paved the way for this tax cut plan. That budget included nearly $6 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other public services. - (Rolling Stone) May 25, 2017. Twenty days after House Republicans voted on the American Health Care Act – their plan to replace Obamacare – the Congressional Budget Office finally finished assessing what the bill would do if enacted. According to the nonpartisan agency, 23 million fewer people would be insured in 10 years, the deficit would see a moderate reduction, individuals with preexisting conditions would lose coverage in certain states and the elderly poor would see massive increases in their health care costs. - (VOX) September 29, 2017. During the campaign, Donald Trump made what seemed like an outlandish promise at the time. “I will build a great, great wall on our Southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall," he said in his announcement speech. Mexico already said it is not paying for the wall, and congressional Republicans haven’t been successful in passing funding either, but the Trump administration’s plans to build the Southern border wall are already well underway. - Le Monde (France): China, a strong nation rising

- Der Spiegel (Germany): Wake up!

- Every single theoretician of Hong Kong independence agrees that armed rebellion is out of the question here, because there are no guns, no army and not many people actually willing to die futilely for the cause. Instead they are banking their hopes on the Coming Collapse of China. When China collapses, it is going to break into a number of smaller independent entities (such as Greater Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan, Guangdong/Guangxi, Greater North East China, Hong Kong, etc). Benny Tai quotes unnamed scholars who forecast that China is going to collapse really really soon and therefore we must seriously discuss and make plans for an independent Hong Kong. But now Joshua Wong is talking about a "rising China" whose upward trajectory of ascendancy has no end in sight. How is the theory of the path to Hong Kong independence going to be revised? - An alternative or a compliment to the Coming Collapse of China is the firm belief that the United States will help Hong Kong attain independence by economic pressure and military force. But on this trip, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump signed US$253 billion in trade deals (SCMP). Will the United States pass on this money for the sake of Joshua Wong, the Dalai Lama, Rebiya Kadeer, Benedict Rogers and Gui Min-hai? - US$253 billion = HK$2 trillion. This must be the biggest deal that the world has seen. Of course, the Hong Kong opposition will denigrate it by saying that the buyer is the Soon-To-Collapse China and therefore any inked deal is worthless. - Joshua Wong's political party "Demosistō "aims to achieve democratic self-determination in Hong Kong. Through direct action, popular referenda, and non-violent means, we push for the city’s political and economic autonomy from the oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and capitalist hegemony." (SCMP) April 10, 2016. In its manifesto, Demosisto stated it would hold a referendum in 10 years to let Hongkongers decide their own fate beyond 2047, when the principle of “one country, two systems” expires, and would adopt non-violent protest tactics. Joshua Wong Chi-fung, former convenor of Scholarism who is now the new group’s secretary, stopped short of backing independence, but stressed it should be one of the options listed in the plebiscite. The university student also said Demosisto would spend considerable time in lobbying international organisations on what he called the city’s right to self-determination. There is no referendum law in Hong Kong. If they went ahead to hold a referendum for self-determination/independence, it would be unconstitutional (see Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1) and unlawful. Hong Kong would be put right in the same place that Catalonia found itself with no support from the United States and the European Union. - Getting the support of Benedict Rogers, Chris Patten, the Dalai Lama, Rebiya Kadeer, Tsai Ing-wen and Shinzo Abe to support self-determination/independence is far from enough. - Hong Kong wants self-determination. That is to say, Hong Kong matters are up to the people of Hong Kong to decide. Outsiders keep out! (Hong Kong Free Press) November 7, 2017. A group of United Nations experts urged Hong Kong to respect the human rights of three democracy activists. “We fear that if their sentences are upheld, this will have the effect of stifling the expression of dissenting opinions, the right to protest and the overall work of human rights defenders,” Special Rapporteurs David Kaye and Michel Forst said in a joint statement issued from Geneva on Monday. “The international obligations that were recognized by the Hong Kong authorities require positive actions from the local Government to ensure a safe environment for members of civil society to express their opinions, to conduct peaceful demonstrations and to participate in public affairs,” they said. The experts also raised concerns that Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen had “previously intervened in the case, to apply for a change and review of the men’s original lighter sentences.” “We call on the Hong Kong authorities to respect the independence of judicial powers and the rule of law,” the experts said. The experts also expressed concern that the prosecutions reflected a broader assault on fundamental rights in Hong Kong and a tightening of control over the region by mainland authorities. “The case against these three activists highlights the deterioration of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in China, particularly Hong Kong,” they said. - We call on this group of United Nations experts to "respect the independence of judicial powers and the rule of law" in Hong Kong. Their statement from Geneva on Monday highlights outside interference of judicial processes in Hong Kong. - United Nations Human Rights: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. The above is frequently cited as universal standard/practice. Conveniently the following is always omitted: 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Similarly, there is article 21: The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right ... while omitting: ... other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. - (Associated Press) "Business interests override human rights," Joshua Wong said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It unfortunately seems to be a common trend in the world" under a rising China. During Trump's Asian trip, he said there's likely to be "a lot of uncertainty. No one can expect what will suddenly be published on his Twitter." But he urged Trump to not let human rights lose out to commercial considerations, hinting that U.S. business interests could also someday be directly affected by China's rising clout. - (CNBC) November 2, 2017. Here are the 29 business leaders headed to China with Donald Trump:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Mr. Seifollah Ghasemi, Chairman, President & CEO, Air Products Mr. Keith Meyer, President, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) Governor Bill Walker, State of Alaska Mr. Donald Chen, President, Asia-Pacific, Archer Daniels Midland Company Mr. Daniel Revers, Managing Partner, Arclight Capital Partners, LLC Mr. Mitch Snyder, President & CEO, Bell Helicopter, Textron Inc. Mr. Kevin McAllister, President and Chief Executive Officer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, The Boeing Company Mr. Jack Fusco, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cheniere Energy, Inc. Mr. Timothy Tangredi, President & CEO, Dais Analytic Corporation Mr. Frederick Jones, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Delfin Midstream, LLC Mr. Andrew Liveris, Executive Chairman, DowDuPont Mr. Luka Erceg, President & CEO, Drylet, LLC Mr. David Messer, CEO, Freepoint Commodities LLC Mr. John Rice, President & CEO, GE Global Growth Organization Mr. Shane Tedjarati, President, High Global Growth, Honeywell Mr. Vance Hum, President and Chief Executive Officer, I.M. Systems Group, Inc. Mr. Theodore Walker, CEO, Worldwide Property & Casualty, Partner Reinsurance Company of the United States Mr. Steve Mollenkopf, CEO, Qualcomm, Inc. Mr. Nick Lisi, Executive Vice President , SAS Mr. Kevin Smith, CEO, SolarReserve Ms. Li Zhao, Country Representative, Stine Seed Company Mr. John Garrison, President & CEO, Terex Corporation Mr. Langtry Meyer, Founder & Chief Operating Officer, Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC Mr. Paul Doherty, President and CEO, The Digit Group, Inc. Mr. Gianluca Pettiti, President, Thermo Fisher Scientific Mr. Jim Miller, Chairman, U.S. Soybean Export Council Mr. Paul Koenig, CEO, Viroment Mr. Jose Emeterio Gutierrez Elso, President & CEO, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC Mr. Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs

- Is Donald Trump bringing these people to China to discuss human rights? Is the Pope catholic? - (Boeing) September 6, 2017. Boeing (NYSE: BA), China's leading provider of commercial airplanes, projects a demand for 7,240 new airplanes in the country over the next 20 years valued at nearly $1.1 trillion dollars. If Trump/Boeing want to talk human rights in China, the contracts can go to Airbus. If Airbus also wants to talk human rights, China has its own Comac 919. Is there any use to talk human rights with China? If you try, they will tell you not to interfere with their internal affairs. It is none of your business, just as they don't mind your internal affairs. - (KTUU) September 27, 2017. The clock is running out fast on the latest of countless efforts to commercialize Alaska's massive natural gas reserves: the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation will be out of cash next year unless a large buyer is identified first, and policymakers grappling with a $2.5 billion budget gap are unlikely to throw more cash at the Alaska LNG Project ("AKLNG") without visible progress. Gov. Bill Walker championed the effort long before he assumed office three years ago and throughout his term has done his best to woo the biggest potential buyers. That is why the governor, yet again, finds himself in Asia this week. So is Bill Walker going to talk human rights in China and then see AKLNG being shut down after the cash runs out? - Here is the outcome of the summit meeting between Xi and Trump. (SCMP) November 9, 2017. Xi Jinping and Donald Trump signed US$253 billion in trade deals . This includes China Petroleum and Chemical's US$43 billion Alaskan natural gas exploration contract. Will the United States pass on this money for the sake of letting the people of Hong Kong hold an unconstitutional referendum on independence? - Should Donald Trump be bringing instead Benedict Rogers plus the leaders of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International PEN, Committee to Protect Journalists, Falun Gong, China Labour Bulletin, etc for this trip? Will they suffer the ignominy of being refused entry by Border Control? - Associated Press) "The day may come for U.S. politicians to be blocked from entering Hong Kong and when politicians or businessmen from the U.S. might not be possible to enter such an international financial center, how can they keep silent on the erosion of Hong Kong autonomy?" Joshua Wong said. - Look at how Joshua Wong constructed this sentence. He has no instance of a U.S. businessman not being allowed to enter such an international financial center. Therefore the first part of the sentence refers to the U.S. politicians and the second part smuggles in the businessmen alongside the politicians. If a businessman wants to come to Hong Kong to do business, he won't be stopped. If a politician wants to come to Hong Kong to do politics, he just may not be admitted. For example, Benedict Rogers came to Hong Kong to start his NGO Hong Kong watch and he was refused entry because he posed a security threat. If Senator Marco Rubio wants to come to Hong Kong, he may be refused entry too for wanting to use the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to destabilize Hong Kong. The pieces in the sentence -- (1) politicians; (2) businessmen; (3) international financial center; (4) Hong Kong autonomy -- don't go together at all. For example, why must U.S. politicians be guaranteed entry into international financial centers everywhere? It is accepted as universal standard for sovereign nations to operate border control on their own. Why are U.S. politicians (and businessmen) exempt? - (The Guardian) November 3, 2017. More than 50 prominent international authors have written a letter to Chinese president Xi Jinping urging him to free Liu Xia, the wife of deceased Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. The letter, signed by Chimamanda Adichie, Philip Roth, Margaret Atwood, Tom Stoppard and George Saunders, appealed to Xi’s “conscience” and “sense of compassion” to release Liu Xia, who has been under house arrest since 2010 despite never being accused of any crime. The letter signed by 52 literally and theatre figures was organised by PEN America, a group that advocates for freedom of expression around the world. It was also signed by Teju Cole, Louise Erdrich, Michael Chabon, Chang-rae Lee and Stephen Sondheim. The group also opened the letter to signatures from the public. “On his upcoming visit to Beijing, we hope President Trump will voice the United States’ concern about the inhumane and unjustifiable detention of a poet who has been accused of no crime,” said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America. Trump will visit Beijing from November 8 to 9, but experts doubt he will raise the case of one of China’s most prominent political prisoners. - No response so far from Xi Jinping on this letter from 'more than 50 prominent international authors.' If Donald Trump does bring the subject up, he'll be told not to interfere with China's internal affairs. - Interesting list leads to an interesting question: Does Xi Jinping have Philip Roth or Margaret Atwood for bedtime reading? Well, I actually might because they write somnolent stories ... - (The Guardian) The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming. November 3, 2017. When UN climate negotiators meet for summit talks this month, there will be a new figure on the table: 3C. Until now, global efforts such as the Paris climate agreement have tried to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. However, with latest projections pointing to an increase of 3.2C by 2100, these goals seem to be slipping out of reach. One of the biggest resulting threats to cities around the world is sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of water at higher temperatures and melting ice sheets on the north and south poles. Scientists at the non-profit organisation Climate Central estimate that 275 million people worldwide live in areas that will eventually be flooded at 3C of global warming. 8.4 million people in Hong Kong will be flooded. Other flooded cities include Alexandria (3.0 million), The Hague (2.5 million), Miami (2.7 million), Rio de Janeiro (1.8 million), Osaka (5.2 million) and Shanghai (17.5 million). - What is the contribution of Donald Trump? (Huffington Post) U.S. Alone in Climate Denial. November 7, 2017. Syria took a break on Tuesday from its gruesome six-year civil war to announce plans to sign the Paris climate agreement, leaving the United States as the only country to reject the emissions-cutting deal. The non-binding Paris accord, through which signatories pledge to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases over the coming decades, was brokered in 2015, when the annual conference was held in the French capital. The deal was considered historic because it was the first climate agreement to include the U.S. the world’s biggest historic emitter, with by far the largest per-capita carbon footprint and China, which currently produces the most carbon pollution on a national level. The U.S. took a lead role in shaping the deal. But President Donald Trump, who rejects scientists’ warnings about climate change, announced plans to withdraw from the pact in June, insisting developing nations received more benefits and the U.S. got none. In his announcement which, under the terms of the deal, fully can’t go into effect until November 2020 Trump seemed to conflate the accord with a trade deal, demonstrating what was widely described as a poor understanding of how the Paris agreement actually works. “Like the playground bully that eventually loses all his friends, Donald Trump has isolated himself on the world stage,” Joe Ware, a spokesman for the charity Christian Aid, said in a statement. “When even Syria, with all its problems, can see the sense of a global climate agreement it really shows how ideologically wedded to climate denialism the US Republican Party has become.” [818] Martyrs of the Umbrella Counter-Revolution - Part 2 (The Case of Frankly Chu King-wai) (2017/11/07) (YouTube) (DBC) Police Superintendent Frankly Chu King-wai hit a pedestrian on the back of the neck with a baton (YouTube) (Apple Daily)

(SCMP) November 6, 2017. A retired senior police officer on Monday denied striking a bystander with a baton during Hong Kong’s 2014 Occupy protests and said he was merely exercising his lawful powers to disperse an unruly crowd. Frankly Chu, 57, broke his silence with a handwritten English police statement that was revealed at Eastern Court, where the former superintendent is facing one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He denies the charge, saying he never intended to hurt anyone. “I am devastated with the decision to charge me after more than 35 years of loyal and dedicated service,” the officer said in the statement, which he wrote upon his arrest on March 27. “This predicament is very saddening. “The act for which I am charged ... was a conscious decision I made as a senior officer in good faith, and I honestly and genuinely believed that reasonable force was needed to disperse the unruly crowd, of which the alleged victim was believed to be an active member. I will vigorously defend myself and clear my name in the court of law, which I have absolute trust in.” On Monday, Chu arrived at court backed by members of the Alliance in Support of Our Police Force. He was seen taking notes and going through documents as Daniel Marash SC opened the prosecution case against him. It was alleged the former Sha Tin divisional commander struck Osman Cheng Chung-hang on the back of the neck with a baton on November 26, 2014. Officers were exercising crowd control outside Shanghai Commercial Bank on Nathan Road in Mong Kok at the time. On Monday, Chu arrived at court backed by members of the Alliance in Support of Our Police Force. He was seen taking notes and going through documents as Daniel Marash SC opened the prosecution case against him. It was alleged the former Sha Tin divisional commander struck Osman Cheng Chung-hang on the back of the neck with a baton on November 26, 2014. Officers were exercising crowd control outside Shanghai Commercial Bank on Nathan Road in Mong Kok at the time. “As I saw police appearing on my right, I felt my right shin kicked,” he testified. Cheng further recalled being hit by a police baton on his right elbow and the back of his neck, despite obeying instructions to walk on and telling officers he was only passing by. He did not see who it was that struck the blows. “I felt someone hit me. I pressed that spot and I felt slightly dizzy,” he said, while pointing to his neck, which drew laughter from the gallery. The court heard Cheng went to a doctor two days later in Sha Tin, who identified three injuries, including a horizontal, linear injury on the left of his neck. He was granted one day’s sick leave. “I was in pain,” Cheng said, when asked why he went to the doctor. “I could not turn [my neck] to the right ... I had to turn with my whole body.” The baton measured 59cm by 2.5cm, and weighed 350 grams. Under cross-examination by defence counsel Peter Pannu, Cheng said he was supported the Occupy movement and had spent the night at the Admiralty site for more than half of the protest. He also admitted sharing his experience on Instagram, with one of the captions reading: “Hongkongers would always rise again, you take Queen’s Road, I will take Lung Wo Road until you listen.” Cheng reported the attack to police on November 29, 2014, after learning the officer’s identity from newspaper reports and social media. Chu was arrested more than two years later on March 27 this year. There was no dispute over identity. The case against Chu hinges on whether the baton blow constituted reasonable use of force and whether Chu had honestly and genuinely believed it to be so. The officer claimed: “I was purely exercising my lawful powers under the Public Order Ordinance and Criminal Procedure Ordinance in the execution of my lawful and obligatory duties under the Police Force Ordinance – laws of the Hong Kong special administrative region.” He said the force he used was “proportionate and reasonable” as he had to disperse an “unruly and riotous crowd” and prevent crimes, as well as protect himself and his subordinates “who were exposed to harm”. “It was [necessary] to take action given that we were outnumbered and the crowd was violent and we did not have any other viable tactical options,” Chu said. “I had no intention of harming anyone.” News footage played in court showed a loud and chaotic scene in which officers were trying to disperse a crowd walking in front of the bank. Some officers in the five videos shown were seen hitting the crowd with their batons, while others were pushing people forward with their hands and circular shields. “Go, go,” several people are heard shouting. Among those hit by the baton was Cheng, who was seen immediately touching his neck while shielding a woman with his other hand. One video then cuts to an angry Cheng, who shouts with a curse: “I was just passing by, I was just passing by.” The defence is expected to challenge the videos, as Chu argued in his statement they did not “truly capture the violent moments” before he dealt the blow. The trial continues before Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai. (The Stand News) November 6, 2017. [9:15] Frankly Chu arrives in court. [9:30] Court begins. [9:45] The charge is read out. 57-year-old Frankly Chu is accused with assaulting Osman Cheng on the night of November 26, 2014 outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank, 666 Nathan Road, Mong Kok. Chu pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three news videos (from Ming Pao, DBC and Apple Daily respectively) as well as a police baton. [10:07] The prosecution presented the statement that Chu made to the police under caution. Chu said that he had acted lawfully based upon the need to stop crime and that there was no other alternative. He pointed out that the demonstrators attempted to charge the police cordon, so it was necessary to use appropriate force. Chu said that he had no political motive. His only purpose was to exercise his lawful duty to restore peace and order. [10:20] The Ming Pao video was played in court. The video showed people gathering in Mong Kok, with some of them charging onto Nathan Road. The police raised the red warning flag. Some people dashed across the street and were dispersed by the baton-wielding police officers. [10:24] The DBC video was played. Outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank, a white-shirted policeman believed to be Franklin Chu hit the waist of one person and the shoulder of another person with his baton. [10:27] The Apple Daily video was played. Many police officers chased people back onto the sidewalk. They also dispersed the crowd outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. The person believed to be Osman Cheng said: "Pok gaai, I was just passing by." The video showed a white-shirted police officer believed to be Frankly Chu hitting people with his baton. A TVB news video from the next day was played. The video showed demonstrators gathering and shouting at the police. The police raised the red warning flag. The police subdued some demonstrators on the ground and chased the people back onto the sidewalk. [10:47] The prosecution summoned 28-year-old Osman Cheng to satisfy. Marketing specialist Osman Cheng said that he was in Tsuen Wan at 10:30pm on the night of November 26, 2014. He took the MTR to Mong Kok. He knew that the clearance of Mong Kok took place the day before and he was concerned about the safety of his female friend Ms. Ma who was by herself in Mong Kok. At the time, Facebook was reporting people gathering in Mong Kok. Cheng was supposed to go to Admiralty. But when he learned that Ms. Ma was in Mong Kok, he told her that it was vey dangerous and so he got off in Mong Kok to accompany Ms. Ma. He arranged to meet her at the Mong Kok Bank Centre exit. The court saw the map that Cheng provided. He said that he met Ms. Ma at the Body Shop on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. Then they walked past the jeans store Apple Shop, crossed Argyle Street and turned west and stopped at the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Because they saw people gathering at the intersection of Argyle Street and Nathan Road, they stopped for 3 to 5 minutes out of curiosity. What were they doing there? Cheng said that Ma wanted to know what was going on, and Cheng merely kept her company. [11:28] Osman Cheng said that he and Ms. Ma heard some noise and then at least 20 people rushed towards them. He told Ms. Ma: "We have to leave. Leave quickly." Cheng and Ma turned east and left. At the time, they did not notice the police. As they left, a crowd headed towards. There was not much space to move, so they stood near the wall of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Less than a minute late, they saw the police chasing the crowd. That is, the police appeared on their right. The crowd dispersed after the police arrived. [11:50] Cheng said that when the police appeared on his right, he got kicked on the right shin by the police. In addition, he was hit on his right elbow. Before being hit, he told the police: "I am just a passerby." Was the right shin the first injury? Cheng said that the first two injuries occurred close in time, so he is not sure. He was hit from behind and from his right while he was looking in front. So he did not see what happened. Cheng said that when he reached the ATM machine at Shanghai Commercial Bank, he was hit by someone on his neck. How hard? He said that it was between "powerful and moderate." Where was he hit? He pointed to the right side of the back of his neck. What hit him? He said a baton. How did he react? He said: "I felt someone hit me. I put my hand on my neck. I felt a bit dizzy." But Cheng continued to walk. [12:21] Cheng said that a reporter asked him what happened. He said: "I only remember that I said angrily 'I was just passing by.'" Did he look back? He said that he turned around to look when his elbow was hit, but there were too many people around. When his neck got hit, he did not turn around because he felt dizzy. He took Ms. Ma eastbound down Argyle Street, crossed Sai Yeung Choi South and tried to take her away as quickly. When they reached Broadway, they split up. Cheng said that he wanted to go back to the Shanghai Commecial Bank to find the police officers who hit him. How can he find the police officers who he did not see hit him? Cheng said that he knew that the police officer who hit his elbow wore a blue shirt. He was unsuccessful. So he decided to follow his original plan to go to Admiralty. Someone saw that he looked hurt, and bought him iced coffee from the 7/11 store. He showed his neck and elbow injuries to them. After about 15 minutes, the people left. Cheng then proceeded to Admiralty. Why? Cheng said that he meets with the demonstrators in Admiralty every night. [12:50] Cheng testified that he went to work the next day. He did not see the doctor that day. He went to see a doctor in Shatin the next day because he felt pain whenever he turned his neck to the right. The doctor took photos of his injures. Later his friend asked the doctor for the photos. [12:53] The prosecution presented the photos. There was no dispute. Cheng said that there was only swelling but no discoloration on the neck. He agreed that the photo did not reveal any injury. [14:30] Cheng identified another photo as showing the reddish injury on his elbow. Cheng believed that it was caused by a police extensible baton. The prosecution presented the doctor's report. Cheng said that the neck injury lasted for a month. He told the doctor that he could not move his neck. After applying anti-inflammation medication, he was able to move normally after one month. Cheng said that he lodged a complaint on November 29, 2014 at the Wanchai Police Station about his three injuries. He said that he learned the names of the police officers who hit him from the newspapers. Cheng said that he got legal advice and was given videos from Ming Pao, Apple Daily and DBC. He confirmed that the videos reflected what was happening at the time. [15:10] The prosecution played the DBC video. Cheng confirmed that he was the person in the white shirt and the female on his left is his friend Ms. Ma. At the time, he said: "Don't hit me. I am just passing by." The prosecution asked Cheng whether he did anything that would cause the police to hit him. He said no. As for his shin injury, Cheng admitted that the videos do not show how it came about. With respect to the video of a white-shirted policeman hitting a person on the neck, Cheng confirmed that it was his left hand holding his head. Did he disobey any police instruction? Cheung said: "I did not disobey." The Apple Daily video was played. Cheng was heard to say: "Pok gaai, I am just passing by." Did the videos reflect what happened? Cheng agreed. [15:27] During cross-examination, the defense asked for certain details from Cheng, such as his place of birth. Was he born in China? Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai interjected: "China or Hong Kong, part of China?" Cheng said that he was born in Shanghai and attended primary school in Hong Kong. He was a degree in creative media and was a Social Media Copywriter in Kwun Tong at the time. At the time, he was taking part in Walk In The Dark in Tsuen Wan as a team-building exercise. Was he an activist or supporter of Occupy Central? Cheng said "supporter." So he is not a radical (without implying any criticism)? Yes. The defense presented Instagram information and asked Cheng whether he was the person in the photos. One of the photos was annotated: "The place i belong to the fade (fate) I fight for 23rd night." Was this the 23rd night of Occupy Central? Cheng said that he spent the night in the Occupy Central tents in Admiralty at least half of the 79 nights. The defense showed another text: "Hong Kong will never die. If you take Admiralty Road, I will take Lung Wo Road until you hear my demands." Cheng said that it was not as strong as it sounds now. "Right now, 'take' seems to imply violence." The defense asked whether Cheng agreed with the expansion of Occupy Central to Mong Kok in October. "Take the fight to mong kok"? Did he and his group moved to Mong Kok? Cheng said no. The defense asked Cheng asked whether he knew that the police attempted to remove the barricades at the intersection between Argyle Street and Nathan Road on October 17, 18 and 19? Cheng said that he does not remember. Cheng wrote "conflict, but we win finally" and "Mong Kok, Hong Kong." Does this represent his recollection and opinion of what happened? Cheng said yes. Was there a conflict with the police on October 18? Cheng said no. Did the police clear Mong Kok on October 18, but it was re-occupied on October 18? Cheng said that the defense can look up the news report. "This is a matter of fact, right?" What is this 'conflict' as in "conflict, but we win finally"? Cheng said that this was the conflict between the government and the people. Do you mean the conflict that was caused by the clearance? Cheng said that it referred to the overall movement. The magistrate asked: "This is one-person-one-vote universal suffrage"? Cheng said yes. On October 18, some people re-occupied those streets. Was Cheng one of those people? Cheng said no. "We win finally" means that the demonstrators defeated the police and retook the streets? Cheng said no. [14:30] The case will continue tomorrow at 9:30. (Apple Daily) November 6, 2017. Senior counsel Peter Pannu cross-examined witness Osman Cheng. He began by asking whether Cheng regarded himself as an activist or supporter of Occupy Central. Cheng said the latter. The defense t hen produced a large number number of Cheng's Instagram posts. Cheng was asked to read the sentence: XX ("I am in a hurry to get off work. I am going to assault the fucking cops.") The magistrate stopped the question and asked why it was relevant to the case. The defense explained that it raises the suspicion that Cheng was an extremist who was there to provoke a clash and that Cheng is untrustworthy in that he may be faking the injury for political gains. Finally the magistrate permitted the question but asked Cheng not to read it aloud because the sentence contained an obscenity. (The Stand News) November 7, 2017. [9:40] Osman Cheng continues to be cross-examined. Cheng's Instagram post contains the terms "Mong Kok, Hong Kong" and "the 59th night." The 59th night of Occupy Central is October 25. On that day, Cheng's Instagram contained "Veteran policeman 9041, I will fucking remember you for fucking kicking me", "I am okay and back in Admiralty; thanks to the First Aid in Admiralty for their help; 9041, I will fucking remember you!" and "Photo: showing the bandage on the shin position." The defense asked Cheng whether a court injunction had been issued on November 25, 2014 and that he was in Mong Kok. Cheng said that he should based on the Instagram records. The defense wondered why he only remembers after the defense produced the Instagram information. Cheng said that this happened three years ago and he cannot be sure on which days he was in Mong Kok. "I have to check social media to remind myself." Cheng said that he had to go to work on November 25. So he must have gone to Mong Kok after work. He does not remember where police officer #9041 assaulted him and he did not file a police report either. Why not? Many people have filed police report but it was all wasted efforts. The November 26th incident involving Frankly Chu had a lot of video evidence, so he decided to file a police report then. He did not file until he had the evidence. Cheng admitted that he did not inform his lawyer about being assaulted by police office #9041. He said that he did not obtain the service of the lawyer at the time. [10:00] The defense questioned Cheng about his shin injury. Cheng said that he limped around but things got better after he put ice on the injury. He said that the situation was better overnight and therefore he did not tell the doctor when he sought help for his injuries. The defense questioned whether he used his prior injury to malign the police officers who were clearing Mong Kong on the next day. Cheng completely rejected this assertion. The defense said that Cheng told the police that his shin injury was very painful. He limped around for two days and the pain was there after four days. But according to the news video from that night, Cheng showed no sign of limping. Cheng agreed. He said that he was not limping yet a minute after being kicked. He said: "Everybody has been injured before. The pain does not appear immediately." The defense said that Cheng told the police that he began to limp when he reached New Town Mall (corner of Argyle Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South). Cheng said that he does not remember when he began to limp, but he was limping by the time that he reached Crocodile Shirt/Broadway (on Sai Yeung Street South). The defense questioned whether Cheng was making up an explanation as to why he was not limping in the video. Cheng asked the defense lawyer whether he knew the distance between the Shanghai Commercial Bank and Arg yle Street. The magistrate interrupted and said that a witness is not allowed to pose a direct question to the defense lawyer. [10:49] The defense questioned Cheng about his route that night. Photos of the locations were shown. Why did Cheng meet up with Rose Ma at the Body Shop and then walked northwards along Sai Yeung Choi Street South? Why didn't they turn left to go to Wai Fung Plaza and then cross the street to the Shanghai Commercial Bank? Cheng said that he was walking with Ms. Ma and did not know why she chose this particular route. He thought that it was too crowded to walk over to the Wai Fung Plaza. The defense said that there was a large group of people who share the common purpose of wanting to occupy the roadway. They went over to the Shanghai Commercial Bank because there was no space over at the Wai Fung Plaza. Cheng disagreed. The defense questioned why the two did not use the MTR underpass. Cheng said that Ms. Ma was already above ground. When he called, she said to meet up at the Body Shop without telling him where they were going. So he did not use the MTR underpass. [11:15] The defense said that Cheng claimed yesterday The that there were not a lot of people on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. However, the police videos showed that there were a lot of people at 8:43pm on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. The magistrate interrupted and said that the incident occurred after 10:00pm and Cheng was not at the scene at 8:43pm. The police video showed that between 8:47pm and 8:51pm, a lot of people were on the street shouting slogans and taking photos. A number of shops lowered their gates. The defense asked Cheng whether this was what he saw when he arrived at about 10:00pm. Cheng said that he did not walk in that direction. When Cheng got out of the MTR station, the section of Sai Yeung Choi Street South between Nelson Street and Shan Tung Street was only 1/3 to 1/4 full. A TVB news video was played, showing that people were still gathered around Sai Yeung Choi Street and Soy Street at around midnight. [12:15] The defense asked Cheng to confirm that a certain Instagram post was made by his female friend Rose Ma. Cheng said that he does not know. The magistrate said that the post was not made by Cheng and is therefore hearsay evidence. The defense said that the post proves that it was a lie for Cheng to say that he went to Mong Kok because of a telephone call from Rose Ma. The defense said that Rose Ma did not call him, but he ran into Rose Ma in Mong Kok by chance. Cheng said that he totally disagreed. The defense said that the police wanted to find Rose Ma and asked Cheng for the contact information but Cheng refused. Cheng acknowledged that this was true but denied that he refused to provide the information because he was afraid that Rose Ma might expose his lie. [12:45] The defense asked Cheng to confirm that he posted on Instagram on November 26, 2014: "Finished with work. Let me hurry down to Mong Kok and fucking beat up the police." Cheng confirmed it. He explained that he only wanted to calm himself down, because he was just beaten by the police. "I wanted to do something for diversion, not to focus on my anger." The defense said that many citizens were involved in assaulting police officers on November 25 and 26? Was Cheng one of them? The magistrate informed the witness that he does not need to answer this question because it implies criminal culpability. Cheng said later that he did not assault or otherwise make physical contact so as to injure police officers. The defense asked Cheng to clarify just where people were rousing trouble. Cheng said that it was near New Town Mall. The defense asked exactly how long he stayed before he turned around. Was there anyone in front of the bank when it happened? Cheng said that there were not a lot of people, not as many as shown in the videos. He said that these were citizens who wanted to know what was happening. The defense presented an Apple Daily video said to be unedited. There were people crossing the street outside Wai Fung Plaza. The time elapsed between this video and Cheng getting hit was only 38 seconds. [14:30] The defense played the rest of the Apple Daily video. The video showed Cheng telling the reporter twice that "I was just passing by." The defense asked Cheng to point out the exact spot where he was hit. Previously the witness said that he was unable to turn his head to the right after being hit. The video showed that when Cheng said "Pok gaai", he turned his head to the right. Cheng said that it was because he moved his entire body. The defense said that Cheng said that he had limited ability to move his head leftwards, rightwards, upwards and downwards. Yesterday in court he said that he had limited ability to turn leftwards for about a month. But in his statement to the police, he said ten days. So which is the truth? Cheng said that he had most trouble with turning rightwards and he had limited ability to move leftwards (but not as seriously). He may have mixed up right and left. The defense said that Cheng does not seem too sure what his neck mobility. In court, he said that he could not turn to the right; in his statement, he said that he could not turn rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards? Are you confused about your neck mobility? Cheng said that this was indeed weird, so he guessed that the police officer must have mixed up right and left when writing down his statement. The defense said that the second police statement said that there were restrictions rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards. When did this start? How long did it last? Cheng said that it began after he was hit and lasted 10 days. But this was not what he testified in court. The defense said that in Cheng's first police statement (taken down by another sergeant), he felt being hit by a hard object on the left of the back of his neck. The defense asked Cheng whether this sergeant made the same error (flipping right and left) as the other police officer. After all this, was Cheng hit on the left of the back of his head, or the left of the back of his neck, or the right of the back of his neck? Cheng said that the back of the head and the back of the neck are almost the same body part. As for left versus right, it has been three years so he may have been wrong in his court testimony yesterday. The two police statements were taken close to the time of the incident, and the medical report also said left-hand-side. So his memory may have been fault yesterday. Cheng said that he had limited mobility rightwards, leftwards, upwards and downwards for ten days. Afterwards, his right side still hurt. Three years now, "You ask me how long it lasted. I would answer that it lasted one month." At the time, a police officer wanted to examine his injury and take photos. Cheng refused. Cheng explained that a friend at a Solicitor's Officer told him that this was not necessary. Therefore he refused. [15:24] The defense asked Cheng whether he was aware that there were clearance actions in Mong Kok the night before. Cheng said that he knew that this was going to happen on November 26, and that was why he went looking for Ms. Ma because he was afraid of another Occupy. Are you saying that you afraid? Or worried? Cheng explained that he was worried about Ms. Ma. The defense said that if Cheng is worried about Ms. Ma, then why did they head towards the most troublesome intersection? Cheng disagreed. You stayed at the Shanghai Commercial Bank for three minutes and you had plenty of time to leave. Agree? Cheng said that it was normal for people to be rowdy. When the crowd charged over, I went with them. The crowd was trying to go from Wai Fung Plaza across Argyle Street to the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Actually, that section of the street had been blocked off by a police cordon. So what were they waiting around there for? Cheng said that it was only for three minutes. "Less than five minutes. Not enough for a cigarette." The defense said that the police used megaphone to inform the crowd that it was dangerous and people should leave. Cheng denied that this happened. The defense said that there was ample warning from the police that some sections are unsafe and people should leave. Cheng denied that this happened. Cheng said that he tried to cross Argyle Street to Wai Fung Plaza, but the police blocked the way. He said that a lot can happen in three minutes. For example, he can find out about what was happening and exchange information with other people. However, he does not now remember just what he actually did during the two to three minutes. [15:40] The defense said that the video showed Cheng leaned forward towards a police officer. Cheng asked to view the video again. The DBC video was played and paused at the moment when Cheng leaned forward. The defense asked whether the police officer might sense aggression. Cheng disagreed and said that he only wanted to ask the police officer not to hit him. The defense presented a screen capture and claimed that the police baton did not hit Cheng on the back of the head, neck or shoulder. Does Cheng agree? He disagreed. The defense showed a photo from Oriental Daily and said the police baton only touched the center of the shoulder blades and not the neck. Cheng disagreed. The defense asked whether Cheng went back to look for the police officer who hit him after seeing Ms. Ma off. Cheng said that he left Ms. Ma at Broadway and went back to look for that police officer. "I saw some uniformed police officers. I asked them: 'Do you hit people at will? Do you hit everybody?' He said that it was not a long argument because nobody bothered to respond. He left when he could not find the police officer who hit him. The defense said that Frankly Chu stayed at that corner until he came off duty in the early morning. Does Cheng agree? He disagreed. He said that the uniformed police officers had sealed off the road and he could not find Frankly Chu. The defense said that Cheng testified that someone gave him treatment at a first aid station at Exit D2 of the MTR station. In truth, there was no first aid station there. Cheng said that a certain group (not the government) had set up a first aid station. When the workers saw him, they asked him what happened. Cheng explained that he saw these people had all the first aid equipment and therefore he characterized them as a "first aid station." The defense said that Cheng went to see doctor for treatment and the doctor took some photos of his injuries. Cheng does not know how many photos were taken in total. The defense asked Cheng: "Do you agree that these four photos do not show your face?" Cheng agreed. The defense said that the person in these photos could be anyone? Do you agree? Cheng disagreed. [16:04] The defense said that the force applied was not "between powerful and moderate" as Cheng testified. Cheng said: "This is highly subjective. I don't know how to respond to you." The defense said that a serious injury would occur with "powerful to moderate force." The baton made contact with the back between the shoulder blades. Cheng disagreed. The defense said that Cheng heard the uproar and stayed at the bank for three minutes because he wanted to resist or block the police clearance. Cheng disagreed. The defense asked Cheng whether he agrees that he has placed inside a large crowd whereupon the police have no way to distinguish between radical demonstrators who want to charge the police cordon and the self-proclaimed passersby. Cheng said that he should not have to think about this. The defense wondered if Cheng willingly exposed himself to danger when the police begin clearance. Cheng disagreed. The defense asked Cheng is he exaggerated the pain and severity of his injuries. Cheng disagreed. The defense asked Cheng whether his anger at PC #9041 from the day before caused him to exaggerate his own case on November 26 in order to take revenge against the police. Cheng disagreed. [16:30] The prosecution began the redirect examination. Why did Cheng refuse to provide information on his companion Rose Ma? Cheng explained that that her boyfriend did not know she was in Mong Kok and she did not want to get involved in the case. Therefore she asked him not to provide her contact information to the police. The prosecution asked why Cheng stood outside the bank for two to three minutes when the crowd began the uproad. Cheng said that the police prevented him from crossing over to Wai Fung Plaza. At the same time, they were curious and wanted to know why the police sealed off the road. The prosecutor said that after Cheng got hit, he said that he would take Ms. Ma away and then come back to see who hit him. But the video showed that Cheng did not turn his head around after he got hit. So how would he know who hit him? Cheng explained that he recognized the blue-shirted policeman who hit him. Besides, he saw Frankly Chu hit other persons in front of him. The prosecutor asked whether he and Ms. Ma received police orders to leave. Cheng said no. He said that he saw the police hitting people with batons like as if they were herding sheep. So he went in that direction like the people in front of him. The prosecutor asked if he was following the crowd. Cheng said that it was a natural response to follow whoever who was pushing him. (The Stand News) November 8, 2017. [9:50] The prosecution summoned Dr. Alfred Yuen Hui-chiu to testify. Yuen confirmed that he examined Osman Cheng on November 28, 2014, two days after the incident. On December 1, Yuen wrote down a medical report based upon his notes and his recollection. Yuen recalled that Cheng came to see him at his office around 2pm on November 28, 2014. Cheng claimed that he was assaulted on November 26, 2015. Yuen described Cheng to be in good condition overall. Yuen found three wounds. The first one was some bruising about 2 centimeters in diameter on the right elbow. The second was some sideway swelling about 4 centimeters long on the left neck near the hairline. The third was on the right shin. Yuen confirmed that he used his mobile phone to take photos of Cheng's injuries. Four photos were presented in court. The prosecutor asked the witness to confirm that these photos were of the injuries on Osman Cheng. Yuen thought that there he only took three photos which he stored on his computer. Later he gave the photos to Cheng upon request and printed them out. Yuen said that Cheng did not say who assaulted him, nor where it happened. He only remembered Cheng saying that he was assaulted. [10:27] The DBC video was played in court. The video showed what happened outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank on that night. The prosecutor asked if the action in the video can cause the injuries that were found on Cheng. Yuen said that the spot that the defendant's baton landed was different from what he saw. The video was played again. The prosecutor asked Yuen where the baton landed. Yuen said that it was hard to tell from the video just where the blow landed. The prosecutor brought out a baton and asked Yuen to see if the injure could have been caused by the baton in the manner shown in the video.

Yuen was unsure, because Frankly Chu's downward action was different from the sideway swelling. The prosecutor said that Yuen's report only said that there was a swelling/pain on the soft tissue on the neck without stating the direction. So why does he say that the swelling is sideways? Yuen said that the magistrate had just asked whether it was downwards or sideways. Yuen looked at the photo and saw that it was sideways. [10:45] Under cross-examination, Yuen said that Osman Cheng did not appear to be uncomfortable or in pain that day. Cheng moved around normally. However, Yuen does not remember if Cheng told him that he was assaulted by the police. The defense said that Yuen checked that Cheng was able to move his neck upwards, downwards, leftwards and rightwards normally without pain. Yuen agreed. The defense asked about the laceration injury on the right shin. Yuen corrected the defense and said that it was an abrasion and not laceration. There was a scab but no open wound. Yuen pressed down on the position. Cheng did not complain of any pain. The defense said that Cheng told the police on January 21, 2016 about the shin injury. Given that a scab had formed, the injury must have taken place more than two days ago. Yuen confirmed that his persona experience that it would have been even longer ago. The magistrate asked Yuen if he can say that it occurred earlier than November 26? Yuen said: "If you ask me, I would say so." The defense said that Yuen testified that Cheng did not complain about any pains. Yuen said that he does not know if a patient feels pain. However, the patient did not tell him about any pains. He said that the examination took only 10 minutes. So he may not be able to ask too many things. Yuen said that he recommended the patient to go to an emergency room. Previously, he had seen many such injuries at the emergency room and most patients would go to the emergency room instead of a private clinic. The magistrate asked Yuen whether he thought emergency rooms are more rigorous and neutral than private clinics. Yuen said that he himself is rigorous, but other people may think that emergency rooms are more rigorous. The defense said that Yuen said many times that the injuries were very mild. In theory, there is no need for a doctor's note. However, Cheng insisted on getting a doctor's note to excuse him from work. Yuen said that he does not know why. [11:01] The defense lawyer then took out a police baton and banged it on a desk. The principal magistrate criticized the defense lawyer. The defense lawyer apologized and said that he wanted to know if a blow of that strength would have caused more serious injuries than he saw. Yuen agreed. The defense lawyer said that Cheng went to see Yuen two days after being injured. Is there enough time for the injuries to get better? Yuen said that if the injuries were mild and slightly reddish, then it is possible. But if the blow was of moderate to powerful strength, it would not be possible. [11:04] The prosecution had no questions for the re-direct examination. Yuen's testimony is done. [14:30] The defense made an interim summation. The victim Osman Cheng incorrectly testified about the location of his injury. Initially Cheng blamed the police officer who took his statement. Then he admitted that his memory must have been faulty. The injury on Osman Cheng was sideways but the blow was struck downwards. The magistrate asked about Cheng's reaction to the blow. The defense said that Cheng tried to shield his head out of fear. The defense said that Cheng went to see a doctor two days later and did not mention any neck pains. This was at odds with his court testimony that the pain lasted one month. This showed that Cheng was untrustworthy or exaggerated his injury. The prosecution said that there are two witnesses to the injuries (Cheng and Yuen). The photos and videos showed that the defendant wielded his baton powerfully, even though the video could not pinpoint the exact location of contact. Two days later, the doctor can still observe the injury signs which were therefore non-trivial. While the doctor said that the defendant did not mention any pain, the doctor does not know if there was no pain. The magistrate ruled that the evidence exists for the case. If the magistrate ruled to the contrary, the case would be dismissed immediately. But since the evidence exists, the hearing will continue with the defense presenting their evidence. [15:09] Frankly Chu was questioned by his lawyer first. Chu said that he joined the Hong Kong Royal Police on September 24, 1979. In March 1984, he was promoted to inspector. In 2006, he was promoted to superintendent. He retired effectively on July 23, 2015. He was with the Hong Kong Police for more than 35 years, mostly with the uniformed forces. In the 1980's, armed robberies occurred frequently. At the time, Chu was with the Police Tactical Unit. In the 1990's, there were a lot of riots involving Vietnamese refugees. In 2003 and 2004, he worked with the July 1st demonstration marches. In 2014, he was the commander during the July 1st demonstration march. At the 2005 WTO conference, he was involved with security in the operation wing. The last large-scale public event that he took part in was the 79 day Occupy Central movement. Chu said that he was on duty on November 25 and 26, 2014. During his career, he spent about nine years in the Police Tactical Unit. He has only worked as a trainer. In his last four years as superintendent, he was responsible for training and improvements of how the PTU handles public events. Chu said that the training included the use of CS tear gas. The court interpreter initially translated this as "poisonous gas." Chu clarified that this gas was not poisonous; it was non-lethal and not poisonous. The defense lawyer pointed out that tear gas had been used in September. The magistrate interrupted to say that this point was irrelevant. The defense lawyer said that the point was the tactic could not used again after September 28. Chu said that there was no clear order as such, but tear gas was not considered in all the action plans. The defense lawyer asked Chu about Operation Solar Peak. The magistrate interrupted again to say that this point was irrelevant. So the defense lawyer went on to ask about what happened on the failure of the clearance on October 17, 18 and 19, 2014. Chu said that the action took place between October 13 and 17, in Mong Kok as well as Causeway Bay. The main purpose was barricade removal. In Central, the police were able to open up Admiralty for traffic. On October 13, Jardine Street in Causeway Bay was re-oped for tram traffic. On October 17, the police cleared the northbound lane of Nathan Road in Mong Kok. But someone called for more people to come down to occupy the roadway in Mong Kok using violence. He remembered that when the cars began to go through Nathan Road, the spectators applauded. That night, 9,000 people were gathered in Mong Kok. This was the largest crowd in Mong Kok during the entire Occupy movement. These people charged the police cordon and clashed violently with the police. They successfully took back the street. Chu remembered that when he was on duty there a couple of days later, many citizens asked him: "Why did you open the road and then let them back?" Chu said that the Police was very tolerant and backed away from what the laws say. He asked to rephrase his statement by saying that there were many clashes, provocations and fights each day. The main objective of the police was not to let them occupy more streets and to restore public order if necessary. [15:45] The defense lawyer then asked about what happened on November 25. Chu said that the Chiu Luan Minibus Company had obtained a court injunction to clear the west bound lanes on Tung Hoi Street and Argyle Street with the help of the bailiffs. Before he went to work, he watched the news and learned that the clearance ran into difficulty in the morning. Several hundred people were gathered there to hinder the bailiffs and other workers. Finally the bailiffs requested police assistance at 2pm. Chu and other commanders received a briefing. They were told about what happened over the past 24 hours, especially about the progress of the clearance effort. At the time, several thousand people were gathered in Mong Kok already. These people said that they were there to defend the areas that were supposed to be cleared on November 26. Chu said that he was on duty between 7pm November 25 and 7am November 26. The atmosphere was highly charged and unstable. Crowds were gathered at various locations, occupying the streets or defending streets that have already been occupied. The crowds made many attempts to take over the streets again. Many of these people were masked. Although Chu was in Argyle Street, the police were actually running back and forth. The crowds across them wore masks, helmets and protective gear and armed with homemade shields and other tools. The police issued various warnings through the public media and at the scene, but the warnings were ineffective. The police had to resort to the use of force to restore public order. The defense lawyers asked Chu if he knew how many police officers were injured and how many people were arrested. Chu gave the numbers. Chu asked about the disturbance during the clearance on the morning of November 25. Certain persons including a man named Wong were arrested. Chu agreed. The magistrate interrupted to say that there are many people in Hong Kong named Wong. [16:19] The magistrate said that everybody knows what happened that night in Mong Kok. Therefore the defense lawyer should proceed to question Chu about the case instead of repeating admitted facts. The defense lawyer said that he wanted to establish that the defendant is truthworthy. [16:42] Chu said that he began workd at 3pm on November 26. A briefing took place at 7pm, mainly about what happened over the past 24 hours including the chaos on the night of November 25. Chu said that after the clearance allowed traffic to run normally on Nathan Road southbound and northbound as well as east-west on Argyle Street. This was the first time in 60 days. He emphasized that the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street was very important, because east-west traffic will be paralyzed if this intersection is taken over. Chu's duty that night was to defend this intersection. Chu said that his understanding was that this intersection must not be occupied under any circumstance, otherwise it will be a re-play of what happened over the past 60 days in Mong Kok. After the briefing, Chu went to debrief his subordinates. The police were equipped with helmets and guns that night. Sergeants and higher ranks have guns, extensible batons and pepper spray devices, plus a police baton. Chu said that this other baton is not riot gear. Chu said that the police baton is only issued to members of the first echelon and selected members of the second echelon. The use of this police baton require additional training of new tactics. The defense lawyer asked Chu to demonstrate. Chu said that it won't be necessary. Chu said that the baton tactic is used against a crowd of people who have their hands raised but pressing forward to the police cordon. The usage of the police baton depends on the knowledge, confidence and ability of the user. Chu said that the briefing said that more people will show up than the night before, and they are coming with the identical goal of re-occupying the streets. The court is in recess. Frankly Chu will resume his testimony tomorrow morning. (The Stand News) November 9, 2017. [9:43] Frankly Chu continued his testimony. He recalled that he arrived at the scene at 745pm. At the time, thousands of people were gathered in Mong Kok, mainly on Sai Yeung Choi Street South between Shan Tung Street and Dundas Street. Chu heard on police radio that the police had issued many warnings against those who want to dash out and retake Nathan Road by force. There had been many clashes and the police had to use force to restore order. Chu emphasized that this was "force in accordance." The police and the crowd were engaged in the seesaw battle. The police issued warnings to the crowd that they were in an unlawful assembly, but the crowd completely ignored them. Chu said that the police used megaphones to tell people that Mong Kok was unsafe and therefore they should leave. They also raised the red and orange warning flags to warn people not to cross police cordons. He said that innumerable number of warnings were issued that night all over Mong Kok. Chu followed orders from the command center and brought his company twice to provide support on Sai Yeung Choi Street. The disturbances continued all night. Apart from the main body of the crowd, there were also smaller groups causing trouble elsewhere in Mong Kok. [10:12] Why did the police have to seal off the pedestrian crossing just before the mob rushed over from Wai Fung Plaza to the Shanghai Commercial Bank? Chu said that the commander in a crowd control situation must monitor the crowd. On that night, the crowd was "hostile." They had a common purpose and can be loosely called an "organized crowd" because each one of them is influenced by what others are doing. Were there pedestrians? Chu said that many people were spectators at first. But they may suddenly jump in to join the attack the next second. "Therefore, in our eyes or my judgment, they are one single group. They are inseparable." Chu said that that this was not just his own personal opinion; it is crowd psychology and management as taught at the Police Tactical Unit. Chu said that most pedestrians will not stay for more than one minute in an area of disturbance, not to say 5 or 10 minutes. Chu said that through public media, social media, news reporting and live warnings, "everybody knew that there could be a disturbance at any second. Normal people should not be hanging around Mong Kok." The magistrate said that even if the police have warned people, there will always be some people who ignore the warnings. For example, television and radio will tell people not to go by the ocean under a Number 8 typhoon signal, but there will always be some people who go. Chu agreed. He said that some people will go surfing during a typhoon and face risks. It was the same in Mong Kok. If they knew that there might be disturbances and they still went, they are placing themselves in the middle of the situation. If the police take action and they are caught in the middle, then it is unavoidable. [10:28] How would Chu handle Argyle Street residents? Chu said that if he can confirm that someone is a resident nearby and needs to cross the police cordon, he will let them go through. Chu at around 10pm on November 26, the intersection between Nathan Road and Argyle Street was sealed off. Chu said that the main crowd on Sai Yeung Street South was pushing towards Argyle Street. Chu arrived at Argyle Street around 9pm with a large force sealing off Sai Yeung Choi Street South leading to Argyle Street. However, pedestrians were allowed to cross the street. Between 9pm and 10pm, hundreds of pedestrians up to cross Nathan Road between Wai Fung Plaza and the HSBC Bank. Every time that the pedestrian signal changed from red to green, hundreds of people crossed back and forth. During the process, many of them bent down to tie their shoe laces, dropped their coins and looked for them, or simply stood still and refused to walk. Chu said that the number of such pedestrians made it impossible for the cars to go through. Chu said that these people were concentrated on the Nathan Road pedestrian crossing between Wai Fung Plaza and the HSBC Bank. The situation with the Argyle Street pedestrian crossing between Wai Fung Plaza and the Shanghai Commercial Bank was less severe because the road distance was less. Overall, vehicular traffic was being impeded by such antics. The crowd was trying to deliberately cause obstructions and thus retake the streets. At first, the police advised them to move on. Then the police had to push them. Finally the police had to restrict the number of people who can cross each time. [11:12] Chu said that the police informed people that there are alternate routes to cross Nathan Road. Prior to the road closure, the crowd was screaming obscenities and chanting slogans. But they did not charge at the police. An hour later, the crowd began to get more excited. The defense lawyer asked Chu if the crowd was "aggressive"? The magistrate said that this was a leading question. Chu said that in police lingo, the crowd was in a state of "passive aggression." Chu said that the police was facing three groups of people at 1030pm. The first group was the large crowd on Argyle Street. The second group was on Nathan Road around Wai Fung Plaza. The third group was outside the HSBC Bank. At the time, the police reminded these people that they can use the MTR underground tunnel to cross Nathan Road, but the crowd did not budge. Chu pointed out that these three groups got more and more excited. Some of them tried to push their way onto the roadway but the police blocked them. During the process, some police officers took out their police baton to restore order. Chu said that the police used "check drill" or "posturing." The magistrate asked whether they really made contact with the police batons. Chu said that some contact can happen during the "check drill". The magistrate said that her question was clear, "Apart from check drill and posturing, did any police hit anyone with police batons?" Chu said that he didn't see any, but he cannot see the entire field. At the time, people were gathering outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Compared to the other three groups, this group was not as excited. At around 1030pm, the three main groups suddenly roared. So the police focused their attention on these three groups. At 1020pm, Chu was at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street facing the crowd outside Wai Fung Plaza. He said that there were 300 to 400 people outside the Wai Fung Plaza. At 1030pm, a subordinate ran over quickly, tapped him and told him that things have gone "awry" outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. A TVB news video was played in court. It showed the police forcing the people outside the Wai Fung Plaza onto the pedestrian sidewalk next to the Shanghai Commercial Bank. The defense produced screen captures from the TVB video. [12:33] Chu said that when his subordinate tapped him, he was at the location in the TVB photo. He turned around to look at the Shanghai Commercial Bank and was surprised to find many people gathered over there. [14:30] Chu said that when they go over to the other side, the police cordon was almost broken through through already. Already some police officers were swinging their batons. The magistrate asked: "Did they use batons without your order?" Chu said that the correct statement is to say that they spontaneously used their police batons. The magistrate: "You didn't tell them?" Chu said yes. Chu said that he believes that the police were concerned about their personal safety given that they were facing off several hundred people. Furthermore the people pressing in the front were more aggressive. Chu also took out his baton in preparation. The crowd was in a state of "active aggression" and the police baton is the only possible response. Chu said that the first tactical consideration is to disperse the crowd in the front. In this situation, there are only two kinds of forces at the next level. The first option was pepper spray. But this was a tight situation with the possibility of cross-contamination using pepper spray. At the time, they were not equipped with large-sized pepper spray devices. If cross-contamination occurs, many people will require immediately treatment and this would be contrary to their original intent of dispersing the crowd. Another reason is that the past experience is that pepper spray must be used in conjunction with police baton. The second option is to use hard empty-hand tactics, including kneeing and elbowing. These soft tactics are pressure point tactics. But faced with such a large crowd, the police clearly cannot use empty-hand tactics. The magistrate said that the witness seemed to have mentioned all the police tactics. "Are we taking a class?" She went back and asked if some officers in the company took out their police batons without received orders. Chu corrected her that this was not just his company. After assessing the situation, he immediately decided that the crowd must be dispersed by force. These participants (especially those who engaged in physically charging) have engaged in disorderly conduct under the Public Order Ordinance and interfered with the police in their line of duty. The persons present may be in an unlawful gathering that was clearly disrupting public order. Therefore he decided to exercise the authority under Pubilc Order Ordinance s17(2)(a) to disperse the crowd. [Public Order Ordinance s17(2)(a): Any police officer of or above the rank of inspector may prevent the holding of, stop, disperse or vary the place or route of any public gathering.] [15:00] Chu said that s17(2)(a0 gave him the authority to disperse the public gathering. However the authority to use force comes from Public Order Ordinance s17(3)(a). [Public Order Ordiance s17(3)(a): For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsections (2), respectively, a police officer and a police officer of or above the rank of inspector may give or issue such orders as he may consider necessary or expedient, and such police officer and any other police officer may— (a) use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent the holding of, stop or disperse, as the case may be, the public meeting, public procession, public gathering or other meeting, gathering or procession;] Before making that decision, Chu said that he sincerely believed that there was no way to disperse the gathering without the use of force. Therefore he is exercising the use of necessary force under Public Order Ordinance s45 ("Without prejudice to any other powers conferred by this Ordinance, any police officer may use such force as may be necessary— (a) to prevent the commission or continuance of any offence under this Ordinance; (b) to arrest any person committing or reasonably suspected of being about to commit or of having committed any offence under this Ordinance; or (c)t o overcome any resistance to the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this Ordinance.") to prevent the commission of a crime. It was very noisy at the time. Chu had to shout others "Disperse them! Disperse them!" in two directions, one towards Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Argyle Street and the other towards Nathan Road northbound. Chu said that he was pushing the crowd to move as well as tell the front line colleagues to push the crowd towards Sai Yeung Choi Street South. The Apple Daily video was played. The police pushed a crowd from the Wai Fung Plaza sidewalk towards the Shanghai Commercial Bank sidewalk, and the white-shirted Chu hitting Osman Cheng on the shoulder/neck. Cheng told the reporter: "I was just passing by." The defense lawyers said that Chu applied force to at least four people in this video, including Osman Cheng. Why? Chu said that he was in the very front in order to make sure that the other police officers would go where he wanted them to. As the commander, he must continuously monitor the momentum and rhythm of the action. Chu said that he pushed the main crowd over to New Town Mall, turned back and saw the first group of four Chinese males. These were the last of the group. Chu said that he had to maintain the momentum of the process, but these people were unwilling to go and disobeyed the police orders. [15:30] The defense lawyer asked why Chu applied force against these four people. With respect to person #1, Chu said that "I hit him on the backpack." The magistrate played the Apple Daily video again to be sure. Chu said that he also hit the second person on the backpack. The person gave no reaction whatsoever. Chu said that he was only posturing, "so that I can pressure them to leave quickly." The magistrate said that someone squatted down as if to protect himself. Chu agreed. Chu said that the third person was the black-shirted person. This person was first pushed by a plainclothes police officer, then pushed ahead by the shield of another police officer and finally hit on the waist by Chu's baton. Chu said that the the third three Chinese males were walking slowly, almost stopping. The black-shirted man resisted his colleagues. "'Resisting' does not mean fighting back. It means non-compliance. His was a very aggressive non-compliance. At the time, I felt that I had to use force to reinforce that message." Chu said that although it was necessary to use force because the black-shirted man was non-compliant, the baton made very contact with him. The action was fast, but the force was very slight. [15:44] The DBC video was played in court. Osman Cheng was seen to be struck. Chu said that when his police baton "touched" the black-shirted person, he stood there for a short while to see those three persons leave. Then he turned to face the last group. As soon as he turned around, he saw the fourth Chinese male (Osman Cheng) made an aggressive move towards the police officers. Chu said that the sudden rightwards lean-forward by Osman Cheng is an aggressive action based upon his expression and body language. Chu felt that he was provoking the police. It was a non-compliance. Therefore Chu decided to use force. The defense lawyer handed the police baton to Chu and asked him to describe the momentum and force of the blow. Chu said that his position allowed him only to strike from top down, because there were people next to him. Chu said that he knows that the police baton is hard and can cause injuries if struck hard. "Even though the blow seemed to be very fast, the force was actually restrained." The magistrate asked Chu to describe the magnitude of the force. Chu said "moderate." The magistrate asked Chu whether he agrees with Chu hit Cheng because Cheng did not follow police orders and made an aggressive move towards a colleague? Chu agreed. Chu emphasized that the force was applied to the back, because hitting the neck intentionally "would be a lethal force to me." Chu said that he will never hit a person on the neck because he will be tried in the High Court and never able to retire. [15:55] The defense lawyer asked if Chu regretted what happened, having to retire three weeks later. Chu said that if he knew that he would have to sit here and defend himself over the so-called assault when he was only carrying out his duties, "I would rather let them occupy the road if they want. Perhaps I could apply to the Police not to take part in Operation Solar Peak because I was only several months away from retirement." He said that this was an "assault" according to the newspapers which have many reporters and cameras in the streets of Mong Kok. The defense lawyer said that he is obliged to ask Chu if he is politically neutral. Chu said that one has to be political neutral on duty. "I don't hate any Occupy Movement person. When I am on duty, I am only concerned about my actions, the laws and the protection of social order." Chu said that during the dispersion of the crowd, he and other participants were very restrained in their use of force. [15:57] The defense lawyer showed some documents to Chu. Chu said that the police operated under the "plus one principle." He explained that the police always use one level higher of force than the other side. The defense lawyer asked Chu whether he noted that the document said that a police officer must take action based upon his own judgment and bear responsibility for so doing. The defense lawyer asked Chu whether he had anything more to add. The magistrate said: "You are the Senior Counsel." Senior Counsel Peter Pannu responded: "I sometimes ask him for his opinion. He is a person who deserves to be respected." Frankly Chu's direct testimony is complete. The court is in recess. Hearing resumes tomorrow at 930am. (The Stand News) November 10, 2017. [9:35] Cross-examination of Frankly Chu began. The prosecutor asked if Frankly Chu was told that he has to prevent Argyle Street from being re-occupied in order to uphold the court injunction. Chu agreed. The prosecutor said that there were two court injunctions that were granted to the Chiu Luen Minibus, the Hong Kong Taxi Chamber of Commerce and the Taxi Workers Association for the purpose of allowing buses and taxis to access the roads in the area. The court injunction mentioned "carriage", which refers to the roads. Chu agreed. Chu admitted that he did not read the court injunction on November 26. He had only read it afterwards. But Chu said that this does not mean that he does not know what is within the court injunction, because the newspapers have reported it in detail. The prosecutor said that therefore Chu had to keep the vehicular roadways open but not the pedestrian sidewalks. Chu replied: "Of course I understand." The magistrate asked him for confirmation and Chu agreed. The prosecutor said that Osman Cheng was therefore not violating the court injunction by standing on the pedestrian sidewalk. Chu said that he agrees in part. However, Chu was exercising his authority not because Cheng violated the court injunction. It is true that if the crowd re-occupied the street, they would be violating the court injunction. But on that night the crowd was engaged in disorderly conduct plus the other crimes that Chu mentioned previously: unlawful assembly; obstruction of officials in the line of duty; obstruction of police officers in the line of duty. Chu is exercising his authority to prevent crime from occurring or stop ongoing crime. The prosecutor asked Chu again to confirm that Osman Cheng was on the pedestrian sidewalk and did not violate the court injunction. Chu said that he has already said that he agreed. [9:59] The prosecutor said that Cheng was walking in his direction because police officers were directing or chasing the crowd towards New Town Mall. The prosecutor asked if Chu knew Cheng before. Chu said: "I don't know him. I have never seen him before." The magistrate asked Chu if he knew Osman Cheng was a pedestrian, resident or demonstrator. Chu said no, but asked to be allowed to elaborate. Chu said that when the decision was made to disperse the crowd by force under the Public Order Ordinance, the basis was s17(4) which temporarily closes down a street from public access and s17(9) which allows the use of force to do so. [s17(4) If a police officer of or above the rank of inspector has reason to believe that a public meeting or public procession is likely to take place or form in any public place in contravention of section 7 or 13, he may cause access to that public place and to any other public place adjacent thereto to be barred and to be closed to the public or to any person or class of persons for such time as may be necessary to prevent the public meeting or public procession taking place. s17(6) Any police officer may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent any person from entering or remaining in any public place to which access has been closed to him under this section.] The magistrate asked to clarify that the use of force is intended to either not let people come back in or to make them leave. The magistrate also asked Chu to clarify which road. Chu said that it was the road outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank. "In my eyes, they are the same group of people. I didn't have the time to ask if he was a pedestrian or if he was just passing by. The entire dispersal was one process." The prosecutor said that Chu is citing many different sections of ordinances. Did he consider these ordinances before he wielded his baton that night? Or did he start thinking about them in order to rationalize his action that night? Chu said that if they didn't charge at the police, there would be no need to think about them. The magistrate asked Chu to respond to the questin. Chu said that when the police teach the tactics to disperse crowds, they always include the legal basis of the action. Therefore those ideas are embedded in his brain, such that there is no need to look them up afterwards. The prosecutor said that Chu has an overall knowledge of the law, but there was no particular article or section in his mind when he swung his baton. Chu said that he did not understand the question. The magistrate repeated the question. Chu said that things happened so quickly that there was no time to think about this or that. "If I said so, I would be lying to you." [10:10] The prosecutor said that when Chu first spotted Cheng, does he agree that the condition of Cheng did not fit the profile of a demonstrator: goggle, shield, helmet or weapon. Chu disagreed and said that the prosecutor was describing a militant demonstrator. Just because Cheng did not have the equipment did not mean that he was not a demonstrator. Besides, the authority that Chu was exercising was not directed at demonstrators. Instead, there was a crowd at the time. "In my view, they are a group. I can possibly ask each of them: Can you please tell me if you are a member of the group?" The prosecutor asked Chu if he regarded Cheng as a member of the demonstrators. The magistrate said that Chu means that there was not time to ask every person because things happened so fast. Chu regarded every person as a demonstrator. But it was possible to tell afterwards from the video just who was a genuine passerby. The prosecutor changed the question. Did Chu regard Cheng as a demonstrator under the circumstances at the time? Chu disagreed. "I have said many times already. This is not about protestors. I regard him as part of the mob. " The magistrate asked for an explanation of "part of the mob." Chu said that these were the same group of people as those who charged the police cordon. The magistrate said that the video showed some people charging towards the direction of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. So how much time elapsed between the police officers heading towards the Shanghai Commercial Bank and Chu using the baton on Cheng? Chu said not more than 30 seconds. "That dispersal action took place very quickly. Or you can say that it was very effective." The prosecutor said that Cheng testified that he was not part of the group who crossed the road to charge at the police. Chu asked: "How can I tell the difference?" The prosecutor said that there is no objective basis to suppose that Cheng is a member of those who crossed the street. Chu disagreed. He said, "It takes some time for so many people to gather. He had every opportunity to leave. I said yesterday when the police take action and he is caught in the middle, then I am sorry to say that I cannot control that." Chu said that when he turned around to look at the direction of the Shanghai Commercial Bank, a large group of people were charging at the police cordon. "How was I supposed to know which are pedestrians?" [10:33] The prosecutor asked Chu where the people outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank came from? Chu did not understand what the prosecutor meant. He said that the prosecutor probably did not understand what was going on. The prosecutor demanded Chu to answer the question: Where did the people outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank come from? Chu said: "How do I know?" Chu said that when he looked over there, the crowd was already there. Chu said that there were not a lot of people over there at first, and that is why he didn't pay attention to them. At the time, the crowd were charging the Nathan Road section outside Wai Fung Plaza. The prosecutor asked how much time elapsed between Chu reaching the sidewalk and then seeing Osman Cheng. Chu estimated that he saw Cheng 90 seconds later. By that time, most of the people on the sidewalk outside the Shanghai Commercial Bank had been dispersed. Cheng was among the last people who were directed towards New Town Mall. Chu emphasized that Cheng was "driven" to move by the police and not on his own. The prosecutor asked Chu that even if Cheng wanted to leave in the direction of New Town Mall after the crowd got rowdy, it wouldn't be easy because there were too many people before Cheng. Chu agreed, but he emphasized that he used force not because Cheng refused to leave. The prosecutor asked Chu in detail about how he applied the baton on the three other persons. Chu said that he hit the backpacks of the first two Chinese males because he wanted them to move faster. The method is called "posturing." The third Chinese male disobeyed and resisted, so Chu used force. The prosecutor said that Chu testified yesterday that the action against the first two Chinese males was "wiping", going from left to right in the direction of New Town Mall. Does that mean that he wants them to move in the direction of New Town Mall? Chu agreed. The prosecutor said that the action against the third Chinese male ran in the opposite direction from right to left. Why the difference? Chu said that he applied force on the third Chinese male not to make him leave but to make him comply. "Afterwards, didn't he leave in the same direction? He did not go in the opposite direction." The magistrate repeated the question and asked Chu to explain. Chu said that the action took place in a chaotic situation. "The prosecutor paused the video and asked me: Why did you do this? Why did you do that? I can't answer it. I only know that I thought that it was necessary at the time for me to apply force on him to compel compliance." The magistrate repeated the prosecutor's question. Chu said that he cannot say. "But the effect was that he moved on. He wasn't injured. I believe." The magistrate asked Chu if he is unable to give an explanation. Chu said: "At that moment, I was only concerned about the strength that I applied ..." The magistrate asked Chu to answer the question. Chu said that he cannot answer. The magistrate asked whether it was instinctive. At first, Chu said yes but corrected himself. "I was calculating the strength ..." The magistrate said that the question was about the direction. Chu said that it was instinctive. [11:17] The prosecutor said that the third Chinese male was following police order when he was hit. That is, he continued to walk in the direction as ordered by the police. Was there any need to apply force to him? The magistrate said that Chu can choose whether to answer this question or not, because it may create criminal or other liabilities for Chu. Chu choise to answer. He said, "Using force is a split second decision. I believe that I had to use appropriate force at the time in order to enhance the compliance message. Once he complied, my force was immediately stopped." The prosecutor asked Chu whether his action arose out of anger? Chu disagreed. Chu admitted that he did not issue verbal warning to the three Chinese males before he used the baton. But the crowd should know that they have to comply because the police was using force already. Chu explained that the police push forward by saying "Walk! Walk! Walk!" while waving their batons. He and other police officers used their batons to apply force to non-compliant persons. He believed that everybody at the scene knows that force will be used against them if they didn't comply. "In those chaotic conditions, you cannot issue a warning to every person every time. Warnings depend on circumstances. We will do it if we can." Chu said that they were not in a one-to-one relationship. You cannot tell the person, "If you don't obey, I will strike you once; if you still don't obey, I will strike you a second time." It was not that kind of situation. [11:28] The DBC video was played in court. The prosecutor asked Chu to pay attention to Cheng's actions. Chu said that Cheng's actions did not show that he was disobeying any police action. Chu disagreed. Chu said that he had testified yesterday that he saw Cheng make a very aggressive move to challenge a police officer. At the time, Chu thought that Cheng was non-compliance. Chu was not even aware that there was a woman next to Cheng. "I made an instantaneous decision." Chu said that it was just over a second between Cheng's action and his own action. "Why did you expect me to think about?" Chu said that he did not notice that another police officer had hit Cheng on the elbow just before Cheng reached Chu. Chu admitted that the video showed Chu pushed aside his colleague in order to go up and hit Cheng. The prosecutor asked Chu whether he noticed if that other police officer had his baton out. Chu said: "I didn't notice. It was my decision. I don't know if he felt any need or whether he paid any attention." [11:40] The prosecutor asked Frankly Chu to read out the police guidelines about how the police should exercise a high degree of self-restraint and not use force except for legally acceptable purposes. Circumstances permitting, warning should be issued. Furthermore, the least amount of force should be used, and force should cease once the goal has been achieved. Chu said that the entire action followed these guidelines. The prosecutor asked whether Chu followed the guidelines when he hit Cheng from behind when Cheng was leaving. Chu said that the process should be looked at in the full context. Yesterday chu said that using the police baton was the only method of achieving the goal with the least force. The prosecutor should not use what happened in that one second to explain the entire situation. Chu added that the aggressive move by Cheng and the baton blow should be regarded as one continuous action. [11:50] Frankly Chu said that police baton training includes the identification of body parts which are medically save, such as larger muscle bodies such as the outside thigh, the front thigh, underneath the stomach, forearm and shin. As for the neck, Chu said that it may be lethal. But the back does not contain nerve points. [12:25] The prosecutor asked Chu whether he thought that there was a chance that Cheng might be injured as a result of the baton blow? Chu said, on the contrary, he was thinking about how to injure Cheng. "Therefore my force was restrained." The magistrate asked Chu whether he wanted to inflict minimal hard with his baton. Chu agreed and explained that the police trainers have shown a method to cause pain without necessarily causing an injury. He illustrated by using his left hand as an object which he struck with his right hand. "You hit down and you don't pull back immediately. The kinetic force gets distributed across the body. This is how I can achieve the effect." Chu said that the purpose of using force is first of all to restore public order and secondly to make sure that the law is obeyed. The prosecutor asked Chu whether he hit Cheng because he was angry and didn't care about the consequences. Chu disagreed. The prosecutor asked Chu if he did not sincerely believe that he had to use his police baton that way. Chu disagreed. The prosecutor asked Chu if he made up Cheng making an aggressive move towards a police officer and disobeying orders after the fact? Chu disagreed. The cross-examination by the prosecution is complete. [12:30] Frankly Chu is under re-direct examination by his lawyer. According to the photos, MTR exits D1 and D2 were open at the time. Can Osman Cheng leave via these exits? The prosecutor interrupted to say that the defense is leading the witness. The magistrate pointed out that the prosecutor had said that Osman Cheng was trapped within the crowd and unable to leave. Chu said that the MTR station and the underground tunnels were open. At the time, the police called on people to use the tunnels to leave. The photos also showed people hiding in the ATM area of the Shanghai Commercial Bank. Chu said: "These people were innocent. They did not participate in the demonstration. They didn't have to leave." The defense asked Chu about the use-of-force continuum. As far as the police baton is concerned, the degree of force depends on the training and skills of the user? Chu agreed. The defense asked whether the police baton can cause lethal harm, or cause minimal harm, or cause no harm at all? Chu agreed. He said that he believed that Cheng made an aggressive move towards a police officer. The defense said that Osman Cheng claimed that he turned his head to tell the police officer that he is a passerby. Did Chu hear him say so? Chu said that he did not hear it because it was so noisy. Most of the time, he heard the police yelling: "Leave! Leave immediately!" Chu said that his judgment was based upon Cheng's action and expression. During the dispersal, most other people did not act like Cheng. Frankly Chu has completed his testimony. (Oriental Daily) November 15, 2017. During summation, the prosecution said that the defendant Frankly Chu had no idea which article of the Public Safety Ordinance empowered him to use his baton. Only after Chu was prosecuted did he use the ordinance to rationalize his action. The victim did not take any violent action and followed police instructions to leave the scene. Nevertheless the defendant struck him with the baton, which was clearly unnecessary and unlawful. It is believed that Chu did so out of anger and revenge. As to why the doctor was unsure whether the neck injury of the victim was caused by the baton, the prosecution explained that the doctor was only unable to determine the angle at which the baton struck the victim. The video showed that the defendant caused material injury to the victim, who used his hand to cover his neck and back. The prosecution said that the defendant did not employ "minimal force" because he pushed aside another police officer first and then raised the baton to a certain height. During summation, the defense pointed out that the defendant was on duty and exercising the authority given to him by law to use force to maintain social order and prevent crime. It was a chaotic scene with several hundred protestors crossing the road and using various methods to re-occupy the road. The defendant genuinely did not believe that the victim was a passerby because he made an aggressive move. That was why the defendant hit the victim on the back in the hope that he will follow the police orders. At the time, the scene was sealed off already, and the victim and others did not immediately depart. The defendant's actions were reasonable and necessary. The defense said that the doctor was not sure that the neck injury was caused by the police baton. The defense said that the video showed the victim clutching his neck. However, many soccer players "take dives" all the time, so clutching the neck does not prove that the victim was hit or felt pain. (Oriental Daily) November 16, 2017. In the rebuttal, the prosecution said that the defendant recklessly attacked the victim with his baton. The defense claimed that clutching the neck does not mean that the victim was injured in the neck, citing that another man dressed in black clutched his head even though he was hit in the waist. However, the video showed that the man in black was hit in the head by a police earlier which was why he clutched his head. This was similar to what the victim did. The prosecution pointed out that the defendant had no proof that the victim took part in charging the police line. The victim had obeyed police orders to leave. Therefore the defendant had no reason to use force against the victim. Therefore the use of the baton was a deliberate assault. The defense lawyer Peter Pannu said in the final rebuttal that the victim ignored police warnings and stayed at the scene. The defendant cannot determine whether the victim was a rioter or not. At the time, the defendant genuinely believed that the victim was a rioter. The defense said that Hong Kong needs people who love Hong Kong like Frankly Chu. Hong Kong needs people who march in the streets to express their demands, but it also needs the Police to maintain order. When the defendant puts on his police uniform, he is required to carry out his duties to maintain law and order. The magistrate interrupted the defense lawyer and said that there is no dispute on this point. (SCMP) December 18, 2017. A retired police superintendent was on Monday found guilty of assaulting a bystander at a 2014 protest aimed at rekindling Hong Kong’s Occupy movement. Former senior police officer Frankly Chu was convicted at Eastern Court of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. (SCMP) January 3, 2018. A retired senior police officer who struck a bystander with a baton during Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests was jailed for three months by a court on Wednesday but immediately released on bail pending his appeal. Frankly Chu, 58, appeared sad, with the corners of his lips drooping as Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai announced that his “culpability was too serious for community service” or a suspended sentence. “A deterrent sentence is necessary so that other officers would not be tempted to follow a similar line, and public confidence can be restored,” she told a full house in court. The magistrate initially handed out a four-month jail term but decided to reduce it by a month to account for Chu’s clean record, the stress that he had suffered, the length of time that had passed and that he was unlikely to reoffend. Chu was subsequent released on HK$50,000 bail with the condition that he reside at his address and report to the police station once a week, after his defence counsel Peter Pannu indicated that he would appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The Post has learned that Chu will argue in his appeal that his conviction was “unsafe” and his sentence “manifestly excessive” as the magistrate had failed to apply the appropriate legal test and fully consider Chu’s state of mind when he used the baton. Chu is also expected to argue that he had not received a fair trial when the magistrate failed to address whether his actions were protected by the Public Order Ordinance’s immunity clause, which stipulates that any person who uses force necessary for any purpose in accordance with the ordinance shall not be liable in criminal proceedings even if such use of force kills a person. Chu did not respond to questions as he left court with his family, surrounded by security guards and more than a hundred people chanting: “Support Chu King-wai.” His supporters also cried “injustice” and called the case an “international joke”. “Society will not be at peace,” they chanted, some of them holding placards demanding that Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung step down. Chu had been remanded in custody since December 18, when the Eastern Court found him guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offence is punishable by three years’ imprisonment, but the court previously heard that sentencing reports had recommended community service, a non-custodial punishment of up to 240 hours of unpaid voluntary work. Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai said it was “unacceptable” for the former superintendent to have hit Osman Cheng Chung-hang, 28, and concluded that it was a serious offence committed by a senior serving officer. Internet comments: - Here are some videos taken in Mong Kok on the night of November 26, 2017. This was what Frankly Chu was responding to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ-_IUYC8K0 (~10:25pm 11/25/2014 at Shan Tung Street) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZXU7G-35-k (~ 12:44am 11/26/2014 at Shan Tung Street) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNNsulrIF7E (~2:57am 11/26/2014 at Shan Tung Street) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRMk-u85xTk&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmqIOvQznWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j4VTYDeemU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61WWC2VoVJY (11/26/2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oZZ_G4_hHg (8:35pm 11/26/2014) https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1851840568223204/ Compilation of riotous acts - (HKG Pao) Here is a compilation of how police batons are being used elsewhere in the world. - Police in Hong Kong are not allowed to use tear gas as they do elsewhere in the world. Therefore it is only logical that the police in Hong Kong are not allowed to use batons either. If the police in Hong Kong use tear gas or baton, Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International are going to jump out and deplore police violence. - The fair-and-balanced department of justice in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Free Press) March 27, 2017. Retired police officer Frankly Chu King-wai has been arrested and charged with assault for allegedly hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. A police spokesperson confirmed on Monday evening that a 57-year-old man has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The arrest took place more than two years after the alleged assault took place. A number of videos taken on November 26, 2014 appear to show pedestrians being hit with a baton without prior warning as part of the police operation to disperse crowds that had gathered in Mong Kok. A police press release read: “Police reiterate that no illegal acts by any police officers shall be tolerated. If any individual police officer is suspected of committing illegal acts, the Police will definitely conduct investigations in a fair and impartial manner.” Also on Monday, nine leaders of the Occupy protests were arrested for their roles in the movement. They are facing the common law charge of public nuisance, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison. In another high-profile Occupy assault case, seven police officers were sentenced to two years in prison last month for assaulting activist Ken Tsang. Tsang was also jailed for five weeks for pouring liquid over other police officers on the night when he was assaulted. He is currently serving his time in prison. - (Hong Kong Free Press) August 7, 2015. The internal police investigation report to the Department of Justice for legal advice concluded that Chu did not commit any criminal offence for the following reasons: (i) “an appropriate extent of physical force” was required that night; (ii) Chu was on duty; and (iii) Chu did not target any specific individuals. If the media reports are accurate, Hong Kong residents should be very alarmed. Those who exercise powers of coercion in the name of the law must always be accountable for their actions. Closing ranks to defend the indefensible undermines the very core values of Hong Kong and erodes public confidence in the ability of Hong Kong police to serve and protect. As a matter of law, those three reasons, individually or collectively, do not constitute a good defence to a criminal allegation of “assault”. Here is why: First, when a police officer applies any physical force, it must be for a lawful purpose. Examples include effecting an arrest, entering a premise, searching a person or preventing a breach of peace. Such powers cannot be lawfully exercised without genuinely reasonable suspicion. On the night of the incident, Cheng had never been arrested for any crime nor suspected of breaching the peace. A video clearly shows that he was being cooperative and moving in the direction as instructed by police. Secondly, the mere fact of a police officer being on duty is not an excuse for unlawful use of force. For example, a strip search in a police station is unlawful if there is no justification for such intrusion. The video does not show why Cheng was specifically targeted. He was not confrontational nor a participant of any illegal activity. Thirdly, the law does not require an assailant to have a specific target in mind before the mental element of a criminal offence is established. To say so is absurd. Take the example of random mass stabbings: The law only requires proof of recklessness to establish the requisite intent. In other words, the court will consider whether Chu was aware that he struck or would strike any person by acting as he did; whether he was aware of this risk; and whether it was unreasonable for a person of his age, experience and personal characteristic to take such a risk. Properly analysed, perhaps the police investigation report’s conclusion that Chu — a former commander for the Sha Tin Division — did not commit any criminal assault makes complete sense if one believes that Chu’s age, mental awareness and experience is equivalent to that of a young child. - (OftenPartisan.co.uk) Who Is Peter Pannu? Peter Lakhbir Singh Pannu, to give him his full name, is 48 years old, and unlike the rest of the BCFC board, a British citizen. He’s a qualified barrister and an ex-HK police officer, who served for fifteen years on the force in Hong Kong. Many people know that whilst he was serving as a police officer he faced criminal prosecution for accepting a bribe from the Triads; something he was found not guilty of. What people aren’t so aware of is that Pannu in fact faced three separate trials whilst he was on the HK police force – and was acquitted of all three. Peter Pannu joined the Hong Kong police force in February 1985 at the age of 21, and rose to the rank of Senior Inspector and head of the Kowloon City Anti-Triad squad. However Mr Pannu was suspended on full pay in January 1993 for a period of seven years whilst claims of him taking a HK$10,000 bribe from Triad boss Andely Chan Yiu-Hing were investigated. Claims were made that Mr Pannu, along with colleague Senior Inspector David Khosa (who headed another Anti-Triad unit) were given HK$10,000 each at a dinner given at Fisherman’s Wharf in Wan Chai, in January 1993 to help protect “the tiger of Wan Chai” from police prosecution. Unfortunately for the prosecutors, their case fell apart in court due to lack of witnesses; Andely Chan was murdered in November 1993 during the Macau Grand Prix and of the two witnesses who reported the incident one disappeared before he could testify in court. I think it’s worth noting here that Andely Chan was the boss of the “Sun Yee On” triad syndicate – which didn’t have any connections with gaming in Macau but rather made their money via prostitution rackets in Tsim Sha Tsui. It’s also worth noting that the Hong Kong authorities twice tried to make charges of bribery stick against Peter Pannu; once straight after the incident was supposed to have happened, and then again after Andely Chan was murdered and the witnesses Liu Chun-Yip and Leung Ting-Fong felt safe to talk. On neither occasion were they successful and indeed the authorities came out with much criticism for the money spent on the investigation and their own procedures. Pannu also faced charges of criminal intimidation and assault in separate cases whilst suspended for the bribery claims. In January 1995 Mr Pannu was acquitted of criminal intimidating staff at a restaurant when the prosecution offered no evidence; and in July 1995 Mr Pannu was acquitted of charges of assault after conflicting and contradictory evidence was given by the prosecution witnesses. Again, it’s worth noting that the assault charges only came about due to an internal investigation two years after they happened – at the time of the “incident” nobody complained to the police. There have been allegations that Mr Pannu was the victim of jealousy and racism because of his Indian heritage. It’s also interesting that there have been many police links to the witnesses who have stood for the prosecution in the assault case; there is a saying that if you fling enough mud some of it will stick and you have to wonder who was flinging the mud in this instance. Whilst Mr Pannu was suspended from the police force he didn’t spend his time at home watching the Hong Kong version of Jeremy Kyle or This Morning – instead he used the time to study for a law degree and qualify as a barrister – the profession he joined after leaving the HK police force in 2000. Mr Pannu worked as a barrister for various clients, including defending a “sauna” manager until the October 2009 takeover of Birmingham City by Carson Yeung. - (RTHK) June 10, 2017. At a pre-trial hearing on Friday, Chu’s counsel Peter Pannu said it was lucky the trial was being heard by a magistrate and not a jury “unless you are yellow”. The colour was a symbol of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement. Kwok said the counsel should withdraw what he said immediately. “Whether it is to describe a piece of evidence or to describe the prosecutor, it is highly inappropriate because the courts, as we all known, will only rule on issues – legal issues, factual issues – based on the law and the evidence of that case, and will not have any political considerations whatsoever,” Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok, who represents the legal sector in the Legislative Council said. - (SCMP) June 9, 2017. Chu’s counsel Peter Pannu said provisions in the Public Order Ordinance stipulated that any person who uses force necessary for any purpose in accordance with the ordinance shall not be liable in criminal proceedings even if such use of force kills a person. Pannu, a former police officer who went on to become a barrister, argued such wordings suggested the courts had no jurisdiction to try his client. He cited another clause stating that no person acting in good faith under the ordinance’s provision shall be held liable for any acts in the exercise of his duty, or for public safety, or the defence of Hong Kong. “This means the defendant is not liable to be found guilty ... as long as the defendant is acting in good faith,” Pannu told magistrate June Cheung Tin-ngan at the West Kowloon Court. Prosecutors, led by assistant director of public prosecutions Ned Lai Ka-yee, did not respond. The immunity clauses in the ordinance originated from its earlier form in the Peace Preservation Ordinance enacted in 1886. Pannu claimed that since then there had been no officer prosecuted over police power exercised in good faith under situations of public order. Among other issues, the defence is also seeking the prosecution’s agreement on a chronology of events from the start to the end of the protests. Pannu argued this would help the court understand Chu’s mindset and role in preventing protesters like his alleged victim, Osman Cheng Chung-hang, from reoccupying the streets. “[Cheng] is lucky he’s not even arrested for contempt of the injunction,” Pannu said, referring to a court order for clearance of blockages at the protest site. “The defendant is part of the contingent company responsible for a clearance attempt,” Pannu said. But Lai said that was not relevant to the alleged offence on the night of November 26, 2014 and pointed out that police were only authorised to assist bailiffs in the clearance, and the bailiffs were not enforcing the injunction that night. Also in dispute is the use of videos as evidence, as Pannu expressed concern that the court might be influenced by “extremely sarcastic” and “contemptuous” voice-overs. While there will be no jury and the magistrate assured that only visuals would be relied upon, Pannu said prosecutors were still obliged to avoid using prejudicial materials. “Unless [the prosecutor] is yellow too,” he said, referring to the symbolic colour of the civil disobedience movement. “The defendant is part of the contingent company responsible for a clearance attempt,” Pannu said. But Lai said that was not relevant to the alleged offence on the night of November 26, 2014 and pointed out that police were only authorised to assist bailiffs in the clearance, and the bailiffs were not enforcing the injunction that night. Also in dispute is the use of videos as evidence, as Pannu expressed concern that the court might be influenced by “extremely sarcastic” and “contemptuous” voice-overs. While there will be no jury and the magistrate assured that only visuals would be relied upon, Pannu said prosecutors were still obliged to avoid using prejudicial materials. “Unless [the prosecutor] is yellow too,” he said, referring to the symbolic colour of the civil disobedience movement. The magistrate replied: “No, no, no, you don’t say these things in court.” - (SCMP) December 20, 2017. A top police officer has been found guilty of assault and is facing a significant jail term in the course of carrying out his duties during the 2014 Occupy protests. Earlier this month, four middle-aged and elderly protesters were sent to prison for assaulting disqualified lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung at the airport in January. Need I even mention the seven police officers jailed for two years each for beating up Occupy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu? Does this sound like a compromised judiciary that has exchanged its independence for subservience and been sending people of conscience to jail at the bidding of the central and Hong Kong governments? Of course, our opposition has treated such news as par for the course and will continue to claim that the justice system is under threat. The Western news media – the likes of such august publications as The Economist, The New York Times and Le Monde – have tried to turn a few Occupy leaders – including their go-to protest chief Joshua Wong Chi-fung – into bona fide prisoners of conscience. The New York Times even wanted to nominate them for the Nobel Peace Prize. But they will not bother to report the latest court cases. Maybe these are just not newsworthy enough for an international audience. Or maybe it doesn’t fit their preconceived editorial take on Hong Kong losing its freedoms and being shallowed up by the mainland. Who knows? Do you think our last colonial governor, Chris Patten, will come out to praise our impartial judiciary after having bad-mouthed it with op-eds in leading publications and interviews aimed at making an international statement? Probably not. What about those British busybodies whose names no one can remember forming one concern group or another? Will they take notice that our judges may be – just may be – capable of exercising the law with at least a reasonable degree of independence and impartiality? Not likely. So, I wonder what sort of impressions an educated outsider who religiously reads The New York Times or Le Monde would have about Hong Kong. Here’s my guess: our judiciary is hopelessly compromised; anti-government protesters are routinely beaten up and jailed; the city is being turned into another Tibet or Xinjiang. Meanwhile, the realities of high autonomy and partial democracy are presumed to be non-existent. I read The New York Timesevery day and those would have been my impressions if I knew nothing about the city. - How would this Hong Kong judge rule against these policemen in Mendoza, Argentina? - (SCMP) December 29, 2017. In mitigation, defence presented 40 letters from 12 retired commanding officers, including two police commissioners, union groups, four lawmakers, his fellow church-goers, taxi groups and a number of senior Macau police, intelligence and customs officers. They also include a letter of appreciation from a former chief executive and a letter of merit from a former Secretary for Civil Service, whose names were not disclosed. Pannu said these letters depicted a person who had given dedicated service to the community since he joined the force and showed “his unblemished performance in public service, his unfailing commitment in his service that he’s proud of”. He also described Chu as a good friend, a caring husband and a good father, but was interrupted by the magistrate who noted: “He’s divorced from his wife, now in another relationship. He’s no longer a caring husband.” Pannu replied that there was no fall out among the former spouses and drew the court’s attention to Chu’s three children: a daughter studying law and two sons who followed his footsteps to become police officers. - So Frankly Chu's family life is a factor to consider for his sentence? Thank you for making this clear. (Ta Kung Pao) Here are Nathan Law and his girlfriend Tiffany Yuen being photographed in a Quarry Bay coffee shop at 3pm on December 27, 2017. They spoke for about one hour, during which time Yuen was red-eyed and used tissue to wipe her tears frequently. Meanwhile Law looked haggard and contemplative. Since Nathan Law is appealing his sentence for unlawful gathering, he better give a full and honest account of his love life to the judge. The rule-of-law demands this to be done. - Here is a video of the Chu family being attacked by a mob of reporters. Absolutely no respect or dignity. And the Chu family are the ones being accused of being violent thugs? - (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. January 4, 2017. The world has changed. The police no longer use their guns. I believe that 99% of police officers have never used a gun outside the shooting range, because the costs are too high. If you fire a gun, you will have to file a report within 48 hours and visit a psychologist for counseling. Even if all you did was pull the gun from the holster without firing, you have to write a report on what you did. The police know that their guns are decorations whose use should be avoided as much as possible. Without the most potent weapon, the policeman is left with his baton, handcuffs and pepper spray. Superintendent Frankly Chu used his baton to suppress a disturbance and he gets sentenced by the court to three months in jail. Law enforcement became law breaking. From now on, the police baton is out of bounds as well. It must not be used unless the situation is truly desperate, or else you will have to pay for the consequences. What is there left for the police to defend citizen lives and properties? "Even during a riot, we have to raise the yellow, orange and red warning flags. If we don't, we get into trouble. We warn them that we will use force. But it turns out that we get into trouble if we use force." "Who the hell is going to clear any sites in future? If you disobey an order, at worst you are disciplined. If you carry out the order, you go to jail. You think about it!" "If there should ever be another Occupy Central, or Occupy East, or Occupy West some day, you should complain about being sick and needing to visit a doctor as soon as they order you to turn out." "To stop the chaos, you issue draconian penalties against the law enforcers?" "Every other police force in the world do this, but only we in Hong Kong can go to jail. If the police refuse to act anymore, what will society become? In 1977, when the police went berserk over the Independent Commission Against Corruption, even the British government got scared. See what you get by going after the police!" These are the messages that I received from various police officers. The phrase "Who is going to do the job?" was the most frequently appearing one. One police officer pointed out the most absurd point: "In the entire affair, the most ironic thing is that the inspector who taught the riot police about tactics and use of force was found guilty for carrying those actions. What is the point of going to camp in the future? We should just sit tight and do nothing!" When the police force is completely demoralized, can Hong Kong still claim to be the "safest city in the world"? - (Economic Times/Sky Post) Polling.

Retired police superintendent Frankly Chu was sentenced to 3 months in jail for assaulting a passerby. What do you think about the sentence? 72%: Too severe 14%: Too light 13%: Fair 1%: No opinion [817] Legislative Council Rules of Procedure 88(1) (2017/11/04) (Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2017. Pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu has employed yet another rare tactic to stall a debate on the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement, by requesting that media and the public leave the Legislative Council. Most democrats had spoken during the non-binding motion debate by Thursday, using almost all available methods to continue their filibuster against the government. However, Chu cited the Rules of Procedure 88(1), which states that a lawmaker can – without prior notice – request that members of the press and public withdraw from the LegCo. After suspending the meeting for around ten minutes, the LegCo President Andrew Leung said he had to allow Chu to speak. As Chu began explaining his motion, Leung suspended the meeting for another ten minutes, saying he had to look into whether Chu’s motive was “impure,” since he did not explain why he had proposed the motion. After the meeting was resumed, Leung stopped Chu from speaking, but allowed the debate on requesting media and public to leave. Pro-Beijing lawmaker Gary Chan, a convener for the camp, said Chu’s move was a “hideous” attempt to stall the meeting. He said it may be akin to another effort by Chu last week to postpone the debate for a day. At the time, Chu raised an unusual motion to suggest that the LegCo should not move a banking bill debate to its internal committees and should – instead – complete the debate in one meeting. Pro-democracy lawmakers voted down the motion in response, but it was effective in delaying the debate. “[Pro-democracy lawmakers] may not agree with Chu’s motion, but they must have been some collusion with each other to stall the debate,” Chan said. Pro-democracy camp convener Charles Mok said the camp indeed reached a “basic consensus” in using the rule. Chu said the pro-democracy camp will use all means to defend the Legislative Council. He said his move was, in fact, inspired by the pro-Beijing camp’s suggestions to amend the Rules of Procedures. The camp proposed amending all rules that did not require prior notice, handing the power to approve motions to the LegCo president. “This is a calling for me [to use it],” he said. But Chu said he did not agree with rule 88(1) itself, and it should be abolished to protect press freedom: “This will likely be the first time and the last time for using it,” he said. Pro-Beijing lawmaker Michael Luk called Chu’s motion “crazy.” “They would even break their principle of openness… to delay the meeting,” Luk said. The pro-Beijing camp said the incident provided another proof that the Rules of Procedures must be amended to avoid abuses. Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung said Chu’s motion was “totally unbelievable and unacceptable” and the move had never been used before: “I cannot imagine members of the public and the media being asked to leave… Some lawmakers are abusing the Rules of Procedures. It must be condemned.” Internet comments: - (Hong Kong Legislative Council Rules of Procedure) 88. Withdrawal of Members of the Press and of the Public (1) At a meeting of the Council, a committee of the whole Council, a committee or a subcommittee a Member may without notice at any time rise and move that members of the press and of the public do withdraw, specifying whether the withdrawal is to be for the remainder of that day's meeting or during the consideration of certain business. The President, Chairman or chairman shall forthwith propose the question thereon and the Council, committee of the whole Council, committee or subcommittee shall dispose of it before proceeding further with the business which was before it when the motion was moved.



- (Oriental Daily) November 4, 2017. In order to block Co-location, a certain pro-self-determination politician pulled off two unusual procedural gimmicks. His supporters applauded him for this great feat. What is so great about it? Isn't it the same as the rural auntie's bag of tricks? First, she cries; next, she curses; finally, she pretends to kill herself by hanging. The pro-establishment camp constitutes a majority with the Legislative Council. If the matter is put to a vote, there is no doubt that it will be passed. Therefore the opposition camp is doing everything possible to delay the vote. As Benny Tai said, the Co-location proposal will pass but they will make sure that they exact a hefty price from the proestablishment camp during the process. Actually, the pro-establishment camp doesn't have to pay any price. It is Hong Kong and its tax payers who will have to pay the price. If Co-location is killed off, the High Speed Rail system becomes a piece of junk after having spent $80 billion to build it. In addition, Hong Kong will be shut out of the High Speed Rail system in China and thus lose economic benefits. The opposition camp also held demonstrators outside the Legislative Council. But there were very few participants. This showed that the reckless filibustering does not have popular support. The "Hong Kong people in peril under Co-location" banner outside is hilarious, because the only known case is that of Lam Tsz-kin (#775) who was arrested for providing false information to the police (#778). Hong Kong people are not idiots. Every day, several hundred thousand people cross the border to go from Hong Kong into mainland China. How many of them are in peril? How many of them are afraid of mainland law enforcement agents? Yes, some people in Hong Kong are very afraid. Although they don't dare to go to mainland China themselves, they want to strip other Hong Kong people of the right to take the High Speed Rail to mainland China. The Legislative Council has already spent many hours on the non-binding Co-location motion. Of these hours, fewer than ten were spent on substantive debate. Most of the time, they were squabbling over procedural issues. This shows that the rules of procedure are being severely abused, and it is now a priority to amend those rules. - (SCMP) Pan-dems exposed again as they take rail checkpoint bait. By Alex Lo. November 4, 2017. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor may be more Machiavellian than we thought. When the chief executive announced she would seek the approval of the Legislative Council for a non-binding motion on a joint checkpoint at the upcoming express rail terminus in West Kowloon, she said it was to provide a platform for the opposition to air their views. Her supporters had feared it would just provide another opportunity for the pan-democrats to grandstand. As it turned out, the opposition did more than that; it filibustered, delayed and stalled with every Legco tactic well known and obscure to try to kill the motion. They went for the nuclear option on what is essentially a meaningless motion. They took the bait. What should or could they have done? Everyone knows the pan-democrats are down in their ranks after six of them were disqualified from Legco. But while they didn’t have the numbers to vote down the motion, they could still vote against it. They could then argue, legitimately, that Lam and her friends in Legco had no respect for the minority view on the controversial rail plan and just wanted to shove it down people’s throats. And it would have been convincing. Note that it’s a non-binding motion. Approved or not, the government still has to go through the so-called three-step process: agreement with the relevant mainland authorities; authorisation from the National People’s Congress Standing Committee; and final approval by Legco. The last step is the real battle for the opposition. Everything else is just foreplay. But they took a big sharp knife to what was no more than a playground fight. Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, an independent anti-government lawmaker, even started a debate to kick reporters and members of the public out of Legco just to stall Lam’s motion! No doubt such efforts appeal to their base. But for the public, pan-democrats have shown, once again, sense and reason are secondary to their fanatical obsession to oppose the government; that they are happy to bring Legco to a standstill and ignore normal business just to score a pointless victory. Most surveys show the majority of the public either supports, or is indifferent to, the government’s joint checkpoint plan. The pan-dems are doubling down on an opposition that demonstrably has no widespread support, using tactics that work against the public interest. - (Hong Kong News Executives' Association) November 2, 2017. The Hong Kong News Executives' Association expressed deep regrets over Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion during today's Legislative Council meeting to ask the press and the public leave the Legislative Council. We believe that Legislative Council meetings should held in the open, and that they motion has seriously damaged freedom of speech and news gathering for the press. This is a serious blow to a core Hong Kong value. The Hong Kong News Executives' Association finds it hard to imagine that a popularly elected legislator would bring up the motion. Legislators should treasure and defend Hong Kong core values as well as defend the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of publication guaranteed to Hong Kong residents under Basic Law Article 27. They should do their best to make sure that Legislative Council meetings are help in an open and transparent manner, and condemn any action that damages the freedom of press and news gathering in Hong Kong. - (Wen Wei Po) November 4, 2017. The Hong Kong Federation of Journalists has strongly condemned Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion to ask the press leave the Legislative Council. This motion has seriously damaged a core value of Hong Kong and interfered with the freedom of press. It is also against public opinion because it wants to deprive the public of their right to know. - (Hong Kong Economic Times) November 2, 2017. Hong Kong Journalists Association Chris Yeung Kin-hing expressed regret at Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion. He believed that arguments between the government and the legislators should not affect the media's right to gather news. He believed that Chu, who came out of the media, will realize that this motion has damaged freedom of press. - "Expressed regret"? By comparison, their colleagues at the Hong Kong Federation of Journalists and the Hong Kong News Executives' Association issued "strong condemnations." After receiving much scorn about their wishy-washy effort, the Hong Kong Journalists Association upgraded its response to "deep regrets" but still not yet up to the level of "strong condemnation." - Hong Kong Journalists Association, November 2, 2017.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association expressed deep regrets about Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion asking the press to leave the Legislative Council. The Hong Kong Journalists believes that the motion, if passed, would seriously damage the public's right to know and interfere with the media watching over the government and the legislators. When the Legislative Council discusses important social issues, it should be done openly. Our association understands that Legislator Eddie Chu Hoi Dick indicates that he does not support the motion and that he brought up the motion as a means of negotiation. Yet our Association emphasizes that the freedom of press and the public's right to know should not become chips in political struggles. Hong Kong Journalists Association November 2, 2017 - (Ta Kung Pao) November 6, 2017. The Hong Kong Journalists Association is torn between two forces. On one hand, public opinion is on the side of protecting freedom of press and the public's right to know. On the other hand, some members of the Hong Kong Journalists Association are opposed to even saying "regret" because it helps the pro-establishment camp. In order to stop Co-location, they are even willing to "castrate themselves." - (Ta Kung Pao) November 6, 2017. Over the past twelve months, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has issued about 12 "condemnations." For example, when the Hong Kong Economic Journal terminated Joseph Lian's column, the Hong Kong Journalists Association issued a strong condemnation. HKJA chairperson Sham Yee-lan characterized the affair as "self-castration" at the HKEJ. As another example, Nathan Law was surrounded at the Hong Kong International Airport by demonstrators earlier this year after he liaised with pro-independence movements in Taiwan. The Hong Kong Journalists Association immediately issued an angry condemnation to "protect the right to gather news and respect freedom of press." Are they really fair? But if you pay careful attention, the Hong Kong Journalists Association may seem to take the moral high ground. In reality, they hold double standards. For example, when Jimmy Lai threatened an Oriental Daily reporter, they did not even issue a "concerned" statement much less a "condemnation." When a statement of condemnation purported to be from the HKJA appeared on the Internet, they rushed out to deny that it came from them. The Hong Kong Journalists Association is merely a modern-age eunuch. When their Master want them to come out, they jump up and down and scream about the oppression of Freedom of Press; when their Master want them to stay put, they suddenly become deaf, blind and dumb. There are more than 10,000 media workers in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journalists Association has 547 members, including students and public relations workers. Why does the Hong Kong Journalists Association always claim that they are speaking for all journalists. I am saying aloud: "Sorry, you don't represent me!" - (Hong Kong Free Press) November 3, 2017. Pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu said the pro-democracy camp must use all means necessary to resist a situation where freedom is being stripped away. On Thursday, in a last-ditch attempt to stall the debate on the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement, Chu cited the Rules of Procedure 88 (1) to demand an unprecedented debate to request the media and public to leave the Legislative Council chamber. The Pro-Beijing camp criticised his move as “hideous.” Both the Hong Kong Journalists Association and the Hong Kong News Executives’ Association said they were disappointed by Chu’s move, and that LegCo meetings should be held in public. Chu had said it would be his first and the last time to use the rule, as he wished to abolish it for harming press freedom. Although it has never been used in Hong Kong, British MPs have used a similar rule to stall meetings as a kind of filibustering. Following the chaotic premature adjournment of the meeting on Thursday, partly caused by his move, Chu said he understood the concerns from the two associations. “I hope they can consider, from a wider perspective, the stripping of freedom from the legislature and from the public. They are equally worthy of concern, or more concern should be raised about them,” Chu said on a RTHK radio programme on Friday. - Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's approach is entirely consistent with the theory and praxis of Occupy Central. Step 1. Define an objective. In the case of Occupy Central, the objective was this universal standard of "one-person-one-vote via civil nomination." It is somewhat inconvenient that this "universal standard" is not implemented in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, etc. But you stick to this "genuine universal suffrage" all the way through without any possibility of compromise. In the case of Co-location, the objective is to scrap the $80+ billion Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail. Step 2. There is nothing that you can do to Chairman Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang, the Chinese Communist Party, the Politburo, the National People's Congress, the Chinese Communist Political Consultative Conference, the China Liaison Office, the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive, the Hong Kong SAR Executive Council or the pro-establishment legislators to make them fulfill your objective. Therefore you take action directed at the innocent and powerless bystander -- the people of Hong Kong. In the case of Occupy Central, you block off the streets of Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. You stop people and cars from going in and out of the area. In the case of Co-location, you propose to cut off freedom of press from the press and the right to know from the public. Step 3. There is a public outcry from those who are affected. You direct the rage against the establishment. In the case of Occupy Central, you say that none of this would happen if the government implemented "genuine universal suffrage." Therefore everybody should blame the government for what is happening. In the case of Co-location, you tell the press and the public that none of this would happen if only the government would scrap Co-location. Therefore the press should blame the government for taking away the freedom of press and the people should blame the government for taking away their right to know. Step 4. The government was infinitely patient and let things roll until public opinion was completely on their side. In the case of Occupy Central, the government waited 79 days before clearing the occupied sites. By that time, 90% of the population wanted the occupiers gone and their leaders arrested and prosecuted. In the case of Co-location, this is what happens two days afterwards: - (Economic Times) November 3, 2017. Yesterday during the debate over the Co-location proposal, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick motioned for the press and the public be removed from the Legislative Council in his effort to stall for time. Was his action appropriate? 8%: Appropriate 91%: Inappropriate 1%: No opinion (701 votes as of 2:00pm November 4, 2017) The pro-establishment camp should let the filibustering go on indefinitely for a few more weeks over this non-binding motion, and then 99% of the people will want them to amend the Legislative Council Rules of Procedure to cut off all filibustering. - (Bastille Post) November 4, 2017.

Facebook of Ng Wing-fai (Democratic Party member) Eddie Chu Hoi Dick is my friend. But yesterday Chu made three serious mistakes during the filibustering. Of course, the pan-democrats support him because we are in the same camp. But I wish Chu and the pan-democrats reflect on this matter. At the first level, the mistake was to make enemies of the press by ousting them and the members of the public. The pan-democrats want to win over the the press and the public, not to oust them; At the second level, this is against the principle that modern contemporary legislative entities should be as open to monitoring as possible. Most governments and legislative entities subject themselves to monitoring by society. Even an authoritarian figure as Chiang Ching-kuo and the Legislative Yuan at that time would not have done this. I don't know if Chiang Kai-shek's Legislative Yuan expelled reporters at the time. If not, then the first instance would have to be dated to the early days of the Republic of China or even the Qing dynasty; At the third level, Chu proclaimed that this was the first and also the last time that such a motion was made. If it happened a first time, it can happen a second time. The second time may come from a radical pro-Communist legislator. When that happens, the pan-democratic legislators may have to use force to stop the expulsion. I hope that nobody does this. But there is no guarantee given the ignorance of politicians. - (Speakout HK) November 4, 2017. The opposition is using every possible means to stop the passage of the Co-location motion. On the day before yesterday, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick invoked a hitherto unused procedural rule to motion the remove of the press and the public from the Legislative Council. This was a vulgar striptease which showed that the opposition has no principles, no strategies and no vision. Firstly, they showed that they regarded the media as a propaganda tool which can be summoned or dismissed at will. When they need the media to publicize their ideas or attack their enemies, they want the reporters to become their mouthpieces. When they want the reporters to be their stage prop for filibustering, they want to oust the reporters and the members of the public from the Legislative Council. The media is the Four Estate of the people. They have the responsibility to monitor the government and the legislative council, especially on the issue of Co-location which affects the public interest. How can they just direct the media to come and go as they please? Secondly, political leaders need to appeal by morality in order to unite everyone. But the opposition legislators are stupid enough to betray their most valuable asset so readily. This was short-sighted. Thirdly, as popularly elected legislators, they even want to oust the members of the public from the legislative council. This is biting the hand that feeds them and shows that they consider the public to be mere tools to seize power. Once they enter the Legislative Council, they will get rid of the public. The people are not their masters; they are slaves. Finally, they were stupid enough to push themselves to the edge of the cliff. The government can push ahead and the pro-establishment legislators have plenty of reasons to amend the rules of procedure ... [816] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/11/01) (Hong Kong Research Association) 1,076 persons aged 18 or over were interviewed by automated telephone system during October 23-27, 2017. Q12. Do you agree that the Hong Kong section of the High Speed Rail should implement Co-location of Immigration, Customs and Quarantine services? 54%: Agree 35%: Disagree 7%: Don't know/hard to say 4%: No opinion

Concede land for co-location, Hongkongers in peril Date: November 1, 2017 (Wednesday) Location: Tim Mei Road outside the Legislative Council Building Guests: Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Lau Chi-hung, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Tam Tak-chi, Audrey Eu, Hon Lian-shan, Yung Lok-hing, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Ho Kai-ming, Chow Wai-hung, Ng Men-yee, pro-democracy legislative councilors (list is being updated) Fully supported by D100 with live broadcast (Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017. This is the third evening assembly called by the Co-Location Concern Group. The meeting commenced at 6pm. Civic Party legislative councilor Kwok Ka-ki said that the pan-democrats do not have the numbers in the Legislative Council to win a vote, so he wants everybody to come out and protest against the Co-Location proposal. Ex-legislator Leung Kwok-hung recalled that 10,000 persons surrounded the Legislative Council to oppose the High Speed Rail. Today there are only several dozen or hundred persons left to oppose Co-location. He said that this is a huge setback. Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor and Occupy Central trio member Benny Tai was present too. He expects the Co-location proposal to be passed by the Legislative Council, but he said that "they will have to pay a higher price even if they win." At the peak, there were just over 200 persons at the assembly. (HKG Pao) November 2, 2017. According to the official Yellow Media newspaper Apple Daily, "as many as 100 people" attended the assembly. Co-location Concern Group convener Tanya Chan said that they won't be holding any more assemblies. (Oriental Daily) November 18, 2017.

Signing of the agreement to cooperate on Co-location Black box operation: Protest action Date: November 18, 2017 (Saturday) Time: 11am Location: Chater Garden Central to Government House A total of 40 people from the Co-location Concern Group and many other organizations assembled in Chater Garden at 11am and marched to Government House to protest the signing of the agreement to cooperate on Co-location. The protestors said that the government ran a black box operation that sold the people of Hong Kong out. Related link: Mass Demonstrations Against Co-Location Internet comments: - 38% of Hong Kong adults opposes Co-location. That would be just over 2 million adults. How come only 200 showed up to demonstrate outside the Legislative Council? What happened to the rest? - (Sing Tao Daily http://sina.com.hk/news/article/20171028/1/9/4/%E5%9C%98%E9%AB%94%E6%97%BA%E8%A7%92%E8%BE%A6%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E5%85%AC%E8%81%BD%E6%9C%83%E9%99%B3%E6%B7%91%E8%8E%8A%E4%BF%83%E6%B8%AF%E5%BA%9C%E9%80%B2%E8%A1%8C%E8%AB%AE%E8%A9%A2-8062709.html ) October 28, 2017. The Co-location Concern Group held a public hearing in the Mong Kok pedestrian mall. Co-location Concern Group convener Tanya Chan said that if the government genuine respects public opinion, then public consultation should be held. Neo-democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai said that the government's co-location proposal is unacceptable. He said that the High Speed Rail is the most expensive railway at $90 billion. Furthermore, Co-location violates the Basic Law, destroys One Country Two Systems and contravenes procedural justice. He says that it is reasonable for legislators to try to stop the non-binding resolution at the Legislative Council. About 30 to 40 citizens took part. - (YouTube) Once upon a time in January 2000, a number of students marched from Sheung Shui to Central in order to implore the Legislative Council not to pass funding for the White Elephant Project known as Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail. They marched slowly, taking 26 slow steps and then kneeling down to kowtow. Where have these young people gone? Why are they not back now? Well, the Co-location Concern Group came up with the alternate proposal of Co-location in Futian/Shenzhen North with the West Kowloon Station being turned into a shopping mall with a revenue stream coming from rent payments by the name brand stores. That is not going to draw any interest from these young people who don't want yet another shopping mall. To attract these young people, the Co-location Concern Group should propose to level the already constructed West Kowloon Station for farmland on which to grow organic vegetables. - The title of the three rallies so far includes "Hongkongers in peril." This is supposed to strike fear. But what is there to fear about? There is the fear that in mainland China, a Hongkonger can easily be arrested, tortured and murdered by the Commies. If you believe that, you should not go to mainland China at all and the High Speed Rail (like the Intercity Rail, the crossborder long-distance buses, the border posts, the airline flights to mainland China, etc) should mean nothing to you. Meanwhile more than 300,000 persons per day travel between Hong Kong and mainland China each day. How many of them have been arrested, tortured and murdered by the Commies? - (Wen Wei Po) November 2, 2107. How scary is mainland China? Here is legislative councilor Andrew Wan Siu-kin (Democratic Party) organizing a 4-day Christmas trip to Yellow Mountain (Anhui province) while traveling on the High Speed Rail (bus from Hong Kong to Shenzhen North station to take the G1602 8:52-16:53 to Huangshan (Yellow Mountain) and G1061 11:25-19:39 from Huangshan (Yellow Mountain) to Shenzhen North followed by bus to Hong Kong). Now wouldn't it be nicer if the travelers can just embark/disembark in Kowloon West?

[815] RTHK vs TVB - Part 2 (2017/11/01) Background RTHK vs TVB - Part 1 (2017/07/04) (Communications Authority) Press Release, October 2017. The CA considered a complaint case against Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB")'s pre-emption of the television programme "Headliner" () of Radio Television Hong Kong, which the CA pursuant to Condition 19.1(b) of TVB's domestic free television programme service licence. Details of the case are at Appendix.

was originally scheduled for broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB on 30 June 2017. The CA decided that TVB should be strongly advised to observe more closely the direction issued by

(TVB) Must-carry RTHK programmes should stop. October 30, 2017. The Communications Authority (CA) today decided that Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) had breached the CA’s direction in relation to the pre-emption of RTHK programme “Headliner” without approval on 30 June. A TVB spokesman said the CA’s decision showed complete disregard for the circumstances under which the RTHK programme was rescheduled to give way to a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping in Hong Kong for the 20th Anniversary of HKSAR. “It was the first visit to Hong Kong by Xi Jinping in his capacity as the President of the People’s Republic of China. Isn’t the President’s first speech in Hong Kong more significant than the weekly “Headliner”, which is not even a news programme?” the spokesman said. “Mandatory carriage of RTHK programmes adversely affects TVB’s programming and rescheduling flexibility. RTHK, which now has three digital terrestrial TV channels and two analogue TV channels, has no reason to continue to occupy TVB’s precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.” (SCMP) October 31, 2017. Hong Kong’s largest television station TVB breached the terms of its licence when it abruptly pulled off air a programme that poked fun at Xi Jinping and replaced it with less controversial footage of the Chinese president and a feng shui show, the city’s broadcasting and telecoms regulator ruled on Monday. The Communications Authority strongly advised TVB to “observe more closely” the conditions of its free-to-air licence, after receiving 406 complaints about what it did on June 30, when the president was in the city to mark the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule. The episode of the current affairs programme Headliner that was pulled off air also made repeated references to the imprisoned Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo. It was produced by the city’s public service broadcaster RTHK, which complained that it was notified of the cancellation only eight minutes before the programme was due to air on TVB’s Jade channel. But a TVB spokesman on Monday stoutly defended its decision and slammed the mandatory regulation for the station to broadcast RTHK programmes. In a statement, the spokesman said “the authority’s decision showed complete disregard for the circumstances.” “It was the first visit to Hong Kong by Xi Jinping in his capacity as the President of the People’s Republic of China. “Isn’t the president’s first speech in Hong Kong more significant than the weekly Headliner, which is not even a news programme?” The spokesman added that the requirement for TVB to carry RTHK programmes “adversely affects” the station’s programming and scheduling activities. “[There is] no reason to continue to occupy TVB’s precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.” RTHK hit back with a statement of its own, saying it respected the authority’s advice and hoped TVB would honour the conditions of its free-to-air licence, which requires its Chinese channel to run two hours worth of RTHK programmes each week. Headliner was supposed to air on TVB Jade from 6pm to 6.30pm on June 30, but was replaced with footage of Xi meeting people from various sectors of society and a feng shui show. The 12-minute recording of Xi had aired on the TVB news channel earlier at about 5.10pm. The Communications Authority added that there were complaints that the feng shui programme was pre-recorded and there was no “urgency” to screen it, and that the sudden change breached licensing conditions, as changes to programming cannot be made without prior notice. The complaints also included concerns that dropping the programme amounted to selfcensorship. The regulator also said that TVB’s licence terms included broadcasting RTHK programmes at certain times, and that it should apply in writing to the regulator if it needed to make alternative arrangements. (Communications Authority) Response to Media Enquiries on the CA’s Decision on the Complaint Case Against TVB’s Pre-emption of RTHK’s Programme “Headliner”. November 6, 2017. In response to media enquiries relating to the Communications Authority ("CA")'s decision on the complaint case against Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB")'s pre-emption of the television programme "Headliner" of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), the spokesperson for the Office of the Communications Authority said today (6 November 2017) : The CA respects the editorial independence of TVB and appreciates that TVB needs to make proper programme rescheduling having regard to actual circumstances. However, it was incumbent upon TVB to comply with the licence conditions and the requirements under the established mechanism. In other words, if there is a need for TVB to reschedule a RTHK programme, it should submit an application to the CA beforehand (or even afterwards). The requirement and arrangement has all long been in place. As a matter of fact, the CA did approve similar applications from TVB in the past. If TVB made an application to the CA for the rescheduling of the RTHK programme concerned that day, the CA would, as always, handle the application as soon as possible according to the established mechanism and TVB should be able to avoid breaching the relevant requirements. In fact, the reason for the CA to issue strong advice to TVB in respect of the complaints this time was precisely because TVB had failed to follow the established practices and to comply with the relevant procedures. (TVB) November 7, 2017. Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau said: "As a provider of free over-the-air television service, TVB does not pay any usage fees to the government for using the frequencies. Therefore the user of the frequencies must satisfy the public interests. Under such circumstances, the condition in the licensing mechanism should be obeyed. In the long run, we can take a look at the situation and make a full review of the television broadcasting license. But right now it should continued to be done this way." The TVB spokesperson said that the government is saying that TVB does not pay any usage fees. This is "incomprehensible and incredible." TVB pays almost $20 million in usage fees per year. In addition, the commercial value of the government-mandated programs is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. TVB re-emphasized that the speech of Chairman Xi Jinping was an important breaking item. They could not apply beforehand. Afterwards, they sent written explanations to the Communications Authority which are similar to applications, but they were not accepted. TVB pointed out that when they applied for a license renewal, they did not know that RTHK would have 5 digital/analogue channels of its own. It is incomprehensible as to why TVB should continue to be compelled to air RTHK programs until the mid-term review four years from now. Internet comments:

To TVB Group Chief Executive Officer Mr. Mark Lee Po-on: As a Hong Kong citizen, my heart became stone-cold after I read TVB's rebuttal of the Communications Authority yesterday. A publicly listed company is using the Cultural Revolution-style rhetoric of Junius Ho to engage in sophistry? "Isn't the visit by the state chairman more important than programme X?" This is a variation of "My father and mother are not as dear to me as Chairman Mao." TVB can fill in any title for X. If you oppose TVB, you are opposing Chairman Xi! If you oppose TVB, you are opposing Chairman Mao! If you oppose TVB, you are opposing the rise of the People's Republic of China! Perhaps I should calm myself down and ask you a question. Was the logic of "Xi Jinping's speech is more important than any programme" completely decided by you Mr. Mark Lee Po-on alone? Or did you consult the opinions of all the television viewers of Hong Kong? It would be far more acceptable if TVB were willing to issue a statement such as: "This is Chairman Xi Jinping's first visit to Hong Kong. Our station want to promote China-Hong Kong harmony as well as make a good impression on the Central Government. That is why we made programme changes. This is a one-time-only move ..." But we never expected TVB would try to intimidate the Communications Authority and the citizens of Hong Kong, and deliberately spread this kind of Cultural Revolution-style struggle talk. Your state of mind is deplorable! Mr. Mark Lee Po-on, please solemnly watch 2 hours of Xi Jinping's speech in Hong Kong before you make love each time. - What can the Communications Authority do about TVB's recalcitrant attitude? They can impose a fine. If the fine is $50,000, then this is a drop in the bucket against the $4.21 billion in revenue and $500 million in net profit. If the fine is $50 million, then TVB will seek a judicial review and win handily based upon Common Law precedents. They can take away TVB's broadcast license. That would be taking away the principal entertainment for the people of Hong Kong without an equal replacement in its place. There will be such a public outcry that the decision will have to be reversed one way or the other. Meanwhile the Communications Authority does not address TVB's claim that the mandatory regulation to broadcast RTHK programmes is anachronistic. What can they say about the law of the land? If it is in the books, then the Communications Authority will have to abide by it. If the law has to be changed, somebody other than the Communications Authority will have to do it. Right now, that somebody (Executive Council/Legislative Council) is waiting patiently for RTHK/Communications Authority to overreach (for example, taking away TVB's license). - (SCMP) October 17, 2017. Plans to find a new home for Hong Kong’s public broadcaster appeared to hit a snag on Tuesday after the commerce minister cast doubt on a move to share a building with other government departments. Three years ago, a HK$6.1 billion (US$781 million) proposal to build a new headquarters in Tseung Kwan O for the broadcaster was vetoed by the Legco’s public works committee. Most pro-establishment lawmakers had opposed the plan, citing its high cost. Opposition lawmakers on Tuesday were doubtful of the future of RTHK, saying that it was not a priority of the government. “The government couldn’t care less about RTHK,” Claudia Mo Man-ching, an independent legislator, said. “It is not a mouthpiece for the government as [authorities] hoped it would be, nor a genuine public broadcaster considering the political pressure it’s faced.” She said the government had taken a back seat in the development of the broadcaster, adding that she was not hopeful a new building was on the horizon. - Dead man walking. - (Hong Kong Free Press) October 31, 2017. TVB has axed its broadcasts of two English-language programmes The Pulse and The Works – both produced by public broadcaster RTHK. The current affairs programme The Pulse and arts programme The Works used to be broadcast on TVB Pearl at 8:30am on Saturdays and 7pm on Tuesdays respectively. They will still be shown on RTHK’s own channels, including digital terrestrial station RTHK 31. The change occurred in October as TVB also decided to cancel time slots for seven other RTHK shows. Current guidelines require TVB to broadcast 2.5 hours of RTHK programming per week. RTHK’s program staff union chairwoman Gladys Chiu said that – despite the requirements – TVB has some flexibility to choose what to broadcast. She said TVB had been broadcasting more than the required hours, and she expected the time allocated to RTHK programming will become closer to the minimum required. “My observation is that [TVB] will gradually take back the time slots,” she told HKFP. The recent cancellation of time slots for seven Chinese programmes on TVB included four regular programmes. Two were on the Chinese-language TVB Jade channel, including Pentaprism and the LegCo Review – New Lawmakers, both were five-minute current affairs programmes. Two others, Police Report – a five-minute English version of the Chineselanguage programme with the same title – and News Review, were broadcast on English-language TVB Pearl. The three others programmes were irregular shows including Transformers, The Making of Healers, and West Kowloon Cultural District in the Making 2017. When TVB renewed its licence with the government in 2015, the Communications Authority allowed it to choose from a wider range of time slots to broadcast RTHK programming. Before the renewal, TVB had to broadcast RTHK programmes during the so-called “golden hours” – from 7pm to 7:30pm – between Monday and Friday on Chinese-language TVB Jade. But after the renewal, TVB can broadcast 30 minutes of programmes as early as 6pm, which has a lower viewer penetration. Headliner was moved from the 7pm slot to 6pm in September last year. - (HKG Pao) By Robert Chow. November 1, 2017. I have only one question for RTHK. Let us suppose that RTHK was scheduled to air Headliner at 6pm. Chairman Xi Jinping just delivered a speech in his first visit to Hong Kong. Would RTHK pull Headliner and air the speech instead? I assert that all past and present RTHK heads and Directors of Broadcasting --Leung Ka-wing, Roy Tang Yun-kwong, Franklin Wong Wah-kay, Chu Pui-hing, Cheung Man Yee and even C.S. Wilkinson -- would do exactly the same as TVB did. - (Silent Majority HK) October 31, 2017. Only in Hong Kong do we see the absurdity of a government-funded broadcasting organization which specializes in attacking the government. The good thing is that TVB has struck back forcefully at the most vulnerable point of RTHK: “RTHK, which now has three digital terrestrial TV channels and two analogue TV channels, has no reason to continue to occupy TVB’s precious high-rating time slots. This outdated requirement should cease as soon as possible.” RTHK spends $1 billion of taxpayers' money annually, and yet its 713 public servants are unable to come up with quality programs for the people of Hong Kong. Instead, it has only managed to spread dissension and cause chaos. In the commercial world, RTHK would have been closed down based upon its output. - (Headline Daily) The Parasitic Monster. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 2, 2017. Supermarket slotting fees are expensive because space is limited and products are many. If a supermarket lets you assume a prime spot without charging you money, shouldn't you be grateful? But now that someone is lodging a complaint against the supermarket for doing so. That someone is RTHK and the supermarket is TVB. TVB holds licenses for over-the-air television channels and pays its own money to produce or purchase programs, to make advertising sales and to expand revenue sources. It has more than 4,000 employees and a minute of airtime lost is money foregone. If a program does not fare well in the ratings, it will be cut irrespective of who stars in it. Lower ratings means fewer advertisements which means less revenue. Such is the business world. Similarly at the supermarket, rent and salaries are expensive. If you can't earn money, you are going to have to shut down. This are the rules of the game, and nobody is going to sympathize with losers. However, those who live off government handouts will never understand these rules. On June 30, TVB decided to re-broadcast a section of Xin Jinping's speech in Hong Kong by pulling RTHK's programme Headliner. RTHK screamed bloody murder about being oppressed. The Communications Authority acted as an accessory and issued a strong advisory to TVB. So here you have a free prime space over the long-term to sell preserved bean curds at the supermarket. But today the supermarket had just brought in some fresh fruits and wanted to sell them while they are still fresh. So they moved aside your preserved bean curds temporarily. You throw a hissy fit! The problem is that you actually have three of your own preserved bean curd specialty stores within blocks of this particular supermarket. The licensing requirement for TVB to air RTHK programmes is anachronistic. TVB was willing to carry out its social responsibilities before because RTHK did not have any television frequencies. After ATV went out of business, its channel frequencies were transferred to RTHK. Today RTHK has three stations: 31, 32 and 33. They operate with government funding, they don't have to sell advertisements and they are not under any commercial pressure. So why do they still want to be parasites off TVB? In May this year, China Central Television (CCTV-1) began airing on RTHK's channel 33. In less than six months, CCTV-1 is surpassing RTHK's flagship channel 31 in terms of ratings. Most of the channel 31 programmes have zero ratings. Headliner ranges between 0 and 0.2. CCTV-1 has ratings as high as 0.9. Everybody can see that RTHK is living off TVB because this is the only way it can survive. Without TVB's benevolence, it has nearly zero value. So what is the truth here? Is RTHK useless? Or is it being oppressed? The answer is clear for all to see. - (HKG Pao) November 4, 2017. It was unreasonable for the government to force TVB to transmit RTHK programmes, especially since RTHK has five television channels of its own. Everybody knows that. Even the diehard supporters of RTHK cannot come up any powerful reasons. Their argument is that the licensing requirements must be observed, rightly or wrongly so. I learned from reliable sources that TVB had strongly demanded the stoppage of the RTHK broadcasts during the licensing renewal process in 2015. But the government did not want any trouble and insisted that the requirements be kept the same as before. After TVB made repeated protestations, the government said that, in the spirit of contracts, the issue can be discussed when the license is up for renewal in 2021. Is the contract unbreachable? Not necessarily. I studied the details of the contract between TVB and the Communications Authority. Actually, TVB is being asked to broadcast at least 90 minutes per week of "programmes or materials supplied by the Government." These so-called programmes or materials do not necessarily have to come from RTHK. In recent years, RTHK programmes have come under criticism because they have become like oppositional media without explaining government policies. If the government allocates the 90 minutes of air time to other departments such as the News Office, it may be better able to promote its work. The "government programmes" can also include public organizations. For example, TVB can show a programme from the Tourism Bureau to explain what the scheduled events of the coming season are. Or the Consumer Council can present a comparison of de-humidifiers in terms of electricity consumption, or show how a $130 moisturizing facial cream is superior to a $2,700 one. Aren't these better than the very vulgar Headliner on RTHK? - (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 9, 2017. Last Thursday. 730pm. Prime time on television. I randomly pressed my remote control device and I saw devil fish, grouper, discus fish, clown fish ... I have not watched TeleFishion ever since ATV went out of business. So it was a rare opportunity for me to see my television set turned into a fish tank during prime time. I had as much fun as I would have at Ocean Park. Who gave me this opportunity? Channel 32, the free over-the-air channel of RTHK. These fish came courtesy of taxpayers' money. We should spend some time watching these fish, so as not to waste our own money. Actually, there are are plenty of programs like Telefishion. On Channel 32, they either show live broadcasts of the Legislative Council meetings or else they stuff their line-up with these unimaginable programmes for us to take a break and do nothing in particular. Apart from the leisurely swimming fish, RTHK Channel 32 also have these other 'classics.' - A pair of hands is assembling a model. The camera is fixed. Only the hands are moving in front of your eyes. The program lasts 60 minutes. No commercial interruptions. This is a blessing for fans of model-construction. - A cultural program called "Cantonese Opera singer preparing her make-up" showed a woman slowly put on her make-up as a Cantonese opera singer. The program lasts 60 minutes. There is no voice-over and no drama. It is wonderful if you want to learn how to put on make-up as a female Cantonese opera singer. - There are also animal videos. Not the National Geographic kind. These are closed-circuit television videos. One camera, a bunch of animals, 15 to 20 minutes. You can watch the red-crowned cranes at the Botanic Gardens, the cat room and the dog room at the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong), chicklets in chicken farms, White Eyed birds on trees ... the most classical scene is a certain turtle (no explanation and no sound) crawling around slowly for 14 minutes. Sometimes, there are outdoor scenes such as night views of Victoria Park. The most "moving" show is the camera following the backsides of six bicycle riders through the streets for more than 10 minutes. On the day before yesterday, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau declared that "the free over-the-air frequencies are so valuable!" Indeed, a 60-second TVB prime-time commercial sells for $700,000. So how many $700,000's have the turtles, fish and backsides over at RTHK wasted? Has the Secretary counted on behalf of the taxpayers? RTHK wastes more than $1 billion of public money per year. Apart from opposing the government, the Central Government and the Communist Party, they have only these fish, puppies and turtles to show us. If the Chief Executive doesn't care and Secretary Yau doesn't care, perhaps the Audit Commission should care? [814] The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 16 (2017/10/31) Background: The National Independent Party (2016/06/15) and The Bomb Factory (2016/06/15) (Oriental Daily) September 19, 2017. The prosecution began by summoning constable Cheung Ka-kit to testify. Cheung said that at 11:14pm on May 27, 2015, he observed the five defendants came out of the Kwong Wing Building to go to the McDonald's restaurant on Tong Mi Road. They stayed there for a while. At 12:44am on May 28, 2015, the five returned to the entrance of the Kwong Wing Building. Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing went in on his own and came back out with a box in hand five minutes later. At 1:03am, defendants #1, 4 and 5 took the Sai Kung minibus from Dundas Street. Cheung took the bus with them. The three got off on Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung village. (Oriental Daily) September 20, 2017. Constable Chan Pak-ning testified that at 1:02am, he saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing taking defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli by motorcycle from Soy Street to Kam Lum Street in Mong Kok. In addition, defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing, defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu and defendant #5 Man Ting-lok were walking from Soy Street to Kam Lum Street. During cross-examination, Chan admitted that he received six photos of target persons (three men and three women) and defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu was not one of them. Chan said that Wu was wearing glasses at the time, but the defense said that Wu has never worn glasses. Chan denied that he made a mistake. Constable Ng Chung-on testified that she saw defendants #3, #4 and #5 come out of Ka Sing Building on Min Street, Jordan district at 9:55pm on May 27, 2015. The three entered the Jordan MTR station to take the subway to Mong Kok. The three chatted at Grand Plaza and then went to the Kwong Wing Building on Shan Tung Street. At 1:50pm on May 28, Ng observed defendants #1, #4 and #5 got off a minibus at Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung Road. Defendant #1 carried a grey plastic box. They walked towards the ATV studio building and entered by climbing the wall. (Oriental Daily) September 21, 2017. Constable Ng Chung-on testified that she saw Chan Yiu-shing, Wu Kai-fu and Man Ting-lok got on a mini-bus. She got on a private car to follow them. She was notified by walkie-talkie that the three had gotten off on Sai Kung Road near Ho Chung. So she got out of the car near a bus stop and followed the three. She was about 15 to 20 meters away. She stood under a tree near the Che Kung Temple and watched the three climb a short wall to enter the ATV studio. She stood there and watched. At around 2:10am, she heard the sound of motor ("tse" ... "tse" ...) but she did not what caused the sound. She said that it was very quiet and therefore she can hear that sound very clearly. At around 2:42am, she saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing climbing over the wall and coming out. He hung around and spoke on telephone. She was about 15 to 20 meters away from Cheng. Two minutes later, Cheng left on motorcycle. (The Standard) September 21, 2017. Three of five people accused of making explosives were spotted climbing over fences with a gray plastic box to an abandoned television studio where police later found chemicals capable of making bombs, the High Court heard yesterday. The three were among six people targeted for monitoring by the police's Criminal Intelligence Bureau, according to officer Ng Chung-on and her colleagues Chan Pak-ning and Cheung Ka-kit. Chan Yiu-shing, 34, Cheng Wai- shing, 29, Pennelli Rizzy, 21, Wu Kai- fu, 21, and Man Ting-lok, 23, are accused of making explosives at an abandoned ATV studio in Sai Kung. They have pleaded not guilty. Officers Ng, Chan and Cheung told the court they attended a briefing on May 27, 2015, during which they were given photographs of six surveillance targets - four men and two women. Wu was not among the targets. During the follow-up operation on the same day, Cheung saw Rizzy coming out of Fashion Centre in Lai Chi Kok after which constable Chan followed Rizzy who took the MTR to Jordan at 7pm. At 1am on the following day, Chan spotted Cheng riding a motorcycle along Soy Street with Rizzy. Ng later saw Rizzy, Wu and Man coming from the Ka Sing Building, Jordan. The trio took the MTR to the Grand Plaza in Mong Kok where they had a brief chat before heading to the Kwong Wing Building. Chan, Wu and Man later took a minibus to Ho Chung in Sai Kung, and climbed over fences to enter the former ATV television studio. Ng recalled Chan was holding a gray plastic box at the time. Upon questioning, neither officer Chan nor Cheung could say how they were able to find their targets so quickly. "Don't you think you were rather lucky to be able to quickly locate the targets on the same day you received the assignment," the defense asked Cheung. "I don't know," he responded. Constable Chan could not recall whether or not defendant Chan was holding a gray plastic box at the time and denied a suggestion that monitoring the targets was his main job. "I was mostly responsible for tailing them and reporting any abnormalities," he said. However, he said he should have noticed if Chan had a box with him. All five accused are charged with one count of conspiracy to make explosives. Chan, Cheng and Rizzy are charged with possessing explosives. The prosecutor said police saw sparks and smoke coming from the site. The chemicals seized - acid, hydrogen peroxide and acetone - can produce a powerful explosive named TATP, the court heard. Goggles, gloves, electronic scales, and laptops were also found in the building. (Oriental Daily) September 26, 2017. Under cross-examination, constable Ng Chung-on said that she was looking at the wall at the time and did not notice any flashing lights from the building. Ng admitted that she did not mention the fact that defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing carried a plastic box to the scene. But Ng thought that the information in the report was sufficient, because that fact was later mentioned in the statement which is more complete. The defense suggested to Ng that Chan did not bring a plastic box that day. Ng denied this. The defense questioned whether the police officers had conspired together to come up with a uniform description of the plastic box and its dimensions. Ng denited this. The prosecution summoned constable Lam Kai-lun, who began tailing Chan Yiu-shing, Wu Kai-fu and Man Ting-lok since 2am on May 28. He observed the three climbed a short wall and entered the old ATV studio building. Lam watched them from about 50 meters. At 2:17am and 2:26am, Lam observed yellowish-whitish flashing lights and grey-white smoke thrice from top floor and roof of the building. At 2:44am, he observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing come out of the bushes, spoke on the telephone and left by motorcycle. Under cross-examination, Lam admitted that he did not hear any sound of motors. He did not write down in his report and statement that Chan Yiu-shing carried a plastic box. But Lam said that he did see Chan with the plastic box. Lam explained that a colleague had called in that fact by radio, so there was no need for him to repeat the same. However, he was negligent in his statement. The defense said that Lam made it up. Lam said "Yes" at first, but changed his mind two seconds later and explained that he had misunderstand the defense's statement. (Oriental Daily) September 25, 2017. Under cross-examination, the defense said that constable Lam Kai-lun's reports and initial statement did not say that there was grey-white smoke coming out of the ATV studio. The initial reports only mentioned flashing lights. The second statement mentioned grey-white smoke. Furthermore Lam said that the three defendants scaled over a wired fence as opposed to a short wall. Therefore the defense accused Lam of fabricating to please his superiors. Lam explained that he can only give a brief description over the radio. The colleague who transcribed his report does not know all the details. When Lam read the initial statement, he was merely concerned that this was what he saw. Ultimately it was to Lam to write down the full statement. His supervisor told him that there was insufficient details, so he wrote a more detailed report. As for scaling a wired fence, Lam thinks that the police officer who wrote it was wrong because Lam saw a short fence. The prosecution summoned police officer Liu Hon-yin. He said that he was posted about 250 meters away from the ATV studio building on the morning of June 14, 2015. He was watching via long-distance binoculars. Nobody was seen until after 6pm. At around 6:09pm, he saw defendant #2 Cheng Wai-ching taking defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli there by motorcycle. Cheng took out plastic bags and a pump with a transparent red tube from his backpack and the motorcycle seat. Together the two climbed a short wall and entered the studio. (Oriental Daily) September 27, 2017. Police officer Liu Hon-yin testified that he observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli scaled a short wall to enter the ATV studio building. About six minutes later, the two appeared on the roof. But Liu was 250 meters away, so he can only see the upper part of their bodies. Liu said that he cannot disclose his exact location, but he can say that he was an altitude of about four to five storeys high in a building. The defense doubted that Liu can see them. Liu said that he was observing through binoculars and could see their faces. The prosecutor summoned police sergeant Shi Woon-keun. Shi said that after seeing Cheng and Pennelli enter, he and two other colleagues followed them. He checked that there was no one else on the ground floor. He went to the roof after being told by radio that the two were on the roof. Shi observed the two from behind the water tower at a distance of about 30 meters. Cheng was seated upon a light-colored plastic case while Pennelli was seated on the ground. There was a silver-colored box and two beer bottles next to them. Cheng used a spoon to put certain substances into a silver shaker to stir. Pennelli put on clothes, took out a funnel, used the funnel to pour some white powdery substances into the beer bottles. The two packed up and left with the plastic case and beer bottles. When Shi saw the two leave, he went down another stairwell. He heard a colleague say that there was smoke rising from the top floor. Then he heard someone in the corridor say: "Police! Don't leave!" He rushed out and saw his colleagues trying to arrest Cheng and Pennelli. Shi went up to help subdue Cheng. He found a bag of silver powder, a bag of red powder, a pair of goggles and a pair of gloves in Cheng's backpack and a fannypack. During cross-examination, the defense asserted that Cheng and Pennelli never went up to the roof. Therefore what Shi described simply did not happen. Shi denied this. The defense also said that there were many other items on the roof, including metal cans and war games equipment. Furthermore, when the police made the arrests, there was a man in camouflage and straw over his head rushing by. Shi admitted that there were many items but not war games equipment. Neither Shi nor any of his colleagues saw any person in camouflage running by. (Oriental Daily) September 27, 2017. Senior constable Lee Sek-hing said that on June 14, he and his colleague Shi Woon-kuen arrived at the roof of the ATV studio. At the time, Shi was already observing from next to the water tower. Lee said that his principal duty was to protect and support Shi. Lee observed two men talking about 40 meters away. One of them was seated on a light-colored plastic case. He recognized the man later as defendant #2 Cheung Wai-shing. But he could not see what the two men were doing. Lee said that the two then went down the stairs. Lee and Shi left. There were no other persons on the roof. Lee said that he was later tasked with searching the building. He found a hole in a room on the ground floor. The plastic case that Cheng sat upon on the roof was there. Because Lee knew that the case involves explosive materials, he pried open the plastic case to check for explosives. He saw many plastic bags and paper cups. Some of the plastic bags contained white and black powders. The defense asserted that Lee has made a mistaken identification of Cheng Wai-shing. Lee denied this to be the case. (Oriental Daily) Sepbemer 27, 2017. Under cross-examination, senior constable Lee Sek-hing admitted that he was not assigned to look over the evidence. Normally, important evidence requires the officer in charge of evidence to take photos. Lee explained that he thought the plastic case was merely used by Cheng Wai-shing to sit upon. When he found out that there was evidence inside the case, he immediately summoned the officer in charge of evidence. Lee admitted that the photos taken showed the plastic case in a different location from where he found it. However, Lee said that he did not move the plastic case himself. The defense said that Lee had amended his testimony six months later. Lee explained: "I am not writing a novel. There was no reason for me to write down all the details." He said that his supervisor told him that the details must be included, so he made the additions. The defense said that the amendment was intended to tie the two defendants to the plastic case. The defense said that Lee never went up the roof, so he must have made up seeing the two defendants on the roof. Lee denied this, and said that this case has made a strong impression on him. (Oriental Daily) September 28, 2017. Police officer Cheung Chi-hung testified that at around 6pm on June 14, 2015, he and constable Wong Kai-wing were posted outside the ATV studio. He observed defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing bringing defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli over by motorcycle. The two men climbed a short wall to enter the studio. Cheung and Wong followed them about 10 to 15 meters behind. Cheung said that he followed them into a long corridor and then lost sight of them. So Cheung and his colleague hid in a room next to the women's restroom. At about 643pm, he heard the voices of the two men. At about 725pm, Cheung received instructions by radio to arrest the two individuals. When they stepped out the room, they saw the two men coming at them. Cheung said: "Police! Don't move!" The two men turned around and tried to run off, but they were subdued and arrested on suspicion of possession of explosive materials. Under cross-examination, Cheung said that he did not notice any war game materials or BB gun pellets. Pennelli's lawyer said that his client saw a man in camouflage dress with his head covered by straw running by. Cheung said that he did not see this. Police officer Wong Kai-wing said that he arrested defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli. He said that Pennelli tried to escape when he spotted Wong. Ultimately Wong caught Pennelli after a struggle. The defense said that Pennelli had raised his hands to surrender but the police tackled and cuffed him, even breaking his backpack. Wong denied that this was the case. Wong said that Pennelli was brought down onto the ground because he struggled. Police officer Chan Chun-fung said that he searched Pennelli's backpack afterwards. He found a pack of white powder and a pack of silver powder. There was a pair of scissors, wooden chopsticks, a funnel, an electronic scale and matches. Police officer Pang Long-yan said that he was observing the studio building from 50 meters away. At around 725pm, he observed white smoke rising from the top floor window on the left. The smoke was about a window's length in diameter and rose to four storeys high. (Oriental Daily) September 29, 2017 The prosecution summoned Criminal Intelligence Department constable Ng Wing-sun to testify. Ng said that he was assigned to search the ATV building at 7pm on June 14, 2015. There was nobody else present other than the two defendants and other police officers. On the roof, Ng discovered a 10-inch-long red-colored round tube-like object with metal connectors at both ends. The metal connectors were hooked to a blue object. Ng suspected that this might be an explosive device. So he called for help. At around 11pm, the Explosives Handling Team members came and told Ng to leave the vicinity in case of explosion. Ng left and did not return until 5am. The prosecution then summoned police officer Wong Kai-wai who testified that he found certain materials including a plastic box. He said that he also found a McDonald's cup with white powder and liquid-like substance in the water container in the men's restroom on the ground level. He suspected explosives and therefore called for help. The Explosives Handling Team came and ordered Wong to leave the vicinity. Afterwards Wong was told that that the cup has been destroyed by fire. Wong waited for the Fingerprints Team to arrive. He learned later that there were no fingerprints on the materials, including the plastic case. The prosecution then summoned police officer Yeung Lap-wai who found the evidence on defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli. The defense said that Yeung demanded Pennelli to yield the passcode for his mobile phone. When Pennelli acted as if he doesn't understand Cantonese, Yeung and several colleagues assaulted the hooded Pennelli. This happened four times, with each beating lasting about one minute. Afterwards, the medical examiner found Pennelli had injuries on his ear, neck and shoulders. Yeung denied asking Pennelli about the case or assaulting him. Yeung said that he did not see any bleeding in Pennelli's ears. Yeung said that he was there solely to look over the evidence. The defense said that a police officer spread Pennelli's thighs apart and made fun of his "small" penis. The police also told Pennelli that they have arrested his girlfriend Hui Ka-ki who will be a witness for the prosecution. Yeung denied that this ever took place. (Oriental Daily) October 16, 2017) The prosecutor summoned police constable Yau Shu-ming to testify. Yau arrested defendant #5 Man Ting-lok and told Man that he and eight other persons (four men and four women) were suspected of manufacturing and possessing restricted explosives. Man said that he only knew defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli and his girlfriend Hui Ka-ki through online gaming. In July 2014, Man got to know a man named Woo Yat-sun over the online game Transformice. In September 2014, Woo introduced Man to Hui Kai-kei. Afterwards, Hui invited Man three times by phone to join an anti-government organization. Man refused the first two times, but agreed reluctantly the third time. Hui told him to attend a meeting of the National Independent Party. Man said that this was an anti-social, anti-government organization in which Hui is a member. Man attended the meeting in January 2015. Hui and her boyfriend Rizzi Pennelli took him to a band room in the Hung Kwong Shopping Arcade in Mongkok district. He said that they talked about how to cause chaos in society. About ten persons were in attendance, but he only remembered defendants #1 and #2, and Hui. He said that he does not remember their full names, just the nicknames. Man said that Rizzi Pennelli talked about how to create chaos with smoke bombs. The party members used the Wickr app to communicate with each other. He said that the party meets once every one to two weeks. The party has about 20 to 30 members. There is no chairman or headquarters. Man said that Pennelli mentioned attempting to manufacture smoke bombs in March 2015 without success. Pennelli declared success in May 2015, with a yield of 8 to 10 smoke bombs. Pennelli said that they will use them at the Government Headquarters when the constitutional reform bill was being voted upon at the Legislative Council on June 17-19, 2015. Pennelli also said that he wanted to cause chaos by throwing smoke bombs at the police as well as digging up bricks to throw at the police. Man said that he had gone down twice to the old ATV studio in Ho Chung to seek ghosts. He said that he went with other friends who were not National Independent Party members. Man said that Pennelli told him to a course in the Theory and Practice of Electronics in April 2015. He attended ten classes, but Pennelli never told him the reason for it. The prosecution then played a second video interview with Man Ting-lok made more than 10 hours after the first one. Man said that he remembered that Chris is defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing and "An Shing" is defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing. He said that when someone mentioned at the National Independent Party meeting about finding a place to experiment with smoke bombs, Man proposed the abandoned ATV studio. Man said that he went with Chan, Cheng and other members twice to the ATV studio. He remembers that one date was May 27 but he can't remember the other date. Man said that he knew that they were mixing potassium nitrate, sugar and AB glue. He said that he had seen Cheng and Chan mix the three ingredients to make a smoke bomb. (Oriental Daily) October 17, 2017. The prosecutor continued to play the video interview with defendant #5 Man Ting-lok. Man said that on May 27, 2015, he and defendant #1 (Chris Chan Yiu-shing), defendant #2 (Cheng Wei-shing) and another person were at the old studio in Hon Chung. Chan and Cheng mixed three kinds of materials (potassium nitrate, sugar and AB glue) into a McDonald's cup. The bottom of the cup was lit with a lighter. A red light and thick white smoke appeared for 30 to 60 seconds. Man said that they spend about 6 hours there that day. Man spoke about the National Independent Party. He said that the party convener was 20-something-year-old Louis whom he met at the first meeting. Man said that a middle-aged man named Ryan was the treasurer who collects $100 per member each month. Man had paid twice. On the third occasion, Man wanted to drop out. Besides he didn't have the money on him anyway. So Ryan told him to pay next time. Man said that the party has a scientific research group which specializes on researching chemical weapons. Man only knows about the researching and manufacturing of smoke bombs, and does not know how anything else. Man said that defendants #1, #2, #3 and OI are members of that group. He said that the party has a special hand sign and slogan, which were demonstrated in meetings but never used publicly. In the video, Man demonstrated how to extend his right hand from his chest outwards and yelling "Resist valiantly!" The prosecutor then showed the video of how the police re-enacted the crime scene at the Ho Chung studio. (Oriental Daily) October 18, 2017. Organized Crime Triad Bureau constable Yau Shu-ming was asked by the defense whether there was a "secret conversation" prior to defendant #5 Man Ting-lok giving a video statement. Specifically, it was alleged that Yau shut the door and used foul language to tell Man: "If you took part in bomb-making, you must admit it." Man denied that he did. Yau pulled Man's hair and said: "You still deny it!" A colleague of Yau slapped Man and cursed him out. Man then said: "It was not a bomb ... but I will say whatever you want me to say." The defense said that Yau took out a piece of paper on which were written the questions that will be used in the video interview. Yau taught Man how to answer the questions. Yau said: "It is of no help even if you maintain silence, because you can't deny it when the other defendants admit it." Yau denied that this ever happened. The defense said that Yau and three other constables took Man to another police station to make a second video interview. Yau showed photos of the plastic boxes to Man, who said that he has never seen them before. Yau said: "How can you not have seen it? Your fingerprints have been found on them. You can't deny this." Yau then cursed Man out and elbowed Man on his chest. So Man admitted that he had seen the boxes. Yau showed a piece of paper on which the questions for the video interview were written and taught Man how to answer. Yau denied that this ever happened. The defense said that in the first video interview, Man said that he had been to the ATV studio twice before to look for ghosts, but he did not remember the dates or the companions. In the second video interview, he remembered the dates and the companions being the co-defendants. Did Yau find it odd? Did he follow up? Yau said that there was nothing surprising about remembering some things that you couldn't remember before. (Oriental Daily) October 20, 2017. Today, the prosecution summoned Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau to testify. Lai said that he and his supervisor went to the ATV studio in Ho Chung to inspect the suspected explosives. Later his supervisor ordered Lai to proceed to the home of defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli at 2am on June 15. Lai found acetone, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, potassium nitrate, sugar and five fluorescent light tube heads next to Pennelli's bed. Lai cleared all other persons from the scene, donned protective gear and checked the materials. Lai found that there was no immediate danger. He therefore ordered other police officers to take the materials back to the laboratory. (Oriental Daily) October 23, 2017. Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau was asked about the test results on six types of explosives found in Rizzy Pennelli's home. After finding the fluorescent light tubes, Lai discovered that there were electric wires inside. Once connected to battery, the light tube emitted heat. Further testing showed that the setup can be used as a "hot wire" to set off an explosive. Lai said that these light tubes have been modified and are not otherwise available in the streets. Lai said that the acetone, hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, potassium nitrate and sugar can be used for oxidation to cause dynamite to explode. In particular, mixing potassium nitrate with sugar will yield a fireworks effect. Lai said that the coffee machine in Pennelli's room can be used to ground the sugar down into fine powder to be mixed with the potassium nitrate for even better fireworks effect. Lai's report indicated that these ingredients can be used to produce TATP. But certain other ingredients are required, and those had not been found in Pennelli's home. Thus, there is no evidence that Pennelli manufactured any TATP himself. Lai found a notebook with the words "Redneck Rocket," "scientific progress," "remote control," "next to the pool," "Cartoon Avenue of the Stars," "8:30-10:30", etc. (Oriental Daily) October 23, 2017. Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau said that there is no consensus among experts about just what constitutes a fireworks effect. Lai admitted that he did not consult the Explosives Ordinance when he wrote his report. The defense questioned how Lai conduct his testing. For example, Lai had not used the batteries found in Rizzy Pennelli's home but used brand new batteries to connect to the fluorescent light tube instead in order to ignite black powder. Since there was no black powder in Penenelli's home, this test proves nothing. Lai admitted that he chose the testing method himself and that there was no black powder in Pennelli's home. Before he chose his method, he sought approval from his supervisor. The purpose of the test was to check if the equipment can produce a fireworks effect, and most bomb-makers would have done it this way. (Oriental Daily) October 24, 2017. The five defendants are Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wei-shing, Rizzy Pennelli, Woo Kai-fu and Man Ting-lok. Today, the prosecutor questioned Explosives Handling Department chief inspector Lai Ao-yau about whether his opinion on the potential impact of 28 grams of TATP was influenced by the charge. Lai said that his opinion was based solely upon the quantity that he was told about. Lai admitted that he had not found any TATP-based products. Lai also agreed that aluminum powder and potassium nitrate have other legitimate uses apart from making explosives. (Oriental Daily) October 26, 2017. Inspector Wong Chun-yip was cross-examined by defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli's lawyer. Did the police hold a press conference and release inaccurate information? Wong disagreed. The lawyer said that the police produced guns found at the scene and told the reporters that the chemicals found at the scene were ingredients to make TATP explosives. The lawyer pointed out that the so-called guns were plastic toys used in war games and that the police never found any TATP at the scene. So nobody was killed/injured and the only property damage came as a result of the police exploding a small device at the scene. Wong Chun-yip said that he does not remember whether he was at the press conference. The police found the guns but they did not have time to test them yet. Therefore the police did not realize that these were merely toy guns. Wong agreed that the police did not find any TATP, but they did find some chemicals that can be turned into TATP. The lawyer said that Wong attended the press conference, but he is now forgetting because he realized that the police released inaccurate information that was very unfair to the defendants. Wong disagreed. (Oriental Daily) October 30, 2017. Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing said that they will not summon any witness and they won't testify themselves either. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli chose to testify for himself. Pennelli said that he had completed studies in England for an aerospace engineering baccalaureate. He returned to Hong Kong in September 2014 and took part in Occupy Central by working at a supply station. He was introduced to a Whatsapp group. In October 2014, he made contact with a man named Danny Cole (Chinese name Choi Chi-hung) and he met with Choi in November 2014. The prosecutor had admitted that this case was based upon information from a police informer. However, the prosecutor did not identify that informer. Pennelli believes that Choi is the police informer. Pennelli said that Choi is an active member of the Whatsapp group. Choi introduced Pennelli to many other people, including Hui Ka-ki (Pennelli's girlfriend at the time of his arrest), defendant #5 Man Ting-lok and a man named Louis. Through Louis, Pennelli joined a Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan Political Information Network Exchange group. This group was tied to the National Independent Party in March 2015. But Pennelli did not say what that tie was nor did he admit that he was a member of the National Independent Party. Pennelli said that the group had social functions, sometimes playing music in band rooms. He said that Louis also introduced members to bring gold bars and electronic parts to Japan to earn money to make films for the group. Group members were also able to travel to Japan for free. Pennelli had done it himself. The group record also showed that the members took part in the Tuen Mun anti-parallel traders demonstration. Pennelli admitted that he was at the scene of the demonstration, but said that he was there to visit friends and not to demonstrate. Pennelli said that Choi came to his house three times in December 2014. On the first time on December 12, Choi came to play music and Pennelli let Choi use his computer to locate musical scores. Afterwards the police found out that the computer had been used to search for websites that teach people how to build smoke bombs. On the third time on December 31, Choi claimed to know magic tricks and asked Pennelli to take a freeze pack from the Occupy Central supply station. He mixed it with sugar and explained that the freeze pack contained potassium nitrate which becomes rocket fuel when mixed with sugar. Choi also mentioned that Pennelli should study the very cute TATP, but Pennelli ignored that. A few days before the arrest, Choi asked Pennelli directly to make smoke bombs but Pennelli refused. After the police arrested Pennelli, they found large amounts of acetone in Pennelli's home. Pennelli explained that the acetone was purchased as fuel for Choi's toy cars. Pennelli said that Choi told him that the 100-meter straight road outside the Pennelli home was good to run toy cars. So Pennelli bought the acetone as fuel. But until the arrest, Choi had not brought toy cars over to try. On the night of June 14, Pennelli said that he wanted to try welding with defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing. He said that in April 2015, Cheung told him that he wanted to build an iron roof on his rooftop and needed Pennelli's help. For the sake of environmental conservation, Pennelli decided to investigate how to manufacture aluminum flake at home instead of buying it. This can be done by mixing aluminum with oxidized iron particles made with potassium nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, a coating machine and a homemade vacuum steamer. On the night of June 14, Pennlli and Cheng went to experiment at the ATV studio in Ho Chung. They heated the aluminum flake until it gave out light, and then pressed an iron board until it was welded onto the metal frame. But when they left, they were surrounded and arrested by more than a dozen police officers. Pennelli said that Choi recommended the ATV studio to him as the site for experimentation. On June 9 (five days before the arrest), Pennelli had met with Choi in a park in Jordan district when they discussed the experiment. At the time, Hui Kai-ki, defendant #4 Woo Kai-fu and defendant #5 Man Tink-lok were also present. Pennelli said that there were a number of triadlooking men with blonde dyed hair and tattoos in the park. Two policemen entered the park without looking at the men and checked the ID's of Pennelli and company. He heard the police ask Choi: "You look familiar. How come you show up here?" (Sing Tao Daily http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/551508-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9E%E8%A6%96%E8%A0%94%E6%B6%8C%E7%89%87%E5%BB%A0%E7%88%86%E7%82%B8%E5%93%81%E6%A1%88+%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%EF%BC%9A%E5%86%92%E7%99%BD%E7%85%99%E5%BE%8C%E8%AD%A6%E5%AF%9F%E8%A1%9D%E5%87%BA ) October 30, 2017. Rizzy Pennelli said that Danny Cole asked him to manufacture smoke bombs one to two weeks before the arrest. Pennelli had no interest whatsoever. The police found a sticker in Pennelli's home with the word TATP written on it. Pennelli explained that Danny Cole told him that this is "cute stuff" and told him to research it. So Pennelli wrote it down. Pennelli said: "I think that he was more interested than I was." Pennelli said that defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing wanted to weld an iron cover for his roof. At first, Pennelli wanted to manufacture his own thermite. But Cheng couldn't wait and went out to purchase commercial thermite. Pennelli said that he has never tried welding with thermite himself and was worried about causing a fire. So he asked Danny Cole whether there was any place for which there is no worry about causing a fire. Danny Cole suggested the abandoned ATV studio in Ho Chung. Pennelli and Pang went to the ATV studio. Cheng placed the thermite on the metal frame and heated it. He also placed an iron plate on top of the thermite. There was light and whitish smoke for 30 to 40 seconds. As Pennelli and Cheng packed up to leave, Pennelli saw a person downstairs in the open area. They made eye contract. Shortly afterwards, a group of men charged in and said: "Police! Don't leave!" Pennelli said that he immediately raised his hands and said: "Cool it! Cool it!" A number of policemen came over and held him. They placed a hood over his head, handcuffed him and removed his backpack. Pennelli was kept there for about 30 minutes. The police asked him to provide the access code to his mobile phone. He refused. The police hit him in the ears, stomach and private parts. They put their knees on his neck, causing breathing difficulty. They said: "This is your final chance to become state's witness. If you cooperate, we will spare you." They asked: "Who is the mastermind behind the scene?" Pennelli did not answer because he didn't know what the police mean. And they continued to beat him. At midnight, the police took Pennelli back to his home. Two hours later, a bomb removal expert arrived. Everybody was cleared out. Pennelli was allowed back at 7am. Pennelli said that he had applied to become a police inspector and also at the ICAC. The police officer found the application letters in his computer and were astonished: "Huh?" (Oriental Daily) October 31, 2017. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli said that the police informer Danny Cole (Choi Chi-heng) asked him to manufacture twelve smoke bombs. Pennelli replied: "You're crazy" and ignored the request. Pennelli said that he does not agree with this method of protest. Pennelli said that he met regularly with Choi, who came to Pennelli's residence to demonstrate a ninja vanishing act. Choi used ice packs to produce a large amount of smoke but Choi did not vanish. Pennelli said that the chemicals that the police found in his backpack and home have legitimate uses; for example, potassium nitrate is used to manufacture ice packs. Pennelli said that he is not a member of the National Independent Party. In fact, he is not sure what the National Independent Party is about. He said that he first encountered defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing at the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan group meeting on December 17, 2014. The attendees were people interested in political issues in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. They discussed the Sunflower movement in Taiwan and the Occupy movement in Hong Kong. Pennelli explained that he and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing went to the home of defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing on May 27, 2015. Chan said that he will demonstrate an electrolysis experiment which can be used in welding. (Oriental Daily) November 1, 2017. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli testified that he was a volunteer at a supply station during Occupy Central. He was introduced to a Whatsapp group which included a man named Choi Chi-heng. Choi introduced Pennelli to defendant #5 Man Ting-lok and a man named Louis who is the founder of the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan Political Information Network Exchange. Pennelli said that this was a Facebook group. At the Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan meetings, he got to know the other defendants. Louis said that Hong Kong-Macau-Taiwan is tied to the National Independent Party. Pennelli said that Choi send him a text message in early June 2015 to ask him to manufacture 12 smoke bombs. Choi said that these were to be used at demonstrators. Pennelli replied: "Crazy!" and ignored Choi. Pennelli said that Choi mentioned 617. Pennelli understood this to be June 17 when the Legislative Council votes on the constitutional reform bill. Pennelli said that this text message no longer resides on his telephone because the app automatically removes the records. Pennelli believes that Choi is a police informer. (Oriental Daily) November 2, 2017. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli testified that the text found in his mobile phone was downloaded from a Facebook group. So it would be unfair for Pennelli to be held responsible for what others wrote. The prosecutor said that Pennelli used a mixer to ground down sugar to mix with potassium nitrate to create smoke bombs. Pennelli denied it. Pennelli said that when the police searched his home, they intentionally did not take the iron oxide. He said that one police officer picked up the plastic box containing the iron oxide and said: "This guy is breeding ants?" Pennelli said that he did not understand why the police officer thought so. The prosecutor read out the contents of the stickers in Rizzy Pennelli's notebook. There were terms suc as "electronic detonator," "modify the rocket" and "remote control." Pennelli said that the police informer Choi Chi-heng told him to search for the relevant information. Choi said that the electronic detonator is the trigger. The prosecutor said that Pennelli's mobile phone contained texts about modifying model cars: "Take off the left engine and install the electronic detonator." Another text mentioned: "Plan 1: Set fire to the trash bin. Plan 2: We must make either a color bomb or a smoke bomb tomorrow. Who is going to help?" The prosecutor said that Pennelli kept these texts in order to manufacture TATP, smoke bombs and detonators. Pennelli denied this. (Oriental Daily) November 3, 2017. According to Rizzy Pennelli's mother Tang Mei-yi, she had worked at the Italian Consulate for more than 20 years. On the night of June 14, 2015, the police brought Rizzy Pennelli to their Sai Kung home. At the time, Rizzy Pennelli had injuries on his head and neck. The police searched the home. Bomb removal experts came afterwards. Tang said that a senior police officer told her that they found TATP materials at the home. Later a younger police officer tried to get her to persuade Rizzy Pennelli to "admit it" because the penalty for such a big crime will be at least 7 years. But Tang said that she does not believe that her son would do that sort of thing. Defendants #4 and #5 chose not to testify themselves. They did not summon any witness. At this point, the court has finished hearing the evidence. (Oriental Daily) November 9, 2017. At summation, the prosecution said that it was not necessary to prove that the five defendants actually manufactured bombs. It was only necessary to prove that they had the raw materials that can cause explosions. The prosecution said that the defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #4 Wu Kai-fu both went to the ATV studio, and the police observed light and white smoke coming out. Defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli's mobile phone had information about how to build a smoke bomb from those raw materials. Pennelli said that a police informer asked him to manufacture a smoke bomb, but the prosecutor said that this man showed Pennelli how to make a smoke bomb so there was no need for him to ask Pennelli to do it for him. Defendant #5 Man Ting-lok admitted on video that they made about 10 smoke bombs at the ATV studio. Chan Yiu-sing's lawyer said that the defendants are entitled to legally own those chemicals and there are legitimate uses for them. The plastic box found may have been left there by persons other than Chan. Furthermore, the contents of that box were completely different from whatever chemicals found by the police in Chan's home. Therefore, there is no evidence that Chan took part in the manufacturing of explosives. (Oriental Daily) November 10, 2017. Chan Yiu-shing's lawyer said that the police officer reported on police radio that he saw flashing lights on the first floor. Several months later, the police officer added that he saw smoke. However, the defendant claimed to be testing smoke bombs in the men's room on the ground floor. That location is sealed tight, so light and smoke cannot be seen. Clearly the police testimony is suspect. Chan's lawyer said that there were some photos of smoke-emitting burning materials in Chan's computers. But the photos do not mean anything, because nobody knows who took them who knows where and when. As for the list of TATP materials in Chan's computer, it means nothing either. On possession of explosive materials, Chan's lawyer said that defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli testified that he was helping defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing to weld an iron roof and Chan knew how to manufacture thermite. So Chan got the materials in order to teach Cheung how to weld. Even if the jury does not buy this, the fact is that the materials were found on the corridor outside Chan's unit so that they may be placed there by other persons unknown. Furthermore, the expert said that the amount was too small to manufacture explosives. Therefore Chan should get the benefit of doubt. Cheng Wai-shing's lawyer said that the prosecution expert witnesses have no expertise in the relevant chemicals. Under cross-examination, they said that they didn't know and weren't sure. Therefore these people are of no help to the jury. Rizzy Pennelli's lawyer asked the jury not to hold prejudice against social activists such as his client who worked as an Occupy Central volunteer. The lawyer said that the prosecution tried to scare the citizenry by invoking the National Independent Party with materials that can be used to manufacture TATP explosives. But the prosecution could not produce any evidence of manufactured TATP, and therefore switched to charging them with manufacturing smoke bombs. Defendant #5 Man Ting-lok claimed that they have made 10 or 8 smoke bombs. But in the end the police found nothing. The lawyer also questioned why the police did not arrest everybody on May 28 when they were supposedly testing smoke bombs. Wu Kai-fu's lawyers said that the police can only prove that Wu went with the other defendants to the abandoned ATV studio in the early morning of May 28. It was not known when Wu left. The police said that they observed flashes at 2am. But Man Ting-tok testified that they had to retrieve certain materials and the testing began at 5am. There is no direct evidence against Wu after that date. (Oriental Daily) November 13, 2017. Man Ting-lok's lawyer said that although his client's interview with the police was videotaped, the jury needs to consider whether his client was telling the truth. The lawyer said that the police officer told Man that "You said that you have 10 ... 8 smoke bombs" but Man had never said so in the video. The police officer could not explain how he knew. Therefore the lawyer said that there must have been a prior conversation that was not videotaped. In the other two video interviews, Man could not remember at first either the date of the ATV studio visit or the other persons present. Then he remembered that it was May 28 which was consistent with what the police officer testified. The lawyer pointed out that the jury needs to consider why Man suddenly remembered these things. The lawyer said that even if the jury does not agree that Man was coerced to make a video-taped confession after being beaten by the police, Man never admitted that he took part in the manufacturing of explosives. Man only said that he heard and saw people manufacturing smoke bombs. That does not mean that the conspired himself to manufacture explosives. Even if Man joined the National Independent Party, it does not mean that he took part in this crime. (Oriental Daily) November 14, 2017. The judge gave instructions to the jury of five men and two women. The jury is to use commonsense to consider the evidence in the case and not be swayed by personal feelings or moral concepts. During the trial, the political positions and preferences of the defendants were mentioned, but the jury should not be influenced. The judge said that certain other individuals were mentioned. The jury should ignore the reasons why those individuals did not appear in court. The judge said that the relevant ordinance does not require whether explosives were actually manufactured. Instead it was sufficient that the materials can be used to manufacture explosives. On the count of conspiracy, the actions were conducted in secrecy so that there may not be any other witnesses. The jury needs to be convinced that the defendants came to an agreement to manufacture explosive materials with the effect of fireworks and that they took concrete action. It does not matter when they joined in or backed out or whether they never produced anything. A conspiracy exists as soon as they reached an agreement. On the count of possession of restricted explosives, the judge said that there are three factors: (1) the materials were in the possession of the defendants; (2) the materials were explosives or materials that can be used to manufacture explosives; (3) the defendants have no legitimate reasons to possess those material. The jury needs to consider the count separately for each defendant, because each defendant is offering his own explanation as to why possess the materials. (Oriental Daily) November 16, 2017. The jury of five men and two women began deliberations at 930am. More than six hours later, they came back with two questions to the judge. The first question pertains to the restricted explosives. The judge explained that the decision consists of three factors. First of all, they must decide if the defendants possessed these so-called explosives. If so, they must decide whether these are indeed explosives. If so, they must decide if the defendants has legitimate reasons to possess these explosives. A guilty verdict comes if all three factors hold. The second question pertains to whether the uncontested expert reports can be relied upon to decide whether the defendants had legitimate reasons to possess the explosives. The judge said that the jury needs to decide on whether they trust those expert reports. (Oriental Daily) November 17, 2017.

After a day and a half of deliberations, a jury of five men and two women came to a verdict. Defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing and defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli were found guilty of conspiracy to manufacture explosives while the other three defendants were found not guilty. Defendant #1 Chen Yiu-shing and defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing were found guilty of possession of restricted explosives. Defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli was found guilty of two counts of possession of restricted explosives. Defendants #4 Wu Kai-fu and #5 Man Ting-lok were released immediately after being found not guilty on the conspiracy charge. Defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing is 36 years old and unemployed at the time of his arrest. He has eight prior criminal records, including one for manufacturing explosives for which he was sentenced to community service. Defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing is 31 years old and unemployed at the time of arrest. He has another criminal record which was committed while on probation for this case (see The National Independent Party). Defendant #3 Rizzi Pennelli is 24-years-old and unemployed at the time of the arrest. He has no prior criminal record. (Sing Tao Daily) November 17, 2017. The voting was as follows: Count #1 conspiracy 7-0 Cheng Wai-shing 5-2 Rizzi Pennelli 0-7 Wu Kai-fu 1-6 Man Ting-lok Count #2 possession 6-1 Cheng Wai=shing Count #3 possession 6-1 Rizzi Pennelli Count #4 possession 5-2 Chan Yiu-shing Count #5 possession 6-0 Rizzi Pennelli (Oriental Daily) November 17, 2017. Other information was found in the defendants' computers and mobile phones but not presented during the trial. The computer files included mentions of "Hong Kong independence" and ambush spots against tourists and police in Sheung Shui. The police also found articles on how to manufacture remote-control bombs using beepers and old cellular phones. (Sing Tao Daily) December 8, 2017. Randy Shek, senior counsel for Chan Yiu-shing, said that his client had a positive attitude because he worked as a volunteer during the Occupy Movement. Since being bailed out in February, he has taught children how to swim. In addition, Chan only possessed a small amount of explosive materials so that his case is less severe. Douglas Kwok King-hin, senior counsel for Cheng Wai-shing, said that Cheng had no intention of hurting other people or damaging property. All the assertions about tossing smoke bombs and the National Independent Party were based upon the testimony of Man Ting-lok during the police interrogation. The sentence should not be based upon any political position. Two letters were presented to point out that Cheng was helpful to his colleagues. John C. Haynes, senior counsel for Rizzi Pennelli, said that the actions of Pennelli and Cheng merely created some burn marks in a small spot without no loss of life. By choosing to experiment in the abandoned ATV studio, they reduced the risk of injury to persons. But the judge said that the location was chosen because they didn't want to be discovered. Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin showed up in court as a spectator because he cares about social affairs. District Councilor Chan Kwok-keung wrote one of the letters on behalf of Cheng Yiu-shing. In his letter, he said that they knew each other when Cheng was a volunteer worker. He believes that Cheng is a young man who cares about society. (Oriental Daily) December 16, 2017.

Defendants Chan Yiu-shing, Cheng Wai-shing, and Rizzy Pennelli. The judge sentenced defendant #1 Chan Yiu-shing to 2 years 2 months in jail for possession of restricted explosives, defendant #2 Cheng Wai-shing to 2 years 10 months in jail for one count of conspiracy to manufacture explosives and one count of possession of restricted explosives, and defendant #3 Rizzy Pennelli to 3 years 10 months for one count of conspiring to manufacture explosives and two counts of possession of restricted explosives. The judge was not sure why the defendants were interested in explosives, but it was certain that this was a very dangerous thing to do. The judge pointed out that the sentence for Rizzy Pennelli was difficult, because his crime was more serious than the other two defendants as the materials in his possession can be used to manufacture different kinds of explosive materials. However, Pennelli appears to be a bright young man who was either too young or otherwise affected by the social atmosphere at the time. In any case, the three got what they deserved. The judge asked them to reflect on how to obey the law in future and contribute to society. The judge pointed out that the maximum penalty under the law was 14 years. In Great Britain, the relevant law was amended in April 2015 to raise the maximum penalty to life imprisonment. (SCMP) December 15, 2017. After lengthy prosecution and trial procedures, Mr Justice Kevin Zervos delivered the sentences at the High Court on Friday. Zervos said while no end-product was actually produced or seized, “the ingredients and the know-how to make them were there”. He added there was no reason for the trio to possess substances capable of making thermite – a product which could product extreme heat – other than for “some untoward purpose”. There was a greater culpability on the part of Pennelli, the judge said, as he was found with possessing materials for making TATP, a dangerous explosive which can cause loss of life. In mitigation, counsel John Haynes, for Pennelli, said such possession only reflected his client’s interest in science and experimentation. “It should be borne in mind that researching explosive substances is one step away from making them and another step away from using them,” Zervos said, before handing down a 46-month sentence for Pennelli. Zervos admitted it was difficult sentencing Pennelli, describing him as a “very bright young fellow”, and wondered whether he committed the offences due to a lack of maturity or foresight. Chan, meanwhile, was given a 26-month prison term on one charge, while Cheng received 34 months on two charges. The trio’s pleas for a reduced sentence were all rejected. In passing the sentence, Zervos told the trio that nothing would be achieved by using explosives to cause destruction, and hoped they would reflect on their actions and contribute to the community in the future. [813] Catalonia Is Not Spain, Hong Kong Is Not China (2017/10/29) (Ta Kung Pao) November 5, 2016 With respect to the "Hong Kong Is Not China" banners displayed by Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching during their oaths of Legislative Councilors, Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) said that it was based upon the "Catalonia is not Spain" banners.

(Reddit) Hong Kong Guy Comic: Catalonia vs Hong Kong.

(Apple Daily) September 30, 2017. A Hongkonger named Paul is in Barcelona conducting live broadcasts of the October 1 referendum for Apple Daily. Paul described the evening assembly as being "stunning" with about 100,000 persons present. Many Catalan legislators showed up to express their support. During the assembly, the citizens sang many Catalan songs. Paul said that although there were many songs, as soon as the organizers start one song, the crowd knew immediately to sing along. Paul said that Hongkongers should learn to find a song that represents Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong can play this other song at international events instead of the Chinese national anthem which gets booed by certain members of the public. Paul said that during his contact with local people, the phrase that resonates most is "Hong Kong is not China". The pro-independence Catalans have their own "Catalonia is not Spain" phrase with more or less the same concept, which makes it easy for Catalans to understand the situation of Hongkongers. (Wikipedia) Catalan independence referendum There were 5,314,564 registers voters. The turnout was 2,286,217 (43.03%). On the question: "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?", 2,044,038 (92.01%) voted YES, 177,547 voted NO (7.99%) with 64,632 (2.83%) invalid/blank. (EJ Insight) What would happen to Catalonia after gaining independence? By Simon Shen. October 4, 2017. The independence referendum held by Catalonia on Sunday had a 42.3 percent turnout, with 90 percent of the voters saying “yes” to independence. Madrid has declared the referendum unconstitutional, but its results mark a new chapter in Catalonia’s independence movement. Barcelona’s bid for statehood is now no longer just an assumption, but rather, a very real and imminent issue. So if Catalonia gains its independence, what will be the implications for both Spain and Europe? First, as far as the daily lives of the average Catalans are concerned, I believe the first change they are going to see after independence is that the status of Spanish as their official language is likely to be relegated. Meanwhile, the rest of the world may witness a growing presence of the Catalan language and culture, which had been repeatedly banned and suppressed by Madrid since the 15th century, but which have staged a major comeback since the late 1970s when Spain started to undergo democratization. In time it is possible that the Catalan culture may gain an equal footing with the Portuguese and Spanish (Castilian) cultures on the world stage. Broadly speaking, Catalonia’s independence not only suggests that it is going to secede from Spain, but also means it would be seeking its fair share in the Spanish-speaking cultural sphere, which has remained a key segment in international relations. From the perspective of international diplomacy, Catalonia’s independence would also have profound geopolitical implications for Europe. For one thing, Catalonia controls the strategically important Pyrenees mountain passes that connect Spain and France, two of the major continental powers of Europe. For centuries right up to the conclusion of the Treaty of Pyrenees in 1659, under which Spain agreed to cede the northern parts of Catalonia to France, both Madrid and Paris had regarded the region as strategic frontiers against each other. Unfortunately, Catalonia had failed to navigate between the two major European powers without committing itself to either. As a result, it fell victim to Spanish-French rivalry, and eventually lost its statehood. But once Catalonia gains its independence, Spain and France will no longer be neighbors, thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power on the European continent that has already lasted centuries, and both Madrid and Paris will have to accept the reality that they are once again kept apart by a buffer state. The problem is, Catalonia may aspire to more than just “buffer state” status as both Spain and France would expect after it has gained independence. In order to gain its European Union membership as soon as possible, Barcelona might try to play Madrid and Paris against each other so as to expedite the negotiation process. Moreover, as some radical Catalan separatists have proposed, Catalonia might seek to unify with other places such as Aragon, Valencia and Roussillon, and build a new and powerful nation state on the Iberian Peninsula. If that happens, the Pyrenean region is unlikely to remain stable, and the instability may spill over to France. On the other hand, Catalonia’s independence may also trigger a chain reaction of separatist movements across Europe such as in the Basque autonomous region in northern Spain, Scotland in the United Kingdom, the Dutch-speaking Flanders in Belgium, Bavaria in Germany as well as Venice in Italy, thereby threatening the unity and stability of the entire EU. After Catalonia gains independence, Barcelona, its state capital, may strive to become the next European financial hub, or even compete with Brussels for the new EU capital. After all, Barcelona, given its proximity to the Mediterranean Sea, its booming tourism and its pleasant climate conditions, is more livable than quite a number of other major European cities, and therefore has a lot of potential for becoming a highly competitive financial and commercial center in continental Europe. However, it would be wrong to think that the economic outlook of an independent Catalonia is entirely bright and promising. It will have to face a lot of uncertainties and challenges posed by external factors such as its worsening relations with Spain and the fact that it may lose the convenience of trading different goods in the EU’s free market for a certain period of time. The new-born state may have to renegotiate its EU membership with Brussels before it can have free access to the European single market again. Internet comments: - For those Hong Kong/Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang independence dreamers who think that the leading democratic nations (United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Germany, France, etc) will offer unconditional support to self-determination by a people: (Sky News) October 27, 2017. Catalonia's parliament has voted to declare independence from Spain, shortly before Madrid voted to impose direct rule on the region. Tens of thousands of independence supporters chanted their joyous support as they gathered near the Catalan parliament in Barcelona. Watching events from inside on two giant screens, they clapped and shouted "independence" in Catalan. The motion - boycotted by opposition parties - said Catalonia was an independent, sovereign and social democratic state, and called on other countries and institutions to recognise it. - (Sky News) October 27, 2017. The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said the EU would continue to deal with Spain only. "For EU nothing changes," he said. "Spain remains our only interlocutor. I hope the Spanish government favours force of argument, not argument of force." Shares in Catalan banks fell after the result of the Barcelona vote became clear. (Reuters) October 4, 2017. Germany: Rule of law must hold in Spain. It is important for Spain to uphold the rule of law to preserve stability, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said on Wednesday as Catalonia moves toward declaring independence from the EU state. “Germany is watching developments there closely. We have a great interest in the stability of Spain. Therefore it is important ... that the rule of law is adhered to,” spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters. Describing the conflict between Madrid and Catalonia as an internal matter, he said any solution “can only take place within the Spanish constitution and democratic order” and he declined to condemn police action over the weekend. “Chancellor Merkel is not pursuing a mediation mission. It is an internal matter for Spain,” he added. (The Guardian) October 9, 2017. France has said it will not recognise Catalonia if the regional government presses ahead with a unilateral declaration of independence from Spain, and urged both sides to negotiate their way out of the crisis triggered by last week’s referendum. “If there were to be a declaration of independence, it would be unilateral, and it would not be recognised,” France’s European affairs minister, Nathalie Loiseau, said. (Sky News) October 28, 2017. The United Kingdom "does not and will not recognise" Catalonia's declaration of independence from Spain, Downing Street says. Theresa May's spokesperson released a statement saying the UK wants to see the unity of Spain preserved. "The UK does not and will not recognise the unilateral declaration of independence made by the Catalan regional parliament," the statement said. "It is based on a vote that was declared illegal by the Spanish courts. We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish constitution respected, and Spanish unity preserved." (TIME) October 27, 2017. The United States says Catalonia is an "integral part of Spain" and that it supports Spanish government efforts to keep the nation "strong and united." State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert says the two NATO allies "cooperate closely to advance our shared security and economic priorities." Her statement shows America's clear opposition to Catalonia seceding from Spain and establishing an independent republic. Lawmakers in the Spanish region's parliament voted to do exactly that on Friday. Moments later, the Spanish Senate voted to authorize the government to take control of the prosperous northeastern region. Nauert said: "The United States supports the Spanish government's constitutional measures to keep Spain strong and united." - At first, the Hong Kong oppositionists came out to applaud the Catalan independence referendum because it set a model example for them. But now that the Catalan government leaders are going to be charged with treason/secession/rebellion, they have gone completely silent. Why isn't this a beacon for them anymore? And why won't they even voice any objection to the political persecution of the pro-democracy pro-freedom Catalan leaders? Are they afraid of being seen on the wrong side of United States/United Kingdom/European Union? - (Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2017. Legislative councilors Wu Chi-wai and James To of the Democratic Party were asked about their opinions about Spain prosecuting many former Catalan officials for rebellion. Was it "politically motivated" prosecution? Are these "political prisoners of conscience"? Wu and To said that they can't comment because they don't know much about the situation with Catalan independence. However, they believe that the relevant authorities are surely acting in accordance with the law. Legislative councilor Charles Mok also claims to be unfamiliar with Spanish Law or the details of the prosecutions. Therefore he finds it hard to comment. Legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) said that he hasn't paid attention to the news, so he can't comment. Legislative councilor Dennis Kwok Wing-hang (Civic Party) said that he is hoping that the Spanish government can sit down and discuss with Catalonia under the grand principle of respecting democracy. The Spanish government should understand why the Catalan people are demanding. For the sake of regional stability, the European Union should also pay attention to developments. - With respect to this most important model for Hong Kong autonomy/self-determination/independence, most of our legislative councilors plead ignorance and refuse to comment. ... or else they say that everybody should pay attention to everybody else. Or something. - (Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2017. When the Spanish police tried to stop Catalan independence referendum, the Hong Kong self-determination people (Demosisto, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick and Ray Chan Chi-chuen) rushed out to declare: "It is the basic right of every citizen (in Hong Kong and everywhere else in the world) to use democratic methods to exercise their right for self-determination. The voices of the people should be heard, acknowledged and respected." Now that things turned out this way, these people are not talking about the basic human rights anymore. But at least they have the honor and decency not to flip to become constitutionalists overnight. - Why are European governments not in favor of Catalan independence? Because they all have their own separatist problems. It would be a stretch to ask them to support Catalan independence but oppress separatist movements within their own borders.

(Telegraph) October 13, 2017. A breakaway Catalonia would cause a domino effect that could splinter the European Union, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker warned. Mr. Juncker said that if Catalonia was allowed to separate, "others would do so too. I would not like an EU that in 15 years consisted of 98 states." Addendum: List of active separatist movements in North America - (Stratfor) October 5, 2017. At this point, it's too early to speak of an exodus of companies from Catalonia. In many cases, business are not really even leaving the region, but rather moving their headquarters or their legal base to other parts of Spain. The move is a preemptive one, as companies want to keep their options open in the event of continued tension between the Spanish central government and the Catalan government — or even Catalan independence. For banks in particular, changing the location of their legal base is logical, because if Catalonia does gain its independence, it likely would not be a member of the European Union or eurozone, at least initially. The region could still use the euro as its currency if it chose to; Montenegro, for example, uses the euro. But the European Central Bank doesn't back banks in countries that use the euro but don't belong to the eurozone. By moving their legal seats to Spain (which would remain a member of the eurozone), banks can ensure that they're still covered by mechanisms such as the European Deposit Insurance Scheme, which ensures that all deposits up to 100,000 euros are protected. For Catalonia, being independent and most likely outside of the European Union — at least temporarily — means paying tariffs on exports to its main trade partners, including Spain. The new Catalan state would also already be in debt, as Madrid and Barcelona would have to determine what percentage of Spain's sovereign debt Catalonia would inherit. Furthermore, the region would have to spend money in areas that are currently covered by the Spanish state, such as defense, which could require tax increases. Pro-independence forces argue that an independent Catalonia would only face these economic difficulties for a short period of time. They believe the new country would negotiate a fast re-accession to the European Union, because it already complies with the bloc's requirements. (It's not entirely clear if the bloc would be willing to create such a precedent, as many EU members also have separatist-minded regions.) In addition, they argue that gaining control of their taxes would put the new state in control of enough resources to deal with all the new challenges of an independent country, as Catalonia contributes more taxes to the state than it receives back. - (Sport24) October 11, 2017. As well as FC Barcelona, there are two other Catalan clubs - Espanyol and Girona - in La Liga and three more, including Barca's B team in the second division. La Liga president Javier Tebas has repeatedly insisted that Catalan teams would not be allowed to continue in La Liga after independence. "If the rebellion succeeds, we will work for a league without Barcelona," Tebas told BeIN Sports Spain this week. In an interview with AFP in 2015, Tebas described the Barca's rivalry with Real Madrid as La Liga's "crown jewels". El Clasico is regularly the most watched match around the world and a huge boost to La Liga's near €1.8 billion TV revenue for the 2016/17 season. According to Jose Mara Gay de Liebana, professor of economics at Barcelona University, Barca's departure would see a "minimum of €200 million" wiped off La Liga's TV income. For Barcelona, the impact could be even more drastic. The club announced last month they expect to make a record 897 million euros this season, nearly a quarter of which comes from La Liga TV deals. "They wouldn't be able to have world-leading figures," added Gay de Liebana, of a squad currently boasting the likes of five-time World Player of the Year Lionel Messi. "They would become a medium-sized club." - (Punch) October 20, 2017. Nearly 1,200 companies of all sizes have shifted their legal headquarters out of Catalonia to other parts of Spain since the region held a banned independence referendum, Spain’s commercial registrar said Friday. Between October 2, the day after the contested vote, and October 19 a total of 1,185 companies have relocated hoping to minimise instability, according to figures published by the Commercial Registries of Spain. The peak was reached on Thursday as 268 companies shifted their headquarters out of Catalonia. Spain’s central government announced that day that it would start seizing some of the Catalan regional government’s powers after the region’s leader declared he could declare independence. During these three weeks only 52 companies set up shop in Catalonia, a region that accounts for about one-fifth of Spain’s economic output and is home to around half a million firms. The companies that have moved their headquarters include listed firms such as CaixaBank, Spain’s third largest lender, and Gas Natural as well as medium as medium-sized firms such as food group Idilia Foods. While there have been calls on social media in Spain for a boycott of Catalan products, such as cava sparkling wine, the head of Pimec, Josep Gonzalez, said during an interview with private television Antena 3 such campaigns “are not desirable for anyone”. “Catalonia supplies goods to Spain, but Spain also buys, or sells, to Catalonia,” he added. Products made in Catalonia include a “signficant percentage” of materials that are bought in other regions of Spain,” he said. “If we enter in a dynamic of boycott, it will hurt us all,” Gonzalez said. - (HKG Pao) After independence ... By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 28, 2017. Catalonia has finally announced that it will separate from Spain and become independent. The Spanish government responded immediately by invoking Article 155 of their constitution and taking away Calatan autonomous rule. Hey, what happened to the Hong Kong oppositionists? How come they haven't said a thing? Aren't you always in favor of democracy, referenda and independence? Didn't you compare Hong Kong with Catalonia immediately after the referendum? Didn't the Hong Kong university students organized forums to explore the Catalan road to independence? Now that Catalonia has actually declared independence as desired, why are you keeping quiet and staying low about the situation? The reason why you shut up is because there were immediate consequences after the declaration of independence. The central government of Spain immediately announced that they are taking back the right of autonomous rule from Catalonia. Banks and businesses are moving out of Catalonia with their capital. The consequences are merely beginning to show, with the deep winter yet to come. As in the case of Brexit, people never thought through the consequences and cast a blind vote. As with all chess games, you cannot go back once you make your move. After listening to Chairman Xi Jinping speak at the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress, everybody is paying attention to the term: "Total governing power." If Hongkongers bicker and fight for independence, the central government may just assume "total governing power" in the way that Spain is doing now in Catalonia. The oppositionists frequently say: Why can't we discuss Hong Kong independence? We are merely discussing and we don't actually want to do it. I want to ask: If you don't actually want to do it, then why are you talking about it? If you want to discuss it, you must not neglect to spell out the consequences. You should tell the young people about what happens after the declaration of independence. Catalonia serves as an actual example. You should not merely tell them how Catalonia achieved independence by holding a referendum. You should also tell them that Catalonia lost autonomous rule and economic support afterwards. (Oriental Daily) October 29, 2017. Catalonia's parliament voted for independence and the Spanish parliament immediately authorized Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to take autonomous rule away from Catalonia as well as dismiss the Catalan government leaders from their posts. The dream for Catalan independence has been dashed. If civil war erupts afterwards, Catalonia will be an even bigger loser. The Catalan quest for independence is not as noble as one might think. It is mainly a squabble over money. To simplify matters, Spain is a big family and the various sons each contribute their share for the upkeep of the family. Based upon individual abilities, richer sons contribute more than poorer sons. The father allocates the money to the sons based upon individual needs. Catalonia is a rich son and he does not want to contribute more than what he is getting back. He tried to 'reason' with his father and decides to leave the family when he couldn't get his way. In 1978, Spain passed its constitution in which Spain is declared to be the nation for all the people of Spain. Chairman Xi would have used six "Any"s to describe this relationship: "It is not allowed for any persons or any groups or any political parties at any time to split any piece of territory in any way, shape or form from Spain." International law supports national self-determination but at the same time respects the integrity of national territory. Only in circumstances of colonialism, or foreign invasion, or systemic racism, or large-scale violations of human rights is self-determination allowed. Kosovo and East Timor are two examples of newly independent states. But Catalonia is clearly not like them. Europe, the United States and the United Nations are all concerned that a precedent would set off a domino effect that leads to chaos everywhere. So they will never support or recognize Catalan independence. No wonder the Spanish government took action so confidently. For those Hongkongers and Taiwanese who are paying attention to Catalan independence, do you understand now? - (Spanish Constitution 1989) Article 1 1. Spain is hereby established as a social and democratic State, subject to the rule of law, which advocates as the highest values of its legal order, liberty, justice, equality and political pluralism. 2. National sovereignty is vested in the Spanish people, from whom emanate the powers of the State. 3. The political form of the Spanish State is that of a parliamentary monarchy. Article 2 The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible country of all Spaniards; it recognises and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed, and the solidarity amongst them all. Article 155 1. If an Autonomous Community does not fulfil the obligations imposed upon it by the Constitution or other laws, or acts in a way seriously prejudicing the general interests of Spain, the Government, after lodging a complaint with the President of the Autonomous Community and failing to receive satisfaction therefore, may, following approval granted by an absolute majority of the Senate, take the 47 Control of the bodies of the Autonomous Communities Government Delegate in the Autonomous Communities measures necessary in order to compel the latter forcibly to meet said obligations, or in order to protect the above-mentioned general interests. 2. With a view to implementing the measures provided in the foregoing clause, the Government may issue instructions to all the authorities of the Autonomous Communities. - While the Hong Kong opposition initially played up the Catalan independence referendum, they were completely silent before, during and after the Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum. That particular referendum was held on September 25, 2017, just one week before the Catalan referendum. The Iraqi Kurdistan referendum question was: "Do you want the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistani areas outside the region's administration to become an independent state?" There were 4,581,255 registered voters, of which 3,335,925 (72.82%) voted. Of those who voted, 2,861,471 (92.73%) voted YES and 224,464 (7.27%) voted NO with 249,990 (7.49%) invalid/blank. This is a clear win for YES (whereas the Catalan referendum turnout was less than 50%). Here is why Kurdistan independence is an untouchable subject for pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong: (Washington Post) September 29, 2017. “The United States does not recognize the ... unilateral referendum,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said. “The vote and the results lack legitimacy,” Tillerson said, “and we continue to support a united, federal, democratic and prosperous Iraq.” So there you have it. Uncle Sam has spoken. End of discussion/debate, because the Hong Kong pan-democrats know that the invitation to speak in front of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee is contingent upon not being critical of US foreign policies elsewhere. - The problem with the Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum was that it covered the Kurdistan Region (of Iraq) as well as the Kurdistani areas outside the region's administration. This claim includes Turkish Kurdistan, and NATO ally Turkey will defend the integrity of its national territory. That claim also extends into Iran and Syria. So every neighboring nation objected to these claims. - So this is like the Tibetan exiles fighting for a Greater Tibet that includes the area of the Tibet Autonomous Region today plus Qinghai province, a fifth of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, a third of Gansu province, two-thirds of Sichuan province and a quarter of Yunnan province. (SCMP) March 11, 2009. Tibetans championing the idea argue that people in the areas share a similar culture and religion. Designated Tibetan autonomous areas - where an ethnic minority comprises half the population - account for half of Sichuan, 10 per cent of Gansu and 10 per cent of Yunnan. In Qinghai, a quarter of the population is Tibetan. Beijing refuses even to contemplate such an idea. The areas in question, it argues, were never dominated by a single ethnic group. Apart from Tibetans, Mongolians, Hui Muslims, Han Chinese, Qiang people and many other ethnic groups have settled in the areas for generations. Xinhua has likened the Greater Tibet proposal to a 'racial cleansing policy' and cited it as evidence of the Dalai Lama's 'splittist intentions'. Just last week, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi blasted the 14th Dalai Lama for holding on to the idea. 'The Dalai side still insists on establishing a so-called Greater Tibet on a quarter of China's territory,' Mr Yang said on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing. 'They want to drive away the Chinese armed forces on Chinese territory and ask all non-Tibetans to relocate themselves, people who have long spent their lives in that part of Chinese territory. You call this person a religious figure?' By overclaiming, you get everybody riled up against you. - And the Iraqi Kurds lost everything with their referendum: (Independent) October 31, 2017. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi says: “All border crossings in and out of Iraq must be under the exclusive control of the federal state.” This includes the Kurdish oil pipeline to Turkey at Faysh Khabour, by which they once hoped would assure their economic independence, as well as the main Turkish-Iraqi land route at Ibrahim Khalil in the north west KRG. This crossing has been Iraqi Kurdistan’s lifeline to the rest of the world for a quarter of a century. Iraqi officials will likewise take over the international side of the airports in the Kurdish cities of Irbil and Sulaimaniyah. These administrative changes do not sound dramatic, but they effectively end the semi-independence of the Iraqi Kurds which they had built up over the past 26 years. Kurdish president Masoud Barzani, who is to give up his post on 1 November, put these gains at risk when he held a referendum on Kurdish independence on 25 September. Mr Abadi is in a strong position because the KRG’s two biggest neighbours, Turkey and Iran, agree with him on re-establishing federal control of the border and Kurdish oil exports. Mr Abadi says the Turks admit that “they made a mistake” in the past in dealing directly with the KRG and not with the central government in Baghdad. He emphasizes that he will not be satisfied with Iraq government officials having a symbolic “spot” at different crossing points on the border, but they must have exclusive control of borders and international flights. Asked if this would include visas, Mr Abadi says: “This is a must.” He wants the Peshmerga either to become part of the Iraqi government security forces or a small local force. Mr Abadi is adamant that “I am prepared to pay those Peshmerga under the control of the federal state. If they want to have their local small force – it must not be that large – then they must pay for it.” He says that the KRG must not become “a bottomless well” for federal payments. He would also expect Kurdish government expenditure to be audited in the same way as spending in Baghdad. If all these changes are implemented then Kurdish autonomy will be much diminished. It is easy to see why Mr Barzani is stepping down to avoid the humiliation of giving up so much of his authority. Mr Abadi’s strength is that for the first time since 1980, the Kurds do not have any backers in neighbouring states and the US has done little during the crisis except wring its hands at the sight of its Kurdish and Iraqi government allies falling out. When Mr Barzani unwisely forced Washington to choose between Baghdad and Irbil, the Americans were always going to choose the Iraqi state. - (InMediaHK) October 9, 2017. League of Social Democrats, Socialist Action and Neighbourhood Workers' Service Centre members went down to the FC Barcelona office in Hong Kong to show their support of the football club supporting the people of Barcelona. According to former legislative councilor Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats), the Catalonia region has a long tradition of uprisings. "There was an uprising on July 26, 1909 more than 100 years ago. The July 26th movement in Cuba was based upon this general strike/uprising in 1906. In 1937, Catalonia was the capital of the Republic of Spain. That was another uprising." Do we need another uprising in Hong Kong like the July 26 1909 one in Catalonia? Here are some highlights of that particular uprising: (Wikipedia) Tragic Week: Catalonia. Tragic Week (in Catalan la Setmana Tràgica, in Spanish la Semana Trágica) (25 July – 2 August 1909) is the name used for a series of violent confrontations between the Spanish army and radicals of the working classes of Barcelona and other cities of Catalonia (Spain), assisted by anarchists, socialists and republicans, during the last week of July 1909. It was caused by the calling-up of reserve troops by Premier Antonio Maura to be sent as reinforcements when Spain renewed military-colonial activity in Morocco on 9 July. Many of the rioters were antimilitarist, anticolonial and anticlerical. The rioters considered the Roman Catholic Church to form part of the corrupt bourgeois class whose sons did not have to go to war, and much public opinion had been turned against the Church by anarchist elements within the city. Thus not only were convents burned, but sepulchers were profaned and graves were emptied. Of 112 buildings set fire to during the disturbances, 80 were church-owned or associated. After disturbances in downtown Barcelona, civil guards and police shot at demonstrators in Las Ramblas, resulting in the construction of barricades in the streets and the proclamation of martial law. The government, declaring a state of war, sent the army to end the revolt. Barcelonan troops stationed in the city, many of whom had working class origins, refused to shoot workers and so troops were brought in from Valencia, Zaragoza, Pamplona and Burgos; these finally ended the revolt, causing dozens of deaths. Police and army casualties were eight dead and 124 wounded. Of the civilians, 104–150 were reportedly killed. More than 1,700 individuals were indicted in military courts for "armed rebellion". Five were sentenced to death and executed (including Francesc Ferrer, founder of the Escuela Moderna); 59 received sentences of life imprisonment. Alejandro Lerroux fled into exile. General European condemnation in the press was immediate. King Alfonso XIII, alarmed by the reaction at home and abroad, dismissed Premier Antonio Maura from power afterward, replacing him with fellow conservative Segismundo Moret. I can re-write this for a future piece of Hong Kong history: Tragic Week (25 July – 2 August 2018) is the name used for a series of violent confrontations between the Hong Kong Police/People's Liberation Army and Hong Kong protestors during the last week of July 2018. It was caused by the Legislative Council vote on the Co-location of the Customs/Immigration/Quarantine services of the High Speed Rail in West Kowloon. Many of the rioters support either self-determination or independence for Hong Kong from China. They considered the mainland Chinese to be stealing Hong Kong resources. Not only were Chinese flags burned in public, but the China Liaison Office, many mainland Chinese businesses (such as China Club, Bank of China, China Mobile, China Resources, Yue Hwa Chinese Products Emporium, etc) were set on fire. Of 112 buildings set fire to during the disturbances, 80 were owned by mainland Chinese companies. After disturbances near the Legislative Council building and Government Headquarters in Admiralty City, the police charged at rioters in Mong Kok, resulting in the construction of barricades in the streets. The Hong Kong government declared martial law and the Hong Kong Police Commissioner ordered the police to shoot at the rioters. However, many of the police officers refused to carry out the order. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress declared a state of turmoil in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national security and is beyond the control of the local government. The region was put in a state of emergency under Article 18 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The People's Liberation of Army troops from the Western Theater Command (headquartered in Chengdu) and the Northern Theater Command (headquartered in Shenyang) were sent in to quell the uprising. The troops were told that they were fighting foreign terrorists. The revolt was put down within one week. Police and PLA casualties were eight dead and 124 wounded. Of the civilians, 104–150 were reportedly killed. More than 1,700 individuals were indicted in military courts for "armed rebellion". Five were sentenced to death and executed (namely, Ray Wong, Edward Leung, Tommy Cheung, Nathan Law and Eddie Chu); 59 received sentences of life imprisonment (including Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man, Chu Yiu-ming, etc). Joshua Wong fled into exile where he gave many interviews. General worldwide condemnation in the press was immediate. Chairman Xi Jinping ignored them and said that this was an internal matter for China. The world moved on quickly to the next urgent issue of the day elsewhere. - (The Globe and Mail) October 30, 2017. On the day of the recent vote, FC Barcelona closed the gates to the Camp Nou and played a game against Las Palmas in front of empty stands. If it was meant as a gesture of conciliation, it pleased neither side of the debate. High-profile Catalan stars such as Gerard Pique and Pep Guardiola have spoken out in support of Catalan protesters and been shouted down as a result. On recent duty with the national team, the home crowd booed Pique. Lionel Messi gets a local pass because he is an Argentine, but his careful silence on the matter is inevitably contrasted with another foreign-born Barca star, Johann Cruyff. Though Dutch, Cruyff became an enthusiastic separatist during his years in Spain, eventually coaching the non-FIFA-sanctioned Catalan national team. FC Barcelona now wants it both ways – being seen to back Catalonia (the club signed on to the independence vote, saying it supported "self-determination"), while remaining aloof from the tumult that has followed. When asked where he stood, Barcelona manager Ernesto Valverde said this week, "I have a personal opinion, but I would rather focus on sporting issues." He added, "What I say doesn't mean anything." Since Valverde is Spanish, but not Catalan, I think that unlikely. There's nothing he can say that will help, but whatever it is would certainly mean something. As the political knife fight intensifies, the government and its proxies are using the soccer club as a wedge against the independence movement. La Liga president Javier Tebas has warned that if Catalonia abandons Spain, Barcelona will be expelled from the Spanish league. A few people floated the idea that Barca might join France's Ligue 1, but Tebas brushed that possibility away, calling it "a joke." That would leave the biggest soccer club in the world playing in a rump Catalan league full of semi-pro sides and no-hopers. There would be no more nine-figure TV deals, no more Clasico and perhaps no more Champions League. The Piques in the side might stay, but not every Spaniard on Barca is Catalan and the foreigners play there for the glamour rather than the principle. Why would they agree to become well-paid participants in a functional rec league because of a vote they were not invited to take part in? Under those circumstances, it is very difficult to envision Barcelona's global dominance lasting much longer. Considering the stakes, what happens to a soccer team is nowhere close to the top of Spain's current to-do list. But given that that one club has for the better part of a century emblemized their aspirations, it may be for some Catalans. The numbers dividing the "leave" and "stay" sides are small – just a few points either way. How many of them are soccer fans? Most, probably. How ironic it would be if the greatest symbol of the Catalan independence movement was, in the end, its undoing. - (Hong Kong Free Press) City of broken promises: Is self-determination the only way left for Hong Kong? By Kong Tsung-gan. October 22, 2017. Catalonia, Iraqi Kurdistan, Puerto Rico, Scotland, Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, Montenegro: In the last 15 years, a strikingly high number of peoples have either held independence referenda or declared independence. In doing so, all invoked their inherent right of self-determination. That list excludes the new countries which emerged from the demise of the Soviet Union in the 90s, former parts of Yugoslavia, Slovakia. It also omits referenda that did not result in independence—for instance, in 1995, 93 percent of registered voters took part in a Quebec referendum on independence, voting narrowly to remain part of Canada. Some of the countries on the list above are among the poorest on the planet. Some were brutally oppressed. Some are relatively prosperous with well protected rights. Some were recognized and supported by the countries from which they considered separating; others did so against the will of those countries. What lessons do the cases of peoples who have considered independence hold for Hong Kong people? On what legal and moral grounds is the right of self-determination based? In doing so, all invoked their inherent right of self-determination. That list excludes the new countries which emerged from the demise of the Soviet Union in the 90s, former parts of Yugoslavia, Slovakia. It also omits referenda that did not result in independence—for instance, in 1995, 93 percent of registered voters took part in a Quebec referendum on independence, voting narrowly to remain part of Canada. Some of the countries on the list above are among the poorest on the planet. Some were brutally oppressed. Some are relatively prosperous with well protected rights. Some were recognized and supported by the countries from which they considered separating; others did so against the will of those countries. What lessons do the cases of peoples who have considered independence hold for Hong Kong people? On what legal and moral grounds is the right of self-determination based? The background The very first article of both of the world’s two foundational, legally-binding human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, includes this: Article 1

3. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development Self-determination is the only right to appear in both treaties, with exactly the same wording. Why? LIke most constitutional documents that are supposed to have a whiff of the eternal about them, the ICCPR and ICESCR are products of history. They date from 1966, when peoples around the world were achieving independence from colonial domination. There is no mention of a right to self-determination in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document upon which the ICCPR and ICESCR are based. Self-determination is mentioned in the United Nations Charter of 1945, but not explicitly as a right. Newly independent states pushed for the Covenants, 18 years after the UDHR, and also ensured that the right of self-determination came first in each. The logic was that to ensure that peoples had the other rights they needed the right to determine their own political status. As far as the UN, an organization made up of states, was concerned, this was the high-water mark for self-determination. States have never, for obvious reasons, been keen on this right. They have generally gone out of their way to emphasize state sovereignty over self-determination. In the most recent cases, the Catalans and the Iraqi Kurds, you have to look hard to find a state that supports their right of self-determination. Still, numerous peoples over the last half-century have asserted the right, some more successfully than others, and they still do. Hong Kong people and the right of self-determination That Hong Kong people have this right is indisputable—all “peoples” do. Even from a strictly legalistic perspective, Basic Law Article 39 states that Hong Kong is party to both the ICCPR and ICESCR, which guarantee the right. In 1975, the UK inserted a reservation into the ICCPR regarding Hong Kong and the right of self-determination. Given that Hong Kong’s political status has changed since then, there is some doubt whether the UK’s reservations on Hong Kong still persist. The UK also made a reservation regarding Hong Kong and the right to universal suffrage, but the UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors states parties to the ICCPR, has said it no longer applies. China doesn’t agree and has argued that all reservations on Hong Kong that it inherited from the UK continue to apply. Hong Kong is also party to the ICESCR, and there is no reservation regarding the right of self-determination under that covenant. Are Hong Kong people a “people”? The right of self-determination, unlike, say, the right to freedom of expression, is a group right, not an individual right. While it’s usually easy to determine what an individual person is (short answer: every human being), it is not always easy to define a “people”. There is no international consensus on the legal definition. Still, generally speaking, the standard criteria are quite clear: a group of people who share a common heritage, history, culture, language, a clearly defined territory, often but not always a separate jurisdiction and, as a result, a distinct identity. On all these counts, Hong Kong people do indeed constitute a “people” and thereby qualify for the right to self-determination. Even if you say Hong Kong people are Chinese, they are also distinct from other Chinese people. But while definitely a “people”, Hong Kong people have never been allowed to exercise this right: Their political status has always been determined by others. First they were a UK colony. Then they were handed over to the Communist Party like a present. Hong Kong people never agreed to be part of the PRC, any more than they agreed to be a UK colony. Self-determination versus state sovereignty Probably nobody would even be discussing self-determination if the Communist Party had respected Hong Kong’s supposedly “high degree of autonomy”. But it has not. The denial of genuine suffrage in 2014 and 2015 was the last straw. What made it worse, and more ominous, was that in asserting that it was allowing “universal suffrage”, the Party disingenuously pretended to grant the very thing it withheld. Either it was not acting in good faith or its understanding of universal suffrage was wildly divergent from international law and standards. Now the Party says its 31 August 2014 decision denying genuine suffrage stands for all time and will not be amended. In other words, Hong Kong is indefinitely stuck with the denial of this basic human right. The chances of the Party ever allowing the suffrage which the Basic Law legally obliges it to grant are exceedingly low, so one can say the Party has reneged on its implicit contract with Hong Kong, according to which Hong Kong people would recognize PRC sovereignty in exchange for real autonomy and the right to form their own government. If that is the case, it surely justifies the demand for self-determination, for the basic rights of Hong Kong people will not be respected or realized under Hong Kong’s current political status. It has often been said that there is no internationally recognized right to secession. Not so. The right is implied by the right of self-determination, and the fact that Hong Kong was first a colony and then a region of the world’s largest dictatorship improves Hong Kong people’s argument for the right of self-determination, whether or not that entails secession. Even conservative scholars of international law who argue that the right of self-determination must be highly circumscribed do allow that “a general right to secede [exists] if and only if [the people] has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort.” This is known as Remedial Right Only Theory. What constitutes “certain injustices”? Iraq’s genocide against the Kurds is certainly a “certain injustice”. What about the Party’s denial of universal suffrage to Hong Kong? After all, it involves no direct physical violence or atrocity. Yet it constitutes the indefinite denial of a basic human right. As for “of last resort”… For 20 years, Hong Kong people have tried to get the Party to honour its promise, and finally, rather than doing so, it redefined the term “universal suffrage”, in order to continue denying it. That’s what the Umbrella Movement was about. It said, we’ve had enough, what else can we do? And that didn’t work. So now what? We’ve reached the last resort. Whatever balance is struck in theory between state sovereignty and self-determination, sovereignty cannot trump the right of self-determination in undemocratic states and places where the people have never had an opportunity to determine their political status. Dictators’ assertions of sovereignty are tantamount to tyranny. The logic of international human rights law is that it is the people, not unelected leaders or dictatorial regimes or even states, who are sovereign. When the Communist Party argues that Basic Law Article 1 states unequivocally that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of the PRC, one must ask, says who? Hong Kong people themselves have certainly never consented to this; it was imposed upon them. Hong Kong people have “inalienable” rights, including the right of self-determination, which they have always been denied. The recent history of the self-determination movement in Hong Kong The right of self-determination first came up in the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement shortly after the end of the Umbrella Movement in December 2014. I remember Joshua Wong discussing self-determination at a panel discussion at the protest camp outside of Legco in the days leading up to the vote on the fake suffrage proposal. Many were already moving beyond the suffrage debate since it was clear that under the Communist Party, genuine suffrage would never be granted to Hong Kong. The question was, what next? Joshua proposed self-determination as the next step of the pro-democracy movement in his first essay on the topic in August 2015. The political party which he eventually co-founded in April 2016, Demosistō, has made self-determination one of the cornerstones of its mission. Proponents of Hong Kong self-determination have gone out of their way to state that while they don’t rule out independence, they don’t support it either. Their point is that it should be Hong Kong people themselves who determine their political status. Besides full independence, other options are full assimilation into the PRC and some form of autonomy, presumably similar to the “high degree of autonomy” Hong Kong is supposed to enjoy now. However, as the Communist Party has never allowed genuine autonomy in the PRC and the regions in the PRC described as autonomous (like Tibet and Xinjiang) are the most tightly controlled by the central government, autonomy is a hard sell. Quebec, Greenland and Åland are often held up as successful examples of “internal self-determination”, but it should be noted that all three are in states (Canada, Denmark and Finland respectively) which are stable liberal democracies and protect minority rights. There are no successful examples of internal self-determination under dictatorships. At one point, Hong Kong people might have been content with the “high degree of autonomy” they were promised, but that that has been significantly eroded and is perceived by many to be quickly disappearing. It is now less likely Hong Kong people would settle for this. That is why the Party treats self-determination and independence as the same thing. It realises that, in the eyes of many Hong Kong people, it has lost the moral right to rule Hong Kong. The rise of self-determination and the Party backlash For a time, the rise of the idea of self-determination in Hong Kong seemed inexorable. In April 2016, about 30 self-described “young democrats” calling themselves ReformHong Kong published a “Resolution on the Future of Hong Kong” which advocated self-determination, invoked international law to buttress their argument, and proposed “perpetual self-rule” for the city. They appeared to be hedging somewhat, as they spoke in terms of “internal self-determination”. It was hard to see the difference from a “high degree of autonomy” and “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong”, except that the group advocated continuing these policies beyond the end of the 50-year “one country, two systems” arrangement in 2047. In March and June 2016, two moderate pan-democratic political parties issued manifestos that stressed Hong Kong people’s right to rule Hong Kong. The Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL), called for self-determination. The Civic Party, while not using the term “self-determination”, spoke of defending Hong Kong’s autonomy, and ensuring that Hong Kong people decide what happens to Hong Kong after 2047. By October 2016, Joshua and Jeffrey Ngo were actually in a media debate with Song Zhe, the Commissioner of the Foreign Ministry of the PRC in Hong Kong. The latter’s “Self-determination in Hong Kong is a Non-Issue” appeared in The Wall Street Journal in mid-October. Then the Party got freaked out by the success of self-determination advocates in the September 2016 Legco elections, and has since gone on the attack, doing whatever it can not only to dislodge them from Legco but also to eviscerate their organizations. Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, the top vote-getter ever in Legco elections, is one of the few outspoken self-determinationists still left in Legco. While he shares with Joshua and Demosistō the same objective of self-determination, the two have quite different ideas on how to get there. Both regard self-determination as a long-term project, with the goal being for Hong Kong people to determine Hong Kong’s political status after 2047. Joshua, though, envisioned developing a culture of referenda that would eventually lead up to a referendum on Hong Kong’s post-2047 political status, to be held some 15 years down the road, around 2030. The justification for the long delay was to give Hong Kong people time to get used to the referendum mechanism and debate the options, so that they could use their vote responsibly and make the most of the opportunity. The major unanswered question was how did Joshua imagine the Party and Hong Kong government would ever recognize such a referendum as legally binding? The hinted answer seemed to be, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Eddie Chu, on the other hand, thought working through the existing political system was the answer. Shortly after his victory in September 2016, he envisioned that within four to eight years, the self-determination camp would be the biggest in Legco. Less than a month later, the Hong Kong government initiated legal proceedings to dislodge first two elected Legco members and eventually four more. Of these six, four were explicit proponents of self-determination, and the other two were very sympathetic to the cause. So much for the Party and the Hong Kong government allowing representatives holding such political beliefs to hold office within the formal political system. Recently, neither Joshua nor Eddie have said much about self-determination, presumably because they’ve been rather busy fending off attacks by the Party and Hong Kong government. This seems to support critics’ views of self-determination and independence advocates. They say the ideas are simply unrealistic. But what’s so realistic about continuing to push for real universal suffrage? The Party clearly perceives self-determination advocacy as a threat. Will it succeed in destroying the advocates? Its current crackdown is so intense and widespread that it affects almost everybody in the pro-democracy movement, which has the ironic effect of actually bringing them together. Self-determination was originally inspired by localists. Many moderate pan-democrats have inched their way in that direction, as witnessed by the Civic Party and ADPL manifestoes of 2016. Legco member Claudia Mo left Civic Party to start Hong Kong First. Another Legco member Fernando Cheung of Labour Party “caucuses” with the self-determinationists. Then you’ve got Demosistō, Democracy Groundwork, Eddie Chu, League of Social Democrats, People Power, Civic Passion, Youngspiration, Hong Kong Indigenous. Just about the only prominent pro-democracy group that hasn’t indicated support for some form of self-determination is the Democratic Party. So most of the pro-democracy movement is already self-determinationist. What remains to be seen is whether they can turn the cause, for which there is widespread support, into a political force. Doing so while under Party attack is challenging, to say the least. Meanwhile, the forces of Party-driven mainlandisation cast an ever-longer shadow over Hong Kong, where time does not stand still. The clock is ticking. Which side will win in the end? On its side, the Party has military force, economic might, an ideology that prioritizes maintaining its empire above almost all else, and the state-centric bias of the international community’s preference for the status quo. Hong Kong people have international law, justice and morality on their side– not necessarily a winning combination, but neither should it be underestimated. Oh, yes, and people power. That, with a clear game plan focused on achieving a positive common objective, would constitute at the very least a force to contend with. The struggle continues. Beneath the issue of self-determination is the question of who does a people, a land belong to? Does Hong Kong belong to the Party, to China, to Hong Kong people? The Party-stoked nationalism on the mainland has led many Chinese to see Hong Kong as belonging to China, not Hong Kong people. We need to fight to ensure that, after 175 years, that question will finally be for Hong Kong people to decide. - (SCMP) Protect our autonomy rather than push for independence. By Alex Lo. October 31, 2017. Hong Kong has been consumed by debates over independence and autonomy. The international scene today offers ample lessons on why they must be handled with great care. Just look at two places: Catalonia and Puerto Rico. In the former, it shows that Western democracies don’t easily tolerate independence movements, at least not in their own backyards. In the latter, it demonstrates what the loss of autonomy looks like. There are some parallels between Catalonia and Hong Kong. Catalonia is among the richest regions in Spain. Hong Kong remains, though probably not for long, the richest city in China. Catalonia pays a disproportionate amount of tax to Madrid. Hong Kong, however, doesn’t pay a cent to the central government. As soon as independence was declared, Madrid moved to take over the secessionist regional government. All across Europe, national governments show no interest in, or support for, Catalonian independence. The European Union has long declared it would not recognise it. Spain is a constitutional monarchy. For Beijing, a communist state, the threshold for tolerating independence as an ideology is much lower. Hong Kong doesn’t need to declare independence to invite intervention. We must weigh whether we should protect the right of foolish youth to advocate something as impractical and absurd as independence to the detriment of public welfare and tranquillity. Meanwhile, some people in Hong Kong have complained about the loss of autonomy. They have no idea, though they may learn something from Puerto Rico, an American territory. Under the weight of unsustainable debt, its economy collapsed, resulting in the political equivalent of being put into receivership. Under a fiscal oversight board, US federal agencies now run the island’s banking and legal systems, budgets, foreign trade and relations, shipping and maritime laws, broadcasting, postal service, immigration, social security, border control, transportation, defence, the environment, territorial waters and air space. The US dollar is the official currency. It is poorer than the poorest US state, Mississippi. When three hurricanes hit the Caribbean in recent months, US help was slow in coming. When a mayor on the island complained, President Donald Trump blasted her for being ungrateful. Hong Kong actually enjoys a very high degree of autonomy, not only relative to Puerto Rico, but the member states of the EU, and their regional governments. Just ask Catalonia. - Hong Kong Internet comment:

Civil disobedience in the western world runs on the same formula as the Hong Kong Yellow Ribbon Zombies use. Catalonia's former president Carles Puigdemont told others to charge but he held himself back. Once things went awry, he fled to Belgium and swears that he will never ever plead guilty! - (The Guardian) November 3, 2017. A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest warrant for Catalonia’s ousted president a day after she jailed eight members of the region’s separatist government pending possible charges over last week’s declaration of independence. In the latest twist in Spain’s worst political crisis in four decades, a national court judge on Friday issued a European arrest warrant for Carles Puigdemont in response to a request from state prosecutors. Puigdemont flew to Brussels earlier this week with a handful of his deposed ministers after Spanish authorities removed him and his cabinet from office for pushing ahead with the declaration despite repeated warnings that it was illegal. Puigdemont’s Belgian lawyer has already said his client will fight extradition without seeking political asylum. Puigdemont was summoned to appear at Spain’s national court on Thursday to give evidence relating to possible charges of sedition, rebellion and misuse of public funds, but failed to appear. He has said he would only return to Spain if he were offered guarantees that the judicial process he would face were fair. Late on Friday, Puigdemont told the Belgian public TV channel RTBF that he would put his faith in the Belgian courts. He said: “I will not flee from justice. I will go towards justice, but real justice. I’ve told my lawyers to tell the Belgian justice system that I’m completely available to cooperate. “It’s obvious it’s politicised. The guarantees are not there for a fair, independent trial.” Of the nine former ministers who did appear in court in Madrid on Thursday, eight were remanded in custody. A ninth Catalan minister, Santi Vila, was released from custody on Friday after posting bail of €50,000 (£44,000). The Spanish government insisted that the jailings were not politically motivated. The education minister, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, said the matter had been decided by a judge and the government was instead focusing on elections called by the prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, for December. “There is a separation of powers in Spain and what happened yesterday is in the realm of the justice system and beyond the reach of the government,” Méndez de Vigo said on Friday. “What the government guarantees is that there will be elections where the parties which want to run can present their programmes, and we hope that the election can end this period of uncertainty and the deterioration of harmonious coexistence in Catalonia.” [812] Mass Demonstrations Against Co-Location (2017/10/26)

Co-location Hongkongers in peril October 25, October 26 18:00 - 20:30 Tim Mei Road outside the Legislative Council building Resist the government faking public opinion through the Legislative Council Internet comments: - How many people participated in the mass demonstration on October 25? Apple Daily counted 60. NOW news shows us the guests of honor. I count 16 persons. Where are the rest?

Here they are! It looks like they are mostly photojournalists.

So what was the point of the exercise? This was not a massive demonstration of public opinion. Rather it was a photo-op opportunity for politicians and activists. Sadly most newspapers sent out reporters to cover the event but published nothing because there was nothing to publish. - Here are the updated posters for the two concert dates:

Guests for October 25, 2017 Audrey Eu, Margaret Ng, Alan Leong, Lee Wai-ling Chan Kin-man, Lau Siu-lai, Agnes Chow, Joshua Wong Wong Ching-tak, pro-democracy legislative councilors (the list is being updated)

Guests for October 26, 2017 Benny Tai, Lai Kwong-tak, Leung Kai-chi, Hon Lian-shan, Yung Lok-hing Tommy Cheung, Ho Kai-ming, Wu Chi-wai, Prince Wong, Song Pu Ng Chung-luen, Lee Wai-ling, Alan Leong, pro-democracy legislative councilors You should schedule accordingly to meet your favorite idols in person. - The Co-location Concern Group needs to hire the WWE to stage some brawls for their events. Television ratings will go through the roof. - Headline Daily reported that almost 200 attended this event. But the highlight of the report is the quotation from Joshua Wong: "My greatest thought while in jail was that freedom is not easily obtained. Therefore I have been reflecting on the importance of freedom. Last year I was detained in Thailand and my passport was confiscated. I hope that everybody will think about whether they want to see the same thing happen inside West Kowloon Station. Therefore I am opposed to the mainland Public Security Bureau enforcing law inside West Kowloon Station." What is he talking about? - A person can be detained and have his passport confiscated by the mainland public security bureau in West Kowloon Station. Therefore co-location in West Kowloon Station must not be allowed. Instead, the Co-location Concern Group says that the same person should be permitted to board a train in West Kowloon to go to the co-location site in Futian/Shenzhen, where he disembarks and is detained with his passport confiscated by the mainland public security bureau. Somehow this becomes totally acceptable. It is even their recommendation. - Pontius Pilate washes his hand to say that he has nothing to do with the crucifixion of the Nazarene. Oy vey! - If you are worried by the prospect of being detained with your passport confiscated in either West Kowloon Station or Futian/Shenzhen, there is a simple solution: Don't go there! To reach the mainland port in West Kowloon Station, you have to take the step of purchasing a High Speed Rail ticket and pass through the Hong Kong border post first. Just don't do it! Similarly, if co-location were to take place in Futian/Shenzhen, you would have to take the step of buying a train or bus ticket to cross the border to go to Futian/Shenzhen. Just don't do it! - But the pan-democrats think that some people may be absent-minded enough to buy a train ticket, wander past the Hong Kong border post and get into trouble. This is like saying: "I was going to work by commuter train from Westchester County to Wall Street, but somehow I ended up in Malaysia with a kilogram of heroin in my briefcase. I have no idea how this happened. I am completely innocent. I don't want to die. The Office of the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights must help me go free." (Oriental Daily) October 26, 2017. About 500 people attended the assembly on the second night. Hong Kong University School of Law associate professor Benny Tai said that he is not satisfied with the turnout. He hopes that when the Legislative Council actually debates Co-location, the turnout will be the 120,000 as was the case with National Education. Tai said that the outcome of the vote on the non-binding resolution is a foregone conclusion. But he sees hope in the collaboration among the pan-democrats. Tai thinks that Co-location is intended to give the Central Government total control over governance. It showed that the Central Government can do whatever they want irrespective of public opinion or the Basic Law. This is a manifestation of authoritarianism.

- (Apple Daily) By Benny Tai. November 21, 2017. Hong Kong's role is to facilitate and not to lead. Improvement can only occur if the conditions are ripe in mainland China itself and the principals have firm will. We should not expect Hong Kong to directly lead any changes in mainland China. That would be impossible ... Hong Kong is able to facilitate precisely because it is on the margin of mainland. Total integration or total separation would cause Hong Kong to lose its importance. Those who lack historical vision may think that the best choice for Hong Kong is to integrate quickly into mainland China. This may bring some short-term benefits to Hong Kong, but it will cause Hong Kong to lose is unique position on the margin and become instead one of many large cities in China. That would not be good for Hong Kong in the long run. On the other extreme, there are those who want Hong Kong to leave China completely. Without addressing the feasibility, if Hong Kong were no longer a place on the margin of mainland China's ability to change, it will be a tiny member among the numerous nations of the world. As such, its international value will diminish greatly. So this is not good for Hong Kong in the long run. Therefore, the best thing for Hong Kong is to remain on the margin. Marginality represents the greatest benefits for Hong Kong in the long run. Marginality means not leaving the main body, but maintaining a certain distance from that main body in order to promote changes in the main body. This is for the benefit of both. If Hong Kong gets too close to the main body, it will lose its most importance. The people of Hong Kong needs most to think about how to maintain that distance. - The short summary: Hong Kong must not allow the High Speed Rail to enter because Hong Kong needs to be marginalized. - Hong Kong can maintain its uniqueness by making it extra hard for people to take the High Speed Rail. That will be a unique Hong Kong characteristic. - Corollary: Hong Kong must not allow Alipay or WeChat Pay because Hong Kong must remain marginalized. So what if they are accepting these payment methods in Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, etc? Hong Kong will attain victory in the end by being the last holdout! - Hong Kong needs to be "marginalized"? (Merriam-Webster dictionary) Marginalize: to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group. (Wikipedia) Social marginalization is the process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access) to various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights within that particular group (e.g. housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process). The outcome of social exclusion is that affected individuals or communities are prevented from participating fully in the economic, social, and political life of the society in which they live. - Not very often in history have people deliberately marginalize themselves. Jonestown? Branch Davidians? - The importance of the essay is that Benny Tai points out that an independent Hong Kong nation would be a small fish in the pond with 200+ nations of the world. According to Wikipedia, the population ranking of Hong Kong would be: ... 101: Papua New Guinea 8million 102: Togo 7.6 million 103: Sierra Leone 7.4 million 104: Hong Kong 7.3 million 105: Bulgaria 7.1 million 106: Laos 6.7 million 107: Paraguay 6.7 million 108: El Salvador 6.3 million 109: Libya 6.3 million 110: Nicaragua 6.1 million How much do you care about the other 9 nations listed here? What do you know about them (if anything at all)? The reality is that nobody will care about Hong Kong (without China).

Respect public opinion Oppose concession of land Carrie Lam immediately withdraw West Kowloon Co-location Today (October 17) 16:45 March from the Legislative Council (legislators' entrance) to the Chief Executive's Office

Internet comments: - Mass demonstration? I counted 19 persons in the photo. Technically, this doesn't even count as an "unlawful assembly" (=more than 30 persons). - Public opinion courtesy of the Hong Kong Democratic Party:

Do you support the Co-location proposal from the government? 16.7%: Support a lot 24.8%: Support 15.7%: No opinion 13.6%: Oppose 29.2%: Oppose a lot

Do you want Co-location in Shenzhen/Futian to replace West Kowloon Station co-location? 22.0%: Want a lot 21.0%: Want 17.1%: No opinion 18.3%: Don't want 21.6%: Don't want a lot

The Co-location proposal will lead to national laws being enforced in Hong Kong. Are you worried that that more of these measures will be forthcoming? 23.3%: Very worried 18.8%: Somewhat worried 19.4%: No opinion 16.0%: Not too worried 22.5%: Not worried at all

The Co-location proposal from the government violates the Basic Law. Do you agree with this assertion? 22.8%: Agree a lot 19.1%: Agree 18.6%: No opinion 19.9%: Disagree 19.6%: Disagree a lot According to information, the Democratic Party "interviewed 1,053 persons by automated telephone voice between September 16, 2017 and October 5, 2017." Did the Democratic Party identify itself as the pollster during the introduction? If so, most people will hang up immediately, leaving only fellow travelers to complete the poll.

(Christian Times Facebook) October 18, 2017. Members of the Co-location Concern Group pastors Lau Chi-hung and Fung Chi-hu went on a 50-hour fast in Causeway Bay to pray and express their opposition to the government's co-location proposal. More than 10 faithfuls stayed with them at the street booth which carried signs saying "Defend One Country Two Systems, oppose One Country One System", "Co-location is land concession and selling out Hong Kong" and "Co-location is land concession and against the Basic Law." The two pastors and a faithful carried a wooden cross down Paterson Street with eight faithfuls in a row behind them carrying placards. They took five steps slowly, paused and prayed for Hong Kong, and repeated the process.

Internet comments: - Mass demonstration? 2 + 1 + 8 = 11. Technically, this doesn't count as an "unlawful assembly" (=more than 30 persons).

(Oriental Daily) October 24, 2017. Financial Services legislator Cheung Wah-fung conducted electronic polling of members of the Financial Services Sector between October 9-16. He obtained a total of 2,161 completed surveys. Here are the highlights: 90% agreed that the High Speed Rail will have economic benefits for Hong Kong 89% accepted the implementation of Co-location in West Kowloon Station. 88% are confident that this will not hurt rule-of-law in Hong Kong. 98% agreed that Co-location will bring business opportunities to the Financial Services industry Legislator Cheung said that the survey results showed that the Financial Services constituency is almost unanimous in supporting Co-location. He said that Financial Services electors travel frequently between Hong Kong and mainland China and therefore understand the situation better than the general public.

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) October 8/9, 2017. The Hong Kong MTR held an Open Day for the Express Rail Link on October 7 and 8. On each day, there were two sessions (10am-1pm) and (2pm-5pm). Tickets were distributed through MTR's Facebook, with a limit of 1,000 tickets per session. All 4,000 tickets were claimed. These visitors went to the MTR Kam Sheung Road station where they were taken by shuttle buses to the Shek Kong High Speed Rail depot.

(SCMP) November 15, 2017. Lawmakers finally gave a symbolic green light to the government on Wednesday to get moving on a politically contentious joint checkpoint on the Hong Kong side of the cross-border railway to Guangzhou, as filibustering opposition members exhausted all their delaying tactics. After days of filibustering, the pan-democrats continued their campaign to drag out the debate on Wednesday, but Legco president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen overruled their tactics. Eight amendments proposed by opposition lawmakers were vetoed, and the motion was passed 38-22. - (Oriental Daily) November 15, 2017. Starry Lee (DAB) motioned that the voting time should be reduced from 5 minutes to 1 minute. Urologist Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party) said that international research showed that an adult uses more than 50 seconds to urinate. So if the decision time is 1 minute, it may not be possible for legislators, especially the older ones, to make it back in time. He added that there are fewer partitions in the women's restroom, so the women will need even more time. Lam Kin-fung (BPA) said that Kwok Ka-ki is merely speculating: "Maybe he needs to have ten minutes, but he should not speculate that we all must need the same amount of time." Chairman Andrew Leung also questioned Kwok's assertion. Kwok said that it is human nature to have to use the restroom. "Chairman, I have seen you going there too." Finally Leung Kai-cheung said that studies have shown that adults between 20 to 30 years old need at least 21 seconds to urinate. Therefore 1 minute won't be enough to make it back. Ergo Leung opposed the reduction of the voting time. In the end, the motion was passed anyway. (Oriental Daily) November 15, 2017. Legislative Council chairman Andrew Leung said that they have spent 26 hours on matters related to the Co-location proposal since October 25. This breaks down into 8.5 hours of actual debate, 1.5 hours of statements from government officials, 5 hours of conducting headcounts for quorum, 0.5 hours to vote and 10.5 hours to deal with procedural matters (such as Eddie Chu Hoi Dick's motion to oust the press and members of the public from the Legislative Council). (EJ Insight) No plain sailing for Carrie Lam on express railway. By Michael Chugani. November 23, 2017. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is in need of a reality check. After she and Guangdong Governor Ma Xingrui signed the first step last week of a three-stage legal process for joint immigration control at the West Kowloon express rail terminus, Lam conceded the last part would be the hardest. That’s putting it mildly. She can expect to face her toughest battle yet since becoming chief executive five months ago. The third and last legal step for joint immigration requires the Legislative Council to approve a law allowing mainland officials to not only carry out immigration clearance but also to enforce mainland law in parts of the rail terminus. Lam will seek Legco approval for this in February after China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee rubber stamps it next month. After signing the initial stage with Ma last week allowing mainland officials to enforce mainland law at the terminus, Lam expressed hope it would be equally plain sailing in Legco. I am not sure if she said it in jest, rhetorically, or if she really meant it. If it’s the latter, then she needs to wake up and smell reality. Rather than plain sailing, the express railway will go through a rocky ride in Legco. Does anyone really expect the opposition to wave the white flag and play nice with Lam after having insisted for months that mainland officials enforcing mainland law on Hong Kong soil violates the Basic Law? You can bet on opposition legislators playing dirty. Both sides have between now and February to win over public opinion. Is it absolutely necessary to lease parts of the terminus for mainland officials to enforce the full spectrum of mainland law? Why not limit the officials to just immigration, customs, and quarantine duties like US officials are at Vancouver’s airport? Can Hong Kong passengers demand to see a Hong Kong lawyer should the need arises after they have entered the mainland-controlled areas of the terminus? Why should trains still in Hong Kong come under mainland jurisdiction? Can mainland officials arrest local passengers while the train is still in Hong Kong? Can a Hong Kong woman about to give birth insist she wants to go back to Hong Kong controlled areas of the terminus? These are all valid questions the government has yet to answer with enough clarity to convince Hong Kong people they need not fear mainland officials stationed here. The longer the government avoids giving straight answers, the easier it is for the opposition to exploit this vacuum of information to stoke fear among Hong Kong people of putting parts of the terminus under mainland jurisdiction. Does it defeat the purpose of building an HK$84 billion express rail to Guangzhou that will link Hong Kong with major mainland cities if there is no joint immigration control at West Kowloon? Will it be just as efficient and practical if joint immigration is carried out in Futian instead? If joint immigration is in Futian, how long will trains wait for passengers who are delayed during immigration and customs procedures? These are also valid questions with no clear answers. The opposition has insisted it’s equally efficient to put joint immigration in Futian or another Shenzhen station. But it has failed to convincingly explain why it is efficient for hundreds of passengers to get off the train for dual immigration clearance in Futian after a very short ride from the Hong Kong terminus and board again instead of doing dual immigration in West Kowloon. It has not explained how long it will take to process hundreds of passengers in Futian and if trains will have to wait until all passengers are cleared. Public opinion can only be swayed with convincing answers by both sides to all these questions. So far the opposition has been more successful in stoking public fear and discontent over putting parts of West Kowloon under mainland jurisdiction. The government has been less successful in debunking the claim that it is more efficient to put joint immigration in Futian than in West Kowloon and that joint immigration violates the Basic Law. Legco passage of joint immigration at West Kowloon will become ever stormier and less certain if the opposition succeeds in using delaying tactics to stall the vote for a month until the March by-elections to fill the seats of four disqualified opposition legislators. If the opposition regains its majority in the geographically-elected part of Legco, Carrie Lam could face a crisis in winning Legco approval for joint immigration. Of course, the establishment camp, which now has a majority in both the functional constituency and geographical sections of Legco due to the disqualification of six opposition members, could try to rewrite the rules on delaying tactics before the March elections but the opposition has proved its resilience in thwarting such attempts. The government’s worst-case scenario is to abandon joint immigration and fall back to separate immigration clearance at West Kowloon and on the mainland. Officials insist neither Futian nor other Shenzhen stations are equipped to handle immigration procedures. In any case, separate immigration procedures would turn the HK$84 billion express railway into a virtual white elephant. I took the mainland’s high-speed railway for the first time last week, traveling from Chengdu to Chongqing as part of a media tour. It was fast, efficient, and very impressive. After experiencing the express railway, I can understand why Hong Kong businesses say our own express railway will create numerous opportunities and jobs for local residents. Our tour included a visit to a bakery factory in Chongqing with a long history which the Swire group acquired a year or so ago. It produces a variety of bakery items for its chain of 600 bakery stores called Qinyuan in Chongqing, Chengdu, and Guiyang. Many of its executives are Hong Kong people. At first, I was skeptical about claims that Hong Kong’s express railway would create jobs and opportunities. But after experiencing the speed and efficiency of the train ride and seeing first-hand how Hong Kong businesses such as Swire have created opportunities for Hong Kong people on the mainland, I have a better understanding of the inevitable integration of the Hong Kong and mainland economies and why the express railway can help in that integration.

(Ming Pao) November 16, 2017. Legislative Councilor Pierre Chan Pui-yin for the Medical functional constituency voted AYE for Co-location. He explained that he had mailed survey questionnaires to the voters in the Medical functional constituency. He received 1,108 completed questionnaires at 7.5% response rate. He found 51.7% of the respondents supported Co-location at the West Kowloon Station while 41.5% opposed. Therefore he is voting in accordance with the preference of the majority.

[811] The Case of Benedict Rogers (2017/10/18) (Conservative Home) Benedict Rogers: Twenty years on from leaving Hong Kong, Britain risks selling its honour – as China flouts and abuses justice. June 30, 2017. Twenty years ago tomorrow, Britain relinquished sovereignty of Hong Kong, and the Chinese Communist Party took control. As the last governor, Chris Patten, and the Prince of Wales prepared to sail out on the Royal Yacht Britannia, Chinese troops arrived. And as the clock struck midnight on 1 July 1997, Hong Kong became part of China. And yet although some feared the future, many believed that “one country, two systems”, agreed on by China and Britain, would protect Hong Kong’s way of life. Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law, provides a high degree of autonomy, and the Sino-British Joint Declaration gives the United Kingdom a legal, and moral, responsibility to defend Hong Kong’s freedoms for fifty years. Two months after the handover, I moved to Hong Kong to begin my first job after university. I lived there for five years, working as a journalist. I did see some early warning signs of the erosion of freedom, but they were more through self-censorship than by the Communist Party’s direct interference. My first job was as editor of an obscure, though respected, management journal, China Staff, published by Euromoney. I managed to get one edition banned in the mainland, by running an interview with Han Dongfang, the former Tiananmen dissident and labour rights activist, as a cover story. I then moved to a new English-language newspaper – a relaunch of the old Hong Kong Standard, as leader writer. The new publication, Hong Kong iMail, positioned itself as a defender of freedom. I wrote editorials critical of Beijing and the Hong Kong government, and for two years got away with it – but, in the end, the paper was bought by a tobacco tycoon keen to expand his interests in the mainland, and I was told I could no longer write anti-Beijing articles. I left. To say that I saw the writing on the wall, though, is to put it too strongly. At the time of the handover, the founder of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, the barrister Martin Lee, predicted not an immediate crackdown but a slow erosion of freedoms – “salami tactics”, as he put it. I could see some of the slicing even in the first five years, but I would never have predicted Hong Kong would be in the perilous predicament it is in today. Nor would I have expected Britain to so completely abandon the people of Hong Kong in their hour of need. Yet that is what has occurred. A year ago, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission held an inquiry on human rights in China, and released a report – The Darkest Moment: The Crackdown on Human Rights in China 2013-2016 – which includes a chapter on Hong Kong. The former head of Hong Kong’s civil service, Anson Chan, together with Martin Lee, told the Commission that the concept of “one country, two systems” is being “progressively undermined”. Basic rights and freedoms, including freedom of the press, publication, academic thought, are, they said, “being chipped away, while our local government seems to turn a blind eye”. The erosion has accelerated in the past four years. China’s decision to abandon its promise to allow genuine multi-party democracy and universal suffrage in elections for Chief Executive sparked the ‘Umbrella Movement’, which saw thousands of peaceful protesters take to the streets for 79 days in 2014. Some of the leaders of that movement, including the inspiring student activist Joshua Wong, now face criminal charges and potential prison sentences. Towards the end of 2015, five Hong Kong booksellers who published books critical of China’s leaders disappeared, one of whom – Lee Po, a British national – was believed to have been abducted by Chinese agents from Hong Kong. Another, Gui Minhai, was kidnapped in Thailand and taken into mainland China. Gui, a Swedish national, is still in detention in China, and his daughter Angela continues to campaign for his release. The local government showed that it does not only turn not just a blind eye to such horrific crimes, but a bended knee to Beijing, as we saw last week when the Communist Party’s newly chosen Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, said it was not appropriate to challenge the central government over these abductions. Last September, the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong won 30 seats in Hong Kong’s 70-seat legislative council. Several activists from the Umbrella Movement were elected, including the youngest ever legislator in Hong Kong, 23 year-old Nathan Law. A breath of oxygen was given to Hong Kong’s democracy movement. Yet, tragically, Beijing and their allies in Hong Kong found ways to snatch hope away within weeks. Two of the newly elected legislators, overcome with a sense of radicalism, failed to take their oaths properly and were stripped of their seats. Four others took their oaths in ways considered to be valid according to existing practices, but which were rendered invalid by the latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress, which effectively and retrospectively amended a local ordinance, thus criminalising acts which were legal when they were carried out. The case against them is pending the court’s judgment. If the outrageous interpretation is affirmed by the courts, then every freedom or human right guaranteed by the Basic Law is threatened. Beijing is looking for any excuse to deny the pro-democracy movement any space. Perhaps of most concern is the attack on the rule of law. In April 2016, Kemal Bokhary, a retired judge, said that his warning, made four years previously, of “a storm of unprecedented ferocity” facing the judiciary has now come about. “The things which were second nature to you and I may recede to the back row where judicial independence is eroded,” he added. Journalists now face physical threats. Hong Kong has fallen to 73rd place in Reporters without Borders’ 2015 world press freedom index, from 18th in 2002. Edward Chin, a hedge fund manager and pro-democracy activist, claims the media is “under heavy attack” from Beijing. Academic freedom is curtailed too. In all of this, where is Britain? As Patten says, the Joint Declaration gives the United Kingdom a specific responsibility to ensure that China’s promises are upheld. Britain has, he adds says, “a right and a moral obligation to continue to check on whether China is keeping its side of the bargain”. Yet apart from a six-monthly report to Parliament by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – “a fairly neutral and … rather anodyne document,” in Lord Patten’s words – there is little sign of action, or even interest. The Foreign Office can’t even summon up the courage to meet Angela Gui, a student at Warwick University, to discuss her father Gui Minhai’s abduction. Patten was right when he told the BBC in January that Britain “risks selling its honour” on Hong Kong. We have already sold out the people of Hong Kong; now we’re in the process of selling our soul too. The Joint Declaration was meant to guarantee that, in Anson Chan and Martin Lee’s words, “no Hong Kong resident would have to fear a midnight knock on the door”. With the abductions that have happened, they now conclude that “none of us is safe”. The time for Britain to defend Hong Kong is long overdue. “We need the UK to speak up forcefully in defence of the rights and freedoms that distinguish Hong Kong so sharply from the rest of China,” Chan and Lee say. “If it does not lead, then the future of ‘one country, two systems’ is at best troubled and at worst doomed.” Will Britain take a stand, belatedly, or will ‘betrayal’ once again be our legacy? (The Guardian) October 11, 2017. A leading British human rights activist who has been a vocal critic of China’s erosion of Hong Kong’s political freedoms has been barred from entering the former colony on the eve of a key political summit in Beijing. Benedict Rogers, the deputy chair of the Conservatives’ human rights commission, flew into Hong Kong on Wednesday morning on a Thai Airways flight from Bangkok but said he was stopped at immigration and refused entry. “They gave me no explanation at all,” he told the Guardian by phone as he prepared to fly back to Thailand on Wednesday afternoon. “It is absolutely bizarre … I feel shocked. I had received a warning that this might happen so I was mentally prepared for it but was hoping it wouldn’t happen. I feel very shocked. I feel it is yet another example of, if not the death, then the death throes of ‘one country, two systems’.” Rogers lived in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2002, and said he had been returning on a private visit to see friends, including a number of prominent democracy activists. “I wanted to come and meet people and learn about the current situation,” he said. Rogers claimed he had been indirectly warned, through a third party, that the Chinese embassy in London was “extremely concerned” about his plans to visit Hong Kong. “In consultation with others, I took the view that if I were to cave in to pressure from the embassy I would be doing exactly what I have criticised others of doing: kowtowing to China,” Rogers said. “My conscience would not allow me to do that.” As he was escorted to his flight out of Hong Kong, Rogers said, he turned to the immigration officer taking him to the plane and thanked him for treating him well. “I said: ‘Does this mean “one country, two systems” is dead? Is it “one country, one system” now?’ “He looked at me actually very sadly, almost with tears in his eyes, and said: ‘I’m just doing my job. I can’t comment.’” Chris Patten, Hong Kong’s last governor, told the Guardian that at face value barring Rogers was disturbing and inexplicable. “He was travelling on a valid British passport, met all the requirements for a UK citizen visiting Hong Kong and was not told the grounds he was sent away,” Patten said. Patten said he had contacted the office of the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, as well as the consulate general in Hong Kong over Rogers’ case. Johnson said in a statement: “I am very concerned that a UK national has been denied entry to Hong Kong. The British government will be seeking an urgent explanation from the Hong Kong authorities and from the Chinese government. Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and its rights and freedoms, are central to its way of life and should be fully respected.” Hong Kong’s immigration department said it did not comment on specific cases, but went on to dispute Rogers’ version of events, saying its staff member who had escorted Rogers to the gate had not heard his comment on “one country, two systems”. (Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China) Regular Press Conference, October 12, 2017. Q: The British human rights activist Benedict Rogers was stopped from entering Hong Kong yesterday. The British government said it has asked China's central government for explanation. Did China's central government tell the Hong Kong government not to let him in? Has the Chinese side already discussed this matter with the British government? A: Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and the central government is responsible for Hong Kong-related foreign affairs. The central government of China and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region handle the relevant issues in accordance with law. It falls within China's sovereignty to decide who is allowed to enter the Chinese territory and who is not. Hong Kong has returned to China in 1997 and Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs. The Chinese government's firm opposition to interference in China's internal affairs by any foreign government, organization and individual in any form remains steadfast. As to whether the person you mentioned arrived in Hong Kong with the intention to interfere in the internal affairs and judicial independence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he knows that well enough himself. In response to the relevant remarks of the British government, the Chinese side has lodged solemn representations with the UK. (SCMP) October 12, 2017. Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor declined to reveal why Rogers was refused entry into the city. “I can’t reveal the details,” she said when asked if Beijing made the decision. “But under the Basic Law [Hong Kong’s mini-constitution], the central government is responsible for foreign affairs.” (The Guardian) October 18, 2017. The Foreign Office has summoned China’s ambassador to the UK after a prominent British human rights activist was barred from Hong Kong, in a case that has sparked fears that the city’s autonomy is being eroded. During a parliamentary debate, the MP Fiona Bruce, chair of the Conservative party’s human rights commission, asked what the Foreign Office was doing in response to shrinking freedoms in the former British colony. She pointed to Benedict Rogers, deputy of the same commission, who was banned from entering Hong Kong earlier this month without reason. The Chinese government said his case was a matter of “foreign affairs” and accused him of planning to interfere in the territory’s politics. “The Foreign Office director general for economic and global issues summoned the Chinese ambassador on this issue over the past few days,” said Mark Field, the minister of state for the Foreign Office. “We have also made representations to Beijing, and I shall write to Carrie Lam in Hong Kong in the days ahead,” he added, referring to Hong Kong’s chief executive. The following day prime minister Theresa May was also asked about the case, and pledged to maintain pressure on China. “We want to ensure that the model of ‘one country and two systems’ is preserved and continues to operate,” May said. “On the specific case and the specific issue that she has raised, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary informs me that the Foreign Office has raised this issue at various levels in relation to Hong Kong and China, and we will continue to do so.” (SCMP) October 13, 2017. Hong Kong’s leader on Friday would not rule out former colonial governor Chris Patten being barred from the city, days after a British human rights campaigner was denied entry without an official explanation.Asked on Friday if Patten would be the next one barred, Lam said she could not comment on individual cases, and that Patten had visited the city before. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor sought to make clear that immigration matters come under the purview of Hong Kong but that that remit ends when foreign affairs are concerned, when asked about the last governor’s ability to visit the city in the future. “I can’t exclude any possibility because immigration matters will change depending on the case,” she said on a morning radio programme. Lam also sought to clarify misunderstandings that arose after the incident. “I want to clarify any worries, misunderstandings, that this whole matter of immigration is now being taken over by Central People’s Government. That’s certainly, definitely not the case,” she said. She declined to reveal why Rogers was denied entry, and reiterated that individual immigration cases should not be discussed in public. She would only say that “decisions of this nature [would] not be taken arbitrarily” and that there “must be clear evidence”. “Immigration matters under the Basic Law [Hong Kong’s mini-constitution] are under Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. But if immigration matters become matters of foreign affairs, then under the Basic Law, foreign affairs – like defence – are matters for the Central People’s Government,” Lam said. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China) Regular Press Conference. October 20, 2017. Q: According to media reports, in response to the barring of Benedict Rogers, the Vice Chairman of the British Conservative Party's Human Rights Commission from entering Hong Kong, British Prime Minister Theresa May recently said that Britain has raised this issue at various levels in relation to Hong Kong and China and will continue to do so. What is China's comment on this? A: Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and the Chinese central government is responsible for Hong Kong-related foreign affairs. The central government of China and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region handle the relevant issues in accordance with law. It falls within China's sovereignty to determine who is allowed to enter the Chinese territory and who is not. The Chinese side has summoned an official from the British Embassy in Beijing and lodged stern representations with the British side about the series of irresponsible remarks recently made by it on this issue. I would like to stress that Hong Kong's affairs belong to China's internal affairs and the Chinese side will by no means allow any foreign government, organization or individual to interfere in China's internal affairs in any form. (Hong Kong Free Press) October 20, 2017. At a Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, British leader Theresa May spoke about Rogers’ case in reply to a question from Fiona Bruce MP, the chair of the Commission. “We want to ensure that the model of one country and two systems is preserved and continues to operate. On the specific case and the specific issue that she has raised, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary informs me that the Foreign Office has raised this issue at various levels in relation to Hong Kong and China, and we will continue to do so,” she said. In response, Rogers said on social media: “This is about Hong Kong and its freedoms and autonomy, not about me, and so I am delighted that this continues to be raised at the very highest levels.” His lawyers wrote to the Hong Kong government demanding an official explanation for the decision to deny the activist entry to Hong Kong, the activist said on Friday. “The correspondence may be disclosed later when we have received a substantive reply from the Director of Immigration,” Rogers said. A vocal critic of China and advocate for democracy in Hong Kong, Rogers said he received warnings from the Chinese embassy in London – through a British MP acting as an intermediary – telling him not to come to Hong Kong. He had urged the international community to speak out for three jailed Hong Kong protest leaders Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow. He said he had reassured the embassy that his trip was purely private, not in any official capacity, and he would not visit jailed activists. When he was stopped at the Hong Kong airport, his lawyer Albert Ho was barred from meeting him. Internet comments: - Was denying entry to Benedict Rogers a violation of his human rights? United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. It does not say that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence in each and every state in the world. - If you allow freedom of movement everywhere, the whole world would move into the United States. And that is just a NO-NO because Donald Trump is building the Wall to stop just that. - If you accept that Article 13 in toto, then Hong Kong being a part of China must allow freedom of movement and residence from other parts of China to Hong Kong. Somehow I think that nobody wants to see that happen. - Benedict Rogers is the deputy chair of the Conservatives’ human rights commission. He has not been accredited as a member of the diplomatic mission for the United Kingdom. But even if he is a diplomat, Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) states: 1.The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State. 2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission. Please note the "at any time and without having to explain its decision" part. Why does Theresa May think that the Chinese government will provide an explanation for why they refused entry to a private British citizen? - I think that the people of Hong Kong have a greater interest in the "dirty dossier" of the Conservative Party than in Benedict Rogers. (Mirror) October 30, 2017. Tory staffers have compiled a list naming 36 of the party’s Cabinet ministers and MPs of inappropriate sexual behaviour, it was reported last night. The spreadsheet - said to include the Mark Garnier ministerial sex toy scandal already reportedly publicly over the weekend - was compiled by current and former aides. It reportedly names two serving Cabinet ministers who allegedly acted inappropriately towards women and another 18 current ministers responsible for inappropriate sexual behaviour. One MP was marked alongside the comment “video exists of (redacted)”. Another MP was reportedly described as “handy in taxis”. One minister was said to have been described as a “handsy with women at parties” while a backbencher was “perpetually intoxicated and very inappropriate with women”. A dozen MPs had acted inappropriately towards female researchers while another four had targeted male researchers, the list reportedly claims. One Tory MP was alleged to have paid a woman off to be quiet while a colleague was said to have had “sexual relations with a researcher”. - The Tories don't want people to pay any attention to Michael Fallon and the "dirty dossier." But does Hong Kong carry enough weight to be a "weapon of mass distraction"? - Hong Kong Internet users smirk about the indifference towards other cases of people being refused entry elsewhere. Here is the most recent one that has drawn an international outcry: (VOA News) October 22, 2017. Prominent Yemeni journalist Afrah Nasser has been denied entry to the United States to accept an award, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In September, the CPJ announced that it would present its 2017 International Press Freedom award to Nasser, who has been living in exile in Sweden. Though she holds Swedish citizenship and has a legitimate reason to travel to the United States, she has been denied a visa - potentially due to U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban which includes restrictions on travelers from Yemen. - Closer to the United Kingdom homeland, here is a list of people banned from entering the United Kingdom. This is terrific fun reading, because you have to think hard about why they barred Dmitri Shostakovich, Mike Tyson, Thaksin Shinawatra, Edward Snowden, Pablo Neruda, Snopp Dogg, Martha Stewart, Abo Obama and Don Francisco. And remember that French comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was barred entry into Hong Kong (New York Times)? The British did not complain then, because they also barred the man! In the case of American musician Don Francisco: In March 2009, Don Francisco was scheduled to perform in an Easter music program in the English port town of Poole but was barred from entering the United Kingdom. Francisco claimed that at London's Heathrow Airport he was detained and escorted by armed guards back to the United States, and was barred entry for listing his occupation as "gospel singer" and failing to obtain a religious worker visa, a new requirement under British law. LOL. - (HKG Pao) It is not true that the Hong Kong Immigration Department will not comment on specific cases. (The Guardian) October 11, 2017. As he was escorted to his flight out of Hong Kong, Rogers said, he turned to the immigration officer taking him to the plane and thanked him for treating him well. “I said: ‘Does this mean “one country, two systems” is dead? Is it “one country, one system” now?’ “He looked at me actually very sadly, almost with tears in his eyes, and said: ‘I’m just doing my job. I can’t comment.’” ... Hong Kong’s immigration department said it did not comment on specific cases, but went on to dispute Rogers’ version of events, saying its staff member who had escorted Rogers to the gate had not heard his comment on “one country, two systems”. - (SCMP) By Alex Lo. October 23, 2017. No Western country can take a meaningful stance against China without US backing, not even Britain, now deeply mired in Brexit. And over Hong Kong, there is virtually no hope or incentive for them. So all the noises being made about Hong Kong by busybodies, usually from the US and Britain, are just that – noises. Tory activist Benedict Rogers being barred from entering Hong Kong? Good for a few news headlines. The report by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China on "the long-term viability of ‘one country, two systems"? Nobody reads it. Marco Rubio, who? - According to the The Guardian, October 11, 2017. Rogers lived in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2002, and said he had been returning on a private visit to see friends, including a number of prominent democracy activists. “I wanted to come and meet people and learn about the current situation,” he said. (The Standard) October 13, 2017. In a policy address forum hosted by radio stations yesterday, Carrie Lam said foreign diplomacy is a central government affair under the Basic Law. When the host pointed that immigration policy should be a matter the HKSAR government has control over, Lam said she could not go into details. But Hong Kong does not have full autonomy under its form of constitution, the Basic Law, she added. Claudia Mo Man-ching said Rogers had said his visit to Hong Kong was a private one for visiting friends. So it should be an immigration matter, not a diplomatic one. According to SCMP on October 12, 2017. A British activist who was barred from Hong Kong is to spearhead a group monitoring the city’s affairs, despite Beijing’s formal complaint to the UK about interference in China’s internal matters. At the centre of the latest political row between Britain and China, human rights campaigner Benedict Rogers confirmed he would found a group to report on the city’s progress on human rights, democracy and freedoms. He said the city “needs serious advocacy, particularly in London” and other European capitals. So why did Benedict Rogers go to Hong Kong? A private visit or a political mission? Only he knows for sure. Maybe. - But since Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said: "As to whether the person you mentioned arrived in Hong Kong with the intention to interfere in the internal affairs and judicial independence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he knows that well enough himself", it would appear that the Chinese knew full well too. - (SCMP) October 31, 2017. The new advocacy group set up by a British activist recently barred from Hong Kong has drawn support from several UK foreign policy heavyweights as it prepares to launch in December and begin monitoring the “worsening” human rights, freedoms and rule of law in the city. UK-based group Hong Kong Watch, spearheaded by Benedict Rogers, has pledged to raise concerns with the British government and the international community should there be violations of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution. “We believe that an international NGO to monitor and report on the worsening situation in Hong Kong is much needed and long overdue,” said Rogers, the chairman of the Trustees at Hong Kong Watch, stated in a press release. “Based in London, our aim is to be international, a voice in the United Kingdom and other capitals around the world.” The details about the group emerged three weeks after Rogers, the deputy chair of the Conservative Party’s human rights commission, was denied entry to Hong Kong for a private visit, sparking a political row between Britain and China. Hong Kong Watch, which will be officially established on December 11, has the support of patrons from across the political spectrum in Britain, including former foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind QC, former Labour shadow foreign minister Catherine West MP and former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Paddy Ashdown. “In recent years, there are worrying signs that ‘one country, two systems’ and Hong Kong’s basic freedoms are being eroded,” Ashdown said, referring to the guiding principle which safeguards the city’s freedoms and rights until 2047. “The Sino-British Joint Declaration is precisely that – a joint declaration signed by both countries and lodged at the United Nations. Hong Kong Watch is being established to monitor, research and advocate in defence of Hong Kong’s freedoms, autonomy and rule of law and to urge both China and Britain to fulfil [their] obligations under the joint declaration.” Does anyone still believe that Benedict Rogers came for a "private visit"? - Well, Rogers came to Hong Kong to meet with certain individuals "in private." The bagman always conducts his business "in private." - (SCMP) October 15, 2017. When entry was denied to Benedict Rogers, the British human rights advocate who is planning to set up an NGO in London to monitor the Hong Kong situation, the chief executive flagged it as a matter of “foreign affairs” and Beijing’s responsibility, while still defending immigration control as falling within Hong Kong’s jurisdictional purview. Convinced or not, this is the reality, or inconvenient truth: when it comes to, or when Beijing believes it’s a matter of, Taiwan or foreign affairs, it’s Beijing’s call, as Lam pointed out. Understandably, there are those who see it as yet more proof of Beijing tightening its grip on the city and a threat to “one country, two systems”, but sovereignty is apparently the key for Beijing to keep this governing formula for Hong Kong. - (SCMP) October 15, 2017. As for Lam’s refusal to give an entry guarantee to Hong Kong’s last governor, it could be a result of her well-known frankness, but reading too much into it seems unnecessary. - (SCMP) By Alex Lo. October 14, 2017. Beijing is often accused of illegitimately interfering in Hong Kong affairs. Yet, instances where its influence was exercised within its rights were often the most counterproductive. One example was in August 2014 with the white paper on electoral reform, which pretty much doomed efforts by the city government to negotiate a compromise with the opposition. A white paper is not a state order, but simply a statement of Beijing’s official position on a particular issue. Some of the latest papers were on the national space programme, traditional Chinese medicine, poverty reduction, and gender and ethnic equality. Yet, that 2014 paper gave the opposition sufficient excuse to refuse any compromise and reject the reform package. Imagine if the package had been passed. Every eligible local voter could have cast a ballot in the last chief executive election and John Tsang Chun-wah, the opposition’s preferred candidate, may have been the leader now. The latest trouble concerns the refusal to let a British human rights activist into Hong Kong, a decision presumably made by the mainland authorities. Since it fell under foreign affairs, such an order would be in accord with the Basic Law. But if it had been left to the discretion of the Immigration Department and the Security Bureau, Benedict Rogers, a Tory nobody, would probably have been let in. He would have visited a few Occupy youngsters jailed for a few months but miraculously turned into “prisoners of conscience” and Nobel Peace Prize material by some overseas publications and politicians. At the end of his visit, he would have issued a statement criticising Hong Kong and mainland authorities on this and that, to which no one would have paid any attention except for a few diehard yellow ribbon news sites. Now, thanks to his being denied entry, even the BBC reported it as big news and Boris Johnson, Britain’s theatrical foreign secretary, feigned outrage. Rogers could not have dreamed of a better outcome. If we have been letting in the last governor Chris Patten for the past 20 years, someone like Rogers didn’t even seem like an issue. Despite denials, Patten has been badmouthing our judiciary ever since those young protesters were jailed. If we are going to ban anyone from entering and make world news anyway, might as well pick a worthy big cheese like Patten. (Hong Kong Free Press) A new interpretation of the Basic Law? Hong Kong deserves to know why Rogers was denied entry. By Evan Fowler. October 28, 2017. Two days after the Chief Executive’s inaugural policy address, Carrie Lam again took to the stage, this time at a dinner event hosted by a pro-democracy leaning association. Her speech praised the work of the association and its members, calling them out during her speech in a show of a new, more open and engaging style of leadership. In particular she congratulated the association’s founder, a man who has worked tirelessly for many years behind the scenes in the interests of Hong Kong. At the end of the evening this man was again honoured, this time by the association’s chairman, a well-known district councillor, who presented him with a magnum of champagne. Carrie applauded. Yet as the man returned to his table, he half-jokingly said, after what happened to Ben Rogers he was worried that should he leave Hong Kong he might find himself barred from returning. Among the pro-democracy crowd no one laughed. In fact, Ben Rogers, a former Hong Kong resident and now vice-chair of the British Conservative party’s Human Rights Committee, had been set to meet with many of the people in the room. Many people know Ben, including the association’s founder. “I was scheduled to meet Benedict Rogers last Friday afternoon,” he would later tell me. “So when I made my weekly trip to my Shenzhen factory there was an opportunity to see if that gave me a black mark.” “When the immigration lady leaned forward and started to ask me a question, for a second I wondered if something unpleasant was coming,” he said. “But it was simply an inquiry as to whether I had a Chinese name.” It may all seem a little silly, and yet another example of anti-establishment types over-reacting. But the people at the dinner are not the type. It is an association of lawyers, accountants and other professionals. All very serious people, much like Carrie herself. In fact, they are people Carrie and many in senior positions of government know well. Ben Rogers had arranged, privately, to travel to Hong Kong to meet friends. They included people sat next to our government, people our Chief Executive knows and, I suspect, genuinely values. They are people with whom she and her administration are trying to reach out and engage; people she feels she can deal with. Indeed, even the Liaison Office reaches out to these people through intermediaries. They are neither radical nor a threat to Hong Kong or Beijing. Yet somehow Rogers’ plans became known to Beijing. In the UK Rogers received threats warning him not to go. When he did make the trip, he was stopped at Hong Kong airport. His lawyer, Albert Ho, was barred from meeting him. Rogers’ entry into Hong Kong was evaluated to constitute such a threat that he had to be barred and denied legal representation. The decision was taken knowing it would be news, both in Hong Kong and London. It was also taken knowing it would prove a distraction on the day of Carrie Lam’s policy address, diverting attention from what many in Hong Kong hoped would represent a new and more responsive administration. According to the Basic Law, it is the Hong Kong SAR government that controls immigration into Hong Kong. Article 154 of the Basic Law states that “The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may apply immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from the Region by persons from foreign states and regions”. The Basic Law is quite clear that only in matters concerning national security and foreign affairs does Hong Kong not have jurisdiction, giving Beijing the right to intervene to prevent someone from being granted entry into Hong Kong. Article 19 states: “The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs.” And Article 19 also states: “The courts of the Region shall obtain a certificate from the Chief Executive on questions of fact concerning acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs whenever such questions arise in the adjudication of cases. This certificate shall be binding on the courts. Before issuing such a certificate, the Chief Executive shall obtain a certifying document from the Central People’s Government.” Therefore, there is a clear procedure which such an intervention must follow. Note that this procedure states that the Chief Executive is to be informed. Yet when Carrie Lam was asked on RTHK the morning after Rogers was denied entry, she stated clearly, and without any ambiguity that she did not know why he was denied entry and that it was an issue for the department of immigration. Clearly then either procedure was not followed, and therefore the Basic Law was violated; or Carrie Lam misled the public on the day after her policy address. Either way, it does not look good for either her or for Hong Kong. Since then, the Hong Kong SAR government has refused to comment on the issue, despite both a personal request from Rogers, and a legal letter from his lawyers addressed to the Director of Immigration demanding an official explanation. Disappointingly as of publication there has been no response. The British government has also lodged a complaint with both the Hong Kong government and Beijing, and the issue was raised in parliament, with John Bercow, the Speaker of the House, describing Rogers as an “outstanding and articulate champion of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Asia and elsewhere,” and adding “his treatment was frankly utterly scandalous.” In response to why a British national was barred from entering Hong Kong, Beijing called in an official from the British embassy for a dressing down, before lodging their own representations with London. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang stated that it is “China’s sovereign right whether or not to prevent someone from entering,” and “stern representations” had been lodged with London over “Britain’s recent series of wrong remarks and actions on this issue.” There was no attempt made to expand on why Britain’s remarks and actions were wrong. In a similar statement, Hua Chunying, speaking for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said Rogers “knows very well himself” whether his trip to Hong Kong involved an intention to intervene in Hong Kong’s internal affairs and judicial independence. Beijing is wrong to regard Hong Kong as an internal affair. It is also wrong that it should find offence in Britain requesting clarification. Britain has both a right and a moral obligation to monitor developments and ensure the principles of ‘One country, two systems’ are respected. Beijing’s “comprehensive jurisdiction” is dependent on its honouring the SinoBritish Joint Declaration, a document registered with the United Nations and one that is as much British as Chinese. It is therefore very worrying to read several commentaries toeing this line. In a recent op-ed piece, “Sovereign state has full control of borders”, Paul Surtees says “a city’s local government, anywhere in the world, is generally not tasked with instituting national policies on immigration.” Beijing’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is conditional; Hong Kong is not just another local government. Such articles, though toeing Beijing’s official line, do not help either side develop a constructive relationship. It is also symptomatic of an attitude that breeds growing levels of dissent in Hong Kong. Given these statements, and the severity of declaring Rogers a threat to national security, one might assume that Beijing’s decision was taken on grounds of his entry into Hong Kong being an issue of foreign affairs. However, if this is indeed the case, it raises the question as to how are foreign affairs to be defined under the Basic Law? In effect, then, this action would constitute yet another interpretation, and – by law – the Hong Kong public need be informed. Rogers’ crime in the eyes of Beijing, it can only be presumed, was to have co-authored the commission’s recent report on China, which was damning in its finding. As part of the inquiry, Rogers received written submissions from such respected figures as former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, and the founder of the Democratic Party Martin Lee. His threat to Hong Kong’s judicial independence was in speaking to Hong Kong’s most respected senior judge, Kemal Bokhary, who concluded in April that his warning four years ago of “a storm of unprecedented ferocity” facing the judiciary has now come about and that his “fears have been realised”. It was Bokhary, not Rogers, who said there were “very serious problems,” and that Hong Kong and the rule of law faced “grave challenges” as “things which were second nature to you and I may recede to the back row where judicial independence is eroded.” For Rogers to have been denied entry into Hong Kong, and for the Hong Kong immigration department to have been overruled in its rightful operation, a reason must have been presented to our government. Given that Beijing’s sovereignty in Hong Kong is conditional and dependent on the Basic Law there is no reason why the Hong Kong government should not be open in clarifying on what grounds Rogers was barred from entering. Not to do so would raise genuine questions as to whether Beijing has in this case complied with the Basic Law. Rogers was a friend of people praised and honoured by Carrie Lam; a friend of those within her circle who know and respect her and who are prepared to see the best in her administration. Yet Beijing would have us believe these people, who are respected by many in Hong Kong and seen as representing the best in our community, are agitators for dissent and pose a national threat; and that Rogers’ private trip to Hong Kong to meet such people represented a threat of national concern. It is not only Ben Rogers and the British government that deserve clarification. Hong Kong people also deserve to know. [810] Twelve Top International Lawyers (2017/10/16) (Hong Kong Cultural & Political Forum) October 16, 2017. As lawyers, we regard the imprisonment of Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law in Hong Kong as a serious threat to the rule of law and a breach of the principle of “double jeopardy” in Hong Kong – in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These student activists led the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong in 2014 – one of the most peaceful public protests the world has seen. Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were already punished by a court a year ago. Joshua and Nathan respectively served 80 and 120 hours of community service, and Alex received a three-week suspended sentence. Yet the Hong Kong government decided to reopen the case and sought tougher punishments. The law under which they were charged, the Public Order Ordinance, has been criticized by the United Nations for “facilitat[ing] excessive restrictions” to basic rights, and is incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which applies to Hong Kong. Human rights organisations have long urged Hong Kong to revise the ordinance to comply with the ICCPR. Serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary arise. Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary warned of “storm clouds” over the judiciary five years ago. Hong Kong’s judges want to protect its independence, but they face increasing pressure from Beijing. In 2014, China issued a White Paper declaring that Beijing has “comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong” – instead of “the high degree of autonomy” provided for in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. China also announced that Hong Kong’s judges are merely “administrators” who must love the country and be "subject to oversight by the central government”. The independence of the judiciary, a pillar of Hong Kong, risks becoming a charade, at the beck and call of the Chinese Communist Party. Hong Kong’s rule of law and basic freedoms, at the heart of the principle of “one country, two systems”, now face grave threats. Kirsty Brimelow QC Patrick Burgess Australia – former head of human rights in the UN in East Timor and President of Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR). Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC Sir Desmond De Silva QC Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC – former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Jared Genser – Freedom Now Justice Richard Goldstone (South Africa) Andrew Khoo (Malaysia) David Matas (Canada) Michael Mansfield QC Rajiv Menon QC Sir Geoffrey Nice QC – former chief prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (Hong Kong Free Press) October 16, 2017. A group of 12 senior international lawyers from six countries have said that the imprisonment of local democracy activists Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law represented “a serious threat to the rule of law and a breach of the principle of ‘double jeopardy’ in Hong Kong.” In an open letter, the lawyers – from the UK, US, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Malaysia – stated that the city’s Public Order Ordinance violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The trio were jailed in August on unlawful assembly charges contained within the ordinance after they led a protest which gave rise to the pro-democracy Umbrella Movement street occupations. The lawyers also said that Beijing’s White Paper on Hong Kong was a threat to the independence of the judiciary, which “risks becoming a charade, at the beck and call of the Chinese Communist Party.” The 2014 paper said that Beijing had “comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong,” which the lawyers claimed was at odds with the the high degree of autonomy promised in the 1974 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the city’s mini-constitution. The lawyers include seven of the UK’s Queen’s Counsels including the Secretary of State for Justice Lord Falconer, the chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales Kirsty Brimelow, and Sir Geoffrey Nice who was chief prosecutor in the trial of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Also featured is Sir Desmond de Silva, the former UN chief war crimes prosecutor for Sierra Leone. The other signatories include: Lord Carlile of Berriew, Jared Genser, Justice Richard Goldstone, Andrew Khoo, David Matas, Michael Mansfield and Rajiv Menon. Internet comments: - Like the Hong Kong Yellow Ribbons, these "twelve top international lawyers" never bothered to familiarize themselves with the details, either because it is hard work or because the truth would be inconvenient. With respect to the issue of "double jeopardy", Joshua Wong had served 80 hours of community service and Nathan had served 120 hours of community service. Alex Chow was sentenced to 3 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 1 year, but never spent time in prison. Therefore it was "double jeopardy" for the Court of Appeal to come along and impose prison terms of 6 months, 8 months and 7 months for Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow. The relevant details are in CAAR No. 4 of 2016. You have to wade through the document almost to the end to find: 169. Taking account the maximum penalty on conviction in the magistracy for unlawful assembly under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance being 3 years, and having carefully assessed all the facts of the case including such factors as the respondents’ personal circumstances and motives for committing the offences, etc., and having considered all the sentencing factors including that of deterrence to those who think they can disregard the law in the name of exercising their rights and who wilfully use violence or other seriously unlawful means to take part in or incite others to take part in an unlawful assembly, I consider the appropriate starting points to be: (1) 8 months for the 1st respondent in respect of Charge (2); (2) 10 months for the 2nd respondent in respect of Charge (3); (3) 8 months for the 3rd respondent in respect of Charge (4). 170. As this is an application for review made by the Secretary for Justice, following usual practice, the starting points may be reduced by a discretionary discount of 1 month. Furthermore, since the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent have both completed their community service orders, their sentences can be further reduced by another discretionary discount of 1 month. The total terms of imprisonment are thus: (1) 6 months for the 1st respondent in respect of Charge (2); (2) 8 months for the 2nd respondent in respect of Charge (3); (3) 7 months for the 3rd respondent in respect of Charge (4). And given that you never reached #169 and #170, you would have missed #171. 171. Lastly, I would reiterate that it cannot be said that the respondents were convicted and sentenced for exercising their rights to the freedom of assembly, demonstration and expression. [As a matter of fact, they had just had a lawful assembly on Tamar Road outside the Forecourt before the incident took place.] The reason why they were convicted and sentenced is that they had overstepped the boundaries laid down by the law by themselves entering, or inciting others including young people and students to enter, the Forecourt, a place where they and the other protesters had no right to enter at the time, by seriously unlawful means, thereby committing the offences of taking part in or inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly. Neither can it be said that the penalty imposed on them by the Court of Appeal has suppressed the lawful exercise of their rights to the freedom of demonstration, assembly or expression. So long as they act within the boundaries of the law, their freedom of demonstration, assembly and expression will be fully and adequately protected. But once they overstep the boundaries by breaking the law, the sanction imposed on them by the law does not suppress or deprive them of their rights to demonstration, assembly and expression as the law has never allowed them to exercise such rights through unlawful means in the first place. - (Department of Justice) August 20, 2017. Regarding the Court of Appeal case concerning Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, as clearly pointed out by the Department of Justice (DoJ) earlier, the decisions to prosecute and appeal were made in accordance with the Prosecution Code, applicable laws and relevant evidence. There is absolutely no political consideration involved. Further, allegations that the Court is under political interference are totally unfounded and groundless. We notice that the joint statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong has pointed out the errors in these allegations. In fact, the Court's acceptance of DoJ's application to review the sentence meant that the application is well founded on legal grounds. In other words, the whole process, from the decision to prosecute, conviction, DoJ's application for sentence review and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, has been proceeded in accordance with Hong Kong's effective legal system. - (Department of Justice) August 21, 2017. The applications for review of sentences in both cases were not instituted after the defendants had served their original sentences. In CAAR 4/2016, the Prosecution within 14 days of the sentence being imposed applied for a review of the sentences before the trial Magistrate in August 2016 under section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227). The defendants, at that time, had not started to serve their community service orders. Therefore, there is no question of the DoJ applying for review of the sentences after the defendants had completed the original sentences. Upon the dismissal of that review in September 2016, the DoJ applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to review the sentence and the Court of Appeal granted leave to the DoJ in October 2016. In other words, the applications for review were made within the time limit prescribed by the legislation. - By my count, the three defendants had received a sweetheart deal from the Court of Appeal. In the case of Joshua Wong, he had served 80 hours of community service for which he received a one-month credit in his prison sentence. Let us assume that there are 30 days in a month, which becomes 20 days after deducting Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays. 20 days in jail equals 20 x 24 = 480 hours. So Wong just saved himself 480 - 80 = 400 hours in prison. In the case of Nathan Law, he had served 120 hours of community service for which he received a one-month credit in his prison sentence. Let us assume that there are 30 days in a month, which becomes 20 days after deducting Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays. 20 days in jail equals 20 x 24 = 480 hours. So Law just saved himself 480 - 120 = 360 hours in prison. In the case of Alex Chow, he did not serve any part of his suspended 3 weeks' sentence. Nevertheless he received a one-month credit in his prison sentence. This is a gift from heaven. I really should file a judicial review (with legal aid, of course) over this preferential treatment. This is important because I will be fighting for the survival of rule-of-law in Hong Kong. - "Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary warned of “storm clouds” over the judiciary five years ago." Very ominous, indeed. But what exactly was he talking about? Here is what he said: (SCMP) Retiring Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary warns of legal turmoil. October 25, 2012. Clouds heralding a "storm of unprecedented ferocity" are gathering over the rule of law in Hong Kong, a retiring judge of the top court said yesterday. Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary said "talk about reinterpreting a decision of the courts of long standing" was one specific element of the storm - "and the atmosphere created by the mere fact that this call is being made will constitute the rest of it". Bokhary was understood to be referring to calls for a reinterpretation of a 2001 Court of Final Appeal ruling which conferred automatic residency on babies born to mainland parents in Hong Kong. He also disagreed with Basic Law Committee vice-chairwoman Elsie Leung Oi-sie's contention that the top court had made mistakes in the past. "I think the storm clouds come from anybody, whether he or she may be one who doesn't appreciate the 'one country, two systems principle'," Bokhary said. The "one country, two systems" formula was designed to emphasise that "despite the fact that it's one country, it is two systems", he said. Leung, the former secretary for justice, said earlier this month that the legal profession in Hong Kong, including judges, lacked an understanding of the relationship between Hong Kong and Beijing. She said this had given rise to mistakes in previous rulings in which the top court, in her view, had superseded the central government's power. She also said asking Beijing to interpret the Basic Law was the best way to curb the influx of mainlanders giving birth. "Ms Leung has expressed her views, which she is perfectly entitled to," Bokhary said. "Equally, people who have disagreed with her are perfectly entitled to express their disagreement. I haven't agreed with them." Regarding Leung's claim that judges had made mistakes in previous rulings, Bokhary said: "She thinks we had, but we hadn't." He did not think her comments had hurt the judicial system. "You can't jeopardise the independence of justice in Hong Kong by expressing views. If her views were acted upon, the situation might be different. Justice would be very delicate if it was jeopardised every time somebody said something." Asked whether there had been changes in people's rights since Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying took office, Bokhary said: "No. I don't think things would have been any different if there had been a different chief executive. The commitment of the people to the rule of law and freedom in Hong Kong is, I think, unshakeable." - Does it sound so ominous now that you have actually read it? As Bokhary said, "You can't jeopardise the independence of justice in Hong Kong by expressing views ... Justice would be very delicate if it was jeopardised every time somebody said something." - And this business about the 2014 White Paper on the requirement for patriotism in Hong Kong judges: (SCMP) Full text: Chinese State Council white paper on ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy in Hong Kong. June 10, 2014. 3. The Hong Kong People Who Govern Hong Kong Should Above All Be Patriotic There are lines and criteria to be observed in implementing "Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong," that is what Deng Xiaoping stressed, Hong Kong must be governed by the Hong Kong people with patriots as the mainstay, as loyalty to one's country is the minimum political ethic for political figures. Under the policy of "one country, two systems," all those who administrate Hong Kong, including the chief executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council, judges of the courts at different levels and other judicial personnel, have on their shoulders the responsibility of correctly understanding and implementing the Basic Law, of safeguarding the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, and of ensuring the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. In a word, loving the country is the basic political requirement for Hong Kong's administrators. If they are not consisted of by patriots as the mainstay or they cannot be loyal to the country and the HKSAR, the practice of "one country, two systems" in the HKSAR will deviate from its right direction, making it difficult to uphold the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, and putting Hong Kong's stability and prosperity and the wellbeing of its people in serious jeopardy. The fact that Hong Kong must be governed by patriots is well grounded in laws. Both the Constitution and the Basic Law provide for the establishment of the HKSAR, which works for China's national unification, territorial integrity and maintaining Hong Kong's long-term stability and prosperity. In that context, the Basic Law requires that the chief executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council, president and over 80 percent of the members of the Legislative Council, chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal and chief judge of the High Court shall be Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any foreign country; that, when assuming office, the chief executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the HKSAR must, in accordance with the law, swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the HKSAR of the PRC; and that the chief executive be accountable to the central government and the HKSAR with respect to implementing the Basic Law. All this is necessary for displaying sovereignty, ensuring loyalty to the country by the mainstay of Hong Kong administrators and helping them to subject to oversight by the central government and Hong Kong society, while taking their responsibility for the country, the HKSAR and Hong Kong's residents. Is anything now different from 20 years ago? And how about the overall situation of the courts in the HKSAR? The courts of the HKSAR at all levels are the judiciary of the region, exercising the judicial power of the region. After the establishment of the HKSAR, the Court of Final Appeal was established to exercise the power of final adjudication in the region. The judicial system previously practiced in Hong Kong is maintained except for those changes consequent upon the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal. The common law and relevant judicial principles and systems previously practiced in Hong Kong, including the principle of independent adjudication, the principle of following precedents, and the jury system, continue to apply. The courts of the HKSAR have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defense and foreign affairs. They have jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases in the region, except that the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong Kong are maintained. When adjudicating cases, the courts of the HKSAR may refer to precedents of other common law jurisdictions, and the Court of Final Appeal may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit in the Court of Final Appeal. How does this differ from Basic Law Articles 80-96 and Article 104? They want to scare you about this White Paper from the Chinese Communists because they know that you won't actually retrieve and read it. - (Speakout HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 20, 2017. We frequently encounter the term "authoritative" in newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. When you come across an "authoritative" source, you are almost forced to trust it. So we have authoritative sources on food, travel, fashion, music, military affairs, law, Basic Law, economics ... there are authoritative sources in every single field. But have you ever wondered where these "authoritative" sources come from? Authoritativeness is forged by the media. For example, people have different reactions to Chairman Xi Jinping's speech at the Chinese Communist Party Congress. You say this, I say that and we can't agree. But if you can get an "authoritative" source to give us his thoughts, everything will be clear! What kind of person becomes an "authoritative" source? For example, the "authoritative" sources on China in the opposition camp are mostly those worked in China once upon a time and then turned their backs to the Chinese Communists. They haven't visited China in the last 30 years, but they are still "authoritative" sources who give us their views based upon what they saw 30 years ago. More recently, twelve "authoritative" legal sources signed a letter to condemn the re-sentencing of Joshua Wong and friends. On that day, the media came up with the headlines "International authoritative legal sources" as if the whole world has signed up. But if you check the backgrounds of the twelve signatories, you will have to laugh. These twelve so-called "legal authoritative figures" consisted of seven human rights lawyers from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and Malaysia. They specialize in human rights and political asylum litigation, including representing accused terrorists. The other five are former United Kingdom Secretary of State for Justice Lord Falconer in the Tony Blair cabinet, United Kingdom independent reviewer of Terrorism legislation Lord Alexander Carlile, former United Nations Chief War Crimes Prosecutor in Sierra Leone Desmond Da Silva, former South African constitutional judge Richard Goldstone and selfproclaimed progressive socialist lawyer Michael Mansfield. Perhaps an ordinary citizen might be impressed by these United Nations prosecutors, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Justice, South African chief judges, anti-terrorism legislators, etc. But if Hong Kong's own "experts" Johannes Chan, Benny Lai, Alan Leong, Alvin Yeung, Albert Ho, Martin Lee ... should sign a similar petition today, would you think that they can be fair? Therefore you must not trust "authoritative" figures". Certain people with ulterior motives have given them haloes over their heads in order to influence our thinking. - And don't forget that Canadian lawyer David Matas, he of the famous Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report (see CNN). "A new report claims that China is still engaged in the widespread and systematic harvesting of organs from prisoners, and says that people whose views conflict with the ruling Chinese Communist Party are being murdered for their organs." Given the sloppiness of the Matas report, the author can be counted to sign on as a "top international legal authoritative figure" here. - Speaking of Johannes Chan, he is offering a new angle on this. He is saying that it does not matter what the legal facts are. As long as certain international authoritative figures think so, we must do our best to change our behavior in order to placate them. If not, Hong Kong will lose its stature in the international community as a rule-of-law place. And when Hong Kong is no longer an international financial centre, we will all be jobless and starve to death. Or something. - (Hong Kong Free Press) Grenville Cross SC: Hong Kong’s rule of law is alive and well. October 28, 2017. Although the twelve international lawyers claim the imprisonment of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow was a “serious threat to the rule of law” (16 October), the Court of Appeal described their offence as “a large-scale unlawful assembly, involving violence”. The evidence showed that they and others stormed a restricted area, with gates forced open and barriers overturned. Ten security guards suffered injuries, with one, Chan Kei-lun, sustaining bruises, swelling and a fracture, resulting in 39 days’ sick leave. The Court of Appeal imprisoned the men because of fundamental errors of principle made by the trial magistrate, which resulted in manifestly inadequate sentences. In Hong Kong, everyone is equal before the law, and political motivations do not shield offenders from the consequences of their actions. The Hong Kong Bar Association and Law Society have emphasized that court rulings are made “solely according to law”. Although Wong and Law had served their community service when the review was listed, the case was not heard earlier because they, and Chow, lodged appeals against conviction, which they later abandoned. The Court, however, notwithstanding that the three men had caused the delay, still discounted their sentences by several weeks. Far from breaching the “double jeopardy” principle, the Court’s review accords with international practice. Throughout the common law world, it is recognised that a mechanism is necessary to rectify serious sentencing errors by trial courts. The sentencing review system was introduced into Hong Kong by the British colonial government in the 1970s, to correct mistakes in exceptional cases. In 1988, the UK enacted similar legislation, and the Attorney General regularly seeks increased sentences from the Court of Appeal. Although China’s white paper in 2014 reiterated that it enjoys “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, the suggestion that administrators, including judges, should love the country does not, as claimed, affect judicial independence. When asked about it, Lord Neuberger, a non-permanent judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (and, until last month, President of the UK Supreme Court), said “I wonder if there is anything to worry about in the white paper”. He explained that judicial independence was not inconsistent with judicial patriotism, and that, having himself taken a judicial oath of allegiance to Hong Kong, “the way in which judges demonstrate their patriotism is by an irrevocable and undiluted commitment to the rule of law”. Hong Kong judges always discharge their duties with that very much in mind. Hong Kong’s judiciary is fiercely independent, and comprises men and women of great integrity. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, it enjoys an entrenched constitutional status it lacked before 1997. Article 85 provides that the courts “shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference”, and they always apply the law without fear or favour, even when it upsets outsiders. [809] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution Part 15 (2017/10/03) (Oriental Daily) October 3, 2017.

On Legislative Council election day last year, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng alleged threw a sandwich at former Chief Executive CY Leung but hit a police chief inspector instead. Ng has pleaded not guilty to common assault. Before the trial began, the defense moved to switch magistrates on the grounds that the case was initially handled by magistrate Chan Bing-yu during pre-trial proceedings but will now be heard by magistrate So Wai-tak. Since Chan was more familiar with the case details, he should oversee the trial as well. Magistrate So rejected the request because there was insufficient basis. The defense and prosecution did not dispute that Avery Ng purchased two sandwiches at the Maxim's pastry shop in the MTR Admiralty station at around 8am on the day of the incident. According to the testimony of police constable Chan Wing-hong, he was posted at the voting station on Legislative Council election day. At around 8am, Chief Executive CY Leung and his wife came down with a police escort to cast their votes. At the time, Chan saw the defendant Avery Ng approach Leung from the street. When Ng got to five meters away from Leung, he "took out a white-yellowish object and appeared to throw it in the direction of Mr. CY Leung." The object hit Chief Inspector of Police Lau Wing-kwun. The video of the incident was show in court. During cross-examination, the defense pointed out that CY Leung bent down and evaded the sandwich. Therefore "the sandwich fell onto Chief Inspector Lau only because CY Leung eluded it." This shows that Avery Ng did not deliberately throw at Lau. Chan said that he only witnessed the sandwich "hitting" Lau. The defense said that "hitting" is highly subjective, and changed "hitting" into "making contact with" instead. According to the testimony of Chief Inspector of Police Lau Wing-kwan, he was the personal safety director for CY Leung. At the time of the incident, he was escorting CY Leung and Mrs. Leung to vote at the voting station. Outside the voting station, an unidentified object came towards him. "Mr. Leung bent down quickly to avoid it." Lau used both hands to block the object. But the object was moist and soft, and hit Lau on the back. Afterwards, he discovered that the object was a sandwich. Lau said that he did not know who threw the sandwich. During cross-examination, the defense asked Lau: "How come CY Leung reacted quickly enough to avoid the object, but you who have been trained could not?" Lau said: "I cannot answer on his behalf as to why he was able to avoid the object." The defense asked Lau: "Have you ever thought about whether CY Leung might have caused people to throw objects at him?" Lau said that he has never thought about that. But Lau emphasized: "I don't blame him for bending down to avoid the object." The prosecution also showed a segment from Avery Ng's Facebook live broadcast, in which Ng declared that he had thrown a stinky fish sandwich at CY Leung. The trial will continue tomorrow at which time the magistrate will consider whether the Facebook video is admissible as evidence. Former Chief Executive CY Leung is scheduled to testify tomorrow afternoon. (Oriental Daily) October 4, 2017. When hearing resumed today, the magistrate ruled that Avery Ng's Facebook video statement could be admitted as evidence. The magistrate also ruled that the evidence exists for the charge of common assault. Avery Ng took the stand to testify on his own behalf. He said that after he was stopped by the police, he was not allowed to leave. So he was forced to stand there. While waiting, he took the Facebook video titled "Almost hit CY Leung and treated him with a stinky fish sandwich" in order to make fun of the police as well as chat with his supporters "in order to keep them happy with the fun." Ng said that there were no policemen next to him when he posted "Almost hit CY Leung." Therefore he could chat with his supporters. "I did not treat this as serious" and he only dealt with it light-heartedly. Under cross-examination, Ng agreed that he had done so of his own will. Ng noted that the police were filming him, but he did not mind to let the whole world know. In summation, the prosecutor said that Ng voluntarily made a live broadcast to the public. Therefore, the court should admit that live broadcast into evidence. The defense said that Ng was joking and unserious, and the comments by his supporters only encourage him to tell more jokes. As such, the court should remove this as evidence. Ng also said that he wanted to demonstrate against CY Leung outside the voting station. He held a sandwich in order to show that "many poor people in Hong Kong cannot afford to have a sandwich for breakfast." He saw CY Leung walking in his direction, looking very composed and smiling. In court, Ng imitated Leung's expression: "Head held up high; eyebrows arched upwards; lower lip lifted up" as if he was challenging and "inviting" Ng to throw a sandwich at him. Ng said that the tuna sandwich has "zero power of destruction." Although he aimed at the top of CY Leung's head, he did not intend to hurt CY Leung or the police chief inspector behind Leung. Anyone could have caught that sandwich. If the police hadn't step in between Ng and Leung, the former would have handed the sandwich over in protest. Under cross-examination, the prosecutor asked whether the action was insulting in nature. Ng replied: "I don't know, but the mere existence of CY Leung is an insult already. This can be enhanced somewhat." Ng also spoke about himself: "I have been quite accurate in my throws since childhood." Ng anticipated that Leung would catch the sandwich but it ended up hitting someone else. The prosecutor questioned how Leung could have "indicated" to Ng to throw the sandwich when there were so many press reporters around. Did Ng lie? Ng denied it: "Of course not! He is very combative!" (SCMP) October 4, 2017. Former city leader Leung Chun-ying’s “very smug” expression was what invited a pro-democracy activist to lob a pungent tuna sandwich at him last year, a Hong Kong court heard on Wednesday. The hurled snack hit a police officer when Leung ducked it, in what the accused, Avery Ng Man-yuen, called a “spineless” evasion. But Leung told the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday that he never made eye contact with Ng during the episode and did not know the League of Social Democrats member was there. The former chief executive added that he was “in a panic” and “very scared” after seeing an object flying towards him. Ng said the stunt was part of a protest about the plight of the city’s elderly poor. He has denied one charge of common assault on the police officer, Lau Wing-kwan. During the hearing, Ng, 40, said his and Leung’s eyes met seconds before he threw the sandwich on September 4 last year, as Leung entered a polling station on Robinson Road, Mid-Levels. Leung was heading to vote in the Legislative Council elections. “I can describe his facial expression at that time as very smug,” Ng told the court. “He kept raising his eyebrows, raised his head slightly and protruded his lower lip. It was like he was saying: ‘Bring it on.’ That was the message I received at the time.” Ng said he did not expect Leung would be “so spineless” as to duck, causing the sandwich to hit Lau, who was walking behind the then chief executive. He added he did not know Lau before, had not planned to hit him and did not consider whether the sandwich would hit him. When Leung testified, Ng chose to take his lawyer’s place and put questions directly to the former top official. During the exchange, Leung claimed he could not remember what expression he had before he saw an object flying towards him. “I could not see any people standing ahead raising their arms,” Leung said. “What I needed to do was walk into the station as soon as possible. Ever since [former lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man] threw a glass at me in the Legislative Council, I felt a need to be especially careful [during protests].” Leung said he became very nervous after he “instinctively” evaded the sandwich because he did not know what the object was. “I was in a panic,” he said. “I was scared.” He also claimed he did not know there was a police officer directly behind him, did not know the officer had been hit by the object, and did not ask about the officer afterwards. Ng called Leung “heartless” before Magistrate So Wai-tak reminded him not to speak on matters unrelated to the case. The pan-democrat also asked Leung whether he had triad connections before So stopped him on the grounds of asking unrelated questions. Ng said he had planned to give Leung the sandwich to highlight the plight of many of the city’s elderly, whom he claimed could hardly afford a sandwich. He said police officers held him up as he approached Leung. Had he not been held up, he added, he would have walked up to Leung and handed him the symbolic sandwich. Ng said he bought two sandwiches before the stunt, one for his own lunch, and the other – filled with tuna, because Ng does not like tuna – for Leung. Prosecutor Francis Yip Kim-ming accused Ng of making up the details about Leung’s facial expression, and said he simply threw the sandwich without care for people’s safety. Ng denied that. The case was adjourned to October 12. (Oriental Daily) October 4, 2017. This afternoon, the defendant Avery Ng called former Chief Executive CY Leung to the witness stand. Leung testified that he did not see the defendant when he went down to the voting station to cast his vote. As he walked towards the station, he spotted an object flying over at him. He evaded the object and continued to walk. He said that he has been especially alert about flying objects ever since a cup was thrown at him at the Legislative Council. He said that the person who attacked him should bear criminal responsibility. Leung said that he was calm before the throw. Ng asked Leung to demonstrate this. Leung declined, saying that he would only do so only if ordered by the court. The magistrate said that, if necessary, they can view the news videos. A news video was played in court. Ng said that "the person raising his hand was me." Leung said that he did not see him. "If I didn't see him, then I didn't see him." Leung said that he was nervous once he spotted the flying object because he did not know whether the object was a glass cup or acid. So he picked up his pace immediately afterwards. Leung said that he was afraid. As Chief Executive, there is not much likelihood of people throwing objects at him. He said that this was a serious incident. "If not an assault, then what was it?" He said that when he made the move to evade the object, he did not consider whether someone else might be hit. In court, Ng challenged the veracity of Leung's testimony. Leung said that he is the defense's witness. "You asked me here. If you don't believe me, you shouldn't be inviting me to come." Ng applied to the magistrate to declare Leung to be a hostile witness, because Leung's testimony was not credible and also did not help Ng's case. The magistrate turned down the application. Ng said that Leung is a key witness but the prosecution did not ask him to testify. Ng had to find evidence about Leung's expression at the time and whether he had spotted Ng. As a result, Ng was forced to summon Leung as a witness for the defense. However, Leung refused to meet with Ng's lawyers. Before the trial began, Ng said that he had no idea whether Leung would help or hurt his case. After Leung gave his testimony, Ng said "at the very least, it was inconsistent with what I saw." Therefore Ng applied to declare Leung to be a hostile witness. The magistrate denied the application because he found the reasoning inadequate. Ng said that Leung tacitly permitted Ng to throw the sandwich at him, and that Leung evaded the sandwich so that the person behind him would get hit. Leung denied this to be the case. (Oriental Daily) October 12, 2017. Previously defendant Avery Ng had refused to be represented by a lawyer and therefore defended himself in court. Before summation, he said that he will not receive a fair trial and therefore he requested his case be assigned to a permanent stay. Ng said that former Chief Executive CY Leung was the key witness to the case, but the prosecutor refused to summon him to testify. As a result, Ng was forced to summon CY Leung as their witness. However, Leung refused to meet with Ng's lawyers before trial, such that Ng cannot determine if Leung is a reliable witness. Ng was not allowed to pose certain questions to Leung, such as: "Do you sometimes tell lies?" or "Did you receive $50 million from UGL?" so that he can determine Leung's truthfulness based upon his answers. The prosecution opposed Ng's application. They said that Ng summoned Leung, with the intention of "using his testimony if it suits Ng's purpose but asking for a permanent stay otherwise." In summation, the prosecution said that CY Leung and Avery Ng are not friends, and Leung did not agreed to let Ng throw a sandwich at him. Thus, Ng is making up the situation about Leung wagging his eyebrows to invite Ng to throw a sandwich at him. In summation, Avery Ng said that he had anticipated that Leung would be able to catch the sandwich because Leung's expression seemed good-willed. As former Financial Secretary John Tsang once said, he would attempt to catch any objects thrown by demonstrators. Ng said that more than 30% of senior citizens still live under the poverty line after five years under Chief Executive. This is very insulting, and led Ng to throw a sandwich that poor people cannot afford to buy. But Leung suddenly dodged and the sandwich hit someone else instead. He said that Leung must surely know that his action will cause other people to be injured. (Oriental Daily) October 31, 2017. Today in West Kowloon Court, Avery Ng was found guilty of common assault and sentenced to three weeks in jail. He is out on $1,000 bail pending appeal. Prior to the announcement of the ruling, Avery Ng and other League of Social Democrats members demonstrated outside the courthouse. Given that he will be found guilty and sentenced for challenging an authority figure, Ng said that this shows that the court has become a tool for political oppression. (Ming Pao) October 31, 2017. The magistrate pointed out the defendant is not a trustworthy and reliable witness. With respect to Ng's claim that CY Leung invited Ng over with his facial expression, the magistrate said that Ng and Leung are not friends so there was no way that Leung would tacitly approve Ng to throw a sandwich at him. The magistrate said that the defendant offered this explanation in the hope of getting away free. The magistrate said that CY Leung is a trustworthy and reliable witness, and accepted his claim that he never saw who threw the sandwich. The magistrate rejected Ng's claim that he had Leung's approval to throw the sandwich. He said that Ng broke the law in order to express his dissatisfaction with government policy. In mitigation, Avery Ng said that he joined the League of Social Democrats in 2009 because he chose to speak for the weak and vulnerable people in an unjust society, in the same way that a magistrate chooses his occupation in support of rule-of-law. Ng said that CY Leung chose to join a totalitarian regime, stayed close to gangsters, served those with connections and ignored the elderly and the poor. Ng said that four out of ten senior citizens in Hong Kong live under the poverty line without the even most basic dignity of living. A sandwich may be a luxury item for them. Therefore Ng is honored to have done a little something for them to get some basic dignity. Ng believed that if the sentence is used to intimidate future demonstrators, then it will objectively support the theory of collaboration among the three powers. That is to say, the judiciary is being used by the government to silence dissident voices. He said that no punishment will ever deter demonstrators like himself. He emphasized that there is a degree of difference between throwing a soft sandwich that soils the clothes versus throwing a glass cup. The magistrate replied that the verdict/sentence is based upon the degree of violence and totally unrelated to whether the defendant is demonstrating against those in authority and how noble the defendant's motives are. The magistrate said that the court respects the freedom of citizens to express t heir opinions but violence is prohibited. The court must take deterrent measures against anyone who uses violence against public servants, or else other people will imitate the act. Considering that the case involves only a sandwich, the defendant is sentenced to three weeks in jail. Internet comments: - (Oriental Daily) March 1, 2017. Yesterday the police charged Avery Ng with common assault. Ng said that this was a politically motivated prosecution. He said that CY Leung is a coward because he is hiding behind the police. Ng said that the police and the Department of Justice have filed more serious charges against resisters in order to intimidate them. Many demonstrators who were previously arrested are now awaiting their turns in court. This is seriously disrupting their normal daily lives. - (HK ON TV via YouTube) July 19, 2017. Defendant Avery Ng was not present when the court hearing began. According to the defense, Avery Ng is on his way in a taxi. At 1030am, Avery Ng showed up. He explained to the magistrate that his alarm clock malfunctioned and therefore he overslept. He flagged a taxi in Sheung Shui at 9am and arrived in the Eastern Court (Hong Kong Island) at 1030am. He apologized to the court. The magistrate confiscated the $500 bail previously paid by Ng, and he ordered Ng to post another $1,000 by 1pm. - Not in dispute was the fact that Avery Ng bought the sandwiches at Maxim's pastry shop. What can be disputed is that Avery Ng characterized the sandwich as "stinky tuna fish sandwich." Maybe the Food and Environment Hygiene Department should pay a visit to Maxim's? - Another funny part was that Avery Ng kept badgering CY Leung about whether Leung had seen the person who threw the sandwich. Leung said no, adding: "If I saw someone throwing an object at me, I would file a police report against that person." - (Ming Pao) October 4, 2017. At the trial, the defense offered the theory that CY Leung put on certain expressions that caused other people to attack him. Alternately, Leung may be quite willing to accept that sandwich. - This is the rapist saying: "That woman asked for it by putting on that flirtatious look!" and "She may have been quite willing to get raped!" - What must grate most of all is the magistrate declaring that Avery Ng is not trustworthy and reliable whereas CY Leung is trustworthy and reliable. Bwwwwaaaahhhh! - Avery Ng told the magistrate not to bother with any probation reports for sentencing purposes, because he is not afraid of any kind of punishment whatsoever. The magistrate actually gave him credit (i.e. a sentence reduction) because he saved time and effort for the court. - (SCMP) Sandwich brigade makes Hong Kong judiciary suffer. By Alex Lo. November 2, 2017. Well, let’s see. As offensive weapons go, do you consider animal entrails or soggy sandwiches more dangerous? I admit the former is more disgusting. On the other hand, a spoiled tuna fish sandwich isn’t a pretty sight either. But in a court of law, throwing either of them at people you despise as an act of protest probably doesn’t make much of a difference when it comes to conviction and sentencing. Anti-government activist Avery Ng Man-yuen was found guilty of assault for throwing a sandwich towards former chief executive Leung Chun-ying. He missed Leung but hit a policeman instead. The chairman of the radical group League of Social Democrats, Ng was sentenced to three weeks in jail but released on bail pending an appeal. Predictably, his colleagues and fans blasted the court for political persecution and ridiculed its sentencing throughout the “yellow ribbon” social and news media. But let’s consider a legal precedent. Last year, three men were jailed nine to 18 weeks for throwing entrails at Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, owner of the anti-communist newspaper Apple Daily, during the Occupy protests in 2014. Predictably, the opposition cheered and no one came out ridiculing the court ruling. Why? Because Lai was one of them, someone who has given millions to various opposition and anti-government parties and causes over many years. In fact, Ng had himself to blame for the court outcome. Those who attacked Lai had proper legal representation. Ng represented himself. At one point, he told the court he threw the sandwich at Leung because the ex-leader’s “very smug” expression had encouraged him to do it. While Leung haters might sympathise with Ng, that kind of testimony would not have endeared a defendant to a judge. This has become a clear pattern with the opposition. If the courts deliver judgments they favour, it’s all fine and dandy. If not, all hell breaks loose just to discredit what is in fact a very independent judiciary. The case of Ng is a minor one. But it’s no laughing matter when they have maligned the courts, with help from the “me too” political and media circuses, over the jailing of three student protesters for the very long sentences of six to eight months. The opposition’s double standard and hypocrisy are breathtaking. They are sadly damaging the judiciary, one of the city’s key institutional pillars. - (Speakout HK) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 4, 2017. If you threw something, then you threw something! The most disgusting thing is to throw something and never admit to it. Or else you argue that it was a good thing. The case of Avery Ng's sandwich is typical. Ng said that he wanted to provide a breakfast for CY Leung. Well, if you go down to a tea restaurant to order a breakfast and the waiter throws a sandwich at you from 5 meters away, what would you do? Thank him? Or curse him and all his ancestors? Avery Ng said that he merely threw a "soft object" in the form of a sandwich. The object hit a policeman and Ng was sentenced to three weeks in jail. Ng said that this heavy sentence was absurd and represents political oppression. Well, if hitting someone with a "soft object" should not lead to jail time, then what happened to the three men who threw pig intestines at Jimmy Lai during Occupy Central? They received 9 to 18 weeks of jail. Those pig intestines were soft too. Avery Ng declared it court that it was his honor to engage in resistance and no penalty will ever deter him. So why do you still want to appeal? Why don't you just head directly to jail? Is three weeks too much to handle? If so, what kind of resistance is this? What kind of revolution is this? I thought that we were watching a martial arts movie, but it turned bout to be a comedy/farce. - Avery Ng is appealing his sentence not because he cares about any sentence reduction. He just wants more time in the media limelight. And he has been maximizing that media exposure with clownish remarks and specious arguments. [808] National Day Demonstrations (2017/10/1) (Oriental Daily with video) October 1, 2017. There was a national flag raising ceremony at 8am at the Golden Bauhinia Square. Demosisto members hoisted banners and chanted slogans. Security guards removed them after some physical jostling. Demosisto members and other spectators quarreled and spitted at each other.

Internet comments: - Demosisto chairman Nathan Law and secretary-general Joshua Wong are in jail; Derek Lam is in London; Agnes Chow is not known for physical confrontation. Therefore it was understandable that other Demosisto members had to rise up to the occasion. But where did they find these people who shout slogans that nobody can understand? Is speech impediment a job requirement? This YouTube video of the incident carries the title: "October 1st National Day, pan-democrats pay $2,000 a day to hire inarticulate mentally impaired persons to demonstrate." - The woman in white was heard to say: "I want to report ... I want to report to the police." That is most peculiar, because at all other times she would call the police "Black (Evil) Police."

(SCMP) October 1, 2017. Hongkongers took to the streets on Sunday to reject “authoritarian rule” and to demand the justice minister resign for damaging the city’s rule of law. In a show of unity and braving heavy rain at times, the protesters chanted “Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung step down” as they set off from Victoria Park in Causeway Bay during the National Day holiday. “If Hongkongers don’t come out and make their voices heard, the silence will send a message to the government that they can do whatever they want,” said Avery Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, one of the event organisers. “Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor needs to fire Rimsky Yuen,” he added. Organisers claimed 40,000 people took part. They had projected a turnout of 20,000. Police put the figure at 4,300. Internet comments: - When the crowd set out from Victoria Park, anti-Yellow Ribbon newspaper Oriental Daily gave a crowd-size estimate of 500 and pro-Yellow Ribbon newspaper Ming Pao gave an estimate of 1,500. Let us grant that Ming Pao estimate of 1,500. The mystery is how the crowd of 1,500 at Victoria Park swelled up to 40,000 when it reached Government Headquarters in Tamar. When asked about this, the normally verbose League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng said that he declines to comment on crowd size at this time. - (HKG Pao) Even Ming Pao couldn't stand it. They asked League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng, Civil Human Rights Front convener Sammy Ip and Civil Human Rights Front ex-convener Au Ngor-hin about how the crowd estimate came about. All three said that they have no idea. - Causeway Bay Books ex-owner Lam Wing-kee marched today too. He was quite willing to comment on the low crowd turnout: "The number of marchers is not the issue. The most important thing is to look at public opinion." - Demonstration is (1) the action or process of showing the existence or truth of something by giving proof or evidence; or (2) a public meeting or march protesting against something or expressing views on a political issue. If the public won't come out to demonstrate, then how do you know what the public opinion is? How opposed is the public to authoritarian rule? - In Chinese, the term for "demonstration" literally means "show of power." When there are only 4,300, it is a "show of powerlessness" or "show of weakness." - 40,000 today? How about (SCMP) Quarter of a million turn out for HK National Day fireworks? Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong National Day revelers gathered on both sides of the harbor to watch as spectacular fireworks filled the sky on Sunday night. The show kicked off at 9pm over Victoria Harbor, despite clouds affecting visibility, with eight movements over 23 minutes. Police said more than 250,000 people lined the Kowloon waterfront and more than 26,000 were on the island side. - The number of demonstrators is not the issue. The truly important number is the amount of donations that the organizers claim to have raised from this event. Mind you, we are not talking about the amount of the donations that the organizers actually raised. There is a fine difference in the wording.

- (EJ Insight) October 3, 2017. The anti-government rally on October 1, which marks China’s National Day, has helped raise around HK$1.1 million to support the fight for democracy, according to a key figure involved in the exercise. Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, convenor of the Alliance for True Democracy, said several among the tens of thousands that took part in Sunday’s rally made generous contributions to a fund that seeks to help pro-democracy lawmakers and activists who had been caught up in legal cases. - If the $1.1 million came from the 4,300, the average donation would be $1.1 million / 4,300 = $256. That would be very high compared to previous history. So they have to come out and admit that "several among the tens of thousands ... made generous contributions." Who are these "several"? Jimmy Lai? Richard Li? George Soros? The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)? - If the $1.1 million came from the claimed 40,000, the average donation would be $1.1 million / 40,000 = $27.50, which is about the price of a McDonald's meal. That would be pathetic. And if "several among the tens of thousands ... made generous contributions," the average donation among the others would be even more pathetic. $5 per head, maybe? Such is the logical consequence of an exaggerated base. - (Oriental Daily) October 2, 2017. Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union ex-president Tommy Cheung took part in the demonstration march. He called on people to change their habits and automatically donate one-tenth of their monthly earnings to support the various groups and funds. Once you do that, you won't feel obliged to come out to demonstration marches in order to donate money. - Yeah? Has Tommy Cheung done so himself? - How to become a millionaire: Get 1,000 people who earn $10,000 a month to donate one-tenth of their earnings each month, and you will earn $1,000,000 a month yourself. Of course, you will set the example by donating one-tenth of your own earnings to yourself, which leaves you with $1,000,000 net. - (EJ Insight) October 3, 2017. Asked why the union and other similar organizations did not participate in Sunday’s demonstration, Wong Ching-tak, president of the University of Hong Kong students union, said the reason was they believe the call for Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung to step down, one of the march’s main themes, was off the mark. Yuen was a wrong focus, as he is not the source of the authoritarian politics currently seen in Hong Kong, Wong said. Also the student unions wanted to call on society to pay attention to political prisoners other than the more-than-a-dozen young activists who were sentenced to jail in August. By staying away from the rally, the student groups hope to turn the focus on the fact that there are many more activists who need help. - My absence at the rally will draw more attention than my presence ... - (Oriental Daily) October 1, 2017. A group of masked men joined the demonstration with their Hong Kong independence flag. What are they afraid of?

(Oriental Daily) October 1, 2017.

After the anti-Authoritarianism demonstration in the afternoon, more than 20 People Power members marched to the China Liaison Office. They held a black cloth with many yellow stars on it. The police issued two warnings to People Power vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi that this flag may be in violation of the National Flag ordinance which requires the National Flag to have certain colors and dimensions. Tam denied that his flag was the National flag. He said: "If you think that this is the national flag, you should tell (Secretary for Justice) Rimsky Yuen to prosecute me." Then he threw the black flag into the China Liaison Office. Afterwards the demonstrators disbanded. Internet comments: - Here are the financial data: Cost of insulting the national flag (see the case of Cheng Chung-tai): $5,000. Income from donations at the demonstration march: $100,000 (hypothetical). Well, I'll be damned if I don't insult the national flag. - Indeed, this was why Next Media historically created so many fake news stories: Cost of court fine for libel: $50,000 (hypothetical) Annual net earnings: $200 million Well, they would be damned if they didn't make up as many fake news stories as possible. In the long run, they destroyed their brand because readers don't want any more fake stories and advertisers don't want to advertise in a fake-news environment. So, in the long run, fewer and fewer people will come to demonstrations and donate money. But that's okay, because the whole thing was a money-laundering operation to begin with ... [807] Third Anniversary of Occupy Central (2017/10/1) (Hong Kong Free Press) September 29, 2017. Hundreds of pro-democracy protesters returned to government headquarters in Admiralty on Thursday to commemorate the anniversary of the Umbrella Movement protests. Three years on, they urged unity against a backdrop of what one organiser described as an “authoritarian” political atmosphere. On September 28, 2014, the police shot 87 tear gas canisters to disperse protesters gathering in support of arrested students. Many regard it as the moment which sparked a 79-day street occupation protest calling for universal suffrage. Activists were ultimately cleared from the streets, though the government did not make any concessions. The movement’s leaders – Joshua Wong and Nathan Law – completed community service orders as a result of charges relating to the demonstrations, whilst Alex Chow was given a suspended sentence. However, the trio were jailed in August after the government successfully appealed their sentences. Agnes Chow, a core member of Wong and Law’s party Demosisto, said she was grateful that demonstrators had returned to Admiralty after three years, even though many had been disappointed by the political events during the period. “As we look back, maybe we are already used to the government using the law to handle political issues, maybe we are used to the police using violence to suppress protesters,” she said. “I am also afraid that in three years, in 2020, we may be used to the disqualification of lawmakers and young protesters being sent to jail.” “We all love this city, but we are afraid that it may not look like the city that we know anymore,” she added. “But we should not lie to ourselves and say we are not afraid, because there will be a day when you cannot stand it anymore. We have to face our fears – even if we are afraid, for the city we love, we must hang on.” The organiser of the event “reenacted” the scene three years ago by playing audio recordings from the protests in 2014 and mimicking the dispersal of tear gas by with water vapour. Avery Ng, chair of the League of Social Democrats, said he almost shed tears when the protests started, since he was in London and could not join. “We have always been described as the radical party… but when I saw Hong Kong people united in civil disobedience, there was no fear of the police or tear gas, I felt Hong Kong people finally experienced how to fight against this suppressive regime,” he said. He said, over the past three years, the social movement had fragmented. “But I want to remind all of us, it’s time to unite… regardless if you are conservative, radical, if you support localism, or independence – we have to stand united. We only have one enemy together – the Communist Party and Carrie Lam.” Other Occupy leaders such as Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming will face trial on charges of conspiracy to cause and incite public nuisance. The trio had said they were preparing for jail by showering with cold water and switching off their air conditioning. “If I have to go to prison, let’s go to prison,” Tai told supporters. “When we face such threats with a calm attitude, this authoritarian regime has no authority… Tell the government: sue me! Then the threat from the authoritarian regime will be at least weakened by half.” Chan also told the crowd: “If I have to go to prison, then I shall calmly accept prison.” He said that the government told them that many more participants, including volunteers and supporters, could be charged as co-conspirators. “Tens of thousands could go to jail,” he said. “But we should not fear. If I am not afraid of imprisonment, then the chilling effect will disappear… They wanted to scare us. But if we face it calmly, that threatening power will be gone.” “We may feel pain but we will not back down,” he said. “We may be angry but we will not lose our rational mind. This is the spirit of the Umbrella Movement.” Internet comments: - (Hong Kong Free Press) The Umbrella Movement after three years: So much accomplished, and much still to do. By Kong Tsung-gan. September 24, 2017. Not long after the end of the occupations in December 2014, I started to hear participants say things like, “We accomplished nothing.” Most though not all of these voices belonged to young people. I was a bit taken aback because during the occupations, most occupiers had quite realistic expectations. No one thought the Communist Party was suddenly going to see the light and hand genuine universal suffrage to Hong Kong on a platter. Why, then, this downbeat assessment afterwards? After so many had fought so long and hard, camping out on the streets for 79 days, being teargassed, peppersprayed, beaten and arrested by police, the bitterness was understandable: It’s one thing to know something in your head, another to feel it deep in your heart. In the aftermath of the Umbrella Movement, it was dawning on many Hong Kong people, especially young people, just how deeply unjust their society was. They were coming to terms with the “nature of the beast”, the Communist Party, their implacable adversary which had spent over 60 years jealously guarding its monopoly on power on the mainland, annihilating any challenge to it. Existing as they did a step removed from the full force of that power, a good many Hong Kong people hadn’t fully understood the Communist Party. But they did now. Or it was dawning on them with awful clarity. Accompanying this growing awareness of injustice and of the ruthlessness of the oppressor was a deep sense of powerlessness. Much of the disillusionment turned inward: people were disappointed with themselves and with the leaders of the occupations. But while emotionally understandable and partially accurate, the assessment that the Umbrella Movement accomplished nothing disregards a wide array of positive outcomes, both intended and not. Some can be classified as objectives met others are perhaps more like side effects. A fuller understanding of what the movement was about, what it did and did not accomplish, is, among other things, useful in strategizing for the future. In one sense, “We accomplished nothing” is right: The Communist Party made no concrete concessions nor even exhibited a willingness to engage, let alone negotiate. The Umbrella Movement did not lead to genuine universal suffrage. On the surface, it did not force the Party to budge an inch. The Umbrella Movement’s lack of accomplishment of any concrete immediate positive objective was not dissimilar to the cases of many other recent nonviolent popular movements and uprisings going back to the huge global demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and up through the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring. These movements were all different from one another, but a clear pattern is emerging: It’s become harder for nonviolent political movements to accomplish concrete positive objectives in the short term. But there is a difference between acknowledging the fact that the key positive objective of genuine suffrage hasn’t been accomplished and saying that nothing has been. Before outlining the movement’s main accomplishments and failings, it’s important to consider a few important contexts. The Umbrella Movement was the largest manifestation of resistance to Communist Party rule since the 1989 demonstrations across China. While the ’89 demonstrations were violently crushed, the Umbrella Movement fought the Communist Party to a draw: Neither was able to achieve its primary aim (for the movement, genuine suffrage; for the Party, fake). Once the Communist Party came out with its decision of 31 August 2014 that virtually ruled out genuine universal suffrage, it committed itself irrevocably to taking a hard line on Hong Kong. From that point on, it could not show the least bit of “weakness”. This hardline stance is a Communist specialty, and more so than ever under Xi Jinping. It is similar to Party policy on Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, which in turn is based on an awareness that the Communist empire is contested at its peripheries. Indeed, from the Tibetan uprising of 2008 to unrest in Xinjiang to the Sunflower Movement of Taiwan and the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement of 2014, we see a clear pattern of resistance to Party rule, or in the case of the Sunflower Movement, Party influence. In all of these places, the party doesn’t get the loyalty and obedience it wants. And whenever people rise up, its reflex is repression: it’s backed itself into a corner with its hardline policies. Of course, the underlying reason for this is that it rules by force and without the formal consent of any of its people. So if you think the Umbrella Movement failed, just look at the messes the Party has made for itself all over its empire. From 31 August 2014 onward, then, it was fairly certain what the Party response would be to any mass resistance in Hong Kong. Indeed, resort to use of the military was more likely than substantial concessions. Also important is that the occupations began spontaneously as a form of resistance rather than as an expression of a positive demand. They were first and foremost a big NO to the eight-hour-long police teargas attack on Hong Kong citizens on 28 September and to the fake suffrage stipulated in the 31 August ruling. Of course, demonstrators desired genuine suffrage; that was their primary positive objective. But they also wished to block the worst, fake suffrage, from happening, and in this, they succeeded. The Umbrella Movement torpedoed any chance of a Hong Kong government proposal based on the 31 August ruling ever passing in Legco. Sure enough, the Communist Party’s fake suffrage was defeated on 18 June 2015. If “We accomplished nothing” is true, the same can be said for the Communist Party. Fake suffrage was an important part of the Party’s plan to bring Hong Kong under its full control long before 2047. With fake suffrage, the Party would have achieved a complete and final stranglehold over the formal political system. It called what it was proposing “universal suffrage”, so it would also have been relieved of the legal obligation enshrined in the Basic Law to introduce it. It would have been under no further legal obligation to allow any subsequent political development in Hong Kong whatsoever. Fake suffrage was checkmate. For this reason, defeating fake suffrage, while a long way from achieving the realisation of genuine suffrage, was a crucial accomplishment. It also fulfilled the original objective of the demonstrators, to say no. In this sense, judging by the criterion of the spontaneous motivation to come out to the streets on 28 September, the Umbrella Movement accomplished its primary objective. Indeed, whenever Hong Kong people have had the power to do so—Article they have consistently thwarted the Communist Party’s efforts to exert greater control over Hong Kong.

23 “security” legislation in 2003, the national education curriculum in 2012, the fake suffrage of 2015—

The Umbrella Movement can be considered to have “failed”, to have “accomplished nothing” only if it is regarded as the climax of a campaign, rather than part of a much longer history of political struggle which began long before the movement and will continue far into the future. In that broader context, the accomplishments of the Umbrella Movement were various and profound: It drew much greater attention, both in Hong Kong and internationally, to the Communist Party’s stepped-up efforts at mainlandization (political control coupled with infrastructural, economic and cultural integration of Hong Kong with the mainland) and brought Hong Kong’s political situation to the attention of the rest of the world in a way that no other event had ever done before, establishing Hong Kong as contested political territory. It brought Hong Kong to a new stage in the struggle for democracy and self-determination, initiating an era of long-term resistance, cultivating a deep and healthy distrust of the Communist Party that pervades greater swathes of Hong Kong society than ever before, and, with that, increased vigilance. It did more than any other event to promote a politically conscious and active citizenship, and this especially amongst a huge majority of young people—upwards of 80 to 90

percent—who are in favor of democracy and genuine autonomy.

This resistance is a factor that the Party will have to contend with for years and perhaps even generations to come; indeed, it could outlast the Party itself. It is not going too far to say that the fate of Hong Kong rests on what this generation of young people decides to do. It raised the political awareness of Hong Kong people generally, and especially that of many previously apolitical people. They realized how emotionally attached to Hong Kong they are. They strongly identify with it and want to defend it. It got people talking politics and thinking about the future of the city. It made more people aware of Hong Kong’s many deficits, of the failings of its government, and the relationship between the city’s drawbacks and the fact that it lacks democracy. And it motivated a larger number of people than ever to stand up for themselves and for Hong Kong. It made Hong Kong less submissive, less controllable. As Jacques Semelin said in reference to civil resistance to Hitler in occupied Europe, “When a society feels less and less submissive, it becomes more and more uncontrollable. Then even if the occupier keeps its power, it loses its authority.” That’s Hong Kong today. The Umbrella Movement delegitimized Communist Party rule and made people see more clearly than ever before what the Party was doing to Hong Kong. What government can fail to respond to such a huge number of its citizens in such great open rebellion that they take over large parts of the city for months, and retain even vestigial legitimacy? Because of the unfulfilled promise of universal suffrage, Hong Kong was already in perpetual political crisis before the Umbrella Movement, but the movement made the contradictions and injustices of Party rule even more acute. And the only way the Party knew how to respond, doing nothing to reform and instead tightening the screws, has simply discredited it further. This model of governance—an

essentially unelected government whose first priority is to implement the agenda of the Communist Party in a city of citizens aware of and demanding their rights—is simply unsustainable, however stable it may

sometimes appear on the surface.

Related to the above, the movement specifically doomed Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and his administration to illegitimacy and ineffectuality. One of the first and most concrete demands the movement made was that Leung resign to take responsibility for failed political reform and the police teargas attacks. I recall clearly at the time many long-time China watchers scoffed at the idea that the movement could force the Party to dump Leung. Oh, I said to them, it may not come now, but it will come. Remember Tung Chee-hwa? He was actually the first CE whose reign was terminated due to a people’s movement, the half-million-person march in 2003 against the Party-directed Article 23 “security” legislation. Tung resigned for “medical reasons” in 2005. In 2016, Leung decided not to run for a second term for “family reasons”. He had rendered himself so unpopular by doing the Party’s dirty work that the Party dumped him. Both had their reigns shattered by people’s movements against Party attempts to impose its will. The only CE to complete his two allotted terms so far is Donald Tsang, and he was subsequently convicted of corruption and sentenced to prison for crimes committed in office. There’s no greater indictment of the Hong Kong governance model than the fact that even in a system where the CE is basically appointed, he still cannot complete two terms. The Umbrella Movement was an ultimatum to the Communist Party: Either you give us what you promised, or all bets are off; the implicit social contract of the last 17 years, according to which we grudgingly went along with your rule in exchange for you fulfilling your promise of allowing real autonomy and granting genuine suffrage, is torn up and we start from scratch. We will no longer wait around for you to deliver, we will take our fate into our hands. There is a growing awareness that it is the Basic Law itself that is problematic (or the Party’s interpretation of it, which amounts to the same thing), and fewer people will accept it as the basis of a just political solution. Indeed, the suffrage struggle led to today’s calls for self-determination and independence. The Umbrella Movement brought into relief two clearly contrasting sets of values, those of Hong Kong and the pro-democracy movement, on the one hand, and the Communist Party’s authoritarian political culture, on the other. It provided a vision of just what a better place Hong Kong could be—fairer, more egalitarian, more

communitarian, more vibrant, caring, generous and creative, happier, and of course, more democratic.

This vision stands in stark contrast to what the Party wants it to be—authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical, can’t think for himself, but is good at executing orders.

inegalitarian, docile, passive, prostrate, obedient, plodding, cutthroat capitalistic and exploitative, resigned and pessimistic. For the Party, the model Hong Kong citizen is the dull and unswervingly loyal Hong Kong government political appointee, who

The Umbrella Movement vision is a template for a different sort of society, not governed by the dictates of authoritarian turbo-capitalism with political and economic power concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. The movement’s art, creativity, anarchic collaboration, egalitarianism, communalism, emphasis on values other than the economic, idealism, generosity of spirit and action, dedication, commitment to the common good, to ideals higher than oneself, one’s pocketbook, one’s family, opened Hong Kong people’s eyes to one another, to a common identity both already existing and still emerging, and to the possibilities of a truly self-governed, democratic Hong Kong. This heartened people and gave them confidence in themselves, their comrades, their allies, the better angels of Hong Kong’s nature. People who participated in and were inspired by the occupations continue to resist and to fight for justice in ways big and small, as a movement, in groups and as individuals in many areas of society. They carry the flame of the movement deep in their hearts. The Umbrella Movement dealt a blow to the international reputation of the Communist Party, as it became clear that it had no intention to fulfill its legal obligations. While the Party exercises greater economic and military influence globally than ever before, its “soft power”, its ability to inspire any kind of affinity based on the attraction of its system as a political model and of its society as a cultural model is close to zero. The Umbrella Movement smashed any hope the Communist Party may have had that Taiwan would ever willingly reconcile with the mainland as it is now ruled. The last thing Taiwanese want is to become like Hong Kong. The Umbrella Movement accomplished all of the above nonviolently and with courage and dignity in the face of violent attacks by the police and thugs. It preserved the moral upper hand. It showed that nonviolent resistance is, among other things, the most sustainable option, working as a platform for future action, even if it doesn’t immediately lead to the fulfilment of the most desired objectives. That list of accomplishments and successes is far from everything but it is certainly more than nothing. But then what were the movement’s failures and limitations? What were the main reasons it was not able to accomplish its primary positive objective of genuine suffrage? Simply put, it didn’t have enough power to force the Communist Party to grant it. Why didn’t it have enough power? There are three main reasons: It didn’t have enough people, it hadn’t the capacity to “escalate outward” effectively, and it failed to convince supporters of the Party to withdraw their support or defect to the other side. Estimates for participation in the occupations themselves range from 836,000 to 1,300,000. That’s between 13 and 20 percent of the 6,401,600 Hong Kong people over the age of 15. In addition to that, there were the nearly 800,000 who voted in the Occupy Central with Love and Peace referendum on universal suffrage of 22 to 29 June 2014 and the 510,000 who marched on 1 July that year. In all, in events ranging from the 22–29 June 2014 OCLP referendum to the defeat of fake suffrage in June 2015, an estimated 2,156,000 to 2,620,000 people participated—an extraordinary participation rate.

astounding 33 to 40 percent of the over-15 population. Even if one assumes that many people participated in all events, the referendum, the march and the occupations, that is still an

Scholar of nonviolent resistance Erica Chenoweth says that almost any movement with a participation rate of 3.5% is likely to succeed. The Umbrella Movement far exceeded that. But still, that was not enough. Too many Hong Kong people, for whatever reason, decided not to get involved at a historically crucial moment. This was indeed a weakness, but not really one for which the movement itself could be blamed. Or one could argue that indeed enough people participated but those huge numbers could eventually be contained because of the movement’s biggest internal weakness, its inability to “escalate outward” when the moment demanded. It couldn’t expand the movement beyond street occupations. Past a certain point, it was insufficient just to have people in the streets or even to use those people to, for example, surround government buildings. The problem was that, going into the movement, which, again, began spontaneously, the pro-democracy movement and civil society generally were organizationally too weak and without the requisite culture to accomplish outward escalation. That would have meant, for example, labour union strikes, rent strikes of public housing tenants, and economic boycotts of entities supporting the Communist Party. Imagine, for instance, if teachers, bus drivers and MTR train drivers went on strike. Both the Confederate of Trade Unions and the Professional Teachers Union called strikes in response to the police tear gas attacks of 28 September, but little came of them. Traditionally, the pro-democracy movement had been weak at organizing, and it showed in the Umbrella Movement, when it needed to be able to call on a base of already-organized people to mobilize in different areas of society. As a result of the movement’s inability to escalate outward, the Communist Party was reassured after the first week or so that it could be contained, and thus it and the Hong Kong government adopted the strategy of simply waiting it out. The movement’s other big weakness was an inability to get supporters of the regime to either defect or withdraw their support. Most nonviolent resistance movements that succeed are able to persuade the security apparatuses protecting the regime or the business elements that see themselves as benefitting from it to calculate that they’d be better off no longer supporting it. Loyalist defections are identified by nonviolent resistance scholars as amongst the most decisive turning points. But no one amongst the tycoons and business establishment, the pro-Party media, Hong Kong government political appointees or civil service or the police, let alone the Communist Party’s army or mainland Chinese citizens changed sides or even withdrew support. Again, this had the effect of reassuring the Communist Party that it could wait the movement out since it wasn’t eroding support amongst its allies. There were other weaknesses- in leadership, strategy, communication, coordination and decision-making- but these were not of decisive significance, nor was the fact that the movement received no significant moral or rhetorical support from foreign governments. Weighing all of the above, the conclusion is that there was little else the Umbrella Movement might have accomplished, considering the circumstances, and that what it did accomplish was of great significance. It was a watershed of Hong Kong history. Its legacy will be felt for years to come. Indeed, we are living in the post-Umbrella Movement era: Virtually every significant political development in Hong Kong since then has its origins in the movement or reactions against it. Unfortunately, the assessment that “we accomplished nothing” has led to wrong lessons being learnt. In the aftermath of the movement, there were recriminations and disunity amongst various factions within the pro-democracy movement which should have, over the past three years, been collaborating and cultivating a sense of common purpose. The underlying weakness of an insufficiently organised civil society generally and pro-democracy movement in particular has not been addressed. Much of the deep pessimism that can easily be found amongst activists and others in Hong Kong these days might also be tempered by greater confidence in our own power. Pessimism risks becoming fatalism or defeatism or resignation, which is exactly what the Communist Party wants. When it comes to power, the Party sees everything as a zero-sum game; its goal is the absolute annihilation or submission of the enemy. Don’t do the Party’s work for it. The real lessons to be learned from the Umbrella Movement are the need for unity and solidarity amongst all those in Hong Kong who want democracy and self-determination, and the importance of addressing the pro-democracy movement’s underlying weaknesses in strategy, organisation and mobilisation. For Hong Kong, there is always hope as long as people continue to resist, especially if they do so in unity and solidarity and with a clear goal and plan to achieve it. - (Hong Kong Free Press) Those who think the Umbrella Movement failed need to learn a little history. By Stephen Vines. October 1, 2017. Was the Umbrella Movement a waste of time? On the movement’s third anniversary this question is being answered in the affirmative by all sorts of people, including those who consider themselves to be democrats. Wherever they are coming from, the people who see the Umbrella Movement as a failure are profoundly lacking in historical perspective, and are unrealistic in expecting that a movement of this kind would be able to secure its aims overnight. In this respect the Umbrella Movement’s development is remarkably similar to that of other significant social and political movements in other parts of the world. An excellent example here is the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, which mobilized literally millions of people across the nation demanding equality for black people. As the movement grew the backlash against it also grew, bolstered by the governments of the Southern states who were determined to cling onto institutional racism. They mobilized the thuggery of law enforcement officials alongside a widespread policy of using the law to incarcerate protestors. As the civil rights campaign ploughed on in the face of adversity there was a growing feeling that the movement had exhausted itself and done little more than get its adherents put into jail and beaten up. Some historians believe that even the movement’s most prominent leader, Martin Luther King, had moments when he questioned whether it had been worthwhile. These doubts deepened as the price of protest rose and participants were beaten and murdered. The assassination of Dr King himself however strengthened resolve. He had lived to see many of the movement’s key demands put into law and witnessed the bitter divisions that arose as he was denounced for accepting the compromises required to change the laws. And that brings us to today in Hong Kong where an increasing number of protesters are being hauled away to jail, legislators supporting the movement have been turfed out of office and not only has Hong Kong’s woefully inadequate system of representative government not changed at all, but the current leader of the HKSAR has declared that discussion on this matter is pretty much off the table. So was it all a failure? The emphatic answer is no, and that can be said with some confidence. Indeed it is not that much of stretch to say that the day will come when people will shake their heads in disbelief on hearing that even in 2017 Hong Kong’s sophisticated and intelligent people were being fobbed off with a rotten election system guaranteed to block the will of the majority, and that they were not allowed to elect their own government. A future generation may well also find it hard to understand why Hong Kong’s so-called leaders of the day were willing accomplices in stripping the SAR of its promised autonomy, bringing it more firmly under the control of a dictatorship. This future generation will share some of the reactions from today’s American school children who think that they are being taught ancient history when told that black people were only allowed to sit at the back of the bus and could not even eat at the same places as white people; yet this was commonplace just half a century ago. What we learn from all this is that today’s ‘realities’ are tomorrow’s ‘unbelievabilities’ and that change is a long drawn out process lacking in linear progression, punctuated by enormous setbacks. Hong Kong knows all about this because although the previous colonial government and the current tremble-and-obey government have helped foster the myth of a historically politically apathetic and selfish society it is simply a lie. Even when the vast majority of the population consisted of immigrants from the Mainland, mass protest movements emerged. The 1960s mobilization against fare rises on the Star Ferry was followed in the 1970s by a growing mass of social movements led primarily by teachers and church-associated bodies rebelling against poor living conditions for working people and inferior education for the poor. By the 1980s mass protests coalesced around a massive campaign to try and prevent the building of the Daya Bay nuclear plant; the end of this decade was bookmarked by an unprecedented mobilization in solidarity with the 1989 Tiananmen protests. The following decade saw the emergence of a focus on the need for democracy, accompanied by the growth of political parties and a host of social movements. The strength of these movements was seen again at the turn of the century when mass protests forced the government to abandon draconian anti-subversion legislation and pull back on plans for political indoctrination in schools. Hong Kong has a history of success and failure when it comes to reform but, most importantly, it is a history of people who will not be cowed. The Occupy Movement should therefore be seen as the offspring of the movements that preceded it. Sure, the issues are different and the methods of protests have changed but the golden thread connecting these movements is a clear assertion of Hong Kong people’s determination to have greater control over their own affairs. The Umbrella Movement represents a kind of continuity and developed in ways that are more sustainable. It fostered, for example, a flourishing of an independent online media, it reached deep into a younger generation who will be around much longer than the author of this column and, yes, it fostered an enormous backlash but it can be argued that in so doing it merely brought to the surface forces that were lurking beneath. The Umbrella Movement let the genie out of the bottle. No one, even the hard men in Beijing, can be under any illusion that attacks on Hong Kong’s autonomy and way of life can be delivered without resistance. For the time being the response of the authorities has been to try and lock away and intimidate protestors. But, ultimately, this will fail even if they escalate the scale of repression, as it will achieve little more than creating martyrs. So who’s really the failed party here? - (SCMP) Division, that’s the real legacy of Hong Kong’s Occupy movement. By Alex Lo. September 30, 2017. Benny Tai Yiu-ting said “civic awakening” had been the greatest legacy of the Occupy protests three years ago. A co-founder of the Occupy Central movement, the legal scholar made his remark during a gathering of hundreds to mark the start of the event that brought Hong Kong to a standstill for 79 days. Tai is probably right. But beyond the rhetoric, the more interesting and relevant question is what the people of Hong Kong have “awakened” to. There are now broadly two metanarratives, the yellow and the blue versions, through which virtually every political and even social development is seen. You call it awakening, I call it polarisation. So, depending on whether you are yellow or blue, the recent jailing of activists is either political persecution or a well-deserved reckoning. Those jailed are either prisoners of conscience or troublemakers. The unauthorised raising of banners calling for Hong Kong independence and even personal attacks on university campuses were either an exercise in free speech or its abuse. Tell me what you think about the so-called co-location immigration arrangement, regarding a joint facility with the mainland, at the future high-speed rail terminus in West Kowloon, and I can tell whether you are yellow or blue. The Occupy movement itself is either a noble endeavour or one of the worst things that ever happened to the city. For a supporter of the yellow ribbon, a pro-Beijing person is either an incorrigible opportunist or someone who is brainwashed. For a backer of the blue ribbon, a pan-democrat is either a hopeless idealist or someone on the payroll of foreign forces. When I started working as a reporter in the early 1990s, political differences between people were more a matter of shades and degrees. Now, it’s so clear-cut because we have become sharply divided. Our differences are built into the very categories with which we think about news events, and the very language we use to talk to, and more often shout at, each other. That, to me, has been the real legacy of the Occupy movement. But to be fair, given the deep social and political problems in post-1997 Hong Kong, something like the Occupy movement would have happened even if Tai and his friends had never agitated for it. Is there a way out? Probably not any time soon. Given that democratic reform is dead in the water, social betterment and improvement in people’s living conditions may be the only way to mitigate the current crisis, but not to resolve it. - (EJ Insight) September 29, 2017. Members of various civic groups and pro-democracy parties gathered outside the government headquarters in Admiralty on Thursday to mark the third anniversary of the Occupy campaign. Representatives from more than 40 organizations took part in the event, holding yellow umbrellas and banners and listening to audio recordings of speeches from the past. The organizer said more than 1,000 people turned up for the rally, although police estimated the number to be about 500, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports. - On September 28, 2014, it was claimed that 120,000 came out in Admiralty to fight for freedom and democracy. On September 28, 2017, 500 came out to commemorate the third anniversary. Well, what happened to the other 115,000? Have they all immigrated to Taiwan to become second-class citizens there? [806] The Counter-Proposal to Co-location (2017/10/1) (The Standard) September 13, 2017. The pro-democracy camp's co-location concern group is set to discuss six alternative proposals at a weekend seminar in a bid to find one that trumps the government's plan. The government's proposal, announced in July, involves leasing areas within the West Kowloon terminus to the mainland for a "Mainland Port Area" in which mainland authorities will enforce national laws. The proposal has been fiercely opposed by the pro-democracy camp, which sees it as ceding land. Civic Party lawmaker and concern group leader Tanya Chan Suk-chong said the public seminar on Saturday will introduce six alternative proposals such as moving the co-location checkpoint to the mainland or conducting immigration clearance at separate locations - suggestions the government has already ruled out. Chan said the government's co- location proposal will also be explained during the seminar. University of Hong Kong legal scholars Johannes Chan Man-mun and Eric Cheung Tat-ming, Civic Party lawmaker Jeremy Tam Man-ho and district councillor Roy Tam Hoi-pong will each introduce an alternative proposal. Concern group member Carpier Leung Kai-chi said while the government has shot down some of their suggestions, the public should be informed nonetheless."When the government raised issues on convenience or operational difficulties, they did not supply enough detailed information for us to rule out these alternatives." The group has invited Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and pro-Beijing lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun to attend, but the two had not yet replied. Secretary for Transport Frank Chan- fan, on the other hand, declined the invitation, saying he already explained the government's proposal at Legislative Council meetings and public briefing sessions. Tanya Chan said she was disappointed with his response. "The reasons he gave are a bit absurd, especially when he also says he is willing to communicate and listen to different opinions I think this is purely lip service," she said. The seminar begins at 2pm at a lecture hall inside HKU's Meng Wah Complex in Pok Fu Lam. The venue holds about 290 people and the seminar will be broadcast real-time on Facebook. Those interested in attending may sign up online. (The Standard) September 25, 2017. A concern group is calling for express rail border clearance facility to be set up either Shenzhen north or Futian. The group said its leaders met on Sunday and decided to give their alternate proposal to the Government officials. The Government proposal is to locate the mainland immigration officers in a leased out area of the West Kowloon rail terminus. This is opposed by pro-democracy groups who say that this is against the Basic Law provisions which prohibit mainland officials operating in Hong Kong. The Co-location Concern Group's spokeswoman Tanya Chan called on officials to discuss the feasibility of the proposal. She said the Government has a duty to listen to different opinions, but said the officials are yet to give them a chance to present their concerns. "I hope that [now] we have chosen a proposal, we can arrange a meeting with them and hope they can talk to us frankly and openly," she said. (The Standard) September 26, 2017. Keep co-location but do it at a mainland express rail station, the pan-democrats' co-location concern group said. At a meeting last Sunday, group members voted among themselves to support one of seven co-location suggestions including the government's proposal to set up co-location facilities in Hong Kong. Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan Suk-chong said yesterday that over two-thirds of the members supported an alternative proposal, which is to move co-location facilities to one or more mainland stations. Instead of setting up a Mainland Port Area at the West Kowloon terminus, the group urged the SAR and mainland governments to move immigration and clearance arrangements to Futian, Shenzhen North or Guangzhou South station. Under this proposal, passengers from Hong Kong will board an express rail train and get off at a mainland station with co-location facilities. "This is the real Shenzhen Bay Port model," Chan said. At Shenzhen Bay Port, an area on mainland soil is leased to Hong Kong to set up its immigration checkpoint. Concern group member Leung Kai-chi said those stations have the floor area for setting up relevant facilities. "Do not underestimate the space available inside mainland railway stations," he said, adding that there are some 20 platforms at Shenzhen North station that can handle the extra traffic. If the joint port is set up in the mainland, Leung said there would be no risks of harming the "one country, two systems" principle. As for the area within the Hong Kong terminus reserved for the Mainland Port Area, Leung said it could be leased to retailers to generate revenue to cover the costs of operating the railway and create more jobs. He also said travel time for short-distance travelers is unlikely to differ. Former lawmaker Edward Yiu Chung-yim said there was an incentive for the SAR government to adopt the group's proposal. The government's "three-step approach" is likely to take a longer time to complete, as it will face legal challenges from civilians, Yiu said. According to the government, its plan to realize co-location in Hong Kong will involve local legislation to enact a law similar to the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance, which may face fierce opposition from the pan-dems. The Mainland Port Area is over 100,000 square meters and is planned in the West Kowloon Terminus. It will cover the express rail platforms and mainland immigration checkpoints at West Kowloon. Inside the MPA, mainland authorities will enforce national laws and conduct clearance work. However, Yiu said if the port is on mainland soil, the bill might be passed in a few months' time. Chan said the group will ask to meet Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, as well as transport and security chiefs to propose their plan. Internet comments: - (Co-Location Concern Group Facebook https://www.facebook.com/notes/%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E9%97%9C%E6%B3%A8%E7%B5%84-co-location-concerngroup/%E9%82%8A%E5%BA%A6%E6%AA%A2%E5%96%BA%E5%BA%A6%E6%8F%80%E4%B8%80%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A9%E6%AA%A2%E9%97%9C%E6%B3%A8%E7%B5%84%E5%95%86%E8%A8%8E%E5%8F%8A%E6%8E%A8%E8%96%A6%E5%96%AE%E4%B8%80%E6%9B%BF%E4%BB%A3%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88/136955623581749/ ) At the September 16 meeting of the Co-location Concern Group, 7 proposals were presented: 1. Separate-location 2. Co-location on the mainland 3. West Kowloon co-location only for Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) 4. On-board inspection 5. Northbound pre-clearance 6. The government's proposal 7. Abandon the Hong Kong Express Rail Link altogether At the September 23 meeting of the Co-location Concern Group, the group chose "Co-location in mainland China" as their counter-proposal. While it is clear that the group would never accept the government's proposal (6), what about the other 5 rejectees? 1. Separate-location. Let us say you want to take the High Speed Rail from Hong Kong to Shanghai. Here are the steps that you will have to go through: (1) Clear Hong Kong immigration in West Kowloon Station (2) Board the train which takes 14 minutes to reach Futian (3) Everybody gets off the train with their luggage for mainland Chinese customs, immigration and quarantine inspection. (4) Afterwards, look for the train to Shanghai and hope that it has not left already. If you are late, you are screwed because there may not be tickets for Shanghai-bound trains for weeks. Conversely, let us say that you want to take the High Speed Rail from Shanghai to Hong Kong. Here are the steps that you will have to go through: (1) Take the train from Shanghai to Futian. (2) Everybody gets off the train with their luggage for mainland Chinese immigration inspection. (3) Afterwards, look for the train from Futian to West Kowloon which takes all of 14 minutes to complete the trip. (4) Everybody gets off the train in West Kowloon Station for Hong Kong customs, immigration and quarantine inspection. The obvious problem is: Why do you have to get off/get on at Futian? Why can't you have mainland Chinese and Hong Kong inspections done in the same place? Many countries around the world have pre-clearance/co-location for convenience. In case you didn't catch it, the key word is: convenience. Why can't this be allowed in Hong Kong? 3. West Kowloon co-location only for Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) CIQ-only means that Hong Kong law applies in all other situations (e.g. criminal law code). Suppose a mainland Chinese wanted criminal (e.g. a suspect in a terrorist attack with several dozen persons killed) uses a fake ID to get on the train and reaches West Kowloon station. He is detected by mainland Chinese inspectors. However, his is a criminal case, and he can only be arrested by the mainland Chinese Public Security Bureau personnel and not by any mainland customs, immigration or quarantine inspectors. In West Kowloon, he comes under Hong Kong law, by which he can immediately ask for political asylum on grounds of religious persecution. There is no extradition arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China, and this person cannot be charged in Hong Kong for crimes committed inside mainland China. So he may just go free altogether! This is a security hole, and Hong Kong does not want to become a haven for criminals. 4. On-board inspection The train takes only 14 minutes to between West Kowloon and Futian. There is not enough time to inspect a train full of passengers and their luggage unless you have hundreds of inspectors on the train. 5. Northbound pre-clearance See Johannes Chan's hybrid co-location proposal. 7. Abandon the Hong Kong Express Rail Link altogether This proposal comes from Hong Kong University Student Union president Wong Ching-tak. Was he there to present light entertainment? But he may just be completely serious -- he is a student and has never had to work, so he has no idea how taxpayers feel about flushing tens of billions of their tax dollars down the drain. - So what about this counter-proposal of "Co-location on the mainland"?

Basically, co-location will be established in one or more mainland Chinese stations to handle Hong Kong as well as mainland immigration/customs/quarantine. The process will be similar to what is practiced in Shenzhen Bay at this time. The vacated West Kowloon Station space will be rented out for commercial purposes to gain revenue for the Hong Kong treasury. As for the inconvenience to travelers, the Co-location Concern Group's expert group representative Leung Kai-chi said that 80% of passengers will be short-haul passengers going to either Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangdong South stations. For long-haul passengers, there are far more High Speed Rail trains departing from Shenzhen North or Guangdong South than from Hong Kong. Therefore it is both feasible and reasonable for long-haul passengers to change trains in mainland China. - Let us look for the devil in the details. First of all, why are they saying co-location will be established in "one or more mainland stations"? Why "one or more"? Why not just one? Why not "several" named ones? Here is the Wikipedia map of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, with six stops listed in mainland China: Futian, Shenzhen North, Guangmingcheng, Humen, Qinsheng and Guangzhou South.

Consider the case of the short-haul passengers who want to go from Hong Kong to points on this line. If they want to go to Futian, then this is no different from using Shenzhen Bay right now. They board a train in West Kowloon, get off at the first stop in Futian and pass through Hong Kong and mainland inspection posts. If they want to get to one of the five points beyond Futian, then what? If Futian is the only co-location point, then they must all get off at Futian for inspections and then re-board. This is ridiculous in terms of the time spent. The train journey to Humen should be just over 30 minutes, but it will take an hour to get on and off the train at Futian for inspections. Everybody who wants to go beyond Futian will have to waste their time this way, with the inspection time being longer than the travel time. That is why they said "one or more stops", specifically naming Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South. They are sure that Shenzhen North and Guangdong South must be added, because they only know that 80% of the passengers are short-haul (between Futian and Guangzhou South), but they don't know the breakdown by destination (Futian, Shenzhen North or Guangzhou South). And if most of the 80% are going beyond Futian, they must add Shenzhen North and Guangdong South. - Summary: If Futian is the only co-location point in mainland China, then all other Hong Kong-bound passengers must disembark in Futian for inspections. - It is as if Hong Kong builds third, fourth and fifth runways at International Airport in order to serve all cities in mainland China with airports, large or small. Small domestic airport do not have customs, immigration and quarantine services. However, Hong Kong refuses to implement co-location. That means that all mainland-bound flights have to take the short hop to Shenzhen International Airport and discharge all passengers for customs/immigration/quarantine inspections. Such being the case, there is no point in having those expensive runways because the passengers should just be taking buses/subway/trains/ferries/limousines from Hong Kong to the Shenzhen International Airport. - What happens to the passengers who want to go from Hong Kong to Guangmingcheng, Humen and Qinsheng? They will have to get off in Futian or Shenzhen North for inspections before continuing their journey, or else they can get off in Guangzhou South and take a train back in the reverse direction. In any case, the trains from Hong Kong will no longer be allowed to stop in Guangmingcheng, Humen and Qinsheng, which will be served only by trains originating from Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South. - For multiple co-location points in mainland China to work, there has to be some restrictions that will reduce economic efficiency. Suppose a train from Hong Kong makes stops at Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South. At Futian, those who want to go there will disembark. However, their vacated seats cannot be sold to the locals. This train must be sealed off, otherwise Hong Kong passengers may be passing contrabands to the local passengers who do not have to clear customs/immigration/quarantine. Ditto at Shenzhen North. By the time that the train arrives in Guangzhou South, it will have lots of empty seats (80%!) which cannot be sold even though the demand is out there. This is economically inefficient. Conversely, suppose a train starts from Guangzhou South to Hong Kong, making stops in Shenzhen North and Futian. Only Hong Kong-bound passengers will be allowed on this train, and they will clear Hong Kong and mainland customs/immigration/quarantine in Guangzhou South. Unsold seats cannot be sold to locals who want to go to Shenzhen North or Futian. When the train reaches Shenzhen North, it will board Hong Kong-bound passengers who have cleared Hong Kong and mainland customs/immigration/quarantine in Shenzhen North. Unsold seats cannot be sold to locals who want to go to Futian. When the train reaches Futian, it will bring on Hong Kong-bound passengers who have cleared Hong Kong and mainland customs/immigration/quarantine in Futian. - Some of the organizations with the Co-location Concern Group are environmentalists. How can they advocate having intentionally unoccupied seats? Think about the carbon footprint! - The seats can be sold to locals if it is made clear that they will have to clear customs, immigration and quarantine just like the Hong Kong passengers. It is a waste of their time, but it is worth the cost for them because the future of democracy of Hong Kong depends on it. - Of course, the Co-location Concern Group could be referring to direct trains that run between Hong Kong to Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South respectively. For example, the direct Shenzhen North train will run from Hong Kong to Shenzhen North without stopping in Futian with all passengers disembarking in Shenzhen North. This Hong Kong-Shenzhen North train is a shuttle service. - It is estimated that the Express Rail Link will be carrying 150,000 passengers a day eventually. 20% of 150,000 is 30,000. The Co-location Concern Group says that the 30,000 long-haul passengers constitute a small number. Well, I'd like to see how many people will come out to their big rally for their Co-location in Mainland proposal. If the number is fewer than 30,000, does that mean that this is a small number which we can fairly and reasonably ignore? - The Co-location Concern Group has said a big "Fuck you" to the 30,000 long-haul passengers, saying that they are small in numbers and the degree of inconvenience to them is relatively trivial. If the train trip from Hong Kong to Beijing takes 10 hours, then what is an extra hour for customs/immigration/quarantine at Futian? Okay. Exactly what are these long-haul passengers being asked to sacrifice? One hour of their time per trip. 30,000 passengers per day at one hour per person adds to 30,000 x 1 x 365 = 10,950,000 hours per year. At the minimum wage level of $34.5/hour, this is $34.5 x 10,950,000 = $377,775,000 per year. I would not mind pocketing $377,775,000 per year. Would you? For what are they sacrificing themselves? Something about not ceding sovereign Hong Kong land to the hostile foreign nation of China. And something about the violation/erosion of a High Degree of Autonomy/One Country Two Systems/Basic Law. With due respect, this is nebulous to most people. And something about mainland personnel may brutally put down insurrections inside the Mainland Port Area, or torture passengers in inhumane ways, or eat dog meat inside the Mainland Port Area, thus destroying the image of Hong Kong as an international financial centre and a rule-of-law society. And something about how the Express Rail Link will bring SARS-like viruses directly into the heart of defenseless Hong Kong, causing hundreds of deaths. And something about how the Express Rail Link will bring in People's Liberation Army to impose tyranny. And something about the nightmare of having high tea in Elements and then being snatched by mainland Public Security Bureau agents into the black hole of the West Kowloon Port Area. I'm sorry, but I find all this unconvincing. Actually, I should say that I am offended that people can say these things to say. What do they think I am? - The goal is to set up the Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Railway with Hong Kong being the terminus. The Co-location on Mainland proposal is effectively setting up a Beijing-Guangzhou-Shenzhen High Speed Railway route with a shuttle service between Shenzhen/Guangzhou and Hong Kong. If Futian is the sole co-location point, then all passengers will have to disembark the shuttle with their luggage. The empty train leaves the station to free the track for other trains. When the passengers return, they will board a different train to their destination (e.g. Beijing). There was no need to spend $84 billion to build a High Speed Rail shuttle service with a journey time of 14 minutes. - If you want a shuttle service to Futian, you can already do so with the Hong Kong MTR East Rail bringing you to the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point on the Hong Kong side, which is linked by a pedestrian footbridge to the Futian Port Control Point in Shenzhen. It will taken more than 14 minutes, but it is feasible and reasonable, and the inconvenience is relatively trivial. There's a lot else that $84 billion can be used for. - When Carrie Lam proposed to have a Forbidden Palace Museum in the West Kowloon Cultural District, the critics came up with all sorts of alternatives that are more localist in nature. But when these same critics are tasked to come up with an alternate use for the West Kowloon Terminus customs/immigration/quarantine area, their combined brilliant minds concluded that the space should be rented out for commercial purposes. Why oh why do we need another mall right across the street from the Elements super mall? - Why is that surprising? It is common knowledge that these environmentalists are all in the pay of the Real Estate Hegemony. They do everything possible to obstruct the government from freeing more land for real estate development. As a result, housing prices keep soaring and soaring due to the shortfall in land supply. Meanwhile they do everything possible to re-designate available residential land for commercial purposes, because the return-on-investment is so much higher for the real-estate hegemons. - I am surprised that nobody has suggested yet that the West Kowloon Station space should be handed over to the Link REIT to manage. - (Cable TV) October 3, 2017. Co-location Concern Group convener Tanya Chan said that the government's proposal had never sought public feedback, so the legislative councilors should not be forced to vote on it. - Well, this is hilarious. Did the pan-democrats seek public feedback before starting Occupy Central? Veto the constitutional reform proposal? Hold filibustering? ... Now that the pan-democrats have come out with a Co-location on Mainland proposal, did they seek public feedback? Specifically, they are thrusting co-location port areas onto Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South. Did they ever consult the people living in those places? After all, the mainland taxpayers will have to pay for the construction and operation of those co-location points because Hongkongers don't want co-location. Contemptuously, some pan-democrats say that co-location port areas in Futian, Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South will be good for the local economies there and therefore the locals will love it. At the very least, this is presumptuous. Has it occurred that the locals may prefer a more serene and sedate lifestyle? Did you at least ask them, by holding town hall meetings and so on? - Stimulate the local economy? Don't be stupid. A traveler from Hong Kong is forced to switch trains in Futian. Is she going to get out of the station, walk over to the mall, buy a fur coat and have an expensive dinner? The most she is going to buy is a bottle of mineral water from the convenience store. - There is more than that. Several hundred thousand more people will pass through the stations each day, so the restrooms will have to be expanded and more janitors hired to clean the toilets. That counts as a boost to the local economy. [805] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2017/09/21) (DAB) The DAB commissioned the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Centre to interview 747 adults by telephone on August 24-31, 2017 at 43.2% response rate. (DAB) Q1. Do you agree that Hong Kong should build the Express Rail Link/High Speed Rail? 18.1%: Agree very much 46.4%: Agree 17.0%: Disagree 12.5%: Disagree very much 6.0%: Don't know/no opinion Q2. The government's co-location proposal includes having mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel (including immigration, quarantine and customs agents) carrying out mainland law enforcement inside the West Kowloon High Speed Rail Station. However, these personnel cannot enforce the law outside of the port area. Do you agree with this proposal? 14.0%: Agree very much 43.9%: Agree 18.6%: Disagree 16.7%: Disagree very much 6.9%: Don't know/no opinion Q3. Do you agree that co-location at West Kowloon is the most convenient and the quickest proposal? 62.8%: Agree 32.5%: Disagree 4.7%: Don't know/no opinion Q4. Do you believe that the government's co-location proposal contravenes the Basic Law? 25.8%: Yes 46.0%: No 4.7%: Don't know/no opinion Q5. Do you believe that the government's co-location proposal hurts One Country Two Systems? 33.4%: Yes 53.3%: No 13.3%: Don't know/no opinion Q6. Will you take the High Speed Rail if you need to travel to and from mainland China? 56.9%: Yes 31.9%: No 11.2%: Don't know/no opinion [804] Cheena Maggot (2017/09/14) (EJ Insight) Mainland student in trouble after calling netizen a ‘maggot’. September 14, 2017. A high school in southwest China’s Sichuan province removed the name of a student from its website after he vilified his compatriots in the Chinese mainland as “maggots” during an on online argument over Hong Kong independence posters on the campus of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). The student, Tang Lipei, who graduated from Luzhou Tianli International School in 2012 with the best academic record, was once hailed by the school on its website, Apple Daily reports. But the school removed his name after he stirred controversy recently while defending freedom of speech in Hong Kong. Tang published an article on Sina Weibo on Sept. 7 criticizing a female student, also from the mainland, who tore down the posters, saying she had “misunderstood the meaning of democracy”. Responding to a mainland netizen’s comments online, he said he would not want to discuss the issue with a “Chinese maggot” who will not understand. Tang was quickly and widely criticized on the internet by mainland netizens and was branded as a “traitor”. Some of the attacks came from official newspapers. The papers praised the female student for her “courageous behavior” and excoriated Tang, saying CUHK has not taught him the right manners toward his own country. Tang, 24, was admitted to CUHK with flying colours in 2012. He is now a teaching assistant and taking a master’s degree in journalism. On Saturday, Tang apologized on his Sina Weibo account, saying the words came out because of a sudden impulse and that he never said he supported the separatists. Tang also apologized for polarizing opinions and further tearing the public apart. He said he has contacted a lawyer over a possible lawsuit against those who called him a separatist or a treasonous person. The apology failed to stop netizens from attacking him. State media continued to criticize his actions and urged people to avoid his example. (SCMP) September 14, 2017. A mainland student at a Hong Kong university has been forced to apologise publicly twice and pledge allegiance to his country after he criticised another mainland student who spoke out against the idea of independence for the city. Tang Lipei said he was sorry, and declared his “deep affection for the country I was born and raised in” after online pressure from a university academic and others. He had come in for online criticism for, as some saw it, supporting the separation of Hong Kong from China. On Tuesday last week, a video was posted online of a female mainland student at Chinese University tearing down posters on campus that advocated a breakaway. Quarrels later broke out on the same campus when local students tried to stop several mainlanders putting up posters saying they no longer wanted to be represented by the student union, which had defended people’s right to post pro-independence posters. Tang, a 24-year-old mainlander studying at Chinese University, wrote a post on Chinese social networking site Weibo saying the woman in the video had misinterpreted democracy, which he said can not be realised by removing others’ views. He also commented on democracy and freedom of speech. But mainland users questioned whether Tang supported Hong Kong independence. During an ensuing argument, Tang used “zhi qu”, a derogatory Putonghua term, with similar connotations to that of “Cheena maggots”, “Cheena” being an insulting name for China. Tang got a bachelor’s degree at Chinese University, where he is now doing his postgraduate studies. He was identified online as a top scorer on China’s university entrance examination in Luzhou, a city in Sichuan province. His secondary school Luzhou Tianli International School then removed his honour from its website. Tang later deleted discussions related to the offensive term, and gave his first apology on Weibo on Saturday, saying his use of the word was “impulsive”. He added that he was “strongly against Hong Kong independence”. But then a Peking University professor, Zhang Yiwu, said he was saddened that Tang insulted “compatriots and the hometown that gave birth to him and raised him”. On Wednesday, the Chinese government mouthpiece Global Times posted on instant messaging site WeChat, saying his behaviour was “chilling”. Later on Wednesday, Tang issued a second apology on Weibo, in which he acknowledged what he said was a lack of maturity. He said he would reflect on his actions. “I have a deep affection for the country I was born and raised in. As a Chinese, I wish to offer my sincere apologies to all again,” his Weibo post read. Internet Comments:

- “zhi qu” literally means "Cheena maggot." What hurts more in the two-word phrase is "Cheena." It is no big deal calling someone a maggot, or worm, or vermin, or rat, or weasel, or turtle egg. But the C-word "Cheena" is a slur against all Chinese people. The Economic Journal report had the title of "Mainland student in trouble after calling netizen a ‘maggot’" said that Tang wrote "Chinese maggot". This is off focus. Tang got into trouble because he wrote "Cheena." [803] The Case of Ernie Chow (2017/09/08)

(Oriental Daily) September 8, 2017. In the video, a bespectacled man in black clothes believed to be Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union former president Ernie Chow Shue-fung was excitedly cursing out a man who held a mobile phone and who doesn't speak Cantonese properly. Chow said: "Speak Cantonese, Chee-na person! Speak Cantonese! Why don't you fucking speak Cantonese in Hong Kong?" The man who was cursed ask his friends to call the police. Internet users asked for confirmation that the person in the video was Ernie Chow. More importantly, they wanted CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung to deal with the matter. (Ming Pao) September 8, 2017. Ernie Chow told us that he was the person in the video. Chow explained that certain mainlanders were erecting posters opposing Hong Kong independence at the Democracy Wall, placing their posters over the pro-independence posters. Chow said that this action infringes upon the freedom of expression of other persons and violates the rules of Democracy Wall. The Student Union executives tried to persuade the mainlanders not to cover other people's posters to no avail. Chow said that the mainlanders used putonghua to call him and the Student Union "crazy." Therefore he went up to reason with them and decry their violation of the rules of Democracy Wall. Chow admitted that he was "somewhat excited" yesterday. But three to four mainlander were surrounding him and the atmosphere was heated. He hoped to conduct a rational discussion if something similar should happen again. (Oriental Dailly) September 8, 2017. Today Ernie Chow said that he was just scolding some of the people at the scene, but the university charged him with anti-China insults. Chow refused to apologize. Chow said that the Internet video was edited, such that one can only see him cursing. The fact was that he was surrounded by more than ten persons, yelling him to "get out of China," "The Chinese University of Hong Kong belongs to China", etc. One of them asked him where he was going. Chow considered that action to constitute a threat. Those people also ignored the rules of the Democracy Wall and cursed out the Student Union executive committee members repeatedly. Chow did not think that the other side wanted to communicate. As a Chinese University of Hong Kong student, he had the duty to defend freedom of speech in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Therefore he went up to stop the scolding. Chow said that the university administration ignored the actions of those people to violate Chow's freedom of speech and wanted to criminalize Chow's words, including elevating his cursing of those people as Chee-na men to the level of insulting all the Chinese. He said that this was extremely ridiculous. (Oriental Daily) October 27, 2017. According to information, the New Asia College Student Disciplinary Committee has completed its investigation and decided to impose a demerit and community service on Ernie Chow. The committee imposed this punishment after seeing that Chow was willing to reflect on his own behavior. Our reporter checked with Ernie Chow as to whether he accepts the punishment. Chow said: "No comment." At the Chinese University of Hong Kong board of trustees meeting today, some trustees are questioning whether the punishment failed to reflect the seriousness of the transgression. Videos: Apple Daily Facebook (28 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rculrQXpP1w Chow: I fuck your mother! Man with mobile phone: I am going to record you Hong Kong independence people. This is your "quality." Chow: Go record. Fuck your mother! Man with mobile phone: Keep going! I guarantee that you can't go to mainland China. Chow: I can go to mainland China. I have been there. Fuck your mother! Man with mobile phone: Such is the anger of Hong Kong independence movement. Chow: I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! Scram back to China! Chee-na people! Scram back to Chee-na. Fuck your mother, Chee-na person! - Surrounded by more than 10 persons? Take a good look at those present. Most of them are reporters who are smirking at Chow's show and thinking how great this will be for the ratings. The two persons who are physically restraining Chow are his Student Union buddies trying to stop him from getting into trouble. - Same scene as taken by the man with the mobile phone https://www.facebook.com/DotDotNews/videos/1854232671258718/ - Another copy https://youtu.be/2tWfMtIqT0A - Same scene plus what happened before https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1694937480580181/ Facebook (40 seconds) https://www.facebook.com/fakedemocraticparties/videos/1636950396356727/ When citizens come to show their displeasure, the students (including Ernie CHow) used a megaphone to complain that these citizens are too noisy and interfering with the classes. Let me repeat -- the students are complaining about noise when they are the noisiest people around. Facebook (5:49 length) https://www.facebook.com/fakedemocraticparties/videos/1636944169690683/ Shouting between the pro-independence Student Union members and citizens from outside. YouTube (6:56) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKQiklXempI How to use Democracy to prevent others from exercise their freedom of expression. Tencent @ YouTube (10:07) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9m-h16T6aU Internet Comments: - People have focused far too much on the English language skills of the female mainland student (The Angel in White) and so they have missed the most noteworthy thing. Specifically, I refer to the confrontation between former CUHK CU president Ernie Chow and the mainlanders. The very excited Ernie Chow's act consisted mainly of three phrases: "Chee-na person", "Fuck your mother" and "Hit me" delivered at very high decibels. If you want a rational discussion, then Ernie Chow has failed to deliver. Whereas the mainlanders give reasons, Ernie Chow only recycled those three phrases. By one count, he used "Fuck your mother!" more than one hundred times during one of the confrontations. If you want a physical fight, then Ernie Chow has failed to deliver. He looked excited and ready to kill, but he clearly did not want to be caught on film starting a fight. He seemed to be a comic book character foaming in the mouth and screaming to his own people: "Hold me back! If you don't hold me me back, I might kill him!" - (HKG Pao) The Emperor's Bar is a loosely organized mainland Chinese discussion forum. It originated as a place to make fun of the football player Li Yi, whose nickname is The Emperor Li Yi. But today The Emperor's Bar has more than 20 million fans! At 9pm on September 7, a campaign was called for their fans to visit the Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union Facebook, former CUHK SU president Ernie Chow's Facebook and the Apple Daily Facebook. Ernie Chow responded by immediately shutting off the comment function at his Facebook.

Now isn't this strange? The CUHK SU opposed the removal of the "Hong Kong independence" posters because they want to defend the freedom of speech. But when the Emperor's Bar fans came to express their opinions, Ernie Chow cut their voices off. The truth of the matter is that freedom of expression to these CUHK students means they can say whatever they want but other people (especially dissidents) should shut the fuck up.

Spoof of the Hong Kong independence poster at the CUHK Democracy Wall "Reject One Country Two Systems Only One Country One Systems" - If the CUHK SU wants to talk so much about defending the freedom of speech, then it is high time to make thousands of these counter-posters for the Democracy Wall and big red banners with "One Country One System" for the Cultural Plaza, and watch if the CUHK SU still want to play Voltaire. - After delivering what even Ernie Chow himself admits was a poor performance, our man Ernie Chow tried to restore himself with a Facebook post. To enhance his own intellectual credentials, he quoted from New Asia College founders Ch'ien Mu and Tang Junyi. This drew a Facebook response from current New Asia College head Henry Wong Nai-ching, who pointed out that Ch'ien and Tang always insisted that they are Chinese first and foremost and their lifelong mission is to preserve the cultural heritage of China whereas Ernie Chow says that the people of Hong Kong are a completely different race from the Chinese. In turn, this drew a response from the New Asia College Student Union to the effect that their college head Wong Nai-kung must apologize for judging Ernie Chow without due process. The trick here is to note that the New Asia College Student Union referred to their college head Wong Nai-ching as 'Wong Nai-kung', which is a homonym for "Mister Wong who licks the Communists." This was duly noticed by the whole wide world. (Oriental Daily) Today New Asia College Student Union Academic and Social Executive Fong Kit-yi explained that it was a typographical error for which they will consider apologizing to Wong Nai-ching. The Student Union said that they have issued a corrected version of their letter, but they will retain the incorrect copy in accordance with existing practice. - Typographical error? How does become ? They aren't even remotely close

to each other.

- I have waited a long time for someone to come up with an excuse even more preposterous than Baggio Leung/Yau Wai-ching saying that their pronunciation of "Republic" as "Re-fucking" was the result of their Ap Lei Chau accent. Today Fong Kit-yi has done it. - If you dare to do it, then you should have the courage to admit it. - (SCMP) Ernie Chow Shue-fung’s tirade in college row goes beyond the pale. By Alex Lo. September 12, 2017. Reasonable people may disagree on whether university is a legitimate place to debate or advocate Hong Kong independence. But I think it’s fair to say that the behaviour and responses of former Chinese University student union president Ernie Chow Shue-fung and the union itself are simply beyond the pale. Chow went on a deranged and obscenity-filled tirade against several mainland students. And the union defended him. Professor Henry Wong Nai-ching, head of New Asia College, where Chow is currently in his fourth year, subsequently issued an internal letter condemning Chow and urging him to reflect on his behaviour. Far from admitting any wrongdoing, Chow wrote that college authorities were not qualified to criticise him for defending freedom of speech and “insulting China”. This, he claimed, was because he was upholding the ideals of university founders Tang Junyi, Ch’ien Mu and Mou Zongsan to resist the Communist Party with cultural means. The student union also hit back at Wong, saying it was inappropriate to condemn and lecture Chow when an investigation was pending. It also made fun of Wong’s Chinese name. Having heard Chow’s tirade against the mainland students from a widely circulated online clip, I would have liked you to have been the judge as to whether he was acting appropriately and that the union was right to defend him. However his language was simply too blue to be printed in a family newspaper. As well as the expletives, Chow also repeatedly shouted the derogatory word “Cheena”, used by the Japanese during the wartime occupation of the mainland, to describe Chinese. When I was on the crime beat, I had on many occasions met triad members, none of whom was as foul-mouthed as Chow. It’s difficult to see how shouting such things, at the top of your lungs, at your fellow students – albeit from the mainland – in any way followed the ideals of the university’s philosopher founders or that it amounted to a defence of free speech and academic freedom. Perhaps this is now an acceptable mode of academic debate at our universities. - Previous to this incident, Ernie Chow is known for two astonishing accomplishments. The less important one is the Sieg Heil salute. Even today Ernie Chow continues with his Sieg Heil act: https://www.facebook.com/jingxin.chan.16/videos/505252116506585/. Chow's single greatest accomplishment as CUHK SU president was at the July 1st 2016 siege of the China Liaison Office:

(Wen Wei Po) Forty to fifty League of Social Democrats members chased after a dozen or so students and said that they wanted to haul CUHK SU's Ernie Chow to block the road in front of the China Liaison Office ... Chow had thought that he was placing League of Social Democrats/People Power into a no-win situation when he issued that challenge to them: If they agreed to block the road, they will be arrested by the police; if they refused to block the road, they will be shown to be gutless. Instead, Chow was the loser because he did not dare to block the road when challenged to lead the way and he was chased by LSD members and had to flee into the subway for shelter. Two days later, Chow claimed that he had suffered great physical and mental anguish as a result of the assault. - In the Sieg Heil case, Ernie Chow failed to see why the Jewish people might be upset. In the current case, Ernie Chow failed to see why the Chinese around the world might be upset. He is completely consistent in his psychopathology. - Let us run through the Hare Psychopathy checklist for Ernie Chow: 1. Glib and superficial charm 2. Grandiose self-worth 3. Need for stimulation 4. Pathological lying 5. Cunning and manipulativeness 6. Lack of remorse or guilt 7. Shallow affect 8. Callousness and lack of empathy 9. Parasitic lifestyle 10. Poor behavioral controls 11. Promiscuous sexual behavior 12. Early behavior problems 13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals 14. Impulsivity 15. Irresponsibility 16. Failure to accept responsibility 17. Many short-term marital relationships 18. Juvenile delinquency 19. Revocation of condition release 20. Criminal versatility Methinks that he scored well on 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16. - (Wen Wei Po) Facebook comments. September 14, 2017. Kevin Fung: Mr. Chow, you are not telling the whole story. Your own speech is so free that you can go around fucking people's mothers and calling people by racist names without being held to any accountability. How can you say that you have no freedom of speech? Rebecca Paddick: Ernie Chow has freedom of speech, but nobody else can have it? Paul Au: You bring the Chinese University into ignominy. Daniel Yim: When other people scold him, it is a provocation; when he scolds someone else, it is freedom of speech. Sam Kok: Based upon Hooligan Chow's performance, he was the one who is suppressing the freedom of speech of other students. Wing Ming Cheung: These so-called university students are adults already. When they did wrong, they said that the university must protect them and the university president must cuddle them because of freedom of speech and freedom of academic research. What kind of school are they in? University or kindergarten? - Ernie Chow posted this note (in English) to the Facebook administrator: Dear Administrators of Facebook Please be informed that there is a bunch of Chinese threatened to report my personal account due to political disputes over Freedom of Speech in CUHK these days. I faithfully hope that you can distinguish malicious reports that are now initiated against me and reports based on solid facts, and do you best to defend our Freedom of Speech. Yours Faithfully, CHOW Shue Fung 8th September, 2017 How many points are deducted for English grammatical mistakes? - Hong Kong National Party's Chan Ho-tin announced on behalf of Ernie Chow that Chow's Facebook account is not allowed to post for three days due to organized denunciations from the Chinese fifty-cent gang.

- Also present at the scene was Jerry Yuen Tak-chi, the Chinese University of Hong Kong's delegate to the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He told the press that he intends to be a full-time social activist or reporter when he graduates. He expected that there will be a revolution before 2047, which can be bloody if necessary. "If we wait until 2047, Hong Kong will have fallen already. Today One Country Two Systems exists in name only. When that time comes, there won't even be the name left! I don't want innocent people to be hurt, but the cost of not having a revolution is even bigger. The independence movement is getting ready. Some of my friends are working out in gyms. I myself have started physical exercises. This theory cannot be allowed to lapse. I will study more books." Jerry Yuen also said: "I don't believe in nationalism according to bloodlines. The people of Hong Kong and the people of China have different cultures and value systems. They are two different races." He said: "I am not just concerned with local issues. I want to have sovereignty. After Lam Wing-kee made his disclosures, we were all worried that he could be killed. Only when Hong Kong is independent and completely separated from China can we be truly freed of political interference and have personal safety." - How many pushups can Jerry Yuen do? 20? 30? How much weight can he bench press? 20 kilograms? 30 kilograms? Will the revolution happen once Jerry & friends can do 100 pushups? Or bench press 50 kilograms? - There are only four rules on the use of Democracy Wall at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Of these, the only important one is Rule #4.

Rule #1: When students post their opinions, they must not cover up, rip or smear other people's opinions. Rule #2: When students post, they must write down the date of the post. The Student Union has the right to remove any post more than one month old. Rule #3: When students post on the Democracy Wall, they must state their names. Rule #4: The Student Union reserves the right on management and decision-making on all matters related to the Democracy Wall. - (Wen Wei Po) September 14, 2017. So Tse-kwoon's Facebook.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union has not dared to answer my three powerful questions. Have they gone into hiding? Here are my three questions: On the afternoon of September 12, I personally phoned the CUHK SU office. The SU executives were not there, but a male student named Yuen who said that he is a representative of the CUHK SU took my call. I identified myself as an alumnus (Journalism Department masters). Yuen promised that he will forward my three questions to the CUHK SU External Affairs department so that they can answer my questions. Q1. Why are the Hong Kong independence posters allowed to cover up the entire Democracy Wall without leaving any space for opposite opinions? This is like flooding the comments section in Facebook with identical comments. Why didn't the Student Union remove the duplicated content? Q2. The Student Union has stated that they did not erect the Hong Kong independence posters, which do not contain any signature or department identification in violation of the rules of the Democracy Wall. So why hasn't the Student Union removed the Hong Kong independence posters already? Q3. I am a native Hongkonger who graduated from CUHK. I oppose Hong Kong independence. Please do not think that only mainland Chinese students or outsiders oppose Hong Kong independence. How can you represent me to promote Hong Kong independence? - Ryan Wong: "Q1. They have already issued notice that they will remove duplicated content. Q3. Since you are an alumnus, you should note that the Student Union was authorized as a result of the student vote. At a corporation, the board of directors is authorized as a result of the shareholder vote at the annual meeting. Can you object afterwards?" So Tsz-kwoon: "Q1. But you did not remove the duplicated content in front of the media and mainland Chinese students. Instead you even said that those posters are entitled to freedom of speech and that was why you won't remove them. Do not forget/deny this! Q2. You haven't answered it. Q3. Have you ever asked the students whether the Democracy Wall should have unlawful proindependence posters? Did the Student Union hold a referendum on campus? No! Therefore you are running a blackbox operation that doesn't represent the opinion of the CUHK student body." So Tsz-kwoon: "Membership in the Student Union is compulsory for all CUHK students, including me at the time. Why isn't there an opt-out? Why must I be forced to pay membership dues? When you join a corporation, they can't force you to join a club and not allowed to quit? Only triad gangs do that. Is the independence-hugging CUHK SU a triad gang?" ZE Wong: "The Student Union would be very busy if they have to hold a referendum on everything that they do. The Student Union was elected in order to give them the authority to do things! ... When you accepted the offer from the CUHK, you must accept the reality that you are a member of the CUHK SU. If you don't want that, the simplest way is to give up your CUHK degree." So Tsz-kwoon: "This system is problematic! It is very undemocratic! Any normal and rational constitution would not be imposing membership on people. There isn't a choice of membership for the students. Why are you forcing every university student to pay dues to you? This constitution and this Student Union are both problematic." - (Tai Kung Pao) September 8, 2017.

Mainland students at Chinese University of Hong Kong are counterattacking with fervor. Their posts are much more entertaining than the wall full of "Hong Kong independence" posters. One slogan was "#CUSU is not CU" (Chinese University of Student Union is not Chinese University" in the manner of "Hong Kong is not China." Another one has a panda saying: "Stop making trouble -your elder brother has never stopped loving you." Here is the best one: "You have covered the entire wall with copies of the same poster. How is anyone else supposed to post?" - The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union is adamant that they are defending freedom of speech at the Democracy Wall and that rule-of-law (that is, the rules covering the Democracy Wall) must be upheld. First of all, they are not particularly strong on rule-of-law elsewhere in society, such as Occupy Central, the Mong Kok riot, besieging the university council meetings, etc. So if they think that it is okay to break the law because anything goes once they think it is alright, then why should other people not break the Democracy Wall rules once they think it is alright? Secondly, the rules of the Democracy Wall require students to identify themselves by name and student ID. The originator of the Hong Kong independence posters did not do so. According to the rules, the Hong Kong Student Union will remove those posters after a certain length of time. So this is within the rules. Also, the rules do not specify the size of any 'speech'. So the originator of the Hong Kong independence posters has posted dozens and dozens of the same poster to cover most of Democracy Wall. So this is not against the rules. But it is obviously anti-democratic because it deprives others of the opportunity to use the finite space of expression. So what will the Student Union do about the poster "You have covered the entire wall with the same poster. How is anyone else supposed to post?" that covered many of the Hong Kong independence posters. If they removed the new poster, they will set the precedent that encourages all future posters to make as many copies of the poster as possible to cover the entire Democracy Wall from one end to another and deprive all other persons the opportunity to express their opinions. This is similar to a few individuals flooding the comment section of a Facebook post that they don't like. - (Oriental Daily) September 10, 2017. The CUHK SU Facebook said that during their defense of the freedom of speech of the students and the spirit of co-governance by students and university staff, they have been harassed, suppressed and attacked. Specifically, their Facebook has been flooded with comments, sometimes more than 100 comments per minute and they sometimes get more than 1,000 messages in their inbox per day. An Internet user said: "If you claim to have the right to have freedom of speech, then you have no right to stop others from making comments over at your Facebook. If you stop them, then you hate Freedom of Speech." - (Wen Wei Po) September 8, 2019. On the Chinese Internet, the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Democracy Wall was recently flooded with Hong Kong independence posters from anonymous persons. Since the Democracy Wall was covered by copies of the same Hong Kong independence, counter-opinions had no space left. This reminds us of the favorite quotation of the Yellow Ribbons from the TVB drama series : "Harmony is not about 100 persons saying the same thing. Harmony is about 100 persons saying 100 things and then respecting each other." The current situation is that one person is saying the same thing 100 times while all others have their voices silenced. - If the government controls the communications channels and only allows its message to be repeated over and over again, you would be screaming "Murder most foul." But since it is the Student Union which is anonymously posting those Hong Kong independence posters and then openly protecting them in the name of rule-of-law and freedom-of-speech, we must all shut the fuck up for the sake of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES. - (Wen Wei Po) September 8, 2019. Yesterday more than 100 students showed up at the Democracy Wall for the #CUSU IS NOT CU event. A CUHK employee named Wang tried to post onto Democracy Wall. But the wall was completely covered by other posters, so he put his poster on top of others. The Student Union members immediately rushed over to stop him. They argued, but Wang eventually got his post in. Wang said that he is a CUHK graduate. "The Hong Kong independence propaganda is unlawful so why can't I cover it up?" Wang said that students are entitled to discuss politics, but it was intolerable for them to post Hong Kong independence posters. "I saw that this is wrong, so it must be opposed immediately!" - (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 9, 2017. Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Au Tsz-ho led twenty or so students to barge into the Student Affairs Office. They surrounded Student Affairs Office director Leung Yu-chiu and deputy vice-chancellor Dennis Ng Kei-pui and used their megaphones to demand a dialogue. Twenty persons to two persons; megaphones versus human voices. This is their idea of a dialogue. In the end, the deputy vice-chancellor surrendered. He withdrew the previous letter of the university to the effect "pro-Hong Kong independence posters are unlawful and contrary to the position of the university." He also promised that the university will not remove the "Hong Kong independence" banner and will not censor or otherwise suppress the students' freedom of speech. He agreed that any materials within the areas managed by the Student Union can only be removed by the Student Union. I am a CUHK alumna and therefore a stakeholder. As I watched the university willingly disarm, concede power, give up governance and abandon education, I am almost tempted to go back to the Democracy Wall and erect a poster "Down with Joseph Sung!" After all, it is all about freedom of speech and there is no cost. ... Nowadays the university student unions are the Great Dictators on campus. They are in charge of the plaza and the Democracy Wall is their turf. Remove their banners or posters? Did you ask them first? They are the supreme authority on the matter. You may not have noticed that you are under the power of the Student Union as soon as you are admitted to the university. When you pay your tuition fees, the union membership dues are included. So you automatically become a Student Union member. As such, you are automatically represented by a group of people who you don't know and whose ideas you may or may not agree with. When the Student Union gets challenged for their action, they always say: "But the students elected us!" Thus, you and your fellow students are empowering and enabling the Student Union folks to do whatever it is that they want to do. So we have a bunch of people who promote ideas such as freedom and democracy using a most undemocratic method to impose "compulsory membership" upon all the students. This is uncivilized, and someone should seek a judicial review. If the students do not want to be represented by their Student Union, they should seek to overturn the system of compulsory membership and let the Student Union show how many people would actually pay to fund their actions. - CUHK Campus Radio https://www.facebook.com/cuhkcampusradio/videos/738908179629353/ The highlight of this lengthy video of the siege of the CUHK Student Affairs Office occurs at around the 44th minute when our students refused to let Student Affairs Office director Leung Yu-chiu and deputy vice-chancellor Ng Kei-pui leave the meeting. As Hong Kong University School of Law professor Johannes Chan once noted, this unlawful act is known as "imprisonment under false pretenses." Video excerpts: Part 1 and Part 2 - (Hong Kong Free Press) September 15, 2017. Chinese University head vows removal of pro-independence slogans if student union fails to act. The head of the Chinese University of Hong Kong has said the school will remove pro-independence slogans from message boards if its student union fails to act. Joseph Sung’s warning on Friday followed an Executive Committee meeting of the governing body. It represents a u-turn from the stance of Dennis Ng, vice-president of the school, who said on Thursday that slogans will not be removed without communication with the student union. The Friday meeting did not involve student representatives. “Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the university, and every member of the university should have the freedom to express any idea,” Sung said. “This is not to say that the exercise of this freedom should be boundless. Indeed, freedom of speech should be premised that it will not violate the law and it will not intrude any other person’s dignity or rights.” “The Basic Law stipulate[s] that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of People’s Republic of China. The Chinese University reiterates that the university is against the notion of Hong Kong independence. We do not want our campus [to] turn into a place for different political groups to spread their propaganda. This will only ruin the peaceful environment in which our teachers and students pursue knowledge.” “I therefore request that the student union remove the materials which advocate Hong Kong independence immediately. Otherwise, the university will take action to remove those materials,” Sung said, without setting a deadline. Former CUSU president Ernie Chow was caught in controversy with a Putonghua-speaking student during a recent standoff over pro-independence slogans. The student said: “I guarantee you will not be able to return to China!” Chow responded with expletives: “Go back to China, Chinese person! Chee-na person! Go back to Chee-na!” The word “Chee-na” is pronounced similarly to “Shina,” an archaic Japanese name for China that still bears an offensive meaning to many Chinese people. Sung said: “CUHK students made malicious personal attacks against other people in abusive language,” without naming Chow. “On behalf of the university, I’d like to convey our most sincere apology to those who are offended,” Sung said. He added that the affiliated college of the student will handle an investigation into the student’s conduct and behaviour. - (Hong Kong University) Statements by Heads of Universities. September 15, We treasure freedom of expression, but we condemn its recent abuses. Freedom of expression is not absolute, and like all freedoms it comes with responsibilities. All universities undersigned agree that we do not support Hong Kong independence, which contravenes the Basic Law. City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong Shue Yan University Lingnan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Education University of Hong Kong The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The Open University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong (Listed in alphabetical order) - (Hong Kong Free Press) November 7, 2017. University of Hong Kong (HKU) President Peter Mathieson has said he had to sign a controversial anti-independence statement with the other heads of other universities in order to avoid “isolation.” His remarks were written in a document sent to members of the HKU Senate, ahead of a meeting on Tuesday. He said he had discussed the matter with the school’s senior management team before signing the statement in September. “Reaching an agreement with the other university heads was not straightforward; there were divergent opinions about whether or not to issue a statement at all, what to say and how to say it,” he wrote, according to parts of a leaked document, verified by HKFP. Mathieson wrote that there was a risk – at one point – that other universities would issue the statement without HKU’s signature. “The [senior management team] felt that we should try to avoid this isolation outcome and I agreed with that viewpoint. Ultimately the statement was shorter and more ambiguous than I would have wished,” he wrote. He said it was “totally wrong” and “mischievous” to suggest that he was saying that the discussion of Hong Kong independence was, or is, an abuse of freedom of expression. “Everyone should know that the abuses to which the statement referred were the hate messages posted at several universities, sadly including HKU. Celebrating 9/11, vilifying others on the basis of their nationality or race and, worst of all, abusing a parent that had recently tragically lost a son cannot be allowed to go unchallenged,” he wrote. “These examples defile the value of freedom of speech and in my opinion have no place in our universities." - The Judge and the Criminal, a summary of the famous sayings articulated recently

Judge: Why did you rape that woman? Criminal: Because I wanted gratification but she refused to cooperate. Judge: Do you know that rape is a serious crime? Criminal: The professor said that justice can be achieved by violating the law. Judge: Do you know what is morality? Criminal: The teacher said that moral standards don't exist. Judge: Did the school teach you that? Criminal: Even the school principal never said anything, so what business is this to you? Judge: By doing so, you will go to jail and have a criminal record. Criminal: Who's afraid? The Legislative Councilor said that a criminal record will make my life more colorful! He also said that foreign universities will give priority to accept me. Judge: How do you plan to make your living after your come out of prison? Criminal: My fellow students will be raising a settlement fund for me. Judge: Have you ever thought about your parents being heart-broken? Criminal: They said that they are proud that I have such a noble ideal. Judge: I hope that you can reflect while you are in jail! Criminal: I would be stupid to pay any attention to you! The Crimes Ordinance was written without my consent, so I am not obliged to observe it. - Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities. In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law. Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions. Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage. Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty. 10 September 2017 City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union Hang Seng Management College Students' Union Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union Lingnan University Students’ Union Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union The Hong Kong University Students’ Union The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong - (Wen Wei Po) September 19, 2017.

Support levels for the student unions at the eight major universities: Hong Kong University: 3,391 out of 16,424 students voted at 20.6% turnout, with 2,507 (15.3%) voting for the current president Chinese University of Hong Kong: 3,426 out of 16,900 voted at 20.3% turnout, 2ith 2,159 (12.8%) for the current cabinet University of Science and Technology: No election candidates came forth. The current "Student Union" is illegitimate. Baptist University: 1,431 out of 11,985 students voted at 11.9%, with 1,070 (8.9%) voting for the current cabinet City University: 2,322 out of 17,954 students voted at 12.9%, with 2,058 (11.5%) voting for the current cabinet Polytechnic University: The election was declared invalid and no new election has been held. The current "Student Union is illegitimate. Lingnan University: 819 out of 3,191 students voted at 25.7%, with 612 (19.2%) voting for the current cabinet. Education University: 1,539 students voted, with 1,223 voting for the current cabinet. There is no information on the total number of students. [Source: Information from the respective student unions] - (Sing Tao Daily) September 13, 2017. Polytechnic University has announced that they intend to remove all Hong Kong independence displays on campus. Yesterday a group of about a dozen people assembled outside the Polytechnic University and chanted slogans such as "Give me back my freedom of speech; firmly defend our university". They demanded that the university apologize for its actions and promise not to interfere with the management of the Democracy Wall by the Student Union. When they attempted to enter the building, the security guards asked them to present student IDs. All those present refused, saying that people are not normally required to so. The university said that they have arranged a room for the students to speak with senior university administrators, but the meeting would be restricted to students only. The group said that the public has the right to know and insisted that the meeting must be held "in the sunshine." In the end, they dispersed after pasting posters on the outer wall of the building. The group leader said that they did not want to destroy property or make it hard on the security guards. - Well, Ernie Wong and company were screaming at the CUHK security guards for letting outsiders come on campus to protest against the "Hong Kong independence" posters and banners. That's fair enough, if you think that CUHK matters should be left to CUHK people. But now Polytechnic University students want to bring in outsiders because the public has the right to know? I just wish these people would coordinate their scripts, because this is getting terribly confusing. - (HKG Pao) Out of the 8 demonstrators that day, four are Polytechnic University students including former Student Union president Wong Chak-hung and former Student Union University Affairs secretary Cheng Kwok-ming. The two insisted on bringing four non-students with them. Who are these outsiders? They are members of a group affiliated with the Confederation of Trade Unions. - Ronny Tong Ka-wah's Facebook, September 15, 2017. When Szeto Wah got cancer, they said: "You have cancer in your brain." When Rimsky Yuen had a colon problem, they said: "I hope you have colon cancer." When Choi Yuk-lin's eldest son passed away, they said: "Congratulations!" Since when have our young people become so evil and hate-filled? Some explained that they must not be democrats. But the fact is that the democratic leaders who are always seizing the moral high ground at every opportunity have not made a sound when these things occurred. If forced into a corner, they will make some criticism and then add: "Oh! Everybody should think about the reasons behind!" The implication is that no matter how reviling these acts were, they are forgivable because it is always society's fault and/or somebody else's fault. Sorry, when some things are wrong, they are wrong. We are not talking about politics. We are talking about basic morality and the basic qualities of being human. Please do not use politics as the excuse. Someone says that this is alright because the targets are evil persons who have done very bad things. Sorry, this is not a reason. What business is this to you if they commit crimes? Why do you have to commit crimes yourself? Precisely because they are wrong, you must show your character, magnanimity and style. Politics is not a contest about who is more dirty, vicious and inhumane; politics is about showing that your values deserve recognition and respect. Someone says that the young people did it in a spate of anger. Sorry, this is even less of a reason. Today you curse out people who are facing misfortune; someday you will assume power and take charge, and you are guaranteed to be a tyrant. You cannot argue that this is freedom of speech. Hu Shi said: "Tolerance is the foundation of freedom. We can enjoy freedom only if have tolerance." Those who don't know how to respect others do not deserve freedom, because freedom will be their excuse for doing wrong things. You may ask why I am writing this. Haven't I been cursed out by them enough already? Haven't I been insulted enough already? I can only quote the political scientist/philosopher Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Far too many people are acting as silent observers. If I don't speak out, this is what we will become tomorrow. - (Ta Kung Pao) October 30, 2017. How did Ernie Chow end up going down the path of independence? His mother told our reporter that she disapproves of Hong Kong independence, and thought that her inexperienced son was influenced by persons with ulterior motives. However, she has always let her son be, such that he got to know people like Joe Yeung, Edward Leung, Chan Ho-tin, Billy Fung and others and became more and more pro-independence. His mother could no longer educate her son: "He is a big boy. He has his freedom. It is not up to me." Last year Ernie Chow's father passed away. Chow has continued to stay in the Chinese University of Hong Kong student dormitory and does not see his mother often. Recently our reporter encountered Mrs. Chow by herself and she told us about her son. "You can see that he is relatively more extreme. Actually I think that he will end up losing a lot. He is inexperienced. You know, the people who do this sort of thing are either experienced or else they are calculating young people. He wasn't like this before." With respect to her son's instant online fame with "Go back to China, Chee-na people!", she shook her head, knitted her brow and said: "If you like it, you will think that he is awesome. If you don't like it, you will think that he is wrong. He will say whatever he wants. Sometimes I remind him that he should pause and think whether it is right or wrong. You have plenty to lose." She said: "He is a big boy. He has his freedom. It is not up to me. Sometimes it is not a matter of right versus wrong. Your spouse or children may not want to go along with your personal preferences. You have your freedom. You can't always say that you are totally right." She still thinks that her son can benefit from experience. "I think that he knows certain things. You can learn from past experience from every step. It is not always just right versus wrong ... It is a dangerous world. You should be careful!" She said that she will not issue orders to her son. She will only suggest that he should consider things from more angles. Does she talk to her son frequently? She was too embarrassed to answer. Our reporter called Ernie Chow about what her mother said. Before our reporter even asked the question, Chow said: "I am not interested in answering any of your questions. I wish you would not bother my family again." - (Hong Kong Free Press) September 13, 2017. Lingnan University President Leonard Cheng has said that discussions on Hong Kong independence will be allowed on campus, while stressing that the university is not in support of the idea itself. Cheng told reporters on Wednesday that the school administration had not taken down any posters from the student union’s Democracy Wall. Cheng also said the school had been speaking to students about how to handle the banners, and that the wall remains under the management of the union. “It depends on the nature [of the banners]; if it’s posted on the student union’s democracy wall, they are generally for discussion purposes, and there’s no problem with those. But we do not agree with or tolerate advocating independence. So of course, if it’s in other places, we will take action according to the university’s policies,” Cheng said. - Look at the Lingnan University Democracy Wall. Some anonymous person has posted the words "Hong Kong Independence" repeatedly so as to cover the entire wall, leaving no room for anyone else. What kind of discussion is this? There is no discussion. This is just to satisfy that somebody's megalomania about having pulled off the greatest victory so far in the march towards Hong Kong independence.

- The winner of the debate competition is the person with the biggest megaphone. [802] Teaching Our Future Teachers (2017/09/08) (Hong Kong Free Fress) September 8, 2017. The president of Education University (EdUHK) has called for mutual respect alongside freedom of speech, after signs “congratulating” a government official’s son following his death appeared on campus.

The eldest son of Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk-lin died after falling from a Tsim Sha Tsui flat on Thursday morning. Signs bearing the slogan “Congratulations Choi Yuk-lin’s son on going west” subsequently appeared on the campus’s Democracy Wall, on top of banners supporting freedom of expression and Hong Kong independence. At a press conference on Friday, EdUHK President Stephen Cheung said that he was angry and upset over the signs. He said that although the school is still investigating the incident, he had an obligation to take responsibility as the institution’s president. “This behaviour completely oversteps our moral boundary, and is shameful. That the perpetrator of this incident took advantage of a tragic situation and posted offensive messages demonstrates a lack of consideration of others’ feelings, as they sprinkled salt on people’s wounds,” said Cheung. Cheung said school authorities had used CCTV footage in their investigation. He said that two people were suspected to have put up the signs on the campus’s Democracy Wall, but that the university did not know whether they were students. Cheung said that if the two people were indeed students, it would be up to the relevant disciplinary committee to decide on the appropriate punishment after a thorough investigation. In response to concerns raised by the university’s student union that school management would use the incident as an opportunity to curtail students’ right to freedom of expression, Cheung said that the use of the Democracy Wall entailed certain rules. “We allow freedom of speech. But we expect them [students] to mutually respect each other. This is my bottom line. If you don’t know how to respect each other, how can you enjoy freedom of speech?” Cheung said on Friday that his reaction to the incident would have been the same regardless of the position of the person involved. But online users on discussion forum LIHKG criticised Cheung for blowing the incident out of proportion. “Originally, the death of a son would have made the rounds on the news for two or three days – it would have eventually faded from public memory. But after holding a press conference, you have now announced it to the world!” said one commenter. Another said: “Do you think the act of holding a high-profile press conference would bring Choi another round of hurt?” Internet Comments: - (HKG Pao) September 8, 2017. Education University Student Union president Lai Hiu-ching got on Commercial Radio and declared that it would be WHITE TERROR if university were to review the surveillance video, track down and punish the students. Ms. Lai is a student at Education University. Someday she is going to graduate and become the teacher of our children. What is her sense of right versus wrong? When a student does something morally wrong to bring disrepute to the university, any sort of investigation is WHITE TERROR? Ms. Lai also warned the university that "the consequences can be very serious if the university were to review the surveillance video, track down and punish the students." Is that a threat or what? The last three years have taught us that the failure to confront threats of violence will have "very serious consequences." We have learned that lesson already. And what does teacher-to-be Ms. Lai have to say about rule-of-law? She says that when a student breaks regulations, the university must let the Student Union handle it as an internal matter! - So if a policeman commits murder and rape, the matter must be handled by the Police Union as an internal matter? - (HKG Pao) September 11, 2017.

We can appreciate why the Education University would say that they won't disclose the identities of the two cold-blooded individuals due to privacy concerns. However, it is equally important that the people have the right to know. Therefore HKG Pao is offering a reward of HK$30,000 to any person who can lead us to the identification of these two individuals. - (HKG Pao) September 15, 2017. Information has been pouring in about the two individuals. According to the information, one of them is a current Chinese University of Hong Kong student and a former Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union executive committee member. The other is a former Baptist University student and a former Baptist University executive committee member. While we have detailed information on these two persons, we will not publish their names based upon legal advice and given that the Education University has said that they will not call the police. We have contacted one of the two individuals, and he denies being the person in the screen capture. - (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2017. After the two incidents at the Education University Democracy Wall, the Education University formed an investigative committee which included the Student Affairs Office director, teachers, staff members and Students Union representatives. The results of their investigation were presented to the Board of Trustees today. With respect to the two men who erected the poster to heap scorn upon Christine Choi on the occasion of her son's suicide, those two men were confirmed to be current students at Education University. The case will be referred to the student disciplinary committee. With respect to the persons who heaped scorn upon Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia, those three deliberately concealed their faces and therefore cannot be identified. - (Oriental Daily) February 14, 2018. Education University president Stephen Cheung said the two EU students in the video have been "strictly" dealt with. However, he cannot disclosed details. Why not? Cheung said that the university has never disclosed information about sanctioned students (such as names and details of the sanctions) before and so they won't this time either. - This is utter nonsense. How can sanctions have a deterrent effect upon such deplorable behavior when the details are not known? The identities of the two students can be kept secret, but the punishment (suspension? demerit?) must be made known. - (Ming Pao) September 8, 2017. Lai Hiu-ching provided this analysis of the incident: "Certain people said these things because there are no other channels or methods to express their opinions, so this outburst represents an emotional catharsis." Lai said that apart from blaming those who said these things, "we should even think more about why anyone would say what you consider to be highly controversial." We should all think about our own responsibilities. Lai said that the way that teachers must be able to tell right from wrong. Lai herself would never teach her students to do what these people did. But was it right? Lai said that she would let the students decide for themselves. As a teacher, Lai said she should only communication the relevant information to the students and let them think and determine right from wrong; if the students insist on doing it, they will have to accept the consequences themselves. - Yes, if someone posted on Democracy Wall: "Lai Hiu-ching, you bitch, I am going to come tonight for you. I am going to rape you so many times that you wish you were dead. And then I will kill you and throw your body into the ocean." When that happens, we are all going to sit back and ponder our own culpability in causing this person to say so. And we cannot condemn this person. We can only communicate the relevant information to this person and let him think for himself. If he does come tonight, he and Lai Hiu-ching will have to accept the consequences themselves.

Ronny Tong Ka-wah: "I do not know Christine Choi, and I do not know of any unforgivable misdeeds such as murder and arson that she has committed. But when I saw the photo (“Congratulations to Choi Yuk-lin’s son on going west”), I am deeply pained. How can any pro-democracy person become so evil? If the democrats refuse to openly condemn such vile speech and urge a stop to the spreading of blind hate, then what hope is there for the pro-democracy movement?" - (Hong Kong Free Press) September 8, 2017. Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai wrote on Facebook: “Now that something has happened so close to you, Education Bureau official, do you finally feel the cruelty of the education system? Don’t say that the people piling on are being insensitive – because these are the seeds that you have sowed.” - How can the education bureau become uncruel? Let there be no exam, homework, attendance or any other requirement. This will permit the students to learn freely at their own pace. The problem is that you wind up with a bunch of moochers who have neither will nor ability to work. - Indeed, it means that I can get 16 years of 'education' culminating in a bachelor's degree without ever having to attend class. - I must remember to save the Cheng Chung-tai's saying for the time when his wife gets run over by a truck or some other equally delightful occasion. (Oriental Daily) September 9, 2017.

According to the screen captures from the surveillance video, two males about 20 years ld stood in front of the Democracy Wall pasting posters at around 503pm. About one minute later, they left. One of these men wore a black t-shirt and long pants with a backpack. The other men wore glasses, white shirt with a dark colored sweater outside, khaki pants and held a briefcase and a mobile phone. - (Hong Kong Free Press) September 9, 2017. CCTV footage leaked online of two men sticking up pieces of paper on the campus’s Democracy Wall at 5:03pm on Thursday afternoon. One man wore a black t-shirt and long trousers and carried a backpack, according to Oriental Daily. The other man wore glasses, a white t-shirt and a dark-coloured jumper. He also carried a bag and his phone. The two individuals appeared to be around 20 years old, but it remains unclear whether they are students at EdUHK. EdUHK said that it strongly regretted the leaked footage, and that it would notify the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data of the incident, according to RTHK. It urged media outlets to stop sharing the images in order to protect the involved parties’ privacy, and to give school authorities the space to undertake its own investigation. EdUHK said that CCTV footage collected at the university was used only for internal security purposes. - When the Hong Kong University Council met to discuss the appointment of Johannes Chan as deputy vice-chancellor, Billy Fung disregarded the confidentiality agreement and aired the details of the discussions. The Yellow Ribbons defended him on the grounds that grave matters of right-versus-wrong always override any trivial considerations about confidentiality. But now that the position is completely reversed and confidentiality overrides any concern over right-versus-wrong. - My position is very simple -- everybody has to be treated the same way. We can pick whatever way (and I don't have a strong position on which way) and then we agree that we will abide by it. So if you sign a confidentiality agreement, then you should stick to it. If you take over a post that involves confidential information, then you will not violate your terms of employment. Just do not apply different standards to different people. - (Headline Daily) September 12, 2017. I sometimes think that the word 'privacy' is extremely useful. Mother asks son: "How did you do in the exam?" Son: "Privacy!" Police asks young loiterer: "Where do you live?" Loiterer: "Privacy!" In the case of the Education University poster on Choi Yuk-lin, the students unions at the thirteen institutions of higher learning said that the university administration had violated the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance by accessing the surveillance video taken at the scene. Surveillance videos are not used just to apprehend criminals; they can actually be used to protect oneself. So if those who want to defend the EUHK offenders ask: "What makes you think that the perpetrators were EUHK students?", then the surveillance videos could have settled the question and restore the reputation of the university. So why are you so worried about full disclosure? The only answer is: You are on the video! Nowadays many drivers have dashboard cameras, mainly to protect themselves in case of arguments after accidents. The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance Section 58 states that personal data held for the purposes of (a) the prevention or detection of crime; (b) the apprehension, prosecution or detention of offenders ... is exempt from the provisions of data protection ... When a surveillance camera catches you running a red light, can you claim privacy and disallow the video footage as evidence? Well, who doesn't want people to use surveillance video footage? Clearly, it is those who have been caught doing something that they don't want to be known. - If the Education University Student Union president Lai Hiu-ching wants to defend freedom of speech of whoever wrote “Congratulations Choi Yuk-lin’s son on going west”, then she must do the same for whoever wrote the following at the Education University Democracy Wall:

“Congratulations to the bandit Liu Xiaobo on going west” “Congratulations to Liu Xia for being placed under house arrest by our Party forever” - Consensus Internet opinion is that these two messages were forgeries by pro-independence elements. On the matter of motives, a mainlander would do so to irritate leftist retards who adulate Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia. However, the pro-independence localists wouldn't care if Liu Xiaobo or Liu Xia live or die because those two are members of a different race and a different nation. They might as well as be Nelson and Winnie Mandela. On the matter of execution, there are multiple wordings that the author was not familiar with mainland Chinese vocabulary. For example, (being permanently) is not used in mainland Xiaobo" is only used in Hong Kong/Taiwan as in "Bandit Mao Zedong" or "Bandit Zhou Enlai."

China. The more common term is (permanently deprived of political

rights). As another example, congratulations is on the

mainland but in Hong Kong. As another example, the term "Bandit Liu

- These words were written by a person using a stroke method (not the pinyin method that is prevalent on the mainland). However, this person was not familiar with the simplified characters and made at least three mistakes in the strokes: "Xia", (ban), (going). P.S. "Under house arrest" is not a mainland Chinese term. This is more like something used in Apple Daily or Radio Free Asia. A mainlander would have said "residential surveillance." And if the person is being held, it will be by the police and not the Party. So a mainlander would have said "Our Nation" and not "Our Party." - Another mainland Chinese person has checked that those words did not come from any of the SimSun fonts prevalent in mainland China. Instead, they can be found in the Adobe Mingliu fonts. So the original writer is someone who uses the traditional characters system. Therefore the consensus was that these posters were made by pro-independence elements aiming to direct attention away from the original posters. - The apparent mistakes that have been detected were made intentionally obvious for this Communist false-flag operation. That much is crystal clear to me. - (RTHK) Education University president Stephen Cheung said that the individuals who erected the Liu Xiaobo/Liu Xia posters wore wool caps and hoodie sweaters and worked in the early hours of the morning when nobody was around. - In other words, this is a faithful student of Howard Lam Tsz-kin, better known as The Stapler Man. - (Oriental Daily) September 14, 2017.

Meanwhile over at Hong Kong University, an anonymous poster appeared: "Celebrate the 16th anniversary of the 911 terrorist attack" written in simplified characters. The HKU SU president Wong Ching-tak told the media that while he does not personally agree with this message, the poster was within the rules of Democracy Wall so the Student Union will allow it to stay. - Once again, Internet users think that the Student Union put the poster up themselves as a diversionary tactic. In other words, Lam Tsz-kin version 2.1. - Just as in the case of Lam Tsz-kin, the attention is now turned to the Student Union running false flag operations. Great job at diversion! - After being taught a lesson from the case of Lam Tsz-kin, the pan-democratic legislators are totally silent on the new Liu Xiaobo/Liu Xia and 911 posters. They are now keeping a safe distance from cases that may easily be exposed as false flag operations. - Rule #1 of the HKU Democracy Wall: the author must assume responsibility for what he/she wrote. But there is no authorship identification here. So why was this poster not removed immediately? - Here are some candidates for the next series of offensive posters: "Congratulations to Aung San Suu Kyi for exterminating the Rohingya vermin!" "Congratulations to Adolf Hitler for his 130th birthday as his good work continues!" - This is exceedingly silly. If I wrote the message in simplified Chinese characters, then you assume that I am a mainlander. If I wrote the message in traditional Chinese characters, then you assume that I am a Hongkonger. If I wrote the message in English, then you assume that I am American. If I wrote the message in Japanese, or Arabic, or Hebrew, then you assume ... Well, if I know that you are so simple and naive, what should I write in? - I will write whatever I want to write in my native language, and then I will use Google Translate. - Typical of a Hongkonger to think that they know mainland Chinese language and culture and jump ahead to write something with many obvious flaws. --- In mainland China, they would have referred to the event as "9·11" and not "". --- In mainland China, they say "celebrate enthusiastically" ("") instead of "celebrate" (""). --- Only a Hongkonger would mix Chinese numbers ("") with English numbers ("16"). How about acting more professional and do some research beforehand, huh? - (China Knowledge) The "sequential accusation law" (lianzuofa ) was a kind of collective liability introduced by the Qin dynasty (221-206 BC). If one person had committed a crime, his whole family or

even neighbours were punished along. This procedure aimed at a better control over society, where people were mutually responsible for each other's deeds.

- Education University Student Union president Lala Lai Hiu-ching saying that it was lianzuofa for schools to say that they won't hire any teachers from among Education University graduates. However, the same Lala Lai Hiu-ching has been silent about this other case of lianzuofa: Hong Kong Nuts Power Facebook has published detailed information on Lucien Cheung, the son of Education University president Stephen Cheung and suggested since Stephen Cheung appears to be a Communist Party member, his son is also likely to be with Communist Party too. Therefore his son may be stealing financial and personal data in his job at the German investment company Castik Capital Partners in Munich. Everybody is urged to contact the German security agencies, the company management and the company employees to denounce this Chinese spy in Germany.

- Dotdotnews Facebook video: https://www.facebook.com/DotDotNews/videos/1853360331345952/ Mainland students post a message to the Student Union: “Only humans have 'positions'. You don't have any. SHAME ON YOU!” (Oriental Daily) September 9, 2017.

Late Friday night a video was posted. The location was the City University Democracy Wall. A young man with a Hong Kong Independence black t-shirt posted two posters with the assistance of a young woman. The two joked around. The woman said: "I am handling the second one to you." The man replied: "That's okay. This one is more important than the other. So, it is not blocked from viewing! Hey, let us celebrate ..." The posters said: "Congratulations of Choi Yuk-lin on the death of her son." - (Oriental Daily) September 10, 2017. Internet users have tracked down the man who erected the poster at City University. He is 23-year-old Choi Pui-keung, nicknamed "Fat Choi". Choi studied for an associate degree in Public Administration at City University. In 2016, Choi was arrested by the police for issuing a threat to the Returning Election Officer. - (Oriental Daily) September 10, 2017. "Fat Choi" reposted the Oriental Daily article about his act and added: "In a fucking crazy era, it is hard enough to try to be a normal person. Now they even want us bums to talk about morality? Get fucking lost already! You barbarians have no conscience in trying to talk about righteousness, manners and intelligence." - (HKG Pao) September 8, 2017. The Education University incident drew comments from practically every education group except the largest teachers trade union, Professional Teachers Union. Why? Here is their dilemma. On one hand, the Professional Teachers Union is a stalwart pro-democracy organization. Therefore they cannot be caught siding with the government education under-secretary Choi Yuk-lin. On the other hand, the behavior at issue was universally considered deplorable. Not even the Education University Student Union president dared to say that it was okay to say things like that. Therefore the Professional Teachers Union has decided that they are still not yet back from summer vacation. - (Headline Daily) September 9, 2017 Education University Student Union president Lai Hiu-ching cited the university administration as saying that (1) some schools principals have told the university that they will never hire Education University graduates as teachers; and (2) about 10 Education University students have lost their internships. Lai thought that this was painful because these actions were taken before it has been determined whether Education University students were responsible. - Most Education University people are indeed innocent, but the Student Union is not. With respect to the fake posters about Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia, Lai Hiu-ching said that the university notified the Student Union with a text message early in the morning. Since nobody responded, the university took the initiative of removing the two posters. Lai said that the Democracy Wall is managed by the Student Union, and it was disrespectful of the university to remove the posters on its own. As the elected representatives of the student body, the Student Union is more interested in procedural justice than actual justice. With respect to the Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia posters, whoever sees it first should remove it immediately. This is just commonsense which Lai Hiu-ching does not have. - Over at Education University, president Stephen Cheung said: "The students who made fun of Choi Yuk-lin losing her son are not humans. They are not humane." Over at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, vice-chancellor Joseph Sung said: "The students have freedom of speech. They can do so as long as they are peaceful and don't violate any laws." So which of these two university heads do you prefer? - (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 11, 2017. When I look at a problem, I tend to go back to the starting point. The Education University Student Union said that they are defending freedom of speech and student privacy. Therefore the university should not judge without trial and condemn the person who posted the cold-blooded poster as "inhuman." The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union says that "Hong Kong independence" is a viewpoint, a speech, a discussion. Therefore, removal of the banner is silencing the voice and suppressing freedom of speech. I would like to ask: "Whose freedom of speech are we talking about?" If you want to defend someone, there has to be a 'someone' to defend. After several days of quarreling with the world lined up in one camp or the other, we still don't know who that 'someone' is. When there is a viewpoint, it is somebody's viewpoint. Liu Xiaobo wrote Charter 08, so we know that it was Liu's viewpoint. Junius Ho wants Benny Tai fired from Hong Kong University, so we know that it is Ho's viewpoint. Today there is a "Hong Kong independence" banner at the Cultural Plaza in Chinese University of Hong Kong. Whose banner was it? We don't know. Then there was the "Congratulations to Choi Yuk-lin" poster at Education University. Whose poster was it? We don't know. Shouldn't we know whose freedom of speech we are defending? It is dangerous if we don't know who we are defending. You can contemplate some possibilities about eventually finding out who that "someone" was: a prankster; a schizophrenic who hears voices in his head; a mental patient suffering from severe psychosis; a three-year-old child; an Artificial Intelligence computer program; a CIA agent provocateur; a Chinese Communist false flag operator; a monkey tapping randomly on a typwriter; etc. So did we go through all this to become a joke and/or accessory? Dear Student Unions, can you be so kind as to tell everybody just who we are defending here? - The answer is obvious -- the Students Unions are the sources and also the defenders of those banners and posters. They had to be remain anonymous because even they know that the messages are unpopular. If they did so openly, they will face recall referenda. Therefore they did so anonymously, and then called for a defense of freedom of speech. - Why are they doing this? Because they are achieving a huge victory (in their minds) for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. And paving the way for Hong Kong independence. Whatever. - (SCMP) Sense of decency needed in times of family tragedy. By Alex Lo. September 9, 2017. When it was reported that the eldest son of Undersecretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin had committed suicide, a makeshift poster was put up at the Education University congratulating her. More taunts directed at Choi were posted on the university’s Facebook page. At the same time, the online responses of readers of the anti-government Apple Daily started flooding in. Choi has been a controversial choice for some because she openly supported national education and had been associated with a pro-Beijing education group. You can guess the gist of those messages: “It’s karma.” “Retribution comes early.” “The outcome of the Belt and Road Initiative.” “If the son of the education official jumped to his death, it must be because he was driven to it by the patriotism of national education.” Speaking of makeshift posters, when a naive mainland student tore down several A4-sized fliers advocating Hong Kong independence at Chinese University, she was denounced by the student union, filmed and later subjected to threats and online harassment. The student union leaders said they were defending free speech and academic freedom. But in their turn, they took down posters saying they did not represent all Chinese University students and that Hong Kong is part of China. Apparently, free speech means freedom only for those who agree with you. The Choi incident is not the first. When former education chief Eddie Ng Hak-kim lost his mother and wife, congratulatory messages were sent to his Facebook page. Granted, Ng had been unpopular and his work was justifiably criticised. Still, the man had lost two of the closest women in his life. The younger daughter of former chief executive Leung Chun-ying clearly had serious mental health issues. Yet, the opposition and its media allies were more than happy to track and exploit her utterances and antics in public when Leung was in office. These were the same groups that made a big fuss when others misspoke when comparing some of their colleagues in the Legislative Council to psychiatric patients. Never mind some of their own had said the same thing about Leung. Senior officials and public figures may be fair game for criticism and caricature. But their family members, especially when they have been struck by tragedy? Is there no sense of decency? - (SCMP) When did Hong Kong's youth lose their basic humanity? By Yonden Lhato. September 10, 2014. What happened to Hong Kong’s youth? Age, naivety, idealism, rebelliousness or other standard factors aside, how did they end up losing that most basic and essential value – empathy for a fellow human being? I have devoted much of this column space in the past to trying to understand and explain what is bothering our unhappy young people, where they are coming from, and what drives them to some of the drastic behaviour – most of it politically influenced – we have seen these last few years. But try as I might, I can think of no justification for the vile conduct of the youngsters who put up a message, 12 sheets of A4 paper long, on the so-called “democracy wall” of notice boards at the Education University campus, attacking the city’s No 2 education official. The taunting message congratulated Undersecretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin for the loss of her 25-year-old son, who jumped to his death from a residential tower in Yau Ma Tei. “The remarks are entirely disrespectful, against the moral values of society and cold-blooded,” Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said. “The whole community is shocked, grieved and enraged by the appearance of such remarks in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong ... I deeply regret and condemn such behaviour.” How did Choi earn so much hatred? Well, she’s distrusted by opposition politicians and the youngsters they influence because of her pro-Beijing credentials – they’re convinced she will spearhead the “brainwashing” of pupils through national education in the school curriculum. Apparently, in the world that our city’s Facebook generation of social justice warriors live in, that is grounds for despicable abuse against a mother grieving for her child. And in their great struggle for human and other rights, the abuse must also be defended. The university’s student union not only failed to condemn those who subjected Choi to such a vicious and cowardly attack, but made it all about freedom of speech, even warning authorities not to sow “white terror” by curtailing it. You know there’s a difference between exercising freedom of speech and abusing it, right, children? Abusing it and then not giving a hoot about the hurt it causes someone else, because in your alternative world it’s your fundamental right to be abusive, smacks of delusional privilege and begs for a smack across your entitled face. These people are the future of our city? Not only that, they’re being trained as teachers to guide the generation after them? This is not about fundamental rights; it’s about basic humanity. Which brings me to the question, when and how did an entire section of Hong Kong’s youth lose it? What happened? Some might say people like Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai happened. Commenting on recent suicides at the start of the new academic year, Cheng took a nasty swipe at Choi in a Facebook post that is probably unparalleled in crassness and callousness in Hong Kong’s political history. “Officials in the Education Bureau, today you’ve finally understood the brutality of the education system when karma fell on you,” he wrote. “Don’t blame the crowd for being insensitive, because this karma is what you planted by yourselves.” Here’s the thing about the Buddhist concept of cause and effect that the honourable member cited: it’s non-linear, and, as the saying goes, karma’s a (insert word that rhymes with witch), which means it will come back to bite you in the behind. Shame on the lot of you and good luck when you find yourselves in dire need of a little empathy yourself one day. Oh, you’ll need it. - (SCMP) Empathy and mercy are words missing from dictionary of young localists. By Alex Lo. December 8, 2017. The opposition used to take the moral high ground. But ever since it has been infiltrated by anti-China secessionists, various splinter groups including some university student unions have appealed to the lowest common denominator. We had a glimpse of the ugliness when the eldest son of Undersecretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin committed suicide in September. Messages congratulating Choi were posted at the Education University. When university administrators expressed dismay and removed the messages, its student union defended such messages on the ground of free speech. Student unions from other universities joined in. Since controversial lawmaker Junius Ho Kwan-yiu yesterday announced the passing of his mother, aged 89, some online forums catering to localist and opposition groups have been ablaze with incendiary messages for Ho. One such group is called fkoff5mo. Its Chinese name roughly means, “Kick those wumao [pro-China trolls] to death”. The post about Ho’s mother gathered more than 200 comments in less than eight hours, almost all of them vicious, and many unprintable for this newspaper: “Congratulations, Ho. Hope you have a day like this, every year.” “Your mother is going to Hell for your sins.” Most continue in this vein. One particularly nasty one alleged incest and various other sex acts. A thread on the popular chat forum LIHKG is titled “Ho’s mother is dead. Let’s all congratulate him.” In just eight hours, the congratulatory comments extended to 12 webpages and collected more than 2,100 “likes”. Now, it would be an understatement to say that Ho is not the most popular Beijing-friendly politician in the legislature. Even some prominent members of his own camp and government officials have serious reservations about his recent actions. These include his high-profile campaign to pressure the University of Hong Kong to sack Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a law lecturer and co-founder of the Occupy protest movement. At one such rally, Ho told reporters that those who advocated Hong Kong independence should be “killed without mercy”, a statement that was roundly condemned. Taken in context, though, he probably meant “treated without mercy”, as in “to be persecuted and/or prosecuted” rather than literally “murdered”. But whatever you may think about Ho, it’s fair to say his mother’s passing is his own business, not a matter of public interest at all. Pan-democrats of old at least had a sense of decency and decorum. Their young localist spawns sadly have none. - (SCMP) Banner row has Hong Kong entering the post-truth era. By Alex Lo. September 11, 2017. Hong Kong may be entering a post-truth era, too. Scanning the websites and online forums of the opposition and those of pro-establishment circles over the past two weeks, you can hardly tell facts from rumours and conspiracy theories. The impression they give is that the only truths are those that accord with your own political stance. The rows over offensive banners put up at several university campuses have been the catalyst, though things have been going downhill in this regard for a long time. One common conspiracy theory among radicals and activists is that the big poster congratulating Undersecretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin on the suicide of her 25-year-old son was not put up by Education University students at all. Rather, outside forces used the poster as a “false-flag” operation to discredit the fight by student leaders for freedom of speech and the right to raise issues about Hong Kong independence on university campuses. Meanwhile, not a few members of the pro-government camp have speculated that the same university students or others sympathetic to them – rather than nationalistic mainland students – put up campus banners, written in simplified characters, to celebrate the death of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia being under house arrest. This was to distract people from the row over the Christine Choi banner, which has put the student activists and their university union representatives in a terrible light. Though wholly unsubstantiated, a claim – made by Education University student union president Lala Lai Hiu-ching – that some bosses and school heads have blacklisted the university’s graduates from being hired has made it into the news. It sounds more like another conspiracy theory. The school has more than 8,500 students. Make all of them jobless when they graduate? If such bosses really existed, you wouldn’t want to work for them anyway. Having subsidised 75 per cent of their tuition, taxpayers should want all graduates to be gainfully employed. However disagreeable some of them may have behaved, you should wish them well – for society’s sake. Just imagine what they would be capable of doing if they were left jobless, angry and frustrated. Finding a job, working with others and being accountable to superiors – that’s how young people learn to live in the real world. Maybe then they will learn to be less intransigent and less sure of themselves. - (HKG Pao) September 12, 2017. Dear student Lai Hiu-ching: Let me state that I am an ordinary citizen. I want to tell you why there has been such a huge social reaction about the Education University Student Union, the whatever Concern Group and the Democracy Wall incident. This incident had nothing to do with laws, democracy, justice or freedom of speech. It is just that whoever erected the Choi Yuk-lin poster had betrayed the expectations that society holds on its teachers and, more seriously, how you and the Education University Student Union handled this incident. If you pay attention to the news coverage, you will know that not even the pan-democrats came out to support you. Not a single one of them stood up to say that you did the right thing. I believe that you must clearly realize that the perpetrator is being called 'cold-blooded' for good reason. It is reasonable for society to hold you to high moral standards than ordinary people because you are soon-to-be teachers who will educate the next generation of Hong Kong. After the incident broke open, you could have patched things up. Like your university president, you can apologize for what happened, you can point out that this may or may not be the work of an Education University student and, even if it turned out to be an Education University student, this person does not represent all Education University students. You could have gotten forgiveness and preserved the reputation of your university and the students. (Actually, your university president handled this crisis pretty well, but you don't realize it.) However, you chose to handle this incident in a completely different manner. You kept trying to find justifications for the perpetrators. You enumerated other so-called incidents of cold-bloodedness and you want to know why society is not after them. You invoked freedom of speech to cover up the actual problem (violating moral norms in society). You wanted to stop the university president from going after the perpetrators on grounds of privacy of the students. Student Lai, this is not a court trial. You cannot hope to gloss over this affair by continual denial and blaming everybody else. I don't know where you got your values from. But this incident should tell you that society does not think the way that you think. They do not have the same notions of right and wrong as you do. Yes, this pieces of news may fade away from public attention in a month or so. But the fact is that society will forever remember what the current Student Union said and how it handled the incident. In society, it is not up to your say-so. When you say that lianzuo is wrong, will that make the principals hire you? There are plenty of job seekers on the market, so why would a principal choose a morally suspect candidate? After this incident, how can you and the current students guarantee to the principals that you won't bring disrepute to their schools? Are you going to tell the parents that it was all somebody else's wrong, it was all somebody else's responsibility and society should be condemning them instead of you? It may take decades for a school to build up a reputation, but it only takes one day to destroy that reputation. As a Student Union, what you are going represents all the current students. The outside world is going to make inference about the current student body on the basis of what the Student Union is doing. This is a reasonable thing to do. I don't know why you chose to attend Education University. But if you want to become a teacher some day, you need to know that how to handle the duties of a teacher. A teacher does not merely forward information. The teacher is supposed to be the model for the students in terms of character and learning. I don't know if you are a model of learning for others. But I know that you have plenty of room for improvement as a model of character for others. The university lets you manage Democracy Wall in order to give you the opportunity to gain experience. You can learn how to deal with all the different, even conflicting, speeches from the students and handle any crisis and clash that may result. As the current president of the Student Union, you and your cabinet are fully responsible for the impact on the reputation of the university and all the current students. The university does not exist solely for you and the rest of the current students. What you have done here will influence society's impression of you as well as all past, present and future students. Once the impression is formed, it will be hard to change. As university students and teachers-to-be, I hope that you genuinely know what you are doing and recognize the impact on you and others in the future. Also, I want to tell the two perpetrators that this is not children playing in the sandbox. You are now university students. You should have the courage to accept what you do. When you do wrong, you should stand up and apologize. This is being responsible and mature. If you do wrong and keep running away, you are forcing everybody else to share the consequences. You need to understand that how you think right now will accept your future career. No principal or parent will want a teacher who blames everybody else except himself. Character is the core value of teachers. As a teacher-to-be, please stand up and accept responsibility for what you have done. Finally I want to say that I am saying these things not to pillory you but because I still have hopes for you and want the best of you. I believe that many people in society feel the same way. Please think about this and see how you can alleviate the damage from his incident. I hope that you will become model teachers some day. Postscript: I have read all the comments to what I wrote above. I make these additions: Why am I not going after other people? Well, if the police are unable to catch a murderer, does that mean that you can commit murder at will without consequences? When you do wrong, you should accept and not avoid responsibility. Many people say that efforts are wasted because the students never listen. I don't know if they will listen or not, but I know that I have tried my best to tell them that the world isn't what they think. Sometimes people go astray because nobody bothers to tell them that this is the wrong way. If I can so much as save one student, it means that all the students of this future teacher will be saved as well. - (EJ Insight) Taunting the dead: Free speech or moral violence? By Michael Chugani. September 14, 2017. If you are a mother, how would you feel if your children taunted another mother whose young son committed suicide? Would you be ashamed of your children for putting up posters at a college campus “congratulating” the grieving mother after her son jumped to his death? Or would you tell your children it’s their free speech right to be so callous? I have wondered about this all week after two unidentified people put up the nauseating poster at the Education University, which trains students to become teachers. University staff are trying to determine if the two are students. But the mothers of the pair must know who they are, especially now that pictures of the suspects have been widely circulated on social media. They should ask themselves if they raised their children properly. The mothers of student union leaders at Hong Kong’s various universities must ask themselves why their children condone such sickening behavior as part of free speech. Supposing their own children committed suicide. How would they feel if they received “congratulations” and were told such a callous act is part of free speech? The poster at the Education University targeted Education Undersecretary Christine Choi Yuk-lin, who the opposition has labeled as a pro-Beijing stooge with a hidden agenda to brainwash students through national education. Student leaders and leaders of the so-called democracy camp fiercely opposed her appointment to such a senior education post. So it’s fair to say the poster mocking her for her son’s suicide was politically-driven. Shortly after that poster went up, unidentified people struck back at the opposition camp by putting up a poster congratulating Liu Xia, the widow of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo who spent much of his life in mainland prisons and died recently while still in detention. The parents of these callous people should also ask themselves if they raised their children properly. Hong Kong’s politics have become so divisive that finding common ground on anything is impossible. But surely, despite the rancor in our politics there must be room for compassion. What does it say about our society when taunts hurled at a grieving mother and a grieving widow who have lost loved ones turn into a political debate about free speech? A civilized society should know how to put politics aside when compassion is called for. I have never met Choi and in fact had an argument with her office when she made excuses to avoid coming to my TV show. But that doesn’t mean I should hold a grudge and show no compassion. Parents expect their offspring to outlive them. Losing a young offspring is not only tragic but also emotionally draining. I applaud education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen, who defeated Choi in last year’s Legislative Council election, for offering his condolences to her and for speaking out against the poster. But why have others from the opposition not spoken out against those who put up the poster and against student leaders who condoned it as free speech? Could it be that opposition leaders, who condemned the appointment of Choi as education undersecretary, also believe it is free speech to taunt a political adversary in her moment of grief? If not, then the opposition should issue a statement condemning such behavior as unacceptable and making clear free speech has limits. Most people in free societies know free speech is not absolute. If, for example, US President Donald Trump was mocked for losing his son to suicide, I am sure even his worst enemies would condemn such behavior. But in Hong Kong, divisive politics seem to have destroyed common decency. Hundreds of school principals have condemned the posters, and reports say schools have rejected some internships for Education University undergraduates. Reports say some employers have even threatened never to hire anyone from the Education University. Some commentators said such harshness would further alienate Hong Kong’s young people. But Hong Kong’s young should also know civilized societies have moral lines. Crossing those lines come with a cost. If there are no consequences, free speech will have no limits. The Court of Appeal was absolutely right when, in jailing three activists for storming government headquarters, it made clear a deterrence sentence was needed to discourage young people from violent law-breaking acts. Using posters to taunt Choi and Liu’s widow were not violent acts, but they were moral violence. What makes this moral violence so disturbing is that those who put up the posters are likely Education University students who will become future teachers in our schools. Those in the student union, including its leader, who said the cold-hearted poster against Choi represented free speech will one day become teachers. Do you want your children to be taught by such people? I can understand schools rejecting internships for the university’s undergraduates, and employers not wanting to hire anyone from the university. Yes, it is collective punishment. But if students at the university feel punishing everyone for the actions of a few is unfair, then the student union should condemn such behavior instead of condoning it as free speech. Instead, the student union has accused the Education University of leaking security camera pictures of the pair who put up the poster mocking Choi. The university denied the claim but said it would not name the culprits when their identities are confirmed. Why not? I agree the issue should be handled solely by the university. The police, the government, and politicians have no role. But those who taunted Choi and Liu’s widow should be named and shamed. Not doing so will send a signal students can cross whatever moral boundaries with impunity. Hong Kong’s young people already believe they can do whatever they want in the name of freedom. Many people blame Hong Kong’s unfair society, the greed of our property developers, the many failures of our government, especially in providing affordable housing, the loss of social mobility, and the heavy hand of Beijing for the anguish of our young people. All that is true. Today’s young people have reason to be disillusioned. But I also blame teachers and professors in our schools and universities. Many have become overly politicized and are passing this on to their students. The hope is that our young will grow up to see things with two eyes instead of one. But I fear they have already been too brainwashed for that. [801] The Angel In White (2017/09/08) - (Ming Pao) September 5, 2017. At 7pm, a female mainland Chinese student dressed in white attempted to rip down the posters on Democracy Wall. She was stopped by those present. CUHK Student Union persons came down to find out what was going on. The woman said first in putonghua, then in English, that she has the right to take down the posters. When the reporters tried to interview her, she said: "I'm not listening." Later the CUHK Student Union told the press that they will stop the university administration from removing the posters. They said that the administration is entitled to call the police for assistance. Video: https://www.facebook.com/1034624499888866/videos/1836712733013368/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIWsHwGKKs4 - Her biggest problem was not because she failed to follow the rules and regulations for the Democracy Wall or because she tore off someone else's wall poster or because she disrespected other people's speech, but because she gave her deformed reasons in such a righteous manner! This was the result of many years of brainwashing. In Hong Kong, our students are used to reason, debate and discussion! Oh, why is she speaking English? And she does not speak it well either! - Why is she speaking English? First of all, she does not speak Cantonese. That leaves putonghua and English. Hong Kong students generally speak very poor putonghua. So that leaves English, which is a required language for admission to the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Does she not speak it well? I believe that she speaks better English than that CUHK Student Union External Vice-president girl Annie Chu, who was clearly petrified at having to communicate in English. When Chu panics, she starts moving her hands around just like Alex Chow to distract. - She said, they said. She said: "Why can't I do this?" They said: "Because we manage this Democracy Wall." She said: "Who authorized you?" They said: "The students voted ... the university." 15% of the students came out to vote. The other 85% declined to vote. So they cannot say that they have the popular mandate. The students do not have the right to authorize the Student Union to manage the democracy wall, which does not belong to the students. It was the university administration which allowed the Student Union to manage the Democracy Wall, subject to certain provisions (such as not allowing unlawful information). When the university attempts to remove unlawful contents, the Student Union turns around and says that the university has no right because the Democracy Wall belongs to the Student Union. Whatever else, they've got big brass balls to be saying these things.

Frame 1: "Democracy means that you can paste it and I can take it down." "What am I supposed to say?" Frame 2: "You say that you represent the students of Chinese University of Hong Kong and I never agreed with your pasting it." "Please translate for me." Frame 3: "What are you talking about?" "We have to 'look at' the wall." Frame 4: "Who authorized you? We authorized you." "No, er ... it is the students and the university." - It is said that this mainland Chinese female student has broken Hong Kong law when she destroyed private property. Well, what private property? I do not see any private property. Private property has an owner. Who is the owner? Nobody is raising their hand to claim ownership. The owner is in hiding to avoid sedition charges. So she was only removing ownerless trash. If this case is presented to the court, it will be automatically dismissed. - (Bastille Post) September 7, 2017. The mainland media outlet Guancha interviewed the woman who is now known as "The Angel in White": A: Why shouldn't you mention may English name during the interview? Because I am afraid that "they" might find out. Q: Are "they" looking for you? A: I have looked at Facebook. But my friends have been tracking the related discussions all along. The main page for the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Supposedly they are cursing. Someone said to find me by human flesh search. Q: That is to say, what happened after the incident has caused you some trouble? A: Yes. But the fellow students that I know are mostly supportive. Certain more radical pro-Hong Kong independence students leave more extreme comments. On Facebook, there are typically more Hong Kong students. There were a lot of critical comments. Very frightening. Q: Do some Hong Kong students support you? A: Yes. Q: Apart from the online attacks, have they caused you any material troubles? A: No. Because the person in the video did not really look like me. They were unable to identify me. Q: How come the Hong Kong media was present by chance to film there? A: I don't know. Actually I found it very strange. Some of them were there to help the Student Union. Many Hong Kong are relatively biased for them. Actually, when I went there, I saw someone standing around with cameras. I thought that these were busybodies. I did not know that he was a media reporter. Actually they were there in the hope that the incident can swell up. Some of them were poaching there. When I began quarreling with the Student Union people, many people came over. I did not know that they were there. I was thinking, are they violating my image rights? Q: Those posters appeared on September 4. Is there any hint as to who was responsible? A: It happened this way. The posters appeared, and the school administration sent the security guards to tear them down. The posters reappeared. According to the rules, they can paste the posters with proper identification and then we should not ripped them down. When they post, they can state the length of time. But if it stays for more than a month, it can be removed. But these people did not identify themselves, and did not want to assume responsibility. They did not specify any length of time. The Student Union came over to stop me. Actually, the Student Union did not have the courage to say from the start that they erected the posters. Actually everybody knows that only the Student Union had the resources to erect these things all over campus overnight. Q: How kind of impact did these posters have on you? A: "Hong Kong is part of China." That is common knowledge, right? Those materials are illegal. It is really bad to post this sort of illegal materials in broad daylight. So far, there are no physical contact or clashes with the pro-independence people. But it is very comfortable to see this sort of talk. Q: Mainland Internet users like you. They thought that your English is very good. They heap praises upon you. What do you think? A: I was very scared. I did not dare speak up because I was scolded a lot. The Hong Kong people used the Hong Kong media to scold me. Yesterday I took a peek. Fortunately I don't read Cantonese, but the English comments were very hard to take. I am really very disappointed. I felt that I was doing something right, but they are making out as if I was wrong. Q: You need to understand that the people who support you are far more than those who oppose you. A: But under these circumstances, I have the sense that mainstream media are still against me. Q: Can I ask where in mainland China do you come from? A: I am from northern China. Q: You will only say that you are from northern China? A: Because there are not a lot of students from mainland China here. I am very afraid that they will find me. Q: Has the Chinese University of Hong Kong made an official statement or response on this matter? A: Previously the vice-chancellor said that the school disapproves of Hong Kong independence before and now. He did send security guards to remove the posters. But the Student Union really went too far as if nobody can stop them. I don't mean that they cannot be stopped, but it is just that people have not used more extreme methods. So when they erected the posters again, we can't stop them. Q: Has the university noticed what you did? A: I don't know if the university has noticed or not. Today, I have been in hiding. Nobody can reach me. Nobody has said anything to me. But I am angry because I am being scolded all day. The people who know me all tell me that I did the right thing. But I am being scolded. Q: That is to say, your friends support you in real life, but Hong Kong online opinion is against you. A: Right. They even told me not to do outdoors, not to go outside the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Q: Many Internet users think that you are cool. Not only is your English good, but you look good. A: Thank you. At the time, I was very angry. I was going to eat at the canteen. I did not go past that area all day yesterday so I did not see anything. That night was the first time that I saw it. My friend told me afterwards that the posters had been erected for quite some time alreqdy. As I was eating, two female students in the next table were discussing this. They were quite angry. At the time, I thought: "If you are angry, then why not rip the posters down? Why don't you do something about it?" I was very angry. I told my friend: "I am going to tear down the posters later." Q: Many people will support you. But if they had to do this, they would be scared away. You are a super-courageous person. A: Thank you. I am sorry that I can't provide more information, because I am still afraid. I should tell you that the mainland students want to organize an event tomorrow (September 7). I will send the photos to you. It is in Cantonese, so I can't fully understand it. The organization has some Hong Kong students. Their slogan is "CUSU is not CU", meaning that Chinese University Student Union is not Chinese University because we refuse to be represented by them. I understand their intentions. After we all stand up, we can share the burden. Q: Thank you. We have received the information. We thank you for doing this interview. This interview is over. A: Good. Thanks for the trouble. Afterwards, the female student wrote via Guangcha: I thank everybody for their attention, support and concern for me. This was heart-warming after all the disappointing comments in Hong Kong media. I know that I have a strong and powerful motherland behind me, so I need not be afraid anytime. Here are some extra points about what happened over the past few days: 1. The posters was illegally posted and should therefore be removed. I know that many people (especially the local Hong Kong students) disapprove of my method, but I am not sorry. I am proud of this. I don't want to say anything more about democracy. But I want to say that the Chinese University Student Union does not represent the voices of the Chinese University students! Absolutely not! 2. The Chinese University of Hong Kong is a very good school. It is an institution of high learning of our motherland. I love to be here. I feel very lucky to be able to learn and work here. The Student Union represents the extremist actions of a small number of persons. It does not represent the political position or the overall quality of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The Chinese University has many more things that it can actively aspire to. I welcome your attention. 3. I did not seek fame. I did not seek celebrity. I merely did what I thought I should do. I thank you for your concern and support. Because I am still in Hong Kong, I want to have a peaceful learning environment. I hope that you won't try to ask too many questions or otherwise divulge personal information about me. Hong Kong is an inseparable part of the motherland. Most Hongkongers are kind and good. The actions of the Student Union come from a small number of p. I am very touched by the support from everybody. Once again, I thank everybody! Signed: That female student in white dress (Headline Daily) September 8, 2017. Many people have watched the video. The Hong Kong media wanted to put the focus on the female mainland student ripping up the posters, but the audience focused on English language skills instead. At first, the female mainland student wanted to speak in putonghua. The Student Union executives did not answer in putonghua. So the female mainland student used English instead. Two Hong Kong students replied in English. It turns out that there was a vast gap in English language skills. The female mainland student said: "You get put it up and I can take it down. You say that that you are the Student Union. I am a Chinese University student. I don't agree with doing this." The female Student Union executive said hesitantly: "If you disagree with these other students posting those posters, you can post certain opposing opinions." The female mainland student said: "Who gave you the power?" The female Student Union executive said: "Oh." The mainland female student said: "It is we students who gave you the power." A male Student Union executive interjected: "The students gave us the power." The female university student said: "Right! I am one of the students who gave you the power. Right now I disagree with your doing this." With respect to the issues, each side have their reasons. But the female Student Union executive was at a total disadvantage because her English langauge skills were too poor. An Internet user wrote: "Hong Kong students even dream politics when they sleep. They don't want to learn English; they don't want to speak putonghua; and they feel good about how awesome they are!" I have talked about the strange phenomenon about university classes: the first two rows of seats are almost always filled with mainland students. A CUHK Hong Kong student said that she sat in the front row once upon a time, and other students spoke to her in putonghua because it was taken for granted that only mainland students (NDS= Nei Dei Sang) sit in front. Most local students sit in the back where they hope that the teachers won't spot them. I heard university teachers say that mainland students are more active with questions. When there are no mainland students in a class, local students simply won't ask questions and won't participate in discussion. Teachers gradually get used to the situation and give up posing questions to the local students. We have to acknowledge a fact: mainland students are better than local students. The mainland students are not even the elite students from there, because the top of the cream are going to Peking University and Tsing Hua University to study. In the 1980's and 1990's, the people of Hong Kong strive for excellence. They want to be the best, and they want Hong Kong to be the best in everything. Come today, the people of Hong Kong have no obvious superiority over the mainlanders. English language skills should be the strength for Hongkongers, but this video make us realize that mainlanders speak far better English than Hongkongers. Hong Kong has turned from Big Brother to Kid Brother. The 1.4 billion mainlanders not only have some uneducated nouveau riche, but also high intellectuals. The new generation in Hong Kong is faced with a choice. They can seek out a comfort zone for themselves, damning the mainlanders as "Strong Nation People" with contempt. They can also take the opposite attitude and strive for excellence in the face of competition from mainland China and elsewhere. Local Hong Kong students should sit in the front role and actively engage in class discussions just like mainlanders in order to learn and improve themselves. Instead of hostility against mainlanders, their goal should be the attainment of excellence. More in Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100) Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200) Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300) Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400) Occupy Central Part 5 (401-500) Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600) Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700) Occupy Central Part 8 (701-800) Occupy Central Part 9 (801-) Google Search

Search WWW



Search www.zonaeuropa.com